The 40 years that have passed since the dramatic day in which the Knesset, at the initiative of then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin, applied Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, make it possible to strike an interim balance of what has been achieved and what has not yet been achieved following this historic move.
The main goal of the law enacted at the time in three readings in one day (today the Attorney General and the High Court could have intervened and thwarted the move on false pretenses that the procedure was improper) was certainly achieved. , A final move from which there is no return.
Until then, military control over the level and status as a held territory broadcast transience.
Although Israel has previously raised its convincing arguments for its right to this territory, in refraining from annexing the Golan Heights, it seems as if it has hinted that it itself is unsure of the weight of the arguments.
And when you yourself are transmitting that you are not sure of your righteousness why should others stand by your side?
Begin's right move puts an end to the ambiguous situation.
Although the countries of the world did not officially recognize the application of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan, and their initial anger was loud and firm, they were forced to accept it de facto.
Some are eager, some are indifferent, some are reluctant, but they all accepted, and the lack of pressure on Israel regarding the Golan Heights is the best evidence of this.
And there is another good evidence: as time passed and the idea of the Israeli Golan was assimilated and internalized, the foreign ambassadors stationed in Israel stopped refusing to visit it.
How did an ambassador from a certain country, who does not exactly support us at the UN, tell me? "Even if we do not declare it to the microphone, we understand that the Golan will remain in your hands."
However, it was clear that even the official recognition would come one day.
Although it took nearly four decades, US President Trump's recognition of the application of Israeli law to the Golan Heights was a final seal of approval. To the new state and recognizing it de facto, in the third stage comes the formal recognition, de jure.
It is interesting that precisely in the aspect that was seemingly easier - the actual assimilation of the Golan within the country and the creation of irreversible physical facts on the ground - Israel was less successful.
After 54 years of liberation from the Syrians and 40 years of official annexation, this is still a fairly desolate region of land, and its Jewish population is appallingly small.
In this sense, in Judea and Samaria the opposite situation prevails: the Jewish presence is already very significant, while the application of Israeli sovereignty, at least to the Jewish localities, is delayed, and a pity.
The precedent of the Golan Heights shows that Israel is determined and self-confident can dictate its will, and the world will accept it sooner or later.
Herein lies the main lesson in relation to the future of Judea and Samaria.
Historical justification is important - dozens of ancient synagogues in the Golan testify to the fact that this region belongs to the Jewish people.
The rationale for international law is important - and international law recognizes that the aggressor, ie Arab states, should be held accountable for his actions and may lose parts of his territory in favor of the victim of aggression, as for example Germany lost large territories in favor of Poland, the Czech Republic and Russia.
But Israel's action and its willingness to apply sovereignty over territory liberated in a defensive war is more important than any other reason.
It worked in the Golan Heights, it will work in Judea and Samaria.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us
