By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared the 1974 border agreement with Syria null and void, citing Syrian military withdrawal from the Golan Heights buffer zone. He ordered the Israeli army to seize this area, claiming it necessary to protect Israel’s border. Netanyahu also asserted that Israel’s actions contributed to the weakening of the Assad regime in Syria, creating new opportunities for the region. Despite this, he stated that Israel will pursue a policy of humanitarian aid to Syrian civilians while remaining uninvolved in Syria’s internal affairs.
Read the original article here
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent declaration ending the 1974 border agreement with Syria has sparked considerable international attention and debate. The announcement, signaling Israel’s intention to seize the Golan Heights buffer zone, is framed by Netanyahu as a necessary security measure following the Syrian army’s withdrawal from its positions along the border.
The immediate context revolves around the departure of Syrian government soldiers from the demilitarized zone, a strip of land a few kilometers wide along the border. This vacuum, according to Netanyahu’s justification, has created a security risk. Rebel groups, now operating in this area, allegedly attacked UN forces present, prompting Israeli intervention to repel the attack and subsequently assume control of the zone. This action, however, is viewed by many as a thinly veiled land grab, taking advantage of the chaos and instability in Syria.
The legal and political ramifications of this move are complex. The argument presented for ending the agreement centers on the Syrian government’s apparent inability to maintain its side of the deal. With the collapse of the Assad regime, the question arises whether the 1974 agreement remains valid, given that one of the signatory parties effectively no longer exists. However, critics argue that Israel is exploiting this situation for opportunistic expansion, unilaterally withdrawing from the agreement rather than engaging in diplomatic efforts to negotiate a new one with the emerging Syrian power structures.
Some analysts suggest that this move is not just about border security. It could be a strategic attempt to prevent hostile groups from gaining a foothold in the Golan Heights, potentially serving as launching points for attacks against Israel. Concerns exist regarding the potential presence of Islamist militants, and Israel’s preemptive action might be viewed as a way to mitigate this threat. This perspective, however, doesn’t negate the criticism levied at Israel for not exploring alternative diplomatic solutions before resorting to military action.
The international community’s reaction to Netanyahu’s decision is predictably mixed. While some may understand Israel’s security concerns, especially given the unpredictable nature of the Syrian conflict, many others are likely to condemn this move as an act of aggression and a violation of international law. The long-standing dispute over the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War in 1967, adds another layer of complexity to the situation. This action will almost certainly further destabilize the region and complicate already fraught relations between Israel and its neighbors.
Adding another dimension to the discussion is the question of the future of the Golan Heights. Israel’s actions are seen by many as a prelude to a more extensive annexation of the territory, which could trigger further conflict and condemnation. The move is viewed by some as a direct challenge to any future Syrian government, a message of strength and a display of Israel’s determination to safeguard its interests, regardless of the regional political landscape. Israel’s actions are being interpreted as a statement of intent, potentially aiming to alter the long-term geopolitical reality in the region.
The broader geopolitical implications are considerable. Regional powers like Turkey, grappling with its own refugee crisis stemming from the Syrian civil war, will undoubtedly watch Israel’s actions closely. Turkey, along with Israel, has a vested interest in the establishment of a stable government in Syria to address the issues of refugee flow and security. Any power vacuum in Syria has the potential to destabilize a complex region, and Israel is clearly attempting to shape the outcome for itself, regardless of the potential for increased regional tension and international disapproval.
Looking ahead, the international community will be closely monitoring developments in Syria and Israel’s actions. Whether Netanyahu’s move will ultimately prove to be a strategic success or a catalyst for further conflict remains uncertain. The future of the Golan Heights, and indeed the wider region, appears to hang precariously in the balance. The situation is likely to remain volatile and fraught with uncertainty, and the potential for escalation of conflict should not be underestimated. The coming months and years will be critical in determining the ultimate outcome of this bold and controversial decision.