With only two years separating their official births, Israel and Syria have never known a time when they weren’t at odds. Since 1948, the Syrian Arab Republic participated in every major war against the State of Israel, proudly raising the flag of resistance.
Even after signing the 1974 armistice agreement, Syria aligned itself with Iran and Hezbollah, continuing its aggression against Israel through Lebanon and acting as a base for Tehran’s proxies. However, Syria reached a historic turning point on December 8 with the fall of president Bashar al-Assad’s regime and his subsequent flight to Moscow, raising critical questions about Syria’s future, domestically and in terms of regional and international relations.
The new administration in Syria quickly sought to reassure the world and its neighbors, including Israel, that it would not pursue further conflict. Instead, it sought to introduce a pragmatic agenda focused on power-sharing, minority rights, and economic development, which are critically needed in a war-torn country.
This shift seemed to offer an opportunity to reshape regional relations. Yet, Israel’s response – launching airstrikes on Syrian military sites, moving forces toward Damascus, and aligning with some of Syria’s minority groups – raised doubts about Israel’s intentions.
Could this new chapter in Syria’s transformation pave the way for a new relationship between these two rival states, or would it lead to further cycles of fear, conflict, and suspicion, pushing them deeper into confrontation? Could a carefully crafted policy help transition an old conflict into a new framework of relations between the two countries, or will a momentum of war prevail, transitioning the conflict into the new Syrian reality of continuous war between Syria and Israel?
Since the Hamas attack on October 7 and up until the fall of Assad’s regime, many Syrians developed a more positive view of Israel. This shift in perception was largely due to Israel’s indirect role in weakening the Syrian regime through striking its allies, Iran and Hezbollah. Through targeted airstrikes that destroyed military sites and killed numerous top leaders, Israel significantly drained the strength of Assad’s forces.
However, Israel’s continued hostile policies toward the Syrian people, including its military occupation of new territories and public support for minorities – mainly the Druze and Kurds – suggested a lack of interest in building bridges of trust with the new Syrian government. Instead of fostering reconciliation, Israel seemed to be taking sides in Syria’s internal conflicts.
New Syrian leadership must avoid escalating tensions with Israel
TO AN outside observer, it seemed that Israel would attempt to recognize the significance of the moment and seize the historic opportunity to reassess its relations with Syria’s Sunni majority.
Israel has long been concerned that Syria could fall under the rule of an ideologically driven Islamic government with hostile views toward it, especially with groups like Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, which Israel considers a terrorist organization. The violent killings in Syria’s coastal regions, although perpetrated by Assad loyalists with ties to Iran, did little to reassure Israel that the new Syrian government was either pragmatic enough to fulfill its promises or strong enough to assert control.
Israel fears the formation of a Sunni alliance led by Turkey and Qatar in Syria, which could mirror the hostility of Iran’s Shi’ite axis. The growing Turkish influence in Syria, along with the possibility of Turkish military bases on Syrian soil, prompted Israel to turn to the United States, urging it to maintain a Russian military presence in Syria to curb Turkish influence.
This also prompted Israel to offer a “minority alliance” despite the distance of both the Kurds and Druze from its soil and regardless of the fact that the same minority groups have actually tied themselves to the new central government of Syria.
Israel’s active policy, combined with American indifference, presents significant challenges for Syria’s new government as it attempts to rebuild a war-torn nation. In this context, the Syrian leadership must take proactive measures to avoid escalating tensions with Israel. Despite the provocations, Damascus must take steps to allay Israeli fears, even if these actions require painful compromises or strategic sacrifices.
One immediate step for Damascus would be to open direct communication channels with Israel, bypassing intermediaries who might miss critical details. Additionally, Syria should swiftly endorse the Arab Peace Initiative, signaling a commitment to peace and aligning with the Arab moderation axis led by Saudi Arabia.
Syria must also exercise caution in its public statements and appointments. Any language that could provoke Israel should be avoided, as should the appointment of controversial figures or those with explicitly anti-Israel agendas. Additionally, hosting Arab or Islamic personalities linked to groups like Hamas and the Iranian axis would further inflame tensions.
Syria and Israel have the opportunity to reshape relations
GIVEN THE country’s fragile condition, Syria must adopt a flexible, patient approach to these sensitive issues. Syria is simply not in a position to bear the cost of another war, particularly after the devastation it has already suffered. Damascus could learn from the experiences of other countries, like Ukraine, whose president, Volodymyr Zelensky, endured significant diplomatic insults to protect his country’s core interests.
Syria and Israel stand at a historic crossroads, with the potential to reshape their relations. However, achieving progress toward peace and stability will require effort from both sides. Israel must abandon its policy of intimidation, hostility, and minority-led policy and instead build trust with Syria’s Sunni majority.
In return, Syria’s new government must take proactive steps to ease Israel’s concerns, adopting diplomatic policies that promote regional stability and engaging in direct dialogue that could lead to strategic gains for all parties involved.
While it is often easier to identify the threats and not the opportunities, a move toward engagement and recognition could provide significant gains to both countries.
For Syria, it could bring economic opportunities and solutions for some of its critical problems, considering Israel’s infrastructure and technological edge. A successful move toward Israel could positively influence the international positioning of Syria’s new government and convince other stakeholders of its ability to pursue a more pragmatic policy line.
For Israel, a successful reorientation of the relations could ease security concerns, further distance the Iranians from Israel’s border, and pave the way for a broader normalization circle. Granted, eight decades of conflict can’t change in a day. However, without pursuing this route, the two countries will again miss another important window of opportunity.
As Syrians begin to rebuild their country and as Israel looks toward the day after its most recent war, the time has come to consider a different future for both peoples. It is time to envision a future where Syrians and Israelis ski together on Mount Hermon rather than fight over it. It is time for a new beginning.
Shadi Martini is a Syrian hospital director who participated in the Syrian revolution and now manages the Multifaith Alliance, a humanitarian organization.
Nir Boms is a research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University and co-director of its Program for Regional Cooperation.