New step towards peace or just moral support?

am en ru
nor-qayl-xaxaxoutyan-janaparhin--te-endamene-baroyakan-ajakcoutyoun

One of the most discussed topics of recent days was the decision of US President Donald Trump to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. And although the decision was made on March 25, the United States President informed the international community of his intention on March 21, urging everyone to join this initiative.

However, it seems that the world is not in a hurry to support this appeal. Moreover, on March 26 at a meeting of the UN Security Council, the closest allies of the United States in Europe - the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and Poland, condemned Trump’s decision.

Belgium’s Permanent Representative to the UN, H.E. Mr. Marc Pecsteen de Buytswerve, stated very unequivocally: “We do not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied since June 1967, including the Golan Heights, and do not consider these territories to be part of the State of Israel”.

Virtually the same official response followed from Canada: “Canada is Israel’s loyal friend. We support Israel and its right to live in peace and security with its neighbors, but we do not recognize Israel’s right to permanent control over the Golan Heights”.

The reaction of the USA’s Middle Eastern allies - the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and, of course, Syria - turned out to be negative, and today it announced the initiation of a special meeting of the UN Security Council.

It is also predictable that no Muslim country will ever join this initiative. The reaction of the Russian Federation was also predictable and extremely negative.

It must be admitted that this attitude from the closest allies of the United States was unprecedented. Over the years they have been the hottest supporters of American international politics, and in many cases they have become a kind of “fairway” of this very policy.

A few months ago, a number of countries, following another proposal by the US president, moved their embassies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, or expressed a similar intention, but not in this case.

What conclusions can be made in this situation?

- In fact, the US decision found a positive response only from the interested side - Israel.

- On the other hand, the fact that after the collapse of the USSR and the socialist camp, the world became unipolar. On the international arena, the word of the United States has almost always been decisive and unconditional, even in the most controversial issues, to say the least (Iraq, Libya, Serbia, etc.). The overwhelming majority of the rest of the countries did not at best prevent the actions of the above-mentioned states, with the exception of Russia (not always, however), which, perhaps, did not have an adequate impact.

- It is also a fact that in recent months the world seems to be getting used to the idea that it may have a different opinion - different from that of the United States. Recall at least the actual demarche by the most authoritative Merkel-Macron pair a few months ago, regarding the need for Europe’s own armed forces, followed by statements by the US president about the possible withdrawal of his country from NATO.

- For us, the most interesting aspect in this case is what will this sensational decision of Donald Trump mean in the context of a just settlement of the Artsakh issue. A number of experts are convinced this can be a positive precedent, opening up new opportunities in the negotiation process. To be honest, I do not suppose so. Moreover, in addition to moral support from a strong ally, this decision is unlikely to bring any substantial dividends to Israel itself and, unequivocally, would further postpone the establishment of peace in the Middle East. However, this is the case when I would prefer to be wrong.

News feed

Similar