Los Altos del Golán (; ) son una meseta ubicada en la frontera entre Israel, Líbano y Siria. Abarca un área aproximada de 1800 km², de los cuales cerca de 1200 km² están bajo ocupación militar de Israel, unos 235 km² están controlados por la UNDOF y el resto permanece bajo soberanía siria.
Israel invadió y ocupó este territorio a Siria durante la guerra de los Seis Días (1967) y la guerra de Yom Kipur (1973). La Organización de las Naciones Unidas, a través de la Resolución 242 de su Consejo de Seguridad, adoptada por unanimidad, lo considera «territorio ocupado». Israel, en cambio, lo considera «territorio en disputa». Desde entonces, es parte del conflicto árabe-israelí y crucial en las negociaciones de paz entre Israel y Siria. Aunque formalmente no han sido anexados, sí han sido integrados en el sistema administrativo israelí desde 1981. Para Siria, los Altos del Golán pertenecen a la unidad administrativa de Quneitra. En diciembre de 2024, después de la caída del régimen de Ásad, Israel invadió la zona tampón de los Altos del Golán, argumentado preocupaciones de que pudiera caer en manos de extremistas después de que se disolviera el Ejército Árabe Sirio.
Una pequeña parte de los Altos del Golán, las Granjas de Shebaa, es reclamada por el Líbano; mientras Siria acepta esta reclamación, Israel y la ONU la rechazan.
El nombre Golán es polisémico y designa tanto a una región geográfica e histórica como a los territorios que Israel ocupa actualmente.
Estatus actual
250px|thumb|Localización de los Altos del Golán; en color más claro, el área anexada por Israel.|alt=|izquierda
Israel invadió estos territorios durante la guerra de los Seis Días (1967), manteniéndolos durante la guerra de Yom Kipur (1973). En 1981, Israel los incorporó a su territorio (Distrito Norte), aplicándoles su sistema legal, administrativo y jurisdiccional, ofreciendo a sus habitantes la ciudadanía israelí mediante una ley aprobada por su Parlamento, que elude emplear el término anexión.
La resolución 497 del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, aprobada por unanimidad, declaró en diciembre de 1981 que la decisión israelí era «nula y sin valor».Resolución 497 Israel-República Arabe Siria (Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas, 17 de diciembre de 1981) Esta resolución se ha dictado en virtud del Capítulo VI de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas, siendo el Capítulo VII el único que permite la adopción de resoluciones vinculantes, en interpretación literal de la Carta.
La Corte Internacional de Justicia, en una opinión consultiva vinculante acerca de Namibia (21 de junio de 1971), interpretó que, con base en los artículos 24.2 y 25 de la Carta, el Consejo de Seguridad tiene poderes generales, por lo que este puede adoptar decisiones obligatorias al margen del Capítulo VII.Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) 21 de junio de 1971, párrafos 108 y ss., especialmente el 113 (en inglés)."Some analysts have pointed out that Security Council resolutions condemning or criticizing Israel have been passed under Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, which are different from the Chapter VII resolutions against Iraq." (Ayoob, Mohammad. "The war against Iraq: normative and strategic implications", in Robinson, Mary & Weiss, Thomas G. & Crahan, Margaret E. & Goering, John (eds). Wars on Terrorism and Iraq: human rights, unilateralism, and U.S. foreign policy, Routledge (UK), May 1, 2004, p. 164)."Additionally it may be noted that the Security Council cannot adopt binding decisions under Chapter VI of the Charter" (De Hoogh, Andre. Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1996, p. 371)."Council recommendations under Chapter VI are generally accepted as not being legally binding". (Magliveras, Konstantinos D. Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1999, p. 113)."Within the framework of Chapter VI the SC has at its disposal an 'escalation ladder' composed of several 'rungs' of wielding influence on the conflicting parties in order to move them toward a pacific solution... however, the pressure exerted by the Council in the context of this Chapter is restricted to non-binding recommendations". (Neuhold, Hanspeter. "The United Nations System for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes", in Cede, Franz & Sucharipa-Behrmann, Lilly. The United Nations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 2001, p. 66)."The responsibility of the Council with regard to international peace and security is specified in Chapters VI and VII. Chapter VI, entitled 'Pacific Settlements of Disputes', provides for action by the Council in case of international disputes or situations which do not (yet) post a threat to international peace and security. Herein its powers generally confined to making recommendations, the Council can generally not issue binding decisions under Chapter VI". (Schweigman, David. The Authority of the Security Council Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 2001, p. 33)."Under Chapter VI, the Security Council may only make recommendations but not binding decisions on United Nations members". (Wallace-Bruce, Nii Lante. The Settlement of International Disputes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1998, pp. 47-4 )."The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven." Iraq, Israel and the United Nations: Double standards?, The Economist, October 10, 2002."There are two sorts of security council resolution: those under 'chapter 6' are non-binding recommendations dealing with the peaceful resolution of disputes; those under 'chapter 7' give the council broad powers, including war, to deal with 'threats to the peace ... or acts of aggression'." Emmott, Bill. If Saddam steps out of line we must go straight to war, The Guardian, November 25, 2002."...there is a difference between the Security Council resolutions that Israel breaches (nonbinding recommendations under Chapter 6) and those Iraq broke (enforcement actions under Chapter 7)." Kristof, Nicholas D. Calling the Kettle Black, The New York Times, February 25, 2004."There is a hierarchy of resolutions... Chapter 6, under which all resolutions relating to the middle east have been issued, relates to the pacific resolution of disputes. Above that, there are the mandatory chapter 7 resolutions, which impose the clearest possible obligations, usually on a single state rather than on two or three states, which is what chapter 6 is there for. Chapter 7 imposes mandatory obligations on states that are completely out of line with international law and policy, and the United Nations has decided in its charter that the failure to meet those obligations may be met by the use of force." Straw, Jack. House of Commons debates, Hansard, Column 32, September 24, 2002."There is another characteristic of these resolutions which deserves a mention, and that is that they are under chapter 7 of the United Nations charter. Chapter 7 has as its heading 'Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression'. This is the very serious chapter of United Nations rules, regulations, laws and principles, which the United Nations activates when they intend to do something about it. If the United Nations announces under chapter 7 that it intends to do something about a matter and it is not done, that will undermine the authority of the United Nations; that will render it ineffective.
There are many other resolutions under other chapters. Resolution 242 gets a bit of a guernsey here every now and then. Resolution 242 is under chapter 6, not chapter 7. It does not carry the same mandate and authority that chapter 7 carries. Chapter 6 is the United Nations trying to put up resolutions which might help the process of peace and it states matters of principle that are important for the world to take into consideration. Resolution 242 says that Israel should withdraw from territories that it has occupied. It also says that Israel should withdraw to secure and recognised boundaries and that the one is dependent upon the other. Resolution 242 says that, but it is not a chapter 7 resolution." Beazley, Kim, Waiting for blow-back (speech delivered in Parliament on February 4, 2003, The Sydney Morning Herald, February 5, 2003."There are several types of resolutions: Chapter 6 resolutions are decisions pursing the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, and put forward Council proposals on negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies, and other peaceful means. Chapter 7 resolutions are decisions for Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, involving use of force and sanctions, complete or partial interruption of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic radio and other means of communication and the severance of diplomatic relations. Resolutions passed under Chapter 7 of the Charter are binding on all UN members, who are required to give every assistance to any action taken by the Council, and refrain from giving any assistance to the country against which it is taking enforcement action." Iran dossier crosses the Atlantic: Where to from here? (Microsoft Word document), Greenpeace position paper on Iran.
La Agencia Judía para Israel, organismo gubernamental, respondió que «aunque se considere una anexión, no lo es: los Altos del Golán no están declarados territorio israelí».«Although reported as a annexation, it is not: the Golan Heights are not declared to be Israeli territory.» Israel los ha considerado siempre un emplazamiento estratégico esencial para mantener su seguridad y su aprovisionamiento hídrico y la base negociadora de un futuro acuerdo de paz con Siria.El Artículo I, Sección 9, de las Directrices normativas básicas del Gobierno de Israel afirma: "El gobierno considera que el Golán es esencial para la seguridad del Estado y sus recursos hídricos. Mantener la soberanía de Israel sobre el Golán será la base para un acuerdo con Siria." En 2019, Donald Trump fue el primer líder extranjero que reconoció la soberanía israelí sobre los Altos del Golán; el 10 de agosto de 2026 el nuevo presidente de Colombia, Abelardo de la Espriella, también reconoció la soberanía israelí.
El 28 de noviembre de 2024, la Asamblea General de la ONU adoptó una resolución que pedía la retirada de Israel del territorio ocupado de los Altos del Golán, reiterando que su jurisdicción sobre el mismo es «nula» y exhortando a las autoridades israelíes a revocarla. La resolución fue aprobada con 91 votos a favor frente a ocho en contra —Australia, Canadá, Israel, las islas Marshall, Estados Federados de Micronesia, isla de Palaos, Reino Unido y Estados Unidos— y 62 abstenciones. En esta resolución, la Asamblea pidió «una vez más» a las autoridades israelíes «que se retiren del Golán sirio ocupado hasta la línea del 4 de junio de 1967, en cumplimiento con las resoluciones pertinentes del Consejo de Seguridad» y manifestó que la «anexión de facto constituye un obstáculo para el logro de un paz justa, general y duradera en la región».