Damascus – occupied Jerusalem – Official Syrian sources confirmed that any progress in the talks with Israel remains conditional on stopping Israeli military incursions, setting a binding timetable for complete withdrawal, and returning to the disengagement agreement signed in 1974.
This position comes in light of the pressure exerted by the administration of US President Donald Trump on both Tel Aviv and Damascus, with the aim of stabilizing the security situation on the border, in a step that may pave the way, according to Israeli estimates, for a future path of normalization between the two parties, according to what was reported by the Hebrew newspaper Haaretz.
On Tuesday evening, the US administration announced that preliminary understandings had been reached between Israel and Syria, which led to an agreement to establish a joint coordination mechanism under American supervision, seeking to reduce tension, especially in the border areas that were occupied by the Israeli occupation forces.
The announcement came after the conclusion of the fifth round of talks between Israel and Syria, which were held in Paris under the auspices of the US administration, where the parties spoke of a “positive atmosphere” and agreed to accelerate the pace of negotiations, in an effort to reach a security agreement.
A joint statement issued by the US State Department stated that “the US President’s leadership in the Middle East allowed for fruitful discussions” in which senior officials from Israel and Syria participated, who met in Paris under American sponsorship.
The statement added that the talks focused on “respecting Syria’s sovereignty and stability, ensuring Israel’s security, and achieving prosperity for both countries.”
Not normalization
Table of Contents
The researcher on Israeli affairs, Antoine Shalhat, believes that the security understandings being circulated between Syria and Israel do not fall within the framework of a peace or normalization process, but rather come mainly as a result of direct pressure exerted by the American administration on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in the context of Trump’s vision for the next stage in the region.
Shalhat says – to Al Jazeera Net – that Tel Aviv yielded to these pressures, based on its awareness of the nature of the special relationship it has with Washington, and the sensitivity of its position towards Trump in particular. He stresses that the future of these security understandings remains dependent on Trump’s mood and political calculations, especially in light of his rush to support the new Syrian regime, despite the clear Israeli opposition to President Ahmed al-Sharaa.
He explains that whatever is consistent with American interests and meets Trump’s acceptance, Israel finds itself forced to adapt to it, even if it opposes it publicly, citing the close relationship between Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Washington’s insistence on including Turkish forces within the International Stabilization Force in Gaza, despite Israeli rejection.
Regarding Syria, Shalhat stresses that the proposed understandings are of a purely security nature, and there is no talk of a peace agreement or normalization of relations between Damascus and Tel Aviv. It is unlikely that these understandings will lead, in the foreseeable future, to diplomatic relations or mutual recognition, stressing that Israel is not originally interested in peace with Syria, and deals with its regional surroundings from a purely security perspective.
The researcher explains that the Israeli priority in the Syrian arena is to ensure that there are no resistance factions or hostile military structures along the ceasefire line, and to prevent the arrival of any weapons that may be used against them.
Tel Aviv also attaches special importance to controlling the Syrian-Lebanese border, which it considers an essential artery for smuggling weapons to Hezbollah from Iran, which explains its endeavor to reach security understandings that guarantee tight control over these borders in coordination with the new Syrian regime.
On the other hand, Shalhat points out that Israel is trying to exploit these understandings to consolidate the reality of annexing the Golan Heights, taking advantage of the previous American recognition of Israeli sovereignty over it.
Although Israel accepts these security understandings, Shalhat believes that it does not trust them and does not bet on them strategically. The Israeli experience, according to his description, confirms that Tel Aviv relies exclusively on its own strength and its military and intelligence arms in matters of national security, and not on agreements or understandings.
There are also implicit understandings with Washington that give Israel the right to object or veto any arrangements that it deems to affect its national security.
Damascus gains
According to Shalhat’s reading, Syria’s gains from these understandings are concentrated in the minimum level of security stability and reducing the possibility of Israeli escalation at this sensitive stage.
The new Syrian regime, Shalhat adds, is primarily concerned with rearranging the interior, consolidating stability, and stopping security and military attrition, which makes security understandings a tool to buy time and calm the fronts, and not a gateway to a strategic change in the relationship with Israel.
Damascus’s priorities at the current stage are to stabilize governance, rebuild state institutions, and improve its regional and international position, especially in light of the indirect American sponsorship of these understandings. From this standpoint, Syria appears to benefit from reducing external pressures, without making major political concessions or engaging in a path of normalization that does not enjoy internal or regional acceptance.
Shalhat concludes that the Paris understandings do not constitute a prelude to peace or normalization between Syria and Israel, but rather reflect pressure balances imposed by Washington, and in essence serve temporary security considerations, awaiting what the balance of power and American policies will lead to in the next stage.
“Security understandings”
The political researcher and lecturer at the Faculty of Mass Communication at Damascus University, Ahmed Al-Kanani, agrees with the writer Shalhat that the Paris understandings between Syria and Israel, which led to a joint working mechanism, may not lead directly to the path of normalization between the two sides, stressing the importance of having a political environment conducive to that.
Regarding whether these understandings, whether security or economic, such as the establishment of a joint industrial zone, will lead to normalization, Al-Kanani explained to Al Jazeera Net that such mechanisms fall under the name “understandings” and may be a first step towards creating an enabling environment, but they are not sufficient on their own, as implementing any security agreement is not considered a major step towards normalization.
Al-Kanani stressed that normalization requires a political climate linked to Israel’s commitment to Syria’s rights, and not controlling Syrian internal papers, as is currently happening in Suwayda, as well as the necessity of Israel not interfering in Syrian affairs.
Regarding whether Syria is the largest beneficiary of these understandings so far, Al-Kinani indicated that no official action or statement has been issued indicating this, and that the headlines put forward by Israel remain large without a real reflection on the ground.
He explained that the main points that were circulated in the media did not lead to an official announcement, adding that he did not believe that Syria would be the biggest beneficiary of this formula unless:
- Syria regained the points into which Israel penetrated after last December 8.
- The Israeli army withdrew from the areas it occupied in southern Syria.
- Israel has abandoned pressure on the Syrian government, especially in Suwayda, and therefore this will be a positive indicator that Syria has begun to maintain its territorial integrity and full sovereignty.
Sovereignty conditions
For his part, political researcher Abdullah Al-Khair says that Damascus requires any security agreement with Israel to reactivate the 1974 Disengagement Agreement, ensure the withdrawal of Israeli forces before December 8, 2024, preserve full Syrian sovereignty, and prevent any Israeli interference in Syrian internal affairs, including rejecting any Israeli demands for humanitarian corridors in areas such as Suwayda, which is considered a purely internal matter.
Al-Khair explained, in an interview with Al Jazeera Net, that this reflects Damascus’s commitment to restoring its non-negotiable national rights, with a focus on reducing escalation and sharing intelligence under American supervision to ensure stability.
Regarding presenting these conditions to the American side, Al-Khair confirms that they were “actually presented during the negotiations in Paris and New York, mediated by Washington’s envoy Tom Barrack, where Syria stressed the need to respect its sovereignty in exchange for any security guarantees.”
He concluded by saying, “This approach comes in light of American pressure to accelerate the agreement, but Damascus rejects any concessions on its occupied territories, which represents a step towards a regional balance, provided that America is a neutral guarantor. Otherwise, tensions may continue, threatening stability in the Middle East as a whole.”
Buffer zone
For his part, professor of strategic studies, Professor Hassan Abdullah Al-Daja, believes that any agreement that includes mutual withdrawal in exchange for the establishment of a buffer zone may achieve security gains for Israel, as the buffer zone reduces the possibilities of direct contact, and gives Israel a longer time to warn, monitor and respond, instead of facing immediate threats that it claims exist on the border.
This region also limits the ability of Iran or its “allies” to approach the front lines or build a military structure in southern Syria, especially if it is coupled with international monitoring arrangements that increase the political and military cost of any violation.
Regarding Suwayda, Al-Daja confirms that it is a sensitive security and political complex, as Israel does not view it as a purely internal Syrian issue, but rather as part of the security of southern Syria, with its focus on preventing a security vacuum or Iranian expansion.
Accordingly, the acceptable settlement is based on re-establishing nominal Syrian sovereignty there in exchange for guarantees of stability, making Suwayda a measure of the success of any comprehensive settlement in southern Syria.
The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office announced in an official statement that Tel Aviv stressed during the talks the importance of ensuring the security of its citizens and preventing any threats on its borders, claiming its commitment to advancing regional stability and security, and enhancing economic cooperation for the benefit of both parties, in addition to what it described as “ensuring the security of the Druze minority in Syria.”
