In a move described as surprising and unprecedented in recent years, Damascus disclosed a meeting between Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Asaad Al-Shaibani and an Israeli delegation in Paris, held under indirect American auspices. The discussions focused on issues related to southern Syria and the withdrawal from the Golan Heights.
The meeting, for which the names of the Israeli participants were not announced, highlights a new phase of diplomatic engagement between Damascus and Tel Aviv amid rapidly evolving regional and international dynamics.
According to details obtained by The Media Line, the meeting was an extension of a prior Paris talks held a few weeks earlier that failed to achieve any tangible breakthrough. However, this second round carried greater significance, with Damascus confirming that it discussed “sensitive issues related to internal stability and the territorial integrity of Syria, particularly in the south, which has witnessed escalating tensions in recent months.”
One of the main issues discussed was Israel’s potential withdrawal from the Golan Heights, which was one of the conditions of a 1974 ceasefire agreement brokered by the United States under UN sponsorship. The agreement ended a round of military confrontations in the Golan Heights and established a buffer zone monitored by the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force.
In recent years, however, repeated violations—driven by internal Syrian tensions and Israeli operations inside Syrian territory—have weakened the agreement’s effectiveness and reduced the UN’s ability to maintain long-term stability.
Since the outbreak of the Syrian war in 2011, any official channels between Damascus and Tel Aviv have remained frozen, while Israel continued to conduct frequent air and missile strikes inside Syria, citing the need to counter the influence of Iran and its allies. In contrast, Damascus has consistently described these strikes as “illegal attacks” and attempts to impose new on-the-ground requirements.
A source at the Syrian Foreign Ministry told The Media Line that the talks with Israel focused on three main areas. The first was reactivating the 1974 ceasefire agreement, with an emphasis on ensuring mutual respect for separation lines and halting unilateral military operations that could destabilize the region.
The second area was the situation in southern Syria, particularly in As-Suwayda governorate, which has witnessed recent security unrest amid accusations that regional actors are attempting to exploit tensions to impose a new status quo.
The third area involved humanitarian and security concerns, including refugee issues and drug trafficking across the southern border, a matter of heightened focus for the United States and its allies in recent months.
The source emphasized that the meeting was held away from the public eye, with a French diplomatic team providing logistical support. At the same time, Washington played the role of “observer and facilitator” without direct participation at the table.
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
A spokesperson for the Syrian Foreign Ministry told The Media Line:
“The dialogue that took place in Paris falls within Syria’s firm commitment to preserving its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Minister al-Shaibani discussed with the other side issues related to deescalation in southern Syria and the revival of the withdrawal agreement, which forms the basis for stability in the region. We are open to any effort that guarantees the rights of the Syrian people and preserves their security, but we also affirm that any understanding will not come at the expense of national sovereignty or the unity of Syrian territory.”
Dr. Hani Nasser, professor of international relations at the University of Amman, told The Media Line that the meeting “represents an important diplomatic turn, even if it occurred under indirect American mediation.”
Damascus is attempting to send a clear message that it is not isolated and that it is capable of engaging in dialogue with its historical adversary if it serves the country’s stability
He added: “Damascus is attempting to send a clear message that it is not isolated and that it is capable of engaging in dialogue with its historical adversary if it serves the country’s stability. From the Israeli side, there appears to be growing recognition that continuing to ignore Damascus is no longer feasible, given the complexities of southern Syria and the interwoven Iranian and Russian influence there.”
However, political analyst Lama Khalil from the Middle East Studies Center in Beirut said the meetings are “closer to a political maneuver than a strategic step.”
Practically, nothing will change on the ground unless there is an official negotiation process involving influential international actors who commit to the outcomes
She explained: “Damascus needs to demonstrate political activity to both domestic and foreign audiences while facing immense economic and social pressures. Israel benefits from the meeting by enhancing its image in Washington as a responsible party seeking stability. Practically, nothing will change on the ground unless there is an official negotiation process involving influential international actors who commit to the outcomes.”
Syrian authorities sought to link the meeting to sensitive domestic issues, including the situation in As-Suwayda, stressing their ability to manage the southern conflict through political means rather than only security measures. The message was aimed mainly at local public opinion and at actors who believe government control is weak in some areas.
The meeting coincided with Arab efforts to reintegrate Damascus into the diplomatic scene, particularly after Syria’s readmission to the Arab League last year. For Syria, opening—even unofficially—dialogue with Israel could grant additional leverage in its relations with Gulf countries, Jordan, and Egypt, which closely monitor the southern issue.
On the international stage, the meeting is seen as part of a US attempt to maintain regional balances and prevent southern Syria from sliding into open confrontations, which could provide Moscow or Tehran with greater maneuvering space. Nevertheless, Washington has not indicated any readiness to change its core policies toward Damascus, including sanctions.
Despite the media buzz, most analysts stress that the Paris meeting remains largely symbolic. The United States has not altered its official policy of isolation and sanctions, Israel has not committed to halting its military operations inside Syria, and Damascus has not shown readiness to enter a broader political track beyond local security arrangements.
Thus, while significant symbolically, these talks remain limited in practical effect unless they evolve into wider negotiations sponsored by international powers with clear commitments.
The Paris meeting between Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad Al-Shaibani and the Israeli delegation, under indirect US oversight, marks a notable point in Syrian-Israeli relations, but it is not a strategic shift. Rather, it represents a pause in a highly tense region.
Through this initiative, Damascus sought to show that it remains an unavoidable player able to open political channels, even behind the scenes. Israel aimed to signal a willingness to reduce escalation if clear security guarantees were in place. Washington, meanwhile, appeared content with its observer role, keeping lines of communication open without committing to concrete steps.
In the end, the Paris meetings reflect a complex regional and international reality in which security interests are closely tied to political stakes. For now, such gatherings remain largely symbolic, with open questions about whether they will develop into a practical diplomatic track capable of reshaping the region’s rules of the game.