Inside Sweida with Druze militia group
There are allegations of executions carried out by all sides, while survivors told Channel 4 News that government troops massacred civilians.
Media are now restricted from entering the city but before then we spent four days there, hearing from those who both witnessed and took part in the fighting.
A warning, this report contains distressing testimony and images from the start.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
What France's fight against Islamism can teach Labour
So far this year France has deported 64 individuals from its database of radical Islamists. More are planned in the coming weeks and months, putting the minister of the interior, Bruno Retailleau, on course to surpass last year's total of 142. A senior unnamed prefect was quoted in yesterday's Le Figaro declaring: We are very committed to this issue; it is an ongoing effort by the state, given what is at stake. It is even monitored weekly by the (interior) minister at the central level. Retailleau is supported by his predecessor, Gérald Darmanin, who has been the Minister of Justice since last December. It was Darmanin who last year commissioned a report into the Muslim Brotherhood, a report that, when published in May this year, revealed the disturbing extent of their growing influence in the country. The government of France considers that the rights of the victims are the priority When Darmanin ran the interior ministry, his chief of staff was Alexandre Brugère. He has been the prefect for western Paris since November last year and in that time he has been relentless in prioritising 'the deportation of undocumented foreigners who disturb public order'. Brugère has this year expelled 370 undesirables, a 61 per cent increase on the same period in 2024. Some are petty criminals or members of drug cartels but most are radical Islamists. Last month Brugère expelled four such individuals, including a Syrian who had his refugee status revoked after expressing support for the Islamic State. Brugère has promised to remain 'extremely firm in the fight against Islamism', conscious of the gravity of the threat posed by extremism. This was underlined earlier this year by Céline Berthon, the head of DGSI, France's equivalent of MI5. 'Our biggest challenge today is online radicalization,' she said in an interview in March, explaining how individuals 'can be influenced or controlled from outside, particularly by terrorist organizations present either in Syria and Iraq for the Islamic State, or in Afghanistan and Pakistan for the Islamic State in Khorasan.' A similar warning was issued by MI5 Director General Ken McCallum last October. 'We're also seeing far too many cases where very young people are being drawn into poisonous online extremism,' said McCallum in a speech from the Counter Terrorism Operations Centre. The division of MI5's counter-terrorist work, he added, was 'roughly 75 per cent Islamist extremist, 25 per cent extreme right-wing terrorism'. Doubtless MI5 is working as tirelessly as its French counterpart to monitor the Islamic extremists, but what is being done by the government? If Labour has deported any Islamic extremists flagged by MI5 they haven't been made public, which is perhaps surprising given the Prime Minister's oft-mentioned determination to clamp down on the extreme right. Last week, it was announced that members of the government's national security and online information team (NSOIT) have been tracking people who make critical comments online about migrant hotels and policing standards. It is the same team deployed during the Covid Pandemic to keep tabs on anti-lockdown campaigners. While Labour appears less ardent in its monitoring of Islamic extremism, the Tories can't claim to have done a great job either during their time in office. In April 2024 there was a pledge to introduce legislation to 'protect the public from…foreign nationals who are sowing division and spreading hate in communities, potentially having them removed from the country.' Why so long? In 2017 – after seven years of Tory governance – it was reported that since 2004 Britain had deported 11 extremists; in the same period France had expelled 120. The Conservatives' promise to finally act came to naught; three months later, they were out of office, replaced by a government led by Keir Starmer. This is the same Keir Starmer who, as a barrister in 2008, represented the Palestinian-born Abu Qatada as he fought a deportation order to Jordan where he was wanted on charges of terrorism. Among Qatada's many incendiary declarations was a 1999 fatwa 'authorising the killing of Jews, including Jewish children'. Often described as Osama bin Laden's 'ambassador in Europe, Qatada sought to remain in Britain because – as Starmer told the judge – 'deportation and the revocation of refugee status both interfere with domestic civil rights'. The judge dismissed Starmer's argument as 'fallacious' but it took another five years before the government overcame the Human Rights lawyers and finally deported Qatada. Starmer's role in defending Abu Qatada was a line of attack for Rishi Sunak in last year's televised election debates. The morning after the debate, the Labour party issued a statement in which they said: 'In this country, everyone is entitled to a defence, which means lawyers cannot choose who they work for.' This line of argument was addressed by Bruno Retailleau in October last year, a month after he was appointed Minister of the Interior. 'In the face of disorder, we must find the right balance between protecting individual freedoms and protecting society,' he said. He then singled out the European Court of Human Rights, which had recently prevented France from deporting an Islamist and said in such a case 'the balance is no longer right, as we are protecting the rights of dangerous individuals more than those of the victims'. Retailleau and the government of France consider that the rights of the victims are the priority and that dangerous individuals must be deported. This doesn't appear to be the priority of the British government.
Leader Live
15 hours ago
- Leader Live
Wrexham MP addresses concerns around asylum seekers
MP for Wrexham I receive communication from constituents about a wide range of issues. One of the concerns expressed is around asylum seekers. This is also a topic which sees substantial disinformation and misinformation across media and social media. Language and terminology is really important and I want to address some of the common questions that I receive on this subject. 'Asylum' means 'protection given by a country to someone fleeing from persecution in their own country' (House of Commons Library). A person seeking asylum is often awaiting refugee status. If they do not qualify for refugee status, they may still be granted leave to remain in the UK for humanitarian or other reasons. 'Why are hotels and luxury apartments being used to house immigrants when there is a housing crisis in the UK?' This is an example of a question I have received from a constituent recently. It is worth noting that there are 3,253 asylum seekers in Wales and 107 in Wrexham according to figures as of March this year. Where hotels are used, the accommodation is dormitory style, all facilities are closed and not available, food is provided but not choice of menu. To be clear, there are no asylum hotels in Wrexham and those seeking asylum are in dispersed accommodation. This means the Home Office gives contracts to the private sector not councils to find accommodation. This accommodation is a flat or room in an HMO for example. Asylum seekers do not have access to the welfare system or any benefits. They receive a weekly subsistence payment rate of £49.18 per person for people living in self-catered accommodation or £8.86 a week for those in full-board accommodation like a hotel. The weekly amount is credited to a pre-paid debit card which can use be to pay for goods or withdraw cash. According to the House of Commons Library, in 2024, asylum seekers and refugees made up around 16% of immigrants to the UK. It is important to understand that most people who migrate to the UK do so legally for work or family reasons. There is a shortage of skilled workers in the UK, as we have seen in the NHS. Work is ongoing to address this. The small boat crossings must be addressed along with the problems in the asylum system where the backlog is unacceptable. The UK Government has recently made an agreement with France and this new pilot scheme will see small boat arrivals being detained and returned to France. An equal number of migrants will then be able to come to the UK from France through a new legal route. Those coming into the UK must be fully documented and go through a stringent security check as opposed to uncontrolled entry such as small boats. In addition to the asylum process, the UK has operated various routes for people seeking humanitarian protection in the past. The three recent examples of this are the Afghan, Syrian and Ukrainian resettlement programmes. Like other countries, the UK follows the 1951 Refugee Convention that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom and that there are minimum standards for how refugees should be treated including a right to housing, work and education. As ever, if you have any queries or concerns or you have an issue that you would like me to try and assist you with, please do not hesitate to contact me on 01978 788854 or
Spectator
4 days ago
- Spectator
J.D. Vance is right about Germany's civilisational suicide
This week, US Vice President J.D. Vance levelled a blistering critique at Europe, accusing it of 'committing civilisational suicide', and Germany in particular of bringing about its own demise, saying: 'If you have a country like Germany, where you have another few million immigrants come in from countries that are totally culturally incompatible with Germany, then it doesn't matter what I think about Europe… Germany will have killed itself, and I hope they don't do that, because I love Germany and I want Germany to thrive.' While some dismissed his remarks as yet another post-Munich Security Conference jab, Vance insisted his concerns for Germany were sincere. And he seems to have a point. While the US watches these developments from afar, the German mainstream media continues to push the narrative that the country needs 400,000 'skilled workers' annually. This is despite the fact that nearly four million able-bodied people of working age already receive benefits, almost half of whom are non-German citizens. When you include those with German passports who were born overseas, the number rises to around 64 per cent. So, where did it all go wrong for Germany on migration and refugee policy? It began with the Gastarbeiter ('guest workers') invited during the post-war economic boom under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and his minister for economic affairs (and future Chancellor) Ludwig Erhard. Starting in 1955, Germany recruited labour from Greece, Italy, Spain, and Turkey. What began with 300,000 workers in the 1960s ballooned to 2.6 million by 1973. The introduction of family reunification turned these guests into permanent residents. Although there were efforts to curb immigration and encourage return migration as late as the 1990s, they met with little success. Germany is simply a nicer place to live than Turkey, even if Germans of Turkish origin set off fireworks to celebrate Erdogan's election victories. The floodgates were fully thrown open in 2015 by then-Chancellor Angela Merkel, when she allowed Syrian migrants to enter Europe. Millions of asylum seekers and economic migrants made their way across Europe with little to no vetting. Even though the Syrian civil war has come to an end, almost none want to return home, and a combination of family reunion and lax borders means that asylum seekers keep coming in large numbers. In contrast to the Netherlands and Denmark, Germany has not produced a comprehensive recent cost-benefit analysis of migration. No official lifetime cost estimates exist. Yet the consequences are increasingly visible: rising violent crime, public schools where students of migrant backgrounds make up 42 per cent of the pupils (with some schools reaching 90 per cent), cultural fragmentation, and an overburdened welfare and healthcare system. Even Germany's once-abundant tax revenues are no longer enough. A €172 billion budget shortfall looms, worsened by promises such as a special pension for mothers. Meanwhile, the government is floating the idea of a 'Boomer-Soli', a new tax on 'big pensions' above €1,000 per month. The warning lights are flashing, but the government continues to kick the can down the road. Painful, necessary reforms to the welfare state, pensions, and immigration policy are endlessly postponed or even ignored. Instead, policymakers debate introducing migrant quotas in public schools, some of which already serve only halal food and have reportedly abandoned Christmas celebrations in favour of mandatory Ramadan events. Meanwhile, thousands of individuals in Germany have faced lawsuits for sharing memes, voicing criticism, or insulting politicians. Most of these cases were brought by politicians from the left: the Green party, the Free democrats (FDP) and the Social Democratic party (SPD). In one case, a pensioner was subjected to a police search and later sentenced simply for sharing a meme. A journalist from a right-wing populist publication received a suspended prison sentence and a fine for posting an image of former Interior Minister Nancy Faeser edited so that she was holding a sign that read: 'I hate freedom of speech'. Economically, things look equally bleak. After a disastrous trade deal between the EU and the Trump administration, Germany's once-mighty automotive industry faces another blow amid already collapsing revenues. Even the unions seem more focused on climate activism and class struggle than job security. Well-paid industrial jobs, they hope, will be preserved by the 'green economy'. Some hope. After five years without significant economic growth, any rational politician should be deeply alarmed. Instead, Chancellor Friedrich Merz touts vague promises that 61 companies are ready to invest €631 billion in Germany. He seems to hold the misguided view that subsidies alone can salvage what remains of Germany's crumbling economic model. It is a sobering reality when the Vice President of a foreign country appears more concerned with Germany's future and problems than its own political class.
