Israel’s Syria border dilemma: When activism undermines security policy - analysis

However, all past and current signs indicate that these activists will get off with not much more than a slap on the wrist for their dangerous actions.

The spokesperson tried to place the onus for consequences on the police.

However, the police in recent years have often been called a black hole by the IDF, Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), and some prosecutors off the record when it comes to handling security-related offenses and similar cases.

Despite some cases clearly constituting dangerous violations of Israeli law, they have often been whitewashed, especially during the term of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

Activists have infiltrated Syria numerous times since Israel created a buffer zone in the southern part of the country after the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024.

Recent incidents also occurred in both April and May, with between 10 and 40 activists penetrating Syria.

Despite these being serious, open-and-shut, easy cases that are easy to convict on – (the activists were caught in Syrian territory and freely and proudly admitted their violations) – when questioned how past cases would influence the approach to prosecuting the latest border violators, a spokesperson said it remained unclear whether there was any set approach.

This contrasts with a variety of other areas of crime where the state prosecution adopts a clear zero-tolerance policy and seeks jail time – sometimes substantial – to end, or at least significantly deter, future criminal conduct.

And there is no question about the activists’ commitment to continue penetrating Syria.

The movement claims to have crossed the boundary “many times in the past,” even on occasions when it was not caught or reported on, and it seeks to establish an Israeli settlement in the area.

“Only settlement” would cement Israeli control of the area, the movement has said, noting the importance of IDF control in the region.

“Eventually we will also reach Daraa, Quneitra, and Abedin,” the movement has added.

While the movement claims to be fighting for Israeli interests and says its actions come amid attempted attacks by Syrian terrorists against Israeli communities in the Golan Heights, including within the buffer zone, no one in the professional level of the defense establishment and no government decision-makers agree.

But all establishments agree that Israel cannot build settlements in Syria, and they make no claims to Syrian territory.

Unlike Lebanon, where Hezbollah has repeatedly attacked Israel in recent years, Syria’s border with Israel, which had been mostly quiet even before the fall of Assad, has remained largely quiet as far as Israel is concerned since December 2024.

Israeli concerns for maintaining a buffer zone mainly relate to how Sharaa has treated his own minorities and whether, in future years, he could release some of his terror militias in Israel’s direction.

But if none of this transpires – which it has not, for around 18 months – at some point Israel will need to withdraw, lacking an ability to justify its continued presence.

In any event, Israeli law clearly prohibits anyone other than the IDF from entering Syria, and the military is furious that it has been continually stuck with policing Israeli citizens instead of focusing fully on deterring threats from Syria itself.

So why are the police, the prosecution, and likely the courts so passive on this issue?

First, there is the Druze complication. Multiple times, a large number of Israeli-Druze crossed the border into Syria illegally to try to assist their Syrian-Druze brethren when the Sharaa regime started to slaughter them.

The IDF, police, prosecution, courts, and government were all likely too tolerant of this situation, with essentially no one being prosecuted, let alone getting any severe punishments.

IDF officials have acknowledged off the record that this was a mistake.

While some may find it “understandable” for Israeli-Druze to want to help their Syrian-Druze brethren, it is still breaking the law and endangering the country.

But this precedent may be holding law enforcement back from acting decisively against the newest phenomenon, which is part of a broader movement rather than an isolated incident related to the Druze.

In any event, various defense officials acknowledge that the right move going forward would be to act decisively against those seeking to penetrate into Syria, whether Israeli-Druze or pro-settlement activists.

Besides the Druze, there is the fact that the police have, according to many in the IDF and the Shin Bet, largely fallen apart in enforcing the law on violent Jews in the West Bank.

Also, law enforcement has generally not prosecuted Jews who illegally enter Palestinian areas in order to pray, even though they could have made such visits at other times in coordination with the IDF.

Earlier in the Israel-Hamas War, several activists also traveled into Gaza illegally, facing no real legal consequences.

All these factors contribute to an atmosphere of a “free-for-all” in which activists can penetrate foreign countries and areas against Israeli law, with no punishment or reason that they should not keep doing so.

If the police do not step up and the prosecution does not enter the fray to press them to take the issue more seriously, and if some parties are worried about the courts going too easy on the activists, these activists will continue wasting the IDF’s time and resources while endangering their own lives and those of IDF soldiers.

Moreover, there is a rising tide of parties seeking to label Israel as expansionist in Syria in an effort to force it out of the buffer zone prematurely with no security concessions.

These activists, paradoxically, play into the hands of such anti-Israel parties.