There is a widespread belief among those following the Syrian situation that the upcoming US-sponsored Israeli-Syrian meeting scheduled for late September this year will mark a turning point in the history of the Israeli-Syrian conflict. There is a hope that an agreement will be signed between the two sides, paving the way for a settlement on the Golan Heights, a prelude to a peace agreement and normalization of relations.
However, such a belief is not without misplaced optimism and predicts a phase whose prospects are not in sight in the near future, not because of the desires of the two parties involved in the conflict and settlement, but because of a long legacy of conflict, which contains many complexities that will require considerable effort and time to address.
Perhaps the most significant indicator of the existing difficulties lies in the facts and data surrounding the upcoming meeting, as well as its expected outcomes. The Syrians have already stated that the outcome will be a security agreement close to the disengagement agreement signed by the two sides in 1974. It was limited to mutual arrangements on both sides of the border, without touching on anything beyond it, whether in the direction of the Golan Heights, or in the direction of the narrow strip of Syrian territory subject to Syrian sovereignty.
Israeli caution surrounds the expected agreement, and the Israelis avoid expressing their true position by using general terms, from which it is understood that they are keen on negotiations leading to a security agreement that not only establishes an Israeli presence and broad control throughout southern Syria, but also ignores the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, its recent attacks on Syrian territory and the changes it has made there, all under the pretext of Israel’s security and protection.
Amid Syrian and Israeli reservations, the American position appears to support reaching an agreement, giving a bright picture of American policy in the Middle East and transcending its failure to stop the war on Gaza. Most importantly, President Trump appears to play an "influential and balanced" role in bringing the Syrian-Israeli parties closer together, which have long been the most important parties in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The failure to reach a comprehensive agreement between them has certainly played a role in the armed confrontations and cycles of violence in the region, even on indirect fronts.
The background and facts surrounding the Syrian-Israeli meeting and its American sponsorship bring us back to conclusions that they do not only outline the security arrangements included in the expected agreement, but also address two issues:
The first is to affirm the constants in the reality of Syrian-Israeli relations, most notably that the Golan Heights is an occupied Syrian territory, Israel's actions in Syria constitute violations of international law, and Israel is insisting on using force in its efforts to create new realities that have so far proven difficult to establish.
The second thing, confirmed by facts and realities, is that the desired solution to the Syrian-Israeli conflict, and similarly to the Arab-Israeli conflict, will not be achieved as long as there are no fundamental changes in the positions of both parties to that conflict. It is not enough for peace to be achieved by one party offering concessions, no matter how great. If peace is the desired goal, then concessions must be reciprocal, because concessions by one party will not bring about peace, but may even contribute to the accumulation of fire under the ashes.