6 hours ago
9
ARTICLE AD BOX
DIPLOMATIC AFFAIRS: “Lebanon, by the way, could actually mobilize and come into the Abraham Peace Accords, as could potentially Syria," said Witkoff, but is this possible?
By HERB KEINON FEBRUARY 28, 2025 13:02 Updated: FEBRUARY 28, 2025 13:06
PROTESTERS HOLD placards and flags during a rally against antisemitism at The Domain in February 2024 in Sydney. According to data gathered by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the number of antisemitic incidents in the country jumped to 2,062 in the 12 months to September 2024
(photo credit: LISA MAREE WILLIAMS/GETTY IMAGES)
Who are the next candidates to join the Abraham Accords?
The conventional wisdom points to Saudi Arabia, and intense efforts to make this happen continue, even though the Saudis insist it won’t happen until Israel guarantees a pathway to a Palestinian state – an idea that, in light of October 7, will be extremely difficult, to say the least, to sell to the Israeli public.
Another oft-mentioned candidate is Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim state, though not an Arab one. However, nothing significant has happened on that front for some time.
Now, along comes Steve Witkoff, US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy, who, at an American Jewish Committee event in Washington, voiced optimism about Saudi Arabia ultimately joining the Accords – which already include Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan – before raising two unexpected candidates: Lebanon and Syria.
“Lebanon, by the way, could actually mobilize and come into the Abraham Peace Accords, as could potentially Syria. So, so many profound changes are happening,” he said.
Is he serious? Or is this Trumpian overreach, akin to an AI-generated video the president posted on his social media account this week of a reconstructed Gaza – looking a lot like Las Vegas – with him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lounging poolside, shirtless and with cocktails in hand?
Witkoff did not elaborate, but profound changes are indeed under way. Most significantly, both Lebanon and Syria are pulling farther away from Iran’s orbit with each passing day – something that, for Israel, is nothing less than a blessing.
Lebanon asserts its independence
That Lebanon is asserting its independence is evident in various ways: electing a president and prime minister not to Iran’s liking, preventing Iranian planes full of cash for Hezbollah from landing at Beirut’s airport, and statements made by President Joseph Aoun to the speaker of Iran’s parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who was in Lebanon Sunday for the funeral of assassinated Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
The meeting was cordial, but afterward, the Lebanese president’s office posted this statement on X:“Lebanon is tired of others’ wars, and the unity of the Lebanese is the best way to confront any loss or aggression. Lebanon paid a heavy price for the Palestinian cause. It supports what was issued by the recent Riyadh summit regarding the two-state solution.”
In other words, Aoun bluntly told the Iranians – who, through Hezbollah and with a lifeline from Assad’s Syria, have long dominated Lebanon – that Beirut no longer wants to be a pawn in Iran’s long game against the Jewish state.
Stay updated with the latest news!
Subscribe to The Jerusalem Post Newsletter
Does that mean Lebanon is a real candidate for normalization, as Witkoff suggested? Not so fast.
YET, AS former deputy national security adviser for foreign policy Orna Mizrahi noted this week at an Institute for National Security Studies conference in Tel Aviv, if last year the talk was of threats coming from Lebanon, this year the discussion is about opportunities.
Mizrahi, a senior INSS researcher, said there are two key opportunities for Israel: one regarding Hezbollah, the other concerning the Lebanese government.
On Hezbollah, she said that after the blows it sustained from Israel, the group is significantly weakened. Israel now has the opportunity to preserve that situation and even make it worse, altering the balance of power.
What is working in Israel's favor?
Several factors are working here in Israel’s favor.
First, Mizrahi said, Israel’s “state of mind” has changed – it is no longer willing to tolerate Hezbollah’s military buildup as it had in the past.
“It is impossible for anyone to adopt a policy of tolerance,” she said. “And I think that will bring different behavior by both the military and political echelon regarding that front.”
This shift is already evident in the number of times Israel has taken action against Hezbollah since the ceasefire went into effect on November 27 to ensure it is being honored.
Mizrahi explained that the ceasefire agreement grants Israel a degree of freedom: if the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL do not act against Hezbollah’s buildup, and after Israel alerts a US-led mechanism, it can intervene to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its capabilities or violating the agreement.
The second major factor is that Israel now has strong, significant, unstinting American backing. “Not only from Trump,” she said, “but also because there is an American general in the mechanism who understands Israel’s position and challenges.”
As for Lebanon itself, Mizrahi cautioned that talk of normalization and its inclusion in the Abraham Accords is premature, though that is a vision for the future.
“I think we are only at the very beginning of this, and it depends on how Lebanon’s new leadership will succeed in stabilizing itself and dealing with the challenges presented by Hezbollah, and not be dragged into another civil war.”
Israel, she added, will also need wise policy. “They are not Zionists; they are pro-Lebanese. We should not give a bear hug. Instead, we should enable them to establish themselves in Lebanon, so that, ultimately, they can arrive at a new reality with us.”
Normalization with Lebanon is still a long-term vision rather than an imminent possibility.
AS FOR Syria, while in the past discussions on Syria focused only on threat assessments, now there is some talk of potential opportunities.
The fall of Bashar al-Assad has undeniably opened new possibilities, but as INSS senior researcher Carmit Valensi said at the conference, everything hinges on which direction the new president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, chooses.
Valensi, who, along with Itamar Rabinovich, coauthored Syrian Requiem: The Civil War and its Aftermath, said it is too early to determine whether he will follow the extremist, jihadist path he has walked before or take a more pragmatic, stabilizing approach.
“The defining characteristic of the region right now is uncertainty. There are many question marks about Syria’s trajectory,” she said.
So far, she noted, there have been some positive signs: a “quiet transition,” no violence, the right rhetoric from the new government, dialogue – including this week’s National Dialogue Conference in Damascus – and engagement with minorities. She added that extreme religious coercion has not surfaced – though there have been reports of gender separation on buses in Damascus – and women have been appointed to some government positions.
Valensi said there are indicators that the country could go in either direction, though for now things are slightly more positive.
Israel, she said, must prepare for both scenarios: the rise of a jihadist, Islamist regime or the emergence of a moderate, pragmatic Syria.
Regarding the first scenario – where the country sinks into chaos and violence that has the potential to spill over into Israel – Valensi explained that Israel’s immediate deployment of troops to the buffer zone along the border and on the Syrian Hermon was aimed at preventing radicalized forces from seizing control of those areas. It is also explains why Israel swiftly destroyed large parts of the Syrian army and its weapons stockpiles within days of Assad’s fall.
There is importance in the military action Israel has taken, she said. Netanyahu declared on Sunday that Israel would not allow Syria’s new army or the axis that led to Assad’s fall to “enter the area south of Damascus.” He also demanded “the full demilitarization of southern Syria from troops of the new Syrian regime in Quneitra, Deraa, and Suwayda provinces.”
But Valensi emphasized that Israel must also prepare for the possibility of a moderate Syria.
“We cannot only rely on military tools, but should also hope to translate the very impressive achievements we have had on many fronts, including in Syria, into diplomatic achievements,” she said.
“We cannot keep IDF forces in southern Syria forever,” Valensi added. “The longer the presence remains, the likelihood of the first scenario winning out will increase, and though we are not the top priority of the new government – which has to deal with many challenges – we will not only draw fire but also be at the top of the agenda.”
That shift may already be taking place. A statement with 18 points emerged from Tuesday’s National Dialogue Conference, where 600 attendees were called together to help guide the process of transition.
After a clause calling for preserving the unity of the Syrian Arab Republic, the second point was a condemnation of “the Israeli incursion into Syrian territory as a flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the Syrian state.”
The statement demanded Israel’s “unconditional withdrawal” and rejected “the provocative statements of the Israeli prime minister.” It called on the international community and regional organizations to assume their responsibilities toward the Syrian people and “stop the aggression and violations.”
Predictably, the statement said nothing of Turkish troops who have moved into large swaths of the country.
The next day, Sharaa visited Jordan, where Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi, as always, fanned the flames. “We condemn the Israeli aggression on our sisterly Syria as a flagrant violation of international law and a dangerous escalation that will only contribute to fueling tension and conflict.”
What Safadi and the Syrians fail to grasp is that October 7 changed Israel. The country will no longer allow forces dedicated to its destruction to build up on its borders. The IDF’s move into southern Syria reflects that policy. Israel will not withdraw until it is clear which path Syria is taking – toward extremism or pragmatism.
Israel must lay down its conditions
“Israel needs to set conditions and be clear in its Syrian strategy, and put conditions that will make a gradual, responsible withdrawal of forces from Syria [possible],” Valensi said.
What are those conditions? A quiet border, the removal of extremist elements from the area near the border, keeping the Iranians from reestablishing a presence there, and addressing the unconventional weapons that remain in Syria.
Valensi said that Israel needs to put those conditions on the table, and then “give an opportunity for positive scenarios to develop there.”
If they do, then perhaps Witkoff’s talk of Syria eventually joining the Abraham Accords may not be as fanciful as it now seems.
English (US) ·