Syrian regime says 'Our problem is not with Israel'

[speak easy]

Damascus governor says new Syrian regime wants peace: ‘Our problem is not with Israel’

Apparently speaking on behalf of al-Sharaa, official says they ‘don’t want to meddle in anything that will threaten Israel’s security,’ and Jerusalem’s concern over new regime is ‘natural’

In an interview with the US public broadcaster NPR, apparently on behalf of Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, the governor of Damascus said Thursday that the newly-installed government wants to have cordial relations with Israel.

“We have no fear toward Israel, and our problem is not with Israel,” Maher Marwan told NPR, “There exists a people who want coexistence. They want peace. They don’t want disputes.”

“And we don’t want to meddle in anything that will threaten Israel’s security or any other country’s security,” he said. “We want peace, and we cannot be an opponent to Israel or an opponent to anyone.”

He added that Israel’s initial trepidation after the fall of former president Bashar al-Assad was “natural.”

The Times of Israel

Words are words but few Arab states would say it out loud.

[Tetrachloride]

1. what is the "it"

1. what is the it
2. the article is not deep.
3. paragraphs jump from topic to topic

therefore i wonder what is the point of the article other than the headline

[Igel]

2. The overarching topic is relations between the new government-in-formation and Israel.

"Peace" precludes them meddling in Israeli affairs, allowing attacks from Syria; it requires that Israel do the same with regard to Syria.

There's an armistice: Syria's going to abide by it, if the new de facto leader pro tem has any say in the matter, but Israel has to pull back and peacekeepers replaced. In other words, no hostility on either side.

Seems about as coherent as possible with the necessary range of subtopics.

And the "it" is fairly clear: neutral, non-hostile relations without mutual antagonism. Call it "peace" if you want, call it "not being an opponent," call it what you will. But the usual posturing is that Arab states must either express belligerence, possibly enable or even encourage and participate in funding militancy and "meddling" in Israel. For a state to say that Israel's even okay with co-existence is a break from tradition.

This is one man, however; it remains to be seen what kind of state emerges and to what extent this one man's views predominate. I figure most Syrians are exhausted and just don't care, but not expressing hostility might even be a step to far for many (you can threaten from afar and it costs nothing and gains both self-righteousness and can help increase negative solidarity).

The appropriate response from Israel should be to echo this back, perhaps cautiously express hope that a true peace or at least cooperation can be achieved now that the Assads are gone and they look forward to when the new Syrian government's formed.