Power-sharing in Syria would lead to Israeli security stability - opinion

His exclusive approached is unsurprising and reflects the same sectarian and exclusionary mindset that has historically marginalized Syria’s diverse populations. It also mirrors the recent atrocities committed by jihadist factions against Alawites in March and Druze communities in June 2025.

Moreover, Sharaa, in a recent interview with Fox News, stated that he is “not in a position” to discuss Syria’s potential accession to the Abraham Accords, which emphasize regional investment, security, and peace between Arab states and Israel, as well as the recognition of Israel as the sovereign Jewish state.

Instead, he requested Trump’s mediation to reopen negotiations with Israel over disputed areas lingering since 1967. This statement makes clear that the self-appointed Syrian regime is neither ready to engage in genuine peace with Israel nor willing to address the legitimate concerns of Syria’s minority communities.

In effect, Sharaa’s government appears committed to preserving sectarian agendas, both internally and regionally, while operating under the patronage of Ankara’s neo-Ottoman ambitions. Such a trajectory poses a direct threat to Syria’s diverse communities and to Israel’s security.

The regime’s dependence on Turkish protection affords Ankara significant leverage to project influence deep into Syrian territory – an ambition that could dramatically change the security situation along Israel’s northern borders. Despite claiming to lead a “new and democratic” Syria, Sharaa’s policies and rhetoric reveal an alarming continuity with past regimes: centralized power, sectarian exclusion, and dependence on external patrons.

The path charted by Sharaa necessitates a coordinated and inclusive response. Policies that shape Syria’s future must involve those most affected by instability – its minority communities and its immediate neighbors. Specifically, the concerns of Kurds, Druze, and Alawites are indispensable to formulating a viable vision for a multi-ethnic, democratic, and integrated Syria. This vision requires a national integration project centered on centralized power-sharing in Damascus.

The integration effort must not only address the one-sided demands placed on minority communities but also necessitate the transformation of various jihadist factions to ensure their acceptability by Syria’s ethnic and religious groups.

In this regard, the integration project must guarantee mutual acceptance and equal representation of Syria’s diverse communities across all state institutions, including military, defense, foreign affairs, education, agriculture, and all other state institutions. Such an arrangement would safeguard coexistence of these diverse communities, preserve cultural identities, and allow communities to freely practice their traditions and values.

More importantly, a balanced power-sharing model would curb interference by nefarious regional actors, such as Iran and Turkey, both of which have exploited Syria’s fragmentation to entrench their influence. It would also lay the groundwork for peaceful relations with all neighboring states, including Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Turkey, ensuring that Syria no longer serves as a platform for threats to regional security.

Among all neighboring states, Israel has the most direct interest in promoting an inclusive and stable Syria. Having endured decades of hostilities and cross-border threats from various factions, Israel recognizes how a fragmented or extremist-controlled Syria perpetually endangers its northern frontier. A centralized power-sharing framework in Damascus, by contrast, offers the best long-term guarantee for its peace and security.

In other words, equal access to power structures among all Syrian components could prevent the re-emergence of jihadist groups akin to Hamas or ISIS along Israel’s borders.

Furthermore, a power-sharing model in a multi-ethnic Syria that ultimately joins the Abraham Accords could transform the region’s geopolitical landscape.

Instead of violence and hostility, economic cooperation and trade could replace militancy and hostility, turning Syria’s southern frontier into a corridor of commerce and cultural exchange rather than conflict.

It would promote the development of people-to-people ties. Israeli citizens could one day visit their ancestral sites in Qamishli or Aleppo, such as the historic synagogues and the tomb of Yehudah Ben Betera. Likewise, Syrians of all backgrounds could travel freely to Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Haifa to benefit from Israel’s educational and technological innovation.

Power sharing in Damascus would not only ensure people-to-people friendship and protect the autonomy and dignity of Syria’s ethnic and religious minorities; it would also neutralize the ideological fuel that sustains jihadist movements. By guaranteeing equal access to political participation, education, and economic opportunity, such a system would reduce grievances that extremist actors exploit.

For instance, if the Kurds were allowed to speak their language freely and celebrate Newroz – an event that has been banned by both previous and current governments – they would have less incentive to rebel. Similarly, if Druze and Christians were permitted to worship openly and maintain their religious symbols and traditions, they would likely have fewer grievances. Collectively, these freedoms would help end the cycle of marginalization that has driven waves of rebellion and repression since Syria’s independence in 1946.

Furthermore, an equilibrium of power within Damascus would act as an internal safeguard against external manipulation. When no single faction dominates, neighboring powers like Turkey or Iran would find it far harder to use proxies to destabilize Syria  or expand their influence. This balance would also strengthen Syria’s sovereignty, ensuring that it becomes a stabilizing, not disruptive, force in the region.

Since October 7, Israel’s military and diplomatic efforts have reshaped the Middle East’s geopolitical power map. While Israel has weakened or eliminated several authoritarian regimes and their militant proxies, the remnants of these structures persist and continue to pose a threat to regional stability. To prevent their resurgence, Israel could push for an inclusive Syria with power-sharing in Damascus that favors pluralism and coexistence over extremism and dependency.

Israel is uniquely positioned to persuade the Trump administration to reconsider its Syria policy by advocating for a national integration project rooted in power-sharing in Damascus, where minority communities are included and regional peace is promoted. Such a project aligns with the broader goals of the Abraham Accords – to foster mutual security, economic growth, and normalization across the Middle East.

Thus, an inclusive, power-shared Syria would not only secure Israel’s borders but also redefine the region’s political and moral landscape. It would replace decades of authoritarianism and sectarianism with cooperation and accountability.

For Israel, supporting this transformation is a strategic necessity that ensures the representation of all Syrian communities and limits the influence of foreign powers. Such a framework would secure the rights of Syria’s diverse peoples, protect Israel’s borders, and advance the spirit of the Abraham Accords.

Only through inclusion, balance, and shared governance can Syria move from fragmentation toward stability and transform from a source of regional instability into a cornerstone of peace.