T. Belman. Although the first sentance in Res 242 says that land cannot be acquired by force, I always considered that was a deliberate mistatement of the law which permits land to be acquired in a war of self defense. This article disagrees with my understanding. What is your understanding?
- Israel is lobbying the United States to recognize the Golan Heights, occupied since 1967, as Israeli territory.
- If the United States agrees, it will be recognizing territory captured by military means for the first time since World War II.
- That move would add to a growing trend of America reshaping its relationship with post-World War II norms, possibly prompting more international instability.
Under President Donald Trump, the United States has been rapidly refashioning its approach to many of the established norms of the post-World War II world. It has withdrawn from the Paris climate accord and the Iran nuclear deal, challenging the expectations of how countries handle their involvement in international agreements. And it has begun using trade tariffs against not just rivals but also allies, reinterpreting the global trade norms meant to pool economic resources and deter war.
The United States is increasingly viewing international norms as obstacles in the pursuit of its national interests, and is willing to trade old policy positions for perceived or actual benefits. But as the key guarantor of the postwar international system, such behavior has widespread consequences, as no other state can match America’s ability to preserve these norms.
Now, Washington is contemplating yet another bold rejection of international standards. Rumors have emerged that Israel is lobbying for the United States to recognize the Golan Heights, occupied since 1967, as Israeli territory — and the United States is reportedly considering the move. Should Washington decide to recognize Israel’s claim to the disputed area, it would mark the first time since 1945 that the United States has acknowledged the validity of land taken by military force. And it would have major implications on the current world order.
Establishing Postwar Norms
After World War II, the Allied powers declared that it was an illegal use of power for countries to gain territory by military conquest, and since 1945, international consensus has rejected this form of territory acquisition almost across the board. By breaking the norm of accepting land won by the spear, the Allies hoped to forestall a third world war by funneling tensions and competition into international institutions and rules of law instead of tanks and rifles. Indeed, this approach shaped many aspects of the 20th century’s international environment, helping constrain Soviet-American competition to battles of influence rather than territory.
Of course, the norms did not go unchallenged. Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus in 1974, Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor in 1976, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 are postwar examples of states attempting to claim territory through military force. In each of these cases, the United States — alongside most other great powers — held steadfast in the belief that such expansions were illegal, unjustified and to be reversed as soon as possible.
Global Implications
If the United States decides to recognize Israel’s claim to the Golan Heights, it would be drastically changing course. The decision would have a different meaning than its other recent diplomatic decision in Israel: moving its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. For Israel, having the United States recognize Jerusalem as its capital was a major symbolic victory, given its sacred status. But Israel has held the Golan since 1967, annexed it in 1981 and at this point has nearly 20,000 settlers and well-entrenched troops there. On the ground, the U.S. recognition of the Golan would change almost nothing. But globally, it would be a major shift, because the area was taken by military conquest rather than being designated to Israel before the end of the British mandate in 1948.
Not all states would — or could — interpret the U.S. recognition of the Golan Heights as an invitation to return to a time before the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, when kings and emperors took what land they managed with any sword their soldiers had. But Washington’s decision would no doubt complicate other ongoing border disputes. Russia already hopes it can legitimize its occupation of Crimea through a grand diplomatic bargain with the West; it will see that approach as even more likely to succeed should the United States go ahead with a recognition of the Golan Heights. And China has rejected international rulings against its island-building in the South China Seas, arguing that international institutions are under the influence of powers hostile to Beijing’s rise. Seeing the Golan officially change hands could encourage China to believe that if it waits long enough in the South China Sea, its claims will be recognized.
Additionally, some countries would be emboldened to take more aggressive military actions, because they would be less fearful that the United States would intervene. The opportunity to avoid U.S. involvement would be appealing to leaders who believe military force can resolve their territorial disputes, distract from problems at home or produce diplomatic leverage to resolve other disputes. (This is what prompted Iraq’s Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait in 1990, after he concluded that the United States would not intervene in such an invasion.)
The U.S. Driving Changes
America is increasingly approaching international affairs from a transactional perspective. And in the Middle East, it sees Israel as the most powerful partner to help it achieve its goals. It has thus sought to strengthen Israel — and, to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia — in exchange for its loyalty to the United States. That was, in part, what drove the Jerusalem embassy decision, and could drive a decision on Golan, as well.
If the United States continues to embrace a transactional attitude to diplomacy by recognizing the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, it would be clearly indicating that it believes land can be traded and swapped as the situation warrants — that is, that the integrity of borders is not a principal with a potent enough return.
This will leave the enforcement of post-World War II norms largely in the hands of the Europeans, and the internal struggles of the European Union suggest that the Continent simply is not strong enough right now. Europe has failed in its efforts to halt tariffs or force countries to abide by treaties. Should the United States abandon the accepted norm of refusing to recognize land taken by force, the strongest of European states — Germany, France and the United Kingdom — will need to react. But despite their efforts, they may not be powerful enough to prevent other countries from rewriting the post-World War II order.
I couldn’t care less about diplomatic norms. All I care about is national power for my American empire and my equally precious Jewish homeland of Israel. To be perfectly candid with all of you, I pray to HaShem to harden the hearts of our Arab and other Islamic enemies, that they will make endless attempts to attack Israel, and as a result, get beaten down each time, thereby giving our Jewish nation of Israel an opportunity to take increasing parts of their neighboring lands, from which I would expel every damned one of them.
I hope that every one of you reading these comments will come to understand that the only thing that matters among the goyim is power and the national willingness to use that power to expend themselves. That’s what I want for Israel and the Jewish nation: Power and the willingness to use it whenever opportunity presents itself.
Arnold Harris, Outspeaker
“Post WWII Norms”, as the name implies, are TEMPORARY norms. They did not exist before WWII nor during WWII; and they could be discarded in the future. They are a “gentleman’s agreement” among the 51 victorious allies who defeated the Axis Powers.
It is pertinent to note, that the very borders that are considered so sancrosanct by some, were formed by the most violent display of border-crossing and border-redrawing in world history. Tens of millions of people gave their lives, to establish those borders BY FORCE.
Let’s see how the Trump-Putin summit turns out. Will Russia allow the Israeli annexation of Golan, in exchange for the Russian annexation of Crimea? Whether they do or not, both are facts on the ground — along with the Chinese annexation of Tibet, the Indonesian annexation of Western New Guinea, the North Vietnamese annexation of South Vietnam, the Indian annexation of Hyderabad and Kashmir, and the Moroccan annexation of Western Sahara. We can recognize these as facts or, as in the case of eastern Poland, Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia, we can pretend for 45 years that the reality isn’t real.
More if then analysis that doesn’t add up.
@ Edgar G.:
The Golan was part of Biblical Israel.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/history-and-overview-of-the-golan-heights
Beginning with the premiss that;
“Territories acquired in defence against attackers, can be legally retained by the defenders.”., (paraphrased)
We have this contradictory situation in the case of Israel and her Arab neighbours.
In 1967, Israel was surrounded on all sides by bitter enemies clearly preparing to attack, and sworn to utterly destroy Israel and it’s whole Jewish Population., These intentions were announced in a violent manner to the whole world. The United States sought unsuccessfully to break the Tiran Straits’ blockade imposed by Egypt, which was an act of war, it’s first “shot”..
After many weeks of Egyptian and Syrian armies buildups on it’s borders, Israel preempted and attacked first. This was internationally accepted as a defensive war by Israel against it’s surrounding enemies.
The territory that Israel retained after the war, was regarded as “captured territory”…(in contradiction to the premiss at the top of this post). because after 1945, it was accepted that “territory cannot be retained if captured by war”.. It later became regarded as “disputed territory” .
But in fact, in Israel’s case, it was NOT captured territory, nor disputed territory, but “recovered territory”, a part of the Palestine which several International Agreements after WW1 had allocated to The Jewish People. It was also enshrined in the British Mandate for Palestine. This, legal condition was passed on in it’s entirety to the United Nations, which accepted it in toto. (see Art. 80 Founding Charter)
So the only enemy territory taken in the defensive war, is the partial Golan Heights. now under discussion. As such, Israel has the right to retain it. Also however, there is an additional point to be made for this area, as it was originally part of post WW1 Palestine, allocated for the Jewish People, but unilaterally detached by Britain, in complicated, underhanded dealings with France.
Only a little territory captured in a defensive war since 1945 has actually been retained by the victors, but this does not negate the right of a defending nation to retain the captured areas.
History of Arab attacks below, that promoted Israeli defensive action:
Quoted above is part of an article found at https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/myths-and-facts-the-1967-six-day-war. It is a good refresher for what happened.
The USA if it recognizes the Golan as part of sovereign Israel will actually send a message, that if you use territory to attack another country, you are subject to losing that territory. By not recognizing this principle one is sending a message that attacking neighboring countries has no consequences.
Capturing territory in a defensive war is legal. Attacking neighboring countries to try and destroy them is not. The EU countries and others regularly try and appease the enemies of Israel. If one wants to send a positive message against war it will not reward Syria by holding out on recognizing that Israel is the sovereign in the Golan Heights.
Israel now has possessed the Golan Heights 50 years. Syria held the Golan for 19 years and only used it to make war.
The Syrians for from 1948 until 1967 used the Golan Heights to attack Israeli farmers and kibbutzim near the Sea of Galilee (Kinneret). Countless attacks by the Syrian military. They built military bases on the Golan and had built an infrastructure of war not peaceful development.
In 1967 they and their Arab allies such Nasser of Egypt were planning an attack on Israel for its destruction. They were very clear they planned to destroy Israel.
So Israel was in its full legal rights when it captured the Golan Heights in a defensive action in 1967 to protect its population and prevent its own destruction.
Syria has never changed in its goal of wanting Israel destroyed and acted to further those desires, unsuccessfully.
Israel applied its civil law to the Golan Heights in 1980. Israel captured the territory for its defense and has full legal rights to keep it. Those who wish to recognize reality will acknowledge that the Golan Heights is part of sovereign Israel.
The Golan today is still vital to the security of the State of Israel. Israelis are virtually unanimous in the their support of the Golan as a sovereign part of the State of Israel, today.
The USA by recognizing the Golan as part of Israel would be sending a message that using territory to try and destroy another country can have permanent consequences such as losing that territory. It also would showing that is a true of friend of Israel and not trying to appease its enemies, as much of the EU and other do.