Syria... Uncertainties and the ‘Graveyard of Expectations’

A Syrian boy, who works in car repair, shows his hands in the countryside of Aleppo in the north of the country on June 11. (AFP)
A Syrian boy, who works in car repair, shows his hands in the countryside of Aleppo in the north of the country on June 11. (AFP)
TT
20

Syria... Uncertainties and the ‘Graveyard of Expectations’

A Syrian boy, who works in car repair, shows his hands in the countryside of Aleppo in the north of the country on June 11. (AFP)
A Syrian boy, who works in car repair, shows his hands in the countryside of Aleppo in the north of the country on June 11. (AFP)

Did Russia withdraw some of its forces from Syria after the Ukrainian war? What is the future of Arab normalization with Damascus? How serious is the recent presidential pardon decree in Syria? What is the fate of European sanctions? And how to deal with the economic crisis and the Russian ambiguity over the decision to extend the international mechanism for humanitarian aid across the border?

These were some of the “public questions” that European envoys to the Syrian file tried to answer in an unannounced meeting in Cyprus last week, with an understanding that Syria is the “graveyard of expectations” like other countries in the Middle East.

In Larnaca, on the shores of the Mediterranean, and tens of kilometers from the two Russian bases in western Syria, the envoys held their “secret” meeting to exchange information about the Syrian situation, the prospect of European policy, and the repercussions of the Ukrainian war.

Before the start of their closed meeting, the envoys had to visit Nicosia, and hear “the complaints of the Cypriot Foreign Ministry over Turkey sending Syrians to them by sea, or by air to Turkish Cyprus, to exert pressure on them and Europe in the immigration file.”

On the following day, European envoys and government representatives, including officials from Germany, France, Sweden and Ireland, held intensive discussions, featuring an intervention by UN Envoy Geir Pedersen. Here are the most important topics:

What about the presidential pardon?

The amnesty issued by President Bashar al-Assad for “terror crimes” - which stipulated the release of around 2,000 people and the cancellation of security and arrest warrants for about 200,000 people – was described by representatives of the Syrian government as an “unprecedented step.” Foreign Minister Faisal Miqdad sent written letters to some Arab foreign ministers, including Jordanian Ayman Safadi, praising the “exceptional decree.”

The participants in the Larnaca meeting expressed two diverging stances:

The first group said that the decree that held the number 19 since 2011 was a “positive step”. They argued that it differed from the previous 18 decrees “because it deals with those accused of terrorism, that is, politicians.”

One of the participants quoted Miqdad as saying in an official meeting that there was a “decision to empty the prisons of detainees.”

Others spoke of the necessity of “not closing the door to the regime,” but “encouraging it to adopt more similar moves.” They noted that the amnesty decision was taken in response to Arab requests and internal needs.”

Miqdad was informed that maintaining this path would be considered “an essential step for building confidence.”

The second opinion cautioned against welcoming the decree hastily, stressing the need to ensure that it was not a mere “propaganda step.” Participants said that “pressure must be made to allow institutions such as the International Red Cross to visit prisons and verify the actual number” of people who have been released.

One of the attendees also spoke about the presence of more than 100,000 people detained or missing in Syrian prisons, saying: “Amnesty will not change the image of Syria.”

What about Arab normalization?

There was consensus that Arab normalization with Damascus was ongoing, and the question is “not whether it will happen, but when.” One of the participants said that if the European countries chose to wait for the implementation of Resolution 2254 before normalization, the lifting of sanctions and the contribution to the reconstruction, they might miss the train, because Arab countries continue the normalization process.

There were some expectations about “non-urgent” bilateral normalization steps with Damascus, pending the Arab summit in Algeria in November, when a collective Arab decision would be taken based on the prevailing political-regional atmosphere.

Representatives of major countries, such as Germany and France, emphasized the need to avoid making any step with Damascus until progress is achieved in the implementation of international resolution 2254. They highlighted the necessity to call for security and military reforms, within the visions of UN envoy Pedersen for a “step-by-step” approach.

No one talked about lifting European sanctions on Damascus, but voices mounted calling for Europe’s contribution to support “early recovery” projects in Syria in order to alleviate the burdens of the economic crisis, amid the political impasse, and for talks with Russia to extend the humanitarian aid mechanism across the border, before July 10.

What about Russia and Iran?

The Europeans exchanged information about the accuracy of Russia’s removal of some of its forces from Syria, amid assurances of actual military withdrawals of Russian pilots and forces, and estimates of the presence of about 4,000 Russian personnel in Syria.

One of the participants said: “There is information that Iran is filling the vacuum of Russian withdrawals, and that Turkey is seeking to change the equations in northern Syria.” Others spoke of the need to wait months or a year, before the effects of the Ukrainian war on Syria crystallize.

The general feeling expressed by more than one European envoy is “helplessness in the face of what is happening,” as if Syria will continue to face stagnation and suffering awaiting a breakthrough.

The only certainty put forward by one of the attendees is that the Middle East and Syria in particular, “are the graveyards of expectations.”



Israel Wary of Egypt's 'Military Infrastructure' in Sinai: Peace Treaty at Risk?

Egyptian army chief Ahmed Khalifa inspects troops near Israel's border late last year. (Military spokesman)
Egyptian army chief Ahmed Khalifa inspects troops near Israel's border late last year. (Military spokesman)
TT
20

Israel Wary of Egypt's 'Military Infrastructure' in Sinai: Peace Treaty at Risk?

Egyptian army chief Ahmed Khalifa inspects troops near Israel's border late last year. (Military spokesman)
Egyptian army chief Ahmed Khalifa inspects troops near Israel's border late last year. (Military spokesman)

Israel has voiced growing concerns over Egypt’s military presence in the Sinai Peninsula, fearing a potential escalation between the two sides amid the ongoing Gaza war.

Israeli media reports said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has asked both Washington and Cairo to dismantle what it describes as a “military infrastructure” established by the Egyptian army in Sinai.

However, an informed Egyptian source and experts cited by Asharq Al-Awsat insisted that Egypt has not violated its peace treaty with Israel. They argued that Cairo’s military movements are a response to Israeli breaches of the agreement.

Israel’s Israel Hayom newspaper, citing a senior Israeli security official, reported that Egypt’s military buildup in Sinai constitutes a “major violation” of the security annex of the peace treaty.

The official said the issue is a top priority for Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, stressing that Israel “will not accept this situation” amid what it views as Egypt’s growing military footprint in the peninsula.

The official added that the issue goes beyond the deployment of Egyptian forces in Sinai exceeding the quotas set under the military annex of the Camp David Accords.

The real concern, he said, lies in Egypt’s continued military buildup in the peninsula, which Israel views as an irreversible step.

Moreover, he stressed that while Israel is not seeking to amend its peace treaty with Egypt or redeploy troops along the border, it believes the current situation requires urgent action to prevent a potential escalation.

Egypt-Israel relations have not seen such tensions since the outbreak of the Gaza war, particularly after Israel violated a ceasefire agreement with Hamas brokered primarily by Egypt. Israeli forces resumed airstrikes on Gaza last month and failed to fulfill their commitments to withdraw from the Philadelphi Corridor and Palestinian border crossings.

A senior Egyptian source dismissed Israel’s accusations, telling Asharq Al-Awsat that “these repeated Israeli pretexts ignore the fact that Israeli forces have violated the peace treaty, seizing control of areas where Egypt objects to their presence without the necessary coordination with Cairo.”

Egypt has the right to take all necessary measures to safeguard its national security against any threats, emphasized the source.

“Nevertheless, Cairo remains fully committed to the peace treaty and has no intention of aggression against any party,” it added.

Israeli forces seized control of the Gaza-Egypt border, including the Philadelphi Corridor and the Rafah crossing, in May 2024. Israel has accused Egypt of not doing enough to stop weapons smuggling into Gaza through border tunnels—an allegation Cairo has denied.

Under the terms of the ceasefire agreement with Hamas, which Israel later broke, Israeli forces were supposed to begin withdrawing from the Philadelphi Corridor on March 1, completing the pullout within eight days. However, Israel failed to do so and instead resumed airstrikes on Gaza.

Israel also announced the creation of an administration aimed at facilitating the “voluntary departure” of Gaza residents, a move Cairo strongly rejected and formally condemned.

Egypt has insisted that Palestinians must remain in their homeland and has put forward a reconstruction plan for Gaza and called for the implementation of the two-state solution. The plan was endorsed at an emergency Arab summit three weeks ago.

Media reports have indicated that Egypt responded to Israel’s control of the Gaza border by increasing its military presence near the frontier—an act that some Israeli officials claim violates the peace treaty and threatens Israel’s security.

Former Egyptian intelligence official Gen. Mohammed Rashad told Asharq Al-Awsat that Israel itself violated the peace treaty by seizing the Philadelphi Corridor, controlling border crossings, and blocking aid to Gaza while seeking to forcibly displace Palestinians into Egypt.

“Every Israeli action along Gaza’s border with Egypt constitutes hostile behavior against Egypt’s national security,” said Rashad, who previously headed the Israeli military affairs division in Egypt’s intelligence service.

“Egypt cannot sit idly by in the face of such threats and must prepare for all possible scenarios.”

The Philadelphi Corridor is a strategically sensitive buffer zone, serving as a narrow 14-kilometer passage between Egypt, Israel, and Gaza, stretching from the Mediterranean Sea in the north to the Kerem Shalom crossing in the south.

Military expert General Samir Farag insisted that Egypt has not violated the peace treaty or its security annex in over 40 years, arguing that Israel has repeatedly breached the agreement and is attempting to shift blame onto Cairo.

“Israel is doing this to distract from its internal problems, including public discontent over its ballooning defense budget,” Farag told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“It also wants to deflect attention from Egypt’s reconstruction plan for Gaza and leverage its claims to pressure the United States for more military aid by portraying Egypt as a threat.”

Farag emphasized that Egypt’s actions are solely aimed at protecting its national security, adding: “There is no clause in the peace treaty that prevents a country from defending itself.”

“The so-called ‘military infrastructure’ Israel refers to consists of roads and development projects in Sinai.”

“The US has satellite surveillance over the region—if Egypt had violated the treaty, Washington would have flagged it. Moreover, security coordination between Egypt and Israel continues daily,” he explained.

Egypt and Israel signed their landmark peace treaty on March 25, 1979, committing to resolving disputes peacefully and prohibiting the use or threat of force. The agreement also established military deployment guidelines and a joint security coordination committee.

Meanwhile, US Republican Party member Tom Harb told Asharq Al-Awsat that Washington has received intelligence from multiple sources indicating that Egypt has amassed a significant military force in Sinai.

Israel considers this a breach of the peace treaty, which designates Sinai as a demilitarized zone to prevent surprises like the 1973 war, Harb said.

While the US fully supports Israel’s concerns, it also wants to prevent further escalation, as that would destabilize the region, he added.

Ultimately, Egypt must clarify whether its troop movements are aimed at threatening Israel or preventing Palestinians from crossing into Egyptian territory, he stated.