english.daralhayat.com 2008/09/07 17:26 GMT

Westminster Notes (The Golan Heights)

Sir Cyril Townsend Al-Hayat 2004/01/8

It would be agreeable to be able to report that significant coverage was given in the British media to Israel's plans to double the number of Jewish settlers living on the Golan Heights. Not so. It was only briefly mentioned in the serious papers, and yet again one had the impression that for most newspapers Syria does not appear on the radar screen, and does not exist in the minds of their readers. While at least the outlines of the Arab-Israel dispute are known to most people in Britain - and there is a problem over the endless repetition of bad news - the fact that Israel is still occupying a large chunk of Syrian territory is not generally known in Britain.

The timing of the Israeli announcement by Yisrael Katz, an Israeli Cabinet Minister responsible for the plan, was curious. Only last month President Bashar Al Assad of Syria had suggested during an interview that his country was willing to resume discussions with Israel. This was a prudent decision by Syria, which has appeared, month by month, both more isolated and vulnerable. But Israel's announcement stamped that idea into the ground. Israel has been getting even worse publicity than usual following Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's threat to "initiate the unilateral security step of disengagement from the Palestinians". This had infuriated the Bush Administration and most member states at the United Nations. Why then select this moment at the New Year to annoy everybody even more?

One view offered was that Israel wants to strengthen its hold on the Golan Heights before opening talks with Syria. This at least raises the faint possibility that there might be such talks during 2004. It makes little sense. Crudely, Israel is the occupying power with massive military superiority, is not taking any notice of international law and its legal responsibilities, and can increase its hold any day it likes. The best way of doing so would be to do it slowly and quietly.

Like almost all readers of al-Hayat I have not been up on the Golan Heights recently. However, in July 1974 as a very green MP, I was taken there by the Israeli authorities as part of a European Parliamentary group. I recall vividly looking down on the extensive ruins of the principal city on the Golan, Qunaitra, and being made aware of the very considerable strategic importance of this high ground.

All too few people now recall that 139 Arab villages flourished on the Golan Heights before the six-day war of 1967, and of those 131 were systematically destroyed by the ruthless Israeli army. In that process at least 130,000 Syrian civilians were forced to flee. One can still see in old photos the vast network of stone walls, which marked the former pastures, orchards and wheat fields.

The world was briefed in 1967 that the Syrians had been using the high ground to shell the kibbutzim in the valley below day after day, and this pretext was used to justify the capture of the Golan Heights. But the late General Moshe Dayan made it clear years afterwards that the Syrians were carefully provoked, and he gave an entirely different account of events. Such is the effect of successful propaganda that the world still knows the pretext and not the General's total rejection of it.

Israeli colonisation commenced immediately after the fighting. Merom Golan, the first settlement, was established on 15^th July 1967. It is worth remembering - even if the remark is chilling - that General Ariel Sharon promised the settlers in 1979: "We will never leave the Golan for any price, not even for peace with Syria."

My suspicion would be that his thinking twenty-five years later would still be as short sighted and foolish. The Knesset formally annexed the Golan Heights in 1981, and there are now over 25,000 settlers in over 30 settlements.

The world community clearly supports the return of the Golan Heights to Syria. Surely it is no more acceptable that Israel should be occupying this area by force of arms than it would be if Germany still occupied Belgium or Holland? The accelerated expansion of settlements on the Golan can be compared to what has been happening in and around Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

According to the UN Charter one of the purposes of the UN is: "to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace."

Increased occupation by Israeli citizens of Syria's Golan Heights represents a situation "which might lead to a breach of the peace". Syria, and the 15,000 Syrians still living on the Golan Heights, are fully entitled to the active protection of the United Nations.

<h1>Westminster Notes (The Golan Heights)</h1><h4>Sir Cyril Townsend     Al-Hayat     2004/01/8</h4>It would be agreeable to be able to report that significant coverage was given in the British media to Israel's plans to double the number of Jewish settlers living on the Golan Heights.  Not so.  It was only briefly mentioned in the serious papers, and yet again one had the impression that for most newspapers Syria does not appear on the radar screen, and does not exist in the minds of their readers.  While at least the outlines of the Arab-Israel dispute are known to most people in Britain - and there is a problem over the endless repetition of bad news - the fact that Israel is still occupying a large chunk of Syrian territory is not generally known in Britain.The timing of the Israeli announcement by Yisrael Katz, an Israeli Cabinet Minister responsible for the plan, was curious.  Only last month President Bashar Al Assad of Syria had suggested during an interview that his country was willing to resume discussions with Israel.  This was a prudent decision by Syria, which has appeared, month by month, both more isolated and vulnerable.  But Israel's announcement stamped that idea into the ground.  Israel has been getting even worse publicity than usual following Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's threat to "initiate the unilateral security step of disengagement from the Palestinians".  This had infuriated the Bush Administration and most member states at the United Nations.  Why then select this moment at the New Year to annoy everybody even more?One view offered was that Israel wants to strengthen its hold on the Golan Heights before opening talks with Syria.  This at least raises the faint possibility that there might be such talks during 2004.  It makes little sense.  Crudely, Israel is the occupying power with massive military superiority, is not taking any notice of international law and its legal responsibilities, and can increase its hold any day it likes.  The best way of doing so would be to do it slowly and quietly.Like almost all readers of al-Hayat I have not been up on the Golan Heights recently.  However, in July 1974 as a very green MP, I was taken there by the Israeli authorities as part of a European Parliamentary group.  I recall vividly looking down on the extensive ruins of the principal city on the Golan, Qunaitra, and being made aware of the very considerable strategic importance of this high ground.All too few people now recall that 139 Arab villages flourished on the Golan Heights before the six-day war of 1967, and of those 131 were systematically destroyed by the ruthless Israeli army.  In that process at least 130,000 Syrian civilians were forced to flee.  One can still see in old photos the vast network of stone walls, which marked the former pastures, orchards and wheat fields.The world was briefed in 1967 that the Syrians had been using the high ground to shell the kibbutzim in the valley below day after day, and this pretext was used to justify the capture of the Golan Heights.  But the late General Moshe Dayan made it clear years afterwards that the Syrians were carefully provoked, and he gave an entirely different account of events.  Such is the effect of successful propaganda that the world still knows the pretext and not the General's total rejection of it.Israeli colonisation commenced immediately after the fighting.  Merom Golan, the first settlement, was established on 15th July 1967.  It is worth remembering - even if the remark is chilling - that General Ariel Sharon promised the settlers in 1979: "We will never leave the Golan for any price, not even for peace with Syria."My suspicion would be that his thinking twenty-five years later would still be as short sighted and foolish.  The Knesset formally annexed the Golan Heights in 1981, and there are now over 25,000 settlers in over 30 settlements.The world community clearly supports the return of the Golan Heights to Syria.  Surely it is no more acceptable that Israel should be occupying this area by force of arms than it would be if Germany still occupied Belgium or Holland?  The accelerated expansion of settlements on the Golan can be compared to what has been happening in and around Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.According to the UN Charter one of the purposes of the UN is: "to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace."Increased occupation by Israeli citizens of Syria's Golan Heights represents a situation "which might lead to a breach of the peace".  Syria, and the 15,000 Syrians still living on the Golan Heights, are fully entitled to the active protection of the United Nations.