Israel risks facing popular resistance in Syria

Despite the absence of direct military confrontation, the newly formed Syrian government has faced Israel both on the ground and diplomatically, achieving two victories:

- The first was securing control over the towns of Jaramana, Sahnaya, and Ashrafiyat Sahnaya(druze majority) southern Damascus, despite direct Israeli bombardment that was accompanied by promises of sectarian protection and even strikes near the presidential palace.  

- The second was Saudi and Qatari trillions successfully persuading U.S. President Trump to meet President Shara and lift sanctions on Syria, despite direct Israeli attempts—led by Netanyahu—to thwart the move, which was considered nearly impossible even by the most optimistic observers.  

But what are President Shara’s options in facing ongoing Israeli aggression?  

Avoiding Direct Military Confrontation  

From the very first day, the president was clear in ruling out direct military confrontation. Such an approach would:  

- Validate Israeli claims that the Syrian government poses a “terrorist” threat.  

- Hinder efforts to break Syria's isolation, lift sanctions, and secure essential economic recovery.  

- Create opportunities for internal factions eager to consolidate their influence.  

While direct conflict might win him unmatched Arab and Islamic popularity, politically and economically it would be meaningless. Still, he has already achieved an impossible victory that has gained him a share of that popularity.  

Normalization and Peace: A Conditional American Demand  

This path was one of the conditions set by the U.S. for lifting sanctions, yet several obstacles remain:  

- Complete Israeli disregard, as Israel has already secured a comfortable territorial occupation alongside aerial military superiority and unprecedented diplomatic dominance.  

- Shara knows that pursuing this option risks alienating his core base of ideological fighters, potentially destabilizing his still-fragile authority. While a faction of “rascals” from the Syrian revolution has emerged, showing no issue with embracing Zionists, this does not ensure broad acceptance.  

- It is unlikely that any normalization deal would lead to the restoration of the occupied Golan Heights, making any agreement an incomplete achievement—even when compared to Egypt’s Camp David Accords.  

However, the advantages of normalization would include halting military aggression, stabilize the country, and ensuring the security of Syria’s new leadership.  

Passive Ignorance: An Alternative Approach

This option involves zero military confrontation and indirect negotiations aimed at re-establishing the 1974 disengagement agreement, coupled with measures such as:  

- Effectively countering Hezbollah’s attempts to smuggle weapons into Lebanon.  

- Handing over personal belongings of Israeli spy Eli Cohen.  

- Offering guarantees to refrain from any threats in exchange for halting aggression and regaining recently occupied Syrian territories post-Assad.  

Yet, there are no indications of Israeli interest in making such concessions. Israel currently faces no military or diplomatic pressure—even from the U.S., despite improved American-Syrian relations—that would push it to grant Syria’s new leadership any significant benefits.  

Israel’s Calculations: The Risk of Popular Resistance 

Ultimately, Israel's continuous provocations in the south and bombings in the north risk fueling a form of popular resistance that disregards its military superiority and the Syrian government’s calculations. This movement is driven by hundreds of ideological fighters who view Jerusalem as their natural next step after Damascus. It likely began just a few days ago, with two primitive rockets fired toward the occupied Golan—an act that may disrupt both military and political calculations.

should Syria consider a peace agreement with Israel? let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Moumin Sawady