The Saudi Position On The Massacres Against The Druze In Syria: Unreserved Support For President Al-Sharaa, Condemnation Of The 'Aggressive Enemy' Israel For Its Intervention

Memri

2 days ago

During the recent deadly clashes in Al-Suwayda, Saudi Arabia expressed unreserved support for the Al-Sharaa regime and its handling of the crisis, while sharply condemning Israel's intervention in defense of the Druze. The acts of killing and humiliation against the Druze minority did not cause Saudi Arabia to rethink the backing it has extended to the Syrian president since he seized power in the country late last year. In a phone call with Al-Sharaa, Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman praised the president's moves in Al-Suwayda and expressed confidence in his ability to preserve Syria's stability and unity. At the same time, Bin Salman condemned Israel's strikes in Syria as "interference" in the country's "internal affairs."
As stated, Saudi Arabia has supported the new Syrian regime since its inception. This is despite the fact that this regime is backed by Turkey and Qatar, the patrons of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is designated as a terrorist organization in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, it appears that the Saudi stance has also influenced U.S. President Donald Trump's position towards the new Syrian state and its president. It was during a visit to Saudi Arabia in May 2025 that Trump announced the lifting of sanctions from Syria and also held his first meeting with Al-Sharaa, along with Muhammad Bin Salman and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.[1]
This Saudi stance was also reflected in the Saudi press. Israel's intervention in defense of the Druze was presented in the press as a move by an aggressive enemy state seeking to stoke conflicts in Syria, and called on the international community to restrain Israel. The articles claimed that Israel is exploiting the conflict in Al-Suwayda to perpetuate division in Syria, facilitate its partition, and take over more Syrian territory – and therefore "no peace can be expected" from this country. An article on the Saudi news site Elaph even warned the Druze against turning to an "outside enemy" for help.
The presentation of the Al-Suwayda massacres in the Saudi press likewise conformed to the stance of the Saudi regime and to its unreserved support for Al-Sharaa's government. Throughout the deadly incidents in Al-Suwayda the Saudi press completely ignored the massacres perpetrated by Al-Sharaa's supporters against the Druze population. Nor did they make any mention of the Islamist and jihadist organizations that operate in Syria under the sponsorship of the regime and have attacked the Druze and other minorities. Moreover, the Saudi papers refrained from discussing the state of the minorities in Syria and from criticizing Syria's interim constitution, ratified by Al-Sharaa in March 2025, which excludes minorities from the country's decision-making circles.[2] Only two weeks after the massacres against the Druze did some implicit criticism begin to be voiced in the press regarding the Syrian regime's conduct towards the minorities in the country.
As for Israel's intervention in defense of the Druze, the Saudi press presented it as a move by an aggressive enemy state seeking to stoke conflicts in Syria, and called on the international community to restrain Israel. The articles claimed that Israel is exploiting the conflict in Al-Suwayda to perpetuate division in Syria, facilitate its partition, and take over more Syrian territory – and therefore "no peace can be expected" from this country. An article on the Saudi news site Elaph even warned the Druze against turning to an "outside enemy" for help.
July 6, 2025 Cartoon in London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: Israel pours oil on the fire in Al-Suwayda
This report presents the discourse in the Saudi media regarding the Al-Sharaa regime's handling of the deadly events in Al-Suwayda.
Editorial In Al-Riyad Daily: The Chaos Must Be Stopped From Spreading To The Neighboring Countries
An editorial in the daily Al-Riyad stressed the Saudi support for the Al-Sharaa regime and for Syria's territorial integrity stems from concern that the deepening religious and ethnic conflicts in Syria could spread to other countries in the region. "Syria's unity is not a political luxury," the daily said. "It is vital to regional security and to preventing the spread of chaos into the neighboring lands."[3]
The government daily Okaz took care to convey that the Syrian regime was dealing successfully with the crisis in Al-Suwayda. Its July 20 editorial stated: "…The encouraging sign is that the Syrian regime, which receives security, political and economic support from Saudi Arabia, has proven its ability to handle every development, including the events in Al-Suwayda… More than that, it exposed the intentions of external forces that tried and are still trying to mire Syria in internecine fighting in order to destabilize the [Syrians'] country and undermine their unity, which is the source of their strength."[4]
Editor Of Saudi Daily Al-Jazirah: Israel Is An Aggressive Country; The Syrians Must Not Let The Israeli Enemy Interfere In Their Affairs
Harsh criticism of Israel was also voiced by Khaled Bin Hamad Al-Malik, chief editor of the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah, who wrote on July 17: "Israel's goal is to leave Syria in a state of chaos and instability, drag it into civil war and prevent it from recovering after the rebels have [finally] eliminated the Bashar Al-Assad regime."[5] On July 20 he wrote: "Creating a climate of conflict is a typical Israeli policy that we are already used to, and today it is employing it in Syria… It is unclear when this aggressive country will ever be deterred, and how long the lenience towards this usurping power, which does not recognize international law, will continue."[6]
In yet another article, from July 21, Al-Malik wrote that if Israel is not restrained today, it will repeat what it did in Syria in other countries, and repeat what it did in Al-Suwayda in other parts of Syria: "If Israel's conduct goes unpunished and without reckoning… it will regard itself entitled to repeat it in other countries, on the pretext of defending some group of citizens [within them], just as it did in Syria when it claimed to be defending the Druze minority… Israel will not hesitate to repeat in Dera and in other Syrian cities and provinces what it did in Al-Suwayda, as part of its attempts to take over more [Syrian] territory. The Syrians must not allow the Israeli enemy to interfere [again] in the future as it did in Al-Suwayda."[7]
Saudi Writers: Israel Is Using The Druze To Achieve Its Aims; "No Peace Can Be Expected" From It
Some articles argued that Israel does not really care about the Druze or any other minority group, but is using them to divide Syria and to destabilize regional countries by sparking internal conflicts within them. Journalist Adel Al-Harbi wrote in the government daily Okaz on July 22: "What the Netanyahu government is doing is not new. This is just a new method, which involves using minorities to gain political profits by dividing and destabilizing countries and dragging them into internal conflicts. We all know that Israel is not interested in the Druze or in any other minority, but is just using them as a means to achieve its aims… No peace can be expected from a government for whom savagery is part of an official policy and which purports to defend minorities while crushing minorities within [its own borders]."[8]
The Druze Minority Must Not Seek Aid From An "External Enemy"
The articles, which refrained from addressing the Al-Suwayda massacres themselves, exhorted the Syrian Druze to resolve the crisis by relying on the state and its armed forces, not with the help of external forces, which would exclude them from the fold of Syrian society. For example, Saudi commentator Dr. Turki Al-Qublan wrote on the Saudi news site Elaph: "…Popular memory distinguishes sharply between those who criticized the regime from within the country and those who sought outside help in a bid to dismantle the country or sanction its dismantling. We do not blame anyone for making legitimate demands for reform. But whoever seeks the help of the Israeli occupier on the pretext of needing its protection is writing his political record with a borrowed pen… A sect that wants to have a future does not turn to a historic enemy for help, but seeks national integration as part of an overall sovereign program. One who turns to the occupier for protection is not just making a political mistake but is rejecting the logic of history and the ethic of coexistence… Whoever takes Israel as a partner chooses to be an enemy of the future."[9]
Some Syrian online influencers went even further in condemning the Druze, likening them to the Lebanese Hizbullah and the Houthis in Yemen who collaborate with outside forces, dissociate themselves from the state and undermine the stability of the region. Saudi influencer "Columbus" wrote on X: "The Houthi Mountains, the Druze Mountains, the Alawite Mountains, the Amal Mountains in Lebanon. [These are all] groups and minorities that isolated themselves in the mountains, fled from the warm [embrace] of their nation, barricaded themselves in caves, collaborated throughout history with invaders, and became a knife in the nation's back."[10]
In another post, "Columbus" shared an image of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu petting a dog bearing the face of Hikmat Al-Hijri, the leader of the Druze community in Syria, and saying "Well done, doggie."[11]
Two Weeks After The Massacre, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Urges Al-Sharaa To Reconsider His Attitude To The Syrian Minorities
Only two weeks after the massacres against the Druze did a Saudi paper – specifically, the Al-Sharq Al-Awsat daily, which is based in London and is considered more liberal than the Saudi papers published inside the kingdom – publish articles that implicitly expressed some reservations about the Syrian regime's treatment of the minorities. An article by Zaid Bin Kami, secretary-general of the Al-Arabiya network, voiced concern that "regional countries," hinting at Israel, would exploit the sectarian tensions in Syria "to divide the country and reassemble it on sectarian lines and on the basis of loyalties that transcend borders." He therefore called on Al-Sharaa's government to reconsider its policy and show openness towards the minorities in order to reassure them.
Bin Kami wrote: "In light of the tense climate, today, more than ever before, the Syrian government needs to reexamine its handling of historically-sensitive domestic issues, with emphasis on anyone who harms certain sectors of society." He added: "A reexamination of conduct is not a sign of weakness or of giving up [one's principles]. It reflects political courage and proactiveness in heeding the voices that express concern. Showing openness towards the various sectors [of society] is not a political luxury, but a pressing national necessity. A state that seeks to head towards the future is not afraid of [achieving] calm and does not regard dialogue as weakness but as a means to rebuild trust. The minute the minorities feel protected, and the majority realizes it bears responsibility [for protecting them], the homeland will resume its course, and the shrill voices will grow quiet [and embrace] the collective program. Syria cannot withstand more conflict among brothers. It needs a national plan that bypasses narrow identities…"[12]
Saudi researcher Fahd Sauleiman Al-Shaqiran took a similar stance when he implicitly criticized Al-Sharaa's interim constitution, approved in March 2025, for excluding the minorities from Syria's decision-making. He wrote: "Whenever momentous developments occur, the minorities' survival instinct suddenly grows stronger, and that is justified and understandable, of course. The only way to allay their concerns, or at least minimize them, is to pass firm laws that safeguard the future of all sects and respect their rituals and beliefs in the framework of a civil society and a strong state with fair institutions. Without this, the conflict will be prolonged and exact a steep human price."[13]