T. Belman. This signifies a basic difference between Trump and Obama/Biden. Trump believed in strengthening Israel as a means to strengthen the US. Obama/Biden believe that holding out the prospect of Israeli concessions, enables the US to gain more influence with Israel’s enemies. So as long as everything is still in play, the US benefits.
In other words, Trump wanted to end the conflict and Obama/Biden want a never-ending conflict.
State Department pushes back on signature Trump admin foreign policy decision
By Adam Kredo , WASHINTON FREE BEACON• June 24, 2021 2:20 pm
An Israeli soldier walks early morning near Moshav Alonei HaBashan in the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights on April 29, 2021. / Getty Images
The Biden administration is walking back the United States’ historic recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the contested Golan Heights region along Israel’s northern border, a significant blow to the Jewish state and one of the Trump administration’s signature foreign policy decisions.
The Trump administration declared the territory—seized by Israel from Syria in 1967 and later annexed by the country—to be wholly part of the Jewish state in 2019. Then-secretary of state Mike Pompeo took a trip to the area in 2020 and reaffirmed that America formally abandoned a decades-long policy of considering the area occupied.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken first raised questions about the Biden administration’s view on the matter in February, when he would not say if his State Department continues to abide by the former administration’s decision. At the time, Blinken would only say the Golan Heights “remains of real importance to Israel’s security,” but that its formal status remains unclear. Pressed on the issue by the Washington Free Beacon, a State Department official said the territory belongs to no one and control could change depending on the region’s ever-shifting dynamics.
The shift in policy is already causing outrage among Republican lawmakers who backed the Trump administration’s decision and hoped to see it continue. It is also likely to rankle Israeli leaders of all political stripes, the plurality of whom say the Golan Heights is absolutely vital to Israel’s security in light of persistent threats from the Iran-backed Hezbollah terror group in Lebanon and other militant forces stationed in war-torn Syria.
“The secretary was clear that, as a practical matter, the Golan is very important to Israel’s security,” a State Department official told the Free Beacon. “As long as [Bashar al-Assad] is in power in Syria, as long as Iran is present in Syria, militia groups backed by Iran, the Assad regime itself—all of these pose a significant security threat to Israel, and as a practical matter, the control of the Golan remains of real importance to Israel’s security.”
Recognizing Israel’s control as a “practical matter,” however, falls far short of the formal policy change ordered by the Trump administration, which became the first government to recognize Israel’s complete control over the territory. As it stands now, U.S. policy on the matter is unclear, at best.
Pompeo, who was central to formulating and advancing the Trump administration’s decision on the Golan Heights, told the Free Beacon that the current administration is jeopardizing Israel’s security at a time when Iran-backed militants continue to plot attacks on the country’s northern cities.
“The Golan Heights are not occupied by Israel, they are a part of it. The Israelis have a right to it as sovereign land,” Pompeo told the Free Beacon. “To suggest that these lands should be returned to Syria, even if conditioned on changes in the Syrian regime, is inconsistent with both Israeli security and the international law.”
The State Department’s “suggestion that if Assad falls and the Iranians leave Syria, the Golan Heights should be given to Syria misreads history and misreads the eternal security needs of the state of Israel,” Pompeo said.
Rep. Mike Gallagher (R., Wis.), who introduced a bill earlier this year to lock in the U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, told the Free Beacon that it is now incumbent on GOP leaders in Congress to stop the Biden administration from reversing the recognition.
“These comments [from the State Department] should serve as a call to action,” Gallagher said. “It’s time to pass legislation I’ve introduced with Senator [Ted] Cruz [(R., Texas)] that ensures that the U.S. will continue to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, regardless of who is in the White House.”
Rep. Lee Zeldin (R., N.Y.), who pressed United Nations Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield on the Golan issue during a congressional hearing on June 16, said the Biden administration is being intentionally vague about its policy, generating pressing questions on the international stage.
“I pressed UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing about the administration’s position on recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and she acknowledged that the Trump administration policy recognizing Israeli sovereignty is unchanged as of now,” Zeldin said after reviewing the State Department’s most recent comments on the matter. “However, Secretary Blinken and the Biden Administration need to stop beating around the bush, and unambiguously commit to maintain recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights permanently.”
Former U.S. diplomats who worked on the Golan Heights issue also expressed concern over the Biden administration’s comments to the Free Beacon. David Milstein, former special assistant to the U.S. ambassador to Israel under Trump, said walking back U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the area signals “an unconscionable betrayal of our close ally Israel.”
“Our allies depend upon the United States keeping its commitments,” Milstein told the Free Beacon. “But now Secretary Blinken has re-injected the dangerous and delusional idea the U.S. could support pressuring Israel to give up the Golan Heights in the future.”
“In one of the most dangerous regions that can go from bad to worse in an instant, the Golan Heights is crucial for Israel’s security, providing a strategically necessary defensible border to help Israel counter threats to its north,” Milstein said. “This is why there is clear support across Israel’s political spectrum for Israel forever maintaining sovereignty over the Golan Heights.”
“At the time, Blinken would only say the Golan Heights “remains of real importance to Israel’s security,” but that its formal status remains unclear. Pressed on the issue by the Washington Free Beacon, a State Department official said the territory belongs to no one and control could change depending on the region’s ever-shifting dynamics.”: highly toxic! In some way backstabbing Israel!
Note that the Free Beacon has walked back its disturbing headline with this followup posting: https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/u-s-policy-on-golan-heights-has-not-changed-state-dept-claims-after-free-beacon-report/
@Ted
The Jordan Option Conference was a great force of reason and explanation leading towards a possible rational and equitable rapprochement between two civilizations that have too long been separated by unmerited hatred.
It is unfortunate that Bibi remained unmoved by the Conference towards its goal. Great things could have been made more certain and with less risk, I believe, should he have lent his timely support of the project.
But my great hopes still lie in Mudar’s considerable undertaking to lead his people towards stability and peace.
I have every confidence of the man and look often to hear of his success in these matters. Someone once said that it was not the man who makes the times, but the times that make the man.
But with Mudar, at least, I think this statement lies at odds with reality. He is a very impressive character who seems to honestly display a genuine desire to bring a balanced application of justice and equity between our two peoples.
In truth the interests of our two peoples have always stood at cross purposes to the enmity between us, an enmity that always seemed to serve to benefit regional players or international interests, but never the people themselves.
And though Bennett stands as a proponent of this project, I hope him just enough time upon the stage as to make the project a success.
In truth, from my view, the sooner we can be rid of his unwise union of odd fish the better, as it already has an impolite aroma that is more pungent than a fair tolerance would naturally afford.
@Peloni
I had a conversation with Mudar a couple of days ago and he said that our conference was seminal to much that happened afterwards. The ideas that we put forward influenced Trump’s policies.
We advocated the end of UNRWA and Trump cut off their funding and questioned who is a refugee.
We recommended that Jordan under new leadership become the Palestinian state making the PA redundant. In accordance with this thinking, Trump cut off funding to the PA.
When Trump finally tabled his Plan in January 2020, he gave Israel 30% of Area C and challenged the PA to not be who they are if they wanted a state on the rest. He included the Jordan Valley in the 30%.
No one, including Trump, believed that in 4 years, the PA would rise to the challenge. After 4 years, He set the stage for Israel to do what it wanted.
I called this the two-step plan.
The the Abrahamic Accords started to take shape. I think Trump restricted Israel from capitalizing on the Trump Plan so as not to jeopardize the Accords. He even asked Israel to freeze settlement construction.
Throughout his 4 years he came close to giving the green light to the Jordan Option particularly after Nov 3rd but declined to do so. We were very disappointed but realized that Trump had much more to focus on than the JO.
Throughout the last three years of his administration, Bibi was the one who kept rejecting the JO. This is the main reason that I was happy when Bennett replaced him. Bennett on the other hand was a supporter of the JO. But for this I supported his change government. But if the JO doesn’t materialize this summer, then all is for naught.
Early on I postulated that Bibi should resign for the benefit of his Party and Israel but that was too much to ask of him. I am sure that many people in opposition today are angry for his stubbornness.
From my point of view, I want Bennett’s government to fall soon, knowing that Bennett will remain PM for at least 4 months. More than enough time to get the job done.
And so, Israel lies alone. Her leaders tied to an America first policy as America is tied to an Israel last policy. Her allies in the region and Eastern Europe left as spectators as a posture of appeasement is adopted. And her allies in the US Congress and the Evangelicals and other grass roots groups will likely be left to uncoordinated fits of temper without meaningful effect.
So, the US has just seen fit to cede part of the state to bargain with on our behalf with our enemies. Now that we have an America first policy group running things, what exactly is the official Israeli policy? Thank you for not taking half of Jerusalem as well? or it is that planned for next week? Where does it stop? And who determines that point?
Neighbors have fences and nations have borders to mark the limits of such friendly actions. Some things may be a point of discussion upon which momentary dramas among our friends will drive us from their company. But if we allow them to draw our borders and dictate our other vital needs, where will we find refuge from their domination? No where, of course, as their will is limited only by our muted protestations.
And even should we maintain our own home and our own borders, should such momentary dramas part the way between friends, it can be a cold reality within the empty halls of your own dwelling, your own borders – but it is yours and as long as you fill it with the permanence of your own identity, your own people practicing your own values, it will have great meaning.
And what of your over-dominant friend? I remember when Trump offered his Deal of the Century where a Pal State was to be carved from Israel. A great debate broke out. A very lengthy debate, actually. As time slipped by and a consensus was not reached the Abraham Accords was launched, likely in part to delay or derail the Deal of a Century, thankfully. But the point is that even with everything that Trump did for Israel, Iran, UNRWA, opposing BDS, publically moving against antisemetism, halting financing to Hamas and PA, moving the US Embassy and recognizing Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the list goes on, there was no acceptance of the US expectations in the Deal of the Century.
Israel is a state and sovereign, with significant security needs and provides the US with a strong Mid-East regional partnership due to aligned values and goals. But if these goals are not aligned, Israel needs to shoulder a sense of independence. The US does not hold Israel’s existential needs as paramount because in the US these needs are not existential.
The US is not Israel. Israel should determine her own path and pursue it as best she can with her allies in the region, across Europe(should Lapid not have alienated them already), and in the US. By tailoring Israel’s objectives by US standards, Israel is accepting a fate designed for her by foreign hands towards foreign goals with only simple consideration of Israel’s wants or vital needs.