The recent efforts of Syrian diplomacy have led to a reconciliation agreement in Sweida, supported by the United States and Jordan. This agreement includes the withdrawal of heavy forces from southern Syria and accountability for those involved in the violations during the events in Sweida, which resulted in the deaths of over 1,500 individuals, most of whom were civilians. This development aims to close a significant security gap in southern Syria that has allowed Israel to intervene in Syrian affairs.
Israeli officials have not expressed a clear stance on the agreement, despite US envoy Tom Barak and Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi’s attempts to establish a framework that would ensure long-term stability and restore trust between local parties in Sweida and the Damascus government.
While the terms of the agreement suggest a form of administrative decentralization for Sweida, there are concerns that local parties were not directly represented in the negotiations.
Despite the diplomatic efforts, the agreement has not received support from the local authorities in Sweida. This rejection indicates potential challenges ahead in implementing the agreement on the ground, necessitating future engagements with local powers to ensure the sustainability of the ceasefire and avoid its collapse at the first hurdle.
Moreover, the ceasefire road map announced by Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad Al-Shibani has implications that extend beyond local conditions in Sweida. It could serve as a step within broader understandings that may be finalized in New York during the United Nations General Assembly meetings. There are expectations of announcing Syrian-Israeli agreements to regulate relations between the two, especially with ongoing Israeli incursions in southern Syria and southwestern Damascus.
This indicates that the agreement is not merely a local security arrangement but part of a wider approach aimed at bringing Israel back to comply with the disengagement agreements signed in 1974, possibly leading to new understandings that would govern the rules of engagement and reduce the need for direct military intervention.
These developments come at a time when Damascus is attempting to regain full sovereignty over the south, while Washington and Amman work to ensure that this does not create a security vacuum that could be exploited by Israel or extremist groups. The agreement could represent a foundational step in reshaping the southern Syrian landscape, combining internal stability with a reduction in external interventions.
However, the success of this agreement is contingent upon the ability of local and international parties to transform it into a sustainable reality.
The major challenge will be convincing local forces in Sweida that the agreement serves their interests and monitoring Israeli violations in the southern part of the country. If this model proves successful, it could pave the way for broader agreements covering all of southern Syria and potentially lead to deeper regional dialogues regarding the future of the Syrian-Israeli border.