Syria and Israel Negotiations Amid Escalation.. Messages of Power and Options for Peace
September 7, 2025173 ViewsRead Time: 3 minutes
Font Size:
16
As reports of indirect negotiations between Damascus and Tel Aviv under American sponsorship escalate, the feasibility of these paths is being tested on the ground filled with airstrikes and destruction. In a scene that contradicts diplomacy, Israel continues its military escalation deep within Syria, raising a fundamental question: Are negotiations being conducted in the language of power instead of the language of peace?
The recent Israeli airstrikes, which targeted military sites and even the vicinity of the presidential palace in Damascus, are not merely isolated military operations. They are double messages: to the negotiating parties that Israel holds the upper hand, and to the Israeli interior that Netanyahu's government is still capable of "deterrence" despite the political crises and corruption surrounding it.
The paradox is that this escalation coincides with reports of an imminent agreement mediated by American-Gulf parties. While Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad meets with Israeli officials in Paris, Israeli warplanes have just completed a new strike on the outskirts of Damascus. This equation does not indicate a genuine desire for peace, but rather a strategy of "negotiating from a position of strength".
Syrian President Ahmad al-Shara attempted to calm fears by stating that the negotiations focus on reviving the 1974 disengagement agreement, denying any talk of normalization. However, Israel, through its continued aggression, seems to be imposing conditions beyond that: complete submission rather than a balanced settlement.
The internal Israeli crisis plays a pivotal role in this escalation. Benjamin Netanyahu, who faces questioning sessions over corruption cases and criticism for the failures of October 7, is reproducing an old game: exporting internal crises through military escalation.
But the real danger lies in the fact that this escalation could undermine any chance of reaching an agreement. The Israeli bombardment of the General Staff building in Damascus has pushed Syria to strengthen its alliances with Turkey, where it signed a military cooperation agreement. This means that Israeli pressure may drive Damascus towards alternative alliances rather than concessions.
It seems that Israel is dealing with Syria from the perspective of "existential concern" that the Israeli research centers themselves have discussed. But this perspective may be misleading, as continuous escalation does not achieve security for Israel; rather, it pushes the region towards further instability and undermines the chances of peace that may be the last hope for achieving regional stability.
The message that Israel sends through its airstrikes is clear: power is the only language it understands. But the question that Tel Aviv overlooks is: what will it do when Damascus and its allies realize that responding to the language of power can only be done in a similar language? At that point, negotiations will not be about a security agreement, but about managing a more complex and dangerous conflict.
The recent Israeli airstrikes, which targeted military sites and even the vicinity of the presidential palace in Damascus, are not merely isolated military operations. They are double messages: to the negotiating parties that Israel holds the upper hand, and to the Israeli interior that Netanyahu's government is still capable of "deterrence" despite the political crises and corruption surrounding it.
The paradox is that this escalation coincides with reports of an imminent agreement mediated by American-Gulf parties. While Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad meets with Israeli officials in Paris, Israeli warplanes have just completed a new strike on the outskirts of Damascus. This equation does not indicate a genuine desire for peace, but rather a strategy of "negotiating from a position of strength".
Syrian President Ahmad al-Shara attempted to calm fears by stating that the negotiations focus on reviving the 1974 disengagement agreement, denying any talk of normalization. However, Israel, through its continued aggression, seems to be imposing conditions beyond that: complete submission rather than a balanced settlement.
The internal Israeli crisis plays a pivotal role in this escalation. Benjamin Netanyahu, who faces questioning sessions over corruption cases and criticism for the failures of October 7, is reproducing an old game: exporting internal crises through military escalation.
But the real danger lies in the fact that this escalation could undermine any chance of reaching an agreement. The Israeli bombardment of the General Staff building in Damascus has pushed Syria to strengthen its alliances with Turkey, where it signed a military cooperation agreement. This means that Israeli pressure may drive Damascus towards alternative alliances rather than concessions.
It seems that Israel is dealing with Syria from the perspective of "existential concern" that the Israeli research centers themselves have discussed. But this perspective may be misleading, as continuous escalation does not achieve security for Israel; rather, it pushes the region towards further instability and undermines the chances of peace that may be the last hope for achieving regional stability.
The message that Israel sends through its airstrikes is clear: power is the only language it understands. But the question that Tel Aviv overlooks is: what will it do when Damascus and its allies realize that responding to the language of power can only be done in a similar language? At that point, negotiations will not be about a security agreement, but about managing a more complex and dangerous conflict.
