Syria expert Charles Lister has delivered a blunt assessment of current Israeli leadership, stating that any government other than one led by Benjamin Netanyahu would approach negotiations with Syria in better faith. Lister argued that a different Israeli administration would enter talks with a genuine intent to reach an agreement rather than prolong the status quo. His comments come amid ongoing United States-mediated discussions focused on security arrangements, border issues, and the possible Israeli withdrawal from territories seized after the fall of the Assad regime. The remarks highlight deep skepticism about the present Israeli government’s willingness to compromise on these sensitive matters.

Lister, who directs the Syria Initiative at the Middle East Institute, has spent years tracking Syrian insurgencies and the complicated process of post-Assad stabilization. He is widely regarded as one of the more informed independent voices on the country’s internal dynamics and regional relationships. In his view, the personality and political calculations of the current Israeli prime minister represent a primary obstacle to progress. He believes a change in Jerusalem would create space for more pragmatic and constructive engagement with Damascus.

Recent diplomatic activity has included secret meetings in Jordan between the Syrian foreign minister and the head of Mossad. These discreet contacts suggest that channels for dialogue exist even under the present strained conditions. At the same time, Israeli military strikes inside Syria have continued, adding pressure and complicating efforts to maintain any informal de-escalation. The combination of quiet talks and visible military action has left the overall trajectory of negotiations uncertain and fragile.

The core issues on the table involve security guarantees, the future of contested border zones, and the status of areas Israel moved into after the collapse of the previous Syrian government. American mediators have been working to bridge gaps between the two sides, yet progress remains limited. Lister’s public comments inject a sharp political dimension into the discussion by placing responsibility for the lack of movement squarely on Netanyahu’s leadership style and priorities. Supporters of the Israeli government reject that framing and insist security concerns must take precedence over any rapid diplomatic opening.

The expert’s intervention arrives at a moment when both Israeli and Syrian decision-makers face competing domestic and regional pressures. For Israel, the question of how far to go in any withdrawal or security arrangement carries significant political risk. For the new authorities in Damascus, securing recognition and stability along the southern border remains a high priority. Lister’s assertion that a different Israeli government would negotiate more seriously challenges the idea that structural or security factors alone explain the current impasse.

Whether Lister’s assessment will influence the tone of the ongoing talks is unclear. What is evident is that experienced observers of the Syrian file see leadership in Israel as a decisive variable. As secret contacts continue and military incidents persist, the gap between cautious diplomacy and open criticism continues to shape the atmosphere surrounding any potential agreement. The coming months will test whether the existing framework can produce results or whether political change becomes a prerequisite for meaningful progress.