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.