How Israeli media are normalising colonial land grabs in Syria 

Since Israel occupied the Syrian Golan Heights in 1967, it has viewed the area as a huge strategic stronghold.

The Golan was deemed crucial for Israel’s security, resource development and water supply, while also comprising an important negotiating card for any future peace talks with Syria. 

In the years that followed, Israel vacillated on peace talks and its will to withdraw from the occupied Golan Heights. Several Israeli prime ministers agreed on a withdrawal plan in exchange for peace and normalised diplomatic relations.

But the occupation continues to this day, and since the fall of the Assad regime, Israel has seized even more land.

One of the key prizes has always been Mount Hermon. In December, Israel seized Syria’s highest peak, which rises more than 2,800 metres above sea level.

Many Israeli media outlets have discussed the terminology that should be used to describe the new “prize”, pointing to a clear intention of annexation. Some referred to it as “the Syrian Hermon”, before realising their mistake. 

As it dawned on them that the terminology used must serve Israel’s colonial aspirations, new suggestions emerged, such as “the Hermon Crown”, referencing a poem written a century ago by Zionist leader Zeev Jabotinsky, or even “Zion”.

The goal was clear: to disconnect Mount Hermon from its Syrian identity and confirm the Zionist takeover of this strategic peak.

Colonialism and expansionism

It’s not only media outlets using such language. Tourism agencies are selling tickets for trekking to the “highest peak in Israel”, with one adding in parentheses: “formerly Syrian Hermon”.

Colonialism and expansionism are the main policies of the current Israeli government. Any piece of land occupied by the Israeli army is celebrated by the media and government, with no regard for neighbouring countries and peoples, and a total denial of the potential consequences.

Israel hasn’t even bothered to try to justify its occupation of new Syrian territories. Claims of self-defence don’t apply, as Israel hasn’t faced attacks from this area for decades. While Tel Aviv has vaguely argued that the expanded occupation is a “preemptive” defence mechanism, the truth is that it has brazenly provoked Syria by illegally grabbing more land.

This new occupation is not the result of a fresh armed conflict, but rather of the expansionist mindset of an extremist government

Last month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel would not allow any activity by the newly formed Syrian army anywhere south of Damascus, while pledging that his own military would remain there indefinitely. Weeks earlier, Defence Minister Israel Katz said the Israeli army would stay on Mount Hermon for an undisclosed period of time to “ensure security”.

These statements reveal a clear intent to permanently occupy, and then annex, parts of southern Syria, especially Mount Hermon.

Although Syria’s transitional government has not formally responded, many regional leaders have urged Israel to withdraw and to respect the 1974 ceasefire deal.

Israel’s actions - a unilateral permanent occupation of another country - are illegal under international law. This new occupation is not the result of a fresh armed conflict, but rather of the colonial, expansionist mindset of an extremist government.

While Syria’s new government has been hesitant to confront Israel as the country struggles to rebuild in the post-Assad era, Israel’s new land grabs are an illegal bullying tactic, and the international community must broadly reject these moves.

The stability of the region hinges on the stability of the “new Syria”. The world must support all efforts towards peace, and reject any form of foreign infringement.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.