 |
| Israeli forces in the Golan |
Amid regional preoccupations with the aftermath of direct conflict between Iran and Israel, a long-deferred issue is re-emerging: the prospect of peace negotiations between Damascus and Tel Aviv. Recent reports have unveiled preliminary, undisclosed talks between the two parties, facilitated by American mediation. These discussions aim to chart a normalization roadmap, theoretically commencing with security guarantees and culminating in mutual recognition. However, on the ground, the occupied Golan Heights appears to be the formidable obstacle that could derail the entire project.
Washington Mediates as Israel Refuses Golan Discussion
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar has unequivocally stated that his country is open to expanding the Abraham Accords to include nations such as Syria and Lebanon. However, he emphatically stressed that the Golan Heights remains "outside any negotiation." This firm stance reflects a broad political consensus within Israel against any withdrawal from the strategically vital plateau, which was formally annexed in 1981 and received U.S. recognition under the administration of Donald Trump.
Realism Demands Concessions from Both Sides
Some analysts contend that the political maturity displayed
by both parties following years of "Middle East turmoil" might create
a pragmatic opportunity for a gradual peace process, provided concessions are
accepted. Yet, they emphasize that "the devil is in the details,"
with the Golan Heights issue at the forefront.
For any significant breakthrough like this to occur, Israel would need to offer substantial concessions. Any peace agreement that fails to include the restoration of Syrian rights would remain fragile and unacceptable, both domestically and regionally. Cautious observations suggest that the United States, particularly the current Trump administration, might push for peace due to "political legacy" aspirations, and potentially even Nobel ambitions. This could create a strong American incentive to pressure Israel.
Israeli Security Concerns Dominate View of Damascus
From the Israeli perspective, security remains a paramount
concern shaping its view of Damascus. Despite the shift in Syria's political
landscape, Israel largely continues to perceive Syria as an untrustworthy
adversary. The prevailing Israeli discourse, consistent across the political
spectrum, maintains a firm stance: "no withdrawal from strategic locations
like the Golan." The proposed framework is typically "peace for
peace," rather than "land for peace."
The U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan has further solidified this position, lending significant diplomatic weight to Israeli demands. Additionally, Syria's fragile state—politically, economically, and militarily—complicates efforts to persuade the Israeli public to relinquish what are considered "strategic assets."
Phased Approach: Non-Aggression as a Starting Point
Other geopolitical researchers offer a more pragmatic
interpretation, suggesting that discussions of a comprehensive peace agreement
are premature. They propose that any path forward would likely unfold in
stages, beginning with a non-aggression pact, bolstered by American and
Gulf state support and guarantees. Syria, as a nation emerging from a
protracted civil war, is primarily focused on rebuilding its institutions and
achieving internal stability before engaging in comprehensive diplomatic treaties.
While a gradual peace process isn't ruled out, the key to progress largely rests with Israel through "goodwill gestures." These could include adhering to UN resolutions regarding the demarcation line or withdrawing from certain disputed points in Quneitra. The Syrian side is seen as the one needing guarantees, not the other way around. A genuine peace cannot be achieved by immediately jumping to full normalization.
Is the Syrian Case Different from Egypt and Jordan?
Despite comparisons often drawn with Israel's peace treaties
with Egypt or Jordan, analysts insist that the Syrian situation is considerably
more complex. While Israeli-Arab relations have evolved through various phases
of openness since the Madrid Conference and up to the Abraham Accords, Syria
confronts a uniquely intricate reality: a post-conflict government still
lacking full legitimacy, a debilitated security apparatus, and deep-seated
regional and local skepticism.
It's noted that even at the height of the Syrian-Israeli conflict, five Israeli prime ministers from across the political spectrum had agreed to return the Golan within specific security arrangements and with American guarantees. This precedent theoretically leaves the door open for a "similar scenario," should the political will materialize.
Building Trust First, Golan Discussions Later
Israel's refusal to discuss the Golan file is not
significantly different from its past positions. However, what has changed,
according to experts, is the intensity of American and regional involvement in
pushing for a "realistic peace" formula that begins with trust-building
and potentially culminates in a political settlement. While comprehensive
normalization appears distant, there seems to be a "narrow window"
for initiating undeclared negotiations, with initial steps focusing on security
guarantees and on-the-ground understandings.
It appears unlikely that the Golan Heights will be restored in the near future, nor is Israel ready to relinquish its strategic gains there. Nevertheless, the evolving regional climate, particularly after the recent Iran-Israel clashes, might necessitate unprecedented compromises. This will only occur if all parties acknowledge that peace is not merely a declaration, but a long and arduous journey that often begins discreetly, away from public view.
