Israel Extends Olive Branch to Syria, Lebanon Amid Regional Shifts

Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Saar announced on Monday the nation’s interest in establishing formal diplomatic relations with Syria and Lebanon, long-standing adversaries. This overture comes as the Middle East grapples with significant geopolitical changes, including nearly two years of conflict in Gaza, Israeli operations in Lebanon targeting Hezbollah, and the recent overthrow of former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, a key Iran ally. Israeli leaders believe Iran’s perceived weakening presents a unique opportunity for regional re-alignment.
Saar, speaking in Jerusalem, emphasized that while normalization is a goal, the status of the Golan Heights remains non-negotiable for Israel, a territory it annexed in 1981 after capturing it from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War. This stance immediately highlights a core point of contention, as the international community largely views the Golan as occupied Syrian land, despite President Donald Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty.
The desire for expanded “circles of peace” builds on recent normalization agreements, such as the 2020 Abraham Accords, which saw the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco establish ties with Israel. These agreements, however, proved deeply unpopular among Arab populations. The current Israeli proposal aims to add more neighboring countries, “while safeguarding Israel’s essential and security interests,” according to Saar.
However, a senior Syrian official, speaking anonymously, firmly rejected any normalization not tied to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. This initiative proposes full Arab normalization with Israel in exchange for withdrawal from all occupied territories, including the Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza, and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. Israel’s Saar dismissed conditioning normalization on Palestinian statehood as “not constructive,” asserting that “a Palestinian state will threaten the security of the State of Israel.” This fundamental disagreement underscores the significant hurdles to any potential diplomatic breakthrough.