Syrian President's Joke About New Jersey Highlights Golan Heights Dispute
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad jokingly responded to a proposal from then-U.S. President Donald Trump regarding the Golan Heights. During a speech in New York, Assad recounted a conversation where Trump suggested Syria relinquish the Golan Heights as part of a potential peace deal with Israel. Assad stated he countered by humorously suggesting Trump offer New Jersey to Israel instead, arguing that since it's American land, it would be an easier concession than the Golan Heights, which he asserted do not belong to the United States. He further quipped that Trump might find it easier to give up New Jersey because it traditionally supports Democrats, eliciting laughter from the audience.
Despite the jest, Assad emphasized Damascus's serious stance, declaring that the Golan Heights have a population and neither the Syrian nor the American president has the right to abandon them. Later, at the UN General Assembly, he reiterated that the Golan Heights would remain Syrian territory and that annexation attempts violate UN Security Council resolutions.
The article also includes the perspective of Itamar Rabinovich, former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., who participated in past negotiations concerning Syria. Rabinovich suggested a scenario where Syria retains formal sovereignty over the Golan Heights while Israel gains de facto control through a long-term lease agreement, allowing both sides to maintain their political interpretations. However, he acknowledged this proposal was never officially presented to Syria.
The piece further examines Assad's domestic standing and his relationship with Washington, noting his success in managing the country's complex situation while receiving political and economic support from the U.S., European nations, and Gulf states.
A separate section of the article discusses "Not Just Jihad: What They Don't Tell You About Islam" by Ron Shaham, a professor at the Hebrew University. Shaham critiques the portrayal of Islam solely as a religion of violence or an obstacle to peace, analyzing various interpretations of Islam among Israeli scholars. He highlights the complexity of interpreting Islamic texts and the existence of diverse, sometimes contradictory, viewpoints within the Islamic tradition, particularly concerning jihad and the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. Shaham argues that Islam is neither inherently an obstacle to peace with Israel nor exclusively a peaceful tradition, attributing disputes to differing interpretations of religious sources. He also points to peaceful interpretations of jihad that remain on the fringes of public discourse.
Finally, Shaham proposes distinguishing between Islam as a religion and political Islam, which seeks to establish religious principles as the basis for state governance, noting that religion can be used as a political tool.
