Enab Baladi – Omar Alaa Eldin

Israel has moved from infiltrating Syrian territories to establishing its presence, with hints at a permanent stay in these areas, supported by the United States, while the steps of the new Syrian authorities remain timid in confronting this intervention.

Israel is working to establish military bases in Quneitra; however, it withdrew on February 2 from the governorate building and the courthouse in the city of al-Salam (formerly al-Baath), according to Enab Baladi‘s correspondent.

Tel Aviv has benefited from the state of security tension and political chaos following the fall of the Syrian regime on December 8, 2024, raising ongoing questions about the measures that the Syrian state can take to push the Israeli forces away and what tools it possesses.

Al-Sharaa: All international pressures are with us

The Israeli army radio reported on February 11 that Israel has quietly established a security zone within Syrian territory, confirming that its presence in Syria is no longer temporary.

According to the station, the Israeli army is building nine military sites within the security zone, indicating Tel Aviv’s intention to enhance its military presence in Syria in the long term.

The radio explained that the Israeli army plans to remain in Syria throughout 2025, increasing the number of operating brigades there to three, compared to just one and a half battalions before October 7, 2023.

During his visit to the Syrian side of Mount Hermon, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz stated on January 28 that his forces would remain in Syria indefinitely.

The head of the transitional phase in Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa, confirmed that Israel must return behind the buffer zone specified in the 1974 agreement.

In an interview with The Economist on February 3, al-Sharaa said, “On our first day in Damascus, we sent a message to the United Nations informing them that we are committed to the 1974 agreement, and we are ready to receive the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force back in the buffer zone.”

He added, “We communicated directly with the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, and they expressed their readiness to return to the buffer zone, provided that Israeli forces withdraw.”

As for Syria, al-Sharaa affirmed, “All international pressures are with us, and all the countries that visited Damascus and those that did not condemn the advance of Israeli forces in the area,” pointing to a “near-universal consensus” that this advance is unwarranted.

What does Israel want?

Expert on the occupied Syrian Golan, Samir Abu Saleh, explained in an interview with Enab Baladi that Israel’s ongoing “war against the Syrian people” has two main objectives: the first is to embarrass the new regime led by the revolution, especially after it received local, Arab, and international support.

The second goal is to continue encroaching on Syrian territories, particularly the strategic heights of Mount Hermon, then seizing important water sources and dams, in addition to fertile plains reaching the strategic Yarmouk Valley at the triangle of the Syrian-Palestinian-Jordanian border.

Abu Saleh believes that the Israeli incursion poses “a significant source of pressure and concern for the new Syrian administration,” as these developments come at a time when the new Syrian government was busy organizing domestic affairs.

Regarding the absence of field measures to counter the Israeli aggression, Abu Saleh stated that this matter “falls politically within the objective framework,” especially since Israel has targeted all military capabilities of Syria that were in the possession of the former regime.

On January 10, a Hebrew newspaper revealed a plan aimed at expanding Israel’s influence within Syrian territory by a military depth of 15 kilometers and an “intelligence” depth of 60 kilometers.

The newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported from unnamed senior Israeli officials that Tel Aviv will maintain military control 15 kilometers deep inside Syria, to ensure that supporters of the new regime (the new Syrian administration) do not launch missiles toward the Golan Heights.

The Israeli army, in its official discourse regarding events in Syria, focuses on securing the occupied Golan from “extremist threats,” according to Yedioth Ahronoth on December 14, 2024.

Syrian tools against Israeli incursion

Syrian political thinker Burhan Ghalioun told Enab Baladi that the current situation allows the Syrian administration only to engage in political and diplomatic work with the United Nations, the Security Council, and key Arab and non-Arab countries to encourage them to take positions that benefit the assertion of Syrian rights over recently occupied territories and the previously occupied Golan, according to Ghalioun.

The Syrian thinker believes that there is potential for greater diplomatic action and communication with countries around the world, urging them to take clear stances condemning the aggressive Israeli actions that impact Syrian sovereignty and the rights of Syrians to security, peace, and the restoration of occupied lands.

The Syrian Foreign Minister, Asaad al-Shibani, called for pressure on Israel to withdraw its forces from the territories it has occupied.

In statements to reporters during his visit to Ankara on January 16, al-Shibani said, “We call on the United Nations, the international community, and friendly countries to exert pressure on Israel to withdraw from the territories it has advanced into in recent times, and we are ready to prevent any potential threats.”

What about negotiations?

The expert in security and defense affairs and director of research at the Omran Center for Strategic Studies, Maan Talaa, explained in an interview with Enab Baladi that the topic of negotiations is related to the stability of the Syrian state, the clarity of the phase, and its requirements, and is not dependent on any party managing the current phase.

Talaa believes that Syria is still in the pre-formation phase of a transitional government, while negotiations with Israel require the official definition of the government.

When Syria begins to achieve a reasonable level of security, Talaa said, it will open its regional files and will have diplomatic tools, as well as discussions with allies to activate the 1974 agreement, handing over the new Syrian army the task of border control.

Regarding the statements of the new Syrian administration on this file, the expert sees them as stemming from an assessment of the security and political situation, and these statements should balance between not compromising Syrian sovereignty and respecting diplomatic norms.

Normalization agenda delayed

Regarding normalization between Syria and Israel, the defense and security expert Maan Talaa considered this matter to be related to the Syrian foreign agenda, which can be titled according to the government’s statements, indicating that it seeks stability and that Syria will not be an environment for conflict.

This message suggests that Syria’s internal requirements will make its foreign policy performance grounded in diplomatic relations and positive interaction with regional issues, according to Talaa.

He sees that Syria’s current foreign agenda comprises two important axes: the first is balancing external tools, meaning ending the relationship with the Iranian axis and moving toward Arab countries to improve relations with them as well as with Turkey.

The second axis involves sanctions, classifications, reconstruction, early recovery, and ensuring the return of refugees. It is true that these issues are necessary requirements, but they will also serve as leverage for the new Syrian administration.

Based on the above, Talaa believes that the agenda for negotiations with Israel will be postponed and not on the immediate horizon at least.

What is the 1974 Agreement?

Following the October 1973 war between Syria and Israel, an agreement was reached under the supervision of the United Nations, the United States, and the Soviet Union between the Israeli and Syrian sides on May 31, 1974, which concerned delineating the disengagement line between the two sides and included details to specify the locations of military forces of Syria and Israel along lines “A” and “B.”

Line “B” is referred to as “Bravo” and line “A” as “Alpha.” The agreement stipulated the separation of forces, essentially placing Israeli forces west of line “A” and Syrian forces east of line “B,” with a buffer zone between lines “A” and “B,” which serves as a separating area between Israeli and Syrian forces and is supervised by the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF).