In this post, I hypothesize about some of the thinking that might be behind Trump's recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. I also articulate the complicated thoughts that many supporters of Israel have had about Trump's move.
"On March 25, 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump proclaimed that 'the United States recognizes that the Golan Heights are part of the State of Israel', making the United States the first and only country to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the effectively annexed regions of the Golan Heights."
-the Wikipedia article on the Golan Heights Here's what I was saying at the time, which I think is still worth discussing: On the one hand, it's about time that the world acknowledged the legitimacy of Israel's security needs in the Golan and the reality that the Golan will never be given back to the Syrian government. Israel can't reasonably be asked to cede strategically important high ground to a state that
. . . On the other hand, why stir the pot right now? (You could ask the same question of Yair Lapid, who had been gunning for a statement like Trump's.) This was not a pressing issue. Even if the status quo isn't bearable in the West Bank for another 50+ years, in the Golan Heights it conceivably could be... Rather, Trump's announcement seemed obviously timed to help Netanyahu in the Israeli election. I worry that Trump's announcement simply reopens a sore and gives Israel's many critics another thing to unify around. Better to have the world's benign neglect than explicit ire. Moreover, it's not as though many countries will follow the US. The EU and Russia have already rejected the move. In many ways this is like when Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital. (Though probably this one will cause less damage, just because it's not as touchy of an issue and doesn't involve the Palestinians.) Israel has a legitimate claim, but the timing is questionable, and the announcement prompts the world to condemn Israel rather than continue looking the other way. More generally, although one can explain the Golan recognition as a reward for Netanyahu's support, I also worry that more generally, Trump's pro-Israel-seeming moves often have more to do with playing to his Evangelical base than with actually serving Israel's interests. (This has been invoked to explain the timing of the embassy move, which from an Israeli standpoint makes little sense.) An additional dimension is that Trump's announcement serves to discredit any remaining role of the US as an impartial broker in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. (FYI: The 50% of Golan residents who are Arab (the other 50% are Jewish) do not for the most part identify as Palestinian. Rather, they are Druze, which is a different ethnic group. But the point may still stand: the announcement undermines the idea that the US can be neutral when an Arab party—be it the Palestinians or in this case Syria—has a dispute with Israel. See the wording of the Syrian government’s remarks on the announcement.) There is some very good discussion of Trump's move here, which inspired some of the above reflections: https://www.timesofisrael.com/by-recognizing-golan-us-seen-solving-a-problem-that-doesnt-exist/
12 Comments
Internationalist
7/4/2019 09:04:34 pm
I was wondering what you think of Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula. It seems to me that Russia has at least as much of a claim to Crimea as Israel has to the Golan.
Reply
LiberalZionist
7/5/2019 12:09:08 pm
A few immediate reactions, more later (I hope) when I have more time.
Reply
LiberalZionist
7/5/2019 12:14:15 pm
On further reflection, it now looks to me like at best only (d) could support annexation rather than continued occupation; and even that is controversial.
Reply
LiberalZionist
7/5/2019 12:27:41 pm
Still, even if my disanalogies (a)-(d) don’t support an Israeli moral right to annex, I do think they tell against any such moral right in Russia’s case.
Reply
Internationalist
7/6/2019 09:13:38 pm
If, at best, only continued Israeli occupation, not annexation, is justified, then I don’t think any degree of ambivalence is the appropriate reaction to Trump’s move. After all, previous administrations have been fine with continued Israeli occupation pending a peace deal. The current White House, in contrast, declared the Golan Heights to be “part of the State of Israel” and “recognize[d] Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-recognizing-golan-heights-part-state-israel/). Anyone, including, it appears, yourself, who opposes Israeli annexation of (rather than mere continued presence in) the Golan should be unequivocally opposed to Trump’s declaration.
Reply
Internationalist
7/6/2019 09:16:53 pm
[continued]
Reply
LiberalZionist
7/7/2019 05:48:56 am
Just a few thoughts for now.
Reply
LiberalZionist
7/7/2019 08:18:59 am
Re: implacably opposed to Israel’s existence
Reply
LiberalZionist
7/8/2019 12:57:49 pm
re: Syria's intentions in 1967
Reply
Internationalist
4/4/2020 08:26:19 pm
My delay in wrapping up this discussion has been bothering me as well, so I'd like to exercise my right of reply to make a few final points, which you can read at your leisure.
Reply
Internationalist
4/4/2020 08:27:34 pm
(continued)
Reply
Internationalist
4/4/2020 08:28:28 pm
(continued) Leave a Reply. |
Archives
October 2019
Categories
All
New to this blog?
|