The Golan Heights are integral to the security of the State of Israel. Before the Six Day war, the Golan was routinely used by Syria to shell the region surrounding the Galilee. Israelis were constantly forced to spend extended periods below ground in fear of these horrible attacks on civilian populations. Even before this, the Golan was used as Syria's front line base for its northern attack on Israel during the Independence war of 1948. Fast forward to the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars, where had it not been for the courage and strength of Israeli soldiers, the world could have seen another Holocaust originate from the Golan.
After Israel seized the Golan during its defensive actions of 1967, the Galilee region no longer had to worry about Syrian shelling. Additionally, the Golan's strategic implications for Israel's defense of the Northern border are vitally important.
With all of this in mind, one would hope that Prime Minister Olmert will not give up the Golan. I for one, do not trust a word that Syria's president, Bashar Assad, says. This is the man who has repeatedly called for the annihilation of Israel and all those who live there. This is the man who directed his government to help sponsor the Hezbollah terrorist organization's war last summer. This is the man who has called Iran's Hitler wannabe president an ally. This is a man not to be trusted. Despite the hope that giving up the Golan would bring peace with Syria, in all reality it may bring do nothing but destroy Israel's strategic superiority in the north.
3 comments:
I am not sure I understand your logic. Because it is in Israel's best interest to occupy the Golan Heights, then it has a right to do so? Clearly, you realize how destructive this ideology is if every state adopted it, don't you?
I don't think it would make much sense for me to sit here and discuss the legality of the occupation. I would rather defer to UN Security Council Resolution 497 (December 17, 1981), which condemned Israel’s decision to “impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights” as “null and void and without international legal effect.” The acquisition of territory by force goes against the very principles of the UN Charter and international law. But hey, it's just the UN, right? It's interesting how pro-Israeli's site the UN as one of their reasons to exist, but disregard this resolution as well as 237, 252, 446, 1559, and the other SIXTY-odd ones they are in violation of.
Recently, Defense Minister Amir Peretz has suggested that Israel begin negotiations with Syria. On May 7, National Security Council Chairmen Ilan Mizrahi said that “Syria’s call for dialogue with Israel is authentic.” This statement was met with some reluctance from the Israeli government.
Well, look at the International Crisis Group’s April 10, 2007 report, particularly the sentence that relates directly to lingering security concerns you have with Syria: “Officials in Damascus provided their clearest indication to date both that they would resume negotiations without any precondition and that the country’s regional posture and relationship with Hamas, Hizbullah and Iran inevitably would change following a peace deal."
Hm, I wonder what Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza and the West Bank would look like had they taken them up on their offer. This leads to the obvious question, if Israel wants peace for itself then why not promote the peace of the territories surrounding it and give up land that they are unjustly occupying.
Let the comments and replies roll in. I can't see myself replying because I know what this is going to be become: "Ya but Oslo" "Don't forget that in '67'" "But during the Ottoman Empire they.." And so on and so forth...My entry was trying to shed light on the alternative side. I am not interested in debating the Arab-Israeli conflict here.
Justin:
Some important things to note: while you're certainly right about Syrian attacks upon Israeli territory prior to 1967 and possibly about the credibility of the word of Bashar Assad, Sirene makes some good points as well.
International law (which, some might argue, would go against Israel's security interests) is pretty clear about the Golan Heights: it belongs to Syria and Israel can't impose its laws on it. Sirene is dead on here.
However, while legally the Golan is occupied, I would argue that the occupation of it is certainly different than the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
My own opinion: Israel should engage Assad and begin negotiations. If Israel is worried about possible attacks from Syria if the Golan is returned, then it needs to address concerns in negotiations and in international forums.
These are, legitimate concerns. So while I may argue for the return of the Golan so that Israel can respect international law, it must be noted that it was the Syrian government's aggression, under Bashar's predecessor and father, that caused Israel to think it would be ok to take the Golan.
But another interesting point: if international law is cut-and-dry, why have negotiations at all? Why not just take the point that Israel must return the land unconditionally?
The truth is that there is a principle higher than the return of occupied territory that most UN resolutions since 1967 have been based on. Land-for-peace.
Thus, the whole premise of international law here, and possibly with regard to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, is not the unconditional return of occupied territory but rather a return of occupied territory in exchange for peace treaties.
To make a long story short, while I agree with Sirene in that the end goal is for Israel to return the Golan, I also agree with you, Justin, in that Israel's security concerns need to be addressed as a part of this deal.
Jared, you make good points. I think it is very important to draw the distinction between the west bank/gaza and the golan heights.
People throw around the term international law in relation to the situation in the middle east. However, I would like to point on one little point that people who argue against Israel's security interests commonly forget. Article 51 of the UN charter reminds the international community of a sovereign state's inherent right to self-defense. 1967 was a war of self defense against aggressors determined to annihilate the state of Israel and all of its citizens. The Golan was acquired during this defensive action; therefore, it is my opinion that Syria has forfeited that territory. International law was founded on the principle that states have the right to self-preservation... holding onto the Golan helps to achieve this goal.
I am not going to even get started about how biased the UN has been towards Israel, throughout the years. This is neither the time nor the place for that discussion.
Post a Comment