Enab Baladi, Rkkan al-Khder
Israel’s elections, scheduled for October 27, have implications beyond its domestic politics, given the military escalation and security policies pursued by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government since October 7, 2023.
The impact of Hamas’s “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation against Israel also continues to shape the country’s domestic debate.
The upcoming elections have increasingly come to be seen as a verdict on whether Israelis support or reject Netanyahu’s handling of the situation.
Damascus is among those watching the vote closely, having suffered from Netanyahu’s strategy and Israeli military incursions into southern Syria since December 8, 2024.
A New Policy or More of the Same?
International relations researcher Dr. Mohammed al-Yemeni believes Damascus is looking to the Israeli elections to determine whether the next government will continue its policy of military pressure and incursions or allow more room for negotiations.
For Syria, al-Yemeni said, the most important objective is to secure arrangements that halt the escalation and support stability in southern Syria.
He added that a change in Netanyahu’s government could benefit Syria by reviving negotiations, reducing Israeli strikes, and pushing for withdrawals or redeployments, alongside clearer security arrangements. It could also create opportunities for a greater Arab and US role in supporting Syria’s stability.
Al-Yemeni nevertheless ruled out a complete shift in Israel’s strategy toward Syria, regardless of the election outcome, explaining that Israeli policy is shaped by its security institutions and military, rather than Netanyahu alone.
Ammar Jallo, a researcher at the Washington-based Dialogue Institute for Research and Studies (DIRS), agrees with al-Yemeni that the Syrian government is awaiting a change in Israel’s government that would bring a new approach to Syria.
Jallo noted that many members of Israel’s political and intellectual elite oppose the policies of Netanyahu’s government, arguing that a stable Syria exercising control over its entire territory would serve Israel’s interests.
He did not rule out a future Israeli government taking practical steps toward a new security agreement or reviving the 1974 disengagement agreement between Syria and Israel.
He explained that the possibility of positive steps by a new Israeli government should not obscure the fact that Israel’s strategy and broad policy framework cannot easily change.
Damascus’s Options as Escalation Continues
Jallo believes that if Israel’s strategy toward Syria remains unchanged, Damascus could seek greater US pressure on Israel. Washington, he said, is dissatisfied with Israel’s handling of Syria and encourages dialogue over the escalatory rhetoric adopted by Israel.
According to Jallo the Syrian government could also build regional and international pressure by strengthening positions that support Syria against Israeli actions in the south, particularly those of European governments previously known for their tendency to support Israel.
Damascus could also strengthen cooperation with the countries of BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which Jallo said represent the position of the Global South. He noted that these countries now hold a strong position that could influence the international arena.
Al-Yemeni, for his part, believes the Syrian government will continue pursuing negotiations, intensifying diplomatic efforts, seeking assistance from the United States, Jordan, and Arab countries, and pushing for security arrangements in the south while rebuilding its military capabilities and security institutions. He expects Damascus to avoid a full-scale confrontation at this stage.
Prospects for Renewed US Mediation
The United States has mediated between the Syrian and Israeli governments in the hope of reaching some form of understanding and agreement.
That role has diminished this year, with no discussion of new rounds of talks since the last meeting in Paris in early 2026. This has led several observers and researchers to suggest that Washington may now be waiting for the Israeli elections before reviving the process.
Al-Yemeni believes the United States could play a more active role in mediating between Syria and Israel after the elections.
He explained that Washington already acts as a mediator between Damascus and Israel and could become more effective if it sought to turn negotiations into a clear security agreement covering de-escalation and arrangements for southern Syria.
He noted that the US role would ultimately depend on the composition of the new Israeli government and Washington’s willingness to use its influence, rather than the election outcome alone.
Jallo, meanwhile, believes the United States is best placed to mediate between Syria and Israel because of its deep partnership with Israel and because Syria has become part of US strategy in the Middle East.
According to Jallo, the close alignment between Damascus’s and Washington’s strategies adds to the importance of the US role, particularly on removing Iran from Syria and reducing Tehran’s influence across the region. This alignment also extends to curtailing the activities of most non-state groups that operated in Syria during Assad’s rule, making US assistance in finding common ground between the Syrian and Israeli governments more likely.