- 09:00
The world is celebrating the anticipated signing of a security agreement between Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa and Israel, hailed as evidence of Sharaa’s moderation and a departure from his radical Islamist past. However, this narrative is misleading. Islamist doctrine permits, and even encourages, temporary truces—up to 10 years—with adversaries until conditions favor a stronger position. This strategy is modeled on the Prophet Muhammad’s Treaty of Hudaybiyyah with the Quraysh of Mecca in 628 CE. Hamas has repeatedly proposed 10-year truces with Israel as an alternative to peace or a two-state solution.
If Sharaa were truly a moderate, reformer or visionary, he would have aimed higher. He could have called, and met with, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to propose a comprehensive peace treaty, setting aside past grievances to secure a prosperous future for both nations.
Instead, neither Sharaa nor his officials have uttered the word “peace” in relation to Israel. The current agreement merely restores the status quo of the 1974 ceasefire and the UNDOF line, in place before December 2024.
This interim arrangement might be defensible if Sharaa were focused on transitional governance, such as organizing elections or drafting a constitution—tasks typical of an acting president. However, since declaring himself president in February 2025, Sharaa has acted as a permanent leader, signing long-term contracts for public infrastructure, inviting foreign investors and overseeing business and government memoranda of understanding (MoUs). In nearly every domain, Sharaa has promised both short- and long-term progress, except in Syria’s relations with Israel, where he offers only a return to the 2024 status quo.
The separation of economic growth from relations with Israel is a hallmark of most Arab states, with or without peace treaties, except for the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. These Gulf states, through the Abraham Accords, demonstrated that economic interests drove their normalization with Israel. In contrast, other Arab states treat peace with Israel as disconnected from economic growth—a flawed approach.
Separation between foreign policy and the economy stems from prioritizing identity politics over pragmatic, cause-and-effect policymaking.
Under identity politics, the Arab grievance over Israel’s control of Palestinian territory overshadows all else, including economic benefits. In contrast, a cause-and-effect approach prioritizes national interests, particularly economic growth, over pride, dignity or identity. Developed economies exemplify this: despite a brutal war, the United States and Vietnam have become major trade partners. Today, Vietnam continues to celebrate its military victory over America, but prioritizes exports and growth over past animosity.
If Sharaa were the visionary his supporters claim, he would recognize that restoring Syrian sovereignty over the Golan Heights offers minimal economic dividends compared to a peace treaty with Israel. Given his stated focus on economic growth, peace with Israel should be a pressing priority.
Recent media reports highlight Syrian Foreign Minister Assaad al-Shibani’s meeting with Ron Dermer, a senior aide to Netanyahu, in Paris. This was the first high-level meeting between Syrian and Israeli officials in 25 years, meaning it was not unprecedented. In 2000, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at Camp David under President Bill Clinton’s mediation. Talks under Clinton were aimed at a peace treaty allowing Israel to retain control over Mount Hermon’s peak and establishing a shared border buffer zone designed as a park accessible to both sides. These talks progressed far beyond Sharaa’s current truce offer.
Media reports also suggest that Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa, scheduled to address the UN General Assembly in New York next month, may meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his US visit. Whether this encounter will be a brief handshake, a photo opportunity under President Trump’s auspices or something more substantial remains unclear. What is certain, however, is that any minor gesture between Sharaa and Netanyahu will likely be overhyped as a breakthrough, despite its probable lack of substance.
The era of incremental steps and symbolic gestures toward peace has passed. Now is the time for bold, courageous action. Sharaa should publicly invite Netanyahu to a meeting and explicitly declare his goal of achieving peace. Better yet, he could emulate Anwar Sadat’s historic 1977 visit to Jerusalem and address the Knesset, calling for a new chapter in Syrian-Israeli relations and a comprehensive peace treaty.
A mere security agreement between Sharaa and Israel does not justify the hype it has received. Until Sharaa openly advocates for a comprehensive peace treaty, expectations should remain tempered.
Comments