Israeli military strikes near Syria's presidential palace after warning over sectarian attacks
The strike came after days of clashes between pro-Syrian government gunmen and fighters who belong to the Druze minority sect near the capital, Damascus. The clashes left dozens of people dead or wounded.
Syria's presidency condemned the Israeli airstrike, calling it a 'dangerous escalation against state institutions and the soveignty of the state.' It called on the international community to stand by Syria, saying that such attacks 'target Syria national security and the unity of the Syrian people.'
Friday's strike was Israel's second on Syria this week, and attacking an area close to the presidential palace appears to send a strong warning to Syria's new leadership that is mostly made up of Islamist groups led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.
On Thursday, Syria's Druze spiritual leader Sheikh Hikmat Al-Hijri harshly criticized Syria's government for what he called an 'unjustified genocidal attack' on the minority community.
Early Friday, the Druze religious leadership said that the community is part of Syria and refuses to break away from the country, adding that the role of the state should be activated in the southern province of Sweida and authorities should be in control of the Sweida-Damascus highway.
'We confirm our commitment to a country that includes all Syrians, a nation that is free of strife,' the statement said.
In the Damascus suburb of Jaramana, where fighting occurred earlier this week, security forces deployed inside the area along with local Druze gunmen, and at a later stage heavy weapons will be handed over to authorities. As part of the deal, forces from the defense ministry will deploy around Jaramana without going inside.
Israeli fighter jets strike near the palace
The Israeli army said that fighter jets struck adjacent to the area of the Palace of President Ahmad al-Sharaa in Damascus. Its statement gave no further details.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz said that the strike was 'a clear message' to Syrian leaders.
'We will not allow the deployment of forces south of Damascus or any threat to the Druze community," the joint statement said.
Pro-government Syrian media outlets said that the strike hit close to the People's Palace on a hill overlooking the city.
Over the past two days, the Israeli military said that it had evacuated Syrian Druze who were wounded in the fighting.
The Israeli army said in a statement Friday that a soldier was killed and three were slightly injured in an accident in the Golan Heights. An army statement added that the soldiers were evacuated to receive medical treatment at a hospital and that the circumstances of the incident were being investigated.
Clashes set off by disputed audio clip
The clashes broke out around midnight Monday after an audio clip circulated on social media of a man criticizing Islam's Prophet Muhammad. The audio was attributed to a Druze cleric. But cleric Marwan Kiwan said in a video posted on social media that he was not responsible for the audio, which angered many Sunni Muslims.
Syria's Information Ministry said that 11 members of the country's security forces were killed in two separate attacks, while Britain-based war monitor The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that 99 people — over the past four days of which 51 were killed in Sahnaya and the Druze-majority Damascus suburb of Jaramana — were killed in clashes, among them local gunmen and security forces.
The Druze religious sect is a minority group that began as a 10th-century offshoot of Ismailism, a branch of Shiite Islam. More than half of the roughly 1 million Druze worldwide live in Syria, largely in the southern Sweida province and some suburbs of Damascus.
Most of the other Druze live in Lebanon and Israel, including in the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 Mideast War and annexed in 1981.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
24 minutes ago
- New York Post
Most US adults still support legal abortion 3 years after Roe was overturned, poll finds
Three years after the Supreme Court opened the door to state abortion bans, most U.S. adults continue to say abortion should be legal — views that look similar to before the landmark ruling. The new findings from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll show that about two-thirds of U.S. adults think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. About half believe abortion should be available in their state if someone does not want to be pregnant for any reason. Advertisement 6 The new findings from the poll show that about two-thirds of U.S. adults think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. AP That level of support for abortion is down slightly from what an AP-NORC poll showed last year, when it seemed that support for legal abortion might be rising. Laws and opinions changed when Roe was overturned The June 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to state bans on abortion led to major policy changes. Advertisement Most states have either moved to protect abortion access or restrict it. Twelve are now enforcing bans on abortion at every stage of pregnancy, and four more do so after about six weeks' gestation, which is often before women realize they're pregnant. In the aftermath of the ruling, AP-NORC polling suggested that support for legal abortion access might be increasing. 6 About half believe abortion should be available in their state if someone does not want to be pregnant for any reason. REUTERS Advertisement Last year, an AP-NORC poll conducted in June found that 7 in 10 U.S. adults said it should be available in all or most cases, up slightly from 65% in May 2022, just before the decision that overruled the constitutional right to abortion, and 57% in June 2021. The new poll is closer to Americans' views before the Supreme Court ruled. Now, 64% of adults support legal abortion in most or all cases. More than half the adults in states with the most stringent bans are in that group. 6 The June 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to state bans on abortion led to major policy changes. AP Advertisement Similarly, about half now say abortion should be available in their state when someone doesn't want to continue their pregnancy for any reason — about the same as in June 2021 but down from about 6 in 10 who said that in 2024. Adults in the strictest states are just as likely as others to say abortion should be available in their state to women who want to end pregnancies for any reason. Democrats support abortion access far more than Republicans do. Support for legal abortion has dropped slightly among members of both parties since June 2024, but nearly 9 in 10 Democrats and roughly 4 in 10 Republicans say abortion should be legal in at least most instances. Fallout from state bans has influenced some people's positions — but not others Seeing what's happened in the aftermath of the ruling has strengthened the abortion rights position of Wilaysha White, a 25-year-old Ohio mom. She has some regrets about the abortion she had when she was homeless. 6 In the aftermath of the ruling, AP-NORC polling suggested that support for legal abortion access might be increasing. AP 'I don't think you should be able to get an abortion anytime,' said White, who calls herself a 'semi-Republican.' But she said that hearing about situations — including when a Georgia woman was arrested after a miscarriage and initially charged with concealing a death — is a bigger concern. Advertisement 'Seeing women being sick and life or death, they're not being put first — that's just scary,' she said. 'I'd rather have it be legal across the board than have that.' Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Julie Reynolds' strong anti-abortion stance has been cemented for decades and hasn't shifted since Roe was overturned. 'It's a moral issue,' said the 66-year-old Arizona woman, who works part time as a bank teller. Advertisement She said her view is shaped partly by having obtained an abortion herself when she was in her 20s. 'I would not want a woman to go through that,' she said. 'I live with that every day. I took a life.' Support remains high for legal abortion in certain situations 6 'It's a moral issue,' said the 66-year-old Arizona woman, who works part time as a bank teller. AP The vast majority of U.S. adults — at least 8 in 10 — continue to say their state should allow legal abortion if a fetal abnormality would prevent the child from surviving outside the womb, if the patient's health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy, or if the person became pregnant as a result of rape or incest. Advertisement Consistent with AP-NORC's June 2024 poll, about 7 in 10 U.S. adults 'strongly' or 'somewhat' favor protecting access to abortions for patients who are experiencing miscarriages or other pregnancy-related emergencies. In states that have banned or restricted abortion, such medical exceptions have been sharply in focus. This is a major concern for Nicole Jones, a 32-year-old Florida resident. Jones and her husband would like to have children soon. But she said she's worried about access to abortion if there's a fetal abnormality or a condition that would threaten her life in pregnancy since they live in a state that bans most abortions after the first six weeks of gestation. Advertisement 'What if we needed something?' she asked. 'We'd have to travel out of state or risk my life because of this ban.' Adults support protections for seeking abortions across state lines — but not as strongly 6 In states that have banned or restricted abortion, such medical exceptions have been sharply in focus. REUTERS There's less consensus on whether states that allow abortion should protect access for women who live in places with bans. Just over half support protecting a patient's right to obtain an abortion in another state and shielding those who provide abortions from fines or prison time. In both cases, relatively few adults — about 2 in 10 — oppose the measures and about 1 in 4 are neutral. More Americans also favor than oppose legal protections for doctors who prescribe and mail abortion pills to patients in states with bans. About 4 in 10 'somewhat' or 'strongly' favor those protections, and roughly 3 in 10 oppose them. Such telehealth prescriptions are a key reason that the number of abortions nationally has risen even as travel for abortion has declined slightly.
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Columbia settles with Trump: 5 things to know
Columbia University and the Trump administration announced a long-awaited settlement Monday night after months of negotiations. Columbia will pay $221 million to restore the more than $400 million in federal funding that was cut off by the administration, which had originally cited alleged inaction on antisemitism, though Education Secretary Linda McMahon pointed to more ideological motives. 'This is a monumental victory for conservatives who wanted to do things on these elite campuses for a long time because we had such far left-leaning professors,' McMahon said on Fox Business Network. The university, which saw some of the nation's most active pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations amid the war in Gaza, did not have to admit to wrongdoing in the deal, which is certain to put the higher education world on high alert. Columbia, Trump both tout deal as a win Both Columbia and the Trump administration positioned the deal as a victory from their perspective. 'This agreement marks an important step forward after a period of sustained federal scrutiny and institutional uncertainty,' acting university President Claire Shipman said in a statement. 'The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track,' she added. Columbia did avoid some earlier reported provisions that would have given the administration more control over its business. But with significant reforms still agreed upon, the president went to Truth Social to declare victory. 'It's a great honor to have been involved, and I want to thank and congratulate Secretary Linda McMahon, and all those who worked with us on this important deal,' he wrote. 'I also want to thank and commend Columbia University for agreeing to do what is right. I look forward to watching them have a great future in our Country, maybe greater than ever before!' Columbia agrees to multiple reforms Along with the more than $200 million Columbia will pay over three years, an additional $21 million will go to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to resolve all federal investigations against the university. Columbia also said it would implement reforms announced back in March such reviewing its Middle East curriculum and ending programs that 'promote unlawful efforts to achieve race-based outcomes, quotes, diversity targets or similar efforts,' with a report to monitor that progress. The university also agreed to ask incoming foreign students 'questions designed to elicit their reasons for wishing to study in the United States' and said it would provide information to the federal government regarding international students who are expelled. The school and the federal government will agree on an independent monitor to ensure the resolution is followed. Columbia did not try to fight in court Columbia's strategy with the Trump administration has appeared to be one of full cooperation, in contrast with other schools, particularly Harvard University, that have dug in their heels in opposition, filing multiple lawsuits against Trump's moves. While Columbia's faculty went through with its own lawsuit, a judge ruled only the university itself had the standing to bring a legal challenge to the Trump administration's actions. But Columbia decided, to a chagrin of staff and others in higher education, to try to come to an agreement. 'Columbia's longstanding research partnership with the federal government is vital to advancing our nation's progress in key areas of science, technology, and medicine,' Board of Trustees Co-Chairs David Greenwald and Jeh Johnson said in a statement on the matter. 'We are proud of the role we play in advancing this public service and preparing the next generations of students to meet complex challenges around the world,' they added. Trump sees this as roadmap for other universities One of the biggest concerns of higher education was Columbia's cooperation would lead the Trump administration to expect similar responses from other universities. 'Numerous other Higher Education Institutions that have hurt so many, and been so unfair and unjust, and have wrongly spent federal money, much of it from our government, are upcoming,' Trump wrote in his post announcing Columbia's settlement. McMahon, in her Fox Business interview, said, 'Our campuses are now what they should be. They're places for debate, they're places for education. They're not places for left-leaning riots and antisemitism.' Higher education looks to Harvard for hope From the start, Harvard and Columbia took opposite approaches in handling pressure from the administration. While Columbia worked on a deal with no retaliation, Harvard has sued multiple times, once for funding cuts and the other over attempts to take away its foreign students. The attempts to stop Harvard from enrolling foreign students were struck down by a judge, and a ruling over the funding pause is likely forthcoming. While Trump had indicated in June that a deal with Harvard could be forthcoming, such an announcement never came. Those in higher education are hoping Harvard keeps the fight going as a win against the oldest and richest nation in the country would pour even more gasoline on the Trump administration's fire to go after universities. 'Research that the government has put in jeopardy includes efforts to improve the prospects of children who survive cancer, to understand at the molecular level how cancer spreads throughout the body, to predict the spread of infectious disease outbreaks, and to ease the pain of soldiers wounded on the battlefield. As opportunities to reduce the risk of multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease are on the horizon, the government is slamming on the brakes,' Harvard President Alan Garber said when Trump cut funding.
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Nelk Boys under fire for Netanyahu interview
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger weigh in on podcasters Nelk Boys catching heat for Israeli Prime Minister interview.
