Netanyahu’s Visit to Occupied Syrian Territory Deepens Rift — Are Peace Talks Doomed?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s public tour of Israeli forces inside territory Israel controls in southern Syria has provoked strong condemnation from Damascus and renewed doubts that a security agreement between Israel and Syria can be reached.

The visit — made alongside senior ministers and advisers — signals that Netanyahu is maintaining a hardline approach on Syria despite diplomatic pressure from the United States and other partners. The appearance on the ground reinforced Jerusalem’s messaging that recent deployments are necessary to protect Israel’s security and local allies.

Background: an expanded footprint

Israel captured parts of the Syrian Golan Heights after the 1967 war and has retained control ever since. Following the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, Israeli forces moved deeper into Syrian territory, expanding their presence by about 400 square kilometres (roughly 155 sq miles) and seizing strategic positions including the summit of Mount Hermon.

Israeli air operations inside Syria predate December 2024, driven by concerns about Iranian influence and Hezbollah’s presence. Since the December shift, strikes have increased in frequency and scope: there have been reported attacks this year in Damascus that killed Syrian soldiers and struck the Ministry of Defence.

Negotiations stalled

Hopes for a negotiated settlement rose after Syria’s new president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, visited the White House and held talks with US President Donald Trump. Al-Sharaa publicly said direct talks with Israel were underway. But Israeli reporting, citing an unnamed official, says negotiations have stalled.

According to public reporting, talks collapsed after Israel insisted it would not withdraw forces from Syrian soil without a “comprehensive peace agreement.” Leaks and media reports suggested Israeli demands could include a demilitarised zone stretching southwest from Damascus to the Israeli border — covering parts of the Suwayda, Deraa and Quneitra governorates — with Israel retaining some key positions such as Mount Hermon. Other reported Israeli requests included a humanitarian corridor to the predominantly Druze Suwayda governorate and an aerial corridor across Syrian airspace, which critics say could be used to facilitate future strikes against Iran.

Jerusalem frames its presence as protecting local ethnic minorities, notably Druze and Kurds, and as a defensive measure. Defence Minister Israel Katz has said Israel may remain in parts of Syria for an "unlimited amount of time." Critics say such deployments risk entrenching occupation and undermining a negotiated settlement.

International response and UN concern

The Syrian Foreign Ministry denounced Netanyahu’s visit as "illegitimate" and a grave violation of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, accusing Israel of attempting to impose a fait accompli. Jordan, France, Qatar and other states also criticised the visit as destabilising.

At the United Nations, spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric called the "very public" visit "concerning, to say the least," and noted that UN Security Council Resolution 2799 reaffirmed Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Najat Rochdi, the UN deputy special envoy for Syria, told the Security Council that Israel’s operations were weakening the 1974 buffer arrangement and urged the council to act to halt violations.

Meanwhile the United States and several Gulf states have signalled willingness to support Syrian recovery. President Trump publicly praised President al-Sharaa and pledged US assistance; Gulf partners including Saudi Arabia and Qatar have begun providing economic support and discussing reconstruction programmes.

Wider strategy and implications

Analysts view the pattern as part of a broader Israeli approach: using military strength and buffer zones to shape outcomes while limiting concessions. Israel is reportedly pursuing buffer arrangements not only in Syria but also seeking extensive zones in Gaza under a US-backed stabilisation plan and working to limit threats from Lebanon following the 2024 conflict.

The visit has, at minimum, set back momentum toward a deal and deepened Israel’s diplomatic isolation on this issue. Whether negotiations can be revived will depend on whether the parties can bridge large differences over territorial control, security arrangements and the scope of any corridors or demilitarised zones.

For now, the public display of troops on Syrian soil underscores the sharp gap between diplomatic outreach and on-the-ground actions — and raises the prospect that, absent a breakthrough, Israel may try to consolidate control through continued deployments and military pressure.