
Sweida ceasefire is welcome but shouldn't be mistaken for a return to normality
What began on July 13 as a localised dispute between Druze and Bedouin groups quickly escalated into a full-scale military confrontation between Druze fighters and transitional government-aligned forces. In just four days, the clashes claimed at least 516 lives and displaced many more, shaking the foundations of Syria's already fragile transition.
With the fighting having subsided briefly, only for it to resume over the weekend before ending on Sunday, the cessation of hostilities is, at best, tenuous. It should certainly not be mistaken for a return to normality. Early signs indicate that the ceasefire largely restores the pre-conflict status quo, with local Druze factions resuming de facto control over Sweida.
Halting the violence is a welcome step, but it does not amount to a resolution. Unless the deeper drivers of the conflict – including political exclusion and contested authority – are meaningfully addressed, the truce risks becoming little more than a brief pause before the next eruption.
Sweida's violence began with the abduction of a Druze trader by individuals reportedly linked to Bedouin tribes in the region. In retaliation, a wave of reciprocal abductions broke out, eventually devolving into broader intercommunal violence. Such incidents are not unprecedented in southern Syria, where mistrust and unresolved grievances run deep. What set this episode apart was the decision of the country's transitional authorities to intervene militarily.
Damascus presented the deployment of security forces as a step to restore order. But people in Sweida, at least those who actively resisted, viewed it as a power grab. This reaction stems from long-standing disputes between local leaders and the transitional government – particularly over governance, security arrangements and the identity of the future Syrian state.
Sweida's notables have consistently advocated for decentralised governance and locally managed security structures tailored to the community's needs. In contrast, Damascus remains committed to a rigid, top-down model. On broader questions of identity and political inclusion, Sweida's calls for a secular and pluralistic system have largely been ignored.
These unresolved differences, compounded by repeated failures in negotiation, help explain why Damascus's intervention was viewed not as a stabilising measure, but as an attempt to reassert central authority by force.
In the wake of this intervention, hostilities broke out between government forces and fighters loyal to Sheikh Hikmat Al Hijri, the most prominent Druze religious authority. Both sides traded blame: Damascus accused Mr Al Hijri's men of attacking its personnel, while Mr Al Hijri accused the state of breaching prior commitments and committing serious abuses.
There is no sign that the ceasefire agreement addresses the structural causes of the conflict, nor the far-reaching ripple effects it has triggered
Reports soon surfaced about widespread abuses by government-aligned forces, including degrading treatment of detainees and extrajudicial killings. These images triggered widespread public outrage and galvanised local resistance. Mediation attempts broke down, largely due to Mr Al Hijri's refusal to concede or compromise.
The situation took a sharp turn when Israel launched air strikes on government forces and key facilities, including the Ministry of Defence, in response to the clashes in Sweida. Fearing broader regional escalation, the US stepped in to contain the crisis. A ceasefire was eventually announced by interim President Ahmad Al Shara, who described it as a necessary measure to prevent a deeper catastrophe.
While the details of the agreement remain sparse, early indications suggest it largely reinstates the pre-conflict arrangement: local forces retain de facto control over key areas of Sweida, and Damascus withdraws its military units from the city.
Though the ceasefire is a welcome step towards halting the violence, the fact that it was violated almost immediately means it merely freezes a crisis that continues to smoulder beneath the surface. There is no sign that the agreement addresses the structural causes of the conflict, nor the far-reaching ripple effects it has triggered. A return to the previous status quo is not just insufficient – it is dangerous. The events of the past week have profoundly altered Syria's political and social landscape, leaving deep wounds and a toxic environment.
Anti-Druze inflammatory rhetoric seized on Israel's strikes to depict the Druze community as collaborators or separatists, reinforcing sectarian narratives and fuelling calls for collective punishment. The result has been a disturbing surge in incitement against the Druze minority, including calls to boycott Druze-owned businesses and expel Druze students from university dormitories. Meanwhile, many Druze – particularly those aligned with Mr Al Hijri – have grown increasingly distrustful of the state and its institutions, further eroding the transitional government's legitimacy.
What was once latent sectarian tension has now become overt and volatile, fuelled by a surge in hate speech from all sides. This is precisely what makes the current ceasefire so fragile. A return to the previous arrangement is not a return to calm – it is a reversion to a simmering crisis that could explode at any moment.
The ceasefire may have paused the shooting, but only a genuinely inclusive and pluralistic political transition can stop the bleeding and set Syria on a path towards national healing. Unless the country's leadership moves quickly to address the root causes of the violence in Sweida, the current silence will be short-lived.
Preventing a return to widespread conflict remains possible, but the window for doing so in a sustainable and inclusive manner is closing fast.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The National
4 hours ago
- The National
US President Donald Trump 'caught off guard' by Israeli strikes on Syria and Gaza church
US President Donald Trump was "caught off guard" by Israeli bombing of Syria and a Catholic church in Gaza last week, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said on Monday, adding that he had discussed the issue with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Three people were killed and 14 injured in an Israeli strike on the Holy Family Church in Gaza city last week. Parish priest Father Gabriel Romanelli was among those wounded. The attack sparked international condemnation, including from Mr Trump who called Mr Netanyahu to voice his displeasure. Mr Trump also appears to have been surprised by Israeli strikes on government buildings in the Syrian capital last week, at a time when his administration is working to improve ties with the new authorities there. The US President "was caught off guard by the bombing in Syria and also the bombing of a Catholic church in Gaza," Ms Leavitt told journalists. "In both accounts, the President quickly called the Prime Minister to rectify those situations," she said. The US is Israel's main ally and Mr Netanyahu has visited the White House three times since Mr Trump returned to power in January. "The President enjoys a good working relationship with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, and stays in, you know, frequent communication with him," Ms Leavitt said. Mr Netanyahu called Pope Leo to express regret over the strike on the Catholic church in Gaza, blaming a "stray missile". US special envoy to Syria Tom Barrack announced a ceasefire between Israel and Syria on Saturday after days of conflict sparked by sectarian clashes in Sweida. Israel launched a series of attacks against Syria, including striking the Ministry of Defence and the presidential palace, in what it claimed was an effort to protect the Druze community. But diplomats and analysts said its goal is to weaken the new Syrian authorities. Israel remains sceptical of the new Hayat Tahrir Al Sham leadership in Damascus. But Mr Trump has met Syrian President Ahmad Al Shara, announced the lifting of sanctions on Syria and revoked the US's foreign terrorist organisation designation of HTS, a former Al Qaeda affiliate. While Israel and the US are strong allies, the personal relationship between the two leaders has been rocky throughout the years. But Mr Trump appeared to be closer than ever to Mr Netanyahu when he decided to join Israel's bombing campaign of Iran. During his last visit to the White House earlier this month, Mr Netanyahu also presented Mr Trump with a copy of a letter he wrote to the Nobel committee, nominating the US President for the Peace Prize. But Mr Netanyahu departed without a ceasefire deal in Gaza being announced, as Mr Trump had hoped and hinted at before the visit. 'The President's message on this conflict we've seen in the Middle East taking place for far too long, that has become quite brutal, especially in recent days, you've seen reports of more people dying. I think the president never likes to see that. He wants the killing to end,' Ms Leavitt said. She highlighted the administration's efforts to enable more aid deliveries to Gaza, despite foreign ministers of 25 western nations on Monday condemning Israel for "drip feeding" aid into the war-ravaged enclave where cases of starvation are on the rise. 'The President is the reason that aid is even being distributed in Gaza at all,' Ms Leavitt said. 'He wants to see this done in a peaceful manner, where more lives are not being lost.'


The National
6 hours ago
- The National
Sweida evacuations and Turkey to cancel Iraqi Kurdistan oil deal
The Syrian government has evacuated Bedouin families from Sweida. Turkey is ending an oil export agreement with the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Israel is continuing its offensive on Houthi targets in Yemen. On this episode of Trending Middle East: Syrian authorities evacuate Bedouin civilians from Sweida as fragile truce holds Turkey to end oil pipeline deal with Iraqi Kurdistan Israeli army strikes Houthi targets at Yemen's Hodeidah port This episode features Khaled Yacoub Oweis, Jordan Correspondent; Fareed Rahman, Senior Business Reporter; and Vanessa Ghanem, Arab Affairs Editor. Editor's note: We want to hear from you! Help us improve our podcasts by taking our 2-minute listener survey. Click here.


The National
9 hours ago
- The National
US cannot 'compel Israel to do anything', says envoy Tom Barrack in Beirut
US envoy said Washington cannot force but only influence Israeli actions as he met Lebanese leaders in Beirut on Monday for more talks on disarming Hezbollah and stopping Israeli bombing. 'The US has no business in trying to compel Israel to do anything … America could only influence,' he said during meetings with President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam. Lebanon has asked the US to act as guarantor to ensure that Israel will pull out its troops in full and stop targeting operations against members of Hezbollah, if the armed group begins handing in weapons. Mr Barrack also reiterated his position that disarming Hezbollah is a matter for Lebanon, but said pushing for reform in the country was vital and the US wanted it to prosper. He said "the reforms that are happening ... are amazingly plausible and significant". But he also ruled out sanctions against Lebanese officials for failing to disarm Hezbollah. "There's no consequence, there's no threat, there's no whip," Mr Barrack said. Israel continues to bomb south Lebanon daily and occupies five strategic points on Lebanese territory, despite a ceasefire struck with Hezbollah in November. Mr Barrack accepted that the November truce "didn't work" and said a lasting solution needed to be found. He said US President Donald Trump "attaches importance to the situation in Lebanon and the restoration of stability in the region". President Aoun gave the US envoy a "draft comprehensive memorandum for implementing Lebanon's pledges" that have been made since the ceasefire was struck, according to a statement from the presidency. The document emphasised the need to extend state authority to the entire country, restrict weapons to the army and ensure "decisions of war and peace" rest with Lebanese constitutional authorities. Mr Barrack's visit is his second to Lebanon in two weeks and is expected to last several days. Lebanon and the US have been exchanging 'ideas' on a proposal that would ultimately lead to Hezbollah's disarmament, with all weapons then coming under the control of the Lebanese state. Beirut is also pushing for Israel to halt its daily attacks and withdraw from the five points it occupies. However, Hezbollah's Secretary General Naim Qassem has accused Mr Barrack of seeking to encourage the Lebanese Army to disarm the group by force and provoke a civil war. The Hezbollah leader has taken a hard line on the weapons issue, arguing that Israel would expand its territorial control over parts of Lebanon in the absence of the militant group. 'We will not surrender or give up to Israel; Israel will not take our weapons away from us,' Mr Qassem said in a video speech at a commemoration for a senior Hezbollah commander killed in the war with Israel last year. "We are ready for any action that leads to a Lebanese understanding," he added. "But for Israel and America, we will not do this under any type of threat." On his previous visit, Mr Barrack, who is special envoy for Syria and US ambassador to Turkey, said he was satisfied with Lebanon's response to the US plan for the disarmament of Hezbollah. But he also insisted that Lebanon must not be left behind in a rapidly changing region. In their reply to the US proposal, Lebanese authorities submitted a seven-page document calling for a full Israeli withdrawal from disputed territory, including Shebaa Farms, and reaffirming state control over all weapons while pledging to dismantle Hezbollah's arms in south Lebanon. In a recent interview with The National, Mr Barrack said time was of the essence. 'I honestly think that they are going to say, 'the world will pass us by'. Why? You have Israel on one side, you have Iran on the other, and now you have Syria manifesting itself so quickly that if Lebanon doesn't move, it's going to be Bilad Al Sham again,' he said, using the historical name for the Greater Syria region. That comment by Mr Barrack was widely interpreted as suggesting Lebanon risks being swallowed up into a Greater Syria, but the envoy later said he was merely trying to praise 'Syria's impressive strides'. 'I can assure that Syria's leaders only want coexistence and mutual prosperity with Lebanon, and the United States is committed to supporting that relationship between two equal and sovereign neighbours enjoying peace and prosperity,' he said on X.