Enab Baladi – Muwafaq al-Khouja

Four days after statements made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, followed by statements from his Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar attacking the Syrian government in Damascus, the latter remained silent without an official response, contenting itself with hints, reflecting a state of political caution.

The statements from politicians in Tel Aviv are not new on the Syrian-Israeli conflict stage; however, Netanyahu’s remarks on February 23, demanding the disarmament of the provinces of Daraa, As-Suwayda, and Quneitra in southern Syria, and the prevention of the new Syrian administration’s entry into them, were particularly provocative.

Netanyahu said, “We will not allow (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) or the new Syrian army to enter the area south of Damascus, and we demand the removal of all weapons from Quneitra, Daraa, and As-Suwayda, and the prevention of the new regime’s forces from entering.”

Israel did not stop at Netanyahu’s statements but escalated its rhetoric towards the government in Damascus, labeling it as “an Islamic jihadist group from Idlib that took control of Damascus by force.”

This came from Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar on February 24, as he remarked, “I hear talk about a transfer of power in Syria, and for me, this is absurd.”

The Israeli statements, coupled with the continuous incursions into southern Syrian territory, sparked anger in the Syrian street, prompting protests on February 24 and 25, which included calls for a response to Israel and demands for its unconditional withdrawal, in addition to adhering to the 1974 disengagement agreement.

Al-Sharaa hints

The official response was limited to hints made by Syrian transitional president Ahmed al-Sharaa in his opening speech at the National Dialogue Conference on February 25.

Al-Sharaa stated, “Syria does not accept division; it is an integrated whole, and its strength lies in its unity,” referencing entities both domestically and externally that “were disturbed by the joy of the Syrians at the victory of the revolution,” as he put it.

In the same session, Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shibani said, “We will not accept any infringement on our sovereignty and independence, and we will work independently of any external pressures,” while simultaneously indicating that international and regional cooperation is the way to confront countries threatening Syria’s security and future.

According to Israeli broadcasting agency (Makan), citing informed Syrian sources, Damascus is not seeking confrontation with Israel in the near future but is angered by Netanyahu’s latest statements regarding Syria.

This was stated during al-Sharaa’s meeting with a delegation from Druze factions and dignitaries in Damascus on February 24, according to Makan.

In previous occasions, the Syrian official response to Israeli military and diplomatic attacks has been that Syria no longer poses a threat to the countries in the region, including Israel, following the fall of the previous regime and the presence of Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah.

“Dealing with caution”

Political researcher Dr. Nader al-Khalil stated that the delay in the official response reflects a state of political caution and a lack of a clear vision to deal with complex and intricate regional issues.

It remains for the Damascus government to demonstrate greater flexibility and to initiate providing clear positions, focusing on coordination with international and regional parties to achieve lasting stability in southern Syria, ensuring Syria’s unity and stability, according to al-Khalil.

Al-Khalil attributed the cautious approach of Damascus to regional developments, including Netanyahu’s statements and the delay in the official response, to three main factors.

The first factor relates to the internal situation; al-Khalil believes that the new government in Damascus is still busy sorting out its internal affairs following the fall of the previous regime.

He stated, “The heavy legacy that has fallen on its shoulders for a country devastated in every aspect makes it focus on restoring internal stability, where security is one of the most urgent files before addressing sensitive external issues.”

The new authorities are pursuing what they call the “remnants” of the previous regime, individuals who refused to settle or lay down their arms, confronting security agencies almost daily in various regions of Syria, especially the Syrian coast in villages and areas that were once the base of the ousted president Bashar al-Assad.

International complications

The second factor, according to al-Khalil, is the international and regional complications concerning southern Syria, which he describes as a “very sensitive area” subject to overlapping interests of countries in the region, including Israel and Turkey.

Al-Khalil pointed out the presence of multiple armed factions, noting that any official statement could provoke varied reactions and lead to unwelcome escalation at this sensitive time.

In southern Syria, what is called the Military Council of As-Suwayda emerged simultaneously with Netanyahu’s statements, accused of being affiliated with Israel, and has inclinations towards a decentralized federal state.

Moreover, the Damascus government faces obstacles represented by factions in As-Suwayda and Daraa that have not integrated into the new Syrian military formation and impose conditions for doing so.

The third factor is the absence of a clear strategy from Damascus, according to al-Khalil. He stated that the new government has not yet developed a cohesive strategy for dealing with regional issues, including relations with Israel or managing tensions in the south.

He justified this by the rapid collapse of the previous regime and the numerous complex issues it left behind.

International reactions

The absence of an official Syrian response was replaced by reactions from international and Arab parties, the most prominent of which came from Ankara, where Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan criticized the Israeli statements.

On February 26, Fidan stated that Israel’s talk about preventing the new Syrian army’s spread in southern Syria is “a policy of regional expansion,” and Israel must put an end to it.

For his part, al-Khalil believes that the recent Turkish statements regarding supporting stability in Syria might be an attempt to enhance its influence over the Syrian file.

At the same time, the Turkish responses complicate the situation further if coordination with the new Syrian government is not established, taking into account the intersecting interests of the active countries in the Syrian issue, according to the researcher.

On the other hand, he believes that international pressure could be an effective tool to resolve the southern Syrian crisis, especially if directed towards supporting the political process and ensuring the withdrawal of foreign factions from the area.

Al-Khalil thinks the success of this pressure remains contingent on coordinating efforts between international and regional powers.

The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, condemned the airstrikes and attacks carried out by Israel, considering them “reckless provocations and escalation taking advantage of the political shift in Syria to establish an illegal and illegitimate reality.”

Aboul Gheit called, in a stance repeated by Arab capitals as well, for the international community to take clear positions condemning what he described as “unjustified aggression that aims to ignite tension in the region and create obstacles in the path of political transition in Syria.”