Truths about American Policy toward Occupied Syrian Golan

The American position regarding the Israeli law requiring a referendum on the question of withdrawal from the Golan Heights (that it is an Israeli internal issue) raises an important question before us, namely: Is the U.S. truly concerned with the Israeli withdrawal from occupied Syrian lands, or does it have other policies and positions? The answer to this question requires us to consider the political articulations of American policies toward the continued Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights since 1967 until today.

First: The American position since the Israeli aggression of 1967

The American position regarding the occupation of the Golan Heights, like the rest of the occupied Arab lands, was formed through the resolutions of the fourth Security Council, which was held during the Israeli aggression in June 1967, beginning with resolutions 233 and 234 (June 6 and 7) through the two resolutions concerning the Golan region, resolutions 235 and 236 (June 9 and 11) and Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967). These resolutions did not address the legality of the hostilities and therefore the resolutions contain no mention of the word “violation” or even “condemnation.”

Of more consequence are the four resolutions that were released during the combat operations that did not include a call for an immediate withdrawal to the positions that the belligerent forces were stationed to before the fifth of June 1967. In doing so, the United Nations set a dangerous precedent. Those resolutions were limited to calling for a ceasefire. As for resolution 242, it is equivalent to a political settlement including several provisions, such as the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the lands it occupied during the last struggle. Additionally, when these resolutions were presented, they were issued in accordance with Chapter VI of the charter, and not on the basis of Chapter VII. The U.S. had a principal role in producing these resolutions in this way. The U.S. did so in order to exclude the application of measures of collective security as provided by Articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter in this aggression, and therefore insuring protection for Israel.

Second: Official comments and documents

The position of the U.S. regarding the continued Israeli occupation of Golan was greatly strengthened a through official reports, documents, and comments, and we may find proof of that in the following:

*The comments of both President Richard Nixon in 1967 and Jimmy Carter in 1973, where they affirmed that they would not give up the Golan, even in exchange for peace.

*The document written in 1975 from American president Gerald Ford to the Israeli Prime Minister at the time, Yitzhak Rabin, which included a U.S. pledge not to oppose the Israeli position demanding to remain in the Golan, even if Syria and Israel were to meet at the negotiations table.

*The report published by the U.S. Foreign Affairs Committee in 1975, which justified Israel’s continued possession of the Golan based on the dangers that it might be exposed to through a withdrawal to the lines of 1967, where it would have been easy to occupy the northern region (the Galilee and the Hula Valley).

Third: The American position since the annexation of the Golan Heights in 1981

The U.S. played an essential role in the failure of the Security Council to carry out its core mission of maintaining international peace and security when a draft resolution was proposed to ensure action under Chapter VII of the Charter. The resolution was put forward by Jordan, as representative of the Arabs, as a response to Israeli’s refusal to obey resolution 497, which the council published December 17, 1981 (three days after the decision of the Israeli Knesset to annex the Golan Heights on December 14, 1981). The resolution affirmed the invalidity of the Israeli decision to annex the region and stated that in the case that Israel did not comply with the resolution, the Council would hold an emergency council no later than January 5, 1983 to implement the appropriate actions in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

A majority of the states supported this proposal, with the exception of the U.S., whose representative in the Council emphasized their refusal. When a vote was held, the U.S. used its veto power and the proposed resolution failed. Thus the council failed to issue a resolution punishing Israel’s combat operations. Were it not for the U.S.’s use of its veto power, things would have occurred differently, especially since the council did not use all of its powers. Had these powers been used, it is certain that, at least, Israel would have ended this aggression.

Fourth: The American position toward the referendum law issued by the occupation late last year

The U.S. considered the referendum law passed by the Israeli occupation in November of 2010 an internal issue, unlike the other nations of the world, especially the great powers, Russia, China and France, who adopted positions condemning it as a violation of international law. In Washington’s view, this policy was an extension of previous American positions. However, in our view it represents a more dangerous development in support of Israel’s continued occupation of the Golan and to try to legitimize their actions of aggression. The Israeli referendum law regarding the Golan issue has no legal value and represents a serious violation of international law, which does not permit the annexation of territory by military occupation. This confirms the invalidity of the action and its classification as an act of aggression.

Therefore, by passing the referendum law and the annexation before it, Israel has committed a new act of aggression not only against the right of Syria, but against the right of the entire international community. It follows that Israel holds the full international responsibility for this gross violation of international law. The international responsibility in this aggression is not limited to Israel; while it is the primary actor, it includes other actors, especially those partners that participated directly in this aggression. This fully applies to the United States when it considered the referendum law an internal Israeli affair, thereby violating international law.

Two essential consequences follow from that American position: First, the U.S. is a direct partner in the Israeli aggression; second, the U.S. no longer treats the Golan Heights as though it is occupied land. These two consequences lead us to reconsider the current situation in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and therefore to reconsider the role of the U.S. in this conflict. Is the U.S. still eligible to advise a peace settlement on its own, or is there an urgent need to involve other influential international powers to ensure our stolen rights?