Are the ‘Aram Naharaim Accords’ with Syria on their way?

Syrian leader Ahmad al-Sharaa expressed his interest in joining the Abraham Accords, as reported by The Jerusalem Post.

During meetings with Republican US congressmen Marlin Stutzman and Cory Mills, the new Syrian chief implied his openness to normalizing ties with Israel, and, most notably, chose not to mention the Golan Heights, which the US recognized as part of Israel during President Trump’s past tenure.

This signaling of al-Sharaa’s Syria toward normalization without making any demands vis-a-vis the Golan Heights represents a crucial development in Israeli-Syrian relations, which must not be taken for granted.

Reactions to such expressions are traditionally split between skeptics who refuse to believe any of al-Sharaa’s words due to his Jihadist past, and those who are unconditionally open to peace with any regional ruler that signals their will to proceed with it, while disregarding any problematic ties, expressions or ideologies.

This current diplomatic opening suggests a potential breakthrough in regional dynamics that merits careful consideration with a conservative approach.

Five public conditions for peace

Israel’s consistent approach, since the Declaration of Independence of 1948, has always been to extend a hand for peace. This tendency should not be abandoned in this case, not only since Israel is after all a peace-seeking country, but also especially under the current US administration, which is focused on building a “world without wars,” pushing for an agenda of “peace between nations.” So here, too, Israel must avoid appearing as an obstacle to peace, particularly as al-Sharaa engages with Republican leaders close to the Trump administration. 

However, the Israeli government must stress to its American partners the lessons it has learned from decades of delegitimization from Egypt and Jordan, and demand an all encompassing educational reform recognizing Israel’s legitimacy and the Jewish people’s indigeneity to the Middle East.

In this context, Israel should signal positively toward this rapprochement while establishing five critical conditions for peace.

First and foremost, Israel will not withdraw from the Golan Heights. This strategically vital territory has been recognized by the US administration as part and parcel of Israeli territory, and full Israeli sovereignty over it should not be debated.

Secondly, Israel should continue providing security guarantees for the Druze communities in southern Syria, as long as these communities desire such protection. It’s a moral imperative that Israel owes its own Druze community, which has been lobbying for this protection to be granted to their kin on the other side of the border for years; and with relations between the communities beginning to warm up again after almost seventy years apart, this holy duty is not something that Israel can relinquish.

Thirdly, Israel should demand the Syrian leadership to publicly denounce and disavow any jihadist ideologies, including rejecting Hamas’s terrorism on October 7th. Such an announcement would facilitate rapprochement between the countries, especially as Israel is still licking its wounds after the terrible October 7th attacks, which were carried out based on jihadist ideologies stemming from the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots.

Fourthly, border arrangements that guarantee Israel’s security in a satisfactory way should be set. This could mean pushing al-Sharaa’s forces away from the borders, balancing Turkish interests, and making sure that Iran does not use Syria again as a hub for the smuggling of weapons to its proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah.

Finally and perhaps most critically, Israel should insist on a full educational and media reform, requiring Syrian curriculums and government outlets to recognize the Jewish people and Israel as the native, natural, and organic actors in the region that they are, and eliminating Al-Jazeera-like delegitimizing terminology, such as “Zionist entity,” “occupation authorities,” etc.

The case for a realistic peace

These five conditions must be at the core of Israel’s peace framework, and should be explained in detail to its American allies. Israel must insist that, without legitimization and humanization of Israelis and Jews, peace is meaningless; with one especially daunting example being the radicalization of Palestinian society under Hamas’s rule for the past generation.

al-Sharaa’s renunciation of his jihadist past and Hamas, along with symbolic gestures like displaying Israeli and Syrian flags together, is significant in and of its own. This scenario would also drive a significant wedge within the Muslim Brotherhood axis, led by Qatar and to a lesser extent by Turkey, an axis which currently causes Israel considerable pain worldwide. And as opponents of peace will maintain their resistance, al-Sharaa would undoubtedly need to confront these elements as an internal threat.

Israel should make it clear that Abrahamic peace means not only mutual formal recognition, but rather full-scale reforms which will lead to the de-radicalization of a society that has been taught to hate Jews and Israel for the past 77 years and more. Rather than the Egyptian and Jordanian models, where antisemitism remains prominent in cultural and educational spheres, the Syrian peace accords should aspire to be more similar to those implemented in the UAE and Morocco.

If these conditions are accepted, Israel will gain a new Abraham Accord-style peace agreement without having to sacrifice too much. If rejected, Israel will still benefit by having demonstrated its commitment to genuine, true peace – while exposing a leadership that is too fearful to acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel and the Jewish nation in front of its own people.

A pragmatic, carefully conditioned approach to these diplomatic overtures presents Israel with a low-risk, potentially high-reward opportunity to reshape regional dynamics in its favor while maintaining its security imperatives.

JPost