The ink had barely dried on the “January 30 Agreement”—the landmark deal through which the Syrian state and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) reached a comprehensive settlement restoring state authority over the entire eastern Euphrates—when Israel made a striking announcement. Tel Aviv appointed Brigadier General Ghassan Alian, the former Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), as the official responsible for “liaising with Arab citizens, the Druze” in Syria, Lebanon, and the region.
The timing was conspicuous. The title was loaded. And the choice of Alian—given his record, background, and institutional role—was anything but routine.
- The Man: A Career Forged in the Architecture of Occupation
Ghassan Alian is not a technocrat, nor a civilian administrator. He is a former general in the Israeli occupation forces. By virtue of his rank and long service, he is inseparable from the military institution responsible for decades of violations in the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and across the region—violations documented by international bodies and human rights organizations.
The roots of these crimes lie in the very structure of the Zionist colonial project: the 1948 Nakba, the mass displacement of Palestinians, the destruction of hundreds of towns and villages, and the appropriation of Palestinian land and resources. The trajectory continued with the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, followed by a settlement enterprise that constitutes a war crime under international law. It produced an apartheid reality—separate roads, separate cities, and a dual legal system privileging settlers over the indigenous population. The apartheid wall, which devoured more than a third of the West Bank, was deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice, a ruling reinforced by the Court’s recent finding that the occupation itself has become unlawful due to its permanence.
Alian rose through this system from soldier to general. His most recent post—head of COGAT—placed him at the heart of the Gaza blockade and its policies. Before the 2023–2025 war, he oversaw the notorious “calorie calculation” regime, a bureaucratic formula designed to keep Gaza’s population on the bare minimum needed to survive without allowing genuine life. During the war, he was directly involved in managing the siege, negotiating with mediators, and implementing policies that international bodies have described as collective punishment and potential crimes against humanity.
Given the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials, it is not difficult to see how Alian’s operational role could place him within the same chain of responsibility.
- The Mission: Israel’s Strategic Anxiety in the New Syrian Landscape
If this is the man, then what is the mission?
The timing of Alian’s appointment offers the clearest clue. It came immediately after the Syrian state consolidated control over the eastern Euphrates—its resources, crossings, airports, and strategic depth—through a political settlement that effectively ended separatist ambitions in the region. For Israel, this was a strategic setback. It lost a pressure point. It lost leverage. And it lost the ability to shape outcomes in a region it had long monitored closely.
Alian’s new role is therefore best understood as an expression of Israeli anxiety. Tel Aviv recognizes that the Syrian state is on a trajectory toward full territorial reintegration, and that extending this sovereignty to Jabal al-Arab is only a matter of time. The appointment is an attempt to insert Israel into this evolving landscape, to influence future negotiations—particularly regarding the renewal of the 1974 Disengagement Agreement—and to revive old ideas such as a “humanitarian corridor” from the occupied Golan.
The move also reflects a familiar Israeli tactic: cultivating ties with specific communities in neighboring states to create parallel channels of influence. By placing the Druze of Syria and Lebanon in a single “basket,” Israel seeks to position itself as a patron, hoping to pressure central governments and extract concessions at the negotiating table.
But this strategy is neither new nor subtle. It is a classic attempt to introduce extraneous issues into political negotiations—whether concerning the 1974 agreement with Syria or the implementation of UN Resolution 1701 with Lebanon.
III. A Transparent Maneuver, A Predictable Failure
In essence, Israel has tasked a military figure implicated in grave violations with a political mission cloaked in humanitarian language. The goal is to drive a wedge between the Syrian state and its citizens, particularly the deeply rooted and historically integral Druze community.
Yet this approach ignores a fundamental truth: the collective consciousness of these communities remains anchored in their Arab and national identity. As the late scholar Mohammed Mahdi Shamseddine observed, the region does not contain “minorities” in the political sense—only a broad Arab and Muslim majority whose social fabric cannot be easily fragmented.
Alian’s appointment is therefore less a sign of Israeli strength than of strategic unease. It is a maneuver born of diminishing leverage, shrinking influence, and a regional landscape moving in directions Tel Aviv cannot easily shape.
And for that reason, it is destined to fail.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
