War Crimes Likely Committed by Both Sides in Syria Sectarian Violence, UN Commission says
Some 1,400 people, mainly civilians, were reported killed during the violence that primarily targeted Alawi communities, and reports of violations continue, according to a report by the UN Syria Commission of Inquiry.
"The scale and brutality of the violence documented in our report is deeply disturbing," said Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Chair of the Commission, in a statement released alongside the report.
Torture, killings and inhumane acts related to the treatment of the dead were documented by the UN team which based its research on more than 200 interviews with victims and witnesses as well as visits to mass grave sites.
The incidents in the coastal region were the worst violence to hit Syria since the fall of President Bashar al-Assad last year, prompting the interim government to name a fact-finding committee.
There was no immediate public comment in response to the report from interim authorities nor from former Syrian officials, many of whom have left the country.
A Reuters investigation last month found nearly 1,500 Syrian Alawites - the minority sect of Assad - had been killed and identified a chain of command from the attackers directly to men who serve alongside Syria's new leaders.
New Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa has previously denounced the violence as a threat to his mission to unite the country and promised to punish those responsible.
The commission acknowledged in its report the commitment of Syria's interim authorities to identify those responsible but said the scale of the violence warranted further steps.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
More of the same in Afghanistan as Taliban mark four years since return
The Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in 2021 for the second time. Since then, the former insurgents have consolidated their grip on power, excluded women and girls from public life, stamped out internal dissent and external challengers, and gained debut recognition as the country's official government from Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The Taliban govern through decrees, but Afghans have aspirations and needs that cannot be fulfilled through edicts and ideology. Climate change, an increasing population, and severe cuts to foreign aid will test the Taliban's ability to lead and not just rule. Here are five things to know about the Taliban as they start their fifth year in power: The supreme leader has cemented his legacy Kandahar-based Hibatullah Akhundzada has led the Taliban from insurgency to authority since his appointment in 2016. But transition and status are peripheral to what he has wanted for the past 20 years: establishing an Islamic system. Central to this vision was his ratification last year of the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice Law, which codifies many aspects of Afghan life, including who people can befriend. In June, Akhundzada said the Taliban had fought and sacrificed themselves for the implementation of Islamic law. It was obligatory to follow the leadership's commands and directives, he added, and everyone was required to act within the bounds of this obedience. His supporters emphasize his superior religious authority to issue decrees. The higher education minister went one step further in April, equating criticism of Akhundzada with blasphemy and saying obedience to him was a divine order. 'He (the leader) decides what moves and what doesn't move, what happens and what doesn't,' said Ibraheem Bahiss, a senior analyst with Crisis Group's Asia program. The Taliban's internal differences are buried deep There were pockets within the Taliban that initially advocated lifting bans on women and girls, or at least modifying them, to allow greater global and financial engagement. Akhundzada and his circle withstood such pressure, however, and the Taliban government has emerged from its isolation to develop diplomatic ties and raise several billion dollars every year in tax revenues to keep the lights on. Power brokers, like Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani, have been weakened. Since November, Akhundzada has had direct control over Afghanistan's weapons and military equipment, sidelining the Interior Ministry and the Defense Ministry, which is run by Mullah Mohammad Yaqoob, whose father founded the Taliban. Haqqani, whose uncle was killed in a high-profile suicide attack last December, used to take swipes at the leadership. Not anymore. Haqqani, who heads a powerful network of his own, cannot start a fight with the Kandahar faction and win. Political deputy Sher Abbas Stanikzai rebuked Akhundzada in January, stating the education bans had no basis in Islamic law, or Sharia. He left Afghanistan shortly afterwards and remains outside the country. He denies reports that he fled or faced arrest had he stayed. Akhundzada has put Islamic law at the heart of his leadership, while also putting his leadership at the heart of its implementation. 'He's made himself indispensable, and the entire movement is beholden to him,' Bahiss said. There's no sign of change for Afghan women and girls Russia's recognition of the Taliban sends a 'deeply troubling' message, said Zahra Nader, the editor-in-chief of the Afghan women-led newsroom Zan Times. 'It tells the Taliban they can continue to suppress women's rights and commit systematic human rights violations without facing consequences. They are being rewarded for it. This move is a slap in the face to Afghan women.' There is opposition to the Taliban's policies, but people are fearful because no powerful alternative exists, she said. The Taliban 'took the country by force and maintained control' through violence. Women took to Afghanistan's streets in protest after the takeover, but these were met with retaliation. 'The absence of visible protest should not be mistaken for acceptance,' said Nader. 'It reflects the extreme risks people face for dissent. The resistance is still there, quiet, private, and simmering, but public expression has been crushed through fear and force.' The Taliban insist that women's rights are protected. Nader says that, although there is 'little faith' that the country's rulers will change their policies, women are preparing themselves 'emotionally and intellectually' for a future beyond the Taliban. 'That hope, that this brutality will not last forever, is what keeps many of them going. These women do not believe the regime will change its stance on women's rights.' Regional ties are transactional It's not trust or shared values that define the Taliban's relationships. Afghanistan borders six countries, many of which are trade partners and also balk at being lectured by the West on rights and freedoms. Landlocked Afghanistan is sandwiched between the Middle East, Central Asia, and South Asia, making it strategically located for energy-rich and energy-hungry nations. The Taliban's bilateral relations proceed on common ground: borders, water, transit, and security. Anti-migrant rhetoric, especially in Europe, could increase diplomatic engagement as political parties in the West seek to placate their supporters. The UK-based International Institute for Strategic Studies said the Taliban's broader diplomatic interactions were eroding the 'non-recognition' approach of the West and ushering in 'creeping normalization.' The Taliban feel comfortable in the region and have found an acceptable way of operating, while the region has adjusted to their presence. 'What we've seen in the last four years is not real pressure (on the Taliban), but rather normalization and appeasement,' Nader said. 'For those of us watching from inside and outside Afghanistan, this is not just political, it's personal. It's painful. It confirms our fear that the suffering of Afghan women is being sidelined in favor of political interests.' The real test for the Taliban is yet to come Until April, the US was the largest donor to Afghanistan, where more than half of the population relies on aid to survive. But it terminated this emergency assistance due to concerns that the Taliban were benefiting from such aid. Thousands of Afghans, including women, will lose their jobs as nongovernmental organizations and agencies scale back their work or shut down. The loss of jobs, contracts, and the shrinking humanitarian footprint also equate to a loss in revenue for the Taliban. One UN agency said there were 'reputational and staff security risks' where humanitarian agencies were forced to suspend operations due to reduced funding, causing grievances among communities, or after partners couldn't pay suppliers or complete contracts. Aid officials warn that frustration and an increase in tensions will trigger spontaneous violence as people compete for resources and services. The cuts coincide with the mass expulsions of Afghans from neighboring countries, swelling the population and the ranks of the unemployed while also halting the flow of inward remittances. The World Health Organization estimates the population will increase by 85 percent to 76.88 million by 2050. Afghanistan needs to give people food, shelter, and economic opportunities. Thomas Ruttig, from the Afghanistan Analysts Network, recalled meeting a leading Taliban figure in a 'completely rundown' office during the late 1990s. The Taliban fighter told him they could live under those circumstances, but foreigners couldn't. 'What they also say is that Afghans can live under those circumstances, which, to an extent, is true,' said Ruttig. 'They were forced to live under those circumstances and have learned how to cope.' Now their means of coping — houses, land, and some savings — are gone. The Taliban took it for granted that they won the war with the help of Allah and the population, he explained. He added that, although the Taliban were a reflection of Afghans' ambitions, they needed to open up and listen to people's concerns. 'But they know the more they open up, the more they are questioned, and their rule might be undermined.' The Taliban needed to think about whether they wanted to govern the country simply to rule it, said Ruttig. 'Or do we want to rule this country to make Afghanistan a better place to live? That's probably the big question in front of them.'
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
20 years after its landmark withdrawal from Gaza, Israel is mired there
TEL AVIV: Twenty years ago, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, dismantling 21 Jewish settlements and pulling out its forces. The Friday anniversary of the start of the landmark disengagement comes as Israel is mired in a nearly 2-year war with Hamas that has devastated the Palestinian territory and means it is likely to keep troops there long into the disengagement, which also included removing four settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, was then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's controversial attempt to jump-start negotiations with the Palestinians. But it bitterly divided Israeli society and led to the empowerment of Hamas, with implications that continue to reverberate emotional images of Jews being ripped from their homes by Israeli soldiers galvanized Israel's far-right and settler movements. The anger helped them organize and increase their political influence, accounting in part for the rise of hard-line politicians like National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Thursday, Smotrich boasted of a settlement expansion plan east of Jerusalem that will 'bury' the idea of a future Palestinian Palestinians, even if they welcomed the disengagement, it didn't end Israel's control over their after, Hamas won elections in 2006, then drove out the Palestinian Authority in a violent takeover. Israel and Egypt imposed a closure on the territory, controlling entry and exit of goods and people. Though its intensity varied over the years, the closure helped impoverish the population and entrenched a painful separation from Palestinians in the West captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians claim all three territories for a future independent state.A unilateral withdrawal enhanced Hamas' statureIsrael couldn't justify the military or economic cost of maintaining the heavily fortified settlements in Gaza, explained Kobi Michael, a senior researcher at the Misgav Institute and the Institute for National Security Studies think tanks. There were around 8,000 Israeli settlers and 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza in 2005.'There was no chance for these settlements to exist or flourish or become meaningful enough to be a strategic anchor,' he said. By contrast, there are more than 500,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, most living in developed settlement blocs that have generally received more support from Israeli society, Michael said. Most of the world considers the settlements illegal under international Israel withdrew unilaterally, without any coordination with the Palestinian Authority, it enhanced Hamas' stature among Palestinians in Gaza.'This contributed to Hamas' win in the elections in 2006, because they leveraged it and introduced it as a very significant achievement,' Michael said. 'They saw it as an achievement of the resistance and a justification for the continuation of the armed resistance.'Footage of the violence between Israeli settlers and Israeli soldiers also created an 'open wound' in Israeli society, Michael said.'I don't think any government will be able to do something like that in the future,' he said. That limits any flexibility over settlements in the West Bank if negotiations over a two-state solution with the Palestinians ever resume.'Disengagement will never happen again, this is a price we're paying as a society, and a price we're paying politically,' he of the first settlers longs to returnAnita Tucker, now 79, was part of the first nine Jewish families that moved to the Gaza Strip in 1976. She and her husband and their three kids lived in an Israeli army outpost near what is today Deir Al-Balah, while the settlement of Netzer Hazoni was from Brooklyn, she started a farm growing vegetables in the harsh, tall sand dunes. At first relations were good with their Palestinian neighbors, she said, and they worked hard to build their home and a 'beautiful community.' She had two more children, and three chose to stay and raise their families in Netzer can still recall the moment, 20 years ago, when 1,000 Israeli soldiers arrived at the gate to the settlement to remove the approximately 400 residents. Some of her neighbors lit their houses on fire in protest.'Obviously it was a mistake to leave. The lives of the Arabs became much worse, and the lives of the Jews became much, much worse, with rockets and Oct. 7,' she said, referring to the decades of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel and the date in 2023 of the Hamas attack that launched the ongoing the passage of time, her family still is 'yearning and longing for their home,' she said. Several of her 10 grandchildren, including some who spent their early childhood in the Gaza settlements, have served in the current war and were near her old house.'It's hard to believe, because of all the terrible things that happened that we predicted, but we're willing to build there again,' said doubt Israel will ever fully withdraw from Gaza againAfter Israel's withdrawal 20 years ago, many Palestinians described Gaza as an 'open-air prison.' They had control on the inside – under a Hamas government that some supported but some saw as heavy-handed and brutal. But ultimately, Israel had a grip around the Palestinians believe Sharon carried out the withdrawal so Israel could focus on cementing its control in the West Bank through settlement some believe more direct Israeli occupation is returning to Gaza. After 22 months of war, Israeli troops control more than 75 percent of Gaza, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks of maintaining security control long term after the Shawa, the director of the Palestinian NGO Network, said he doesn't believe Netanyahu will repeat Sharon's full withdrawal. Instead, he expects the military to continue controlling large swaths of Gaza through 'buffer zones.'The aim, he said, is to keep Gaza 'unlivable in order to change the demographics,' referring to Netanyahu's plans to encourage Palestinians to leave the is 'is reoccupying the Gaza Strip' to prevent a Palestinian state, said Mostafa Ibrahim, an author based in Gaza City whose home was destroyed in the current opportunitiesIsraeli former Maj. Gen. Dan Harel, who was head of the country's Southern Command during the disengagement, remembers the toll of protecting a few thousand were an average of 10 attacks per day against Israeli settlers and soldiers, including rockets, roadside bombs big enough to destroy a tank, tunnels to attack Israeli soldiers and military positions, and frequent gunfire.'Bringing a school bus of kids from one place to another required a military escort,' said Harel. 'There wasn't a future. People paint it as how wonderful it was there, but it wasn't wonderful.'Harel says the decision to evacuate Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip was the right one, but that Israel missed crucial egregious, he said, was a unilateral withdrawal without obtaining any concessions from the Palestinians in Gaza or the Palestinian also sharply criticized Israel's policy of containment toward Hamas after disengagement. There were short but destructive conflicts over the years between the two sides, but otherwise the policy gave Hamas 'an opportunity to do whatever they wanted.''We had such a blind spot with Hamas, we didn't see them morph from a terror organization into an organized military, with battalions and commanders and infrastructure,' he Oct. 7 attack, Israel's largest military intelligence failure to date, was not a result of the disengagement, said Harel. 'The main issue is what we did in the 18 years in between.'
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Diplomacy or Defiance: Iran's Rulers Face Existential Choice After US-Israeli Strikes
Weakened by war and diplomatic deadlock, Iran's clerical elite stands at a crossroads: defy pressure to halt its nuclear activity and risk further Israeli and US attack, or concede and risk a leadership fracture. For now, the republic establishment is focusing on immediate survival over longer-term political strategy. A fragile ceasefire ended a 12-day war in June that began with Israeli air strikes, followed by US strikes on three Iranian nuclear installations. Both sides declared victory but the war exposed the military vulnerabilities and punctured the image of deterrence maintained by a major Middle East power and Israel's arch regional foe. Three Iranian insiders told Reuters the political establishment now views negotiations with the US - aimed at resolving a decades-long dispute over its nuclear ambitions - as the only way to avoid further escalation and existential peril. The strikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets, which included killings of top Revolutionary Guard commanders and nuclear scientists, shocked Tehran, kicking off just a day before a planned sixth round of talks with Washington. While Tehran accused Washington of "betraying diplomacy", some hardline lawmakers and military commanders blamed officials who advocated diplomacy with Washington, arguing the dialogue proved a "strategic trap" that distracted the armed forces. However, one political insider, who like others requested anonymity given the sensitivity of the matter, said the leadership now leaned towards talks as "they've seen the cost of military confrontation". President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Sunday that resuming talks with the United States "does not mean we intend to surrender", addressing hardliners opposing further nuclear diplomacy after the war. He added: "You don't want to talk? What do you want to do? ... Do you want to go (back) to war?" His remarks were criticized by hardliners including Revolutionary Guards commander Aziz Ghazanfari, who warned that foreign policy demands discretion and that careless statements could have serious consequences. Ultimately, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei holds the final say. Insiders said he and the clerical power structure had reached a consensus to resume nuclear negotiations, viewing them as vital to the republic's survival. Iran's Foreign Ministry said no decision has been made on the resumption of nuclear talks. DYNAMICS AND EXTERNAL PRESSURE US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have warned they will not hesitate to hit Iran again if it resumes enrichment of uranium, a possible pathway to developing nuclear weapons. Last week, Trump warned that if Iran restarted enrichment despite the June strikes on its key production plants, "we'll be back". Tehran responded with a vow of forceful retaliation. Still, Tehran fears future strikes could cripple political and military coordination, and so has formed a defense council to ensure command continuity even if the 86-year-old Khamenei must relocate to a remote hideaway to avoid assassination. Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran Program at the Middle East Institute in Washington DC, said that if Iran seeks to rapidly rebuild its nuclear capacity without securing diplomatic or security guarantees, "a US–Israeli strike won't just be possible - it will be all but inevitable". "Re-entering talks could buy Tehran valuable breathing room and economic relief, but without swift US reciprocity it risks a hardline backlash, deepening elite divisions, and fresh accusations of surrender," Vatanka said. Tehran insists on its right to uranium enrichment as part of what it maintains is a peaceful nuclear energy program, while the Trump administration demands a total halt - a core sticking point in the diplomatic standoff. Renewed United Nations sanctions under the so-called "snapback" mechanism, pushed by three European powers, loom as a further threat if Tehran refuses to return to negotiations or if no verifiable deal to curb its nuclear activity results. Tehran has threatened to quit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But insiders say this is a pressure tactic, not a realistic plan - as exiting the NPT would telegraph an Iranian race for nuclear bombs and invite US and Israeli intervention. A senior Western diplomat said Iran's rulers were vulnerable as never before, and any defiance was a gamble liable to backfire at a time of rising domestic unrest, impaired deterrence power and Israel's disabling of Iran's militia proxies in wars around the Middle East since 2023. MOUNTING ANXIETY Among ordinary Iranians, weariness over war and international isolation runs deep, compounded by a growing sense of failed governance. The oil-based economy, already hobbled by sanctions and state mismanagement, is under worsening strain. Daily blackouts afflict cities around the country of 87 million people, forcing many businesses to cut back. Reservoirs have receded to record lows, prompting warnings from the government of a looming "national water emergency." Many Iranians - even those opposed to the Shiite theocracy - rallied behind the country during the June war, but now face lost incomes and intensified repression. Alireza, 43, a furniture merchant in Tehran, said he is considering downsizing his business and relocating his family outside the capital amid fears of further air attack. "This is the result of 40 years of failed policies," he said, alluding to Iran's 1979 revolution that toppled the Western-backed monarchy. "We are a resource-rich country and yet people don't have water and electricity. My customers have no money. My business is collapsing." At least 20 people across Iran interviewed by phone echoed Alireza's sentiment - that while most Iranians do not want another war, they are also losing faith in the establishment's capacity to govern wisely. Despite broad discontent, large-scale protests have not broken out. Instead, authorities have tightened security, ramped up pressure on pro-democracy activists, accelerated executions and cracked down on alleged Israeli-linked spy networks - fueling fears of widening surveillance and repression. However, sidelined moderates have resurfaced in state media after years of exclusion. Some analysts see this as a move to ally public anxiety and signal the possibility of reform from within - without "regime change" that would shift core policies.
