The Blogs: Israel’s Syria strategy must favor diplomacy over muscle flexing

For over 50 years, the Assad family, belonging to the Alawite minority, ruled Syria with an iron fist, justifying their grip on power by portraying themselves as a bulwark against Israeli “expansionism.” This era of authoritarian rule deeply fractured Syrian society, fueling fears among the Sunni majority – who make up 80% of the population – that minority rule came at their expense. It also fueled extremism, pushing many young Sunni Syrians toward jihadist groups.

Yet, amid Syria’s prolonged crisis, a significant shift occurred: the Syrian people, exhausted by war, have grown weary of endless hostility toward Israel. As a journalist closely observing Syrian affairs, I have witnessed firsthand how the majority of Syrians are now open to reconciliation and peace with Israel. Their primary enmity has shifted toward Iran and its militias, which have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of Syrian deaths. This resentment extends beyond Iran; it includes Hamas, whose leader Yahya Sinwar has praised the Assad regime’s role in the so-called “Axis of Resistance.” Syrian anger toward Hamas intensified when its senior official, Osama Hamdan, lamented Assad’s downfall, sparking widespread outrage among Syrians.

For years, Syrians quietly welcomed Israeli airstrikes targeting Iran-backed militias and Hezbollah, even when they struck Syrian territory. Every Israeli blow to Hezbollah was met with celebration among Syrians who view the group as an extension of Iranian oppression. However, Israel’s recent airstrikes and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statements – delivered without clear diplomatic messaging – risk undermining this newfound openness to peace.

Netanyahu’s rhetoric about “protecting the Druze” in Syria is counterproductive. Not only does it fail to provide real protection, but it also fractures the Druze community, dividing them between those receptive to his message and others who view it as political opportunism. This polarization strengthens anti-Israel sentiments among the Druze. Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt recently gave voice to those sentiments, urging Syrian Druze to reject Netanyahu’s overtures.

Jumblatt and many Druze recall the fate of Bashir Gemayel and Lebanon’s Maronites, who pursued an independent alliance with Israel, only to be labeled traitors and targeted by Sunnis, Palestinians, Shiites, and the Assad regime. Today, many in Syria’s Druze community fear a similar fate. Their position is even more precarious than that of the Maronites, as they constitute a smaller minority with less political leverage. They also worry that Netanyahu’s promises of protection could vanish with a change in Israeli leadership, leaving them exposed to reprisals from Syrian Sunnis.

Within hours of Netanyahu’s remarks on the Druze-government tensions in Syria’s Jaramana, one of Damascus largest suburbs, Druze religious leaders invited security forces from the new Syrian administration to enter the city – an indication that local leaders do not see Israeli involvement as beneficial.

Syrian Druze harbor legitimate fears of political marginalization within the new government in Damascus, which has so far been dominated by Sunni Islamists. But much of Netanyahu’s rhetoric implies that the Druze stand on the brink of genocide, which – as the Jaramana episode highlights – is simply not the case. Jerusalem can, and should, exert pressure to defend minority rights in the new Syria. But it should do so without squandering a historic opportunity for broader peace with all Syrians.

Such a peace, which is within reach, would serve both Israeli and Syrian interests, ensuring security and stability along their borders. To achieve this, Israel must adopt a diplomatic strategy that directly engages the Syrian people with a humanized, transparent narrative. Rather than reinforcing conspiracy theories about Israel seeking to divide and destabilize the Arab world, Israel must clarify its military actions in Syria and articulate its security concerns in a way that resonates with Syrians.

Israeli apprehensions about expanding Turkish influence in Syria are valid. However, these concerns should be openly communicated to hold Syria’s new administration accountable. Additionally, Israel should work with Washington to encourage figures like Ahmad al-Sharaa to promote a pluralistic and tolerant Syrian future based on civil governance, with incentives such as gradual sanctions relief and diplomatic engagement.

Israel’s long campaign against Hezbollah and Iran won Jerusalem considerable admiration among Syrians. It would be tragic to forfeit these hard-won gains by alienating Syria’s Sunni majority through heavy-handed appeals to Syrian minorities. This policy poses particular risks given that millions of displaced Syrians are now European citizens, with growing influence in their new societies.

For the first time in decades, Damascus’s government is no longer wedded to perpetual war with Israel. Israel should seize this opportunity. The Israeli people deserve to live in peace by prioritizing diplomacy and engaging the Syrian people as potential partners. Israel can ensure a more stable and secure future – one built on mutual respect rather than perpetual conflict.