The Politics of the Weak: The New Syria and the Old Colonial Israel

In a quintessentially colonial statement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel “will not allow the forces of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham or the New Syrian Army to spread south of Damascus.” This region includes the provinces of Daraa, Suwayda, and Quneitra, which Netanyahu further stated must become a demilitarised zone. He added that Israel “will not tolerate any threat to the Druze community in southern Syria.”

The Response: Syria’s Silence in the Face of Israeli Aggression

The new Syrian leadership left the response to this blatant Israeli bullying to Huda Al-Atassi, a member of the Preparatory Committee for the National Dialogue Conference in Syria. Consequently, the final communiqué of the conference included a brief mention of Netanyahu’s statement—a reference out of context and devoid of any recognition of its dangerous implications. This response reflects not just political helplessness but also a failure to grasp the realities of the situation—more an oversight and miscalculation than a reflection of Syria’s well-known military weakness.

It is understood that a militarily weak state cannot exert political strength, especially when it remains burdened by a heavy legacy of destruction and instability. However, the weak can adopt what can be termed “the politics of the weak”—a strategy aimed at either winning conflicts or, at the very least, avoiding defeat by leveraging international law, regional and global public opinion, and soft power tools—including intellectual, political, and moral influence. Most importantly, this requires shifting ownership of the country from Assad’s authoritarian rule to the Syrian people, thereby expanding national responsibility for Syria’s future.

A Strategic Alternative to Empty Rhetoric

The new ruling body in Syria does not need hollow declarations or ritualistic threats of retaliation at “the appropriate time and place.” Nor should it revert to the empty rhetoric of so-called resistance, which the Assad regime conveniently used as justification for destroying Syria. Instead, it should consistently adhere to the politics of the weak, aligning with Syria’s current reality while rejecting any illusion of power it does not possess.

The first principle of this strategy is to avoid being dragged into armed conflict, a position the new Syrian leadership already understands. For the foreseeable future, Syria cannot militarily defend itself against any of its powerful neighbors. This is not a secret—it is well known to both enemies and allies alike. However, a state too weak to defend itself militarily can still expose and condemn aggression, naming it for what it is: an unjustified and unprovoked colonial assault. In fact, Israel’s actions go beyond simple aggression; they represent a colonialist manipulation of Syria’s social fabric by an ethno-nationalist power that has just committed genocide in Gaza.

International Law: A Shield for the Weak

A key pillar of the politics of the weak is leveraging international law and institutions as a form of protection. Under international law, the Golan Heights is recognised as Syrian territory under occupation. By extension, Israel’s recent territorial expansions in Syria are also illegal, even if they have not yet been formally reported to the United Nations.

One might feel frustration or even embarrassment at the suggestion of filing a formal complaint with the UN regarding Israeli aggression against Syrian sovereignty. It seems like an obvious and straightforward step—yet it has not been taken. Some may argue that such appeals to the UN are futile, pointing to the long list of unimplemented UN resolutions on Palestine and the Israeli-Arab conflict.

That argument holds only if one expects the UN to single-handedly restore lost rights or deter aggressors. However, it is incorrect to dismiss the UN outright, as turning to international legal mechanisms is a tactical move that can offer diplomatic and legal leverage to a weak state emerging from war and struggling to rebuild.

Similarly, Syria must engage the Arab League, potentially calling for an emergency meeting to secure diplomatic and media support from Arab nations—and, more urgently, to seek economic aid, which is now more crucial than ever.

Securing Syria’s Southern Region

The most pressing priority, however, is establishing a stable relationship with the southern provinces on the basis of fair representation, national partnership, and respect for local dynamics. It is not the people of Suwayda, Daraa, and Quneitra who should respond to Netanyahu—that responsibility belongs to Syria’s new leadership.

While it would be encouraging to see Syrian citizens in the south mobilise against Israel’s aggression, they must not be left vulnerable. The ruling authority must back them up, ensuring that they do not stand alone against Israeli expansionism. What Israel is doing is an outright violation of Syrian sovereignty, and it is the new leadership—not civilians—who must officially respond.

The Core of the Politics of the Weak: Empowering the People

At its core, the politics of the weak means self-reliance, societal recovery, and creating an environment for political, economic, and social development.

The National Dialogue Conference, which concluded just two days before this article was written, was a missed opportunity—an exercise in manufactured legitimacy, offering no real transfer of power to the conference participants or the so-called Committee of Seven, which was left to orchestrate the preliminary sessions in a superficial manner.

The urgency of Syria’s transition contradicts the slow-moving, opaque approach currently being taken. Announcing a three-, four-, or even five-year transitional period only leaves the country confused and uncertain about its future. The declarations read by Huda Al-Atassi were pre-scripted, contained no binding commitments, and served as vague expressions of intent rather than concrete policy proposals.

A New Syria Must Acknowledge Its Reality and Seek International Support

Syria must recognise its weakened state and actively seek global assistance for its recovery. It could have voiced the suffering of its people—from the 54 years of dictatorship to the half a million dead, the seven million refugees (30% of Syria’s population), and the 113,000 forcibly disappeared. It could have addressed the dire living conditions, where the capital only receives three hours of electricity per day. It could have called upon the world to help rebuild Syria and demand protection under international law against a rogue state that continues Israel’s colonial expansion—just as Assad did before it.

But none of this happened.

Netanyahu’s True Goal: A Syria in Perpetual Civil War

Netanyahu wants to keep Syria locked in endless conflict, ensuring that it remains divided and weak. Bashar al-Assad was perfect for Israel—he was the administrator of a never-ending civil war, ensuring that Syria remained fragmented and powerless. Like Netanyahu in Palestine, Assad in Syria oversaw mass killings, destruction, and displacement.

The only way to defeat Netanyahu’s strategy is through a bold, strategic “politics of the weak”—one that is not submissive but dynamic, leveraging international legal frameworks, global outrage against Israeli and U.S. policies, and regional alliances.

Above all, this approach must be centred on Syrians themselves—empowering them as owners of their nation and defenders of their sovereignty.