Syrian president, Lebanon's grand mufti hold ‘frank' talks in Damascus
Derian's visit was the first by a Lebanese Sunni religious leader to Syria in more than 20 years, signaling a thaw in relations between the two nations that had been strained since the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and the start of the Syrian war in 2011.
Described as 'frank,' the meeting addressed past estrangements and shared aspirations for renewal.
Derian, accompanied by a delegation of religious leaders, including Sheikh Mohammed Assaf, head of the Sunni Shariah courts, emphasized the importance of reconciliation and cooperation.
'After a long absence we come to reform the present and build a prosperous future,' he said, acknowledging the suffering of millions of Syrians and praising their resilience in the face of extremism and displacement.
He lauded the Syrian Arab Republic's path toward free elections under Al-Sharaa — the first for more than 60 years — and expressed hope for its revival as a pillar of the Arab world and ability to overcome challenges like the recent Damascus church bombing, which he cited as evidence of ongoing conspiracies.
'Syrians will not be defeated by terrorism,' he said, praising Al-Sharaa's navigation of a 'difficult and arduous' road.
Derian underscored a renewed Lebanese-Syrian partnership founded on mutual support and Arab unity, and highlighted the promise of Lebanon's own trajectory under a new government committed to the Taif Agreement.
'The hopes of the Lebanese are pinned on what was contained in the ministerial statement and the presidential oath, which are the beginning of the road to rebuilding a strong and just state, striving to serve all the Lebanese,' he said.
'Lebanon's rise can only be achieved through the efforts of its best and loyal sons, both residents and expatriates, and the support of his Arab brothers and friends.'
He said there could be no salvation for Lebanon except through 'sincere and constructive cooperation' with other Arab nations, which he described as the 'guarantee of Lebanon's security, stability, sovereignty, national unity and civilized Arabism which believes in the commitment to the Taif Agreement document … sponsored by Saudi Arabia.'
As a symbol of the strong ties between Lebanon and Syria, Derian presented Al-Sharaa with the Dar Al-Fatwa Gold Medal.
'We will stand with you in every calamity and joy,' he said.
The visit, coordinated with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, began with prayers at the Umayyad Mosque and a stop at Mount Qasioun.
In a separate meeting with Syrian Minister of Endowments Mohammed Abu Al-Khair, Derian emphasized Dar Al-Fatwa's role in promoting moderate Islam, citizenship and coexistence amid regional challenges.
A Lebanese political observer framed the visit as a pivotal shift, not just religious but political, signaling Lebanese Sunnis' readiness to forge a 'new and normal' relationship with Syria's emerging leadership.
The visit underscores Lebanon's reaffirmation of its Arab identity and commitment to moderation, moving beyond decades of tension marked by assassinations and conflict.
Hezbollah, through its activists on social media, reacted cautiously to Derian's visit to Damascus and his meeting with Al-Sharaa, with some accusing him of 'stabbing the party in the back.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
9 hours ago
- Arab News
Reviving May 17 Agreement could be a solution for Lebanon
Historians describe it as a perfect failure: because it was both perfect and it failed. It was also called mission impossible because of the Syrian opposition to it. The May 17 Agreement of 1983 between Israel and Lebanon, however, remains the only official document negotiated directly between the two states — and there are many reasons why we should go back to it to get us out of the current impasse. Yes, we are at an impasse and there are very good reasons for it. Simply put, there are too many overlapping conversations happening at the same time, between the wrong people, and they need to be separated to get the right results. This is heavily dependent on who is discussing what: the interlocutor is key. The optics are bad, as when the government makes promises, they are almost immediately contradicted by Hezbollah. Lebanon is losing credibility and we are being lectured about missed opportunities and about being 'left behind' while the region moves forward. It is painful to watch and there are rumors of resignations and of the government collapsing. This is the last thing we need. The core problem is and has always been the Israel-Lebanon border. In 1983, it was the Palestine Liberation Organization launching rockets and operations across it, while today it is the arms of Hezbollah and Israel's attacks and invasions to counter them. The government of Lebanon is working on two fronts. It is negotiating its relations with Israel after a war that it did not participate in and had no say on how it started or how it ended. At the same time, it is negotiating with Hezbollah over the application of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which Lebanon has twice committed to — firstly in 2006 under the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and then in November 2024 under Najib Mikati. Both cases were huge feats of internal and external diplomacy, which should be seen as a success of the Lebanese system and not as a failure. But both agreements were for no more than a cessation of hostilities, which is less than a ceasefire and certainly far from an end to the state of war between the two countries. The debate over Hezbollah's arms has to remain internal and is no less complicated than that over the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the US. The narrative is tied to that of resistance to the 22-year Israeli occupation of south Lebanon between 1978 and 2000, which the Lebanese state recognizes. In a nutshell, Hezbollah can give up its arms but not its status as a resistance force. Disarming Hezbollah is about the future of the country, while Hezbollah's resistance is part of its past. It is also about coming to terms with a humiliating military defeat while maintaining the glories of past successes. This is a delicate balance that can only be achieved through conversations within the party, between the party and its community, and with the rest of the country. This is also tied to reconstruction and recovery, both from last year's war and the economic and financial crisis. Trust me, it is difficult enough without external participation and it has to happen in-house. Disarming Hezbollah is about the future of the country, while Hezbollah's resistance is part of its past. Nadim Shehadi In comparison, the question of relations with Israel is straightforward — and this is where reviving the May 17 Agreement comes in. It was a result of Israel and Lebanon engaging in direct state-to-state negotiations, with American facilitation and guarantees. The agreement was approved by the Lebanese parliament after long discussions, with every point of the text widely discussed. In his recently published memoirs, former Lebanese Foreign Minister Elie Salem emphasized that it was not a peace treaty and did not result in the normalization of relations, such as an exchange of ambassadors. It was also not connected with the Syrian presence in the country — this was the only way to sell it internally. In a way, all three parties approached the negotiations with widely differing expectations. David Kimche, the Israeli negotiator, has described how every point was hotly debated and had to be sold to all the different parties in Lebanon. He explained that his Lebanese counterpart Antoine Fattal was a Chaldean by religion, his deputy and head of the military committee was Shiite and the civilian members included another Shiite, a Sunni Muslim, a Maronite and a Greek Orthodox Catholic. It was inconceivable that such a team could agree on any major issue, especially as each had to separately consult with their community leaders. Fattal pointed out that his delegation was like a convoy that had to continuously adjust its speed to that of the slowest ship. Salem recounted how, with the approval of US envoy Philip Habib, President Amine Gemayel had to withdraw from the agreement after Israel insisted on conditions about a simultaneous Syrian withdrawal that were not part of the text. There was already enough pressure from Damascus against the agreement — under the slogan that the two paths, those of Lebanon and Syria, were intertwined. Hafez Assad was obviously concerned that an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon would trigger calls for Syria to do the same, which is what ultimately happened after Israel did finally withdraw in 2000. The main reason for the Lebanese government to revive the May 17 Agreement is to regain the initiative and earn credibility by owning the process and separating the Israeli component from the internal Lebanese discussion with Hezbollah. It would be almost impossible to initiate such a direct state-to-state process with Israel, but it is feasible to pick up where they left off and move forward. As Fattal explained about the complexity of Lebanon's internal situation, the overall package is more important than the contents. • Nadim Shehadi is an economist and political adviser. X: @Confusezeus
Arab News
9 hours ago
- Arab News
Syria's government and Kurds still at odds over merging forces after latest talks, US envoy says
DAMASCUS: A US envoy said on Wednesday that Syria's central government and the Kurds remain at odds over plans on merging forces after the latest round of talks. US Ambassador to Turkiye Tom Barrack, who is also a special envoy to Syria, told The Associated Press after meetings in Damascus that differences between the two sides remain. Barrack spoke after meeting with Mazloum Abdi, head of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, and Syria's interim President Ahmad Al-Sharaa in the Syrian capital. In early March, the new authorities in Damascus signed a landmark deal with the US-backed, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. Under that deal, the SDF forces would be merged with the new national army. The agreement, which is supposed to be implemented by the end of the year, would also bring all border crossings with Iraq and Turkiye, airports, and oil fields in the northeast under the central government's control. Detention centers housing thousands of suspected members of the Daesh group would also come under government control. However, the agreement left the details vague, and progress on implementation has been slow. A major sticking point has been whether the SDF would remain as a cohesive unit in the new army — which the Kurds have pushed for — or whether it would be dissolved and its members absorbed into the new military as individuals. Barrack said that question remains 'a big issue' between the two sides.
Arab News
9 hours ago
- Arab News
US envoy calls for change in Lebanese political culture in interview with LBCI Lebanon
BEIRUT: Lebanon's politicians have spent 60 years 'denying, detouring and deflecting,' the US special envoy Tom Barrack said in an interview broadcast on Wednesday. Barrack has been in Lebanon to talk with political leaders over Washington's proposals to disarm the powerful militant group Hezbollah. Asked whether the Lebanese politicians he has been dealing with were actually engaging with him or just buying time, the diplomat responded 'both.' 'The Lebanese political culture is deny, detour and deflect,' Barrack said. 'This is the way that it's been for 60 years, and this is the task we have in front of us. It has to change.' After meeting President Joseph Aoun on Monday, he reacted positively to the Lebanese government's response to a US plan to remove Hezbollah's weapons. In an interview with Lebanese broadcaster LBCI, Barrack said he believed the president, prime minister and the speaker of the house were being 'candid, honest, and forthright' with him. But he warned Lebanon's politicians that the region is changing and if the politicians didn't want to change as well 'just tell us, and we'll not interfere.' While he did not disclose the details of the US proposals, or the Lebanese response, Barrack said Lebanon's leadership had to be willing to take a risk. 'We need results from these leaders,' he said. Lebanon's politicians have long been accused of corruption and putting self-interest first ahead of the good of the nation and the Lebanese people. Public anger came to a head in 2019 with mass public protests against corruption and financial hardship. The Lebanese economy spiraled into a financial crisis with the country defaulting on its debt and the currency collapsing. Barrack, who is also Washington's ambassador to Turkiye and special envoy for Syria, said the US was offering Lebanon a helping hand rather than trying to interfere in its politics. 'We've only said one thing, if you want us to help you, we're here to usher, we're here to help. We're here to protect to the extent that we can,' he said. 'But we're not going to intervene in regime change. We're not going to intervene in politics. And if you don't want us, no problem, we'll go home. That's it.' Barrack said Hezbollah, which is viewed as a terrorist organization by the US and is also a political party with 13 MPs in Lebanon 'is a Lebanese problem, not a world problem.' 'We've already, from a political point of view, said it's a terrorist organization. They mess with us anywhere, just as the president (Trump) has established on a military basis, they're going to have a problem with us. How that gets solved within Lebanon is another issue … It's up to the Lebanese people.' Barrack said the disarmament of Hezbollah had always been based on a simple fact for President Donald Trump: 'One nation, one people, one army.' 'If that's the case, if that's what this political body chooses, then we will usher, will help, will influence, and will be that intermediary with all of the potential combatants or adversaries who are on your borders,' Barrack said. The diplomat dismissed media speculation that the US had set timelines for its proposals, but said while Trump had been extremely proactive on Lebanon, he would not wait long for progress. 'Nobody is going to stick around doing this until next May,' he said. 'I don't think there's ever been a president since Dwight Eisenhower who came out with such ferocity for Lebanon. On his own, he (Trump) has the courage, he has the dedication, he has the ability. What he doesn't have is patience. 'If Lebanon wants to just keep kicking this can down the road, they can keep kicking the can down the road, but we're not going to be here in May having this discussion.' During the near hour-long, wide-ranging interview, Barrack, whose grandparents emigrated from Lebanon to the US, everybody across Lebanon's many religions and sects was tired of war and discontent. 'If we have 19 different religions and 19 different communities and 19 different confessionals, there's one thing that's above that, and that's being Lebanese,' he said. The Trump administration is keen to support Lebanon and Aoun, who became president in January, as the country struggles to emerge from years of economic hardship, political turmoil and regional unrest. Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, had become the most powerful military force in the country and a major political power, but was significantly weakened by an Israeli campaign against the group last year. Its weapons arsenal has remained an ongoing thorn in the side of US-Lebanon relations. Along with disarming Hezbollah, the US proposals presented to Lebanese officials by Barrack last month are thought to include economic reforms to help the country move forward.
