A Thousand Peace Agreements Are Easier than the New Cease-Fire with Israel

A Thousand Peace Pacts Are Easier than the New Cease-Fire with IsraelSamir al-Taqi,

Perhaps signing a thousand peace agreements is far easier than signing a new cease-fire agreement with Israel, as is being promoted today.

The agreement of May 31, 1974, ended a brief war of attrition that followed the October War between Syria and Israel and established a balanced mechanism for a cease-fire on the Golan. The agreement came backed by monitoring mechanisms and arms limitations, with international guarantees, and the Security Council ratified it through Resolution 350 on the same day, tasking the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) with overseeing it.

The agreement stipulated dividing the area into two zones (A and B), separated by a demilitarized buffer zone under U.N. supervision. Two symmetrical zones were also placed on its flanks to regulate forces and armaments, along with an agreement on a prisoner exchange according to a specified timetable.

Subsequently, additional restrictions were imposed on the deployment of surface-to-air missiles within a strip 10 km wide, pursuant to a supplementary U.S. document. In practice, this agreement outlined a framework for an institutional truce that allowed for relative stability in the Syrian-Israeli conflict for many years.

The Current Scene: A Negotiating Cart without Brakes

At a time when Israel is sweeping through the region and reshaping it to its liking—bullying Arabs and non-Arabs alike—and with pressure from the U.S. administration to achieve political gains for President Trump on his way to winning the Nobel Peace Prize, we find the Syrian-Israeli negotiating cart rolling downhill without brakes.

But who said that Syrians, or even Arabs, welcome an agreement of this sort?

Israel’s Public Pretexts for Occupying the Five Points

Israel advances several pretexts to justify its occupation of the five points in the Golan and its repeated strikes on sites inside Syria:

Eliminating the remnants of Syrian military capabilities, on the claim of preventing them from falling into the hands of terrorists.→ The Syrian government ought to respond that Israel knows full well that what remains of Syria’s capabilities is negligible and that Syria needs at least thirty years to restore its deterrent capacities.

Targeting Hezbollah sites and Iranian militias.→ The logical reply is that Iran today is not able to revive its military arms; indeed, the data indicate that it is reshaping its strategy toward a self-sufficient Persian nationalism. In all cases, Syria must reinstate compulsory conscription as a tool to unify the nation’s components and to found a national crucible that stands against any intervention, whether from Iran or Israel.

Pushing Salafi jihadists away from the border and preventing a repeat of the Hamas experience.→ The Syrian government should respond by reimposing its control over all jihadist formations, especially those that fall under or pledge allegiance to what is called the “New Syrian Army.”

Imposing a demilitarized zone to a depth of 60 kilometers that includes Damascus.→ Syria can submit an annex similar to what preceded, without compromising the capital’s defenses against any potential aggression.

What Israel Actually Wants

The truth is that Israel’s demands go far beyond these pretexts. It seeks, without quid pro quo or commitment, to impose a punitive, definitive victory not only over the Palestinians but over the Syrian people as a whole. In return, it offers nothing but support for the existing regime and participation in reconstruction efforts (and we say: “bil-wa‘d ya kammun!”).

What Israel seeks is an agreement that shackles Syrian sovereignty entirely and prevents Syria from being a unified state, sovereign over its decisions.It seeks to break the very idea of Syrian nationhood itself and to turn Syria into a weak, subordinate entity that possesses no independence.

Sovereignty before All Else

The Syrian people benefited from the ebb of Iranian and Russian hegemony, but this achievement was realized through tremendous sacrifices, not thanks to Israel.And the people’s freedom is not complete except by asserting full sovereignty over their decision and destiny. Sovereignty is not a pique against Iran or Russia; it is a defense of Syrian dignity before the world and, above all, before Israel.

In this reality, Israel seeks to exploit Syria’s moment of weakness to impose terms that touch the essence of national sovereignty, and Syria is under no obligation to accept them.What Israel possesses in financial levers, security penetration inside Syria, and restraints on sensitive communications and information is no longer sufficient for it. It wants to reach the marrow of Syrian sovereign decision-making.

An Agreement without Sovereignty = Subjugation

Liberating the five points does not in any way justify yielding to Israel’s fateful conditions. Rather, as in 1974, it suffices to sign a document with the United States that expands the buffer areas and through which Syria reaffirms its commitment not to launch hostile acts against Israel or to support adversarial parties.

Any new agreement, however, would weaken the 1974 accord and subject Syrian security to the will of Israeli intelligence officers.

Legitimate Questions

Who said that Arabs agree to this agreement or feel comfortable with it?

Who said that the regional and European neighborhood is comfortable entrenching Israeli hegemony in this manner?

Who said that Israel will refrain from aggression after signing the agreement?

Who said that Israel truly seeks peace? Do we not hear what Netanyahu says?

Who said that peace will prevail in the region even after Gaza, or that Israel will cease expanding?

Who said that Trump will actually win the Nobel?

In Conclusion

For us as Syrians, no peace agreement has value unless it affirms national sovereignty and the people’s free will.Anything else is subjugation that protects Syria neither in Paris nor in the White House.

Indeed, in such a case, signing a final peace agreement with Israel—one that ends the conflict and guarantees national sovereignty—would be a choice more respectful of Syria’s dignity.

But an agreement without sovereignty is, as the saying goes, “bil-wa‘d ya kammun!”