Without real action from Israel, normal relations are unlikely. However, after years of war, Syria cannot afford another conflict.
The fall of the Assad government last December and the rise of Ahmed al-Sharaa’s leadership have sparked speculation about a possible improvement in Syria-Israel relations. This speculation has grown with U.S. President Donald Trump’s return to office as he is expected to push more countries to establish ties with Israel.
Late last year, Sharaa spoke about Israel for the first time, condemning its military actions in Syrian territory. He pointed out Israel’s repeated violations of the 1974 ceasefire agreement and promised that Syria would continue to respect it. He also claimed that Assad’s downfall had removed the alleged threat of Iran-backed armed groups that Israel had long used as justification for its actions in Syria.
Sharaa repeated this message last month, arguing that Israel’s previous reasons for military operations in Syria were no longer valid. He again emphasized Syria’s commitment to the ceasefire deal and expressed a willingness to allow UN forces to monitor the agreement.
While some see these statements as signs of a possible thaw in relations, a deeper look suggests that normalization remains far from reality.
Strong Barriers to Peace
Despite changes in tone, the political, historical, and structural obstacles to peace between Syria and Israel remain too large to overcome at this stage. While some in Israel and the U.S. might support normalization, the situation on the ground makes it highly unlikely for several reasons.
Any move toward normalizing ties with Israel would be seen as a betrayal of Syria’s sovereignty and an acceptance of occupation. For a new government still working to strengthen its position, such a step could damage its credibility at home.
Deep Wounds
The pain of past conflicts runs deep, and for many Syrians, cooperating with Israel is unthinkable. Many view resistance to occupation as a core national principle.
Additionally, establishing ties with Israel would create new divisions within Syrian society. The country is still recovering from years of war, and its social structure remains fragile. Some might argue that engaging with Israel is a practical step for economic recovery, while others would see it as an unacceptable compromise.
Such internal disagreements could further destabilize Syria, slow down rebuilding efforts, and even lead to renewed internal conflict.
Another key issue is how normalization could change national priorities. Many Syrians still consider the return of the Golan Heights a major goal, but their immediate focus is on rebuilding and stabilizing the country. A move toward normalization could divide the population, with some prioritizing resistance against Israel over the country’s recovery.
This shift could lead to the reappearance of armed groups or the rise of new resistance movements, drawing resources away from urgent reconstruction needs. For a country struggling to regain stability, such a scenario would be disastrous.
Complicated Regional Politics
The possibility of normalization is further complicated by the region’s political landscape. If Syria moves closer to Israel, Iran could see an opportunity to reassert itself in the country. Other regional powers, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, might also try to influence events, adding more uncertainty to an already tense situation.
Israel’s stance also remains a major hurdle. Normalization cannot be one-sided. Historically, Israel has ignored many UN resolutions and has often failed to uphold agreements with other nations.
In Syria’s case, Israel has shown no willingness to return the Golan Heights or acknowledge Syria’s sovereignty. Without clear steps from Israel, normalization is not a realistic option.
Strategic Interests
Furthermore, Israel may not even want a stable and unified Syria. A weakened and divided Syria allows Israel to maintain its control over the Golan Heights and its strategic advantage in the region.
For Israel, maintaining the current situation where Syria is focused on internal issues and unable to challenge its regional influence might be preferable to normalizing relations. Peace would require Israel to take serious actions like withdrawing from occupied land, which it has shown no interest in doing.
A Pragmatic Approach
Sharaa’s recent remarks about Israel seem to be a calculated strategy to focus on Syria’s internal recovery rather than provoke new conflicts. His government appears to recognize that Syria’s military, after years of war, is not in a position to confront Israel.
Sharaa also likely understands that a direct conflict would not only fail to achieve a clear victory but would also worsen Syria’s internal divisions and slow down efforts to rebuild.
By taking a more measured approach, Syria can work on strengthening its authority at home without taking steps that might lead to further international isolation. In this light, Sharaa’s statements seem less like an invitation for normalization and more like an attempt to create a stable environment for Syria’s recovery, which is a necessary foundation for any future diplomatic or military moves regarding Israel.
Additionally, Sharaa’s push to remove Iran-backed militias from Syria serves multiple purposes. It reassures regional and global powers that Syria is no longer a base for Iranian influence while also signaling a break from Assad’s past policies.
This shift could help Syria improve its relationships with other nations, which is essential for economic recovery. However, it also highlights the delicate balancing act that Sharaa’s government must maintain: avoiding direct conflict with Israel while respecting the expectations of a population that sees resistance to occupation as non-negotiable.
Looking Ahead
Sharaa’s strategy reflects an effort to carefully navigate Syria’s postwar reality. His focus is on long-term stability rather than immediate confrontation. By keeping Syria out of unnecessary conflicts, he aims to rebuild the nation’s strength before making any major foreign policy decisions.
For now, without meaningful action from Israel, normalization remains out of reach. However, Sharaa’s approach suggests a shift in Syria’s priorities from fighting external battles to securing internal stability. How this will play out in the long run remains to be seen.
