# Israel's Diplomatic Dilemma: Strikes Amidst Talks with Syria

**Amidst ongoing diplomatic talks, Israel's military strikes in Syria reflect a complex interplay between force and diplomacy, revealing uncertainties in its strategic approach.**

In recent weeks, Israel has been involved in covert discussions with the Syrian government aimed at finding a diplomatic resolution to longstanding tensions, particularly regarding land seized during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Speculation in the Israeli media suggested the potential for a non-aggression pact or even a groundbreaking peace deal with the regime that has been dominated by former jihadists since late last year.

However, Israel's recent airstrikes targeting Syrian military infrastructure, including the defense ministry headquarters in Damascus, have raised questions about the viability of these negotiations. The attacks underscore a lack of strategic clarity concerning Israel's approach; while it seeks diplomatic solutions, it simultaneously resorts to military action as a deterrent against perceived threats.

“It seems very discordant,” commented Itamar Rabinovich, an Israeli historian specializing in Syrian affairs and a key player in the 1990s negotiations with Syria. The ongoing strikes signal a shift in Israel's military doctrine, wherein a mix of anxiety following the unexpected Hamas attack in October 2023 and a newfound confidence from recent military successes over Hezbollah and Iran have led to a preference for military solutions over diplomatic engagement.

The impetus for this week's strikes stemmed from the Syrian government’s mobilization of forces in southern Syria, in an effort to manage internal conflicts between Bedouin tribes and the Druse minority. Despite significant losses in its military capabilities due to previous Israeli strikes and years of ongoing civil strife, the Syrian regime was able to deploy some aged tanks and troops transported in pickup trucks.

This tumultuous period reflects the increasing complexities surrounding Israel's geopolitical strategies, caught between the urgency for negotiation and the instinctual reliance on military intervention.