From Hope to Havoc: The Syrian Setback

What a difference a week makes.

Last week, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington, there was great optimism over the prospects of some type of formal agreement between Israel and the new government of Syria. Despite the jihadist and ISIS past of new Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, both Israel and the Trump administration were working to both strengthen Syria's new government and forge a new era, removing a historically significant strategic threat from Israel's northern border. A stable Syria, cooperating with Israel, and improving ties with the United States would be a significant setback for Iran, and Russia. To help achieve these goals, the Trump administration recently dismantled American sanctions against Syria, despite significant misgivings over the new government and its actual control over Syrian territory. There was even talk of Syria joining the Abraham Accords.

But that was last week. Earlier this week, fighting erupted between local Bedouin tribes joined by Islamic fundamentalists who attacked the Druze community in the city of Sweida, a Druze majority city in Southern Syria. Soon government forces entered the area with the aim of instituting a cease fire. Yet eyewitnesses reported that government forces actually joined in the attacks against the Druze, killing hundreds of people. 

The Druze, a historically marginalized Arab religious minority, live primarily in Lebanon and Syria, with smaller communities in Israel (mostly northern Israel and the Golan Heights) and Jordan. Approximately 150,000 Druze live in Israel, and unlike other Arab minorities, serve in the Israel Defense Forces, and maintain excellent relations with Israel's Jewish majority. In response to the attacks against the Druze in Syria, Israel struck Syrian targets in Damascus as well as military assets near the fighting. The message was clear. Israel would protect its Druze allies and prevent Southern Syria from remilitarizing, even if it jeopardizes diplomatic progress with Damascus or clashes with Washington's regional objectives.

Much attention was given to the fall of the previous Syrian regime and the potential for a new Syria under the current regime. As a result of this optimism, many in the West were willing to look past the histories of Syria's new leaders, many of whom had risen to prominence and leadership through Islamic Fundamentalist movements and ISIS. That's a luxury that Israel simply can't afford. The fighting this week in Sweida is also a reminder that the Syrian government is simply not fully in control of its territory, and even the soldiers that currently wear its uniform.  

Sadly, Israel finds itself fighting on multiple fronts: Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Yemen, as well as an aggressive international movement that seeks to delegitimize Israel's very existence. Given the magnitude and sheer number of these strategic threats, its options are limited. Israel must pursue every avenue for peace, whether formal or informal, with the new Syrian Government and do its best to try to change the state of hostilities that has existed for decades. It is possible. But at the same time, it is reasonable for Israel to remain wary regarding the new government and to make very clear to both Damascus as well as Washington that it will not tolerate the buildup of hostile forces once again on its northern border, and will similarly not tolerate indiscriminate attacks on the extended families of Israel's most loyal minorities. That's why despite the dangers, Israel's aggressive moves in Syria this past week were supported by politicians across Israel's otherwise divided political spectrum. 

Blaise Misztal, the Vice President for Policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security recently made the following observation regarding the situation in Syria 

“The (Syrian) civil war was won not by a cohesive, organized, and single-minded opposition with a clear vision of what comes next but by a patchwork of rivals who had nothing in common other than enmity towards Assad (the former ruler of Syria). Al-Sharaa might hope to cobble a state together out of these disparate factions, but he does not appear to have yet been able to make them disarm or follow his orders. Until he does, such paroxysms of violence by armed groups pursuing their own prejudices and agendas will likely remain common.”

And until the Syrian government is capable of asserting that control, and defending its historically marginalized minorities, Israel will continue to act. 

Those necessary actions, while not well reported by the international press too often preoccupied with portraying Israel in the most negative fashion possible, changed the entire positive dynamic and optimism that was evident in Washington last week. It was a terrible setback. Let us hope the path to peace, however narrow, is reclaimed soon. But let us also be clear-eyed and morally grounded. In this region, optimism must be matched by vigilance.