Syria is known as "the beating heart of Arabism," which underscores the significance of developments there. When Syria was aligned with the Pan-Arab nationalist left, all Pan-Arab leftist movements flourished, such as the PFLP (Popular Front), DFLP (Democratic Front), and similar groups within the PLO. As the Ba'athist regime weakened, these movements across the Levant declined in favor of political Islam.

We witnessed this in Israel, where the Balad movement, which once set the tone in Arab Israeli public discourse during the heyday of nationalist left, now fails to cross the electoral threshold.

Israel failed to grasp this dynamic during the uprising against Assad. The Free Syrian Army, representing the Sunni faction of the Syrian military and the leading force in the war against Assad, sought closer ties with Israel. However, Israel remained indifferent and failed to seize the extended hand.

Imagine if the pro-Israeli Free Syrian Army were in power in Damascus today – consider what Israel's regional standing could have been. This would have influenced not only Syria but certainly Lebanon and the entire Middle East.

Jolani was a player, perhaps not insignificant but marginal in the Syrian conflict, after ISIS. Only massive support from Turkey and Qatar transformed him into the prominent figure he is today in both the Syrian and regional arena.

But instead of the Free Syrian Army, we got Jolani – and Turkey.

Besides military training assistance in an Eastern European country, the Free Syrian Army also requested a broadcasting station to compete with Al Jazeera, to highlight events in bleeding Syria and expose the regime's atrocities to the world.

Imagine today having a regional, perhaps global, station neutralizing Al Jazeera's incitement and turning the spotlight on the real war criminals.

However, this is all spilled milk. Now we must look forward, and the big question is naturally where the new Syria is heading and what level of threat it poses to us and the region.

The clear and immediate danger is the establishment of a Taliban-like regime in the beating heart of Arabism, which would serve as a source of inspiration for Syria's neighbors like Jordan, Lebanon, and especially Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood underground, the Gamaat, still simmers, armed with weapons from Gaddafi's Libya.

When Jolani split from Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, he took bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as his religious authority. Zawahiri was a member of Egypt's Brotherhood, and the Egyptians noted that Jolani appointed several exiled Egyptian Gamaat members to positions in his administration.

Jolani differed from ISIS and Al-Qaeda regarding global jihad, as he wanted to focus solely on Syria, but not in the concept of imposing Islam on the state. When interviewed by Western media, he avoided questions about whether Syria would implement a democratic regime or maintain women's rights. In other words: Syria will be a theocratic regime that discriminate against women.

He claims he will begin building the new Syria after millions of refugees return – but they're not returning. They understand that Assad's replacement doesn't really meet their aspirations, and they truly have nowhere to return to.

The wait for refugees to return means he will stabilize his party's regime, like the Taliban, and there will be no reforms toward Syrian statehood, contrary to the impression Jolani projects to the West.

The upcoming party rule in Syria can also be understood from the fact that all appointments announced so far are Jolani's people or figures close to Turkey, while secular figures, including Free Syrian Army members who expressed willingness to integrate into the new government, received no invitation.

Turkey's deep influence in the new administration is a source of concern not only for Israel, especially after Turkish President Erdogan announced that he places the liberation of Jerusalem at the top of his agenda. His words shouldn't be taken lightly, given the sensitive situation at the Temple Mount, which he could exploit for his purposes. So, if Hamas's Al-Aqsa Flood failed, perhaps the Turkish Flood could, God forbid, bring worse results for us.

But Jordan can also feel threatened. Erdogan wants to revive the Ottoman Empire, and it was the Hashemite family, now seated in Amman, who brought it down from within Islam.

And Saudi Arabia too. They surely noticed the first declarations by Jolani's people when they returned the Great Umayyad Mosque to Sunni control from the Shia. They said that after liberating the Umayyad Mosque, they would liberate Al-Aqsa, Mecca, and the Prophet's Mosque in Medina.

Here we touch on Israel's major strategic decision: whether to align with Qatar or Saudi Arabia. From Israel's perspective, the advantage with Qatar is that it doesn't raise demands regarding the Palestinian issue, while Saudi Arabia does.

But Qatar, along with Turkey, poses a new threat common to us and other countries in the region – the Turkish threat.

It's worth noting that after optimism in Israel about an imminent hostage release deal, there was a retreat over the weekend, which cannot be disconnected from developments in Syria. It was reported that a central point of contention is the demand to release Marwan Barghouti, and to move him to Turkey.

Erdogan, who has positioned himself as Jerusalem's new patron, would be happy to receive Barghouti and position him in the struggle for Jerusalem. The insistence on Barghouti comes from Qatar, Turkey's ally, as it seems unlikely that what remains of Hamas in Gaza truly cares about Barghouti's fate.

In this test, Qatar is a plotting enemy, not an ally. So, the option is Saudi Arabia.

Previously, Saudi Arabia published the Saudi Initiative, which conditioned peace with Israel on establishing a Palestinian state. This no longer exists. Currently, Saudi Arabia demands serious progress. What exactly does this mean? It's worth examining.