Israel Lacks Clear Strategy in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon — Haaretz
Israeli analyst warns Tel Aviv risks strategic isolation as US pursues a different course in Syria and Lebanon
Palestine | PUREWILAYAH.COM — The Israeli regime lacks a coherent and sustainable security strategy in Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon, and may soon find itself out of step with a more unified American approach in the region, according to an assessment published by Haaretz.
Writing for the Israeli daily, veteran Middle East affairs commentator Zvi Bar’el examined what he described as the emerging — yet deeply inconsistent — contours of Tel Aviv’s regional security posture under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Vague Promises on Gaza, No Clear Mechanism
Bar’el pointed to Netanyahu’s recent remarks at a graduation ceremony for Israeli officers, where the prime minister claimed that Hamas would soon be forced to disarm and that Gaza would no longer pose a threat to ‘Israel’.
Netanyahu also asserted that the establishment of buffer or demilitarized zones along multiple borders was “a necessary security requirement,” signaling that Israeli forces intend to maintain a military presence in parts of Gaza’s perimeter, southern Lebanon, and southern Syria.
Bar’el, however, questioned how such declarations translate into reality.
He asked how and when Hamas’s disarmament would be implemented, and how this objective aligns with plans advanced by US President Donald Trump to rebuild Gaza and deploy a Palestinian police force in the besieged territory.
Buffer Zones Clash With US Policy in Syria and Lebanon
The Haaretz writer highlighted growing contradictions between ‘Israel’s’ unilateral military posture and Washington’s evolving regional agenda.
Bar’el questioned how Tel Aviv intends to reconcile its continued occupation of buffer zones inside Syrian and Lebanese territory with US efforts to stabilize both countries, including:
Supporting the Syrian government under Ahmed Al-Sharaa in extending sovereignty
Promoting the disarmament of Hezbollah
Preventing further regional escalation
According to Bar’el, these contradictions expose the absence of a clear Israeli roadmap beyond short-term military control.
Collapse of ‘Israel’s’ Minority-Based Syria Strategy
Bar’el also warned that Turkey’s entrenched military and political presence in Syria is creating direct competition with ‘Israel’ for influence.
He noted that Ankara has no intention of withdrawing from Syrian territory, while the Syrian president currently enjoys American backing — a dynamic that leaves Tel Aviv increasingly marginalized in post-war Syrian calculations.
The article further highlighted a recent agreement between Kurdish forces in northern Syria and Damascus, providing for their gradual integration into the Syrian army and state institutions.
Bar’el argued that this development undermines a long-standing Israeli approach that relied on cultivating minority entities as proxy buffers following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government in December 2024.
With Syria moving toward re-centralization under US-backed arrangements, Tel Aviv’s fragmentation strategy appears increasingly obsolete.
Pressure to Withdraw From Occupied Syrian Territory
Bar’el warned that American support for a unified Syrian state could place pressure on ‘Israel’ to withdraw from territories seized after December 2024 and return to the 1974 separation lines — albeit with potential modifications.
He noted that security talks between Syria and ‘Israel’ remain frozen, leaving Tel Aviv without diplomatic leverage to legitimize its continued military presence.
Iran Obsession Leaves Strategic Vacuum
While Tel Aviv remains fixated on a potential war with Iran, Bar’el cautioned that this focus merely postpones — rather than resolves — the unresolved Syrian and Lebanese fronts.
“In the event of a war and its end, the Syrian and Lebanese arenas will remain,” Bar’el warned, stressing that ‘Israel’ lacks a realistic roadmap to address long-term security challenges.
He concluded that without a coherent strategy, Tel Aviv will continue to face instability on its borders — particularly conditions preventing displaced Israelis from returning to occupied settlements — while Washington and regional powers shape outcomes without Israeli input. (PW)