### Climbing tensions between Israel and Syria: a contextual analysis
On the night of May 3 to 4, southern Syria was the scene of a military climbing, marked by Israeli strikes in response to projectile fire to Israeli territory. This incident raises several questions about the regional dynamics at stake, particularly in the light of recent upheavals on the Syrian scene.
#### Historical and military context
Since 1948, Israel and Syria have been found in an unresolved state of conflict, with tensions exacerbated by recent events linked to the Syrian civil war. This conflict has caused increasing complexity, especially with the emergence of various armed groups supported by regional and international powers. The Israeli army for years has been carrying out military operations in Syria for years, whether to target military infrastructure or to prevent the proliferation of armaments deemed threatening for its security.
The recent shots, according to some Israeli media, are the first assault actions from Syria since the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime in December. Damascus, for its part, refutes any involvement, claiming that Syria is not a threat to the region and that external actors could try to destabilize the country for their own interests.
### Official declarations
Israeli Minister of Defense Israel Katz has assigned attacks on Ahmed al-Chareh, the Syrian president, thus stressing the Israeli defense position in the face of what is perceived as a direct threat. This type of declaration strengthens the perception of a Syrian regime still under pressure, both interior and external, and encourages to question the consequences of such a allocation of responsibility.
In response, the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs denounced the Israeli strikes as a violation of its sovereignty, stressing the need for appeasement in a region already marked by cycles of violence. The Syrian affirmation, according to which the country works for state authority and security, echoes the intentions of a government seeking to ensure legitimacy both internally and international.
#### Regional and international dynamics
The United States, recently, announced the lifting of certain economic sanctions against Syria, an act which could be interpreted as an attempt to referet with this country. However, the calls for normalizing relations between the Syrian and Israeli authorities still seem to be distant, despite indirect discussions. This raises questions about the ability of the international community to play an engine role in the search for peaceful solutions in the face of a situation that intensifies.
The position of Israel, which aims to be protective of the populations of the Golan Plateau, could be understood as a preventive defense strategy. However, this also raises questions about the effectiveness of this long -term approach. Can repeated strikes really help stabilize the region, or do they exacerbate existing tensions?
#### Reflection on solutions
In a context where violence seems to feed an endless cycle, voices are raised to plead for an approach that prioritizes diplomacy and dialogue. To advance towards a lasting resolution, it may be necessary to envisage alternative means, such as multilateral negotiations including all the parties concerned, as well as a real commitment from the international community.
Could lessons learned from past decades could offer reflection: how to create a framework of confidence between nations who perceive themselves in turn as adversaries? What guarantees can be implemented to ensure the safety of each party without using force?
The climbing of the conflict in Syria represents not only a challenge for the region, but also for the principles of sovereignty, security and cooperation that underlie the international system. The path to peace is never simple, but engaging in an honest and respectful conversation seems to be a necessary step to overcome the historic fractures that persist.
Thus, while the current situation acutely recalls the importance of dialogue, it is appropriate to explore conflict resolution habits which promote understanding rather than animosity. It is only through this that long -term perspectives of peace will be able to emerge.