By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Syria, supported by Turkey and several Arab nations, has launched a diplomatic push at the UN to reclaim the Golan Heights, a territory Israel annexed in 1981 and considers its own. This initiative, spearheaded by Syria’s UN envoy, accuses Israel of violating Syrian sovereignty and calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied Golan. Several Security Council members have echoed Syria’s demands, citing the occupation’s threat to Syrian stability. Israeli officials, however, have stated Israel’s intention to maintain its sovereignty and military presence in the area, while some suggest the Syrian campaign aims to expedite ongoing security negotiations.
Read the original article here
Syria demands return of the Golan Heights amid Arab pressure, and it seems this is quite the topic of debate, doesn’t it? The very idea is met with a collective shrug and a chorus of “not gonna happen,” which, honestly, seems to be the general consensus. It’s almost as if the request is being met with the same level of seriousness as a demand for Constantinople from the Byzantine Empire – something to be patiently, and quite dismissively, considered. The fact that the article highlights support from a few Security Council members, like Algeria, Somalia, Sierra Leone, and Guyana, adds a touch of irony, doesn’t it?
The current campaign’s ignition point came from Syria’s envoy to the United Nations, Ibrahim Olabi, who, in a rather assertive speech, laid out Syria’s grievances. He accused Israel of various wrongdoings, including instigating military incidents, violating agreements, and encroaching on Syrian sovereignty. His call for “decisive” action from the UN and the Security Council, while perhaps expected, feels like a formality given the lack of any significant international action, to be frank.
Olabi’s demands went further, specifically calling for Israel to withdraw from not just the Golan Heights, but also from areas recently invaded. The message was clear: the Golan will remain Arab and Syrian and is not up for negotiation. One can’t help but wonder if the envoy went off-script during the speech and mentioned more than he was supposed to, potentially highlighting the recent buffer zone and Mount Hermon occupation.
Let’s be frank, the strategic implications of handing the Golan Heights back to Syria, even with the best of intentions, are significant. The Golan is a high-ground advantage that could be used against Israel. There are real concerns about potential misuse of this strategically vital territory, and the historical reality of the situation makes the idea even less plausible. It raises questions about the Druze population residing in the area, a community with a complex history and relationship with Syria.
It’s unlikely the local Druze population would be eager to be part of Syria, considering the past actions and history of the Syrian government towards them. It’s difficult to imagine a scenario where the Golan Heights is returned to Syria. Israel has held the territory for a significant period. Discussions about Gaza and the West Bank are one thing, but the Golan Heights is a different story altogether.
The current political landscape in Israel offers little to no room for sacrificing its security for the sake of peace in this region. There is a general feeling that the Golan Heights is not going anywhere. There’s not a lot of surprise in that, and the historical context makes this position understandable.
Historical context aside, it seems that in the past year, the Golan Heights had its highest rate of citizenship applications. Considering this, the argument for returning the Heights becomes even more complicated. However, the scenario could be different if there was an agreement for demilitarized control and allowing the Druze in Daara and Suweida to vote on their future, and the Syrian government ceased any persecution against the Druze.
The idea of any other entity putting pressure on Israel to change its stance, like Turkey, for example, seems far-fetched unless there’s a complete alignment of political goals and the development of strong economic ties between the two nations. The only thing that truly matters is economic power. An Israeli Druze is quoted as simply stating, “Hell no.”
The history of Syria’s treatment of the Druze community is a critical factor in understanding the current situation. The fact that the Druze in Syria were helped by Israel and not by other countries or allies really matters to the Israeli Druze. It’s also difficult to ignore Syria’s past actions and the need for a stable government before Israel can even begin to think about the Golan Heights.
So, for now, Syria is complicating things instead of normalizing relationships with Israel. It seems they want to catch Israel off guard. Yet, there’s always the possibility that things could change dramatically if there’s a shift in the balance of power, maybe a change in the government in Damascus. It’s hard to imagine the Mossad not being involved in this matter.
There’s no shortage of evidence that the Golan Heights is a strategically important piece of land for Israel. Israel has it, and there are strategic reasons for that. Israel has a flat, open area, and the Golan Heights offers a defensible position. Most people living there want nothing to do with Syria. The Golan Heights is also of massive strategic value.
Israel’s stance is pretty clear and has been consistent for decades: the Golan Heights is of strategic importance, which is why Israel will not give it back. There’s not going to be an end to war in the Middle East. It has become a reality to accept and learn to maneuver. Even in the past, Israel offered the land for peace, but Syria didn’t want to cooperate. The situation is complicated because of the historical context.