Is Israel Eyeing the New Syria as Its Next Target?

In recent developments regarding the Syrian Golan Heights, Israel has escalated its occupation following the fall of the Bashar al-Assad government. This expansion is marked by the seizure of the demilitarized buffer zone, a significant violation of the 1974 disengagement agreement with Syria. Additionally, Israel has intensified airstrikes targeting military positions across Syria, exacerbating the ongoing turmoil in the region.

As Syria continues to face the repercussions of the Assad government’s ousting, Israel has seized the opportunity to extend its territorial claims. Under the guise of creating buffer zones, Israeli forces have advanced to within 20 kilometers of Damascus, the Syrian capital. This bold move has been emboldened by recent military successes in Gaza, where Israel employed American-supplied fighter jets and heavy bombs.

In a statement on December 23, 2024, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the Knesset, asserting that the conflict in Gaza had opened new pathways for peace accords with Arab nations, potentially “dramatically changing the face of” the Middle East.

Despite these alarming developments, the Secretary General of the (Persian) Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Jasem Albudaiwi, has called on the international community for “urgent and decisive action” to halt the “blatant violations” occurring in Syria. This plea raises questions about the effectiveness of the international response to Israel’s actions.

• It is ironic that while the GCC chief calls for international intervention, Arab nations, including those in the Persian Gulf, have not taken concrete steps to pressure the U.S. and Western nations to cease arms shipments to Israel.
• Albudaiwi seems aware that the international community’s habitual response is limited to verbal condemnations or resolutions in the largely ineffective UN General Assembly.
• Historical patterns show that resolutions aimed at Israel in the UN Security Council often face American vetoes.

The Arab world, consisting of 22 nations, possesses substantial leverage to influence Israel’s actions. The GCC states could threaten oil boycotts, while other Arab countries might consider boycotting Western goods to compel pressure on Israel to alter its expansionist strategies in Syria.

However, with the lack of decisive action from Arab countries, Israel feels free to pursue its agenda without restraint. With a tacit approval from Washington, Israel is reportedly working toward the depopulation of the occupied West Bank, aiming to erase its Palestinian identity. This plan is further highlighted by recent legislative efforts in the U.S. Congress to refer to the West Bank by its Hebrew name, Judea and Samaria.

Moreover, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has proposed the establishment of a Jewish state that would encompass all Palestinian territories and extend to neighboring Arab regions, including Damascus. Reports from Axios reveal that an internal memo from Rep. Brian Mast, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has instructed staff to adopt this nomenclature for the West Bank.

Turkey, a prominent supporter of the current Syrian administration, has condemned Israel’s activities in Syria. However, it is noteworthy that while the Israeli military was engaged in operations in Gaza, Turkey continued facilitating oil transfers from Azerbaijan to Israel.

Given the frail political situation in Syria, coupled with the inaction from neighboring Arab nations and Turkey, Israel views Syria as a target ripe for further territorial claims. Netanyahu’s administration feels increasingly secure in its expansionist pursuits, especially with support from the Trump administration, which recognized the occupied Golan Heights as part of Israel in March 2019, defying international law.

In summary, the situation in the Syrian Golan Heights illustrates the complex interplay of regional politics and international relations. Israel’s actions reflect a broader strategy of territorial expansion while the responses from regional powers remain largely ineffective. The international community’s ability to intervene meaningfully is called into question as the crisis unfolds.