The Golan Heights, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Barack Obama: Looking Forward or Looking Back?
Fisting Syria
Israel is a vital country. I do not deny this. I am not among the fanatics who call for its abolishment, its destruction, nor do I approve any Islam-inspired pogrom against it. Last week I found myself pouring over the musings of Theodor Herzl. Mr. Herzl is oft misunderstood because, in light of the ethnocentric perspective that he had, that perspective was wholly justifiable in light of his particular slice of the European Zeitgeist. He had it right! Had there been no state of Israel created it was very likely that additional violence be visited upon European Jews after WWII. In fact, the creation of the modern State of Israel gave to Jews a sense of rooted nationhood; connection to land, and this was no small thing indeed.
Allow me to reveal my politics further; I for one am happy that the Jewish State exists in the demarcation set out by the American and British cartographers. I don’t think that the Uganda initiative sought by many, including Herzl, would have worked out – indeed the history of the Ismali (who in some extreme Islamist circles hated even more than Jews) and their flight from Uganda demonstrates clearly that political stability around and within a country is necessary for that nation’s long-term hope and happiness especially for immigrant populations.
No, I am quite happy that Israel is where it is today and I wish it well, but as the psalm goes: faithful are the wounds of your friends and deceitful are the flatteries of your enemies. Modern Israel and I must part ways politically with the outcome of the Six Day War. At this juncture I do not wish to get into the whole debate over whether Israel’s firing of the first shot was pre-emptive or not. At this point only King Hussein’s children and senior Mossad officials likely know. If you must know my own take, I think, in light of the Suez Canal and it’s outcome, the Six Day War probably was a justifiable first strike and I say “probably” because I can not be sure, rather this is the side that I lean towards. More importantly it is clear that the attack by Syria from the East was wholly unjustifiable – yet still, an unjustified attack entitles one to defense, not the further annexing and thieving of territory. Yes Syria’s actions were not entirely independent of Egypt’s but what I am saying is that irrespective of who starts which thuggery, since Israel wishes to take the position that repelling Syria was defensive, Israel still had no right, under modern rules of warfare, to incorporate the Golan Heights into itself. The Golan Heights is, de facto, currently, and long has been the legal domain of Syria. The fact that it makes a good launching pad into Israel in the event of military enterprise is, on its whole, entirely irrelevant to legal possession– the Rhine uplands make for good access into France, but still this is the domain of Germany.
I fail to see the justification for annexing the western portion of Syria for the simple reason of securing one’s state. Israel, while not openly nuclear, is well known to have, at the very least, the capacity for the rapid development of low-yield nuclear warheads. This is well beyond the defensive and even offensive sophistication of its neighbours. Further I do not accept, on the part of many Jewish communities of faith, the nattering on about Herzl’s “Jewish Question” as if it is still a serious secular consideration in the world as to whether the Jews should be subject to a final solution (in faith communities it certainly still is asked and raised ad nauseum). This question no longer has meritable use in modern dialogue. Fear-mongering by fanatical dogmatic Jewish Rabbis and politicians amongst their own ranks is not doing any good in respects to the Goaln Heights and peace in the Middle East and legitimately evil organizations like Hezbollah easily thrive on the propaganda they can spin around this illegal occupation- indeed if the Golan Heights were simply abandoned, as they should be (and I for one do not believe a single settler there should be compensated either – knowing full well what they were doing) Israel would go a long way towards fizzling out the spark on a rapidly burning fuse.
Mr. Obama, when he visits Netanyahu today will ask for just that, but it will come, I am sorry to say, after a great deal of placating and calming and reaffirmations of support. The Likud party, however, has adamantly stated that there will be no loss of land by Israel in the Heights. I, for one, would like to see Canada step back a little further from Israel. I do not mean sanctions, or threats, but I do mean real political pressure. Sadly when this is applied there is now an army of Montreal-Canadian Jewish fundamentalists who like to stand up and cry “racist” or “ignoramus” every time a sensible media statement is made. This annoys me – especially the latter. Jewish history, despite claims to the contrary, is not really that opaque if one sticks to a scholastic understanding of it, nor is it really unique (there are many tribes in the world who are both larger, just as migratory and that have suffered worse fates). Sometimes the “nation question” or question of the “tribe” can skew worldview. All I have ever asked of Israel is to step up to the plate, distinguish itself from its neighbors and return to Syria what does not, and historically never has, belonged to it (except for possibly in a very ancient past. Queue now all the crack pots, quakers, and pentecostals who think they have historical evidence for King David and King Solomon – lame).
The justification for the occupation of the Golan Heights is just as demonstrably evil as the use of Afghanistan as a religious and military buffer to protect Pakistan from possible future Russian territorial expansion (that was originally what the whole Taliban thing was about). The best thing is to slough it off back to Syria before the residents there become politically and religiously divergent from their surrounding populations (Israeli or otherwise) creating further instability between two already unstable neighbours. Evacuate now and withdraw if you know what is good for you.
One final card to play: in 1997 I was invited to a conference in Washington DC where Prime Minister Netanyahu was to be speaking to a large gathering of who’s who in the realm of American Evangelicalism. Complete with an armed detail of Mossad running around the American capital Netanyahu was slated to speak about how Israel was occupying the land that god had given it. This comes from the mouth of the man himself. Netanyahu is often seen as a moderate on many issues, but in truth he is as rabid and fanatical as his neighborly opponents. To this I say that: there is a beautiful history of Jewish secularism and humanism, in fact without the role of Jewish thinkers modern humanism would be lacking in intellectual substance. Israel has choices defining its civilization ahead of it: it can revert back into tribalism and ethnocentrism fueled by a barbaric Abrahamic covenant and apocalyptic longings, or it can transcend on the wings of its many intellectuals, scientists and philosophers. Israel can reach out to academics and politicians, or it can appeal to mass hysteria, racism, and American mid-west Evangelicals. I see the future of Israel as a fork with secular humanism on one hand and a mystical pseudo-culture backed by military incentives on the other. The lion will not lay down with the lamb. One is going to have to get up and leave, or the other will be eaten by beastly ambitions. Whatever the outcome, it will be the issue of the Golan Heights, not “the Palestinian question” as it is often so ironically stated, that will serve as the litmus test for this.
Related posts:
- How Barack Obama Will Change the World Let me start by introducing myself. My name is Jon,...
- Barack Obama – One Sly Talking Fellow in his State of the Union Address Am I the only Canadian that wishes Barack Obama could...
- Barack Obama the Conservative Ever since Barack Obama was elected President of the United...
- 2009 was the Best of Times, it was the Worst of Times: Global Economic Recession, Climate Change, Barack Obama & H1N1 It was the best of times, it was the worst...
- Will Barack undo all that Bush has done… After 8 years of wondering how it’s possible that W...
Tags: barack obama, benjamin netanyahu, golan heights, israel, syria
Loading ...
November 9th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Good article Travis, but I am not completely convinced.
I believe this statement is misleading: “yet still, an unjustified attack entitles one to defense, not the further annexing and thieving of territory.”
Israel didn’t annex or thieve territory beyond the timeline of the aggression nor beyond what was necessary for them to remain safe. The Golan region is a strategic access and vantage point for Syria and remains important to ensure Israel’s defence. Your analogy between France and Germany is invalid because there currently exists no aggression between the two nations. France and Germany have peace agreements and diplomatic relations. The goal of Germany is not one of destroying France, nor is it to drive them into the Mediterranean. Nor does Germany support those of whom who share that goal, such as Syria’s open support of Hezbollah and near involvement in the 2006 Lebanon war.
If Germany posed an ongoing and realistic threat to France, then I believe France would be entitled and justified to occupy areas such as the Rhine uplands.
Israel doesn’t occupy the Golan because it’s beautiful, even though it is. They occupy it to ensure their existence. And until a time comes when the nations that surround Israel are open to peaceful relations (and yes, this is a whole new and much more difficult debate), I don’t think it’s fair to condemn Israel for occupying the Golan.
Lastly, you bring up the notion that Israel *has* nuclear capabilities of which go far beyond those of their neighbours. I can only assume that you mean to imply that Israel would still be able to defend themselves, if they give back the Golan, because they have or are able to have nuclear weapons. I would much rather a situation where Israel, justly or unjustly, occupies a small, tiny piece of land, than a situation whereby they would be force to utilize these nuclear weapons in a defensive and much more destructive nature.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Thanks for the article and your insights, Travis. Well-done as usual.
Regardless of the legality surrounding Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights (this is a debate that can rage on endlessly), I don’t see Israel ever handing the land back to the Syrians. There are many reasons for this:
1) According to the vast majority of sources I’ve come across, the current Israeli population in the area is estimated to be well over 10,000. Given the fact that the Israeli government actually paid settlers to move to the newly annexed territory as well as the trouble and protest over the disengagement from Gaza in 2005, handing the land back to the Syrians will be a nightmare both politically and logistically. That’s not to say it would be impossible. But the integration of the Golan Heights into Israeli society is so deeply rooted this will pose an extreme challenge that few governments will want to undertake.
2) As mentioned by yourself and Daniel, the Golan Heights serve as an incredibly strategic vantage point for Israel. Regardless of whether this is a justifiable reason for holding on to the territory and given the constant threat of war that jeopardizes Israel’s existence, the Golan Heights will not be given away. Iran’s military support for both Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon serves as a constant reminder that abandoning the Golan Heights places Iran right at the Israeli’s doorstep. This is a situation that Israel will not, under any circumstances, tolerate. In this regard, Israel “has to do what is has to do.”
3) The Golan Heights serve many economic benefits for Israel, most notably because of its renowned wine industry. This might seem trivial compared to the first two points I mention above, but the fact of the matter is that wine from the Golan Heights is making an impact on the global stage. The economic benefits Israel receives from the industry cannot be ignored.
I’d also like to comment on a statement you made: “I for one do not believe a single settler there should be compensated either – knowing full well what they were doing.” While you are right that many settlers did purposely settle in the area knowing full well what they were doing, that’s a big generalization. Many kibbutzim emerged there due to the areas natural beauty, many came to cultivate the fertile land and others were actually paid to settle there by the government. It’s not fair to say that they did for political reasons. I don’t think you can put the blame on the general population, and if Israel were to ever give back the land (which I doubt will happen), the citizens would certainly need to be compensated.
Just my two-cents worth!
November 9th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Tamir thank you for your thoughtful comments. Allow me now to rebuff in reverse order. First there is not a single resident of the illegally occupied Golan Heights who is not conscientious of the illegality of that occupation. Internationally squatting, for whatever purposes, is not recognized. I should clarify that I only meant that settlers there ought not be compensated by Syria in a land transfer agreement, but instead ought to be compensated by the Israeli government. Economic benefits from thieved land also are not a sound legal argument. There are economic benefits to me stealing from my neighbor even though he is a jerk as well, this is not justification. Second the Golan Heights is, at most, 8 km across. Ranchers in Alberta occupy more land than this so in modern missile-based aggression, a style of warfare in which Israel is vastly superior to its neighbors, this little sliver of land does nothing but serve as a buffer against WW1 style marching troops. If the aforementioned Iran-Hezbollah threat ever does stretch its wings it will occur when Iran has nuclear capability. Marching troops are the least of Israel’s military concerns. Furthermore, since Israel occupies the Golan Heights, Iran and Hezbollah are defacto at Israel’s doorstep since Israel tacked on a new porch.
Now there are the logistics of removing a few thousand people. This does not bother me in the least since they are, legally speaking, in respects to international law, illegitimate settlers. China happily relocated over one million of its own for a hydro-project are you really arguing that this is logistically difficult? I don’t think so. Secondly, the logistics of building a couple of 2 km connecting infrastructure to Syria is not that difficult either. The terrain there is not as difficult as it is made out to be. The provincial Department of Highways in BC undertakes far more logistically complex operations. Under international law all infrastructure created while Israel has squatted on this land is now the property of Syria. So as I see it there is really just a bunch of arm-waving and blabbering about how complex a very simple problem really is. The unnamed devil in all of this is the fusion of Judaism and statehood. This can be easily seen in the mandate of Shin Bet and a score of other Israeli government bodies and agencies who state that the territorial integrity of Israel as granted to Joshua in the Exodus ought to be included in the present borders of Israel. Here precisely is where the problem arises – directly from religion and is fueled by religion and by people who think that doing so is part of a divine mandate or heavenly plan (hence all the reaching out to evangelicals with symmetric eschatology). This is precisely why I advocate only for an Israel contained within its original (non Torah) borders.
FInally the legal debate is not really much of a debate. Israel has passed its own laws in respects to how it must deal with the Golan and they are all quite clear and readily available for reading. The United Nations has also passed laws declaring that all Israeli law passed in the Golan is null and void. Israeli diplomats who have committed crimes of occupation in the Golan are protected from being turned over to prosecution by an international party only because diplomatic immunity prevents a local government to arrest and detain a foreign official for crimes committed while in the service of a legitimate government. Now I am not ever arguing for the delegitimization of the Israeli government or the lifting of diplomatic immunity, I am just saying that a very thin line, made up only by politics and not law is drawn. It is well understood that Israel has no case despite all the white-noise commentary otherwise.
All that said there is the belief that this is what Israel has to do. I may be persuaded into conceding that at the time there was the need for this on a temporary basis following the six-days war. As it stands though, Israel has no credibility as a country founded on rule of law so long as it flaunts it. This creates another problem: since this is legally the case. Syria has the legal right, under rules of warfare to turn for assistance to Iran, to threaten with war e.t.c. I fear that these legitimate threats, even though there is a strain of anti-Semitism to them, fuel the perceived need to hold on to the Heights and fuel a fear of holocaust that at this juncture, save perhaps for Iran, I don’t think really exists en mass. As I understand it, extreme dialogue – e.g., “I will drive the Jews into the Mediterranean” is a type of boasting language commonly used in that part of the world. There is the famous story of the CIA operative who, while listening to political threats between Nasser and Israeli officials over heard:
Nasser “I will crush you with 10 thousand tanks.”
Israeli Minister of Defense: “We will destroy you will 20 thousand.”
Nasser: I will burry you with a hundred thousand. e.t.c.”
The point is that numbers and final statements are seldom literal and many (though not all) examples touted by the Israeli media about the severity of their neighbor;s hostility are in these precise grammatical forms. I am surprised that these are not better understood as the books of Kings, Samuel, Chronicles, and others all make exaggerated use of numbers when describing armies and their ferocity – indeed the Torah provides some of the most early examples of this type of language in the middle east. There is a danger in taking propaganda literally just as much as there is a danger in not taking it seriously. I for one would think that Israel could diffuse much of this by returning the Golan, with a very small loss in actual military security.
Finally Dave: Yes there has been no official statement by Israel that it indeed does have nuclear weapons. In diplomatic communities, however, Israel is treated as though it does and it is largely assumed by the intelligence services of its neighbors that it does. Since Israel does not openly deny and discredit these there is no reason to think that Israel is not armed. I for one have seen no evidence that it lacks nuclear weapons and this is one of the rare null hypotheses that is easy to disprove. Much of the justification that Iran uses internally for nuclear armament is potential Israeli threat. Playing both fields (that it may have WMDs for security and denying them for diplomacy) would likely be my second major political beef with the current modern state.
I close this comment by saying this: Oh look Obama did exactly what I predicted he would do yesterday! More status quo. This president is driving me to sleep!
November 15th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
[...] Birk presents The Golan Heights, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Barack Obama: Looking Forward or Looking Back? posted at Informed Vote | Keeping Canadian Voters [...]