Photo: AFP/ IMAGEBANK

P

resident Trump’s official recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights gladdened many in Israel, and not only on the political right. There is almost wall-to-wall consensus in Israel that the Golan must remain under Israeli control and is likely never to be returned. That’s why politicians from the Labor Party to Jewish Home welcomed the move.

The Golan announcement was also a welcome departure from the political rhetoric that has dominated discourse on the Middle East for the last several decades: “Two states for two peoples,” “the one-state solution,” and so on. And if you listened closely enough, you could sense in the announcement something more than just a bold move from the White House, but a change in the entire narrative of peacemaking.

On that score, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu dropped several hints on his visit to Washington, clues that the recognition of the Golan Heights is just the first course, the appetizer, ahead of the main meal. “A senior diplomatic source” aboard the prime minister’s plane told political writers who accompanied him that the White House’s recognition of the Golan establishes the principle that “land captured during a defensive war is our land.”

That is a dramatic statement. International law distinguishes between a defensive war and an offensive war, and Israel has long claimed that the Six Day War, when it captured the Golan and the West Bank, was defensive: Arab armies planned to invade Israel, and the IDF launched a preemptive strike to spoil their plans. Therefore, when a senior Israeli official says a principle has been established regarding a defensive war, he means not only the Golan Heights, but also, and perhaps primarily, Area C.

The same rule applies, of course, to Areas A and B, but it’s hard to imagine any Israeli government wishing to annex those blocs. By contrast, recognition of the Golan creates a precedent that might make it possible in the future to annex, for example, Maaleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, and Ariel.

In the next few weeks, most expect the Trump administration will reveal its peace plan for the Middle East. And to the surprise of almost no one, the Palestinians will instantly reject the blueprint, making Israel’s response less relevant. The question is what happens next.

A hint can be found in the speech delivered by David Friedman, the US ambassador to Israel, at the recent AIPAC conference. In that speech, he focused on the urgent need to advance peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Here, too, you need a finelytuned ear to note the change in tune. Because what he is actually saying is a bit more complex than it first appears.

How can we kick the can down the road and leave this to our successors? Sure, that would be easier. That doesn’t make it right. Can we leave this to an administration that may not understand the existential risk to Israel if Judea and Samaria are overcome by terrorism in the manner that befell the Gaza Strip after the IDF withdrew from this territory? Can we leave this to an administration that may not understand the need for Israel to maintain overriding security control of Judea and Samaria and a permanent defense position in the Jordan Valley?

Can we leave this to an administration that may not understand that in the Middle East, peace comes through strength, not just through words on a paper? Can we leave this to an administration potentially willing to penalize Israel for nothing more than having the audacity to survive in a dangerous neighborhood, failing to understand the threats that Israel faces or the care and humanity it deploys to meet those threats?

Why is this statement important? Because it establishes the parameters the Trump administration will use to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The administration of Barack Obama backed an old idea — two states for two peoples, on the basis of the 1967 lines, with agreed territorial swaps. Based on Friedman’s statements, and those of the “senior diplomatic source” on the airplane, you can be sure that Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt’s plan will look very different.

Trump will remain in the White House for at least two more years, and perhaps even six. That’s a very long time to establish facts on the ground and parameters that the Palestinians will have a very hard time changing. True, the Europeans will not accept the plan, and the Russians won’t be happy. But anyone who treats the peace plan with scorn needs to understand: The importance of it is not in resolving the conflict. No one is going to be doing that right now. The importance of the plan is in offering a historic alternative to the question of what the solution looks like. And that is what will remain with us for many years to come.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 755)