In an unprecedented development, senior Syrian and Israeli delegations convened for direct talks in Paris this week, marking the highest-level contact between the two sides since the fall of the Assad regime. The meeting, mediated by U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack and hosted by the French government, came amid heightened tensions in southern Syria and ongoing security turmoil in Suweida province.
According to a Syrian diplomatic source, the four-hour session involved representatives from both countries’ foreign and intelligence ministries. Discussions centered on Israel’s recent military escalation near the Syrian-Israeli disengagement line and the deteriorating situation in Suweida. Damascus reportedly blamed Israel for the flare-up but signaled conditional willingness to return to the 1974 Disengagement Agreement—if backed by international guarantees.
Outlining Red Lines and Testing Waters
The Syrian delegation reaffirmed national principles, notably the unity of Syrian territory and rejection of all foreign military presence deemed illegal. It demanded Israeli withdrawal from advanced border positions but also expressed preliminary openness to continuing the dialogue.
U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack described the talks as part of Washington’s “active diplomacy,” tweeting that “a stable Syria is built on strong neighbours.” Barrack has been walking a diplomatic tightrope—reassuring Israel while signaling support for Syria’s transitional leadership under President Ahmad al-Sharaa.
However, Zaki Lababidi, head of the Syrian American Council’s Damascus office, urged caution. Speaking to Syria TV, he stressed that while the meeting may seem promising, Israel’s history of defying international norms and its direct threats against President al-Sharaa should not be overlooked. Lababidi also accused Israel of arming local militias in Suweida to destabilize the region and warned that civil strife could erupt if Syrians fail to act swiftly.
France’s Diplomatic Gamble
According to political analyst Hassan al-Nifai, France is attempting to reassert a central role in post-Assad Syria. He noted that Paris was chosen as the meeting venue at the French government’s request. While characterizing the talks as exploratory with no tangible outcomes, Nifai described them as a “testing of the waters”—a moment for both sides to air demands and gauge each other’s positions.
He argued that Israel aims to leverage the recent conflict in Suweida to impose new security arrangements in southern Syria, including control over local forces and demilitarization terms. “Israel seeks to turn southern communities into a de facto border guard force under the guise of protecting the Druze,” he said.
Strategic Israeli Calculations and the ‘David Corridor’
Palestinian journalist Mohammad al-Qeeq emphasized that Israel is employing its historical tactic of “probing talks” to assess Syria’s new leadership. He linked these overtures to Israel’s long-term strategic ambition: creating the so-called “David Corridor,” a territorial arc stretching from Daraa in southern Syria to al-Tanf near the Iraqi border. The idea, he said, has been on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s agenda for years and gained momentum under Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
Qeeq warned of a broad Israeli consensus—across political parties—for permanent annexation of the Golan, citing statements from opposition leader Yair Lapid as evidence. “Even Lapid told Emirati officials that if President al-Sharaa wants to remain in power, he must drop any claims to the Golan,” he said.
He also noted a shift in Israeli priorities away from formal agreements, like the Abraham Accords, and toward unilateral territorial expansion and de facto partition of Syria.
Balancing the Internal and Regional Fronts
Nifai argued that Syria’s government must adopt a dual-track strategy: addressing internal crises—particularly in Suweida—to deprive Israel of pretexts for intervention, and simultaneously engaging regional and international stakeholders to underscore Syria’s stability as a regional security imperative.
“Syria must avoid reactive approaches and instead act as a parent state to all its social components,” he said. “Defusing internal crises, even through imperfect dialogue, removes Israel’s leverage.”
Tension with Turkey and U.S. Ambiguity
Qeeq added that Israeli escalation in the south often coincides with improved Syrian-Turkish ties, suggesting regional actors may be attempting to drive a wedge between Damascus and Ankara. However, he noted, distancing from Turkey does not equate to closeness with Israel, which “seeks dominance, not partnership.”
He also criticized the U.S.’s inconsistent positions, citing a sudden statement by U.S. envoy Wietkoff labeling Hamas as “terrorist,” and speculated that another American official, such as Barrack, could similarly accuse Damascus of obstructing peace efforts to justify future pressure.
European Anxiety and the Refugee Factor
While U.S. engagement remains selective, European governments—especially France—appear anxious. Qeeq noted that Europe fears a renewed Syrian crisis could revive the refugee wave, placing enormous pressure on EU states. President Macron’s recent statements about recognizing a Palestinian state, he added, may be more about domestic and EU bargaining than genuine foreign policy shifts.
The Paris meeting did not yield concrete breakthroughs, but it opened a narrow window for dialogue between two long-hostile states. Syria’s leadership appears aware of the risks and opportunities such talks entail, and is treading carefully. For now, Israel’s intentions remain suspect, and Washington’s posture unpredictable—making the path forward murky but not entirely closed.
