link to page 2 link to page 3 
INSIGHTi
Israel and Syria in the Golan Heights:
President Trump Voices Support for Israeli
Sovereignty Claim
March 22, 2019
On March 21, 2019, President Trump stated on Twitter, “After 52 years it is time for the United States to
fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security
importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!” The President did not specify if and when he
would officially change U.S. policy or whether his support for Israeli sovereignty corresponds with
specific territorial boundaries. Israel gained control over the western two-thirds of Syria’s Golan Heights
(hereafter, the Golan)—a plateau overlooking northern Israel—during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, and
effectively annexed it unilaterally by applying Israeli law to the region in 1981 (see Figure 1 and textbox
below for a map, synopsis, and timeline). In reaction to President Trump’s statement, others in the
international community have insisted that the area remains under Syrian sovereignty. Nevertheless, a
change in longstanding U.S. policy on the Golan may have other effects (see “Outlook” below).
President Trump’s statement came during a closely contested Israeli campaign—with elections scheduled
for April 9, and only a few days before Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s scheduled visit to
Washington, DC. During the campaign, Netanyahu has called on the international community to
recognize Israeli sovereignty in the Golan, and his position is widely popular in Israel. In Congress,
Senate and House bills introduced in February 2019 support Israeli sovereignty.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11081
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
Congressional Research Service
2
Figure 1. Map of the Golan Heights
Source: CRS, based on data from ArcGIS, U.S. State Department, ESRI, and United Nations.
Notes: DMZ=demilitarized zone; UNDOF=U.N. Disengagement Observer Force; cities or larger towns denoted by
encircled dots; smaller towns or vil ages denoted by unencircled dots.
Congressional Research Service
3
Golan Heights: Brief Synopsis and Timeline of Key Events
Israel’s military has a strategically important presence in the Golan, and the largely rural area known for its water resources
and agriculture is home to about 22,000 Israeli settlers and a similar number of Druze. Most of the Druze retain Syrian
citizenship while having the option to apply for Israeli citizenship.
1949-1967 Sporadic Israel-Syria conflict takes place over disputed demilitarized zones at the
margins of the Golan Heights fol owing an armistice agreement after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war
1967 Israel captures a portion of the Golan Heights during the June Arab-Israeli war; approximately
100,000 Syrians relocate to other areas of Syria; the U.N. Security Council adopts Resolution 242
1973 Israel ultimately retains its antebellum control of the Golan Heights after an initial Syrian push
during the Yom Kippur War
1974 Israel-Syria disengagement agreement creates a demilitarized zone between areas of Israeli and Syrian
control to be monitored by the U.N. Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)
1981 Israel effectively annexes the Golan Heights unilaterally; the U.N. Security Council adopts Resolution 497
1991-2011 Various rounds of indirect Israel-Syria negotiation take place over the Golan
2011-Present Syrian civil war
Background on U.S. Policy and International
Involvement
Historically, successive U.S. Administrations supported the general international stance that the Golan
Heights was Syrian territory subject to Israel’s military occupation. During the Reagan Administration, in
December 1981 the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to adopt Resolution 497 in response to
Israel’s de facto annexation of the Golan. The resolution stated that the annexation was “null and void and
without international legal effect” and demanded that Israel rescind its action.
Although previous U.S. Administrations recognized the Golan Heights as Syrian territory, they
consistently supported Israel’s security interests in the Golan Heights. A key example was a 1975 letter
from President Gerald Ford to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, which stated that the United States
supported a peace agreement with Syria that would assure Israel’s security from attack from the Golan,
and would give weight to Israel’s position that such assurances might be predicated on Israel remaining
on the Golan.
Since 1974, the U.N. Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) has patrolled an area of the Golan
Heights between the regions controlled by Israel and Syria, with about 880 troops from five countries
stationed there as of January 2019. During that time, Israel’s forces in the Golan Heights have not faced
serious military resistance to their continued deployment, despite some security threats and diplomatic
challenges. Periodic resolutions by the U.N. General Assembly (the latest in November 2018) have
criticized Israel’s occupation as hindering regional peace and Israel’s settlement and de facto annexation
of the Golan as illegal.
Outlook
A change in U.S. policy on the Golan Heights could have multiple effects. Some observers assert that, in
response, Arab states may be less willing to encourage the Palestinians to consider future Trump
Administration peace proposals. U.S. support for Israeli action against the “land for peace” principle set
forth after the 1967 war in U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 would contradict Arab states’ position—
articulated in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative—that regional peace depends on the return of Arab lands
previously captured by Israel’s military. The Arab League responded to President Trump’s statement on
Congressional Research Service
4
the Golan by saying that it was “completely beyond international law.” Some Palestinians reportedly fear
that U.S. support for Israeli claims in the Golan could be a “stepping stone” to acquiescing to an Israeli
annexation of the West Bank.
For decades after 1967, various Israeli leaders, reportedly including Prime Minister Netanyahu as late as
2011, had entered into indirect talks with Syria aimed at returning some portion of the Golan as part of a
lasting peace agreement. A number of factors may have influenced Netanyahu to shift focus from
negotiating with Syria on a “land for peace” basis to obtaining international support for Israel’s claims of
sovereignty. These could include Iran’s increased presence in Syria, the effect Syria’s civil war has had on
its leadership and stability, and the Trump Administration’s 2017 recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s
capital. In March 20 remarks justifying a permanent Israeli presence in the Golan, Netanyahu asserted
that Israeli intelligence had uncovered efforts by Hezbollah (the Iran-backed Lebanese group), to build a
terror network in the Syrian-controlled Golan Heights.
Given the dramatic changes in Syria since its civil war began in 2011, a U.S. policy change also could
affect regional security. Since 2018, Israel and Iran have engaged in periodic conflict in Syria, with
Iranian missiles targeting Israeli positions in the Golan. In criticizing President Trump’s statement, the
Syrian government vowed that it would recover the Golan from Israel. Additionally, an observer has
argued that the President’s statement could unintentionally bolster Syrian President Bashar al Asad and
Iran within Syria.
Note: Christopher M. Blanchard, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs, and Carmelina Palmer, previously
an intern at CRS, provided valuable background research and analysis for this product.
Author Information
Jim Zanotti
Carla E. Humud
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
IN11081 · VERSION 1 · NEW