Egypt’s Foreign Ministry issued an official statement strongly condemning Israel‘s actions, saying that “Israel’s seizure of part of the buffer zone in the Golan Heights is an act of occupation of Syrian territory.”
A similar statement was made by the Jordanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
It is worth noting that this reaction was prompted by a recent order from Defence Minister Israel Katz,who ordered the IDF to expand its operational activities on the Syrian border after key positions on the higher part of Mount Hermon were taken.
According to the instructions, the Israeli army must complete the capture of the buffer zone in Syria and strategically important points in this region. As part of the new instructions, the IDF will work to create a safe zone outside the buffer zone while establishing contacts with the local population, including the Druze.
Earlier, Cursor wrote that the IDF confirmed the capture of new positions in the buffer zone between Israel and Syria on the Golan heights after the fall of the Assad regime. The 98th Division, including paratrooper and commando brigades, was deployed to thes strategic heights to strengthen defenses along the Syrian border.
In addition, Cursor has already reported that the IDF has intensified its activities in the buffer zone on the Syrian border, wich marks a new stage in changing the situation in the border region. From official Israeli sources it follows that the 1974 agreement, which previously served as the basis for the division of forces between Syria and Israel, has lost its relevance.
What implications does Egypt’s condemnation of Israel’s actions have for future peace negotiations in the Middle East?
Interview with Dr. amir Haddad, Middle East Conflict Expert
Time.news Editor (TNE): Thank you for joining us today, dr. Haddad. Recently, Egypt’s Foreign Ministry condemned Israel’s actions regarding the golan Heights. Can you elaborate on what this means for regional stability?
Dr. Amir Haddad (AH): Absolutely. Egypt’s condemnation highlights the fragility of the current geopolitical landscape in the region. By labeling Israel’s actions as “an act of occupation of Syrian territory,” Egypt is taking a clear stance against what it sees as territorial transgressions. This not only heightens tensions between Israel and its neighbors, particularly Syria and Jordan, but also complicates ongoing peace efforts.
TNE: Speaking of Jordan, we noticed that their Foreign Ministry echoed similar sentiments. What does this unified stance indicate about Arab nations’ perspectives on Israel’s military activities in the buffer zone?
AH: The joint statement from Egypt and Jordan illustrates a growing concern among Arab nations about Israel’s military maneuvers, especially in the Golan Heights, which can be viewed as a strategic foothold. It signifies that regional players are increasingly willing to collaborate in voicing their opposition to actions they perceive as provocative, signaling potential solidarity among Arab states regarding the Palestinian and Syrian contexts.
TNE: Defense minister Israel Katz’s order to the IDF to expand activities in this region raises several questions. What is the strategic purpose behind this expansion?
AH: The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) expanding their operational scope in the golan Heights appears driven by security concerns after recent changes in the Syrian conflict landscape, particularly the fall of the Assad regime. Israel aims to secure strategic points to prevent potential threats from militant groups operating in the area. By establishing a “safe zone” and reaching out to local populations, including the Druze, Israel may also be trying to enhance its security through local partnerships.
TNE: With the mention of the 1974 agreement regarding the division of forces between Syria and Israel becoming “irrelevant,” what does this mean for international relations in the region?
AH: The questioning of the 1974 agreement indicates a significant shift in how Israel perceives its borders and security management. If Israel no longer prioritizes this agreement, we might witness increased military presence and operations without regard for previously established norms. This can escalate tensions considerably,and it may compel international powers to reassess their policies and approaches to conflict resolution in the region.
TNE: How might these developments affect everyday citizens, both within Israel and in neighboring countries?
AH: Daily life is intricately connected to military developments, especially in border regions. In Israel, citizens may experience heightened security measures and a continuous military presence, which can affect their sense of safety and freedom. For neighboring populations in Syria and Jordan, increased military actions can lead to instability, exacerbating humanitarian crises and creating a more precarious living situation. Dialog and outreach efforts by the IDF could help mitigate some of these tensions among local populations, but the underlying fears and uncertainties remain significant.
TNE: what advice would you give to those attempting to understand the complexities of the Israeli-Syrian border situation?
AH: I would suggest following reliable sources for updates and analyses that provide context for these developments. Engaging with academic discussions focused on Middle Eastern geopolitics can also increase understanding of the historical, cultural, and social dynamics at play. Lastly, being aware of the human stories behind these geopolitical shifts—such as the experiences of the Druze communities—is essential to grasp the full picture of the situation.
TNE: Thank you,Dr. Haddad,for sharing your insights. Such complexities require continuous observation and understanding from both policymakers and the public, especially as the situation evolves.
AH: My pleasure. The situation remains fluid, and awareness is crucial as events unfold. Thank you for having me.