Sharaa’s Israel comments signal shift toward security arrangements, not peace deals - analysis

Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa has signaled a potential shift in regional diplomacy, stating his intention to pursue a security arrangement with Israel that could eventually pave the way for a comprehensive peace agreement. However, Sharaa was clear that such a peace would not involve compromising Syria's claim to the occupied Golan Heights.

This condition makes a full peace agreement, which would require an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan, seem distant. The Golan has been a significant point of contention, and no Israeli government in the near future is expected to consider ceding the territory, especially given the ongoing instability in Syria.

Despite the unlikelihood of an immediate peace deal, Sharaa's statement holds significance. It points to a willingness to consider security arrangements that could stabilize the border, reduce the risk of war, and potentially create conditions for future progress. This approach mirrors recent statements by Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, who also spoke of long-term security arrangements with Israel rather than an immediate peace accord.

Together, these comments suggest an emerging regional strategy: moving incrementally toward a more stable Middle East by first establishing security arrangements. This marks a departure from past approaches that aimed for a swift transition from hostility to formal peace. The leaders of Syria and Lebanon appear to be viewing relations with Israel in practical, security-focused terms, rather than as an ideological imperative.

Sharaa's willingness to discuss such arrangements on Al Jazeera, a network often associated with views critical of Israel, is noteworthy. It indicates a pragmatic approach that contrasts with the historical stance of some groups within the region. Both Syrian and Lebanese leaders have domestic reasons for seeking stability, as their countries cannot achieve their regional goals without engaging with Israel.