U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–423 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

A NEW HORIZON IN U.S.–ISRAEL RELATIONS: 

FROM AN AMERICAN EMBASSY IN JERUSALEM 

TO POTENTIAL RECOGNITION OF ISRAELI 

SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE GOLAN HEIGHTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 17, 2018 

Serial No. 115–97 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Greg Gianforte, Montana 

Michael Cloud, Texas 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Jimmy Gomez, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

SHERIA CLARKE, Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA, General Counsel 

SAMUEL WISCH, Professional Staff Member 

SHARON ESHELMAN, National Security Subcommittee Staff Director 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

Ron DeSantis, Florida, Chairman 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma, Vice Chair 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Jimmy Gomez, California 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 17, 2018 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Michael Doran, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Ambassador Dore Gold, Ph.D,. President, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 18 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20 

Eugene Kontorovich, Professor, Northwestern University, Pritzker School of 

Law 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 29 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31 

Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer, Ph.D., S. Daniel Abraham Professor in Middle 

Eastern Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International 

Affairs, Princeton University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 37 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 39 

Mr. Morton Klein, President, Zionist Organization of America 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 45 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 48 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

A NEW HORIZON IN U.S.–ISRAEL RELATIONS: 

FROM AN AMERICAN EMBASSY IN JERUSALEM TO POTENTIAL RECOGNITION OF 

ISRAELI SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE GOLAN 

HEIGHTS 

Tuesday, July 17, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Ron DeSantis [chairman of 

the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives DeSantis, Hice, Lynch, and Welch. 

Also present: Representatives Grothman, Perry, and Lamborn. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The Subcommittee on National Security will come 

to order. 

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at 

any time. 

Today’s hearing on recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the 

Golan Heights comes at the dawn of a new horizon in U.S.-Israel 

relations. The Trump administration has proven to be a staunchly 

pro-Israel administration. President Trump took the long overdue 

steps of recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in opening the 

U.S. embassy in Israel there this past May. Many Presidents had 

promised to move the embassy, but it was President Trump who 

kept his promise and delivered. And I would admit that this committee was actively involved in that. We actually have some people 

who helped testify right before the decision, which I think was very 

important. So thank you. 

The President withdrew from the Iran deal that paved the way 

for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon and provided huge amounts 

of money in sanctions relief and $1.7 billion in cold, hard cash. 

He pulled the U.S. out of the anti-Israel U.N. Human Rights 

Council where the world’s worst human rights violators routinely 

vilify the world’s only Jewish state. 

He signed the Taylor Force Act into law, holding the Palestinian 

Authority accountable for its cash payments to terrorists. 

And he appointed a truly outstanding Ambassador to Israel, my 

friend, David Friedman. 

The President now has the opportunity to take another major 

step to advance American interests and to fortify the U.S.-Israel relationship by recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

Heights. The Golan Heights is essential to Israel’s security. A strategic high ground along Israel’s borders with Syria and Lebanon, 

the Golan’s topography grants Israel with observation and intelligence capabilities that allow it to detect enemy activities. It also 

offers incredible defensive advantages in repelling an attack. It allows Israel to defend critical segments of territory like the Sea of 

Galilee and Haifa Bay. It serves as a major water source and is a 

growing population center. 

The importance of the Golan is illustrated by Major General 

Giora Eiland, the former head of Israel’s National Security Council 

who wrote that, quote, ‘‘Israel does not possess a plausible solution 

to its security needs without the Golan Heights.’’ End quote. 

Israel’s need for the Golan Heights is clearer than ever, given the 

threats it currently faces on its northern border. Iran has escalated 

its aggression against the Jewish state to unprecedented levels in 

recent months, launching direct attacks on Israel from Syria. In 

May, Iranian forces in Syria fired approximately 20 rockets at 

Israeli military positions in the Golan Heights. In February, Iran 

sent an armed drone into Israeli airspace. Iran has also equipped 

its terrorist proxy Hezbollah with advanced weapons, including 

over 100,000 rockets and missiles aimed at Israel. And amidst the 

chaos of Syria’s civil war, terrorist groups, including ISIS, have 

gained footholds along the Syria border with Israel. 

We can only imagine how much worse the threats to Israel’s 

north would be and threats to the security of the broader region 

would be if the Golan was in the hands of what remains of the Syrian regime or Iran or Hezbollah or ISIS. It would leave Israel’s enemies in control of that high ground and stationed even closer to 

Israel’s heartland. 

Now, this past weekend, we saw Hamas launch nearly 200 rockets at Israel, a stark reminder of the consequences of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. Hamas’ latest attack demonstrates why it is so 

important that Israel keep the Golan Heights. 

In Syria, Bashar al-Assad’s government has launched a ruthless 

campaign to retake the country south backed by Iran and Russia. 

The Syrian dictator has slaughtered his own people in his desperate bid to cling to power. Countries, including the United 

States, Britain, France, Germany, and Canada, as well as the U.N., 

have all made clear that the Assad regime has no legitimacy. The 

U.S. should push back against Assad and Iran and Russia’s expanding influence. President Trump’s action in ordering air strikes 

made clear that Syria’s use of chemical weapons would not be tolerated. The President can further U.S. national security interests 

and send Assad, Iran, and Russia another strong message with the 

stroke of a pen by recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan. 

Recognizing this claim is also the right thing to do. Israel won 

the Golan in a defensive war in 1967. It repelled another Syrian 

attack there in 1973. In 1981, with the passage of the Golan 

Heights law, Israel permanently integrated the area as part of its 

country, and today the Golan flourishes as a growing center of agriculture, industry, tourism, and wineries. 

But other nations have yet to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over 

the Golan despite the fact that its acquisition of the area in a defensive war was consistent with principles of international law. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

And it is clear that without the Golan, Israel would not have secure and recognized boundaries free of threats or acts of force, as 

U.N. Security Council resolution 242 calls for. By recognizing the 

Golan as part of Israel, the U.S. would send a clear message that 

Syrian belligerents will not be rewarded and that Israel’s victory 

over its aggressor has consequences. 

As Prime Minister Netanyahu said, the time has come, after 50 

years, for the international community to acknowledge that the 

Golan Heights will permanently remain under Israeli sovereignty 

and that whatever happens on the other side of the border, that 

line is not going to change. 

The case for recognition now is clear. Such a move would bolster 

Israel against the threats on its northern border and repudiate the 

Assad regime’s butchery and Russia and Iran’s designs in Syria. It 

would recognize the reality that Golan Heights is part of Israel and 

is vital to its national security. With the current state of Syria, the 

prospect of peace negotiations is nonexistent, but the current danger Israel faces from Iran, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups 

like ISIS makes clear that given the instability in the Middle East, 

Israel could not afford to give up the Golan under any circumstances. Israel’s security should be non-negotiable and so 

should America’s commitment to it. It is time to stand with our ally 

on the Golan and against these common enemies. This is a policy 

that the President should implement and that all Members of Congress should support. 

And I would note that we do have a great panel of witnesses here 

to discuss this issue. So I want to thank all the witnesses for coming and providing their views. Just think how crazy it would be to 

say that Israel should give the Golan to Assad or some of these 

proxies. It would be absolute madness. So let us discuss this issue 

today. 

And before we hear from our witnesses, I would like to recognize 

the ranking member, Mr. Lynch, for his opening statement. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would also like to thank this esteemed panel of witnesses. Most 

of you are frequent flyers to this committee, and we appreciate 

your advice and words of wisdom. 

During my time here in this Congress, especially in my role as 

ranking member on the Subcommittee on National Security, I have 

labored mightily to maintain the proper decorum, sense of decorum, and chosen my words carefully to avoid vitriol and the harmful rhetoric that sometimes infuses the arguments of the extremes 

of each of the parties. I have done so in the hope of providing an 

open channel across the aisle for the meaningful and thoughtful 

dialogue to take place that is necessary to move this country forward. 

This morning I am compelled by that same sense of decency and 

concern for our national security to briefly comment on the President’s remarks in Helsinki yesterday. 

Yesterday for me was a moment of national embarrassment. And 

I feel the President’s words and positions taken constitute a physical injury upon the national security of this country. 

I only have two recommendations, quite briefly. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

One is to reassure the men and women who serve this country 

in our intelligence agencies continue to do the work necessary to 

keep our country safe. We value—we value—the work that is being 

done by our national intelligence agencies. We want them to continue that work. 

The second recommendation I have is a return to fact-based decision-making in this country. Push back on the ideology and the 

rhetoric that comes from the extreme ends of each party. Look at 

the facts and the intelligence that our hardworking, brave women 

and men in the intelligence agency bring us. A return to fact-based 

decision-making will help this country, will make us stronger. 

In regards to the matter before us on the Golan, it is a, I suppose 

not unusually, very, very tumultuous time in the region. And we 

should make sure that whatever actions we take enhance the national security of Israel and the United States and our allies. 

Again, a return to fact-based decision-making based on the facts on 

the ground in and around the Golan. 

Now, Mr. Issa from this committee and I spent a week, maybe 

10 days, in the Middle East a couple of weeks ago meeting with 

Prime Minister Netanyahu, King Abdullah, meeting with leadership in Bahrain, with President el-Sisi in Egypt to talk about this 

confluence of events and the instability that has been brought 

about by the collapse of ISIS, the presence of numerous militia, socalled rebels, in Syria, the advancements being made by Bashar al 

Assad and his troops supported by Hezbollah, and the presence of 

Iranian militia in an area so close to Israel. 

There has been an armistice or truce in place around the Golan 

since 1974, and we must be sure that any steps we take as a party 

to annex the Golan officially at this moment does not precipitate 

something that is inimical and harmful to the national security of 

Israel and of our allies in the region, including of course our own 

country. 

So I think it is a time again to return to fact-based decision-making with careful, careful consideration to the facts on the ground 

in that area. But I think it is a worthwhile discussion, and I am 

eager to hear from our witnesses. 

Again, I thank the chairman for holding this hearing. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. 

I am pleased to introduce our witnesses. We have Dr. Michael 

Doran, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute; Ambassador Dore 

Gold, President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs; Professor Eugene Kontorovich, Northwestern University School of 

Law; Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer, the S. Daniel Abraham Professor 

in Middle Eastern Policy Studies at the Woodrow Wilson School of 

Public and International Affairs at Princeton University; and Mort 

Klein, President of the Zionist Organization of America. Welcome 

to you all. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. So if you can please stand and raise your right 

hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. DESANTIS. Please be seated. 

All witnesses answered in the affirmative. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony 

to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be made part of 

the record. As a reminder, the clock in front of you shows the remaining time during your opening statement. The light will turn 

yellow when you have 30 seconds left and red when your time is 

up. 

Please also remember to press the button to turn your microphone on before speaking. 

With that, we will recognize Dr. Doran for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DORAN 

Mr. DORAN. Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, and 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for having 

me speak today. It is an honor to appear before you on such a consequential issue in our national security. 

Mr. Chairman, the question of the Golan is part of a larger strategic problem. The Syria that will emerge from this devastating 

civil war will look nothing like the one we knew in 2011 when it 

began. 

This simple fact raises a big question. What is the Syria that we 

would like to see emerge from this conflict? What is the Syria that 

will best contribute to international peace and stability? 

That question is too big to answer here today, but we can tackle 

one piece of it. This war should lead to the United States recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Anyone truly 

concerned with international peace and security must conclude that 

this change is in the best interest of everyone, with the exception 

of the Iranian regime and its allies. And it is manifestly in the interest of the United States. 

In my written testimony, I gave six reasons why this is the case. 

Here I will summarize just four of them. 

First of all, it passes the test of the laboratory of real life. The 

last 70 years constitute the laboratory of real life, and its results 

are incontrovertible. When in the hands of Syria, the Golan 

Heights promoted conflict. When in the hands of Israel, they have 

promoted stability. 

Before the 1990s, the Syrian Government refused to talk to 

Israel. Since the 1990s, it has unwaveringly demanded that Israel 

must withdraw to the line of 4 June 1967. This line would place 

the Syrians once again on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and it 

would place them atop the Golan Heights peering down at Israeli 

villages below. It would create a wedge of Syrian territory between 

Israel and Jordan to the south of the Sea of Galilee. 

The practical choice before us, therefore, is whether to support 

the permanent acquisition of the Golan Heights by Israel or to continue to whet the appetite of the Syrian regime for the acquisition 

of that territory. 

Between 1949 and 1967, literally thousands of clashes erupted 

between the two sides. By contrast, ever since Israel took control 

of the Golan Heights in June 1967, they have served as a natural 

geographic buffer between the two belligerents. The American inVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:49 Nov 02, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31423.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

terest, the interest of peace and security more generally, militates 

in favor of it remaining in Israeli hands. 

The second reason, containing Iran. From the outbreak of the 

civil war, Iran and Russia have worked aggressively and brutally 

to shape a new Syria that will serve their interests. The influence 

of Iran is particularly worrisome because, in the division of labor 

between Moscow and Tehran, Iran provides much of the ground 

forces. If Israel were to withdraw from the Golan Heights, Iranian 

forces would replace them. 

Mr. Chairman, ask yourself a few simple questions. Would any 

responsible American statesman ever choose to place Iranian soldiers on the Golan Heights so that they could peer down through 

their rifle scopes at Jewish civilians below? Is there any American 

interest that would be served by allowing Iran to have direct access 

to the Sea of Galilee, Israel’s primary water reservoir? Would it 

ever be wise to place Iranian troops on the southern shores of the 

sea where its territory would serve as a wedge between Jordan and 

Israel? 

The answer to all of those questions, obviously, is no. 

The third reason, the inherent instability of Syria. 

The risk of returning the Golan Heights to Syria is not simply 

a function of the current geopolitical alignment of the Assad regime. It is difficult to imagine at this moment, but it is not impossible that in the future a pro-American regime could emerge in Damascus and seek peace with Israel. Even then, however, it would 

still be too risky to return the Golan because Syria by its nature 

is inherently unstable. The conflict we are witnessing today is but 

the latest and the worst episode in a history of political chaos that 

has afflicted the country since its independence. Even if a regime 

favorable to the United States were to one day emerge in Damascus, we could never count on it to survive. The laboratory of real 

life teaches us that if we want the Golan Heights to serve as a reliable buffer between Syria and Israel and between Syria and Jordan, we must leave them in the hands of the Israelis. 

Lastly, aligning diplomacy with reality. We must recognize a 

simple fact: Israel is never going to withdraw from the territory. 

And for very good reason. 

Not recognizing this reality is diplomatic malpractice. Failing to 

recognize obvious truths is bad for nations in the same way that 

it is bad for individuals. It creates delusions that take increasing 

amounts of psychological and material resources to sustain. 

Pretending that it is still 1973 and that we recognize a Syrian 

claim to the entire Golan, when in reality we do not, is not simply 

a diplomatic nicety. It is a formal invitation to the very real Iranian army in Syria and the very real Iranian Hezbollah proxy to 

continue a campaign of low intensity warfare to reclaim the occupied Golan. 

Whose interest is served by the United States adopting stances 

that lend credence to the claims of Iran and Hezbollah, to the claim 

that Israel is occupying Syrian land? Certainly not the American 

interest. Certainly not Israel’s or Jordan’s. And it is not in the interest of the Syrian people themselves who benefit from the stability that the Golan buffer provides. Refusing to recognize reality 

serves only the interests of Iran, Hezbollah, and Bashar al Assad. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

Why should the United States expend very real political capital to 

help those hostile entities improve their strategic position against 

the United States and its allies? 

In sum, recognizing reality will deny oxygen to our enemies and 

strengthen our allies, precisely what a sound foreign policy should 

seek to achieve. 

Thank you once again. It has been a great honor to address you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Doran follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 31423.001
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 31423.002
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 31423.003
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 31423.004
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 31423.005
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 31423.006
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 31423.007
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 31423.008
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 31423.009
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 31423.010
18 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

Ambassador, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR DORE GOLD 

Ambassador GOLD. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening today’s hearing. Mr. Lynch, thank you as well. 

A discussion about the Golan Heights today might seem baffling. 

Increasingly in recent years, many Israelis have expressed a huge 

sigh of relief that previous rounds of Israeli-Syrian negotiations did 

not result in an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. It basically did not go anywhere. These Israelis imagine that had these 

earlier talks been concluded on Syrian terms, that in 2011, with 

the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, the forces of Jabhat al Nusra, 

Da’ish—that is, ISIS—not to mention Assad’s own ruthless army 

would have been sitting along the coastline of the see of Galilee 

with their weapons aimed at the City of Tiberius across the lake. 

What has changed today is that with the imminent victory of the 

forces of Bashar al Assad in the sector of South Syria, new diplomatic initiatives by outside actors cannot be ruled out. Already in 

March 2016, the U.N.’s Special Envoy on Syria, Staffan de Mistura, 

proposed a paper called ‘‘Essential Principles of a Political Solution 

in Syria.’’ The first point of his 12-point paper specifically called 

for, quote, ‘‘the restoration of the occupied Golan Heights,’’ unquote, to Syria. This past February at the Valdai Conference in 

Moscow, which I attended and I spoke at, Vitaly Naumkin, the 

leading Russian authority on Syria insisted that Israeli sovereignty 

over the Golan Heights could not be accepted. He raised doubts 

about its very legality. 

What has changed today is that with the imminent victory of the 

forces of President Assad, these types of voices will increasingly be 

heard. Traditionally the Golan Heights has been the front line for 

Israel’s defense in the north. Israel faced acute asymmetry in active duty forces against Syria. This meant that in 1973, Israel had 

to withstand an attack by 1,400 Syrian tanks with only 177 tanks 

on its side. Israel planned on a strategic line of volcanic hills, 

known in Hebrew as Kav Ha-Tilim, that helped it to withstand any 

Syrian assault until Israel’s reserve mobilization was complete. 

What are Israel’s potential sources of concern that make the 

Golan critical for Israel’s security today? 

First, given the proclivity of Middle Eastern regimes to spend 

their resources on military acquisitions, the eventual recovery of 

the Syrian army must be anticipated despite its current weaknesses. In light of Russia’s role in saving the Assad regime, massive Russian arms transfers to the Syrian armed forces will likely 

provide the basis for the renewal of Syrian military power. 

But there is a second source of concern for Israel. Iran’s conversion of Syria into a satellite state that will host Iranian forces and 

bases. 

In addition, Tehran has been creating Shiite proxy militias modeled on the basis of Lebanese Hezbollah using manpower from a 

number of countries, including Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, to 

take up positions in Syrian bases. The Iranians have deployed elements from the Fatemyoun Division, which is made up of Afghan 

Shiite refugees. As reported as recently as July 11th, Hezbollah 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 

and Iran-handled Shiite militias are integrated into the Syrian 

army in its campaign to take control of south Syria. 

Iran founded a Syrian branch of Hezbollah in 2014. A year earlier, the commander of the Revolutionary Guard’s Qods Force, General Qassam Soleimani, proposed unifying many of the various 

proxy forces and creating a 150,000-man army for operations in 

Syria. These units have operated under the command of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Many were active in the battle 

for Aleppo and now in Deraa, in southern Syria, right next to the 

Golan Heights. 

Iran’s military goal is to create a land corridor from Iran itself 

across Iraq and Syria to the Mediterranean, which will help it 

unify its various fronts and establish its hegemony over the Middle 

East. It will aid Iran to advance the encirclement of Jordan and 

Saudi Arabia. It will also provide it with an assured line of supply 

to Syria and to Lebanon as its military presence grows. Locally 

Iran seeks to link southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights. 

But there could be other objectives as well for Soleimani’s army. 

Recently Hossein Salami, the deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, declared that the Islamic army in Syria now 

operating in the Golan Heights, was awaiting orders to eradicate— 

let me repeat that—eradicate the evil regime of Israel. He used the 

Farsi word, Mahv, meaning annihilation or to make extinct. He 

added that the Zionist regime has no strategic defensive depth, 

hence this goal was achievable. Even if this statement was motivated by the need for rhetorical flourish, it nonetheless demonstrates the general intent of Iran to use the Golan region for offensive operations against Israel. It would be folly for the state of 

Israel in any case to ignore statements of this sort by Tehran, especially when they are backed by concrete actions. 

I am now reaching my conclusions. 

Israel today is under assault by a self-declared Iranian-led axis 

of resistance, which has been operating under Russian protection. 

As the Syrian state recovers from the Syrian civil war, its allies 

can be expected to make demands on its behalf like the return of 

the Golan Heights to Syria. In fact, these demands have already 

been voiced. 

The strongest rebuttal to this effort would be the recognition of 

Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. This would demonstrate 

conclusively that those who use force to threaten their neighbors 

will not benefit in the court of international diplomacy. States 

today have a choice. They can back the demands of Iran and its 

supporters, or they can recognize the rights of Israel in the Golan 

Heights. U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty would set an important example for others. 

Three United States administrations consistently in written letters of assurance to Israel confirmed that they envisaged at the end 

of the day, Israel must remain on the Golan Heights. That core bipartisan principle of past U.S. policy cannot be realized in the long 

term without Israeli sovereignty over the Golan confirmed. 

[Prepared statement of Ambassador Gold follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 31423.011
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 31423.012
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 31423.013
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 31423.014
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 31423.015
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 31423.016
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 31423.017
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 31423.018
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 31423.019
29 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. Well, your written statement will do 

it. We are over here. 

So let me get on to Professor Kontorovich for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF EUGENE KONTOROVICH 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, 

honorable members of the committee, I am honored to speak here 

with you today about the question of American recognition of 

Israeli sovereignty over the Golan, an issue which I have examined 

in some detail in my academic work. 

Foreign policy tries to be reality-based, and it is tries to be interest-based. For the past 50 years, the clear reality has been Israeli 

sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and everybody agrees that the 

Israeli presence there is certainly in U.S. interests and Israeli interests. Nobody is calling for an Israeli withdrawal in the present 

circumstances—nobody in U.S. policy circles. 

So the question is why not recognize and give status, give legal 

status, to the happy status quo. Why not recognize Israeli sovereignty? It is generally not the U.S. practice to not recognize the 

claimed sovereign borders of countries with whom it has diplomatic 

relations. 

The principal rationale for not recognizing Israeli sovereignty 

over the Golan Heights is a legal one. It is the claim that Israel’s 

acquisition of the Golan was illegal, and thus, the U.S. cannot recognize it even if it is, indeed, happy with the status quo as a policy 

matter. That legal argument is inaccurate as I will now describe. 

The centerpiece of the argument is the axiom that territory cannot be acquired by force. And that is a broad stroke description of 

a legal rule, which is generally accurate but lacks important nuance and detail which applies to the present case. 

The basic prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force is a 

fairly new one. It comes from the U.N. Charter. The U.N. Charter, 

of course, bans the aggressive use of force as an instrument of state 

policy. Article 2–4 bans aggression. 

As a corollary, it is easy to infer that if you are not allowed to 

attack your neighbors aggressively, you are not allowed to keep 

what you seize in a war of aggression. That is because the underlying war is illegal. So if you do something illegal, you cannot keep 

the poison fruits. 

But not all war is illegal. The U.N. Charter also makes clear that 

just as aggression is fundamentally illegal, self-defense is fundamentally legal and an inherent right of nations. If the underlying 

war is legal, there is no reason to infer the corollary that territorial 

change resulting from such war would be illegal. Thus, in a defensive war, acquisition of force may well be legal. 

Now, let us examine what the status of this principle was in 

1967 because we need not ask what is the status of the legality of 

defensive conquests today because we need to ask what was the 

status in 1967 when the relevant events occurred. And it is very 

easy to find out what the status of this rule was in 1967. You go 

and see what people were saying about it in 1967 and before 1967. 

First of all, it is important to note state practice under the U.N. 

Charter. After the passage of the U.N. Charter, it was not the case 

that the countries that joined the charter said defensive conquest 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
30 

is out the window. Indeed, most countries that were part of the victorious allied cause redrew their borders to the detriment of the defeated Axis powers after the adoption of the U.N. Charter. Countries like Holland, France, Russia, Greece all acquired territory 

from their defeated neighbors in the 1940s as a result of World 

War II. They were well aware that this would raise a question of 

what the legal basis was, and in discussions at the U.N., the answer was quite clear. Those territorial changes are not precluded 

by the U.N. Charter because the underlying war was legal and defensive on the part of the allies. 

This continued into the 1950s. Today the Republic of Korea, 

South Korea, controls territory north of the 38th parallel. Prior to 

the Korean War, the territory under South Korean control was entirely south of the 38th parallel, and as a result of its victory in 

the defense of the Korean War, it took some territory north of the 

38th parallel, which the U.S. treats for all purposes a sovereign Korean territory. Certainly we would not wish to suggest the existence of a rule that would require the U.S. to reconsider the sovereign status of territory on the Korean Peninsula currently regarded as belonging to the Republic of North Korea and transfer 

it somehow to the north. 

Similarly, the views of academics, leading jurists and the United 

Nations experts itself before 1967 clearly reflected the allowance of 

a conquest in a defensive war. This issue was discussed in some 

detail by the United Nations International Law Committee, which 

was created by the United Nations to formulate a more precise 

legal draft describing what the U.N. Charter requires in some detail. The document they came up with specifically addressed the 

question of territorial change and made clear that territorial 

change in war is only illegal when the war is itself—when the conduct of the hostilities is in violation of the U.N. Charter. And of 

course, the U.N. Charter recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. 

Similarly, scholars before 1967 —— 

Mr. DESANTIS. Can we just wrap it up because I just want to get 

everyone in. We got members here that want to ask questions. 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. Scholars recognized that there was no prohibition against defensive conquest and resolution 242 did not require Israel to withdraw from all territories, again recognizing this 

principle. 

Members of the committee, chairman, honorable ranking member, thank you for your time. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Kontorovich follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 31423.020
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 31423.021
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 31423.022
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 31423.023
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 31423.024
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 31423.025
37 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

Ambassador, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR DANIEL KURTZER 

Ambassador KURTZER. Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member 

Lynch, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to join you today. 

Drawing on 3 decades of experience in the United States Foreign 

Service, including 4 years serving in Israel during the 1980s in the 

Reagan administration and then 4 more years as President George 

W. Bush’s Ambassador to Israel, my analysis and recommendation 

on this issue is rooted in two questions. First, is there a compelling 

American interest that would be advanced by recognizing Israeli 

sovereignty over the Golan Heights? Second, would recognition of 

Israeli sovereignty materially enhance Israeli security? 

Let me start with the bottom line. The answer to both questions 

I believe is no. I believe that our national security interests counsel 

in favor of maintaining our existing policy with respect to Israel, 

Syria, and the Golan Heights. That policy includes strong and determined support for Israel’s serious and legitimate security concerns, support for Israel’s humanitarian assistance to victims of the 

conflict in Syria, and maintenance of the status quo with respect 

to the status of the Golan Heights themselves. 

The threats to Israel from Syria are real. Since the start of the 

civil war in 2011, the Syrian regime and its allies, Iran, Iranian 

proxies, and Hezbollah have threatened Israel’s security from 

across the Separation of Forces line that was agreed between Israel 

and Syria in 1974. 

In the face of these threats, Israel’s policy has been retrained 

and nuanced. Israel has made clear that it has no interest to interfere in Syria’s internal struggles. Israel has made equally clear 

that it would act as necessary to safeguard its security in response 

to threats emanating from Syrian territory. Both elements of this 

Israeli policy were reiterated last week by Prime Minister 

Netanyahu before and during his visit to Moscow. 

The United States has wisely supported Israel’s actions to defend 

itself, including the interdiction of Iranian arms shipments to 

Hezbollah via Syria, attacks targeting Iranian arms depots and installations, and disruption of efforts by Iran and its proxies to establish a permanent military presence in Syria. None of these essential actions by Israel would be enhanced by U.S. recognition of 

Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. 

Israel’s current policy and actions, in fact, have garnered wide 

understanding and support. Changing the subject now to Golan’s 

legal status would change the discourse in the region, including 

among Arab states that are drawing closer to Israel in the face of 

common threats to their own security. Indeed, a change in U.S. policy would put the focus on this issue instead of where it belongs, 

on the murderous actions of the Syrian regime and the support 

provided to Syria by Iran and Russia. 

As we all know, the issue of Golan’s sovereignty is nowhere near 

the top of the Middle East’s overburdened agenda. What sense, 

therefore, does it make to focus on this issue now? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

It is also important to recall that Prime Ministers Rabin, Peres, 

Netanyahu, Barak, and Olmert have all conducted open or secret 

peace talks with Syria in the past that included the status of Golan 

as one of the central agenda items. Notwithstanding Israel’s 1981 

legislation that extended Israeli law, jurisdiction, and administration to the Golan Heights, Prime Minister Rabin’s policy articulated in 1993 has de facto been adopted by all of these prime ministers since then; that is, Israeli willingness to meet Syria’s requirements on territory if Syria were ready to meet Israel’s requirements on security, water, and the nature of peace. To be sure, 

I do not advocate the resumption of peace talks now and surely do 

not advocate any change in the status quo on Golan. But it also 

makes no sense to introduce the sovereignty issue now in the midst 

of the volatile situation in Syria. 

Since 1967, the United States has considered Golan to be occupied territory covered by the provisions of the United Nations Security Council resolution 242. And the United States has also been 

sensitive to Israel’s legitimate security needs as reflected in the 

1975 letter sent by President Gerald Ford to Prime Minister Rabin 

and reiterated later by subsequent administrations. 

Finally, the United States has a fundamental longstanding interest in supporting the territorial integrity of states, even those we 

do not like. Syria has a very long way to go before it can reconstruct its politics, society, and economy and take its place among 

the civilized nations of the world. But the Syrian case does not 

offer a justification for changing American policy on this crucial 

principle. 

I will close by emphasizing again that the United States must 

continue to support Israel’s security actions designed to protect its 

citizens from attacks emanating from Syria, and the United States 

must work with Israel and others to ensure that Iran, Iranian 

proxies, and Hezbollah do not establish military bases in Syria 

from which to threaten Israel. These are the challenges for the 

United States policy and for Israel on which we should be working 

together and with others. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ambassador Kurtzer follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 31423.026
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 31423.027
41 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 31423.028
42 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 31423.029
43 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 31423.030
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 31423.031
45 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

Mort Klein, you are up for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MORTON KLEIN 

Mr. KLEIN. Yes. Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, 

members of the committee, thank you for holding this hearing. 

First, I simply wanted to say that Rabin also promoted the Oslo 

Agreements, which turned out to be a disaster. Sharon promoted 

the Gaza withdrawal, which turned out to be a disaster. And now 

these and other top experts understand that giving away any part 

of Syria will not work, that the Arabs are not in any way interested 

in peace. The polls show overwhelmingly 5 to 1 the Israelis oppose 

giving up the Golan. 

I am going to emphasize three quick areas: security, historic and 

legal. 

Israeli control over the western two-thirds of the Golan is a key 

bulwark against radical regimes and affiliates that threaten the security and stability of the U.S., Israel, the entire Middle East and 

beyond. 

The Golan Heights consists of a strategically located high 

ground, provides Israel with an irreplaceable ability to monitor and 

take countermeasures against growing threats at or near the Syrian-Israel border. These growing threats include the extremely 

dangerous hegemonic expansion of the Iranian, Syrian, even Russian and North Korean axis, and the presence in Syria close to the 

Israeli border of terrorist groups like the Iran Revolutionary 

Guard’s the Qods Forces, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, 

Syrian forces, and radical Sunni Islamist groups as well. 

The Iranian regime is attempting to build an 800-mile land 

bridge to the Mediterranean, running through Iraq and Syria. 

Among other things, this would enable Iran to obtain naval ports 

far from Iran’s mainland that enhance Iran’s ability to deliver advanced weaponry and support to Hezbollah and Iran’s other proxies 

that wreak terror throughout the world. This major strategic threat 

makes it more important than ever to shore up Israel’s position in 

the Golan. 

Several times during the recent past, Israel has intercepted 

drones launched and controlled from Syria with the assistance of 

Iranian Qods Forces. In February, surface-to-air missiles in Syria 

shot down an Israeli F–16 fighter jet. Such alarming recent incidents confirm the presence of the Iranian front in Syria and vividly 

demonstrate the necessity for assuring Israeli sovereignty over the 

Golan. 

America’s moderate Sunni Arab allies would very likely be 

pleased by the U.S. recognition of the Israeli sovereignty in the 

Golan in that this would help stem Iranian aggression and the very 

same terrorist actors confronting our moderate Arab allies. Indeed, 

this very past May, after the Iranian Qods Force launched 20 rockets from Syria into Israel and the Israeli Air Force responded by 

striking dozens of military targets in Syria that belonged to Iran’s 

Qods Force, the Arab Islamic country of Bahrain issued a public 

statement supporting Israel’s right to defend herself by destroying 

the sources of danger, and Bahrain criticized Iran for using its missiles to destabilize the region. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

The necessity for recognizing Israel’s retention of the Golan was 

dramatically demonstrated during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. 

Israel’s presence on the Golan provided Israel with the strategic 

depth that enabled forces to assemble and push back Syria’s initially effective surprise invasion. Without the Golan, Syrian forces 

could have overrun Israel in a nightmare scenario. And today, with 

even more sophisticated weaponry that are held by these groups, 

it is even more important that Israel can never give away the 

Golan. 

Because Israel is our front line in the war to defeat radical 

Islamist terror, it is surely in America’s self-interest to ensure that 

Israel maintains and enhances her ability to defend herself and defeat these anti-American, anti-West terrorists. 

In sum, bolstering Israel’s sovereignty of the Golan by conferring 

formal U.S. recognition serves U.S. national security interests. 

Therefore, it is eminently sensible to agree to Prime Minister 

Netanyahu’s and Vice President Pence’s urging U.S. recognition of 

Israeli sovereignty over the Golan. 

It also would send a message to Syria and the Palestinian Authority and the Arab world the jig is up. If you do not change your 

behavior, if you do not stop terrorism, if you refuse to negotiate, 

you will be held accountable, and you will lose all support for your 

demands. 

There are, moreover, no possible security arrangements that can 

substitute the topographical advantages, early warning stations, locations, and strategic depth provided by Israel’s retention of the 

Golan. Israel will lose four of its five early warning stations if it 

gives up the Golan. 

Moreover, it is the right thing to do. Israel has the strongest ancient and modern historical claims evidenced by numerous archaeological finds including dozens of ancient Jewish synagogues in the 

Golan, villages and towns in the Golan Heights. They found Israeli 

Jewish coins in the Golan. And in fact, even for those who believe 

in the Bible, it was promised to Abraham in the Bible. The Golan 

Heights was promised in Deuteronomy 4:43. 

Israel also has a legal right to the Golan, stemming from the 

Golan’s inclusion in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate, agreed 

to by the U.S. in an internationally binding treaty. This mandate 

required Britain to hold the area in trust for the reestablishment 

of the Jewish homeland, but Britain unlawfully traded the Golan 

to the French for rights to the Iraqi oil fields. 

I have here a picture. It is very important—of the 1920 Balfour 

Declaration that includes the Golan to be part of Israel. Even after 

they gave up 80 percent of Palestine, Golan Heights in the 1922 

decision was still part of Israel. 

U.S. recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan would implement a U.S. treat obligation that has been U.S. law for 93 years, 

and it would help rectify Britain’s 95-year wrong. 

During the 21 years when Syria controlled the Golan, there was 

no peace. Israel protects the lives and religious rights and sites of 

all in the Golan. Moreover, its field hospitals, humanitarian assistance to Syrian victims shows how important it is. Plus, it would 

be a humanitarian nightmare to move 30,000 Jews and 20,000 

Druze out of the Golan. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Klein follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 31423.032
49 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 31423.033
50 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 31423.034
51 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 31423.035
52 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 31423.036
53 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 31423.037
54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 31423.038
55 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 31423.039
56 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 31423.040
57 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 31423.041
58 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 31423.042
59 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 31423.043
60 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 31423.044
61 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 31423.045
62 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 31423.046
63 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 31423.047
64 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 31423.048
65 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 31423.049
66 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 31423.050
67 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 31423.051
68 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 31423.052
69 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 31423.053
70 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 31423.054
71 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 55 here 31423.055
72 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 56 here 31423.056
73 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 57 here 31423.057
74 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 58 here 31423.058
75 

Mr. DESANTIS. Mort, you are out of time. I want to get to questions. I know we are going to have a lot for all you guys. So let 

me now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Dr. Doran, you do think that U.S. recognition of the Golan would 

further U.S. national security interests. Correct? 

Mr. DORAN. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Why? 

Mr. DORAN. Because it promotes stability in the region, and it is 

a buffer against all of the malignant forces, whether it is Iranian 

or Sunni jihadi forces or simply the forces of the Assad regime that 

seek to overturn the American order in the region and to upset our 

allies, including Jordan. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And if the administration were to do that, it 

would certainly be a way to push back against terrorism, Iran, 

Assad, and Russia. Correct? 

Mr. DORAN. Absolutely. It would send a message to all of our allies that we are serious about defending the order that is under 

threat. And we would be doing a favor to—our allies may feel compelled to protest. I disagree with Ambassador Kurtzer. I do not 

think we will change the agenda. The major agenda item in the region is the growth of the Iranian-Russian alliance and its effort to 

overturn the existing order. I think we will have a day of protest 

about the Golan, and then it will be forgotten. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Ambassador Gold, would this be in Israel’s national security interest to have U.S. recognition of the Golan? 

Ambassador GOLD. I believe U.S. recognition of Israel’s sovereignty on the Golan would unquestionably be in Israel’s security 

interest. Look, everyone talks about Israeli forces staying on the 

Golan Heights. That is in the famous Ford letter from 1975, repeated again by James Baker’s letter before Madrid, repeated 

again by Warren Christopher’s letter to Israel. So that concept is 

a bipartisan concept. 

Now, let us use our minds for a minute. How do you keep Israeli 

forces on the Golan Heights if people think it is Syrian sovereign 

territory? I do not think a seminar at Harvard Law School could 

figure this one out. 

Mr. DESANTIS. That actually may be the last place you would 

want to figure it out. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DESANTIS. That is neither here nor there. I speak from experience. 

Ambassador GOLD. What I am saying is the best way to assure—— 

Mr. LYNCH. As a Harvard guy, I want to object to that. 

Ambassador GOLD. The best way to assure that is to do the logical thing and assure Israeli sovereignty, and that will protect the 

Israeli military presence that almost everybody agrees must be continued, particularly when you are at the end of a war in Syria 

where a number of countries are now going to come and say, okay, 

how do we create a new order in Syria? We get rid of the Israelis 

in the Golan. Prevent it. Establish Israeli sovereignty. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Professor, if people disagree with your analysis, 

is that not basically saying that you can commit acts of aggression 

and not really pay a price for it? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
76 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. Quite the opposite. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, no. The people who disagree with you are 

saying that countries can commit acts of aggression and not end up 

paying a price for it. Right? 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. That is exactly right. The notion of the defensive conquest would be prohibited, for example, that Israel’s control 

of the Golan is only temporary is, in effect, an insurance policy for 

aggressors because they know if they attack a neighboring country, 

maybe they will succeed and at least they will break even. Even 

if a country is properly occupying territory of an aggressor, they 

have to give it back at some point. And what that does is it 

incentivizes not just aggression but also a failure to make peace because a regime like Damascus will know that they will not lose territory by attacking, and even 50 years of failure to make peace, 

they could still get the territory back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Mr. Klein, you were here when we did our embassy investigation at a hearing last year, and a lot of people were 

saying, oh, you know, it is just not the right time. You cannot do 

it. But that was a very successful decision and successful move. I 

think most of us look at that now. 

Do we not have a lot of momentum right now to continue leading, have the U.S. administration lead on some of these issues and 

make a lot of progress? So to me, now is the perfect time to do this. 

Mr. KLEIN. Yes. Also, it was predicted that the Palestinian Authority would have a range terrorist attacks which never developed. I think because America is showing their strength, now you 

see in Iran demonstrations condemning Palestine. There is no such 

country, but the Palestinian Authority. So this is really a time to 

continue and send a message that the jig is up. You will not permit 

to be supporting your demands that are not only erroneous but not 

support your demands when you continue to promote terrorism, 

you continue to refuse to negotiate with Israel. And I think this 

will be yet a further step in that realm where the Arab will get a 

very powerful message supported by the moderate Arab countries, 

I believe Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and UAE. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. My time has expired. 

I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all again. 

Ambassador Kurtzer, let me rephrase or let me repeat Professor 

Kontorovich’s question. No one is calling for Israeli withdrawal 

from the Golan. Why not support the happy status quo? 

Ambassador KURTZER. Congressman, that is exactly right, and 

that has exactly been American policy since 1967. In 1975, when 

President Ford did send a letter to Prime Minister Rabin, which 

was reiterated later on, it recognized Israel’s very significant security interests. And what that letter said was that at the time when 

Israel and Syria would try to reach an agreement on the status of 

the Golan Heights, the United States would give great weight to 

Israel’s position of remaining. It did not declare support for sovereignty because that would be denying the two parties the ability 

to make their own sovereign choices. So we had a smart policy in 

1975, and that policy has continued until today. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
77 

The key issue—and I go to the chairman’s first question to Dr. 

Doran—is how does this serve American national interests. And 

the answer is it does not because it would, in fact, change the discourse from focusing on Israeli security to focusing on this question 

when it needs not to happen now. 

Mr. LYNCH. Right. 

I had an opportunity several times to visit the Golan, going back 

to my days in the State Senate in Massachusetts. I do recall having 

dinner with a family in Tiberius, and the Golan is looming over 

that entire city or town. So there is a palpable need for security 

in that area. 

And the letters from Gerald Ford and I think it was Warren 

Christopher and others have repeated this narrative that the Golan 

is necessary—Israeli forces in the Golan are necessary to Israel’s 

security because of the actions that have taken place there. And it 

is real. It is necessary. It is important. 

My worry is that instead of the happy status quo where the 

Golan and areas there that are vulnerable and protected, we 

change the narrative away from one of Israeli defense to one where 

we are overreaching—the United States. And in the circumstances 

that we have right now—I mean, the reports this morning. We 

have got, they are saying, hundreds of thousands of people fleeing 

the conflict between the rebels and the forces of Bashar al Assad 

and Iranian militia and Russian air cover—are fleeing into the 

area next to the Golan. 

Do we want to change that narrative? Do we want to change the 

one of supporting Israel’s right to defend itself to one where the 

talk is Israel’s annexing the Golan in violation of the previous 

agreement that has been in place since 1974 at least, if not, 1967? 

Do we want to change that narrative? 

Ambassador KURTZER. Congressman Lynch, I think you are exactly right. The issue now is one of garnering support internationally through our diplomacy through our work in various fora, support for Israel’s security requirements. And that is becoming more 

successful as many in the Arab world see a common threat emanating from Iran. You would not find Arab support for the recognition of Israeli sovereignty in Golan. And if the subcommittee wants 

to test that proposition, invite the Ambassador of Bahrain, the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia and Egypt —— 

Mr. LYNCH. Jordan. 

Ambassador KURTZER.—to a hearing and ask them to declare 

publicly that they think it would be a good idea. If they say it is, 

then I would be happy to tell the subcommittee that I am wrong. 

I do not think they are going to make that statement publicly. 

Mr. LYNCH. The other aspect of—and I have great respect for the 

professor. This idea that military conquest transfers the rights to 

ownership. That means that whoever wins the last war has the 

right, the legitimate right, for that territory. Especially in the Middle East, that is a dangerous, dangerous proposition, and it is one 

that I do not think following that policy leads to a safe and secure 

and a peaceful Middle East or a safe and secure Israel either. 

My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Do you want to respond? 

Ambassador KURTZER. Just one comment. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
78 

Mr. DESANTIS. Let us give the professor just a quick—be short, 

and then I am going to recognize Mr. Hice. 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. Mr. Lynch, a quick clarification of the position being outlined here. It is not that territory can be taken in any 

war or even in most wars. It is that when a country that is itself 

attacked in the exercise of its self-defense changes the frontiers. 

Now, we recognize that self-defense is legal. So we need to make 

that judgment. We believe we can make that judgment, that we 

can tell Crimea apart from the Golan. And if we cannot tell aggression from defense, if it all looks the same, then the entire basis of 

the U.N. Charter security system is undermined. 

Mr. LYNCH. Right, and I totally respect that. But even in today’s 

testimony, we have gone back to the Bible. So every nation in the 

Middle East at some point can claim that they were the victim of 

aggression. Do you see where that leads, especially in this area? 

We go back to the Books of Deuteronomy, you know, the right of 

possession of the Golan, as presented to Abraham. It is never-ending if you apply that rule in this region because of the history. That 

is all. 

And I totally respect your scholarship and your willingness to 

come here and help us with our work. Thank you. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair notes the presence of the gentleman from Wisconsin, 

Mr. Grothman, a member of the full committee. We thank you for 

your interest in this topic. And without objection, we welcome him 

to participate fully in today’s hearing. Seeing no objection, it is so 

ordered. 

And the chair also notes the presence of Congressman Perry of 

Pennsylvania. We appreciate your interest in this topic and welcome your participation. I ask unanimous consent that Congressman Perry be permitted to fully participate in today’s hearing. 

Without objection, it is so ordered. 

The same with Mr. Lamborn. I would like the same unanimous 

consent. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

And the chair will now recognize Mr. Hice for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador Gold, how important was President Trump’s decision to move the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem? 

Ambassador GOLD. While that is not the subject today formally, 

it was extremely important and extremely appreciated by the vast 

majority of the people of Israel. 

Mr. HICE. And we were told that it would create all sorts of 

havoc in the region, and it did not do so. It seems to me that the 

same basic principles apply here as we are discussing Golan. So I 

think the point of that move being very positive in every way without creating the fear and the turmoil that was expected by some 

is a valid point for what we are doing now. 

Now we have Assad’s regime. A campaign in southern Syria obviously threatening Israel’s sovereignty. What are the implications of 

that? 

Ambassador GOLD. Well, again, the current campaign, which 

Assad’s people say is to recover Syrian territory from ISIS, is really 

part of a much wider effort of the Iranian axis, which they call 

themselves the Axis of Resistance, to establish this land bridge 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
79 

across the Middle East which will enshrine Iranian hegemony in 

the region. That should be our point of departure. 

You know, if some Arab states are not willing to come to this 

committee and extol the idea of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan 

Heights, it is because our diplomatic work—and I was involved in 

Golan negotiations for the state of Israel. I was involved in contacts 

with the Arab states. You can reach agreements quietly but not 

publicly on a lot of sensitive issues. I do not believe that suddenly 

Bahrain or Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or the UAE would downgrade 

their relations with the United States because the United States 

recognized the Golan Heights as Israeli sovereign territory. To the 

contrary, you would be serving the interests of the anti-Iranian 

group among the Middle Eastern states. 

Mr. LYNCH. Exactly. And that is why we have a role of leadership in this whole question. 

So how would the question of Golan sovereignty factor into what 

currently Syria is doing? 

Ambassador GOLD. Well, there would no longer be a question 

mark about the Golan Heights, that if the Syrians could launch a 

surprise attack and seize some territory, they could move a diplomatic process that allows them to take Golan territory at the end 

of the day. That would be defeated. It would be clear that the 

United States is on the side of Israel staying on the Golan Heights 

permanently. And I think it would deter aggression rather than 

stimulate it. 

Mr. HICE. I agree with you. 

Dr. Doran, let me go to you now with a similar but expanded 

question. What impact would U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty 

over the Golan Heights have pertaining specifically to Russia and 

Iran? 

Mr. DORAN. It would send a message to all parties, including the 

Russians and the Iranians, about what the United States expects 

the new Syria to look like. The Russians and the Iranians are 

working hard to create a Syria that is going to be a Russian and 

Iranian base of operations in the whole region. And this is one way 

that we can very powerfully say to them and to the Syrians that 

we do not accept that and that we have a different vision of the 

new Syria. And it would also condition our talks with the Syrian 

people and the Syrian governments in the future. 

It was noted that the previous Israeli prime ministers sat down 

with the Syrian representatives and entertained the possibility of 

returning to the 4 June 1967 line. Those talks were not simply bilateral Israeli-Syrian talks. Those were talks by the Syrians with 

the Israelis very much with the intention of influencing Washington. And so Washington would be sending a message to the Syrians that if you want—to the future Syrian governments, if you 

want good relations with the United States, and you want to sit 

down comfortably with the American-led order, it means accepting 

the Golan as part of Israel. And we would strengthen the Israeli 

governments, we would strengthen the backbone of Israeli governments, and we would take off of the agenda the possibility of rolling back Israel. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
80 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. A few questions. 

Just doing a little bit of a check here, it looks like the Golan 

Heights would be the equivalent of 24 square miles. I mean 24 

miles by 24 miles. I should say about 500 square miles. 

How many people live in that area right now? Does anyone 

know? 

Mr. KLEIN. About 50,000. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. 50,000 people? 

And who lives there, if you had to describe them ethnically? 

Mr. KLEIN. It is 30,000 Jews and 20,000 Druze. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. No traditional Arabs or —— 

Mr. KLEIN. Virtually none. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Could you describe the economy of the Golan 

Heights? 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. It is overwhelmingly based on tourism. There 

is also agriculture, and now there are some clean energy industries 

being explored. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Could you describe the economy today compared 

to the economy 50 years ago? 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. The economy is vastly more developed. It is 

accessible to tourists. All of the infrastructure in the area has been 

done by Israel since 1967. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Could you compare the economy of the Israeli occupied Golan Heights to the Golan Heights immediately adjacent 

to it —— 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. The Syrian Golan Heights is now principally 

a battleground between different rebel groups and themselves and 

between rebel groups and Assad. It is a desolate wasteland. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I would say could you describe the quality of agriculture on the area controlled by Israel compared to the area controlled by Syria? 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. The Israeli side produces internationally recognized, very fine wines. It is also the major source of Israeli 

beefstock. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Does it look a lot greener on the Israeli side? 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. It is a lot greener and it is quite beautiful. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Why is that? 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. Because of the quality of the agriculture, the 

quality of the irrigation, and the lack of a prolonged ethnic cleansing process. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. The people who previously were—obviously, 

Syria is a problem. They are made up of a lot of ethnic groups that 

do not get along. The people who have left the Golan—how would 

you describe their ethnicity? 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. The Druze on the Golan? 

Mr. GROTHMAN. The ones who left. 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. So very few Druze left during the war. The 

1968 war ended too fast for anyone to run away. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Did any people leave the Golan —— 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. No. It was not a source of refugees. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
81 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. So the same people are living there now 

who basically lived there 50 years ago. 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. That is exactly right. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Is there anything that could be done kind of 

short of full recognition that would be a step in that direction? 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. Several steps could be taken. Encouraging 

congressional delegations to visit is a simple step. Putting in the 

foreign aid budget for Israel an explicit permission for Israel to use 

money appropriated to it for defense and other purposes in the 

Golan Heights. Encouraging the creation of joint defense and research projects in the Golan Heights. And modifying the U.S.-Israel 

joint science research agreements to explicitly allow the use of 

funds for research on agriculture and clean energy in the Golan 

Heights. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. It seems to me a lot of anti-Israeli feeling in this 

country is focused on this boycott-divest sanctions effort. How does 

this effort use the Golan Heights? 

Mr. KONTOROVICH. The Golan Heights is completely subject to efforts of economic warfare against Israel. While the BDS movement 

claims that their goal is Palestinian self-determination, the boycott 

aspect is applied 100 percent to the Golan where there is no question of Palestinian self-determination. Crucially United Nations 

resolutions that seek to promote economic strangleholds on Israeli 

territories apply to the Golan. EU labeling policies apply to the 

Golan. And there is no distinction made even though there is no 

claim of self-determination or a right to statehood in this area. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Anybody else could jump in too. Anybody trying 

to leave—you said we have 30,000 Israeli Jews in there and 20,000 

Druze. Is that right? Is anybody trying to leave? Is anybody unhappy that Israel is running it right now? 

Mr. DORAN. No, they are not unhappy. You only need to look at 

what is going on in Syria and see that they do not want to trade 

their status in Israel for Syrian citizenship. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Or Jordan or Lebanon? 

Mr. DORAN. Or Jordan or Lebanon. But they have kept their Syrian citizenship if they want to. Younger people are accepting Israeli 

citizenship, which is on offer. 

But those who have not accepted Israeli citizenship are not doing 

it because they necessarily prefer Syrian citizenship. They have 

done it because there is a question mark over the status of the 

Golan and it might go back to Assad. And if they choose Israeli citizenship over Syrian citizenship and it goes back to Assad, then 

they and their families fear retribution. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I guess I have used my 5 minutes. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 

this hearing. It is an issue that I have been very interested in for 

a long time. So this is a very timely and important issue. In fact, 

in the last Congress, I introduced House resolution 768 expressing 

the sense of the House that it is in the U.S. national security interest for Israel to maintain control of the Golan Heights. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
82 

So this has been great testimony that you have all provided. I 

appreciate that. But I do want to focus in more than we have so 

far on Iran and Iran’s designs. We have talked a little bit about 

the land bridge, and that has been helpful. 

Has the status quo changed? Ambassador Kurtzer, you mentioned the status quo. For 50-some years, Israel has been maintaining a status quo, you say, and a happy status quo. I have heard 

that phrase. But have things not changed, Ambassador Gold or Dr. 

Doran, with Iran’s involvement in the Syrian civil war, Iran’s stated intentions to find ways to annihilate Israel? Not that that language has changed, but their ability to do so or harm Israel at least 

has changed due to their proximity now to the Golan Heights and 

their involvement in Golan Heights, their involvement in Lebanon. 

So for the two of you, could you comment on whether the status 

quo has changed to the point where the U.S. policy should change? 

Ambassador GOLD. Well, one issue which I did raise is Iranian 

planning. The fact of the matter is that the Iranians are planning 

on building a very large army. Now, these Shiite militias are 

trained and equipped by Iran and deployed in Syria. The goal, according to General Soleimani himself, is to get to 150,000 men. 

Now, remember, Israel does not keep the whole Israeli army on 

the Golan Heights. It has a small blocking force. The number of 

soldiers it puts there is classified. But after 48 hours, we get to full 

mobilization. Then we can withstand an attack. 

Now, if there is a massive Iranian force in the next 5 to 6 years 

that develops in Syria that plans to attack Israel, Israel’s dependence on the Golan Heights and the initial terrain conditions that 

the Golan presents to Israel will become more vital. 

One of the witnesses who was supposed to appear here was General Giora Eiland, and he was the mastermind and the architect 

—— 

Mr. LAMBORN. If you could summarize because I am running out 

of time. 

Ambassador GOLD. Okay. Well, I am just saying there is no alternative to Israeli military presence on the Golan Heights enshrined, protected diplomatically by Israeli sovereignty. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And by U.S. recognition of that sovereignty? 

Ambassador GOLD. And U.S. recognition of that sovereignty. 

That would be the strongest defense of Israel in the international 

community. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And, Dr. Doran, if you could answer that but 

throw in the following thought. Have relations between Israel and 

the neighboring friendly Arab states given Iran’s threats that have 

united this sort of ad hoc coalition—has that changed the status 

quo as well? 

Mr. DORAN. It has totally changed the status quo. 

There, I think, three major factors at work here that make the 

map of the Middle East today totally different than when U.N. resolution 242 was issued. One is the rise of the Iranians. The second 

is the question mark about American power. The United States has 

downgraded the Middle East somewhat in its foreign policy, and 

everyone in the region wonders who much has it been downgraded. 

And the third thing is the near disintegration of Syria. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
83 

So I leave it to Professor Kontorovich to say whether this is a 

valid legal principle, but I think it should be a principle of our policy that the entity that was in Syria when U.N. resolution 242 was 

issued is no longer there. When we are negotiating with the Assad 

regime now, behind it is Iran. Behind it is Russia. This is not an 

entity like Egypt that can make a guarantee about the borders of 

Syria that we can rely on in any serious respect. So if we are holding this in escrow for this entity to take over, the entity is not 

there anymore. I do not know if that is a legal principle, but it 

should be a policy principle. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Vermont for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. 

I want to give Ambassador Kurtzer a chance to respond to some 

of the points that were made. In listening to your testimony, as I 

understood it, Israel does have a secure position on the Golan now. 

There is no suggestion that that be taken away, and that there 

would be, as you saw it, a number of collateral consequences to an 

annexation. I am sorry that I missed some of the questioning as 

I was at another hearing, but I would welcome your response to 

some of the points that were made. 

Ambassador KURTZER. Thank you, Congressman. 

The reality right now is that no one—no one—is seriously questioning Israel’s control of this territory. We have not questioned 

that control since 1967. And there is a distinction then between the 

issue of sovereignty and the issue of control. The United States I 

think in a bipartisan and very serious way has supported Israel’s 

right to defend itself. We need to continue to do that. I think some 

of the things mentioned by Professor Kontorovich in terms of ways 

of enhancing our relationship with Israel should definitely be considered by the Congress. But that is a far cry from changing the 

subject to a question of sovereignty. 

Today Israel is on the high ground, both literally, physically but 

also diplomatically and morally and, as a result of that, it has 

gained a tremendous amount of support internationally, including 

in the region, for what it is doing to counteract malign Iranian influence. 

Why change the subject now to this question, a legal question, 

which is not on anybody’s agenda? And it does not enhance American foreign policy to be changing the agenda at this point. 

Mr. WELCH. Now, you mentioned that Israel has significant improvement in relations with a number of the Arab states. And 

could you elaborate on your view as to how this would complicate 

that progress? 

Ambassador KURTZER. Look, right now, most of the improved relations between Israel and the states with which it does not have 

a peace treaty are conducted behind the curtain. There is intelligence cooperation, strategic cooperation, a great deal of political 

dialogue. Most of these countries would be unwilling to come out 

from behind that curtain in support of a claim of sovereignty. They 

have their own domestic audiences, the so-called Arab Street. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
84 

I do not suggest that a recognition of sovereignty would bring 

people into the street. There is not going to be major demonstrations or violence, but it would force Arab states to take positions 

against Israel at a time when they are working with Israel on 

Israel’s important security interests, as well as their own security 

interests. 

Mr. WELCH. One final question. I have always appreciated what 

I thought was the United States’ role of trying to be a peacemaker 

and the honest broker. And there are some people who see some 

of the decisions like the unilateral move of the capital to Jerusalem, supported by many people here, but not by everyone, as 

compromising the capacity of the U.S. to play that role. Do you see 

any issue related to the U.S. pushing sovereignty complicating its 

role ultimately to be a collaborative player in a peace process in the 

region? 

Ambassador KURTZER. I think there is no question, Congressman. Look, we have seen, with respect to the move of the embassy 

to Jerusalem, how it has complicated the American role in the 

peace process that the President has said he wants to resolve. The 

Palestinians are not talking to us. It is true they did not burn 

down an embassy. They did not riot. But they have taken themselves out of the game, and they have said that the United States 

is not an honest broker. 

By the U.S. recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan 

Heights at a moment when it is not part of the discourse, it is not 

part of the diplomacy, would force Arab states also to distance 

themselves from U.S. leadership, which is critical at this very difficult period in the region. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. 

I want to thank our witnesses again for appearing before us 

today. 

The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks for any member 

to submit a written opening statement or questions for the record. 

And if there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER