WhatsappWhen calls emerge to pull back from southern Syria — to end what many see as “occupation” or entanglement in Syria’s civil war — they capture a certain moral and political appeal. Yet a hasty or unconditioned Israeli withdrawal, absent credible guarantees, risks exchanging a fragile status quo for long-term instability, threats to Israeli security, and humanitarian disasters.
WATCH IDF Raid In Southern Syria:
For now, Israeli official discourse reflects grave concerns. As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently declared: “We demand the complete demilitarization of southern Syria, in the Quneitra, Daraa and Suwayda provinces.”
He added, during a visit to wounded soldiers, that what Israel expects from Damascus is “to establish a demilitarised buffer zone from Damascus … including the slopes and summit of Mount Hermon.”
Likewise, Defense Minister Israel Katz has reaffirmed a long-term Israeli presence: “The IDF will remain at the summit of the Hermon and the security zone indefinitely … to ensure the security of the communities of the Golan Heights and the north.”
If Israeli forces withdrew in the near term, however, who would fill the vacuum? According to recent analysis by ALMA Research and Education Center, a Syria under its new regime — led by Ahmed al‑Sharaa — remains a “stability of instability.”
ALMA warns that if al-Sharaa fails to consolidate control, internal collapse or a flare-up of extremist violence is highly plausible. In that scenario, southern Syria could descend into inter-militia warfare, with re-emergent jihadist infrastructures — and especially danger to ethnic and religious minorities such as the Druze.
Leaving southern Syria unprotected would therefore not create peace, but likely chaos. ALMA’s “day after” paints a grim picture: “power struggles … Syria will become no-man’s land … the disintegration of the new Syrian army … ISIS could regain strength …”
Moreover, in such chaos, southern Syria could once again become a launchpad for attacks on Israel — rockets, mortar fire, drones, infiltration, and worse.
Beyond pure security concerns, there is a moral and humanitarian dimension: ALMA underscores the likelihood of “massacre and revenge against the Druze in southern Syria” — a tragic risk requiring Israel and international actors to prepare for “defence, evacuation, and humanitarian assistance.”
To withdraw without binding, enforceable arrangements would be to gamble with the lives of civilians and the stability of the region.
That is why a responsible policy cannot be a simple pullout. Instead, Israel, together with its Western and regional partners, must insist on: security guarantees; enforceable demilitarization; international monitoring; and protection plans for vulnerable minorities.
Only then can we consider transforming tactical control into strategic stability. Otherwise, the dream of withdrawal risks becoming a nightmare — for Israel and for the innocents caught across the border.
