A report claiming that Türkiye is moving towards proposing a Syrian peace agreement with the Israeli occupation, to use the period of peace to build up Turkish military power that could later be deployed against Israel, has sparked widespread attention and debate within Israel.
Professor Eyal Zisser, writing in the Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom, said the report had caused considerable alarm in Israel. However, he argued that its claims were not particularly surprising given the nature of political relations in the Middle East.
Zisser said that even if the report proves accurate, and even if its claims are as serious as suggested, the issue is not necessarily connected to the upcoming Israeli elections. He argued that political dealings in the Middle East frequently involve parties speaking and acting differently behind one another’s backs, while public statements do not always reflect their actual intentions.
The result, he said, is often that “everyone deceives everyone”, referring to Arabs, Iranians, Turks and even Americans.
Zisser argued that the idea of signing a peace agreement when circumstances make it useful, then violating it once it is no longer needed, is not new to the region. In his presentation, he linked the idea to what he described as a concept rooted in Islam since the time of Prophet Muhammad.
He cited the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, signed by Prophet Muhammad in 628 with the people of Mecca as a ten-year truce without war. Zisser claimed that after a year, when the Prophet believed he had become strong enough to confront them, the treaty ended with an attack on Mecca and its conquest.
He added that such conduct is not necessarily unique to the Middle East, but is widely known in international relations.
As an example, he cited the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the non-aggression agreement signed by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin in August 1939, before Germany broke it two years later and invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941.
Zisser also pointed to Iran, saying the nuclear agreement signed by Tehran could similarly be cited, claiming that Iran had never intended to abide by it.
Zisser: Report Lacks Essential Information
Returning to the substance of the report, Zisser described what had been published as “bad journalism”, arguing that no meaningful conclusions could be drawn from it because essential information was missing.
He said the most important questions were: who made the alleged statement, to whom was it made, and in what context?
According to Zisser, the reported comments may have been nothing more than a private and non-binding conversation between leaders during an informal meeting over coffee. Alternatively, they may have been made during an official meeting in which minutes were recorded.
He stressed that the context surrounding the alleged remarks remains unclear.
Zisser questioned whether the discussion genuinely concerned a plan to destroy Israel, comparable to plans he said Iran had previously promoted, or whether it amounted merely to an incidental and non-binding remark.
He compared this with what he described as the type of statements Americans frequently make during negotiations with Iran, as well as in discussions concerning Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, and even when speaking on Israel’s behalf.
He referred to statements which, in his view, suggest that commitments by the Lebanese army or Hamas should not always be taken seriously, because at times the objective is simply to demonstrate that a political process is underway so that the Americans can calm Israeli concerns.
Mubarak and Assad: The Egyptian Peace Model
Zisser also referred to the position of the late Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak when he sought to persuade the late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad to sign a peace agreement with Israel.
According to Zisser, Mubarak told Assad at the time that there was no need to become overly concerned about Israeli demands for normalisation because, as the Egyptian experience had demonstrated, normalisation had produced little, something Israel itself understood.
Nevertheless, Zisser stressed that Egypt had maintained peace along its border with Israel for nearly 50 years.
He added that it was “fortunate” that those discussing the report had quickly clarified that Egypt was not the country being referred to, pointing instead to Türkiye and Syria.
Zisser argued that simple logic suggests the report most likely concerns Türkiye and Syria, as well as a political arrangement that the United States is seeking to advance between Israel and Damascus.
Israeli Strength as the Basis of Peace Agreements
In concluding his analysis, Zisser outlined several points he believes Israel should consider when approaching any potential agreement.
First, he argued that Arab states did not sign peace agreements with Israel out of “love for Zion”, but because of Israel’s strength. As long as Israel preserves that strength, he said, there is no reason to fear for the future of those agreements.
Second, he argued that Israel must maintain complete caution and vigilance, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere. It should not merely resort to force from time to time, he said, but remain continuously alert so that no party is able to take it by surprise.
His final point concerned the value of short-term agreements.
Zisser argued that a temporary agreement can still have value even if it lasts only for a limited period, provided Israel is not required to sacrifice anything or place its security at risk.
If Israel signs an agreement that benefits it without making concessions that affect its security, he said, the agreement remains worthwhile even if it is short-lived.
Zisser concluded by arguing that the Middle East is characterised by constant change and that “everything is fleeting and temporary”. Temporary agreements, therefore, can still be useful as long as they serve Israeli interests and do not come at the expense of Israeli security.
