Both Western outlets concentrating on the Middle East, both Arabic media was overtaken by President Trump’s decision to recognize the Golan Heights under Israeli sovereignty. Which is quite understandable, since this level of total disregard for international law and decisions is a new peak even in the American tradition. It is simply breathtaking how could an American administration give away part of a sovereign country, Syria to an other state. Not simply because there was an international consensus admitting Syrian rights for the territory, which so far no state ever crossed, but because it goes against the very founding concept of the U.N. Namely, that no land can be taken by force, and the alteration of borders by force cannot be recognized. If that would to happen, that would encourage aggression. Therefore there was an international understanding, that regardless the fact that Israel keeps most of the area under its occupation since 1973, the Golan is part of Syria. Even if Israel proclaimed the extension of its sovereignty to the area in 1981, that decree was viewed void by the international community, and the illegally created settlements were viewed what they are. Illegal occupation.
Now, that Syria and the bigger part of the Arabic public opinion is shocked by the American move attention focuses on two key issues. Why did Trump make this move, and what can Syria do about it? These are key issues, most especially since Arabic public opinion can not help but to view the matter as part of a chain. First Jerusalem was given away by Washington, than now the Golan, and God only knows what comes next.
Many point to the obvious. Elections are coming up in Tel-Aviv, and Netanyahu has much to fear from them. In one hand he is facing corruption charges, and as his predecessor Ehud Olmert was jailed for the very same reason he has reasons to worry. On the other hand Netanyahu has a strong opposition to face, which is raising in the Israeli extreme right. Simply put, the political sphere from where Netanyahu got its support, the fanatical extreme right has fresher young faces, like Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked, who can play on the radical strings even better than the current PM. So if he loses the elections, or fails to form a coalition he is very likely going to be charged and might even get convicted. In such an atmosphere he desperately needs image boosting steps. Especially since this election was needed, because Avigdor Lieberman and his Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel is Our Home) Party left the government after scandalous setback in the Gaza front in November 2018. Many also point out, that there are serious business interests involved in the Golan. Oil was found there and Genei Energy, the interest of former American Vice President Dick Cheney was given exclusive rights for extraction. And these reason are just atop of older, more well-known reason why Israel holds the Golan as vital national interest. Like military considerations against Syria, or that this territory and the Lake Tiberias are the prime water source for Israel, Palestine and Jordan. So whoever holds the Golan has an edge in the Syrian-Israeli tactical match, and has control over the most important water resources south of Syria.
Possible retaliatory moves either by Syria on its own, or Arab states collectively seem to be few. Damascus does not seem to be in the state to be able to defend its rights by force, now that considerable parts of the country are under terrorist or American occupation. On the political front Syrians of course protest, but what else can they do now? As head of the Ḥizb Allah, Ḥasan Naṣr Allah suggested in his last speech this week, 26 March, the very least Arab states could do, at least as a symbolic gesture is to withdraw from the general peace process in the upcoming Arab League summit in Tunis. Which seems to be less likely given the shockingly mind responses of the Gulf states to this American theft of Syrian territory. And it would be a very awkward step as well, because this way the Arab states would take a common stance for a country, which’s membership is suspended by the very same states. So how would the Arab states support a state with a government, which most of them even now they don’t recognize as legitimate? Apart from that, as most Arabs in general, Damascus can resort to one way to defend their rights. Resistance. As Syrian envoy to the U.N., Baššār al-Ğa‘farī made it unmistakably clear, if the international norms become meaningless, everyone does what it wishes.
There are, however, important developments in the region recently, which seem to coincide suspiciously with this American move. Therefore, there can be much bigger motives beneath the mentioned logical causes. The game might just be about much more, than a simple Israeli election campaign.
Foreshadowing triple summits
Now Israel, almost celebrating the move makes even more to aggravate the Syrians, almost to point out their apparent incapability to hit back. The recent aggression to Šayh Nağğār on 27 March, in Aleppo Province, and the Israeli media’s recent provocative footages from Syrian Qāmišlī certainly point to this directions. But does Syria watches idly, or has made already plans?
There were two important meetings recently, two triple summits, which might just indicate, that something was on the move even before Trumps is shameful decision. On 17 March a summit was held between the Syrian, Iraqi and Iranian military leadership in Damascus, which officially focused on two key matters. Joint cooperation against terrorist activity and the opening of the Syrian-Iraqi border at al-Bū Kamāl. The move is not that all surprising, since military cooperation between the three states – even Lebanon involved in it – has been going on for years. They have a joint operations office in Baghdad, with Russian assistance, and that center was coordinating the war effort against Dā‘iš. Yet this alliance is usually pictures as running under Iranian agenda, with very little Iraqi or Syrian influence over the decisions. This summit, however, was headed by Baššār al-Asad and held in Damascus. And the Chief of Staff from all three countries were present, meaning now in Damascus the highest possible level coordination took place. Given the historical grievances both between the Iraqis and the Iranians in one hand, and the Iraqis and the Syrians on the other this is extraordinarily. Surely there were other key issues on the agenda between the members, but the opening of the border between Syria and Iraq can finally make the route from Tehran to the Syrian coast viable. Which was paved some weeks before, as we indicated previously. Among the other possible issues could be the matter of so called Syrian Democratic Forces’ activity under American umbrella, the gradual relocation of Dā‘iš to Iraq, and the renewed American presence both in Syrian and Iraq, as this makes both Arab states uneasy. Not simply for the American remarks indicating that Washington plans to stay in Northern Iraq for long, but also because reports indicate, that the Americans help Dā‘iš ringleaders escape to Iraq now. Even the Kurds, Washington’s key allies voice these concerns now.
The other interesting key summit was held on the political level. On 24 March Iraqi Prime Minister met with the Egyptian President and the Jordanian King in Cairo, to discuss political, economical and even anti-terrorist cooperation between the parties. Which means, that Iraq can be the interlocutor between the Syrian-Iranian axis, and the Egyptian camp, possibly enabling bigger regional response to the current crisis. Given the close relationship of both Egypt and Jordan to the Americans it is doubtful how much they can help, but this move – especially the apparent secrecy around it – indicates readiness from both sides to join efforts and close older pending troubles. Where Iraq is standing is a pivotal question, as it might not be happy about the prospects of Iranian influence, but Trump’s remarks to keep forces there is even more menacing. Earlier, when Trump announced his will to pull out from Syrian the reasoning was that Dā‘iš is over. And Bāġūz, the last Dā‘iš held town in Syria was just recently liberated, on 18 March. So that would be the ideal point to finally start the pullout. But contrary to the earlier announcements, Washington just shipped in more troops and the reinforcements focused on at-Tanaf at the Iraqi-Jordanian-Syrian triple border. That is significant, because that is the closest American presence within Syria to the Golan, and that can surely keep any Syrian attempt in bay to gain back the area by force. And as we discussed two week before, the Americans also sent modern air defense systems to Northern Palestine under Israelis occupation. Which is very visibly needed, as only last week basic missiles from Ḥamas managed to hit Tel-Aviv. And Syria has much more sophisticated missile armaments, both by their own development and from Iranian stack. What is significant about this is that after years of media campaign and billions of dollars spent on the Iron Dome, and Sling of David projects Israel was incapable to defend itself even from the most basic missiles. But the Americans steps even before Trump’s announcement seemed to brace Israel from any possible retaliation.
With the two triple summits in hand, however, it seems that the Arab sides were also busy to build some sort of unified stance to end the Dā‘iš matter and prepare for new realities after the Syrian war. The most significant results shall be seen, as not much is public yet from the steps taken. But the military talks in Damascus surely indicate, that Syria is very far from being counted of as a significant military player in the region.
The Golan and its significance
When we assess the matter of the Golan, certain points has to be clarified, because that issue cannot be understood, only in the wider context of Arab-Israeli wars. The Jewish state and its Arab neighbors fought several wars, but these questions are by now surrounded by a web of legends. The first war in 1948 was fought by Israel and several Arab states, but contrary to the legends these states did not attack Israel and regardless of some sporadic Arabic claims, they did intent to annihilate it. When the negotiations in the U.N. about the creation of a Jewish and an Arab state in the former British Palestinian mandate – namely Israel and Palestine – seemed to reach a dead end, the Arab League passed a resolution, that they will not recognize a unilateral move for the creation of Israel. If that would to occur, they will defend the Arab lands and help to create Palestine. Now, when Israel unilaterally announced its formation and independence – the formal creation of the State of Israel -, that step was viewed as a hostile act, and that is why the Arab states moved in militarily. Their miserable failure was due to the lack of serious commitment in one hand, and the lack of possibilities on the other. Syria only became independent two years before, and had no serious professional army, while Jordan and Egypt were still under de facto British influence, which prevented them to use much of their forces. The biggest obstacle was the lack of clarity about the aims. Not only, that these Arab armies seldom cooperated, but after the initial move, they did not even know, how to carry on. On the other hand, however, Israel was perfectly ready for the war, both militarily and politically. They had experienced troops – more than all the involved Arab armies combined -, and knew perfectly what they want to achieve. Which they did perfectly well. This first Arab-Israeli war is further distorted in our memory by the fact, that even in the areas secured the Arab parties failed to create Palestine. Instead Jordan annexed the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem, while Egypt did the same with the Gaza Strip. But as far Syria and Lebanon was concern, they did not aim to gain any lands – which they didn’t -, and held to their original stance, that they only defend Arab lands. The idea, that the Arab states, or Syria declared war on Israel is a legendary, but propagandistic claim, since these states did not acknowledge the very existence of it. Which a declaration of war would naturally mean.
The second so called Arab-Israeli war happened in 1956, which is a misleading name, since only one Arab state, Egypt was in war, and not only against Israel, but with the UK and France as well. No other Arab state was officially involved. The third Arab-Israeli war started in June 1967, when Israel attacked Egypt, Jordan and Syria, on a preemptive pretext. Their justification was and still is, that these states were about to attack it and the Jewish state only defended itself against a possible atrocity. It is well proven, that the Arab states were taking serious steps for war, but whether they would have attack or not is impossible to know, and both the execution of the war and the precision how Israel took new, much desired lands clearly indicate, that Israel was just as much gearing for war as its Arab neighbors. In the matter of the Golan this war is a turning point, since among other territories – the Gaza Strip and the Sinai from Egypt, and the West Bank and Jerusalem from Jordan – it became occupied by Israel at the end. In 1973 Egypt and Syria fought back in the Yom Kippur war – otherwise know as the fourth Arab-Israeli war – but after initial surprises and the partial recovery of the Sinai and the Golan Israel managed to gain the upper hand once again. From that point on the so far three major opposing Arabs states, Egypt, Jordan and Syria took completely different paths. Egypt soon enough reconciled with Israel and became the first ever Arab state to formally recognize it and sign a formal peace treaty with it. The price was the recovery of the whole Sinai, even though with only partial sovereignty over it, as Egypt needs Israeli approval for military actions there. Jordan relinquished its claims over the West Bank and Jerusalem, as its biggest concern became the Palestinian militant movements, which at one point tried to take over the country. The failure of the Fataḥ, and its expulsion from Jordan made it relocate to Lebanon, which eventually brought about the Lebanese civil war. In time Jordan as well accepted its faith, and after Egypt’s return to the Arab League – after being barred for the unilateral peace with Israel – it took the same route and made official peace with the Jewish state in 1991. Now as with Syria, it took the hard way. The U.N. peace effort brought about a ceasefire in 1974, which divided the 1860 square km Golan to a Syrian administered smaller part with al-Qunayṭira being its capital, and to an Israeli occupied bigger part peacekeepers separating the two. Though the U.N. resolutions at the time, and all of them ever since fully and unquestionably acknowledged Syrian sovereignty over the whole Golan Heights territory. That, however, did not prevent Israel from annexing the lands under its de facto control, and start to create settlements there. Thought these settlements are nothing to those in the West Bank, and the majority of the population in the Golan are still Syrians, that was a clear violation of international terms. Syria chose to oppose Israel indirectly in Lebanon in the late ‘70s and the ‘80s, and with eventually Israeli withdrawal it managed to hold its ground.
In all later peace negotiations Syria clearly stated its two main conditions. The return of the Golan Heights and an acceptable settlement for the Palestinian question. Which, given the high number of Palestinian refugees in Syria ever since 1948 it an understandable concern for Damascus. The irony is, that not only all U.N. resolutions, but the Rabin government as well acknowledged the Golan as Syrian land, and in the ‘90s that was the basis of the negotiations between the two states. Which were rapidly ended with Rabin’s sudden death in 1995. The same range of secret negotiations repeated in the late 2000s with Turkish mediation, which once again suffered the same faith.
All in all, Syria took responsibility for joined Arab efforts in until the ‘70s, and contrary to the legends, out of all the wars with Israel only started one, and even that to recover the lost Golan. Which by now puts it very questionable how much Syria will put up with the formal loss of the area in the long run.
So why is this move?
Naturally the Arab public opinion, just like the political class sees a menacing trend now by Trump. It started with Jerusalem, now it continues with the Golan and the West Bank just might be the next victim. And it’s not just Ḥasan Naṣr Allah saying this now. From that point of view Israel and Netanyahu personally seems to be on its zenith. Surviving all political battles, he managed stay at the helm, as all serious neighbors are sunk in internal conflicts, and even managed to attract Gulf support against Iran. Territorial recognition are on the way with the most symbolic matters, settlements are unopposed, and the Palestinian question in contained. But is Israel really winning the game?
It seems that the radical elements in the Trump administration are ready to serve Israeli interest in any possible way. Jared Kushner, Bolton or Pompeo, not to mention Vice President Pence leading the most fanatical Evangelicals are certainly ready to serve Israel in whatever way, driven by ideological conviction. But Trump himself is nothing like that. Much rather what we see from Trump is an attempt to close all pending issues. The pullout from Afghanistan, or his will to pull out of Syria are good examples, and by these moves the conviction started, that the US is about the retreat – at least partially – from the Middle East to concentrate on bigger, more pressing issues. Venezuela, or the economic war with China points to this shift, where Washington closes old pending questions to focus on more pressing, long term matters with more direct and tangible benefits. At least in the case of Venezuela, as Bolton himself admitted, that the main idea is that the American oil companies are ready to move in. We covered the same idea last week in regards to Saudi Arabia. So how these favors for Israel fit into this frame? In a way this is a very logical step for Trump. In one hand he secures Evangelical support at home, and the Israeli lobby groups’ support. But on the other hand he can finally free himself from much of the political burden Israel means to him. He closes these pending folders and can leave an Israel behind, which is settled. As Syrian envoy al-Ğa‘farī pointed out, America just cannot defend Israel for ever. This way, Washington can create a situation where he can say, that it secured all the disputed territories, gave its full support, so from that point on Israel can defend itself.
Now bringing the Jewish state to this ideal and “secured” position has to be achieved before Syria gets back on its feet. Which just might be closer that most analysts would be ready to admit at this point. The summits in Damascus and in Cairo, added to them the previously discussed agreements signed between Syria and Iran foreshadow such trajectory. Regardless of the renewed sanctions against Iran, and the apparent weakness of Syria now. That is why Washington is putting down the foundation to consolidate an Israel, which can be eventually left to mend to itself. In this chain we can understand the refortification of the at-Tanaf Base, the new air defense systems to Israel, Jerusalem, and the Warsaw summit. Which if could eventually gain support, would pull the Arab states under American umbrella to one alliance with Israel against Iran. And here the stance against Iran is less important, but the main idea just might be, that such “deal of the century” – as the Arab press calls it already – would mean, that these, mostly Gulf states would formally acknowledge Israel, which could further solidify it in the region. In such equation this regional alliance could enable Washington to pull out significant amount of troops and resources from the region and concentrate on other issues. And while doing this, the US can secure certain important gains for itself, like the oil in the Golan, or gratitude by the Israeli support lobby, which can manifest in votes by the Evangelicals.
That big of a gain?
Now if this hypothesis is true, are we seeing a major gain for Israel? Seemingly yes. But in the details, these rushed moves, this rush to secure positions now while it is still possible are the symptoms of a major coherent crisis. Which is deepening. As the Israeli political arena constantly shifts to the more radical, Chauvinistic approach the divide between the religious fanatic groups like Beiteinu and Shas and the more traditional Right wing like the Likud is growing. The still unsolved matter of military service for the religious students is a clear sign of this growing rift. Even the Israeli statistics show, that in the last ten years the number of Ultra-Orthodox – contributing much less to the army and the state revenues than seculars – and Arabs are rising, while the numbers of seculars are in decline. Now with fertility rates much higher at these groups, than at the state supporting secular classes, and immigration numbers are falling, the prospects are actually not too good for the Jewish state. Simply put, there are serious problems now to find enough people to fill the West Bank settlements, so it is more questionable how the Golan will be overpopulated. Yet there are already news about plans up to 2048 to move in 250 thousand settler, and nearly 30 thousand new illegal residential units there.
Now since the demographics cannot sustain a fast overpopulation polity – it needs much more time than previously anticipated and consumes much more resources -, these desired lands have to be secured politically. Now, when by force it is still possible. Yet to secure these lands, that case would need either of two possible things to happen. To enforce a new reality on the ground, which even in the West Bank goes slow, and is unlikely to happen in the Golan. Or to achieve Arab recognition for the state officially, and to these “fresh” gains tacitly. That depends on the capability of Saudi Arabia to facilitate such a deal. The will was very tangible in Warsaw, but about the capability we will know more after the Tunis summit.
Overall, Israel now seems to be on a winning stream and unstoppable. But behind the scene there are serious demographic, economic and consequently political contradictions, which are rising. Jerusalem was undoubtedly a big gain in that matter, but the Golan is different. Especially, that the international community did not change a bit, and still support Syria. Tel-Aviv can enforce its will on the Golan, but if it really pushes the matter might just end up in a resistance quagmire much like in Lebanon in the ‘90s, which lead to the eventual pullout. Now with American about to decrease its presence in the region – if that calculation is true -, that can easily be a Pyrrhic victory for the Jewish state.