The public discourse about a peace agreement with
Syria focuses on claims of an ideological nature, largely to the neglect
of legal arguments. Likewise, it focuses more on the subject of the Golan
and less on the issue of peace. The article's purpose is to highlight the
legal aspects of the envisaged peace agreement, and to maintain that the
Golan is not an obstacle on the path to achieving a real peace. The Golan
can be saved only if a way is found to integrate it into the peace process
instead of presenting it as a contestant of it. The following is a summary
of the legal arguments:
Real peace can be established only in the framework
of the application of international and constitutional law in the Middle
East.
Since according to international law the Golan
belongs to Israel, Israel is entitled to retain it, even after real peace
is achieved.
The envisaged peace agreement is illegal from the
standpoint of both international and constitutional law, and hence should
be derailed even before it is brought to a referendum.
The proposed use of international law is based on the
assumption that if in the past, because of the inability to enforce it in
the international arena, it was regarded only as quasi-law, since the end
of the Cold War it has been turning into practical law, in the same sense
that we ascribe to domestic law. The historical gap between international
law and domestic law is closing rapidly, as the major political interests
and forces in the world recognize its value and are willing to endorse it.
Real peace with Syria (as well as with the other
states in the Middle East) cannot be established unless the authority of
international law is recognized and the game is played according to its
rules. However, so long as Syria does not recognize the authority of
international law; so long as Syria does not declare its recognition of
the state of Israel as a sovereign state according to international law;
so long as Syria does not eliminate its threats of war against the state
of Israel; so long as Syria takes an array of political, military,
propagandistic, and other actions that are incompatible with international
law, including the de facto annexation of Lebanon, support for terrorism,
and so on; so long as this situation continues, Israel has no alternative
but to maintain the status quo and to settle for a cold, de facto peace,
based on the existing cease-fire agreements.
