For Sally from the Druze town of Julis in the Western Galilee, the news of the Druze of Sweida being massacred by Islamist militia – some loyal to Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa – has hit home.
She lost contact with her grandmother in Sweida, southern Syria, 70 km. east from the Israeli border with the Golan Heights. “When the attacks started, one of my grandmother’s relatives called her, saying only, ‘Leave and pray for us; they are here.’”
She has been unable to reach her since. A week later, she received an update that another 20 relatives of her grandmother were publicly executed. All of the Azzam family were killed, related by kin to Sultan al-Atrash, a Druze revolutionary leader who fought the French to create modern Syria. The death confirmation was received through WhatsApp.
They are from the village of Umm el-Rumman, Southern Sweida province. Sally, tear-eyed, has one request from Israel: “If something happens to Gaza, the whole world cries. But because it happens to the Druze, nobody notices. Israel has a moral obligation to protect innocent minorities in the Middle East.”
Druze Col. Hamada Ghanem (res.), part of the Forum of Senior Druze Officers (Reserves) group, has been monitoring the situation. He states that Druze, numbering 600,000 in Syria, are a proud people that have always defended themselves. However, the problem began when Sharaa took over and triggered problems with minorities. “There are many organizations such as [ISIS] and Al-Nusra Front. They belong to Sharaa. So he talks with two faces; one to the West that he wants peace, but internally he uses these forces to deal with minorities.”
At the time of this writing, he reports that 34 villages have been destroyed, 214,000 people have been displaced, 1,800 people have been killed, 7,000 wounded, 461 taken hostage, five hospitals destroyed, and 85,000 households have been cut off from electricity, water and Internet.
While there is a ceasefire, it is tenuous at best, with Bedouin, some neighbors, but many coming from outside to intervene. Therefore, any ceasefire is not a complete one and could unravel at any time. Additionally, Sharaa wants to take the arms away from the Druze militia and to integrate them. “He has said that he is the state and the minorities must give their weapons to the state; but how can the Druze do such, with extremist organizations and anarchy? It is a death sentence,” he tells The Jerusalem Report.
He believes the answer is to incorporate the Syrian Druze as part of Israel’s defense framework. “The Druze are at a breaking point. After what I have seen, I do not believe they can continue to live under the rule of Ahmed al-Sharaa,” Ghanem says.
Dr. Salim Brake, a Druze political science lecturer of the Open University, sees the clashes as more than merely political but following religious lines to humiliate.
According to him, the massacre in Sweida happened for two reasons.
One is Islamist ideology that brands the Druze as infidels and therefore necessary to be slaughtered. This takes form utilizing works of medieval Muslim scholars such as Ibn Taimiyyah, who promoted the eradication of all who leave Islam, which in the modern sense includes the Druze and the Alawites. Sometimes Muslims deliberately promote misinformation such as Druze offending Mohammed to ignite the masses.
The other reason is association with Israel. Despite Sharaa’s claim to wanting rapprochement with Israel, the Islamist militias throughout the Muslim world present in Syria see Israel as an enemy. Sharaa promotes a “hands off” approach, claiming to be at Israel’s request, yet his security services in the militias proceed to commit the massacres. They come from across the Muslim world: Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Chechnya, North Africa among other places.
Additionally, Brake emphasizes the use of humiliation in the violence in Sweida in the following ways:
Humiliating symbols such as shaving the beards and mustaches of Druze leaders; use of rape to maximize hurt with more than 300 women raped in Sweida; infrastructure collapse and lack of physical ability to help hundreds of families; the silence of the world filled with the manipulative and hostile coverage of Arabic television and media in general, which also incited against the Druze.
Brake believes that Israeli policy statements that include mentions of “occupying Sweida” and a “greater Druze state” cause great harm to the Druze, and any policy should be done in silence rather than giving fuel to the fire of the Islamists.
However, he is grateful to Israel, its leadership, and support until now. “The civil society in Israel, including Jews of all walks of life, have given a lot of support to the Druze of Syria,” he says. “We need a low profile with the declarations of support, but more support is actively needed, for the situation of the Druze in Syria is very tragic.
Despite Israeli declarations to support the Druze, it isn’t in Israel’s direct strategic interest to intervene directly with ground forces, according to a Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security webinar on July 20, with experts who spoke on the matter of Israeli security.
Maintain peace among two key US allies
According to Jonathan Hessen, senior researcher on Syria, the US has a strategic interest in preventing conflict between two key regional allies – Israel and Turkiye. Following Bashar Assad’s fall in December, Washington supported a framework aimed at testing a new leadership under Ahmed al-Sharaa, despite his jihadist past. The goal was to stabilize Syria through pragmatic engagement and to avoid a power vacuum that could draw Israel and Turkiye into a regional clash.
“The actions were designed to cause Damascus to understand that there is a unique opportunity here that must be taken... There was also a push, also from Europeans and others, for this to succeed…everyone for their own interests. The most important interest was to prevent a conflict between Turkiye and Israel,” he said.
The US encouraged coordination between Turkiye and Israel to manage emerging threats, particularly around Sweida and southern Syria. Israel’s red lines: No heavy weaponry south of Damascus and no foreign forces within 80 km of its border were enforced through targeted military actions. Concurrently, Israel worked to protect the Druze population in Sweida, for moral reasons and to maintain regional stability. This was initially done through an agreement through the M5, 109, 110 major roadways, following previous clashes in April. However, the agreement fizzled out when the Syrian government could not secure control of the roadways.
“It was the Bedouin that began to operate actions against Druze vehicles on the 110 roadway in Sweida. ..(which) started a fight between Druze and Bedouin and the escalation rose dramatically. This happened as Sharaa was in Azerbaijan. He was in talks between the Azeris, Turks, Israelis, and Americans to come to agreements regarding matters south of Damascus including Sweida, where there was a shortage of water and electricity because Damascus used this to impose pressure for the areas to go under Damascus rule.”
What resulted, while the sides were talking in Baku, was an understanding also on the Israeli side to see Damascus enter Sweida to provide services. “However, Damascus did not see eye to eye. Already on July 13, al-Nusra and others entered Sweida. The US saw this as a misunderstanding and asked Israel to not fire in an attempt for Sharaa to withdraw his forces. Already on July 14, there was an attack against five tanks that went down the M5 highway that were on their way to Sweida…to deliver a message to turn back or there would be consequences. These messages were sent through the Azeris, Egyptians, Turks, and also the US.”
On July 14, Israel did not receive the answer it wanted, so it took very substantial action and started to act on the side of the Druze to provide air protection for Druze fighters. This is what changed the calculation. In light of the Israeli actions, Sharaa’s forces began to run away. So as not to appear to lose, he made an agreement with Tom Barrack, the American representative for Syria, to provide a 48-hour window for a full withdrawal also for the Bedouin.
As Islamist and Bedouin militias linked to Sharaa escalated into violence, Israel intervened with air support for Druze fighters. This forced Sharaa into a temporary withdrawal, brokered with American mediation. This eventually led to an Israeli understanding for police forces to enter Sweida. The American priority remained clear: prevent a rupture between Israel and Turkiye while cautiously testing whether Sharaa could deliver regional stability without reigniting extremist conflict.
To not enter the Sweida mud
Major-General (res.) Yaakov Amidror agreed on the need to not enter the Sweida mud. “Different groups in Syria are operating based on their own very narrow interests. It is a result of many years of Sunnis controlled by the Alawites and minorities that connected with them… We need to not enter there. If we didn’t have a commitment to the Israeli Druze, it would be forbidden for us to enter… When you enter the mud, you encounter many problems.”
Under no conditions must Israel support the “Druze state” from Sweida to Hermon, Amidror said, as it is beyond Israel’s abilities and complicates matters with endless problems. Rather, he emphasized a minimalist approach:
“We must do the maximum possible to create the minimum that Druze do not get slaughtered. Everything else, we do not intervene”.
Instead, Israel should take a wait and see approach regarding Sharaa. The violence may not even have an Islamist perspective, Amidror speculated. Rather, what it may demonstrate is a “sectarian worldview where the Sunnis show their strength, power, and ability to impose on others what they once couldn’t control previously,” he said.
Amidror does not believe that a major breakthrough will happen, but smooth steps forward are possible. “I am not optimistic that there will suddenly be an Israeli mission in Damascus or a Syrian recognition of an Israeli Golan. Rather, the creation of an environment where each one recognizes the operational requirements of the other, the red lines of the other, and what happens when the lines are crossed and the use of force,” he said.
At the end of the day, the policy is about red lines but there is a dialogue. “We are in a dialogue with Sharaa. We need clear red lines that if they are crossed, we will act,” he said.■