“The State of Israel took control of the Golan Heights in 1967 to safeguard its security from external threats. I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim that the United States recognizes that the Golan Heights are part of the State of Israel.”
This was the text of the historic proclamation Trump issued as he stood next to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on March 25, 2019. In response to the president’s proclamation, the United Nations Press Office reported, “Most Security Council members expressed regret today over the decision by the United States to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Syrian Golan, stressing the importance of upholding international law, as the 15-member organ heard briefings on the situation in that occupied territory.”
Why was President Trump’s proclamation so controversial?
In the Six Day War of 1967, Israel, facing existential threats from Egypt, Jordan and Syria, heroically reclaimed its ancient biblical heartlands in a stunning display of resilience and strategy. This triumphant return to historic Jewish lands culminated in securing the Golan Heights from Syrian aggression, ensuring lasting security for Israel’s northern communities.
The world’s opposition to Israel’s control of the Golan Heights stems primarily from the post-World War II principle that the acquisition of territory by force, even in self-defense, is inconsistent with international law, as enshrined in the UN Charter and reinforced by resolutions like Security Council Resolution 497 (1981), which declared Israel’s annexation that year “null and void” and without legal effect.
Most nations see the Golan Heights as occupied territory
Most nations view the area as occupied Syrian territory, demanding withdrawal to the 1967 lines per Resolutions 242 and 338. Critics highlight ongoing settlement expansion, displacement of Syrians, and resource exploitation as violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Only the United States recognizes Israeli sovereignty, while the international community, including annual UN General Assembly votes, overwhelmingly rejects it.
A fascinating note to mark is that although most of the world assumes Israel annexed the Golan Heights, and did so illegally, the Jewish state never actually did. Instead, Israel extended its sovereignty to the Golan Heights. The difference between extending sovereignty and annexing is important and instructs Israel’s future policies.
In a 1994 piece for the Brooklyn Journal of International Law, Leon Sheleff explained that Israel’s 1981 Golan Heights Law, pushed through by prime minister Menachem Begin, never actually annexed the territory Israel took from Syria in 1967. Instead, it simply extended Israeli law, administration, and jurisdiction over the area.
Begin, still recovering from illness at the time, moved fast on this amid ongoing Syrian threats. Notice how the law itself carefully avoids the word “annexation,” a deliberate contrast to something like the explicit unification of Jerusalem.
Back then, after 1967, the Golan had almost no Syrian institutional footprint left. Most people had fled, and the remaining Druze communities were basically running things under their own customary rules. Applying Israeli law filled that empty space without forcing citizenship on anyone. Residents kept their Syrian nationality, and only a small number ever asked for Israeli citizenship voluntarily, a fact Israeli courts later confirmed.
Sheleff pointed out a larger distinction: Applying domestic law isn’t the same as extending sovereignty outright. He brings examples from international practice where laws get imposed on territory without transferring sovereignty, which fits with the rules against one-sided annexation of occupied land.
Philosophically, Begin refused to annex the Golan Heights because he maintained that a nation can’t annex land that has historically always been theirs. He included the Golan Heights in historically Jewish land and therefore felt it could not be annexed.
The economic Cooperation Foundation is a leading Israeli think-tank that was critical of Israel’s extension of sovereignty over the Golan Heights. It described the Israeli Golan law as unilaterally extending Israeli jurisdiction and administration to the Golan Heights. This effectively constituted an annexation of the territory that was occupied from Syria during the 1967 Six Day War.
Passed almost 40 years ago, it doesn’t seem likely that the Golan law will ever be reversed. The discussion over its legal significance seems largely academic, but in truth, it has significance in today’s discussions over other areas aside from the Golan that Israel took control over in 1967, including Judea and Samaria and even Gaza.
Opponents of an Israeli annexation of the other territories claim that Israel isn’t intending to annex these lands.
Instead, they claim, Jerusalem is planning to slowly extend sovereignty over these areas and follow the path taken in the Golan law. Regardless of whether that ever happens, they claim an expanding Israeli footprint in Judea and Samaria is creating de facto Israeli sovereignty.
Proponents of Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria fall into two camps. There are those who campaign for immediate Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria. Others follow Begin’s path and argue that Israel can’t annex Judea and Samaria because it is historically already Jewish land. They argue for a Golan-like extension of sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.
To summarize, despite widespread assumptions and international condemnation, Israel never formally annexed the Golan Heights in 1981. Instead, through the Golan Heights Law, it extended Israeli law, jurisdiction, and administration, a deliberate distinction allowing governance without explicit sovereignty transfer. This approach, rooted in security needs and historical claims, preserved diplomatic flexibility for potential peace negotiations while achieving de facto control.
President Trump’s 2019 recognition affirmed Israeli sovereignty amid ongoing threats, yet the nuanced legal framing continues to influence debates on whether to apply similar models to other territories like Judea and Samaria, balancing practical retention with sensitivities to international law.
The writer is a Zionist educator at institutions around the world and recently published a new book, Zionism Today.