The Israeli-Syrian win-win – inviting Ahmed al-Sharaa to Jerusalem

Israel has mixed sentiments about the fall of the Assad Regime.

The disintegration of Iran’s so-called ‘Axis of Resistance’ is warmly welcomed, in particular the disruption of the IRGC supply chain to Hezbollah in Lebanon. The opportunity to destroy the military arsenal of the former regime, which by all accounts contained deadly chemical weapons and ballistic missile research and manufacturing facilities, has been quickly seized.

On the other hand, the new regime, comprising actual or former jihadists (to be determined), with a track record of extreme anti-Israel sentiment, may be no less hostile than its predecessor. It may be even more so. As Islamist ideologues, there may be less openness to the realpolitik which had seen a kind of stability and predictability emerge in Israel-Syrian relations, albeit with deterioration as Iranian influence in Syria grew over time.

In its actions since the fall of the Assad regime, therefore, Israel has been balancing several imperatives. On the one hand, it has prioritized its immediate security concerns in the face of the uncertainty caused by Assad’s demise. On the other, it does not seek to threaten the new regime, at the risk either that Syria seeks to renew its security relationship with Iran and Hezbollah; or that Syria turns to Turkey, which is also virulently anti-Israel under the Erdogan Regime and, per reports yesterday, stands ready to enter northern Syria and suppress the Kurds.

For its part, the victorious rebel group which led the successful effort to oust Assad, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, (HTS, formerly the jihadi group known as the Nusra Front, widely recognised as al-Qaida’s Syrian affiliate), under its charismatic leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa (formerly known as Abu Mohamed al-Jolani), is rapidly trying to reinvent itself. It has made pledges to govern for all Syrians, to respect the rights of religious and ethnic minorities, and to prevent Syria being used as a base for foreign powers, including as a staging post for attacks against Israel. It desperately seeks the removal of the Assad-era sanctions, along with international recognition and support, to consolidate its governance and, if its words are to be believed, to start the long hard process of national reconstruction and renewal.

However, the jury is out on whether the HTS rebranding efforts are genuine or a sham. Most Western governments have been making tentative outreach efforts to the new government, willing to give it a chance. The stakes are high. The US maintains military presence in the country and supports the Kurdish minority. Europe hosts millions of Syrian refugees and wants to avoid renewed instability on its doorstep which may trigger further refugee flight. There is concern about a possible ripple effect from Syria that may destabilize the key Western ally, Jordan. Meanwhile, by virtue of Assad’s strong alliances with Russia and Iran, the future of Syria may have bearing on the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Iran nuclear file. In this context, establishing Syria as a Western ally could change the wider configuration of power in the Middle East and beyond.

And yet the governance record of HTS, which for the last few years has ruled the Idlib enclave in north west Syria through its ‘Syrian Salvation Government’, does not inspire. Jonathan Spyer, in an excellent piece in the Spectator, portrays the HTS government in Idlib as a Syrian Taliban – strict application of shariah law, zero tolerance for opposition or dissent, imprisonment without trial and torture as ‘routine’.

So to summarize – Israel seeks to protect its security interests by ensuring Syria cannot be used once more as a hostile territory from which its enemies prepare to attack; meanwhile the new HTS-led regime seeks proof to show the international community, and its own minorities, that its interest is to establish a responsible, moderate and stabilizing government; and for their part, Europe and the US seek to establish Syria as a new pro-Western ally that can trigger a strategic shift in the regional balance of power, acting as a beacon of calm after the ravages of the Syrian civil war, ISIS, and Iran’s quest for regional hegemony.

What better gesture could there be, then, to converge those interests through an invitation by Israel to address the Knesset in Jerusalem?

For Syria, and HTS specifically, what better proof could it provide to the international community of its true intent than this? And what better comfort could it provide to Syria’s fearful minorities – the Kurds, the Druze and Christians among them – if it will recognize the Jewish state next door? And who could be a better partner to provide the mix of technologies, innovation and investment that can drive Syrian reconstruction than Israel together with its Abraham Accords partners, the UAE, Morocco and Bahrain?

For Israel, what could be a more profound symbol of its stronger post-war position than if Syria – the cornerstone of Iran’s so-called ‘Axis of Resistance’ – becomes the fifth Arab country to sign up to the ‘Abraham Accords’? What could better guarantee Israel’s key security interests on its northern border than a strong alliance with the new government in Syria?

And for the West, what more courageous, transformative and irreversible action could one expect from a leader with which it seeks to partner in breaking through old paradigms? And what other than a security partnership between Syria and Israel could better protect the interests of the Kurds in the face of potential Turkish aggression, and prevent that feared ripple effect from destabilizing Jordan?

Once in the past, a bold Arab leader flew to Jerusalem to address the Knesset in a move that forever transformed the region. If al-Sharaa repeated that move, it would be no less transformative today.