The Hebrew newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth has reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened a limited security meeting to discuss developments concerning Syria and Lebanon, amid what the newspaper described as growing concerns over possible Syrian moves.
According to the report, Tel Aviv strongly opposes any deployment of Syrian forces inside Lebanese territory. At the same time, it is feared that Damascus may be laying the groundwork for practical steps in that direction. The newspaper did not specify when the meeting took place or provide further details about its agenda.
The developments follow remarks made by US President Donald Trump during the G7 Summit, where he suggested that Syria could be tasked with what he described as “dealing with Hezbollah.”
In an interview with Fox News, Trump said that “Israel is dragging out the fighting with Hezbollah longer than necessary,” adding that “far too many people have been killed.”
In separate comments, Trump described the Lebanese front as “the small war” compared with Iran. He also said that Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa is “very good with Hezbollah because he doesn’t like Hezbollah,” adding that “if Israel cannot get the job done without killing everyone, then perhaps Syria can.”
Damascus’ Position and Israeli Reactions
Although Syrian President Ahmad al Sharaa denied any intention of intervening militarily in Lebanon and stressed that Syria could instead help facilitate a “peaceful way out of the crisis”, Trump’s remarks triggered widespread discussion within Israel.
Reports also indicated that al Sharaa had expressed a willingness to engage in dialogue with Hezbollah, further complicating the regional picture from the perspective of Israeli decision makers.
According to analyses published in Israeli media, two main views have emerged within Israel’s political and security establishment.
The first, rooted in security and strategic considerations, argues that any Syrian military involvement in Lebanon could trigger “a new wave of regional chaos”, open the door to widespread sectarian conflict, or provide Turkey, through its influence in Damascus, with a foothold on Israel’s northern border.
The second view suggests that the American proposal either reflects Israel’s failure to manage the northern front or signals a shift in Washington’s position, indicating diminishing US patience with prolonged military conflicts.
Concerns Over a Reshaped Northern Front
In a separate report, Israel Hayom quoted an Israeli source as saying that the primary concern is the possibility of any confrontation spilling into the occupied territories. According to the source, this would require “containing any intervention of this kind.”
Meanwhile, Haaretz analyst Zvi Bar’el argued that recent developments highlight an increasing divergence between American and Israeli positions on Lebanon. He suggested that Washington may seek to use Damascus as a tool to reshape the regional landscape, despite Syria’s leadership recognising that military involvement could threaten its own internal stability.
Contradictions in US Policy
In an analysis published by Israel’s Channel 12, columnist Carmit Valensi argued that any potential US call for al Sharaa to act against Hezbollah exposes a contradiction in American policy. On one hand, Washington seeks to support stability in post Assad Syria, while on the other it appears willing to encourage Damascus to undertake a military operation beyond its borders.
She noted that such proposals are not new. Similar discussions took place in March regarding the possible deployment of Syrian forces in eastern Lebanon before Damascus stepped back over concerns that it could become drawn into a broader regional conflict.
According to Channel 12 correspondent Dana Weiss, Israel’s security establishment views this scenario as “the worst possible outcome”, warning that its implementation could confront Israel with a new regional reality involving both Turkish and Syrian influence along its northern border.
She added that, from Israel’s perspective, the preferred response would not be public opposition but rather accelerating understandings with Lebanon and strengthening the role of the Lebanese Army in southern Lebanon.
