Why indirect talks between Israel and Syria are a good thing

Negotiations are vital not only to avoid military confrontation but also to build confidence between Tel Aviv and Damascus. However, any speculation of an Abraham Accords-like deal is far-fetched.

Why indirect talks between Israel and Syria are a good thing

Following a series of leaks about Syrian–Israeli contacts through various channels and capitals, Syria's interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, recently confirmed “indirect negotiations” were indeed taking place between Damascus and Tel Aviv. He made the comments after he met with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris, and said the talks were aimed at “calming tensions and preventing matters from spiralling out of control."

A flurry of negotiations involving businessmen, researchers, and American officials has almost certainly taken place in the past weeks. But speculation over the purpose of these talks varies—from preventing military escalation to the possible inclusion of Syria in the Abraham Accords.

A quick look at history shows that Syria-Israel talks are nothing new. The two countries have held talks many times in the past century, even before the 1948 Nakba. But more recently, a disengagement agreement was signed months after the October War of 1973. Another crucial negotiation took place under US auspices at the Madrid Conference in 1991 and continued intermittently until February 2011, when the Syrian uprising began. These talks were centred on the “land for peace" principle—namely, Israel’s withdrawal from the Golan Heights, which it occupied in June 1967, in exchange for Syria normalising diplomatic and trade relations.

Shifting calculations and formulas

In the early years of Bashar al-Assad’s presidency, when he blatantly hitched his wagon to Iran and Hezbollah, the formula shifted to one of “land for regional realignment", which dangled the return of the Golan Heights in exchange for Syria severing its strategic alliance with the 'axis'.

Direct talks between Damascus and Tel Aviv should be conditioned on Israel's withdrawal from Syrian territory it seized after al-Assad's ouster

According to US mediator Frederic Hof, Bashar al-Assad initially accepted this deal, but because he heavily depended on the 'axis' to help quell the uprising against his rule, the alliance ended up strengthened. Throughout Syria's civil war, Israel routinely targeted Iranian and Hezbollah assets stationed there, with the overt support of the US military and the tacit approval of Russia—two global hegemons with boots on the ground.

But when the Assad regime was toppled on 8 December 2024, Israel launched its largest aerial campaign against Syria, obliterating whatever remained of its military assets and research centres. Furthermore, it seized nine strategic hills in the Syrian south, including the strategic Mount Hermon, giving Israel the highest vantage point to monitor Syria and Lebanon. Against the backdrop of this hubris, some Israeli officials began to openly call for Syria's partition.

And if agitating Syria wasn't enough, Israel also struck several sites that Ankara—which backed the Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) toppling of al-Assad—intended to convert into Turkish military bases. This brinkmanship nearly sparked a direct military confrontation, prompting the US to push its two regional allies to dispatch envoys to Azerbaijan to hash out disengagement mechanisms and cool tensions.

Read more: Are Israel and Türkiye on a collision course in Syria?

But it remains unclear if the talks in Baku were able to rein in Israel's ambitions for Syria. Afterwards, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly declared his willingness to "protect" Druze communities in southern Syria and Jaramana, near Damascus, following clashes between Druze and government forces there. In an ostentatious escalation, Israeli warplanes struck near the presidential palace in Damascus, signalling to al-Sharaa just how far Israel was willing to go to push back Turkish influence in Syria.

Türkiye should offer Israel security guarantees in southern Syria and coordinate its military deployment in the north

Communication is crucial

At this critical juncture, it's important that Syria and Israel maintain indirect communication. This is crucial not only to avoid military confrontation but also to build confidence between Tel Aviv and Damascus. Syria needs to assure its neighbours of its peaceful intentions moving forward. Having already kicked Iran out of the country, it must now work to halt arms smuggling to Hezbollah.

Any direct talks between Damascus and Tel Aviv should be conditioned on Israel's withdrawal from Syrian territory it seized after al-Assad's ouster, and should also include discussions on the fate of the Golan Heights, parts of which Israel illegally occupied in 1967. Although Trump recognised Israeli sovereignty over the Golan during his first term as president, Syria's new leadership is unlikely to relinquish its claim to this territory.

It is equally important that Türkiye and Israel continue to talk. Ankara should offer Israel security guarantees in southern Syria and coordinate its military deployment in the north. Türkiye could also consider revisiting its role as mediator, when it brought Bashar al-Assad and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to the negotiating table in 2008.

However, an Abraham Accords-like peace agreement between Israel and Syria seems far-fetched at the moment. Apart from the fact that Israel still occupies Syrian land, the Damascus government has much bigger fish to fry as it embarks on the mammoth task of piecing the war-ravaged country back together. As for Israel, its far-right government is also preoccupied with its stated goal to reoccupy Gaza and prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Talks between Damascus and Tel Aviv remain vital, but any talk of Syria joining the Abraham Accords anytime soon is a pipe dream.

font change