It has not escaped the new Syrian leadership that the confrontation with Israel has entered a new phase. Syrian strength is at its nadir. The country cannot undertake any military confrontation with any party in its vicinity, especially given its complete focus on domestic security and the restoration of peace across the country. The Syrian-Israeli conflict also requires a fresh approach that takes into account recent developments in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, including Israel’s destruction of the core of the Axis of Resistance, which comprised the former Syrian regime, Iran, Hizbullah in Lebanon, and Hamas.
Since the fall of Bashar Al-Assad regime, the major European powers and the Gulf states have hastened to embrace the new Syria. Particularly remarkable was Washington’s 180-degree shift with its blanket lifting of all sanctions on the Syrian opposition. This was accompanied by expressions of hope from the US president and senior officials that Syria would quickly become a strong and effective force in a new and dynamic Middle East, contributing to spreading peace and development in the region.
Israel has conducted more than 500 air raids against military targets in Syria since the overthrow of Al-Assad, who was backed by Iran. Israeli forces also swept into and occupied the buffer zone that had been monitored by UN peacekeeping forces since the Syrian-Israeli disengagement treaty of 1974. According to some military observers, Israel has destroyed 70 to 80 per cent of Syria’s strategic weapons as well as the entirety of its naval and air forces. This has complicated the process of restructuring the military.
Israel claims that the 1974 treaty was no longer valid because one of the signatories to the treaty – i.e., the former Al-Assad regime – was no longer able to implement it. It also claims that it was acting in self-defence against a potential hostile force that might take advantage of the post-Assad security vacuum. However, the situation is different now the US and other major powers have recognised the new regime and begun forging strategic relations with Damascus. The risk of chaos that might affect Syria’s neighbours is over.
The Syrian political analyst Said Muqbil told Al-Ahram Weekly, “the former regime drained the national budget for 50 years for ‘the confrontation against Israel’. Seventy per cent of the budget went to the army and security apparatus, impoverishing the country. In the name of ‘resistance and steadfastness’, it monopolised power and spread repression. The result was more economic losses, more military defeats, and more erosion of Syrian territory by Israel. Meanwhile, the fronts remained silent and the border with Israel remained tightly guarded while Iranian penetration nearly destroyed the country.
“The approach to Israel will certainly be totally different now, of that we can be certain,” Muqbil continued. “Peace is better for Syria – a peace founded on just and firm foundations. Syrians do not want more war. They are exhausted by war, which has deprived them of 50 years of development. In any case, the military balance game is not feasible, not now and not in the long term, because the Syrian regime had used the Syrian military machine to repress and kill its own people.”
Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa has stated repeatedly that Syria has no intention to become a threat to its neighbours. In his meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron last month, he condemned Israel’s “arbitrary” behaviour and called on it to stop intervening in Syrian affairs and to return to the 1974 disengagement borders. He also suggested that indirect negotiations were in progress with Israel to restore calm and prevent the situation from spiralling out of control. He made no mention of any plan to normalise relations with Isreal.
On the other hand, in a statement following a telephone exchange with his American counterpart Marco Rubio, Syrian Foreign Minister Asad Al-Shibani said, “Syria is looking forward to working with the US to return to the 1974 disengagement line.” The US Envoy to Syria Thomas Barrack said peace between Syria and Israel was a “necessity” and that “the dialogue between them has begun.”
Syrian analysts believe the intensive US-brokered talks underway aim to reach security arrangements that will include Israel’s withdrawal from the Syrian territory it has occupied since 8 December in exchange for a Syrian declaration that the two countries are no longer in a state of war. Some sources suggest that this would take the form of a commitment rather than an official declaration. Official Syrian news outlets have described statements regarding a peace treaty between Syria and Israel as “premature.”
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said it is in Israel’s interest to normalise relations with Syria and Lebanon, but he insisted that the Occupied Syrian Golan will be part of Israel under any future peace agreement.
Observers believe that President Al-Sharaa would not sign a peace agreement with Isreal unless Isreal withdrew from the Syrian Golan. He will not offer a peace free of charge. That portion of territory that has been severed from Syrian geography remains an obstacle to a durable and lasting peace.
“The talks taking place at the moment between Syria and Israel through regional mediators are being closely monitored and encouraged by the US through diverse channels,” the military analyst Ayad Raji told Al-Ahram Weekly. “They aim to reach an agreement on the lines of a necessary security truce satisfactory to both sides. This is not about reaching a permanent peace agreement, which is very politically sensitive. Many Syrians still oppose such a peace and going down that path could cause unrest. In any case, a permanent treaty must be ratified by parliament and signed into law by a permanent authority. All that takes consultations and time.”
Syria and Isreal have been in a state of war in theory since the Palestinian Nakba in 1948. In 1967, Israel occupied about two-thirds of the Syrian Golan along with the entirety of historic Palestine. It annexed the occupied Syrian territory in 1981. In 1974, a year after the October War, Israel and Syria concluded a disengagement agreement that resulted in an 80 km-long buffer zone overseen by the UN.
In addition to the aforementioned political sensitivities regarding a possible peace treaty with Israel, some thorny practical issues must be addressed. Even if the regional and international atmosphere is conducive, the two sides must agree on the status of the Occupied Golan, permanent borders, and security guarantees. What is beyond doubt is that Syria is doing everything in its power to reset its international relations on a sound foundation and, simultaneously, restore domestic stability and forge forward with reconstruction and development. It has no interest in engaging in new wars. This is not to suggest that the question of peace with Israel is not open to discussion. Indeed, everyone is searching for ways to beat the challenges to overcoming differences in order to reach a just formula for a lasting peace satisfactory to all parties.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 10 July, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: