Blog

The Golan Heights (Gavlanitis in the Hellenistic and Roman periods) are the new front of confrontation in the Middle East. President Trump's decision to sign the relevant decree, where the US now recognizes Israeli sovereignty over the Golan, has triggered the expected, we would say, new tensions in the wider region. Already Iran, Russia and Turkey, as directly involved in the Syrian war, as well as some Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, have already expressed their reaction to this decision of the US president. So far, the EU refuses to follow the US in changing the status of the Golan Heights.

An area that Israel occupied since 1967 in the lightning Six-Day War and finally annexed in 1981, a fact that was not accepted by the international community. But why do these heights have such historical and political significance?
Sometimes history plays strange games and the final decisions of leaders determine the course of history for nations, countries, and conflicting areas. The Golan Heights are an area, a plateau, a plateau of 1800 sq. km. KM, north of the Sea of ​​Galilee, of which Syria occupies 600 sq. km and Israel 1200 sq. km. Israel occupied and has occupied this area since 1967, transforming it from a barren area into a greenhouse for the production of all agricultural products.

The Golan Heights are of strategic importance, not only because it is the source of the Jordan River, Israel's main water source, but also because the area of ​​the Heights dominates the valley leading to Damascus. From Mount Hermon, which it occupies in the north of the Golan, it overlooks and threatens Damascus, which is 40 km away. The Golan is Israel's natural bastion, its defensive fortress on its northern border, and it is considered difficult for them to withdraw and fully cede the heights to Syria, although they historically belong to it.
And yet nine years ago, in 2010, before the so-called "Arab Spring" and the horrific war in Syria even began, Israel had decided to cede most of the Golan, retaining some territory on the southern side of the heights for security reasons, as well as full control of the Jordan River, west of the heights, for control of water resources, an essential element for Israel.

Israel's plan
Thus, Israel proposed to Syria in 2010 the withdrawal of Israeli forces up to the so-called Ridge Line, ceding to Syria almost the entire Golan, along with all existing inhabited areas. The proposals of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, namely for withdrawal up to the Ridge Line, as we see on the map, also include the eastern bank of the Jordan River and in fact at a distance of 2,5 km from it in the last Golan Heights before the Jordan River Valley, the Hula Valley and the Sea (lake) of Galilee.

Israeli proposals for withdrawal from the Golan Heights in 2010.
Observing the Ridge Line, we find that it provides at least two strategic advantages for Israel, comparing it to the total withdrawal from the Golan to the Jordan River, which was the border in 1967:

Israel, by maintaining control of the west and east banks of the Jordan River, maintains control of the river's water resources, which are Israel's main water supply. Furthermore, Israel's military presence on both banks provides it with the ability to easily and quickly transfer its military power back to the Golan Heights in the event of war.
The Ridge Line constitutes a natural barrier to entry and exit from the Golan. It provides the populated areas of the Hula and Galilee valleys, below the Golan, with a military "firewall" from military actions, as occurred before 1967, and also constitutes a substantial obstacle to the possible advance of Syrian tanks, in the event of operations, in the direction from the Golan towards the lower northeastern regions of Israel.

US intervention
So in September 2009, Middle East negotiator George Mitchell made a surprise visit to Damascus to achieve a major diplomatic success: the start of Syrian-Israeli peace talks. He brought with him a detailed map, with official Israeli proposals for withdrawal from the Golan Heights, which he presented to Syrian President Bashar Assad.
However, Damascus had and still has special friendly relations and military-strategic ties with Iran and even hosted on its territory the leading groups or nuclei of extremist Islamist organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and some other lesser-known organizations, which were considered terrorist by the US, Israel and the West.
France also joined in this effort, with then-President Nicolas Sarkozy appointing diplomat Jean-Claude Coucheran as special negotiator to promote Syrian-Israeli peace talks. Coucheran took the job and traveled to Damascus in September 2010 and had secret and very personal talks with President Assad.
After these talks, President Sarkozy informed the US President and the US Secretary of State that the door was now open for negotiator George Mitchell to present the Syrian president with the map and Israel's proposals, which he did. The negotiations, unfortunately, ultimately did not succeed and according to many analysts, if an agreement had been reached and a peace treaty had been signed with Israel, the future of Syria would be different today.

Frederick Hoff's design
Prime Minister Netanyahu considered his proposals to be similar to the plan of Frederick Hoff, the Syria expert and member of Mitchell's team, who proposed the Israeli withdrawal in two stages and up to the Ridge Line. Thus, in the first stage, Hoff had proposed the Israeli withdrawal up to the central Golan, while Israel would maintain early warning stations and advanced outposts on Mount Hermon in the north of the Golan, 40 km from Damascus. Israel would also occupy both banks of the Jordan River.
In the second stage, Israel would occupy the southern and southwestern slopes of the Golan up to the Jordan and Yarmouk rivers, which are impassable to tanks and armored vehicles, constituting another natural obstacle and at the same time a natural protection from military actions of the other side. Israel could withdraw west of the Jordan River after years, when peace has been consolidated and relations of trust with Syria have been fully restored.
As we can see, the two plans were similar and Netanyahu was ready to make modifications to his plan, adopting various proposals from the Hof plan. Of course, Hof had informed President Assad of Syria that for the start and progress of the processes, he would have to distance himself from organizations that the Americans (and the Israelis and the West) consider terrorist, such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.
Unfortunately, all efforts by the US and France to reach an agreement and sign a peace treaty between Israel and Syria, along the lines of the agreements with Egypt and Jordan, ultimately failed and relations between the two states remained as they were, namely hostile and in a state of war, which ultimately proved disastrous for Syria, with the events that followed the following year. And the reason?
Iran, under the then extremist president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, literally banned any negotiating contact with their great enemy, the Zionist entity, as they called Israel. And the great opportunity for a major step towards peace in the region, but also for a different future for Syria, was unfortunately lost forever. What followed the following year with the war in Syria and the destruction of a very beautiful country is known to all of us.

Why the Hof plan failed
The Israelis really wanted to resolve this issue, by ceding the Golan, while ensuring national security issues and deterring hostile actions. Israel also wanted to maintain control of the water resources of the Jordan River, since water is Israel's most scarce commodity. The question that arises is why would Israel cede an area that, from a barren plateau, has transformed into a literal promised land, a Garden of Eden, with excellent products such as its famous wines?
According to all analysts, with this concession, it solved most of its problems. By giving up the Golan, it secured its northern borders and at the same time weakened and deprived its main enemies and rivals (Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.) of friendship, support, resources, hospitality of leading groups and many other advantages.
On the other hand, President Assad's Syria was trapped in its desire to regain without war the territories it had lost in war by signing a peace treaty with an undisputed enemy and on the other hand to comply with the policy and orders of its main ally, Iran, which considers Israel to be its greatest enemy, as well as the entire Arab world. In the end, it adopted Iran's "order". The rest is now history.

Everything would be different.
But here a question arises. If Syria had accepted the developments that were taking place in 2010, under the auspices of the US, and had accepted the peace agreement with Israel, would we have had the developments of the Arab Spring? According to many authoritative Middle East analysts, whom I personally accept and advocate, Syria would not be in its current situation.
The agreement with Israel, under the approval of the US, we emphasize this, because we know today who were the inspirers and "sponsors" of the worst form of US policy in the region, the Arab Spring and the creation and expansion of today's greatest nightmare, Jihadism, would constitute a safety net for this long-suffering country. An Arab country, unique, beautiful, multicultural, multi-religious, with freedom of speech, faith and pioneering works for an Arab country compared to the other Arab countries of the Middle East.
Unfortunately for the Syrian people, the decision of their leadership was disastrous for the future of the country, but who knew then what would follow in a few months? Thus we see that from luck, or a miscalculation by a country's political leadership, colossal issues can arise, which can lead to its destruction.
Finally, we would say that the American action is also of great importance for international politics, since it comes after a series of unilateral political moves, where the great powers, through force and military force, impose de facto border changes. Recent examples are the way the US imposed the "independence" of Kosovo, making it a protectorate. On the other hand, we saw how Russia intervened in a similar way in the Donbass of Ukraine and divided this region and even more evidently, the way it seized and annexed Crimea, areas that belong to Ukraine. They are characteristic examples of how the great powers are indifferent to and violate International Law and the basic principle of the inviolability of state borders. And it concerns us, because of Cyprus and Turkey's behavior in this regard.

* Ioannis Athan. Baltzoi is a Lieutenant General (ret.), former Defense Attaché in Tel Aviv, former ECMM Operations Officer in the Bosnian War, a graduate of the Tactical Intelligence School (US Army), with a Master's Degree (M.Sc.) in Geopolitical Analysis, Geostrategic Composition and Defense and International Law Studies from the National Kapodistrian University of Athens, member of the Board of Directors of the Hellenic Institute for Strategic Studies (ELISME).