Israel has revived the idea of normalizing ties with Syria, even as its military campaign in Gaza continues to draw widespread condemnation. At a time when the international community is demanding an end to the violence, Tel Aviv has floated a new peace narrative. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar stated that normalization with Syria could be possible—on one condition: Israel must retain full control over the Golan Heights. This stipulation immediately raised alarm among analysts, who see it as yet another veiled strategy to legitimize occupation through diplomatic theater.
This is not the first time Israel has pursued "conditional peace." Analysts have long pointed out that previous agreements, such as the Oslo Accords, were ultimately used by Israel not to promote mutual peace, but to entrench its strategic and territorial advantage. Oslo, signed in the early 1990s, failed to lead to Palestinian statehood. Instead, it served to give international legitimacy to Israel while enabling the continued fragmentation of Palestinian lands through the A, B, and C zoning system in the West Bank.
The Oslo framework was supposed to lead to an Israeli military withdrawal, but in reality, it resulted in greater military control, ongoing settlement expansion, and continued restrictions on Palestinian movement. The same concern now haunts the Syria file: if Israel keeps the Golan Heights, a territory internationally recognized as Syrian, then normalization becomes another form of codified annexation.
The Abraham Accords provide another example of Israel using normalization as a geopolitical tool rather than a genuine peace-building mechanism. Arab states that signed the agreements received minimal tangible gains on the Palestinian issue, while Israel secured new strategic alliances, expanded its intelligence networks, and advanced its long-standing vision of a "Greater Israel"—a goal championed by many hardline factions in Israeli politics.
Inside Israel, many political parties openly reject the Oslo Accords and promote maximalist territorial goals. The ruling Likud Party under Benjamin Netanyahu has long resisted the two-state solution. More extreme parties like the Religious Zionist Party and Otzma Yehudit openly advocate full annexation of the West Bank and deny Palestinian statehood altogether. This entrenched ideological stance makes any peace deal inherently fragile.
Israeli politics further complicate the situation due to its dependence on coalition governments. Ultra-nationalist parties wield disproportionate influence and can derail peace efforts if their interests are not met. This constant internal volatility renders Israel an unreliable negotiating partner, as any shift in domestic politics could unravel previously signed agreements.
For Syria, the stakes are high. Israel has occupied the Golan Heights since 1967, and any normalization that does not include the full return of this territory would amount to legitimizing theft. This risk mirrors the experience of other Arab countries that normalized relations under the Abraham Accords, only to find that Israel’s strategic gains came at the cost of Arab consensus and Palestinian rights.
The suggestion from Israeli media that the Golan could become a “peace park” is seen by many as semantic camouflage for permanent annexation. History has shown that concepts like “shared governance” or “buffer zones” often result in continued military dominance by Israel. Syria could be the next target of such symbolic peace processes that ultimately serve Tel Aviv’s long-term objectives.
Behind this renewed push lies a larger regional strategy. Israel is attempting to broaden the Abraham Accords to include Syria while simultaneously pushing to end the Gaza war on its own terms. The goal appears to be creating a new Arab coalition that effectively sidelines the Palestinian issue while legitimizing Israel’s regional dominance under the banner of peace.
Netanyahu has even linked future peace expansions to defeating Iran, suggesting that “victory” in one arena is necessary for diplomatic gains elsewhere. In this worldview, peace is not an end in itself, but a tool for regional supremacy. This transactional approach reinforces the belief that any peace process led by Israel is inherently one-sided and conditional on Arab concessions, rather than mutual justice.
As of now, Syria has not issued an official response to the normalization rumors. However, most analysts believe Damascus will not easily accept any deal that excludes a complete return of the Golan Heights. With increased Gulf support in energy and military sectors, Syria may feel less pressure to enter into lopsided negotiations.
Among Syrians themselves, the Golan remains non-negotiable. The deep historical wounds caused by Israel’s occupation are unlikely to be healed by diplomatic overtures that exclude restitution. Many Syrians, including both civilians and military officials, warn that Syria must learn from the Palestinian experience to avoid similar traps.
The U.S. is expected to play a central role in facilitating these talks, especially with Netanyahu preparing to visit Washington. But if a peace plan is built on the ruins of Gaza and the continued suffering of Palestinians, its legitimacy will always be questioned. Real peace cannot emerge from ongoing violence and continued land grabs.
The international community must also scrutinize Israel’s proposed peace frameworks. Any agreement that fails to adhere to international law—particularly regarding the return of occupied territories and the rights of refugees—risks becoming a smokescreen for perpetual occupation under a different name.
This moment calls for critical reassessment among Arab nations. Many are realizing that Israel is not merely a diplomatic partner, but a strategic actor willing to discard agreements when politically expedient. This recognition could redefine regional dynamics and reshape the future of diplomacy in the Middle East.
In the end, peace cannot be measured by signatures or photo-ops. It must be grounded in justice, historical truth, and a genuine commitment to equity. As long as Israel treats agreements as tactical moves rather than moral commitments, the world will continue to witness humanitarian tragedies cloaked in the language of "normalization."
loading...
0 comments: