Netanyahu's Historic Test Between Syria’s Opportunity and Pitfalls of Escapism

The Arab region is experiencing an exceptional moment that may not be repeated soon. After decades of wars and destruction, a real possibility is emerging to redraw the map of regional stability, with the relationship between the new Syria and Israel being its cornerstone. The recent statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in which he hinted at the possibility of an agreement with Syria, point to this potential. 

However, they arrive tainted by the features of military escalation, as in the "Beit Jin" raid, and by personal attacks on Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa. This raises a fateful question: Will Israel and its leader, Netanyahu, truly choose to put "Israel First" by seizing the historic opportunity for peace, or will they remain captive to narrow partisan interests and attempts to evade trial on corruption charges?

Syria: From Conflict Zone to Compelled Peace Partner

The fall of the Assad regime and the transition to a government led by Ahmad al-Sharaa has created a geopolitical earthquake. Syria is no longer a tool in the hands of the Iranian axis or a proxy conflict arena. It has regained its national will and become an actor seeking stability and reconstruction. 

This transformation, as the analysis clarifies, has not only weakened Iran but also opened the door to reconciliation with its Arab neighbors and created objective conditions for peace with Israel. The new Syrian position, clearly expressed by President al-Sharaa and his Foreign Minister, raises the slogan "Syria First": peace is possible, but it must be based on the restoration of full sovereignty and the rights of the Syrian people, primarily Israeli withdrawal to the June 4, 1967 line (referred to as the December 7, 2024). This is a government that deals pragmatically, as shown in its visits to Washington and its refusal to respond militarily to provocations, because its priority is state-building, making it a realistic and understanding partner.

Israel: Between Hesitant Peace Rhetoric and Provocative Field Practices

In contrast, the Israeli position, specifically Netanyahu's, appears contradictory and even dangerous. On one hand, he speaks of the "possibility of an agreement" with Syria, and on the other, he launches personal attacks on al-Sharaa, reinforces military presence in the buffer zone, and imposes impossible conditions such as disarming southern Syria and creating a corridor to the Druze stronghold of Suwayda. The military operation in Beit Jinn, which resulted in human and political losses for Israel itself, was a harsh lesson that the logic of force alone is no longer effective against a stable Syria with national will. This contradiction reveals that the motive may not be a genuine peace strategy, but rather an internal political maneuver. It seems that Netanyahu, besieged by corruption cases and a struggle for political survival, is using security rhetoric and limited escalation to achieve immediate goals: appeasing the radical right, showing "strength" to voters, and distracting public opinion from his trial.

The True "Israel First": A Call to Incline Towards Peace

Here lies the historic paradox. The slogan that Netanyahu and the people of Israel truly need is not "more land" or "more security through repression." A true "Israel First" means ensuring Israel's future security and prosperity by establishing genuine peace with its now stable and powerful northern neighbor. 

The regional and international situation is ripe for this shift: the United States under Trump explicitly supports Syria's stability and urges Israel not to obstruct it, major powers like Russia and China support this direction, while Iran suffers from isolation and internal crises, and the peoples of the region suffer from economic hardship.

The Quranic verse from Surah Al-Anfal, "And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah" offers timeless wisdom. Inclining towards peace is an obligation when the inclination is present. Today, the inclination for peace is clear from the Syrian side, which raises the slogan of reconstruction and stability. 

The contemporary political interpretation of this verse dictates that the inclination should begin with the aggressor party, the party capable of ending occupation and lifting injustice. Israel must take the initiative, not set impossible conditions that violate Syria's sovereignty and dignity.

A Choice Between History and the Courtroom

The region is at a crossroads. The first path leads to comprehensive stability, where Syria becomes a bridge for economic cooperation between the Gulf and Europe, one of the oldest gates of the Arab-Israeli conflict is closed, and everyone enjoys security and prosperity. The second path, the path of tactical escalation and procrastination, leads to wasting an opportunity that may not return, continuing a state of imbalance, and possibly more fierce confrontations in the future.

Benjamin Netanyahu must choose. Will he be a leader who truly puts "Israel First," seizing this rare window for peace with Syria, and building a legacy of lasting security for his people? Or will he remain a prisoner of his narrow calculations, using the Syrian issue as an internal political game and an escape forward from the courtroom, to be recorded in history as the one who squandered the chance for peace to save his seat? The tired Israeli people, weary of wars, and the peoples of the region, exhausted by poverty and destruction, await the answer. Time is not on the side of the procrastinators.

_____________

Mohamed Hamdan, an academic researcher in cultural studies and ancient Eastern heritage.