Syria demands one-third of its occupied Golan Heights and sovereignty over come Lebanese territories in proposed “peace” scenarios with “Israel”.
| Published July 8, 2025
Syria’s Surprising Peace Bid: Golan Heights and Parts of Lebanon in Play
In a bold and unexpected diplomatic maneuver, Syria’s new leadership is signaling openness to normalize relations with Israel—on the condition of a major territorial deal. Leaked proposals from Damascus reveal that Syria is willing to recognize Israel and even enter security cooperation talks if Israel returns part of the Golan Heights and, in one option, facilitates Syria’s claims over parts of Lebanon, including Tripoli and northern border regions. This dramatic shift—unthinkable just months ago—has sent ripples through the Middle East, reigniting old territorial disputes while offering a glimpse into a potential regional realignment.
🕊️ Syria’s Bold Offer: Land Swap for Peace
In a striking departure from decades of entrenched hostility, Syria has floated two peace scenarios that could fundamentally reshape the region. Under newly installed President Ahmed al-Sharaa, Damascus appears ready to normalize relations with Israel—if a complex territorial arrangement can be agreed upon.
The first proposal envisions a tripartite division of the Golan Heights, a region Syria lost to Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War and has demanded back ever since. According to leaked details:
-
One-third of the Golan would remain under Israeli sovereignty,
-
One-third would be returned to Syria, and
-
The final one-third would be leased by Israel from Syria for a renewable 25-year period.
This approach is framed as a compromise—an attempt to satisfy Israel’s security concerns while allowing Syria to save face and claim partial victory over a long-standing grievance.
The second option, however, goes further—and is far more controversial. In addition to demanding a slice of the Golan, Syria is reportedly pushing for territorial compensation from Lebanon. These demands include:
-
The city of Tripoli,
-
Parts of northern Lebanon, and
-
Potentially the Beqaa Valley.
Syrian officials argue that these areas were once part of historical Greater Syria before colonial-era borders split them apart during the French Mandate. The implication is clear: in exchange for peace and diplomatic recognition of Israel, Syria expects a reshaping of the region’s post-Ottoman geography—a claim sure to spark outrage in Beirut and concern in Tel Aviv.
While Syrian diplomats frame the offer as a “pragmatic vision for peace,” critics argue it’s a land grab in disguise, reviving dormant irredentist claims under the pretext of diplomacy. Yet the fact that Syria is even engaging in such proposals—after years of war, isolation, and internal collapse—signals a dramatic shift in strategy.
These negotiations come at a time when Israel is recalibrating its northern security policy, and the United States is quietly encouraging Arab-Israeli normalization as part of a broader post-war realignment. In this delicate moment, Syria’s land-for-peace initiative might either pave the way for a historic breakthrough—or ignite fresh disputes across multiple borders.
⚠️ Tensions with Golan Heights & Domestic Pressure
The Golan Heights remains a deeply sensitive flashpoint—not only between Syria and Israel but also within Syria’s fractured political landscape. For Damascus, any peace proposal that doesn’t include at least partial recovery of this strategic plateau risks being labeled a betrayal of national honor. For Israel, however, surrendering any ground is seen as a direct threat to national security.
Domestically, Syria is walking a tightrope. After more than a decade of civil war, the Assad regime’s collapse in late 2024 ushered in new leadership under President Ahmed al-Sharaa. The transitional government, though desperate for diplomatic rehabilitation and economic relief, faces rising nationalist pressure from within Syria’s military, Ba’athist remnants, and displaced communities. These groups have long regarded the full return of the Golan Heights as non-negotiable—a symbol of sovereignty and resistance.
To pacify this internal discontent, the Sharaa administration insists that any normalization with Israel must include tangible progress on Golan sovereignty. Leaked briefings suggest the leadership sees a partial return of the Golan—or even a long-term lease structure—as a necessary gesture to maintain domestic legitimacy. Without it, critics warn, Sharaa could be painted as capitulating to foreign interests and lose control of an already fragile coalition.
In Israel, the mood is equally resolute. Prime Minister Benny Gantz has reiterated that the Golan Heights is “indispensable,” not just as a geographic buffer but as a vital national asset for defense, water resources, and settlement infrastructure. Foreign Minister Gideon Saar was even more blunt, declaring that “the Golan will remain part of Israel in any scenario,” dismissing the idea of a territorial compromise out of hand.
Since 1981, when Israel formally annexed the Golan—a move unrecognized by the international community until a symbolic endorsement by the Trump administration in 2019—Jerusalem has steadily expanded civilian settlements and military infrastructure in the region. Recent drone attacks from pro-Iranian militias in southern Syria have only hardened Israeli attitudes. Many now view the Golan not as a bargaining chip but as a permanent red line.
Complicating matters further is the unofficial Israeli military presence deep into southern Syria, including areas bordering the strategic Mount Hermon. These deployments, justified by Israeli leaders as a temporary buffer against Hezbollah and Iranian proxies, are seen by Syrians as an occupation. Yet quietly, some Israeli defense officials acknowledge that holding these areas long-term may be diplomatically costly—especially as Washington signals interest in restarting regional peace dialogues.
At the heart of this standoff lies a deeper paradox: Syria needs peace to rebuild, but cannot sell peace at the cost of pride. Israel wants security and normalization, but not at the expense of geography. Without a breakthrough on the Golan question, the entire peace initiative may remain suspended in the fog of unresolved history.
🌍 Context: Shifting Middle East Landscape
The surprising emergence of Syria’s land-for-peace proposal comes amid one of the most volatile—but also opportunistic—periods in the modern Middle East. After years of war, proxy conflicts, and shifting alliances, the region is once again recalibrating, and this time, the once-unthinkable—Syria seeking normalization with Israel—is suddenly on the table.
The groundwork for this moment has been quietly laid by several major shifts over the past 18 months:
🛑 The Fall of the Assad Regime
In late 2024, Bashar al-Assad’s long-standing rule finally crumbled after years of internal dissent, economic collapse, and military exhaustion. His removal—reportedly supported behind the scenes by both Russian and Gulf actors—opened the door for a transitional government under President Ahmed al-Sharaa. This new leadership, while still navigating internal instability, has adopted a pragmatic, even bold, foreign policy approach. For the first time in decades, Damascus is entertaining direct diplomatic talks with Israel, previously considered a red line.
🕊️ The Abraham Accords Ripple Effect
The Abraham Accords—initially signed in 2020 between Israel and several Gulf states—have slowly expanded the realm of what’s politically possible in the Arab world. Normalization, once taboo, is no longer unimaginable. Following the addition of Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, and Oman to the accords, there is growing pressure on Arab states to reconcile with Israel in exchange for economic and strategic gains. Syria’s proposal may be an attempt to join this realignment—but with territorial demands of its own.
🛰️ Israel’s Northern Strategy Shift
Israel has recently deepened its military footprint in southern Syria, citing the need to contain Iranian proxy groups and secure the Golan buffer zone. Intelligence reports confirm increased drone activity, covert Israeli surveillance outposts, and cross-border strikes targeting Hezbollah-linked infrastructure. At the same time, Israeli officials are signaling interest in long-term normalization with former enemies if it enhances regional security. This dual-track approach—pressure and diplomacy—suggests Israel is preparing for negotiations, but on its own terms.
💵 American Mediation & Sanctions Relief
The United States, under renewed leadership aligned with prior Trump-era diplomacy, is once again taking an active role in the region. Washington has reportedly promised sanctions relief and economic aid to Syria in exchange for engaging with Israel. The prospect of rebuilding shattered infrastructure, reviving the oil sector, and re-entering global financial systems may be enough to incentivize Damascus to make strategic concessions—even if it means revising old alliances with Iran and Hezbollah.
🧩 Lebanon’s Fragile Position
Lebanon, long used as a proxy battleground between Syria, Iran, and Israel, now finds itself caught in the crossfire of Syria’s demands. Any attempt by Damascus to claim Lebanese territory—Tripoli, the Beqaa Valley, or northern districts—would plunge Beirut into a geopolitical crisis. Already battling economic collapse and political dysfunction, Lebanon may be forced into taking sides in a regional deal brokered largely without its consent.
Resulting Effects: Unraveling Borders, Rewriting Alliances
The bold peace overture from Damascus—and the regional tremors it has already set in motion—carry wide-ranging implications not just for Syria and Israel, but for the entire Middle East. As the region adjusts to this unexpected diplomatic shift, the resulting effects are rippling across political, military, and ideological fault lines.
🗺️ 1. Redefinition of Borders and Sovereignty
At the heart of Syria’s proposal lies a challenge to the colonial-era borders established after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. By demanding the return of parts of the Golan Heights and Lebanese territory—such as Tripoli and the Beqaa Valley—Syria is effectively reopening questions that many believed were settled. If any portion of these claims is accepted or even seriously negotiated, it may set a precedent across the region, prompting other dormant territorial disputes to resurface—from the Houthi claim to southern Saudi Arabia to Kurdish autonomy bids in Iraq and Turkey.
Lebanon, in particular, could face serious internal fragmentation. The idea of losing land to satisfy a Syrian-Israeli peace arrangement is politically explosive, especially for a country already struggling with sectarian divides and economic ruin. Protests, political resignations, or even factional violence could follow if Beirut is sidelined in discussions that impact its sovereignty.
🛡️ 2. Security Realignments Across the Levant
For Israel, any deal that changes the security dynamics on its northern frontier carries major risks. While Tel Aviv seeks peace, it does so with caution. A reduced footprint in the Golan—or concessions involving Lebanese borders—could create vacuums that hostile actors like Hezbollah or Iranian-backed militias attempt to fill.
Yet ironically, a successful agreement with Syria could also isolate Hezbollah. If Damascus exits the “axis of resistance” and establishes normalized ties with Israel, Hezbollah would lose one of its critical ideological and logistical allies. This could embolden internal Lebanese efforts, backed by the U.S. and Gulf states, to push for Hezbollah’s disarmament—already a topic of intense debate in Beirut.
💰 3. Economic Openings and Reconstruction in Syria
Normalization with Israel would unlock vast international aid and investment for Syria. Western countries have long tied sanctions relief and reconstruction funds to diplomatic reform. A formal peace accord—especially one mediated by Washington—could see Syria re-enter global markets, revive its battered oil and agriculture sectors, and begin the long road to rebuilding cities flattened by years of war.
However, this economic revival hinges on stability, and any deal seen as unjust or humiliating could spark backlash from nationalist factions, insurgent groups, or disenfranchised populations in northern and eastern Syria.
🕊️ 4. Broader Arab-Israeli Normalization
If Syria, once the most hardline of Israel’s neighbors, is willing to strike a deal, it could catalyze a new phase in Arab-Israeli normalization. This would not only strengthen the Abraham Accords but may encourage lingering holdouts—such as Algeria, Iraq, and Tunisia—to reconsider their positions. It also paves the way for a future where multilateral security agreements between former adversaries could replace proxy warfare with direct diplomacy.
💣 5. Risk of Proxy Retaliation
Despite the diplomatic momentum, the road to peace will not be smooth. Iran, which has invested heavily in Syria’s military and infrastructure, may view normalization as a betrayal—and respond accordingly. Proxy retaliation in the form of missile strikes, assassinations, or cyberattacks is a real threat, particularly against Israeli or American assets in the region. The U.S. military presence in eastern Syria and Iraq could come under renewed pressure, forcing Washington to rethink its posture.
Bottom Line: A Fragile Gamble With Regional Consequences
Syria’s unprecedented offer to trade land for peace with Israel signals more than a diplomatic opening—it reflects the shifting sands of a Middle East in flux. What once seemed impossible—a bilateral deal between two historic enemies—is now being tested against the weight of territorial ambition, internal politics, and decades of distrust.
For Syria, the gamble is existential. After years of isolation and ruin, normalization offers a potential lifeline. But that lifeline is entangled with historic claims over both the Golan Heights and parts of Lebanon—claims that threaten to ignite new crises even as they seek to resolve old ones. For Israel, the offer is tempting yet treacherous: peace with another Arab neighbor is a strategic prize, but not if it means ceding vital terrain or triggering instability along its northern borders.
And for Lebanon—often the overlooked party in greater power games—the stakes are highest of all. Syria’s inclusion of Lebanese territory in its negotiation package has set off alarm bells in Beirut, where the idea of being used as a bargaining chip could provoke domestic upheaval.
Ultimately, this bold diplomatic initiative marks a critical inflection point. It could herald the next great shift in Arab-Israeli relations—or fracture the region further if handled without care. The coming weeks will determine whether Syria’s outreach becomes a blueprint for future peace—or a blueprint for renewed conflict.
Be the first to comment