DAMASCUS – Syrian Information Minister Hamza Al-Mustafa confirmed Friday that indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel are ongoing, despite Israel’s continued occupation of Syrian territory and frequent airstrikes on both Syria and Palestine.

 

Since 1967, Israel has occupied the Golan Heights, a strategically significant region internationally recognized as Syrian land. Despite repeated United Nations resolutions affirming Syria’s sovereignty over the area, Israel has maintained control. Simultaneously, Israeli airstrikes have regularly targeted Syrian territory under the pretext of striking Iranian-linked groups, often resulting in civilian casualties. These developments occur while Gaza faces a brutal military campaign that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions.

 

At a press conference following a Cabinet meeting chaired by Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, Minister Al-Mustafa announced that Syria is continuing indirect diplomatic engagement with Israel and reaffirmed Syria’s adherence to the 1974 disengagement agreement. He also disclosed plans to revive Syria’s diplomatic presence abroad by reopening embassies and consulates. The meeting further addressed internal reforms, including anti-corruption efforts and investment strategies.

 

The revelation of ongoing indirect talks with Israel has raised serious questions about Syria’s political direction at a time when Israel remains involved in active regional conflicts. Critics argue that pursuing normalization or negotiation under such circumstances risks undermining long-standing resistance narratives and may alienate segments of the Syrian and broader Arab public who view Israel’s regional policies as aggressive and expansionist.

 

While Syria grapples with its own humanitarian crises due to prolonged civil war, Israeli strikes have exacerbated the situation, damaging infrastructure and endangering civilians. The Golan Heights‘ occupation continues to deprive Syria of access to its resources and population. Meanwhile, the ongoing genocide in Gaza has intensified scrutiny of any Arab engagement with Israel.

 

While no official reactions from neighboring states or major global powers have been recorded regarding Al–Mustafa’s remarks, civil society voices and online discourse have been quick to criticize the Syrian government for even entertaining engagement with Israel under current circumstances. Activists point out that such diplomacy risks legitimizing occupation and deflects from holding Israel accountable for its actions in both Syria and Palestine.

 

While Syria explores diplomatic outreach and internal reforms, the decision to maintain indirect contact with Israel amid occupation and aggression remains controversial. The move is likely to spark debate over whether it reflects political pragmatism or a concerning shift away from principles long upheld by the Syrian state. Future developments will reveal whether this engagement leads to tangible outcomes—or public backlash.