Netanyahu considers US-mediated talks with Syria amid regional tensions
- Direct communications between Israel and Syria have recently commenced after years of indirect communication following the Syrian civil war.
- US proposes a non-aggression pact with Israel, raising concerns of coerced normalization from various scholars.
- The unfolding diplomatic engagement represents a potential shift in the Middle East’s political landscape, although skepticism about its genuine nature persists.
Israel has emerged as a significant player in the shifting dynamics of the Middle East, particularly concerning its relationship with Syria. Following a high-profile meeting between the new Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa and US President Donald Trump in May 2025, diplomatic communications between Israel and Syria have moved to direct engagement. The US, led by Ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea, encouraged the Syrian government to enter negotiations for a non-aggression pact with Israel. This engagement marks a notable shift in Israeli diplomacy, as it corresponds with the Trump administration's lifting of sanctions on Damascus. In turn, Netanyahu's discussions about potential US-brokered talks represent the first sign of Israel's diplomatic stride towards Syria since the Syrian civil war began in 2011, suggesting a change in the regional approach toward peace and normalized relations. However, several Islamic scholars and commentators have criticized this move. They view the US's attempts to normalize relations with Israel as an exercise in forced compliance rather than a genuine peace initiative. Dr. Samir Al-Ali, a former professor from Syria, argues that the terms and conditions outlined, particularly concerning the occupation of the Golan Heights, undermine international law. The annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel was recognized by President Trump in March 2019, further complicating this dialogue. Additionally, Netanyahu has been vocal about his ambition to reshape the Middle East, claiming a desire to alter the prevailing political climate of the region. He often touts his plans for a 'new Middle East,' yet his rhetoric often does not align with the practical realities observed on the ground. Critics argue that while he effectively markets these ideas, the actual manifestations are disappointingly unfulfilled. Their reluctance to accept the promotion of such diplomatic initiatives stems from a broader skepticism towards Israel’s actions in occupied territories. This unyielding promotion of the Israeli narrative versus the lived experiences of Palestinians and Syrians often creates friction rather than fostering peace. While Netanyahu continues to pursue what he defines as opportunity for Israel to act as a regional hegemon, the reality remains that such assertions may never translate into tangible results for security or peace within the volatile landscape of the Middle East.