[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A NEW HORIZON IN U.S. ISRAEL RELATIONS: FROM AN AMERICAN EMBASSY IN
JERUSALEM TO POTENTIAL RECOGNITION OF ISRAELI
SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE GOLAN HEIGHTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 17, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-97
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
http://oversight.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
31-423 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland,
Darrell E. Issa, California Ranking Minority Member
Jim Jordan, Ohio Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Mark Sanford, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Justin Amash, Michigan Columbia
Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Jim Cooper, Tennessee
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Mark Meadows, North Carolina Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Ron DeSantis, Florida Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Dennis A. Ross, Florida Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Mark Walker, North Carolina Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Rod Blum, Iowa Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Jody B. Hice, Georgia Jimmy Gomez, Maryland
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Peter Welch, Vermont
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
Will Hurd, Texas Mark DeSaulnier, California
Gary J. Palmer, Alabama Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
James Comer, Kentucky John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Paul Mitchell, Michigan
Greg Gianforte, Montana
Michael Cloud, Texas
Sheria Clarke, Staff Director
William McKenna, General Counsel
Samuel Wisch, Professional Staff Member
Sharon Eshelman, National Security Subcommittee Staff Director
Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on National Security
Ron DeSantis, Florida, Chairman
Steve Russell, Oklahoma, Vice Chair Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts,
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Ranking Minority Member
Justin Amash, Michigan Peter Welch, Vermont
Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Mark DeSaulnier, California
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Jimmy Gomez, California
Jody B. Hice, Georgia Vacancy
James Comer, Kentucky Vacancy
Vacancy
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 17, 2018.................................... 1
WITNESSES
Michael Doran, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Written Statement............................................ 8
Ambassador Dore Gold, Ph.D,. President, Jerusalem Center for
Public Affairs
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Written Statement............................................ 20
Eugene Kontorovich, Professor, Northwestern University, Pritzker
School of Law
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 31
Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer, Ph.D., S. Daniel Abraham Professor in
Middle Eastern Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School of Public
and International Affairs, Princeton University
Oral Statement............................................... 37
Written Statement............................................ 39
Mr. Morton Klein, President, Zionist Organization of America
Oral Statement............................................... 45
Written Statement............................................ 48
A NEW HORIZON IN U.S.-ISRAEL RELATIONS: FROM AN AMERICAN EMBASSY IN
JERUSALEM TO POTENTIAL RECOGNITION OF ISRAELI SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE
GOLAN HEIGHTS
----------
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Security
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Ron DeSantis [chairman
of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives DeSantis, Hice, Lynch, and Welch.
Also present: Representatives Grothman, Perry, and Lamborn.
Mr. DeSantis. The Subcommittee on National Security will
come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
Today's hearing on recognizing Israel's sovereignty over
the Golan Heights comes at the dawn of a new horizon in U.S.-
Israel relations. The Trump administration has proven to be a
staunchly pro-Israel administration. President Trump took the
long overdue steps of recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital
in opening the U.S. embassy in Israel there this past May. Many
Presidents had promised to move the embassy, but it was
President Trump who kept his promise and delivered. And I would
admit that this committee was actively involved in that. We
actually have some people who helped testify right before the
decision, which I think was very important. So thank you.
The President withdrew from the Iran deal that paved the
way for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon and provided huge
amounts of money in sanctions relief and $1.7 billion in cold,
hard cash.
He pulled the U.S. out of the anti-Israel U.N. Human Rights
Council where the world's worst human rights violators
routinely vilify the world's only Jewish state.
He signed the Taylor Force Act into law, holding the
Palestinian Authority accountable for its cash payments to
terrorists.
And he appointed a truly outstanding Ambassador to Israel,
my friend, David Friedman.
The President now has the opportunity to take another major
step to advance American interests and to fortify the U.S.-
Israel relationship by recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the
Golan Heights. The Golan Heights is essential to Israel's
security. A strategic high ground along Israel's borders with
Syria and Lebanon, the Golan's topography grants Israel with
observation and intelligence capabilities that allow it to
detect enemy activities. It also offers incredible defensive
advantages in repelling an attack. It allows Israel to defend
critical segments of territory like the Sea of Galilee and
Haifa Bay. It serves as a major water source and is a growing
population center.
The importance of the Golan is illustrated by Major General
Giora Eiland, the former head of Israel's National Security
Council who wrote that, quote, ``Israel does not possess a
plausible solution to its security needs without the Golan
Heights.'' End quote.
Israel's need for the Golan Heights is clearer than ever,
given the threats it currently faces on its northern border.
Iran has escalated its aggression against the Jewish state to
unprecedented levels in recent months, launching direct attacks
on Israel from Syria. In May, Iranian forces in Syria fired
approximately 20 rockets at Israeli military positions in the
Golan Heights. In February, Iran sent an armed drone into
Israeli airspace. Iran has also equipped its terrorist proxy
Hezbollah with advanced weapons, including over 100,000 rockets
and missiles aimed at Israel. And amidst the chaos of Syria's
civil war, terrorist groups, including ISIS, have gained
footholds along the Syria border with Israel.
We can only imagine how much worse the threats to Israel's
north would be and threats to the security of the broader
region would be if the Golan was in the hands of what remains
of the Syrian regime or Iran or Hezbollah or ISIS. It would
leave Israel's enemies in control of that high ground and
stationed even closer to Israel's heartland.
Now, this past weekend, we saw Hamas launch nearly 200
rockets at Israel, a stark reminder of the consequences of
Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. Hamas' latest attack
demonstrates why it is so important that Israel keep the Golan
Heights.
In Syria, Bashar al-Assad's government has launched a
ruthless campaign to retake the country south backed by Iran
and Russia. The Syrian dictator has slaughtered his own people
in his desperate bid to cling to power. Countries, including
the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and Canada, as
well as the U.N., have all made clear that the Assad regime has
no legitimacy. The U.S. should push back against Assad and Iran
and Russia's expanding influence. President Trump's action in
ordering air strikes made clear that Syria's use of chemical
weapons would not be tolerated. The President can further U.S.
national security interests and send Assad, Iran, and Russia
another strong message with the stroke of a pen by recognizing
Israel's sovereignty over the Golan.
Recognizing this claim is also the right thing to do.
Israel won the Golan in a defensive war in 1967. It repelled
another Syrian attack there in 1973. In 1981, with the passage
of the Golan Heights law, Israel permanently integrated the
area as part of its country, and today the Golan flourishes as
a growing center of agriculture, industry, tourism, and
wineries.
But other nations have yet to recognize Israel's
sovereignty over the Golan despite the fact that its
acquisition of the area in a defensive war was consistent with
principles of international law. And it is clear that without
the Golan, Israel would not have secure and recognized
boundaries free of threats or acts of force, as U.N. Security
Council resolution 242 calls for. By recognizing the Golan as
part of Israel, the U.S. would send a clear message that Syrian
belligerents will not be rewarded and that Israel's victory
over its aggressor has consequences.
As Prime Minister Netanyahu said, the time has come, after
50 years, for the international community to acknowledge that
the Golan Heights will permanently remain under Israeli
sovereignty and that whatever happens on the other side of the
border, that line is not going to change.
The case for recognition now is clear. Such a move would
bolster Israel against the threats on its northern border and
repudiate the Assad regime's butchery and Russia and Iran's
designs in Syria. It would recognize the reality that Golan
Heights is part of Israel and is vital to its national
security. With the current state of Syria, the prospect of
peace negotiations is nonexistent, but the current danger
Israel faces from Iran, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups
like ISIS makes clear that given the instability in the Middle
East, Israel could not afford to give up the Golan under any
circumstances. Israel's security should be non-negotiable and
so should America's commitment to it. It is time to stand with
our ally on the Golan and against these common enemies. This is
a policy that the President should implement and that all
Members of Congress should support.
And I would note that we do have a great panel of witnesses
here to discuss this issue. So I want to thank all the
witnesses for coming and providing their views. Just think how
crazy it would be to say that Israel should give the Golan to
Assad or some of these proxies. It would be absolute madness.
So let us discuss this issue today.
And before we hear from our witnesses, I would like to
recognize the ranking member, Mr. Lynch, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would also like to thank this esteemed panel of
witnesses. Most of you are frequent flyers to this committee,
and we appreciate your advice and words of wisdom.
During my time here in this Congress, especially in my role
as ranking member on the Subcommittee on National Security, I
have labored mightily to maintain the proper decorum, sense of
decorum, and chosen my words carefully to avoid vitriol and the
harmful rhetoric that sometimes infuses the arguments of the
extremes of each of the parties. I have done so in the hope of
providing an open channel across the aisle for the meaningful
and thoughtful dialogue to take place that is necessary to move
this country forward.
This morning I am compelled by that same sense of decency
and concern for our national security to briefly comment on the
President's remarks in Helsinki yesterday.
Yesterday for me was a moment of national embarrassment.
And I feel the President's words and positions taken constitute
a physical injury upon the national security of this country.
I only have two recommendations, quite briefly.
One is to reassure the men and women who serve this country
in our intelligence agencies continue to do the work necessary
to keep our country safe. We value--we value--the work that is
being done by our national intelligence agencies. We want them
to continue that work.
The second recommendation I have is a return to fact-based
decision-making in this country. Push back on the ideology and
the rhetoric that comes from the extreme ends of each party.
Look at the facts and the intelligence that our hardworking,
brave women and men in the intelligence agency bring us. A
return to fact-based decision-making will help this country,
will make us stronger.
In regards to the matter before us on the Golan, it is a, I
suppose not unusually, very, very tumultuous time in the
region. And we should make sure that whatever actions we take
enhance the national security of Israel and the United States
and our allies. Again, a return to fact-based decision-making
based on the facts on the ground in and around the Golan.
Now, Mr. Issa from this committee and I spent a week, maybe
10 days, in the Middle East a couple of weeks ago meeting with
Prime Minister Netanyahu, King Abdullah, meeting with
leadership in Bahrain, with President el-Sisi in Egypt to talk
about this confluence of events and the instability that has
been brought about by the collapse of ISIS, the presence of
numerous militia, so-called rebels, in Syria, the advancements
being made by Bashar al Assad and his troops supported by
Hezbollah, and the presence of Iranian militia in an area so
close to Israel.
There has been an armistice or truce in place around the
Golan since 1974, and we must be sure that any steps we take as
a party to annex the Golan officially at this moment does not
precipitate something that is inimical and harmful to the
national security of Israel and of our allies in the region,
including of course our own country.
So I think it is a time again to return to fact-based
decision-making with careful, careful consideration to the
facts on the ground in that area. But I think it is a
worthwhile discussion, and I am eager to hear from our
witnesses.
Again, I thank the chairman for holding this hearing.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back.
I am pleased to introduce our witnesses. We have Dr.
Michael Doran, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute;
Ambassador Dore Gold, President of the Jerusalem Center for
Public Affairs; Professor Eugene Kontorovich, Northwestern
University School of Law; Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer, the S.
Daniel Abraham Professor in Middle Eastern Policy Studies at
the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
at Princeton University; and Mort Klein, President of the
Zionist Organization of America. Welcome to you all.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
before they testify. So if you can please stand and raise your
right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. DeSantis. Please be seated.
All witnesses answered in the affirmative.
In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your
testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be
made part of the record. As a reminder, the clock in front of
you shows the remaining time during your opening statement. The
light will turn yellow when you have 30 seconds left and red
when your time is up.
Please also remember to press the button to turn your
microphone on before speaking.
With that, we will recognize Dr. Doran for 5 minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DORAN
Mr. Doran. Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for having
me speak today. It is an honor to appear before you on such a
consequential issue in our national security.
Mr. Chairman, the question of the Golan is part of a larger
strategic problem. The Syria that will emerge from this
devastating civil war will look nothing like the one we knew in
2011 when it began.
This simple fact raises a big question. What is the Syria
that we would like to see emerge from this conflict? What is
the Syria that will best contribute to international peace and
stability?
That question is too big to answer here today, but we can
tackle one piece of it. This war should lead to the United
States recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
Anyone truly concerned with international peace and security
must conclude that this change is in the best interest of
everyone, with the exception of the Iranian regime and its
allies. And it is manifestly in the interest of the United
States.
In my written testimony, I gave six reasons why this is the
case. Here I will summarize just four of them.
First of all, it passes the test of the laboratory of real
life. The last 70 years constitute the laboratory of real life,
and its results are incontrovertible. When in the hands of
Syria, the Golan Heights promoted conflict. When in the hands
of Israel, they have promoted stability.
Before the 1990s, the Syrian Government refused to talk to
Israel. Since the 1990s, it has unwaveringly demanded that
Israel must withdraw to the line of 4 June 1967. This line
would place the Syrians once again on the shores of the Sea of
Galilee, and it would place them atop the Golan Heights peering
down at Israeli villages below. It would create a wedge of
Syrian territory between Israel and Jordan to the south of the
Sea of Galilee.
The practical choice before us, therefore, is whether to
support the permanent acquisition of the Golan Heights by
Israel or to continue to whet the appetite of the Syrian regime
for the acquisition of that territory.
Between 1949 and 1967, literally thousands of clashes
erupted between the two sides. By contrast, ever since Israel
took control of the Golan Heights in June 1967, they have
served as a natural geographic buffer between the two
belligerents. The American interest, the interest of peace and
security more generally, militates in favor of it remaining in
Israeli hands.
The second reason, containing Iran. From the outbreak of
the civil war, Iran and Russia have worked aggressively and
brutally to shape a new Syria that will serve their interests.
The influence of Iran is particularly worrisome because, in the
division of labor between Moscow and Tehran, Iran provides much
of the ground forces. If Israel were to withdraw from the Golan
Heights, Iranian forces would replace them.
Mr. Chairman, ask yourself a few simple questions. Would
any responsible American statesman ever choose to place Iranian
soldiers on the Golan Heights so that they could peer down
through their rifle scopes at Jewish civilians below? Is there
any American interest that would be served by allowing Iran to
have direct access to the Sea of Galilee, Israel's primary
water reservoir? Would it ever be wise to place Iranian troops
on the southern shores of the sea where its territory would
serve as a wedge between Jordan and Israel?
The answer to all of those questions, obviously, is no.
The third reason, the inherent instability of Syria.
The risk of returning the Golan Heights to Syria is not
simply a function of the current geopolitical alignment of the
Assad regime. It is difficult to imagine at this moment, but it
is not impossible that in the future a pro-American regime
could emerge in Damascus and seek peace with Israel. Even then,
however, it would still be too risky to return the Golan
because Syria by its nature is inherently unstable. The
conflict we are witnessing today is but the latest and the
worst episode in a history of political chaos that has
afflicted the country since its independence. Even if a regime
favorable to the United States were to one day emerge in
Damascus, we could never count on it to survive. The laboratory
of real life teaches us that if we want the Golan Heights to
serve as a reliable buffer between Syria and Israel and between
Syria and Jordan, we must leave them in the hands of the
Israelis.
Lastly, aligning diplomacy with reality. We must recognize
a simple fact: Israel is never going to withdraw from the
territory. And for very good reason.
Not recognizing this reality is diplomatic malpractice.
Failing to recognize obvious truths is bad for nations in the
same way that it is bad for individuals. It creates delusions
that take increasing amounts of psychological and material
resources to sustain.
Pretending that it is still 1973 and that we recognize a
Syrian claim to the entire Golan, when in reality we do not, is
not simply a diplomatic nicety. It is a formal invitation to
the very real Iranian army in Syria and the very real Iranian
Hezbollah proxy to continue a campaign of low intensity warfare
to reclaim the occupied Golan.
Whose interest is served by the United States adopting
stances that lend credence to the claims of Iran and Hezbollah,
to the claim that Israel is occupying Syrian land? Certainly
not the American interest. Certainly not Israel's or Jordan's.
And it is not in the interest of the Syrian people themselves
who benefit from the stability that the Golan buffer provides.
Refusing to recognize reality serves only the interests of
Iran, Hezbollah, and Bashar al Assad. Why should the United
States expend very real political capital to help those hostile
entities improve their strategic position against the United
States and its allies?
In sum, recognizing reality will deny oxygen to our enemies
and strengthen our allies, precisely what a sound foreign
policy should seek to achieve.
Thank you once again. It has been a great honor to address
you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Doran follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
Ambassador, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR DORE GOLD
Ambassador Gold. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening
today's hearing. Mr. Lynch, thank you as well.
A discussion about the Golan Heights today might seem
baffling. Increasingly in recent years, many Israelis have
expressed a huge sigh of relief that previous rounds of
Israeli-Syrian negotiations did not result in an Israeli
withdrawal from the Golan Heights. It basically did not go
anywhere. These Israelis imagine that had these earlier talks
been concluded on Syrian terms, that in 2011, with the outbreak
of the Syrian civil war, the forces of Jabhat al Nusra,
Da'ish--that is, ISIS--not to mention Assad's own ruthless army
would have been sitting along the coastline of the see of
Galilee with their weapons aimed at the City of Tiberius across
the lake.
What has changed today is that with the imminent victory of
the forces of Bashar al Assad in the sector of South Syria, new
diplomatic initiatives by outside actors cannot be ruled out.
Already in March 2016, the U.N.'s Special Envoy on Syria,
Staffan de Mistura, proposed a paper called ``Essential
Principles of a Political Solution in Syria.'' The first point
of his 12-point paper specifically called for, quote, ``the
restoration of the occupied Golan Heights,'' unquote, to Syria.
This past February at the Valdai Conference in Moscow, which I
attended and I spoke at, Vitaly Naumkin, the leading Russian
authority on Syria insisted that Israeli sovereignty over the
Golan Heights could not be accepted. He raised doubts about its
very legality.
What has changed today is that with the imminent victory of
the forces of President Assad, these types of voices will
increasingly be heard. Traditionally the Golan Heights has been
the front line for Israel's defense in the north. Israel faced
acute asymmetry in active duty forces against Syria. This meant
that in 1973, Israel had to withstand an attack by 1,400 Syrian
tanks with only 177 tanks on its side. Israel planned on a
strategic line of volcanic hills, known in Hebrew as Kav Ha-
Tilim, that helped it to withstand any Syrian assault until
Israel's reserve mobilization was complete.
What are Israel's potential sources of concern that make
the Golan critical for Israel's security today?
First, given the proclivity of Middle Eastern regimes to
spend their resources on military acquisitions, the eventual
recovery of the Syrian army must be anticipated despite its
current weaknesses. In light of Russia's role in saving the
Assad regime, massive Russian arms transfers to the Syrian
armed forces will likely provide the basis for the renewal of
Syrian military power.
But there is a second source of concern for Israel. Iran's
conversion of Syria into a satellite state that will host
Iranian forces and bases.
In addition, Tehran has been creating Shiite proxy militias
modeled on the basis of Lebanese Hezbollah using manpower from
a number of countries, including Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen,
Pakistan, to take up positions in Syrian bases. The Iranians
have deployed elements from the Fatemyoun Division, which is
made up of Afghan Shiite refugees. As reported as recently as
July 11th, Hezbollah and Iran-handled Shiite militias are
integrated into the Syrian army in its campaign to take control
of south Syria.
Iran founded a Syrian branch of Hezbollah in 2014. A year
earlier, the commander of the Revolutionary Guard's Qods Force,
General Qassam Soleimani, proposed unifying many of the various
proxy forces and creating a 150,000-man army for operations in
Syria. These units have operated under the command of Iran's
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Many were active in the
battle for Aleppo and now in Deraa, in southern Syria, right
next to the Golan Heights.
Iran's military goal is to create a land corridor from Iran
itself across Iraq and Syria to the Mediterranean, which will
help it unify its various fronts and establish its hegemony
over the Middle East. It will aid Iran to advance the
encirclement of Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It will also provide
it with an assured line of supply to Syria and to Lebanon as
its military presence grows. Locally Iran seeks to link
southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights.
But there could be other objectives as well for Soleimani's
army. Recently Hossein Salami, the deputy commander of Iran's
Revolutionary Guard Corps, declared that the Islamic army in
Syria now operating in the Golan Heights, was awaiting orders
to eradicate--let me repeat that--eradicate the evil regime of
Israel. He used the Farsi word, Mahv, meaning annihilation or
to make extinct. He added that the Zionist regime has no
strategic defensive depth, hence this goal was achievable. Even
if this statement was motivated by the need for rhetorical
flourish, it nonetheless demonstrates the general intent of
Iran to use the Golan region for offensive operations against
Israel. It would be folly for the state of Israel in any case
to ignore statements of this sort by Tehran, especially when
they are backed by concrete actions.
I am now reaching my conclusions.
Israel today is under assault by a self-declared Iranian-
led axis of resistance, which has been operating under Russian
protection. As the Syrian state recovers from the Syrian civil
war, its allies can be expected to make demands on its behalf
like the return of the Golan Heights to Syria. In fact, these
demands have already been voiced.
The strongest rebuttal to this effort would be the
recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. This
would demonstrate conclusively that those who use force to
threaten their neighbors will not benefit in the court of
international diplomacy. States today have a choice. They can
back the demands of Iran and its supporters, or they can
recognize the rights of Israel in the Golan Heights. U.S.
recognition of Israeli sovereignty would set an important
example for others.
Three United States administrations consistently in written
letters of assurance to Israel confirmed that they envisaged at
the end of the day, Israel must remain on the Golan Heights.
That core bipartisan principle of past U.S. policy cannot be
realized in the long term without Israeli sovereignty over the
Golan confirmed.
[Prepared statement of Ambassador Gold follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you. Well, your written statement will
do it. We are over here.
So let me get on to Professor Kontorovich for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF EUGENE KONTOROVICH
Mr. Kontorovich. Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch,
honorable members of the committee, I am honored to speak here
with you today about the question of American recognition of
Israeli sovereignty over the Golan, an issue which I have
examined in some detail in my academic work.
Foreign policy tries to be reality-based, and it is tries
to be interest-based. For the past 50 years, the clear reality
has been Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and
everybody agrees that the Israeli presence there is certainly
in U.S. interests and Israeli interests. Nobody is calling for
an Israeli withdrawal in the present circumstances--nobody in
U.S. policy circles.
So the question is why not recognize and give status, give
legal status, to the happy status quo. Why not recognize
Israeli sovereignty? It is generally not the U.S. practice to
not recognize the claimed sovereign borders of countries with
whom it has diplomatic relations.
The principal rationale for not recognizing Israeli
sovereignty over the Golan Heights is a legal one. It is the
claim that Israel's acquisition of the Golan was illegal, and
thus, the U.S. cannot recognize it even if it is, indeed, happy
with the status quo as a policy matter. That legal argument is
inaccurate as I will now describe.
The centerpiece of the argument is the axiom that territory
cannot be acquired by force. And that is a broad stroke
description of a legal rule, which is generally accurate but
lacks important nuance and detail which applies to the present
case.
The basic prohibition on the acquisition of territory by
force is a fairly new one. It comes from the U.N. Charter. The
U.N. Charter, of course, bans the aggressive use of force as an
instrument of state policy. Article 2-4 bans aggression.
As a corollary, it is easy to infer that if you are not
allowed to attack your neighbors aggressively, you are not
allowed to keep what you seize in a war of aggression. That is
because the underlying war is illegal. So if you do something
illegal, you cannot keep the poison fruits.
But not all war is illegal. The U.N. Charter also makes
clear that just as aggression is fundamentally illegal, self-
defense is fundamentally legal and an inherent right of
nations. If the underlying war is legal, there is no reason to
infer the corollary that territorial change resulting from such
war would be illegal. Thus, in a defensive war, acquisition of
force may well be legal.
Now, let us examine what the status of this principle was
in 1967 because we need not ask what is the status of the
legality of defensive conquests today because we need to ask
what was the status in 1967 when the relevant events occurred.
And it is very easy to find out what the status of this rule
was in 1967. You go and see what people were saying about it in
1967 and before 1967.
First of all, it is important to note state practice under
the U.N. Charter. After the passage of the U.N. Charter, it was
not the case that the countries that joined the charter said
defensive conquest is out the window. Indeed, most countries
that were part of the victorious allied cause redrew their
borders to the detriment of the defeated Axis powers after the
adoption of the U.N. Charter. Countries like Holland, France,
Russia, Greece all acquired territory from their defeated
neighbors in the 1940s as a result of World War II. They were
well aware that this would raise a question of what the legal
basis was, and in discussions at the U.N., the answer was quite
clear. Those territorial changes are not precluded by the U.N.
Charter because the underlying war was legal and defensive on
the part of the allies.
This continued into the 1950s. Today the Republic of Korea,
South Korea, controls territory north of the 38th parallel.
Prior to the Korean War, the territory under South Korean
control was entirely south of the 38th parallel, and as a
result of its victory in the defense of the Korean War, it took
some territory north of the 38th parallel, which the U.S.
treats for all purposes a sovereign Korean territory. Certainly
we would not wish to suggest the existence of a rule that would
require the U.S. to reconsider the sovereign status of
territory on the Korean Peninsula currently regarded as
belonging to the Republic of North Korea and transfer it
somehow to the north.
Similarly, the views of academics, leading jurists and the
United Nations experts itself before 1967 clearly reflected the
allowance of a conquest in a defensive war. This issue was
discussed in some detail by the United Nations International
Law Committee, which was created by the United Nations to
formulate a more precise legal draft describing what the U.N.
Charter requires in some detail. The document they came up with
specifically addressed the question of territorial change and
made clear that territorial change in war is only illegal when
the war is itself--when the conduct of the hostilities is in
violation of the U.N. Charter. And of course, the U.N. Charter
recognizes the inherent right of self-defense.
Similarly, scholars before 1967 ----
Mr. DeSantis. Can we just wrap it up because I just want to
get everyone in. We got members here that want to ask
questions.
Mr. Kontorovich. Scholars recognized that there was no
prohibition against defensive conquest and resolution 242 did
not require Israel to withdraw from all territories, again
recognizing this principle.
Members of the committee, chairman, honorable ranking
member, thank you for your time.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Kontorovich follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
Ambassador, you are up.
STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR DANIEL KURTZER
Ambassador Kurtzer. Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member
Lynch, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to join you today.
Drawing on 3 decades of experience in the United States
Foreign Service, including 4 years serving in Israel during the
1980s in the Reagan administration and then 4 more years as
President George W. Bush's Ambassador to Israel, my analysis
and recommendation on this issue is rooted in two questions.
First, is there a compelling American interest that would be
advanced by recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan
Heights? Second, would recognition of Israeli sovereignty
materially enhance Israeli security?
Let me start with the bottom line. The answer to both
questions I believe is no. I believe that our national security
interests counsel in favor of maintaining our existing policy
with respect to Israel, Syria, and the Golan Heights. That
policy includes strong and determined support for Israel's
serious and legitimate security concerns, support for Israel's
humanitarian assistance to victims of the conflict in Syria,
and maintenance of the status quo with respect to the status of
the Golan Heights themselves.
The threats to Israel from Syria are real. Since the start
of the civil war in 2011, the Syrian regime and its allies,
Iran, Iranian proxies, and Hezbollah have threatened Israel's
security from across the Separation of Forces line that was
agreed between Israel and Syria in 1974.
In the face of these threats, Israel's policy has been
retrained and nuanced. Israel has made clear that it has no
interest to interfere in Syria's internal struggles. Israel has
made equally clear that it would act as necessary to safeguard
its security in response to threats emanating from Syrian
territory. Both elements of this Israeli policy were reiterated
last week by Prime Minister Netanyahu before and during his
visit to Moscow.
The United States has wisely supported Israel's actions to
defend itself, including the interdiction of Iranian arms
shipments to Hezbollah via Syria, attacks targeting Iranian
arms depots and installations, and disruption of efforts by
Iran and its proxies to establish a permanent military presence
in Syria. None of these essential actions by Israel would be
enhanced by U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the
Golan Heights.
Israel's current policy and actions, in fact, have garnered
wide understanding and support. Changing the subject now to
Golan's legal status would change the discourse in the region,
including among Arab states that are drawing closer to Israel
in the face of common threats to their own security. Indeed, a
change in U.S. policy would put the focus on this issue instead
of where it belongs, on the murderous actions of the Syrian
regime and the support provided to Syria by Iran and Russia.
As we all know, the issue of Golan's sovereignty is nowhere
near the top of the Middle East's overburdened agenda. What
sense, therefore, does it make to focus on this issue now?
It is also important to recall that Prime Ministers Rabin,
Peres, Netanyahu, Barak, and Olmert have all conducted open or
secret peace talks with Syria in the past that included the
status of Golan as one of the central agenda items.
Notwithstanding Israel's 1981 legislation that extended Israeli
law, jurisdiction, and administration to the Golan Heights,
Prime Minister Rabin's policy articulated in 1993 has de facto
been adopted by all of these prime ministers since then; that
is, Israeli willingness to meet Syria's requirements on
territory if Syria were ready to meet Israel's requirements on
security, water, and the nature of peace. To be sure, I do not
advocate the resumption of peace talks now and surely do not
advocate any change in the status quo on Golan. But it also
makes no sense to introduce the sovereignty issue now in the
midst of the volatile situation in Syria.
Since 1967, the United States has considered Golan to be
occupied territory covered by the provisions of the United
Nations Security Council resolution 242. And the United States
has also been sensitive to Israel's legitimate security needs
as reflected in the 1975 letter sent by President Gerald Ford
to Prime Minister Rabin and reiterated later by subsequent
administrations.
Finally, the United States has a fundamental longstanding
interest in supporting the territorial integrity of states,
even those we do not like. Syria has a very long way to go
before it can reconstruct its politics, society, and economy
and take its place among the civilized nations of the world.
But the Syrian case does not offer a justification for changing
American policy on this crucial principle.
I will close by emphasizing again that the United States
must continue to support Israel's security actions designed to
protect its citizens from attacks emanating from Syria, and the
United States must work with Israel and others to ensure that
Iran, Iranian proxies, and Hezbollah do not establish military
bases in Syria from which to threaten Israel. These are the
challenges for the United States policy and for Israel on which
we should be working together and with others.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ambassador Kurtzer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
Mort Klein, you are up for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MORTON KLEIN
Mr. Klein. Yes. Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch,
members of the committee, thank you for holding this hearing.
First, I simply wanted to say that Rabin also promoted the
Oslo Agreements, which turned out to be a disaster. Sharon
promoted the Gaza withdrawal, which turned out to be a
disaster. And now these and other top experts understand that
giving away any part of Syria will not work, that the Arabs are
not in any way interested in peace. The polls show
overwhelmingly 5 to 1 the Israelis oppose giving up the Golan.
I am going to emphasize three quick areas: security,
historic and legal.
Israeli control over the western two-thirds of the Golan is
a key bulwark against radical regimes and affiliates that
threaten the security and stability of the U.S., Israel, the
entire Middle East and beyond.
The Golan Heights consists of a strategically located high
ground, provides Israel with an irreplaceable ability to
monitor and take countermeasures against growing threats at or
near the Syrian-Israel border. These growing threats include
the extremely dangerous hegemonic expansion of the Iranian,
Syrian, even Russian and North Korean axis, and the presence in
Syria close to the Israeli border of terrorist groups like the
Iran Revolutionary Guard's the Qods Forces, Hezbollah,
Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Syrian forces, and radical Sunni
Islamist groups as well.
The Iranian regime is attempting to build an 800-mile land
bridge to the Mediterranean, running through Iraq and Syria.
Among other things, this would enable Iran to obtain naval
ports far from Iran's mainland that enhance Iran's ability to
deliver advanced weaponry and support to Hezbollah and Iran's
other proxies that wreak terror throughout the world. This
major strategic threat makes it more important than ever to
shore up Israel's position in the Golan.
Several times during the recent past, Israel has
intercepted drones launched and controlled from Syria with the
assistance of Iranian Qods Forces. In February, surface-to-air
missiles in Syria shot down an Israeli F-16 fighter jet. Such
alarming recent incidents confirm the presence of the Iranian
front in Syria and vividly demonstrate the necessity for
assuring Israeli sovereignty over the Golan.
America's moderate Sunni Arab allies would very likely be
pleased by the U.S. recognition of the Israeli sovereignty in
the Golan in that this would help stem Iranian aggression and
the very same terrorist actors confronting our moderate Arab
allies. Indeed, this very past May, after the Iranian Qods
Force launched 20 rockets from Syria into Israel and the
Israeli Air Force responded by striking dozens of military
targets in Syria that belonged to Iran's Qods Force, the Arab
Islamic country of Bahrain issued a public statement supporting
Israel's right to defend herself by destroying the sources of
danger, and Bahrain criticized Iran for using its missiles to
destabilize the region.
The necessity for recognizing Israel's retention of the
Golan was dramatically demonstrated during the 1973 Yom Kippur
War. Israel's presence on the Golan provided Israel with the
strategic depth that enabled forces to assemble and push back
Syria's initially effective surprise invasion. Without the
Golan, Syrian forces could have overrun Israel in a nightmare
scenario. And today, with even more sophisticated weaponry that
are held by these groups, it is even more important that Israel
can never give away the Golan.
Because Israel is our front line in the war to defeat
radical Islamist terror, it is surely in America's self-
interest to ensure that Israel maintains and enhances her
ability to defend herself and defeat these anti-American, anti-
West terrorists.
In sum, bolstering Israel's sovereignty of the Golan by
conferring formal U.S. recognition serves U.S. national
security interests. Therefore, it is eminently sensible to
agree to Prime Minister Netanyahu's and Vice President Pence's
urging U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan.
It also would send a message to Syria and the Palestinian
Authority and the Arab world the jig is up. If you do not
change your behavior, if you do not stop terrorism, if you
refuse to negotiate, you will be held accountable, and you will
lose all support for your demands.
There are, moreover, no possible security arrangements that
can substitute the topographical advantages, early warning
stations, locations, and strategic depth provided by Israel's
retention of the Golan. Israel will lose four of its five early
warning stations if it gives up the Golan.
Moreover, it is the right thing to do. Israel has the
strongest ancient and modern historical claims evidenced by
numerous archaeological finds including dozens of ancient
Jewish synagogues in the Golan, villages and towns in the Golan
Heights. They found Israeli Jewish coins in the Golan. And in
fact, even for those who believe in the Bible, it was promised
to Abraham in the Bible. The Golan Heights was promised in
Deuteronomy 4:43.
Israel also has a legal right to the Golan, stemming from
the Golan's inclusion in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate,
agreed to by the U.S. in an internationally binding treaty.
This mandate required Britain to hold the area in trust for the
reestablishment of the Jewish homeland, but Britain unlawfully
traded the Golan to the French for rights to the Iraqi oil
fields.
I have here a picture. It is very important--of the 1920
Balfour Declaration that includes the Golan to be part of
Israel. Even after they gave up 80 percent of Palestine, Golan
Heights in the 1922 decision was still part of Israel.
U.S. recognition of Israel's sovereignty over the Golan
would implement a U.S. treat obligation that has been U.S. law
for 93 years, and it would help rectify Britain's 95-year
wrong.
During the 21 years when Syria controlled the Golan, there
was no peace. Israel protects the lives and religious rights
and sites of all in the Golan. Moreover, its field hospitals,
humanitarian assistance to Syrian victims shows how important
it is. Plus, it would be a humanitarian nightmare to move
30,000 Jews and 20,000 Druze out of the Golan.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Klein follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSantis. Mort, you are out of time. I want to get to
questions. I know we are going to have a lot for all you guys.
So let me now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Dr. Doran, you do think that U.S. recognition of the Golan
would further U.S. national security interests. Correct?
Mr. Doran. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. DeSantis. Why?
Mr. Doran. Because it promotes stability in the region, and
it is a buffer against all of the malignant forces, whether it
is Iranian or Sunni jihadi forces or simply the forces of the
Assad regime that seek to overturn the American order in the
region and to upset our allies, including Jordan.
Mr. DeSantis. And if the administration were to do that, it
would certainly be a way to push back against terrorism, Iran,
Assad, and Russia. Correct?
Mr. Doran. Absolutely. It would send a message to all of
our allies that we are serious about defending the order that
is under threat. And we would be doing a favor to--our allies
may feel compelled to protest. I disagree with Ambassador
Kurtzer. I do not think we will change the agenda. The major
agenda item in the region is the growth of the Iranian-Russian
alliance and its effort to overturn the existing order. I think
we will have a day of protest about the Golan, and then it will
be forgotten.
Mr. DeSantis. Ambassador Gold, would this be in Israel's
national security interest to have U.S. recognition of the
Golan?
Ambassador Gold. I believe U.S. recognition of Israel's
sovereignty on the Golan would unquestionably be in Israel's
security interest. Look, everyone talks about Israeli forces
staying on the Golan Heights. That is in the famous Ford letter
from 1975, repeated again by James Baker's letter before
Madrid, repeated again by Warren Christopher's letter to
Israel. So that concept is a bipartisan concept.
Now, let us use our minds for a minute. How do you keep
Israeli forces on the Golan Heights if people think it is
Syrian sovereign territory? I do not think a seminar at Harvard
Law School could figure this one out.
Mr. DeSantis. That actually may be the last place you would
want to figure it out.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeSantis. That is neither here nor there. I speak from
experience.
Ambassador Gold. What I am saying is the best way to
assure----
Mr. Lynch. As a Harvard guy, I want to object to that.
Ambassador Gold. The best way to assure that is to do the
logical thing and assure Israeli sovereignty, and that will
protect the Israeli military presence that almost everybody
agrees must be continued, particularly when you are at the end
of a war in Syria where a number of countries are now going to
come and say, okay, how do we create a new order in Syria? We
get rid of the Israelis in the Golan. Prevent it. Establish
Israeli sovereignty.
Mr. DeSantis. Professor, if people disagree with your
analysis, is that not basically saying that you can commit acts
of aggression and not really pay a price for it?
Mr. Kontorovich. Quite the opposite.
Mr. DeSantis. Well, no. The people who disagree with you
are saying that countries can commit acts of aggression and not
end up paying a price for it. Right?
Mr. Kontorovich. That is exactly right. The notion of the
defensive conquest would be prohibited, for example, that
Israel's control of the Golan is only temporary is, in effect,
an insurance policy for aggressors because they know if they
attack a neighboring country, maybe they will succeed and at
least they will break even. Even if a country is properly
occupying territory of an aggressor, they have to give it back
at some point. And what that does is it incentivizes not just
aggression but also a failure to make peace because a regime
like Damascus will know that they will not lose territory by
attacking, and even 50 years of failure to make peace, they
could still get the territory back.
Mr. DeSantis. Mr. Klein, you were here when we did our
embassy investigation at a hearing last year, and a lot of
people were saying, oh, you know, it is just not the right
time. You cannot do it. But that was a very successful decision
and successful move. I think most of us look at that now.
Do we not have a lot of momentum right now to continue
leading, have the U.S. administration lead on some of these
issues and make a lot of progress? So to me, now is the perfect
time to do this.
Mr. Klein. Yes. Also, it was predicted that the Palestinian
Authority would have a range terrorist attacks which never
developed. I think because America is showing their strength,
now you see in Iran demonstrations condemning Palestine. There
is no such country, but the Palestinian Authority. So this is
really a time to continue and send a message that the jig is
up. You will not permit to be supporting your demands that are
not only erroneous but not support your demands when you
continue to promote terrorism, you continue to refuse to
negotiate with Israel. And I think this will be yet a further
step in that realm where the Arab will get a very powerful
message supported by the moderate Arab countries, I believe
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and UAE.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you. My time has expired.
I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Lynch, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all again.
Ambassador Kurtzer, let me rephrase or let me repeat
Professor Kontorovich's question. No one is calling for Israeli
withdrawal from the Golan. Why not support the happy status
quo?
Ambassador Kurtzer. Congressman, that is exactly right, and
that has exactly been American policy since 1967. In 1975, when
President Ford did send a letter to Prime Minister Rabin, which
was reiterated later on, it recognized Israel's very
significant security interests. And what that letter said was
that at the time when Israel and Syria would try to reach an
agreement on the status of the Golan Heights, the United States
would give great weight to Israel's position of remaining. It
did not declare support for sovereignty because that would be
denying the two parties the ability to make their own sovereign
choices. So we had a smart policy in 1975, and that policy has
continued until today.
The key issue--and I go to the chairman's first question to
Dr. Doran--is how does this serve American national interests.
And the answer is it does not because it would, in fact, change
the discourse from focusing on Israeli security to focusing on
this question when it needs not to happen now.
Mr. Lynch. Right.
I had an opportunity several times to visit the Golan,
going back to my days in the State Senate in Massachusetts. I
do recall having dinner with a family in Tiberius, and the
Golan is looming over that entire city or town. So there is a
palpable need for security in that area.
And the letters from Gerald Ford and I think it was Warren
Christopher and others have repeated this narrative that the
Golan is necessary--Israeli forces in the Golan are necessary
to Israel's security because of the actions that have taken
place there. And it is real. It is necessary. It is important.
My worry is that instead of the happy status quo where the
Golan and areas there that are vulnerable and protected, we
change the narrative away from one of Israeli defense to one
where we are overreaching--the United States. And in the
circumstances that we have right now--I mean, the reports this
morning. We have got, they are saying, hundreds of thousands of
people fleeing the conflict between the rebels and the forces
of Bashar al Assad and Iranian militia and Russian air cover--
are fleeing into the area next to the Golan.
Do we want to change that narrative? Do we want to change
the one of supporting Israel's right to defend itself to one
where the talk is Israel's annexing the Golan in violation of
the previous agreement that has been in place since 1974 at
least, if not, 1967? Do we want to change that narrative?
Ambassador Kurtzer. Congressman Lynch, I think you are
exactly right. The issue now is one of garnering support
internationally through our diplomacy through our work in
various fora, support for Israel's security requirements. And
that is becoming more successful as many in the Arab world see
a common threat emanating from Iran. You would not find Arab
support for the recognition of Israeli sovereignty in Golan.
And if the subcommittee wants to test that proposition, invite
the Ambassador of Bahrain, the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia and
Egypt ----
Mr. Lynch. Jordan.
Ambassador Kurtzer.--to a hearing and ask them to declare
publicly that they think it would be a good idea. If they say
it is, then I would be happy to tell the subcommittee that I am
wrong. I do not think they are going to make that statement
publicly.
Mr. Lynch. The other aspect of--and I have great respect
for the professor. This idea that military conquest transfers
the rights to ownership. That means that whoever wins the last
war has the right, the legitimate right, for that territory.
Especially in the Middle East, that is a dangerous, dangerous
proposition, and it is one that I do not think following that
policy leads to a safe and secure and a peaceful Middle East or
a safe and secure Israel either.
My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. DeSantis. Do you want to respond?
Ambassador Kurtzer. Just one comment.
Mr. DeSantis. Let us give the professor just a quick--be
short, and then I am going to recognize Mr. Hice.
Mr. Kontorovich. Mr. Lynch, a quick clarification of the
position being outlined here. It is not that territory can be
taken in any war or even in most wars. It is that when a
country that is itself attacked in the exercise of its self-
defense changes the frontiers. Now, we recognize that self-
defense is legal. So we need to make that judgment. We believe
we can make that judgment, that we can tell Crimea apart from
the Golan. And if we cannot tell aggression from defense, if it
all looks the same, then the entire basis of the U.N. Charter
security system is undermined.
Mr. Lynch. Right, and I totally respect that. But even in
today's testimony, we have gone back to the Bible. So every
nation in the Middle East at some point can claim that they
were the victim of aggression. Do you see where that leads,
especially in this area? We go back to the Books of
Deuteronomy, you know, the right of possession of the Golan, as
presented to Abraham. It is never-ending if you apply that rule
in this region because of the history. That is all.
And I totally respect your scholarship and your willingness
to come here and help us with our work. Thank you.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back.
The chair notes the presence of the gentleman from
Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, a member of the full committee. We
thank you for your interest in this topic. And without
objection, we welcome him to participate fully in today's
hearing. Seeing no objection, it is so ordered.
And the chair also notes the presence of Congressman Perry
of Pennsylvania. We appreciate your interest in this topic and
welcome your participation. I ask unanimous consent that
Congressman Perry be permitted to fully participate in today's
hearing. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The same with Mr. Lamborn. I would like the same unanimous
consent. Without objection, it is so ordered.
And the chair will now recognize Mr. Hice for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Gold, how important was President Trump's
decision to move the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem?
Ambassador Gold. While that is not the subject today
formally, it was extremely important and extremely appreciated
by the vast majority of the people of Israel.
Mr. Hice. And we were told that it would create all sorts
of havoc in the region, and it did not do so. It seems to me
that the same basic principles apply here as we are discussing
Golan. So I think the point of that move being very positive in
every way without creating the fear and the turmoil that was
expected by some is a valid point for what we are doing now.
Now we have Assad's regime. A campaign in southern Syria
obviously threatening Israel's sovereignty. What are the
implications of that?
Ambassador Gold. Well, again, the current campaign, which
Assad's people say is to recover Syrian territory from ISIS, is
really part of a much wider effort of the Iranian axis, which
they call themselves the Axis of Resistance, to establish this
land bridge across the Middle East which will enshrine Iranian
hegemony in the region. That should be our point of departure.
You know, if some Arab states are not willing to come to
this committee and extol the idea of Israeli sovereignty over
the Golan Heights, it is because our diplomatic work--and I was
involved in Golan negotiations for the state of Israel. I was
involved in contacts with the Arab states. You can reach
agreements quietly but not publicly on a lot of sensitive
issues. I do not believe that suddenly Bahrain or Saudi Arabia
or Kuwait or the UAE would downgrade their relations with the
United States because the United States recognized the Golan
Heights as Israeli sovereign territory. To the contrary, you
would be serving the interests of the anti-Iranian group among
the Middle Eastern states.
Mr. Lynch. Exactly. And that is why we have a role of
leadership in this whole question.
So how would the question of Golan sovereignty factor into
what currently Syria is doing?
Ambassador Gold. Well, there would no longer be a question
mark about the Golan Heights, that if the Syrians could launch
a surprise attack and seize some territory, they could move a
diplomatic process that allows them to take Golan territory at
the end of the day. That would be defeated. It would be clear
that the United States is on the side of Israel staying on the
Golan Heights permanently. And I think it would deter
aggression rather than stimulate it.
Mr. Hice. I agree with you.
Dr. Doran, let me go to you now with a similar but expanded
question. What impact would U.S. recognition of Israeli
sovereignty over the Golan Heights have pertaining specifically
to Russia and Iran?
Mr. Doran. It would send a message to all parties,
including the Russians and the Iranians, about what the United
States expects the new Syria to look like. The Russians and the
Iranians are working hard to create a Syria that is going to be
a Russian and Iranian base of operations in the whole region.
And this is one way that we can very powerfully say to them and
to the Syrians that we do not accept that and that we have a
different vision of the new Syria. And it would also condition
our talks with the Syrian people and the Syrian governments in
the future.
It was noted that the previous Israeli prime ministers sat
down with the Syrian representatives and entertained the
possibility of returning to the 4 June 1967 line. Those talks
were not simply bilateral Israeli-Syrian talks. Those were
talks by the Syrians with the Israelis very much with the
intention of influencing Washington. And so Washington would be
sending a message to the Syrians that if you want--to the
future Syrian governments, if you want good relations with the
United States, and you want to sit down comfortably with the
American-led order, it means accepting the Golan as part of
Israel. And we would strengthen the Israeli governments, we
would strengthen the backbone of Israeli governments, and we
would take off of the agenda the possibility of rolling back
Israel.
Mr. Hice. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin for 5
minutes.
Mr. Grothman. A few questions.
Just doing a little bit of a check here, it looks like the
Golan Heights would be the equivalent of 24 square miles. I
mean 24 miles by 24 miles. I should say about 500 square miles.
How many people live in that area right now? Does anyone
know?
Mr. Klein. About 50,000.
Mr. Grothman. 50,000 people?
And who lives there, if you had to describe them
ethnically?
Mr. Klein. It is 30,000 Jews and 20,000 Druze.
Mr. Grothman. No traditional Arabs or ----
Mr. Klein. Virtually none.
Mr. Grothman. Could you describe the economy of the Golan
Heights?
Mr. Kontorovich. It is overwhelmingly based on tourism.
There is also agriculture, and now there are some clean energy
industries being explored.
Mr. Grothman. Could you describe the economy today compared
to the economy 50 years ago?
Mr. Kontorovich. The economy is vastly more developed. It
is accessible to tourists. All of the infrastructure in the
area has been done by Israel since 1967.
Mr. Grothman. Could you compare the economy of the Israeli
occupied Golan Heights to the Golan Heights immediately
adjacent to it ----
Mr. Kontorovich. The Syrian Golan Heights is now
principally a battleground between different rebel groups and
themselves and between rebel groups and Assad. It is a desolate
wasteland.
Mr. Grothman. I would say could you describe the quality of
agriculture on the area controlled by Israel compared to the
area controlled by Syria?
Mr. Kontorovich. The Israeli side produces internationally
recognized, very fine wines. It is also the major source of
Israeli beefstock.
Mr. Grothman. Does it look a lot greener on the Israeli
side?
Mr. Kontorovich. It is a lot greener and it is quite
beautiful.
Mr. Grothman. Why is that?
Mr. Kontorovich. Because of the quality of the agriculture,
the quality of the irrigation, and the lack of a prolonged
ethnic cleansing process.
Mr. Grothman. The people who previously were--obviously,
Syria is a problem. They are made up of a lot of ethnic groups
that do not get along. The people who have left the Golan--how
would you describe their ethnicity?
Mr. Kontorovich. The Druze on the Golan?
Mr. Grothman. The ones who left.
Mr. Kontorovich. So very few Druze left during the war. The
1968 war ended too fast for anyone to run away.
Mr. Grothman. Did any people leave the Golan ----
Mr. Kontorovich. No. It was not a source of refugees.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. So the same people are living there now
who basically lived there 50 years ago.
Mr. Kontorovich. That is exactly right.
Mr. Grothman. Is there anything that could be done kind of
short of full recognition that would be a step in that
direction?
Mr. Kontorovich. Several steps could be taken. Encouraging
congressional delegations to visit is a simple step. Putting in
the foreign aid budget for Israel an explicit permission for
Israel to use money appropriated to it for defense and other
purposes in the Golan Heights. Encouraging the creation of
joint defense and research projects in the Golan Heights. And
modifying the U.S.-Israel joint science research agreements to
explicitly allow the use of funds for research on agriculture
and clean energy in the Golan Heights.
Mr. Grothman. It seems to me a lot of anti-Israeli feeling
in this country is focused on this boycott-divest sanctions
effort. How does this effort use the Golan Heights?
Mr. Kontorovich. The Golan Heights is completely subject to
efforts of economic warfare against Israel. While the BDS
movement claims that their goal is Palestinian self-
determination, the boycott aspect is applied 100 percent to the
Golan where there is no question of Palestinian self-
determination. Crucially United Nations resolutions that seek
to promote economic strangleholds on Israeli territories apply
to the Golan. EU labeling policies apply to the Golan. And
there is no distinction made even though there is no claim of
self-determination or a right to statehood in this area.
Mr. Grothman. Anybody else could jump in too. Anybody
trying to leave--you said we have 30,000 Israeli Jews in there
and 20,000 Druze. Is that right? Is anybody trying to leave? Is
anybody unhappy that Israel is running it right now?
Mr. Doran. No, they are not unhappy. You only need to look
at what is going on in Syria and see that they do not want to
trade their status in Israel for Syrian citizenship.
Mr. Grothman. Or Jordan or Lebanon?
Mr. Doran. Or Jordan or Lebanon. But they have kept their
Syrian citizenship if they want to. Younger people are
accepting Israeli citizenship, which is on offer.
But those who have not accepted Israeli citizenship are not
doing it because they necessarily prefer Syrian citizenship.
They have done it because there is a question mark over the
status of the Golan and it might go back to Assad. And if they
choose Israeli citizenship over Syrian citizenship and it goes
back to Assad, then they and their families fear retribution.
Mr. Grothman. I guess I have used my 5 minutes. Thank you
very much.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado for 5
minutes.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing. It is an issue that I have been very interested
in for a long time. So this is a very timely and important
issue. In fact, in the last Congress, I introduced House
resolution 768 expressing the sense of the House that it is in
the U.S. national security interest for Israel to maintain
control of the Golan Heights.
So this has been great testimony that you have all
provided. I appreciate that. But I do want to focus in more
than we have so far on Iran and Iran's designs. We have talked
a little bit about the land bridge, and that has been helpful.
Has the status quo changed? Ambassador Kurtzer, you
mentioned the status quo. For 50-some years, Israel has been
maintaining a status quo, you say, and a happy status quo. I
have heard that phrase. But have things not changed, Ambassador
Gold or Dr. Doran, with Iran's involvement in the Syrian civil
war, Iran's stated intentions to find ways to annihilate
Israel? Not that that language has changed, but their ability
to do so or harm Israel at least has changed due to their
proximity now to the Golan Heights and their involvement in
Golan Heights, their involvement in Lebanon.
So for the two of you, could you comment on whether the
status quo has changed to the point where the U.S. policy
should change?
Ambassador Gold. Well, one issue which I did raise is
Iranian planning. The fact of the matter is that the Iranians
are planning on building a very large army. Now, these Shiite
militias are trained and equipped by Iran and deployed in
Syria. The goal, according to General Soleimani himself, is to
get to 150,000 men.
Now, remember, Israel does not keep the whole Israeli army
on the Golan Heights. It has a small blocking force. The number
of soldiers it puts there is classified. But after 48 hours, we
get to full mobilization. Then we can withstand an attack.
Now, if there is a massive Iranian force in the next 5 to 6
years that develops in Syria that plans to attack Israel,
Israel's dependence on the Golan Heights and the initial
terrain conditions that the Golan presents to Israel will
become more vital.
One of the witnesses who was supposed to appear here was
General Giora Eiland, and he was the mastermind and the
architect ----
Mr. Lamborn. If you could summarize because I am running
out of time.
Ambassador Gold. Okay. Well, I am just saying there is no
alternative to Israeli military presence on the Golan Heights
enshrined, protected diplomatically by Israeli sovereignty.
Mr. Lamborn. And by U.S. recognition of that sovereignty?
Ambassador Gold. And U.S. recognition of that sovereignty.
That would be the strongest defense of Israel in the
international community.
Mr. Lamborn. And, Dr. Doran, if you could answer that but
throw in the following thought. Have relations between Israel
and the neighboring friendly Arab states given Iran's threats
that have united this sort of ad hoc coalition--has that
changed the status quo as well?
Mr. Doran. It has totally changed the status quo.
There, I think, three major factors at work here that make
the map of the Middle East today totally different than when
U.N. resolution 242 was issued. One is the rise of the
Iranians. The second is the question mark about American power.
The United States has downgraded the Middle East somewhat in
its foreign policy, and everyone in the region wonders who much
has it been downgraded. And the third thing is the near
disintegration of Syria.
So I leave it to Professor Kontorovich to say whether this
is a valid legal principle, but I think it should be a
principle of our policy that the entity that was in Syria when
U.N. resolution 242 was issued is no longer there. When we are
negotiating with the Assad regime now, behind it is Iran.
Behind it is Russia. This is not an entity like Egypt that can
make a guarantee about the borders of Syria that we can rely on
in any serious respect. So if we are holding this in escrow for
this entity to take over, the entity is not there anymore. I do
not know if that is a legal principle, but it should be a
policy principle.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Vermont for 5
minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you.
I want to give Ambassador Kurtzer a chance to respond to
some of the points that were made. In listening to your
testimony, as I understood it, Israel does have a secure
position on the Golan now. There is no suggestion that that be
taken away, and that there would be, as you saw it, a number of
collateral consequences to an annexation. I am sorry that I
missed some of the questioning as I was at another hearing, but
I would welcome your response to some of the points that were
made.
Ambassador Kurtzer. Thank you, Congressman.
The reality right now is that no one--no one--is seriously
questioning Israel's control of this territory. We have not
questioned that control since 1967. And there is a distinction
then between the issue of sovereignty and the issue of control.
The United States I think in a bipartisan and very serious way
has supported Israel's right to defend itself. We need to
continue to do that. I think some of the things mentioned by
Professor Kontorovich in terms of ways of enhancing our
relationship with Israel should definitely be considered by the
Congress. But that is a far cry from changing the subject to a
question of sovereignty.
Today Israel is on the high ground, both literally,
physically but also diplomatically and morally and, as a result
of that, it has gained a tremendous amount of support
internationally, including in the region, for what it is doing
to counteract malign Iranian influence.
Why change the subject now to this question, a legal
question, which is not on anybody's agenda? And it does not
enhance American foreign policy to be changing the agenda at
this point.
Mr. Welch. Now, you mentioned that Israel has significant
improvement in relations with a number of the Arab states. And
could you elaborate on your view as to how this would
complicate that progress?
Ambassador Kurtzer. Look, right now, most of the improved
relations between Israel and the states with which it does not
have a peace treaty are conducted behind the curtain. There is
intelligence cooperation, strategic cooperation, a great deal
of political dialogue. Most of these countries would be
unwilling to come out from behind that curtain in support of a
claim of sovereignty. They have their own domestic audiences,
the so-called Arab Street.
I do not suggest that a recognition of sovereignty would
bring people into the street. There is not going to be major
demonstrations or violence, but it would force Arab states to
take positions against Israel at a time when they are working
with Israel on Israel's important security interests, as well
as their own security interests.
Mr. Welch. One final question. I have always appreciated
what I thought was the United States' role of trying to be a
peacemaker and the honest broker. And there are some people who
see some of the decisions like the unilateral move of the
capital to Jerusalem, supported by many people here, but not by
everyone, as compromising the capacity of the U.S. to play that
role. Do you see any issue related to the U.S. pushing
sovereignty complicating its role ultimately to be a
collaborative player in a peace process in the region?
Ambassador Kurtzer. I think there is no question,
Congressman. Look, we have seen, with respect to the move of
the embassy to Jerusalem, how it has complicated the American
role in the peace process that the President has said he wants
to resolve. The Palestinians are not talking to us. It is true
they did not burn down an embassy. They did not riot. But they
have taken themselves out of the game, and they have said that
the United States is not an honest broker.
By the U.S. recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan
Heights at a moment when it is not part of the discourse, it is
not part of the diplomacy, would force Arab states also to
distance themselves from U.S. leadership, which is critical at
this very difficult period in the region.
Mr. Welch. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back.
I want to thank our witnesses again for appearing before us
today.
The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks for any
member to submit a written opening statement or questions for
the record.
And if there is no further business, without objection, the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]