Gifting Golan Heights

Photo Source: Al Jazeera

By Naveed Qazi | Editor, GlobeUpFront

Donald Trump’s recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights on 25 March 2019 marked one of the most controversial foreign policy decisions of his presidency. As reported by Al Jazeera, the proclamation was signed at the White House alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and it effectively endorsed Israel’s 1981 annexation of the territory captured from Syria during the 1967 Six Day War. The move was unprecedented: no other major power had recognised Israel’s claim, and the UN Security Council had repeatedly affirmed that the Golan Heights remained occupied Syrian territory.

The timing of Trump’s decision was politically significant. According to Victor Kattan in JSTOR, the proclamation came just two weeks before Israel’s general election, providing Netanyahu with a symbolic victory to present to his electorate. In the United States, the announcement coincided with the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the most influential pro‑Israel lobby. Trump’s administration used the occasion to attack Democrats, with Vice‑President Mike Pence accusing them of being afraid to stand with Israel’s strongest supporters.

Domestically, Trump’s recognition of the Golan Heights was seen as part of a broader strategy to consolidate support among Evangelical Christians, who make up roughly a quarter of the American electorate. As CNN polling showed, while 71 per cent of Democrats opposed moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, 79 per cent of Republicans supported it. Trump’s team framed Democrats as increasingly hostile to Israel and even to Jewish Americans, with close associates promoting the idea of a ‘Jexodus’ — a supposed migration of Jewish voters away from the Democratic Party. In reality, Jewish Americans represent only about 3 per cent of the electorate, but Evangelicals were a far larger and more reliable voting bloc for Trump.

This was not the first time Trump had broken with diplomatic orthodoxy. In December 2017, he recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, despite the 1993 Oslo Accords stipulating that the city’s final status should be resolved in peace talks. As The New York Times journalists Mark Landler and Edward Wong observed, Trump’s approach was to shake up long‑standing policies that had remained unchanged since the 1970s. The UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to declare the US recognition of Jerusalem ‘null and void’. In 2018, Trump closed the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s office in Washington and passed the Anti‑Terrorism Clarification Act, which forced the Palestinian Authority to reject US aid. He also shut down the US consulate in Jerusalem that had traditionally handled Palestinian affairs, prompting one Palestinian official to describe the move as ‘the last nail in the coffin’ of America’s role in peacemaking.

International reaction to the Golan decision was swift and overwhelmingly negative. The Arab Parliament denounced it as a violation of UN Resolution 242, which calls for Israel’s withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967. Its speaker, Mishaal bin Fahm al‑Salami, argued that legitimising Israeli occupation was now the orientation of US policy. UN Secretary‑General spokesman Stéphane Dujarric reiterated that the status of the Golan had not changed and that UN policy remained consistent with Security Council resolutions. Leaders across the Middle East voiced outrage. Lebanese President Michel Aoun condemned the proclamation, while Hezbollah warned that similar recognition of Israeli claims in the West Bank could follow. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani declared that no one could imagine an American leader giving land to another occupying country against international law. Russia’s Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned of negative consequences for Middle East stability. Even US allies such as Canada, Australia, Turkey, and Gulf states including Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait rejected the move.

The decision also highlighted the uneasy position of Arab allies of Washington. As Al Jazeera noted, Trump’s alliance with Netanyahu, motivated partly by biblical interpretations favoured by Evangelical supporters, placed Arab governments in a bind. Public opinion in the Arab world was angered by what was seen as hegemonic Zionist policy, yet governments dependent on US security guarantees struggled to respond forcefully.

On the ground, the Druze community of the Golan Heights, numbering around 26,000, continued to resist integration into Israel. Nearly all Druze residents boycotted municipal elections in 2018, rejecting Israeli attempts to normalise control. Meanwhile, about 20,000 Israeli settlers live in the territory, alongside UN peacekeepers who have monitored the ceasefire line for decades. For Lebanon, the adjacent Shebaa Farms and Kfar Chouba hills remain disputed, with Beirut insisting they are Lebanese land occupied by Israel.

Trump’s recognition of the Golan Heights boosted his popularity among Israelis. A Pew Research Center survey showed his approval rising from 56 per cent in 2017 to 69 per cent in 2019. For Netanyahu, the proclamation was a diplomatic gift during a crucial election campaign. For Trump, it was a domestic political tool, reinforcing his image as Israel’s staunchest ally and energising Evangelical voters.

Yet the broader consequences were destabilising. By breaking with international consensus, the US undermined the principle that territory cannot be acquired by force. As Victor Kattan argued, the proclamation set a dangerous precedent, potentially encouraging other states to annex land under the guise of security. It also weakened America’s credibility as a mediator in the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict.

The recognition of the Golan Heights fits into a pattern of Trump’s Middle East policy: symbolic gestures that please domestic constituencies and Israeli leaders but erode international law and regional stability. While these moves won him support among far‑right Israelis and Evangelicals, they alienated Palestinians, angered Arab publics, and unsettled US allies. As The New York Times noted, Trump’s approach was less about geopolitics and more about domestic politics, shaking up orthodoxies for electoral gain.

Ultimately, the proclamation illustrates the contradictions of US foreign policy under Trump. On one hand, America presents itself as a champion of democracy and peace. On the other, it legitimises occupation, undermines international law, and fuels conflict. The Golan Heights decision was not just a diplomatic gesture; it was a political calculation that prioritised short‑term electoral advantage over long‑term stability.