By: Fern Sidman – Jewish Voice News

In a development that could reshape the security landscape of the Middle East, Israel and Syria are reportedly on the brink of finalizing a landmark security agreement that would establish a joint Israeli-Syrian-American presence along key strategic zones near their shared border. As The Algemeiner reported on Wednesday, the emerging pact follows months of delicate negotiations between Jerusalem, Damascus, and Washington—marking the most serious bid for cooperation between the longtime adversaries since the 1974 Disengagement of Forces Agreement.

The proposed accord, according to Israeli officials cited by Al-Arabiya and Al-Hadath and later reported by The Algemeiner, envisions the creation of a tripartite security committee to monitor developments in the volatile Golan Heights and adjacent territories. This committee—comprising military and intelligence representatives from Israel, Syria, and the United States—would be tasked with maintaining stability, preventing cross-border attacks, and enforcing the deal’s terms.

If finalized, the agreement would not only restore a version of the old buffer-zone arrangement but also serve as a crucial test of whether Syria’s new post-Assad leadership can maintain its commitments under international supervision. Analysts told The Algemeiner that while the accord remains tentative, its mere existence represents a rare moment of cautious optimism in a region long mired in cycles of violence, betrayal, and shifting alliances.

The talks come in the wake of profound upheaval in Syria. Following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December, Israel moved swiftly to reassert control along its northern frontier, deploying troops into what had been a demilitarized buffer zone. According to the information provided in The Algemeiner report, Israeli military officials viewed this move as essential to preventing terrorist infiltrations amid the chaos of Syria’s political transition.

The original buffer zone, established under the 1974 Disengagement Agreement that ended the Yom Kippur War, had for decades served as a fragile but functional barrier between the two states. When Assad fell and local militias began seizing territory, Jerusalem declared the old agreement void—arguing that its legal foundation had disappeared with the Syrian state itself.

Now, after nearly a year of sporadic skirmishes and back-channel diplomacy, both countries appear ready to revive the 1974 framework, albeit with “minor adjustments to reflect the new realities on the ground,” as one Israeli official told The Algemeiner. The central objective, the outlet noted, is to “create predictable security conditions in an unpredictable region.”

The United States has played an instrumental role in brokering the prospective deal. Under the guidance of senior Trump administration officials, Washington has sought to stabilize Syria’s fragmented political environment while promoting an incremental normalization between Damascus and Jerusalem.

As The Algemeiner reported, the Trump administration recently lifted certain sanctions on Syria to facilitate reconstruction and encourage regional reintegration. U.S. diplomats have reportedly made clear that future American economic and political support for Syria will depend on its adherence to the agreement and its willingness to restrain anti-Israel elements operating within its territory.

For Israel, the calculus is pragmatic. Senior defense officials quoted in The Algemeiner report, emphasized that the agreement would not entail recognition of Syria’s new government but would instead function as a “security understanding” designed to protect Israel’s northern communities and the Druze population across the border.

Jerusalem has also promised Washington and Damascus that it will not support destabilizing factions inside Syrian territory. In return, Syria’s new rulers have pledged to safeguard the Druze minority in Sweida, a historically autonomous region in the country’s south that has been a flashpoint for unrest.

No aspect of this emerging accord carries more emotional resonance for Israel than the fate of the Druze. The Druze, an ethnoreligious community whose monotheistic faith evolved from Islam, inhabit parts of Syria, Lebanon, and northern Israel, where they are an integral part of Israeli society and serve in the military in large numbers.

As The Algemeiner report recounted, Israel’s Druze citizens have pressed the government to defend their brethren in Syria, who have suffered under both Assad’s regime and subsequent Islamist militias. In early 2025, violent clashes erupted in Sweida between Druze fighters and regime loyalists, prompting reports of civilian massacres and human-rights abuses.

In response, Israel launched a limited air campaign, striking Syrian positions near Sweida as a warning to Damascus. At the time, Israeli officials told The Algemeiner that these strikes were meant “to signal Israel’s red line: harm to the Druze will be met with decisive action.”

Now, the new agreement appears to formalize that understanding. Syria’s leadership has pledged to protect Druze communities and to supply them with the resources necessary to maintain order. Israel, in turn, has agreed to halt any unilateral operations in the area unless the Druze come under direct attack.

A U.S.-backed provision reportedly ensures that humanitarian aid to Sweida will flow through Damascus rather than across the Israeli border, avoiding the appearance of direct Israeli intervention while maintaining oversight by the joint security committee.

According to the information contained in The Algemeiner report, one of the central challenges of the agreement lies in balancing Israel’s right to self-defense with Syria’s demands for sovereignty. Israeli intelligence assessments describe Syria’s new rulers as “barely disguised jihadists” whose commitment to long-term stability remains uncertain.

Nevertheless, Jerusalem has signaled cautious openness to the idea of normalized diplomatic relations, contingent on concrete assurances that Syria will prevent Iranian proxies and other hostile militias from operating in the south.

As one Israeli security source told The Algemeiner, “We are not naïve about who we are dealing with. But if they maintain discipline along the border and protect civilians, we can talk about coexistence. The alternative is endless war.”

The agreement’s structure reflects that realism. The joint committee would include American oversight precisely to deter either side from violating the deal’s terms. U.S. drones and surveillance assets will reportedly monitor the demilitarized zones, providing real-time intelligence to both Israel and Syria.

While optimism cautiously prevails, The Algemeiner report warned that the proposed accord faces significant obstacles. Trust between Jerusalem and Damascus remains virtually nonexistent after decades of enmity, and Syria’s new leadership—still consolidating power after Assad’s ouster—has yet to demonstrate a reliable chain of command.

Moreover, Iran’s lingering influence in Syria poses a persistent threat. Tehran has invested heavily in rebuilding its military networks throughout the country, and Israeli officials fear that Iranian-backed militias could attempt to sabotage the agreement.

As The Algemeiner report noted, Israel’s military intelligence believes “rogue actors” within Syria—particularly remnants of Hezbollah and Iran’s Quds Force—may view peace along the border as a direct challenge to their operations. In anticipation, Israel has kept its northern divisions on high alert, ready to intervene if ceasefire violations occur.

For all its fragility, the prospective security pact represents something extraordinary: a pragmatic acknowledgment, on both sides, that the decades-long hostility between Israel and Syria has reached a point of diminishing returns.

As The Algemeiner report observed, Israel’s strategy in recent years has evolved from “defensive containment” to “active stabilization,” emphasizing diplomacy backed by deterrence. The Syrian file, long considered intractable, is now viewed in Jerusalem as an opportunity to secure the Golan region, minimize Iranian influence, and protect minority populations—all without committing to regime change or endless conflict.

Meanwhile, the United States, seeking to reassert its influence in the region, views the emerging agreement as a validation of its hands-on approach under the Trump administration. “If Israel and Syria can cooperate under American mediation,” one U.S. official told The Algemeiner, “it will show that stability is possible even among historic enemies.”

As negotiators in Jerusalem, Damascus, and Washington finalize the remaining details, the contours of a new Middle Eastern order are taking shape—one in which former foes may coexist under pragmatic necessity rather than ideological alignment.

The path ahead remains perilous. Mistrust runs deep, and spoilers abound. Yet, as The Algemeiner report noted, “the shadow of conflict sometimes casts the first light of compromise.”

Should the Israel-Syria security pact hold, it will not erase decades of hostility or resurrect the shattered dream of regional peace overnight. But it could—at long last—mark the beginning of something the region has almost forgotten: a durable, if fragile, framework for coexistence built not on illusions, but on hard, shared realities.