Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa’s signaling toward normalization without making any demands vis-à-vis the Golan Heights represents a crucial development in Israeli-Syrian relations, which must not be taken for granted.
The Jerusalem Post reported recently that Sharaa expressed his interest in joining the Abraham Accords. During meetings with Republican US congressmen Marlin Stutzman and Cory Mills, the new Syrian chief implied his openness to normalizing ties with Israel, and, most notably, chose not to mention the Golan Heights, which the US had recognized as part of Israel during President Donald Trump’s past tenure.
Reactions to such expressions are traditionally split between skeptics who refuse to believe any of Sharaa’s words due to his jihadist past, and those who are unconditionally open to peace with any regional ruler who signals the will to proceed with it, while disregarding any problematic ties, expressions, or ideologies.
The diplomatic opening suggests a potential breakthrough in regional dynamics that merits careful consideration with a conservative approach.
Israel’s consistent approach, since the Declaration of Independence of 1948, has always been to extend a hand toward peace. This tendency should not be abandoned in this case, not only since Israel is, after all, a peace-seeking country, but also especially under the current US administration, which is focused on building a “world without wars,” pushing for an agenda of “peace between nations.”
Five public conditions for peace
So here, too, Israel must avoid appearing as an obstacle to peace, particularly as Sharaa engages with Republican leaders close to the Trump administration.
However, the Israeli government must stress to its American partners the lessons it has learned from decades of delegitimization from Egypt and Jordan – and demand an all-encompassing educational reform recognizing Israel’s legitimacy and the Jewish people’s indigeneity to the Middle East.
In this context, Israel should signal positively toward this rapprochement, while establishing five critical conditions for peace.
First and foremost, Israel will not withdraw from the Golan Heights. This strategically vital territory has been recognized by the US administration as part and parcel of Israeli territory, and full Israeli sovereignty over it should not be debated.
Secondly, Israel should continue providing security guarantees for the Druze communities in southern Syria, as long as these communities desire such protection. It’s a moral imperative that Israel owes to its own Druze community, which has been lobbying for this protection to be granted to their kin on the other side of the border for years. With relations between the communities beginning to warm up again after almost 70 years apart, this holy duty is not something that Israel can relinquish.
Thirdly, Israel should demand that the Syrian leadership publicly denounce and disavow any jihadist ideologies, including rejecting Hamas’s terrorism on October 7. Such an announcement would facilitate rapprochement between the countries, especially as Israel is still licking its wounds after the October 2023 attack, carried out based on jihadist ideologies stemming from the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots.
Fourthly, border arrangements that guarantee Israel’s security in a satisfactory way should be set. This could mean pushing Sharaa’s forces away from the borders, balancing Turkish interests, and making sure that Iran does not use Syria again as a hub for the smuggling of weapons to its proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah.
Finally, and perhaps most critically, Israel should insist on a full educational and media reform, requiring Syrian study curriculums and government outlets to recognize the Jewish people and Israel as the native, natural, and organic actors in the region that they are, and eliminating Al Jazeera-like delegitimizing terminology, such as “Zionist entity,” “occupation authorities,” and so on.
The case for a realistic peace
These five conditions must be at the core of Israel’s peace framework, and should be explained in detail to its American allies. Israel must insist that, without legitimization and humanization of Israelis and Jews, peace is meaningless; with one especially daunting example being the radicalization of Palestinian society under Hamas’s rule for the past generation.
Sharaa’s renunciation of his jihadist past and Hamas, along with symbolic gestures like displaying Israeli and Syrian flags together, is significant in and of its own. This scenario would also drive a significant wedge within the Muslim Brotherhood axis – led by Qatar and to a lesser extent by Turkey – which is currently causing Israel considerable pain worldwide. And as opponents of peace will maintain their resistance, Sharaa would undoubtedly need to confront these elements as an internal threat.
Israel should make it clear that Abrahamic peace means not only formal mutual recognition, but also full-scale reforms leading to the deradicalization of a society that has been taught to hate Jews and Israel for the past 77 years.
Rather than the Egyptian and Jordanian models, where antisemitism remains prominent in cultural and educational spheres, the Syrian peace accords should aspire to be comparable to those implemented in the UAE and Morocco.
If these conditions are accepted, Israel will gain a new Abraham Accord-style peace agreement without having to sacrifice too much.
If they are rejected, Israel will still benefit by having demonstrated its commitment to genuine, true peace – while exposing a leadership that is too fearful to acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel and the Jewish nation in front of its own people.
A pragmatic, carefully conditioned approach to these diplomatic overtures presents Israel with a low-risk, potentially high-reward opportunity to reshape regional dynamics in its favor, while maintaining its security imperatives.