Israeli occupation is bad for Syria's recovery and regional stability

Israeli forces advanced far beyond the buffer zone, claiming additional Syrian land on the eastern slopes of Mount Hermon, or Jebel al-Sheikh, as it is known to Syrians. From there, they expanded further into Quneitra, occupying strategic areas such as Ofaniyah, al-Hamidiyah, Samdaniyah al-Gharbiyya, and al-Qahtaniyah—territory uncomfortably close to Syria's capital.

This military campaign was coupled with relentless airstrikes—nearly 500 in total—aimed at crippling Syria's military infrastructure. Israeli media boasted of it having destroyed more than 80% of Syria's military assets, including ships, missiles, and aircraft. In effect, it rendered Syria defenceless while cementing its grip on newly occupied territories.

Questionable justifications

Israel justifies its actions by citing security concerns, but this rationale quickly falls apart under scrutiny. 

Over the past year, Israel fortified its frontlines with Syria during its conflict with Hezbollah, giving it a strong defensive position to counter any threats from the north. That, coupled with the departure of Iranian and Hezbollah forces following Assad's flight, means that any lingering threat from Syria has largely evaporated.

Despite this military power imbalance, Israel continues to push forward with its aggressive expansion, yet Israel's justification becomes even more dubious when examining the stance of Syria's de facto ruling authority, Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), and its leader Ahmad al-Sharaa, who has publicly stated that Syria has no intention—and indeed no capacity—to engage in a conflict with Israel. 

He further pledged that Syrian territory would not be used as a launchpad for attacks against Israel. Yet despite these assurances, Israel's military campaign intensified, suggesting its motivations are less about security than about territorial ambitions.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reinforced this view by stating that Israeli forces intend to remain in the buffer zone indefinitely, "until a new arrangement is in place to ensure Israel's security". 

Simultaneously, the Israeli government announced plans to double the number of Jewish settlers in the occupied Golan Heights and expand settlements—clear indicators that this is no temporary security measure but a calculated move for long-term occupation.

An impossible dilemma

Israel's aggression does more than undermine Syria's sovereignty—it actively derails the country's efforts to rebuild after years of war. In the newly occupied areas, Israeli forces have entrenched themselves, conducting patrols, raids, and arrests. 

Towns like Saida Al-Golan and Al-Rafeed have borne the brunt of these actions, with homes demolished, trees uprooted, and agricultural land levelled. Roadblocks and checkpoints restrict residents' access to fields and farmland, exacerbating economic hardships.

Unsurprisingly, this aggression has triggered protests from Syrians demanding Israel's withdrawal from their towns and villages, but their peaceful demonstrations have been met with violence, with Israeli forces opening fire on protesters and injuring at least one person. 

Such repression extinguishes the faint hope that Syrians had of a brighter future after Assad's fall, replacing it with the grim reality of life under occupation. It also places the HTS-appointed transitional authority in an impossible position.

If it responds militarily, it risks provoking further Israeli aggression and depleting its already limited resources in a conflict it cannot win, but failure to act undermines its credibility with the broader Syrian public. Any vacuum of authority could lead armed factions to take matters into their own hands, risking violence and destabilisation.

Walking a tightrope

Al-Sharaa has so far approached this dilemma with calculated caution, publicly condemning Israel's actions, labelling its strikes a violation of "red lines" while emphasising that Syria does not seek conflict. This measured strategy reflects an acute awareness of Syria's fragile position. 

The HTS-affiliated transitional government has sought international redress, formally lodging a complaint with the UN Security Council, but international institutions remain hamstrung by selective enforcement and entrenched geopolitical biases, in a system that consistently fails to hold Israel accountable for violations.

The implications of this crisis stretch far beyond Syria's borders. A sovereign, stable Syria could transform the region, acting as a catalyst for peace and prosperity, but allowing Israel's occupation to persist risks triggering broader instability, the ripples of which could spread to neighbouring states. 

Moreover, unchecked Israeli expansionism sends a dangerous signal to the world, effectively normalising the erosion of international norms and encouraging other states to violate territorial sovereignty. These actions undermine the rule-based global order, further eroding its credibility.

One rule for one

The international community can no longer afford to be silent. Decisive action is essential to confront Israeli aggression and curb its expansionist policies. Diplomatic pressure, reinforced by targeted economic measures, must be applied to compel Israel to withdraw from Syrian territories and adhere to international law. 

The stakes are far too high—for Syria, for the Middle East, and for the integrity of the global system. Inaction would carry costs far greater than immediate geopolitical consequences. It would derail Syria's precarious recovery, deepening the instability of an already volatile region. 

A unified, rebuilt Syria is not merely a national aspiration; it represents a rare opportunity to foster regional stability and hope. Turning a blind eye to Israel's occupation would allow instability to fester.

The world cannot afford to falter. The time for action is now, before this cycle of aggression locks the region into a path of irreversible chaos. This is more than a question of justice for Syria—it is a critical test of the international community's commitment to the principles of sovereignty, peace, and the rule of law.