DOCSLIB.ORG

US Recognition of Golan Heights Annexation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
US Recognition of Golan Heights Annexation U.S. Recognition of Golan Heights Annexation: Testament to Our Times VICTOR KATTAN On 25 March 2019, U.S. president Donald Trump signed a proclamation recognizing the occupied Golan Heights as part of Israel. The Golan Heights proclamation, which endorses Israel’s annexation of the territory captured from Syria in the 1967 war, was issued two weeks before the Israeli general election in a photo-op with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. Undermining internationally agreed-upon norms prohibiting states from recognizing the annexation of territory by force, the proclamation could have detrimental consequences for the international legal order, providing a precedent for other states to take steps to annex territory they claim is necessary for their defense. ON 25 MARCH 2019, U.S. president Donald Trump signed a proclamation recognizing the Golan Heights—captured from Syria in the 1967 war—as part of the State of Israel.1 The decision to recognize the annexation was justified in the following words: “The State of Israel took control of the Golan Heights in 1967 to safeguard its security from external threats. Today, aggressive acts by Iran and terrorist groups, including [Hezbollah], in southern Syria continue to make the Golan Heights a potential launching ground for attacks on Israel. Any possible future peace agreement in the region must account for Israel’s need to protect itself from Syria and other regional threats. Based on these unique circumstances, it is therefore appropriate to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.”2 At a press conference the following day, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo was asked whether he was disappointed by the reactions of the United Nations (UN) secretary-general, Canada, Turkey, and the Gulf States, all of which condemned the U.S. decision. Pompeo responded: “Well, I’m saddened by that but not surprised. I remember the move to Jerusalem of our embassy as well. In each case, we’re simply recognizing facts on the ground and the reality and doing the right thing. We hope those nations will join us to understand how important that is, how right it is, and we are continuing to have conversations with—you mentioned a handful of countries—with each of them about this issue, about our decision and why we believe this is fundamentally the right decision as well.”3 After expressing his disappointment at the reaction of other countries, Pompeo took another question from a reporter who asked whether the United States was setting a precedent for powerful countries to take over land in violation of international law. The secretary of state appeared taken Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. XLVIII, No. 3 (Spring 2019), p. 79, ISSN: 0377-919X; electronic ISSN: 1533-8614. © 2019 by the Institute for Palestine Studies. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Reprints and Permissions web page, http://www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/jps.2019.48.3.79. Spring 2019 || 79 U.S. Recognition of Golan Heights Annexation: Testament to Our Times aback by the question, but his response was as illuminating as it was disturbing: “Yes, ma’am, that’sa good question. The answer is absolutely not. This is an incredibly unique situation. Israel was fighting a defensive battle to save its nation, and it cannot be the case that a UN resolution is a suicide pact. It simply can’t be, and that’s the reality that President Trump recognized in his executive order yesterday.”4 Pompeo did not identify which UN resolution he was referring to, but only three resolutions are germane to the Golan: UN Security Council resolutions (UNSCR) 242 and 338 (of 1967 and 1973, respectively), calling for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights, which Israel occupied in 1967; or UNSCR 497 (1981) calling on states not to recognize Israel’s annexation of the Golan that year. Describing any of these resolutions as a “suicide pact” is disturbing not only for what that implies, but also because the United States voted in favor of all three resolutions. U.S. recognition of the occupied Golan Heights as Israeli territory (and the argument advanced to support it) also sets a dangerous precedent that could have consequences for other territorial disputes. Just think of China’s claim to the islands in the South China Sea or to Aksai Chin in Jammu and Kashmir. How can President Trump square his decision to recognize the Golan Heights as part of Israel when the U.S. government strongly condemned Russia’s annexation of the Crimea? How would the United States or the European Union react were the Arab states to recognize the independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and establish diplomatic relations with it—despite UN Security Council (UNSC) condemnation? The decision to recognize Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights is one of a series of Trump administration reversals of long-standing U.S. policies, including those regarding Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees.5 Together with other punitive measures directed against the Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority, the decision makes a mockery of any pretense of evenhandedness in U.S. policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict. The move has already encouraged annexationist tendencies in Israel, where calls to annex parts of the West Bank are growing ever more strident and were used as election bait in the run-up to Israel’s general election on 9 April.6 This commentary begins by revisiting the reaction of the international community to Israel’s seizure of the Golan in June 1967 and its annexation in 1981 before examining the UNSC debate that condemned Trump’s declaration. The June 1967 War and the Nonacquisition of Territory by Force The claim that Israel’s actions were “defensive” in June 1967 has, of course, never been accepted by most countries, and is perverse, as the war began with a preemptive Israeli strike on air bases in Egypt prior to the widening of the conflict with Syria and Jordan.7 In any event, the annexation of territory, even in a war of self-defense, is contrary to international law. Self-defense is an exculpatory plea that may be invoked to respond to an attack. It is an exception to the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter. It cannot be invoked to acquire territory, only to hold it temporarily, until the attack has been repelled. In June 1967, when Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula, the UNSC adopted a score of resolutions, including 242.8 In the 80 || Journal of Palestine Studies U.S. Recognition of Golan Heights Annexation: Testament to Our Times debate on the adoption of that resolution, numerous member states insisted that the acquisition of territory by war was contrary to international law.9 Some states, like India, went further and demanded “total withdrawal of Israel forces from all the territories . occupied by Israel as a result of the conflict which began on 5 June 1967.”10 The argument was additionally made that Israel could not use the words “secure and recognized boundaries,” contained in the draft “to retain any territory occupied in the recent conflict.”11 Shortly after the representative of India made this statement, the UNSC unanimously adopted resolution 242, which emphasized “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” The resolution called for the withdrawal of Israel’s armed forces and for the termination of all claims or states of belligerency, as well as respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every state in the area, including the right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. After the resolution was adopted, several officials elaborated on the vote they cast for their countries. The representative of France expressed his government’s view that the withdrawal of Israel from “des territories occupés” was an essential part of the text and left little room for ambiguity.12 The permanent representative of the Soviet Union said his country had voted for the United Kingdom draft resolution, as interpreted by the representative of India, whose views it shared.13 He added: In the resolution adopted by the Security Council, the “withdrawal of Israel[i] armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” becomes the first necessary principle for the establish- ment of a just and lasting peace in the Near East. We understand the decision taken to mean the withdrawal of Israel[i] forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab States and seized by Israel following its attack on those States on 5 June 1967. This is borne out by the pre- amble to the United Kingdom draft resolution [which became resolution 242] which stresses the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” It follows that the provision contained in that draft relating to the right of all States in the Near East “to live in peace within secure and rec- ognized boundaries” cannot serve as a pretext for the maintenance of Israel[i] forces on any part of the Arab territories seized by them as a result of war.14 The representative of Brazil affirmed “the general principle that no stable international order can be based on the threat or use of force, and that the occupation or acquisition of territories brought about by such means should not be recognized.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?
    HAS ISRAEL ANNEXED EASTJERUSALEM? IanS. Lustick Dr. Lustick hpro$ssor ofpolitical science at the University of Pennsyhania rI-1 he Israel-PLO agreement in Oslo government's repeated and categorical refusal permitted a delay before the parties to consider compromises on the fitture of would begin negotiations over expanded East Jerusalem suggests that he may 1 "permanent-statusissues"- wish to enjoy the benefits of appearing to take including settlements, boundaries, rehgees and the peace process seriously while insuring its Jerusalem. That delay, until the beginning of failure with an unyielding position on the key the third year of the "interim period," ended in issue of Jerusalem. May 1996 when the permanent-status Indeed on no issue has the Netanyahu negotiations were formally begun. Shortly government been more explicit about its afterward Benjamin Netanyahu was elected, opposition to compromise than with respect to replacing Shimon Peres as IsraeFs prime the fitm of expanded East Jmsalem. Its minister and putting those negotiations on official guidelines read as follows: hold. Many wonder whether the tangled dispute over details of Israeli redeployment Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, is one city, hmHebron and provocative Israeli moves in whole and united, and will remain forever East Jerusalem signal the new government's under Israel's soverei gnty....?he government determination to stonewall the pea& p"cess will thwart any artempt to undermine the while expanding settlements and de facto unity of Jerusalem, and will prevent any annexation. action which is counter to Israel's exclusive sovereignty ova the city. From this point of view, the Netanyahu-Likud government is doing to the In a study of the Jerusalem question published Oslo negotiating process what the Begin-Likud shortly before the 1996 election, top Netanyahu government did to the 1979-8 1 autonomy foreign-policy adviser Dore Gold argued that negotiations and what the Shamir-Lhd even if a compromise might be possible, government did the to post-Madrid talks.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel's Possible Annexation of West Bank Areas: Frequently Asked
    Israel’s Possible Annexation of West Bank Areas: Frequently Asked Questions Updated July 14, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46433 SUMMARY R46433 Israel’s Possible Annexation of West Bank July 14, 2020 Areas: Frequently Asked Questions Jim Zanotti Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has stated his intent for Israel to annex parts Specialist in Middle of the West Bank in 2020. Annexation could raise issues for Congress, and varying Eastern Affairs congressional views on the subject have contributed to debate about implications for U.S.-Israel relations. Congress may conduct additional oversight of Trump Administration actions and could modify or place conditions on U.S. funding for Israel, the Palestinians, and various international organizations. While the West Bank has been under Israeli military administration since its capture from Jordan in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, its status has been different from Israel proper (the territory Israel controlled before the war). Israel’s government has a mandate—based on the May 2020 power-sharing agreement between Netanyahu and Defense Minister Benny Gantz—to bring the matter of annexation to a cabinet and/or Knesset vote as early as July 1, 2020, provided that it is done in coordination with the United States. Palestinian leaders strongly oppose annexation, partly because it could undermine their hopes for a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. Israeli annexation could thus have significant consequences for future U.S. efforts to secure a negotiated Israeli- Palestinian peace. In addition to the specific territorial and administrative impact of annexation, it could more broadly affect Palestinian national aspirations and the future of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel’s efforts to reconcile its actions with its self-proclaimed identity as both a Jewish and a democratic state, and Israeli and Palestinian security concerns.
    [Show full text]
  • Education in the Syrian Golan Heights Under International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law
    American University in Cairo AUC Knowledge Fountain Theses and Dissertations 6-1-2012 Education in the Syrian Golan Heights under international human rights law and international humanitarian law Michelle Strucke Follow this and additional works at: https://fount.aucegypt.edu/etds Recommended Citation APA Citation Strucke, M. (2012).Education in the Syrian Golan Heights under international human rights law and international humanitarian law [Master’s thesis, the American University in Cairo]. AUC Knowledge Fountain. https://fount.aucegypt.edu/etds/979 MLA Citation Strucke, Michelle. Education in the Syrian Golan Heights under international human rights law and international humanitarian law. 2012. American University in Cairo, Master's thesis. AUC Knowledge Fountain. https://fount.aucegypt.edu/etds/979 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by AUC Knowledge Fountain. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of AUC Knowledge Fountain. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The American University in Cairo School of Global Affairs and Public Policy EDUCATION IN THE SYRIAN GOLAN HEIGHTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Law in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in International Human Rights Law By Michelle Strucke June 2012 The American University in Cairo School of Global Affairs and Public Policy EDUCATION IN THE SYRIAN GOLAN
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law (113:3 Am J Int'l L)
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 2019 Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law (113:3 Am J Int'l L) Jean Galbraith University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the International Law Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, National Security Law Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Repository Citation Galbraith, Jean, "Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law (113:3 Am J Int'l L)" (2019). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 2088. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/2088 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright © 2019 by The American Society of International Law CONTEMPORARY PRACTICE OF THE UNITED STATES RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW EDITED BY JEAN GALBRAITH* In this section: • United States Recognizes the Opposition Government in Venezuela and Imposes Sanctions as Tensions Escalate • The State Department Designates Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a Foreign Terrorist Organization • United States Recognizes Israeli Sovereignty Over the Golan Heights • D.C. District Court Enters Over $300 Million Default Judgment Award Against Syria for the Death of Marie Colvin • The Trump Administration Revokes the ICC Prosecutor’s U.S. Visa Shortly Before the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber Declines to Authorize an Investigation into War Crimes in Afghanistan • United States Initiates Withdrawal from Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty • U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Position Paper
    Oil and natural gas in the occupied Syrian Golan Illegal exploitation by Israel as occupying power M. Linares. Introduction - During the Israeli-Arab war of 1967, Israel captured 70% of the Syrian Golan and 130.000 of the native inhabitants were forcibly transferred 1. In 1981 Israel illegally annexed the occupied Golan and since that moment Israel has considered itself as "sovereign" over that territory, although the International Community considered this annexation void and null and has never accepted it. 2 - Nowadays there are five villages inhabited by native Syrian people, all of them are in the north and the number of indigenous Syrian people remaining in the Golan stands at 20000. 3 On the other hand, there are more than 20000 Jewish settlers in the Occupied Syrian Golan, 4 and in order to accommodate those 33 illegal settlements have been built within the region. 5 The Israeli settlements are mainly in the south and the most important and biggest one is Qatzrin. 6 Approximately only 6% of the occupied territory remains under the indigenous Syrian population control, the rest has been expropriated for military use or for settlements. 7 - According to the Law of Occupation, Israel being the occupying country, has the legal obligation to act as just administrator of public property and natural resources. 8 Nevertheless, at the beginning of 2013 Israel’s Energy and Water Resources Ministry granted Genie Energy, an American-Israeli company, an exclusive licence to explore for oil and gas in a 153-square miles radius in the southern part of the Golan .9 This action violates international law and therefore it is illegal.
    [Show full text]
  • Shadows Than Lights – Local Elections in the Occupied Syrian Golan
    By: Alessandro Delforno LOCAL ELECTIONS IN THE OCCUPIED SYRIAN GOLAN BY: ALESSANDRO DELFORNO 6 Introduction 8 From the 1967 Arab-Israeli War to Today: Perpetual Deprivation of Political Rights 8 1981: ANNEXATION LAW 8 1981 -1967: MILITARY RULE 12 The Golan and East Jerusalem: Similarities and Differences 12 NATIONAL ELECTIONS 12 LOCAL ELECTIONS 14 The Elections Under International Law 14 ILLEGALITY OF THE ELECTIONS 15 CONSERVATIONIST PRINCIPLE 15 PROHIBITION OF TERRITORIAL CONQUESTS RESULTING FROM THE USE OF FORCE 16 THE UNDEMOCRATIC CHARACTER OF THE ELECTIONS 18 The Israelization of the Golan 18 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GOLAN 18 KEY WATER RESOURCE 18 STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE 19 ECONOMIC BENEFITS 19 ISRAELIZATION PROCESS 20 SETTLEMENTS BUILDING 20 IDENTITY ALTERATION: ASSIMILATION OF THE NATIVE POPULATION 21 TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE ONGOING SYRIAN CONFLICT 23 Elections as further step towards israelization 23 EXPLOITATION OF THE SYRIAN CONFLICT 23 SPLIT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY 23 OCCUPATION AS A LESSER EVIL 24 RETURN TO SYRIA UNLIKELY 25 ELECTIONS AS AN ATTEMPT TO LEGITIMIZE THE OCCUPATION 25 VALIDATING THE OCCUPATION 26 THE CITIZENSHIP DEMOGRAPHICS ASPECT 28 The Elections 28 THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT DECISION 28 THE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT REACTION 29 UN SECURITY COUNCIL 29 UN HUMAN RIGHT COUNCIL 30 LOCAL REACTION 32 CANDIDATE WITHDRAWAL 33 COMMUNITY EXCLUSION 33 ELECTIONS DAY 36 ELECTIONS RESULTS 38 Conclusion MORE SHADOWS THAN LIGHTS LOCAL ELECTIONS IN THE OCCUPIED SYRIAN GOLAN On 30 October 2018, for the first time since Israel took control of the occupied Syrian Golan (‘Golan’) in 1967, residents of the Syrian villages of Majdal Shams, Buqata, Masada and Ein Qynia were allowed to vote for their mayors and municipal council members in the Israeli local municipal elections (‘Elections’).
    [Show full text]
  • On the Legal Status of the Golan Heights: Application of Israeli Law Or Annexation? Leon Sheleff
    Brooklyn Journal of International Law Volume 20 | Issue 2 Article 2 1-1-1994 On the Legal Status of the Golan Heights: Application of Israeli Law or Annexation? Leon Sheleff Asher Maoz Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil Recommended Citation Leon Sheleff & Asher Maoz, On the Legal Status of the Golan Heights: Application of Israeli Law or Annexation?, 20 Brook. J. Int'l L. 331 (1994). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol20/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. ON THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE GOLAN HEIGHTS: APPLICATION OF ISRAELI LAW OR ANNEXATION? PREFACE The territory of the Golan Heights was captured from Syria in the course of the Six Day War. In 1981 the Knesset passed the Golan Heights Law, which applied Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration to the Golan Heights. In the context of the current peace negotiations between Israel and Syria, Israel is being asked to ultimately withdraw from all or part of the Golan. The implications of the Golan Heights Law thus come to the fore. Did the law bring about the annexation of the Golan Heights to Israel? If so, is the Israeli government authorized to withdraw from the Golan Heights without further legislation? Opposing views are expressed by Professors Leon Sheleff and Asher Maoz of the Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law. All translations not cited to official English-language sources are by the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Occupied Syrian Golan
    The Occupied Syrian Golan AN OVERVIEW AL-MARSAD ARAB HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE IN THE GOLAN HEIGHTS www.golan -marsad.org AL-Marsad Arab Human Rights Centre in Golan Heights المركز العربي لحقوق اﻻنسان في الجوﻻن Background The area known as the Syrian Golan / Golan Heights is a mountainous region and plateau in southwest Syria that borders Lebanon to the north, Jordan to the south, and Israel to the west. The overall landmass of the Syrian Golan is 1,860 square kilometres. During the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Israel militarily occupied over two-thirds (1,230 square kilometres) of the Syrian Golan – a land mass slightly smaller than Greater London. Today, this area is known as the Occupied Syrian Golan / Golan Heights.1 Following the Israeli occupation, approximately 95% (130,000) of the native Syrian inhabitants were forcibly transferred or displaced from their homes and forbidden from returning (with only 5% percent of the original population able to remain). Subsequently, the Israeli military began a widespread campaign to demolish their homes, destroying one city and 340 villages and farms. These were replaced by Israeli agricultural settlements, often using the same stones from the destroyed villages and farms. The first Israeli settlement, Merom Golan, was established in the Occupied Syrian Golan within just one month of the 1967 war.2 In 1981, Israel enacted the Golan Heights Law which purported to annex the territory into the state of Israel, an illegal action widely condemned by the international community.3 Today, there are at least 23,000 Israeli settlers in the Occupied Syrian Golan, living in 34 illegal settlements.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Occupation Resulting from a War of Self-Defense Become Illegal?" (2015)
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Journal of International Law 2015 Can Occupation Resulting from a War of Self- Defense Become Illegal? Ariel Zemach Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjil Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Zemach, Ariel, "Can Occupation Resulting from a War of Self-Defense Become Illegal?" (2015). Minnesota Journal of International Law. 316. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjil/316 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Journal of International Law collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Can Occupation Resulting from a War of Self- Defense Become Illegal? Ariel Zemach* Abstract Illegal occupation gives rise to a duty of the occupant to withdraw from the occupied territory immediately and unconditionally. International law has long recognized the illegality of occupation that results from an unlawful use of force by the occupying state. An emerging approach among international lawyers holds that occupation resulting from a lawful use of force by a state, in self-defense, may also become illegal. Proponents of this approach link the illegality of the occupation to the occupant's violation of the prohibition on the use of force or of the right of peoples to self-determination. These violations result from the occupant's policies which amount to de facto annexation of the occupied territory, manifested in refusal to engage in good-faith negotiations to end the occupation or in actions aimed at perpetuating the occupation (e.g., enabling the settlement of the occupant's citizens in the occupied territory).
    [Show full text]
  • AL-MARSAD - the Arab Center for Human Rights in the Golan Heights
    AL-MARSAD - The Arab Center for Human Rights in the Golan Heights NGO REPORT Suggested issues for Consideration Regarding Israel’s third Periodic Report to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) To Be Held On November 14-December 2, 2011 AL-MARSAD - The Arab Center for Human Rights in the Golan Heights hereby submits information to the UN CESCR in advance of its review of Israel’s third Periodic Report. Israel’s submission fails to present an accurate picture on the human rights abuses suffered by the inhabitants of the Occupied Syrian Golan Heights and ignores this issue. Al Marsad wishes to emphasize an extremely important concern it has on a number of areas that form a flagrant violation of human rights. We hope this report will assist in forming an accurate and true picture of the violations of human rights suffered by the inhabitants of the Occupied Syrian Golan Heights. 1. Overview According to Syrian resources, the population of the Golan was estimated at 147,613 in 1966. The population of the parts of the Golan (1,250 km2) which were occupied in June 1967 was over 139,000 individuals living in 312 residential areas. Two of these areas were cities: Al-Qunaitera, located in the middle of the Golan and Feeq, located in the center. In addition, there were 164 villages and 146 farms. The Israeli Occupying Forces carried out an extensive forcible transfer operation within a week, forcing the majority of Golan’s Civilians (some 131,000) to move inside Syria (described as IDPs – Internal Displaced People), destroying their villages and obliterating all traces of their existence.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline: 1967 to the Present
    T h e A r a b - Israeli Conflict & Peace Process T I M E L I N E : 1967 TO THE PRESENT 1967: Khartoum Resolution Eight Arab heads of state met in Khartoum August 29-September 1, 1967 and adopted the “3 NOs” policy— no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel. 1967: UN Resolution 242 Resolution 242, adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967 in the aftermath of the Six-Day War is one of the most widely affirmed resolutions on the Arab–Israeli conflict. The Resolution’s authors, who have been criticized for their use of vague language, maintained that the choice was purposeful and was intended to prompt negotiations among the parties. UN Resolution 242 formed the basis for later negotiations, which led to peace treaties between Israel and Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), as well as the 1993 and 1995 agreements with the Palestinians (Oslo I and II). 1967 – 1970: Attrition Battles / The War of Attrition During the 1967 War, Israel gained land from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. While Israel maintained that Jerusalem would remain a unified city, with all religions having access to their holy sites, it stated that it was open to returning other territories in exchange for peace and recognition of its right to exist. Egypt began small-scale attacks against Israeli positions along the Suez Canal which continued until Anwar Sadat came to power in 1970. During this same period, the PLO attacked Israeli military personnel and civilians from bases in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt.
    [Show full text]
  • The Repercussions of Partial Or Full West Bank Annexation by Israel
    THE REPERCUSSIONS OF PARTIAL OR FULL WEST BANK ANNEXATION BY ISRAEL Gilead Sher Isaac and Mildred Brochstein Fellow in Middle East Peace and Security in Honor of Yitzhak Rabin Daniel Cohen Intern, Center for the Middle East November 2019 © 2019 Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. Wherever feasible, papers are reviewed by outside experts before they are released. However, the research and views expressed in this paper are those of the individual researcher(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Baker Institute. Gilead Sher Daniel Cohen “The Repercussions of Partial or Full West Bank Annexation by Israel” The Repercussions of Partial or Full West Bank Annexation by Israel Executive Summary More than 50 years after Israel’s sweeping victory in 1967 wrested control of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, among other areas, prospects for negotiating a long-term agreement inclusive of a territorial component between Israelis and Palestinians are as dim as ever. Instead, legislative efforts and public discourse in Israel have increasingly trended toward unilateral annexation of West Bank territory. As this analysis details, extending Israeli sovereignty over any or all Jewish settlements in the West Bank outside the framework of an agreement bears significant risk to Israel’s national security, international reputation, diplomatic and security ties, economic prosperity, and domestic security. In the wake of the murder of 18-year-old Dvir Sorek—a yeshiva student and off-duty soldier found stabbed to death by Palestinian terrorists on August 8, 2019, near a Gush Etzion settlement— outpourings of grief were accompanied by numerous calls for West Bank settlement construction and annexation.
    [Show full text]