What do we know about the Syria and Israel meeting in Jordan, and efforts to revive negotiations?

The meeting that brought Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani and Israeli Mossad chief Roman Gofman together in Jordan on Sunday, 23 August, raised questions about the possibility of reviving Syria-Israel negotiations after months of deadlock and rising tensions on the ground.

The meeting was mediated by the United States and hosted by Jordan, with the participation of security and military officials from both sides, according to Damascus, at a time when contacts between the two sides had stopped following the Israeli airstrike on Abu al-Duhur airbase in the Idlib countryside on 18 August.

The meeting, which brought the Syrian foreign minister together with the head of the Israeli foreign intelligence service, was the highest-level publicly announced direct contact since the start of the security track between the two sides.

Gofman held a phone call with al-Shaibani on 14 Aug. before tensions escalated and led to the bombing of Abu al-Duhur.

The far-right Netanyahu-led government claimed that the Israeli army had repeatedly recommended attacking the airport, located in the eastern Idlib countryside, based on intelligence that allegedly indicated Turkey intended to carry out activities inside the airport that would threaten "Israel's security".

Damascus says the meeting focused on de-escalation and halting Israeli attacks, arrests and targeting operations, as well as discussing the revival of Syria-Israel negotiations to reach a security agreement that could later form the basis for a more comprehensive agreement.

It also stressed that any arrangements must respect Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity and its right to rebuild its army and determine its alliances.

Al-Shaibani had said in an interview with Reuters on Saturday that Damascus expected security negotiations with Israel to resume soon, despite the lack of trust between the two sides.

He added that Syria's priority was to stop Israeli attacks, with the security agreement ultimately leading to an Israeli withdrawal from all Syrian territory seized after the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime at the end of 2024.

The Syrian minister said Damascus was extending its hand for diplomacy, understanding and peace, but needed Israeli steps in return to build trust.

He said contacts had been cut off after the bombing of Abu al-Duhur but considered communication necessary with a party that Damascus views as a direct threat to its security.

Damascus says the proposed agreement discussed in earlier stages had come close to completion.

It included the establishment of security zones in southern Syria, including a buffer zone where the United Nations would be the only presence, as well as other areas where Syrian forces would be deployed to varying degrees.

But al-Shaibani accused Israel of failing to show the necessary willingness to implement what had been agreed, while stressing that his country would not abandon Turkey's support for rebuilding the Syrian army. This issue has become one of the main sources of tension between Israel and Turkey in Syria.

Syria-Israel negotiations: Five rounds without an agreement

Jordan announced on Monday, 24 August, that it had hosted a meeting on Sunday to discuss de-escalation between Syria and Israel.

The Jordan News Agency quoted an official source saying, "The meeting was held at the request of our brothers in Syria and discussed de-escalation and achieving calm after the Israeli bombing of Syrian territory last week."

"Jordan affirms the Kingdom's absolute support for the Syrian government in its efforts to protect its security, stability and territorial integrity," the source added. "We stress the need to immediately halt the brutal Israeli attacks on Syria, for Israel to withdraw from occupied Syrian territory and to respect the 1974 disengagement agreement."

Meanwhile, the Syrian state news agency SANA quoted a diplomatic source at the Syrian Foreign Ministry on Sunday, 23 August, as saying that the meeting came following the latest Israeli bombing of Syrian territory and escalating tensions in the south of the country.

Discussions focused on establishing practical mechanisms to halt Israeli attacks, arrests and targeting operations and reviving the negotiating track to reach a security agreement that could form the basis of a future, more comprehensive agreement.

According to the source, the Syrian side stressed during the meeting that Syria is a sovereign state with the full right to rebuild and develop its national army and to determine its alliances and partnerships in line with its national interests.

Syrian officials also reiterated "its firm position that the occupied Golan is Syrian territory", noting that "discussion of its final status and the path leading to that remains premature at the current stage and that the immediate priority is the withdrawal of Israeli forces to the lines that existed before 8 Dec. 2024 and the reactivation and full implementation of the 1974 disengagement agreement."

The discussions also addressed the importance of supporting stability in Syria and maintaining regional security, including efforts aimed at bringing Turkey's and Israel's positions closer together and ensuring that the existing tensions between the two countries do not spill over into Syrian territory.

According to the source, the meeting was mainly focused on taking practical steps to de-escalate while exploring ways to return to the negotiating track, with Syria stressing that any security arrangements must respect its sovereignty, territorial integrity and sovereign rights.

The negotiations between al-Shaibani and Gofman did not start from scratch.

The two sides had held five previous rounds of negotiations, the latest in Paris in January, which ended with an agreement to increase the frequency of meetings and take confidence-building measures, in addition to establishing a channel for exchanging intelligence.

But these understandings did not prevent Israel from continuing its attacks inside Syrian territory, prompting Damascus to say that Israel had not practically adhered to what had been agreed.

The latest developments reveal the extent of the gap between the two sides.

The Israeli airstrike on Abu al-Duhur airbase, which targeted runways and facilities at the base, was followed by another Israeli strike in southern Syria on 22 Aug.

Israel, meanwhile, claims that its operations are linked to security concerns and preventing potential threats to its forces.

In this context, Syrian-Israeli relations expert Khaled Khalil told The New Arab that the latest contact represents the highest point in the negotiating track so far.

He noted that Syria-Israel negotiations in earlier stages had been conducted through an Israeli political and diplomatic team led by former Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer.

He considered the shift in communication to the level of the Mossad chief a reflection of the increased importance of the security issue but ruled out a rapid breakthrough because of the crisis of trust and the big differences in the two sides' views.

Withdrawal for 'security'

The first sticking point in Syria-Israel negotiations concerns the fate of the sites seized by Israel in southern Syria after the fall of the Assad regime.

Damascus is demanding the withdrawal of Israeli forces to the lines that existed before Dec. 8, 2024, and the reactivation and full implementation of the 1974 disengagement agreement.

It also maintains that the Golan is occupied Syrian territory but considers discussion of its final status premature at the current stage.

But Israel does not appear prepared simply to return to the situation that existed before the fall of the previous regime.

The information circulating indicates that Israel wants security arrangements broader than those stipulated in the 1974 agreement, including restrictions on the size, armament and deployment of Syrian forces in the south.

Here, a fundamental dilemma emerges: Damascus wants negotiations to serve as a gateway to restoring sovereignty and an Israeli withdrawal, while Tel Aviv wants the new security arrangements to provide a long-term guarantee against any threat from Syrian territory.

Thus, the core dispute is no longer only over the principle of withdrawal, but also over the line to which Israel will withdraw and which of the sites it seized on the ground it will retain.

Southern Syria under attack

Southern Syria represents the most complicated sticking point in Syria-Israel negotiations and any potential agreement between them.

Israel desire a largely "demilitarised" south, with restrictions on the deployment of heavy weapons, missiles and drones near the Golan.

It also seeks guarantees preventing the return of Iranian influence or the activity of groups linked to Lebanon's "Hezbollah" in the area, alongside more effective mechanisms for monitoring the border.

On the other hand, Damascus rejects any formula that undermines its sovereign right to build its army and develop its capabilities. It explicitly said during the Jordan meeting that Syria is a sovereign state and has the right to rebuild and develop its army and determine its alliances and partnerships in line with its national interests.

Thus, negotiations over the south will not be merely technical but will concern the very concept of sovereignty: to what extent can Syria deploy its military within its own territory, and to what extent will Israel retain what it calls the right to intervene if it considers there to be a "threat" to its security?

There was no discussion regarding Israel's military capabilities, including its nuclear arsenal.

Turkey: The third party

The Turkish factor has emerged in recent weeks as one of the most sensitive issues in Israeli calculations.

Israel says any Turkish military deployment or the establishment of Turkish air defence infrastructure inside Syria could pose a threat to it, particularly because it could limit the freedom of action of the Israeli air force in Syrian and regional airspace.

The Mossad chief discussed Israeli concerns over the growing Turkish military presence in Syria with al-Shaibani during the phone call on 14 August, days before the bombing of Abu al-Duhur.

Damascus and Ankara deny plans to establish a Turkish base that threatens Israel, while US special envoy to Syria Tom Barrack recently described the Israeli strike as unnecessary escalation and pushed for a mechanism to prevent friction between Israel, Turkey and Syria.

Thus, Syria-Israel negotiations could become part of a broader regional negotiating track, involving not only relations between Damascus and Tel Aviv but also the future of Turkey's role in Syria.

Political analyst Ahmad al-Mousa remarked to TNA that Damascus took part in the Jordan meeting with clear sovereign demands, most notably an end to airstrikes and attacks, an Israeli withdrawal from the territories seized after the fall of the previous regime, a reduction in Israeli-Turkish tensions, and preservation of Syria's right to build its capabilities and establish its alliances.

Al-Mousa considers the negotiations at this stage not to represent normalisation, but rather security communication to manage the conflict and prevent a slide into open confrontation.

Political analyst Ghazi Dahman, meanwhile, believes that Israeli policy towards Syria has gone beyond the concept of security and defensive measures to an attempt to impose a long-term reality on the Syrian state.

He told TNA that continued strikes and incursions aim to keep Damascus weak and unstable.

Regardless of the differing assessments, the continuation of Israeli military operations alongside Syria-Israel negotiations represents one of the biggest problems facing the current track and leaves each round of negotiations vulnerable to collapse at the first escalation on the ground.

Little chance of sixth round succeeding

If Syria-Israel negotiations resume soon, the next round will face a more difficult test than previous rounds because the two sides will enter it with a record of mistrust and new realities on the ground.

In this context, Khaled Khalil believes that Israeli intransigence, along with domestic political considerations in Israel, makes rapid progress in Syria-Israel negotiations unlikely.

He believes the Israeli government may resort to escalation when facing political or regional pressure.

For its part, Damascus faces a different equation.

It wants to assert its sovereignty and recover the territories it lost control of, but at the same time it does not currently have the military capability to impose its conditions by force.

Therefore, negotiations appear to Damascus to be a tool for managing a transitional phase rather than a ready path to comprehensive peace.

Damascus says the security agreement could serve as a prelude to a broader agreement, but this possibility appears remote in the near term.

Even if the two sides succeed in agreeing on an end to attacks, a withdrawal and arrangements for the south, the ongoing Israeli occupation of Golan  will remain postponed, along with questions of normalisation, diplomatic relations and the future of the borders.

Damascus maintains that the Golan is occupied Syrian territory while currently prioritising an end to attacks, an Israeli withdrawal from the recently occupied territories and the reactivation of the 1974 agreement.

At the same time, Israel is focused on security guarantees concerning southern Syria, limiting Turkey's military role and maintaining its freedom of action in Syrian airspace.

For this reason, a resumption of negotiations, if it happens, will not necessarily mean that a final agreement is near.

The next phase is more likely to begin with an attempt to establish a limited security understanding to prevent escalation before moving to more complicated political issues.

The key question remains: Can Washington turn the current de-escalation into an agreement that can be implemented, or will the negotiations remain hostage to changing military and political realities?

Article translated from Arabic by Afrah Almatwari. To read the original, click here.