Syria's Christians ask 'Why us?' after suicide bombing at Damascus church
DAMASCUS, June 23 (Reuters) - Syrian Christians were struggling on Monday to understand why their community was targeted in a suicide attack and whether they can rely on the Islamist-led government's assurances of protection.
Syria's health ministry said the toll from Sunday's attack on the Mar Elias Church in the Dweila neighborhood had risen to 25 dead and more than 60 wounded.
The interior ministry said the suicide bomber was a member of Islamic State who entered the church, opened fire and detonated an explosive vest. There was no claim of responsibility by the Islamic State group.
On Monday, funeral announcements were posted on the door of the church. Members of the security forces stood outside it and other churches.
"I wonder why they target us. We had no interest in any of the events that happened in our country. We have no interests besides Syria living in peace," said Bassim Khoury, a Christian resident of Damascus.
"We did not carry weapons, we did not stand against anyone. We did not ask for government positions. None of us wants to become president, no one wants to run the government... Why would this happen to this peaceful people?"
The attack fed fears among Syria's minorities that their communities are more exposed to attacks and harassment since Islamist-led rebels toppled former leader Bashar al-Assad in December.
In March, hundreds of Alawites - the minority from which Assad hails - were killed in Syria's coastal provinces and dozens were kidnapped and killed in Damascus.
In May, an armed raid on a Damascus nightclub and the killing of a woman at another venue led some bars to close.
Christian residents of Damascus told Reuters that Muslim sheikhs had come to their neighbourhoods in the last six months to urge them to convert to Islam and to stop consuming alcohol.
The violence has prompted questions about whether Syria's new rulers have full control over armed elements despite promises by Interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa - formerly a member of Al Qaeda - to rule inclusively for all of the diverse religious and ethnic groups.
"We're in a country that must protect everyone," said Jean Bahri, another Christian resident of Damascus.
Nibras Youssef, from Dweila, said people has already been on edge over the security situation, in which armed men and boys who said they were official security force members produced no relevant identification papers.
"You see a 13-year-old holding a weapon and you cannot say anything to them," said Youssef.
Sharaa expressed his condolences, calling Sonday's attack a "criminal bombing that hurt the whole Syrian people". Several Syrian ministers, as well as church leaders and other foreign officials, condemned the attacks.
Candlelit vigils and church services were held elsewhere in Syria in solidarity with the parishioners at Mar Elias.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
8 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Palestine Action: if red paint is terrorism, what isn't?
The UK government's intention to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 marks a significant escalation in the treatment of civil disobedience. It elevates a group known for throwing red paint at buildings and military aircraft into the same legal category as al-Qaida and Islamic State. If there's a serious threat from these activists, we've yet to see it – just a ministerial statement discussing civil disobedience in the language of counterinsurgency. If this is all that Palestine Action can be accused of, then the government is wrong. Ministers are setting a dangerous precedent by using terror laws to outlaw protest – and penalising protesters not for violence but for making a nuisance and vandalism. The cost will be felt in press freedom, political accountability and the right to resist. The home secretary's statement says that Palestine Action's activities 'meet the threshold' for terrorism under the law, yet fails to specify how the group's actions – which consist primarily of damage to property, not threats to life – satisfy the statutory requirement of intending to influence the government or intimidate the public through serious violence or threats. If this passes, the threshold of terrorism will have been lowered from plotting to plant bombs or take hostages to daubing aircraft or chaining oneself to doors – activities once associated with anti-nuclear and anti-apartheid activists. Palestine Action has, since 2020, mounted a campaign of direct action targeting firms supplying weapons to Israel, most notably Elbit Systems. Their tactics include criminal damage, trespass and disruption. To go from these offences to terrorism is morally fraught. But that has not deterred Labour ministers. Contained in terror laws is a logic that George Orwell would have recognised: where danger lies not just in bombs or bullets, but in words, connections and ideas. Proscription criminalises not just action but association. It becomes an offence to support, affiliate with or even express 'moral support' for the group. If Palestine Action are deemed terrorists, then writers and journalists offering even mild approval could be prosecuted and imprisoned for up to 14 years. This is not the policing of public safety; it is the policing of dissent – and limiting belief and speech. If a government can define non-violent acts it disapproves of as terrorism, the boundary between civil disobedience and extremism becomes whatever a minister says it is. The law already has the tools to deal with Palestine Action – as the Home Office admits, some cases involving the group are still before the courts. So why jump to proscription? What does a terror label achieve that prosecution doesn't – beyond muzzling the group and chilling wider activism on Palestine and the arms trade? This is a government that seems all too eager to project control over protest at a time when its foreign policy is deeply unpopular. It may seem cynical to suggest that redefining visible dissent as a national security threat is a way to contain public anger, but the effect is the same. When it comes to Gaza, ministers struggle to locate in law the actions of the UK or Israel. Yet they have no such difficulty when it comes to those protesting against them. The Labour peer Shami Chakrabarti was right to ask: when did criminal damage become terrorism? If civil liberties mean anything, they must survive protest that offends. Democracy can't just tolerate disagreement, it must stomach defiance. Even when it's splashed on an arms factory wall.
Reuters
8 hours ago
- Reuters
Main US base in Syria on full alert in case of possible attack by Iran, Syrian security source says
June 23 (Reuters) - The main remaining base in northeast Syria hosting U.S. troops is on full alert and mobilized for possible attacks by Iran or Iran-aligned groups, a Syrian security source told Reuters on Monday. The base is known as Qasrak and is one of two bases in the northeast Hasakah province where U.S. troops are based.
Daily Mail
10 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Opinion: Iran's brutal regime has now run out of options
The clerical-military dictatorship which has ruled Iran for almost 50 years has run out of options. President Trump's daring raid on Iran's nuclear facilities further undermines a regime which is already reeling from multiple humiliations at home and abroad. For the medieval mullahs and their brutal generals, there is no good way forward, no credible response that doesn't involve more humiliation amounting to capitulation. The end of days beckons for them. The US raid is just one more nail in the coffin. A regime which only recently thought it was on track to dominate the Middle East with its toxic brew of Islamism and anti-Semitism is now reeling in retreat on every front. The terrorist proxies which it fostered and financed at huge expense and through which it spread fear and terror, are impotent. Hamas struggles to survive, in no state to threaten anyone bar defenceless Palestinians who dare to challenge its fading power. Hezbollah, a far more formidable operation dominating southern Lebanon and once seen as the tip of the spear should Israel ever attack Iran, has been decapitated. It speaks volumes that Hezbollah has not lifted a finger to help its paymasters even as Israel pummels Iran from the skies. Iran's great ally, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad , has been deposed and languishes in exile in Moscow (where some of the Iranian regime may soon join him). Iran used Syria as a base from which its Quds Force, the foreign legion arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, could stir up all manner of mayhem across the region. Syria was also the conduit through which it channelled arms and money to its proxies, but it is now in the hands of forces hostile to the Iranian regime. As if all that was not bad enough, there came the greatest humiliation of all: Iran lost control of its skies to the Israeli air force. As a result, Israel is able to strike with impunity. The Iranian air force has been neutralised, many of the country's military commanders have been killed – as have key nuclear scientists – and its missile stocks and launchers are being ruthlessly degraded by Israeli air power. Israel's dominance of Iranian airspace paved the way for the US attack on the nuclear facilities. Its B-2 stealth bombers were able to drop their bunker-buster bombs on sites buried deep underground without being detected. They arrived, unleashed their ordnance and departed without Iran firing a single missile at them or scrambling even one fighter jet to confront them. Trump sees himself as a master of the art of the deal. But he's turned out to be more a master of deception. He lulled Iran into thinking he was still up for negotiating a deal while secretly green-lighting Israel's attacks on Iran, which started on Friday the 13th (unlucky for some). He said he'd take up to two weeks to decide if he'd deploy US bunker-busters against Iran – then did so after two days. Trump's administration let it be known that B-2 bombers were on their way across the Pacific – while the real strike force was heading for Iran over the Atlantic . US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed Iran's nuclear bombmaking facilities had been 'obliterated'. Its top military man, General Dan 'Razin' Caine, was more cautious, saying initial estimates were that all three nuclear sites attacked – Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow – suffered 'sustained severe damage' but it would take time to establish a more complete picture. Trump wants Iran to restart talks to give up its nuclear capabilities . That's his preferred option. But he's equally clear that if Tehran refuses or, worse, retaliates for yesterday's strike, then he will authorise further assaults. He's certainly assembled the firepower in the region to deliver his threat – including two massive aircraft carrier groups. The real significance of what happened at the weekend is that, should the Iranian regime decide to escalate the conflict or continue to pursue its nuclear ambitions, it will face not just Israel, but the combined military might of Israel and the United States. That is a truly historic development – and should give Iran cause to pause. But nobody really knows who is running the show in Tehran now. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is 86, in very poor health, bereft of several of his closest advisers ( killed by Israel ), holed up in a bunker for his own safety and without an agreed heir apparent. His lifelong strategy – to arm Iran with nuclear weapons and establish it as the dominant power in the Middle East – lies in tatters. Iran is on its knees. The idea he or those around him are still capable of a coherent or rational response may be fanciful. In the aftermath of yesterday's attack, Iran's parliament voted to authorise the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which most Gulf oil and gas passes in massive tankers . But that decision can only be taken by Khamenei in cahoots with his national security council. It would certainly cause the global economy some short-term pain as energy prices spiked. But it would also be a body blow to the regime, which needs fossil-fuel revenues to sustain the military and pay the Revolutionary Guards and assorted thugs that are so vital to it keeping its grip on power. The risk is that hotheads gain the upper hand – as they have in the past – and go for a scorched earth policy, realising the game is up but determined to take whoever they can down with them. So, close the Strait of Hormuz, fire missiles at the oil and gas fields of the Gulf states and wreak revenge on US bases in the region. But any of that would bring the full might of American and Israeli air power down on the regime's head, leaving it not just without a nuclear capability but without a functioning economy – a likely precursor to the overthrow of a dictatorship that has long passed its sell-by date for most Iranians. Israel and the US deny regime change is the goal. But Washington and Jerusalem both know that the best guarantee of a non-nuclear Iran is a more reasonable, post-Islamist government in Tehran. It is, of course, for Iranians to determine their government. Nobody is talking about boots on the ground. Aerial bombing is a somewhat blunt and inexact way of creating conditions for a better government. But America and Israel are agreed that now is the time to keep up the pressure on a regime responsible for so much misery – an alliance buoyed by the better prospects its demise would bring for Israel, America, the Sunni Arabs in the Gulf and, above all, the Iranian people. It's certainly a more worthy goal than the usual hand-wringing, vacuous calls for 'de-escalation' and 'stability' from European leaders, including our own Keir Starmer, who clearly disapproved of the US strike yet welcomed the setback to Iran's nuclear ambitions – a classic case, if ever there was one, of willing the ends but not the means. No matter. Britain and Europe don't even have walk-on parts in the events unfolding in the Middle East. They are mere spectators who think they still count – but thankfully don't. America and Israel, with the tacit support of the Sunni Arabs, are showing that strength, properly deployed in a good cause, can make a difference. Britain and Europe barely have any strength these days – which explains why they disparage its use. The world should be grateful that neither is in the driving seat.
