The internationally recognized Syrian lands that is occupied by Israel, the Golan Heights has been recently recognized as Israeli lands by the US president Mr. Trump, I wonder how the major US press/media reacted to that, was there any major one that criticized/condemned doing this.

And by major I mean one of these in this list: Top 10 newspapers by circulation

Or the ones under major news sources in this page

  • 6
    If you want to know how those reacted, just visit their site. – Sjoerd Mar 29 '19 at 23:32
  • I've tagged your question with "summary-request" because it seems to be in that spirit (I can't be bothered to read something else, just summarize the stuff here for me.) politics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3863/… – SX welcomes ageist gossip Mar 30 '19 at 4:38
  • @Fizz I don't think that's what the summary-request tag is for. This question asks for something specific whereas the tag is aimed at questions explaining rather broad things (concepts, organisations, events). As shown by the highest voted answer at the moment this question can be answered by a simple yes. ;) – JJ for Transparency and Monica Mar 30 '19 at 11:39


First, it's important to note that the main philosophy of journalism in the US and elsewhere is not one of criticism or support, but publishing accurate information. As such, the majority of journalism won't be directly critical of any policy by virtue of aiming to present opinions. The thing to look at would be the editorial pieces published by those outlets.

It's also worth noting that most news in the US is not newspapers, but television. Particularly the news source most supportive of Donald Trump's policy decisions, FOX.

That said, here are a few of the news sources that have published pieces critical of Trump's Golan Heights recognition.

  • The New York Times editorial board referred to Trump's decision as "a pointless provocation":

    For decades, the United Nations and the United States refused to officially recognize Israel’s seizure of the Golan Heights or the West Bank, on the ground that the boundaries of Israel and any new Palestinian state must be negotiated.

  • The Los Angeles Times wasn't much sunnier:

    Trump’s tweet instantly reversed a decades-old and bipartisan U.S. policy of withholding recognition of Israel’s annexation of the heights, which it captured from Syria in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

It shouldn't come as any surprise that this move attracted some editorial criticism. It was made by Trump, which naturally would incline left-leaning boards to see it negatively. And it reverses long-standing US policy, which irritates moderates and even conservatives, as well as establishment figures.

That's not to say that Trump's move doesn't have supporters. Outlets like FOX and the Wall Street Journal have been largely supportive.

| improve this answer | |

So, I took Sjoerd's advice and visited the news sources. When I visited your second link, I followed-up on National Public Radio (NPR) and came across a critical opinion piece titled: Opinion: Trump's Recognition Of Israel's Claim To Golan Only Creates New Problems.

When I read the title and saw the words creates new problems I got the feeling this might be getting critical of Trump's decision. And indeed a few paragraphs in, the article does not disappoint (for the purposes of answering this question). Here follow some quotes from the article by Aaron David Miller:

In recognizing Israel's sovereignty to the Golan Heights, President Trump has come up with a solution to a problem Washington never had. In doing so, he has created new problems that undermine the U.S. national interest and Trump's own foreign policy agenda, including his stated plan for a peace deal in the region. And here's why.


The move will hand Iran, Hezbollah and Syria more propaganda advantage and might even incentivize them to focus more attention on Golan.


Trump's move on Golan had nothing to do with the national interest and everything to with his politics and his ego.


But U.S. recognition of sovereignty set a damaging precedent both in the Middle East and outside.


First, it undermined not only U.N. resolutions critical to the Arab-Israeli conflict but the U.N. Charter itself, including the principles of peaceful resolution of disputes and the unacceptability of the acquisition of territory by force.


The Arab states — even the Saudis — have rejected the move publicly. And if Trump was expecting their cooperation in either reaching out to Israel or pressuring the Palestinians, that's going to be much harder now.

And to end with the most critical of them all:

The president's Golan decision may well ensure that the door to his Israeli-Palestinian peace plan remains closed for the season.

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .