An Impossible Handshake: Netanyahu and Syria’s New Leader Eye Washington Summit

The prospect of an Israeli-Syrian summit in Washington signals a tectonic shift in Middle Eastern geopolitics, yet raises profound questions about legitimacy, recognition, and the price of peace.

From Eternal Enemies to Potential Partners

For decades, Israel and Syria have existed in a state of frozen conflict, technically at war since 1948 with only brief interruptions for failed peace negotiations. The two nations have clashed repeatedly over the Golan Heights, which Israel captured in 1967 and later annexed—a move never recognized by the international community. Syrian territory has served as a conduit for Iranian weapons to Hezbollah, while Israeli airstrikes have routinely targeted Syrian military installations. The notion of their leaders meeting publicly would have been unthinkable just months ago.

The emergence of Ahmed al-Sharaa as Syria’s new president following years of civil war has created an unexpected opening. Unlike his predecessors, al-Sharaa appears willing to consider a pragmatic realignment that could distance Syria from Iran’s orbit—a development that would fundamentally alter the region’s strategic balance. For Netanyahu, facing domestic political pressure and regional security challenges, a breakthrough with Syria could offer both a diplomatic victory and a strategic coup against Iran’s regional influence.

Washington’s High-Stakes Gambit

The choice of Washington as a venue is hardly coincidental. The United States has long sought to broker Middle Eastern peace agreements, from Camp David to the Abraham Accords. By hosting this potential summit, the Biden administration would signal America’s continued relevance as a regional power broker, even as China and Russia expand their Middle Eastern footprints. For Syria, American involvement could pave the way for sanctions relief and international rehabilitation after years of isolation.

Yet this diplomatic choreography raises uncomfortable questions. Al-Sharaa’s government emerged from the ashes of a civil war that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. While his forces ultimately prevailed against both ISIS and the Assad regime, questions about human rights violations and the legitimacy of his rule persist. Netanyahu, for his part, faces his own domestic challenges, with ongoing protests and a deeply divided Israeli society. Can two leaders with questionable mandates deliver a lasting peace?

The Price of Recognition

Any Israeli-Syrian agreement would likely involve significant concessions from both sides. Syria would presumably demand some form of arrangement regarding the Golan Heights, while Israel would insist on verifiable security guarantees and a complete severing of ties with Iran and Hezbollah. The regional implications would be enormous: a Syrian-Israeli peace could isolate Iran, reshape Lebanon’s political dynamics, and potentially unlock broader Arab-Israeli normalization.

The international community watches with a mixture of hope and skepticism. European nations, eager to see Syrian refugees return home, might fast-track recognition of al-Sharaa’s government if peace talks progress. Arab states, particularly those that normalized relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords, could find their strategic calculations vindicated. Yet Palestinian leaders worry that another Arab-Israeli peace deal without addressing their concerns would further marginalize their cause.

Beyond the Handshake

History suggests that Middle Eastern breakthroughs often emerge from unexpected circumstances. Anwar Sadat’s journey to Jerusalem shocked the world but led to the Camp David Accords. The Oslo process began with secret talks in Norway. Could a Netanyahu-Sharaa meeting in Washington mark another such turning point?

The obstacles remain formidable. Both leaders would face domestic opposition to any compromise. Regional spoilers, particularly Iran and its proxies, have every incentive to derail negotiations. The Syrian state itself remains fragile, with various factions and external powers maintaining influence over different territories. Even if Netanyahu and al-Sharaa shake hands in Washington, implementing any agreement would require years of careful diplomacy and confidence-building measures.

As the region holds its breath for what could be a historic meeting, one question looms largest: In a Middle East where yesterday’s enemies can become tomorrow’s partners, what does it mean for peace to be negotiated between leaders whose own legitimacy remains contested by many of their people?