Ceasefire announced after dozens killed in Syrian sectarian clashes
Defence minister Murhaf Abu Qasra said in a statement that after an 'agreement with the city's notables and dignitaries, we will respond only to the sources of fire and deal with any targeting by outlaw groups'.
The clashes began with a series of tit-for-tat kidnappings and attacks between members of local Sunni Bedouin tribes and Druze armed factions in the southern province, a centre of the Druze community.
Clashes erupted between Sunni Bedouin clans and Druze militias (Ghaith Alsayed/AP)
Government security forces that were sent in on Monday to restore order also clashed with Druze armed groups. During the day, Israel struck a Syrian government military tank and said it was acting to protect the Druze religious minority.
In Israel, the Druze are seen as a loyal minority and often serve in the armed forces.
State-run news agency SANA did not give any details about Tuesday's strike. However, the Britain-based war monitor the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Israel struck a tank belonging to the Syrian military as forces began to move in deeper into Sweida city.
Earlier on Tuesday, religious leaders of the Druze community in Syria called for armed factions that have been clashing with government forces to surrender their weapons and cooperate with authorities as they entered the provincial capital of Sweida.
One of the main religious authorities later released a video statement retracting the call.
The initial statement called for armed factions in Sweida to 'cooperate with the forces of the Ministry of Interior, not to resist their entry, and to hand over their weapons to the Ministry of Interior'.
The statement also called for 'opening a dialogue with the Syrian government to address the repercussions of the events.'
The commander of Internal Security in Sweida Governorate, Brigadier General Ahmad al-Dalati, welcomed the statement and called for 'all religious authorities and social activists to adopt a unified national stance that supports the Ministry of Interior's measures to extend state authority and achieve security throughout the province'.
Sheikh Hikmat Al-Hijri, a Druze spiritual leader who has been opposed to the government in Damascus, said in a video message that the previous statement by Druze leaders had been issued after an agreement with the authorities in Damascus but 'they broke the promise and continued the indiscriminate shelling of unarmed civilians'.
'We are being subjected to a total war of annihilation,' he said.
Some videos on social media had showed armed fighters with Druze captives, inciting sectarian slogans and beating them.
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 the roughly one million Druze worldwide live in Syria. Most of the other Druze live in Lebanon and Israel, including in the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 Middle East War and annexed in 1981.
Clashes have on several occasions broken out between forces loyal to the government and Druze fighters since the fall of President Bashar Assad in early December in a lightning rebel offensive led by Sunni Islamist insurgent groups.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
Britain's harsh truth is that we have a history of abandoning those who've risked everything to help us
Britain likes to think of itself as a nation that honours loyalty. It salutes its soldiers, cherishes its veterans, and builds grand narratives around comradeship and duty. Yet, behind that national self-image lies a harsher truth: when it comes to those who have risked everything to help us in our wars abroad, we are alarmingly quick to forget them. The recent revelation that the names and details of tens of thousands of Afghans who worked alongside British forces were leaked and left exposed – thanks to a staggering data breach – has laid bare not only a monumental failure of security but also a deeper, historical pattern of neglect. These interpreters, drivers, fixers and logistical staff were essential to the British war effort in Afghanistan. They were not on the periphery; they were at the centre of operations, guiding soldiers through complex cultural terrain, translating intelligence, calming hostile situations, and often saving lives. Their reward? Having their identities posted online for the Taliban to find. For nearly two years, the British government successfully suppressed the story with a super-injunction, while some of these people lived in fear, unsure whether their names were among those leaked, and with no clear way to find out. Since then, the Ministry of Defence has scrambled to relocate thousands of Afghans under Operation Rubific, at a cost of some £7bn. But thousands remain. Thousands are still at risk. The Independent has been campaigning for the cause of the Afghan helpers for the past two years, during which time we showed that five in six Afghan applicants are rejected from the military scheme established to give sanctuary to those in danger from the Taliban. Two years ago, the paper also revealed the desperate plight of an Afghan colonel, who fought alongside British troops and fled to Britain on a small boat, and yet was disgracefully threatened with deportation to Rwanda. But this horrific leak is not an isolated failure. On the contrary, it echoes a recurrent pattern throughout British military history. The northwest Frontier of the 19th and early 20th centuries is a stark early chapter. Britain's hold over Indian borderlands – today's Pakistan – relied less on troops and more on local militias: the Khyber Rifles, Tochi Scouts, Chitral Scouts, and Pathan Levies. Raised on local knowledge, steeped in tribal loyalty, they patrolled treacherous gorges and confronted armed insurgents. One such unit, the Chitral Scouts, formed in 1903, drew on local mountaineers and remained indispensable to frontier control. Yet as soon as regular British units withdrew – ostensibly for financial reasons during the Second World War – and strategic priorities shifted, it was these indigenous groups who were left to face reprisals, their villages caught between tribal revenge and state indifference. Their sacrifice was recognised in dispatches, their fate forgotten. Their usefulness had expired; so, it seemed, had our obligations. Decades later, the dense jungles of Malaya bore a strikingly similar tale. In the Malayan Emergency from 1948 to 1960, Britain mobilised Iban trackers – skilled bushmen from Borneo – to help root out Communist insurgents. Just seven weeks after the conflict began, 49 Ibans arrived; by late 1948, hundreds were in deployment, and by 1952, more than a thousand had worked through Malaya. They gained a sterling reputation: undeterred, indefatigable, and brave. Some were awarded medals, including the George Cross and the George Medal – yet were officially deemed civilians, so excluded from pensions or long-term recognition. A handful were later absorbed into the Sarawak Rangers in 1953, but most returned to anonymity once the conflict subsided. Their exceptional service merited little more than oral history and fading photographs. Even those allies who served as professional soldiers found themselves on the wrong side of British amnesia. The Gurkhas – those famously fearsome and loyal Nepalese warriors who have fought for Britain since the early 19th century – endured decades of inequality. Paid less than their British counterparts, denied settlement rights, and excluded from pensions until a sustained and high-profile campaign finally forced the government to act in 2009, they had to fight not just on battlefields, but in courtrooms and newspapers for what they were owed. And even then, many of the changes only applied to those who served after 1997, leaving older veterans with scant recompense for their decades of loyal service. The betrayal extends to Iraq and Afghanistan in more recent memory. In Iraq after 2003, British forces relied on hundreds of local interpreters – vital conduits between soldiers and civilians alike. Some became targets of extremist militias themselves. The British resettlement scheme, however, lagged far behind that of the Americans; names leaked from internal emails, and some interpreters were killed before official offers of protection arrived. Afghanistan, in turn, has given us similarly harrowing scenes: drivers and translators who followed British patrols in Helmand Province but found their applications stalled, their emails unacknowledged. Many who expected evacuation were left hoping, waiting, praying. Interpreters have complained of opaque processes, sudden refusals, and long waits in danger zones. Many of the promises made by ministers during the fall of Kabul in August 2021 – four whole years ago – have yet to materialise for the people who pinned their survival on them. But the leak, caused by simple human error and then hidden by a super-injunction, elevates this from failure to farce. In peacetime, such a mistake would result in resignations. In wartime, it is a matter of life and death. What makes this more bitter is the contrast with how Britain treats those who serve in secret. The intelligence services are famously and admirably rigorous in protecting their sources. The names of spies and informants are held in complete confidence, often for decades, even centuries. The Official Secrets Act is not some dusty document; it is a living, breathing code of silence and protection. We will go to extraordinary lengths to protect the identity of someone who passed us information from behind the Iron Curtain. But if that person stood next to our soldiers in Helmand or Basra? They're on their own. The brave man or woman who helps us has no cloak of invisibility. Their name is on a roster; their visa applied for; their presence logged in databases vulnerable to error and neglect. He or she stands visibly beside British troops – and is abandoned visibly, too. There is also a cost beyond the moral. In future conflicts, Britain will need help. We will need local allies, interpreters, trackers, fixers. If those people look at our record and see betrayal and abandonment, they will think twice. And who can blame them? What rational person would risk everything for a power that consistently walks away when the danger turns inward? To rely on an alliance is not charity – it is mission-critical. Betray it, and your mission dies long before the bullets fly. It is time for this country to put its commitments in writing, not just in rhetoric. We need a legally binding contract with those who work alongside us in conflict zones – a promise of resettlement, of sanctuary, of long-term support. Their loyalty should not have to be bought. But it must, at the very least, be honoured. The time is surely right for legislation – a 'helper covenant', perhaps – ensuring asylum, relocation, practical support, recognition. Not token words, but actionable rights. Interpreters, trackers, drivers: titled, registered, resettled. If we fail to respond with urgency, clarity, and structural change, we will have answered the question long before it is asked again. We will have confirmed that the British promise is empty – that we honour valour only in victory, and neglect loyalty after withdrawal. It is time to decide: will we break the cycle, or will we let it continue? The Afghan leak is a scandal, but it is also our mirror. It reflects every forgotten scout, every bypassed interpreter, every ignored Gurkha. We have been here before and we keep choosing the same path. We puff ourselves up with rhetoric and then walk away. Tomorrow's potential allies are watching. In failing to protect those who served us so publicly, we chip away at our own credibility. And that may be our greatest betrayal of all.
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer swings axe in revenge for welfare rebellion
Live Sir Keir Starmer has suspended four rebellious Labour MPs from the party, two weeks after he suffered the biggest revolt of his premiership. Neil Duncan-Jordan, Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff and Rachael Maskell were all stripped of the whip on Wednesday afternoon after voting against Sir Keir's welfare reforms. The Prime Minister had hoped to cut the benefits bill by £5bn but was forced to significantly water down his plans in the face of a backbench revolt. The disciplinary action appears to be an attempt by the Prime Minister to stamp his authority on the party after he faced a rebellion of 49 MPs over his welfare reforms. Ms Maskell had tabled a wrecking amendment aimed at killing Sir Keir's welfare bill altogether. She had also heavily criticised the Government over the two-child benefit cap and cuts to the winter fuel allowance. Latest updates 16 July 2025 4:21pm 4:18PM Second suspended MP says he wishes to remain in Labour One of the MPs who has been suspended by Sir Keir Starmer has said that he wishes to remain in Labour, despite rebelling against the reforms. Brian Leishman as been a vocal critic of Sir Keir's policies on a range of issues and said the Prime Minister did not do enough to save the Grangemouth oil refinery in his constituency. He said in a statement: 'I wish to remain a Labour MP and deliver the positive change many voters are craving. 'I have voted against the Government on issues because I want to effectively represent and be the voice for communities across Alloa and Grangemouth. 'I firmly believe that it is not my duty as an MP to make people poorer, especially those that have suffered because of austerity and its dire consequences.' 4:16PM Suspended MP: I understood my decision could come at a cost One of the MPs suspended by Labour after rebelling over the proposed welfare reforms has said that he understood his actions 'could come at a cost'. Neil Duncan-Jordan, who was elected last year, organised a letter to The Guardian in May, which was highly critical of the original welfare bill and was signed by dozens of MPs. He defended his decision and insisted that he could not back the Prime Minister's benefit reforms. He said: 'Since being elected I have consistently spoken up for my constituents on a range of issues, including most recently on cuts to disability benefits. I understood this could come at a cost, but I couldn't support making disabled people poorer. 'Although I've been suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party today, I've been part of the Labour and trade union movement for 40 years and remain as committed as ever to its values. 'To my constituents, it's business as usual. I remain your hard-working local MP.' 4:15PM Starmer suspends four rebellious MPs after welfare revolt Sir Keir Starmer has suspended four rebellious Labour MPs from the party, two weeks after he suffered the biggest revolt of his premiership. Neil Duncan-Jordan, Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff and Rachael Maskell were all stripped of the whip on Wednesday afternoon after voting against Sir Keir's welfare reforms. The Prime Minister had hoped to cut the benefits bill by £5bn but was forced to significantly water down his plans in the face of a backbench revolt. The disciplinary action appears to be an attempt by the Prime Minister to stamp his authority on the party after he faced a rebellion of 49 MPs over his welfare reforms. Ms Maskell had tabled a wrecking amendment aimed at killing Sir Keir's welfare bill altogether. She had also heavily criticised the Government over the two-child benefit cap and cuts to the winter fuel allowance.
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Has Starmer finally developed a backbone?
Keir Starmer has just presented two obstinate fingers to his erstwhile friend and leader, Jeremy Corbyn. The current political narrative adopted by some critics of the Prime Minister is that he is a man in retreat, beleaguered on all flanks by failing policy initiatives, a rebellious party and a new Left-wing rival set to drain even more support away from the Government. In a stroke, by removing at least four (there may be more to come) rebellious MPs from the Labour whip, Starmer has just shown his determination to deal with all three problems at once. A leader who truly felt in a weak position would have found an excuse to delay taking any disciplinary action against those Labour MPs who organised the sizeable rebellion that forced ministers to surrender on the main provisions of the benefits reform Bill two weeks ago. The eventual capitulation was humiliating for Starmer and provided the worst 48 hours for the Government it has endured in a very uncomfortable year in office. Then, with the (perhaps premature) announcement by Zarah Sultana that she would be co-leading with Corbyn a new Left-wing party that would provide an alternative to discontented voters, Starmer looked even more on the defensive. But today, with the unexpected announcement that he has withdrawn the whip from the ringleaders of the welfare reform rebellion, the Prime Minister is back on the front foot. The message he is sending out is far more important than the mere fact that four relatively unknown back benchers – Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth), Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole), Chris Hinchcliff (North East Hertfordshire) and Rachael Maskell (York Central) – will now not be guaranteed the right to stand for re-election as Labour candidates when the next general election arrives. Basically, Starmer is saying to his suspended colleagues and to Corbyn's new enterprise: fill your boots. See if I care. He will recognise that all four suspended MPs might want to take their chances with Corbyn. But whether they do or not won't affect Labour's majority in any serious way. And they will come under pressure from their own local parties to stay and fight to get the whip back. Whatever they choose to do, Starmer has made it clear he will only have them back on his terms, as MPs willing to support this Government's agenda. If they want to leave, they're welcome to do so, but membership of the Parliamentary Labour Party comes with obligations that the leader expects will be fulfilled. It also suggests Starmer doesn't believe that Corbyn's new party, when it's launched, will have the attraction that its founders believe it will. Whether he's right or wrong in that, he is certainly right to give the impression that he is supremely confident of winning out. Meanwhile, the message to other potential rebels or anyone who might be considering taking a principled position on future legislation is: make sure you know what you're getting into. Because your actions might well get you out of the Labour Party for good. Is that what you want? For most, the answer will be a definite no.
