Azmi Bishara: Without an Arab response, the region may become an Israeli sphere of influence

Dr. Azmi Bishara, General Director of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, warned that the Arab Levant countries could become a zone of Israeli hegemony if a firm and decisive Arab response remains lacking. He cited Israel’s current actions in Syria and Lebanon as evidence, noting that Washington and Tel Aviv may end up dividing Syria—something that must be confronted through the establishment of a truly inclusive state for all its citizens—and provoking a civil war in Lebanon.

This is in addition to the ongoing situation in Palestine, both in Gaza and the West Bank. Bishara stressed that Arabs have a vested interest in establishing a joint security framework with Turkey and Iran. He also predicted that Tehran would show pragmatism in its upcoming negotiations with the United States, the first round of which is set to begin as indirect talks on Saturday in the Sultanate of Oman.

As for the plan to forcibly displace Palestinians from Gaza, Bishara expressed doubt that it could succeed as long as Egypt remains opposed to it, despite claims by Israeli ministers that flights carrying Gazans have already begun departing from Ramon Airport. He also pointed out that U.S. President Donald Trump has begun to show signs he is fed up with the Gaza war for his own reasons.

Fear of the worst is justified

In an interview aired Tuesday night on Al Araby TV in Qatar, Bishara stated that regional countries should view Israel’s current expansion with alarm, as it reflects a form of intoxication with power. Without decisive and firm Arab responses, Israel will become "the master of the region," dictating terms to Arab countries—just as it is currently doing in Syria and Lebanon. “And that’s not even to mention the Palestinians,” he added, noting that Israel neither recognizes the Palestinian Authority nor acknowledges the existence of Palestinian territories. It has already begun steps to annex Area B—or possibly the entire West Bank—not to mention the settlement blocs. Additionally, it is developing actionable plans to forcibly displace the population of Gaza, treating it as a realistic objective, all without having any real interest in genuine peace deals. Instead, Israel seeks to impose the victor’s terms, demanding that the opposing side surrender and leave, with no political solution offered in return, he said.

Bishara argued that the outlines of an Israeli sphere of influence are becoming increasingly visible through Israel’s reckless bombardment of Syria, aiming to establish itself as the dominant force in southern Syria. He also pointed to the joint U.S.-Israeli insistence on imposing unfair conditions on Lebanon that could lead to civil war. According to Bishara, Israel’s primary objective in Syria was achieved during Trump’s first presidential term removing the Golan Heights from any future negotiations through U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Syrian plateau. Israel’s secondary objective is to establish a demilitarized zone inside Syria—indeed, to render the entire country demilitarized and without an army.

He warned that this could ultimately lead to the revival of an old Israeli colonial dream, dating back to the French mandate: the division of Syria into four sub-states. In the face of this threat, Bishara stressed that the Syrian people and their government must act in complete opposition to such a vision, insisting on a unified national state with shared foundations in which all citizens participate. This should not mean replacing a minority sectarian dictatorship with a majority dictatorship. He emphasized that Syrians’ attachment to southern Syria, the coast, the east, and all regions must translate into inclusive governance that allows residents of those areas to participate in power and state institutions.

The author of Syria: The Path of Suffering Toward Freedom emphasized the need for Syrians to view the Israeli threat as a central issue, not a peripheral one, because it could lead to the partition of their country. He explained that rejecting sectarian and regional power-sharing arrangements must not become a pretext for excluding citizens from various communities from participating in power and the state. Likewise, rejecting sectarianism does not justify denying these communities full citizenship, nor does it mean relegating them to token representation—what Bishara called “the worst form of quota politics.”

He elaborated further on this point, warning of the seriousness of what has taken place along the Syrian coast, especially as some of its manifestations persist in the form of fear, sectarian discrimination, and sectarian questioning by security personnel. Bishara concluded that the new Syrian administration must either govern as a state or relegate itself to being a non-state actor.

Syria Between Turkey and Israel

In response to a question about Trump’s remarks during his press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday evening at the White House—remarks that implied approval of dividing Syria into Israeli and Turkish zones of influence—Bishara said that Trump’s worldview is built on the notion that there are no allies, adversaries, or enemies—only interests. According to this worldview, Trump prefers dealing with strongmen capable of making deals and controlling zones of influence, provided they acknowledge the global supremacy of the United States, the self-declared “king of the jungle,” which seeks to convert its military and political power into economic and material gain—through tariffs, for instance.

Following this same logic, Bishara explained, the Middle East could become an Israeli sphere of influence. Within this regional framework, Syria has two neighbors: Israel, which has proven to the Biden administration that power dictates outcomes, and Turkey, which Trump still believes was behind the deterrent strike that resulted in the fall of the Syrian regime. Therefore, according to Trump’s mindset, Turkey may as well control northern Syria.

The author of Sect, Sectarianism, and Imagined Sects emphasized the extent of the danger facing Syria, and reiterated that the Syrian administration must recognize that the only appropriate response is to unify the Syrian people in rejecting this partitionist vision.

Pressure on Lebanon—Even at the Risk of Civil War

As for Lebanon, Bishara observed a similar U.S. approach to that seen with Syria: the imposition of impossible conditions. This approach was recently demonstrated by the visit of U.S. Deputy Special Envoy Morgan Ortagus to Beirut two days ago. The strategy involves constant threats and blackmail: Lebanon will be abandoned to its fate, and reforms will be unsupported, unless it agrees to the imposed terms—such as the significant pressure placed on Prime Minister-designate Nawaf Salam and Army Commander Joseph Aoun to disarm Hezbollah.

Bishara stressed that Hezbollah “has no intention of returning to war,” and questioned why Washington doesn’t allow the Lebanese state to make its own decisions regarding its weapons in the way it sees fit. Indeed, what if the state concludes that disarming Hezbollah could lead to civil war?

Here, he recalled a question he often raises in his commentary on Palestine: why do Arab countries capable of supporting Lebanon and Syria instead leave them to Israeli and American domination?

Regarding what Arab countries can do in the Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian arenas, Bishara argued that Arab rulers are still competing over who can be closer to the United States instead of using their leverage. The Arab world, he said, has moved “from a state of division to fragmentation.” According to the author of On the Arab Question: Toward a Democratic Arab Manifesto, Arab leaders have not even agreed on a minimal consensus—such as rejecting the partition of Syria or opposing the transformation of the Arab region into an Israeli sphere of influence.

He concluded by stating, “We have an Arab interest in avoiding war and in establishing a joint security system with Turkey and Iran that contains Israel and puts an end to the constant American blackmail under the guise of protection.”

Tehran–Washington Negotiations

On another front, Bishara predicted that the Iranian leadership would demonstrate pragmatism during the first round of negotiations scheduled to take place in Muscat next Saturday. He said Iran does not want war and has already endured a sufficient number of blows recently. In his assessment, Netanyahu was not surprised by Trump’s announcement of the negotiation date. Bishara indicated that Washington and Tehran had already agreed on a formula: an initial round of indirect talks, which would become direct if successful—something Trump would likely present as a major achievement.

Bishara anticipated that the negotiations would take time, given that both sides possess leverage. He expected the talks to include guarantees that Iran’s nuclear energy would not be used to manufacture weapons. According to Bishara’s analysis and information, the Iranian nuclear issue would be the sole topic on the table. “If they succeed, the region will have avoided war—something Netanyahu doesn’t like,” Bishara added. “But both he and the entire world know that Trump prefers a diplomatic solution over war and believes it is possible.”

What Is the Value of Negotiating Over Gaza?

Regarding the genocide in Gaza, the author of The Palestinian Cause: Questions of Truth and Justice emphasized that the Israeli war has evolved to pursue its own historical objectives, unrelated to the response to the 7 October 2023 attack. These objectives now include the annexation of the West Bank and the forced displacement of Gazans.

“These goals developed over time because Israel realized the extent of [unlimited] U.S. support—both under the previous and current administrations—and saw how Arab complacency had reached a level where some Arab officials appear to be waiting for Israel to eliminate the resistance,” Bishara said.

He reiterated that the war continues because “there’s no one to stop it. I don’t currently see any reasonable proposals that Israel would accept.” In response to questions about Egyptian and Qatari proposals for a 50-day ceasefire in exchange for the release of five or nine Israeli captives—all of which were rejected by Israel—Bishara affirmed that the only proposal Israel accepts is the full occupation of Gaza and the forced displacement of its inhabitants.

In this context, the author of Arabs in Israel: A View from Within argued that the only political meaning of the ongoing negotiations—since the end of Biden’s term—is that they are being conducted with the United States, not with Israel.

He warned that the likelihood of Israel carrying out its plan to occupy Gaza and expel its residents increases if Arab behavior remains unchanged. Nonetheless, he highlighted two developments that he believes carry some weight: first, the growing pressure from Arab public opinion; second, the recent Cairo meeting between French President Emmanuel Macron, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and Jordanian King Abdullah II, along with their joint call to Trump.

Bishara described both the meeting and the phone call as “significant,” noting that Trump appeared irritated during his meeting with Netanyahu, telling him the war needed to end quickly. According to Bishara’s analysis and information, Trump’s irritation stemmed from the increasing number of calls he has received recently about the genocide in Gaza, as well as the revival of global solidarity movements—even within the United States.

For this reason, Bishara confirmed that there are signs of what he called "initial American discomfort" with the Gaza war. He expressed hope that the solidarity movement would intensify its pressure at this stage so that the United States understands that its Arab allies will be harmed—perhaps even overthrown—by the popular unrest that may erupt as a result.