I think YOU are putting too much politics into that distinction, not the writers of the article.
Given Abraham's migration path, his life leading to both Ishmael and Issac, followed centuries later by the empire of the Assyrians (indo-Europeans, closer to Greeks and Persians), north of Israel (souce of what became "Syria"), it is not politics or surprusing to me that people of Israel and Arabs in Palestine would be more closely related than Arabs in Palestine and Syrians.
The "Arab" identity in Syria does not occur, politically or in any other way until the expansion of the Islamic empires. Most of that was conquest and conversion by the sword, more than the Assyrian gene pool being eradicated and displaced by "Arabs".
In international politics the Syrian's like to play the "one great Arab nation card"; and they have been participating in that role since the Ottoman Empire started falling apart. Back home, they know the difference and they know they retain that "Assyrian" distinction that long preceeded Islam and the Arab conquest. They know that long before the Arabs came out of the desert and conquered the land, Damascus was already a city with more wordly renown than Mecca or Medina had ever known.
When people wonder why the true Arabs (Arabia) and the Iraqi's, Syrian's and Egyptians could never, politically put that "one great Arab nation" together, they are missing what all those groups know - they never were "one great 'Arab' nation"; and they know it better than anyone.
That makes a great deal of sense. Thank you for your insights.