Momentum builds for Israel-Syria peace as Trump reboots regional diplomacy
For the first time, Syrians are openly calling for peace with Israel. In an interview with Fox News Digital, journalist Furat Alali from Damascus said, "We want a future without wars. We want to live. People are not afraid to speak up anymore."
Her statement reflects a significant shift in the country's political landscape, as many Syrians begin to openly discuss the prospect of peace with Israel. This change comes at a time when Syria and Israel are engaged in direct talks as Reuters revealed on Tuesday, marking a dramatic departure from the decades-long hostility between the two nations.
Reuters reported, Israel and Syria have recently held direct meetings focused on security issues along their shared border. These talks represent a major step in the relationship between the two countries, which have been adversaries for decades.
Sources familiar with the discussions have indicated that the U.S. has played a pivotal role in facilitating these talks, encouraging Syria's new leadership to engage with Israel.
The discussions come after a shift in U.S. policy, following President Donald Trump's meeting with Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa earlier this month. The meeting signaled a break from decades of U.S. hostility toward Syria's Assad regime and opened the door to potential normalization between Syria and Israel.
While the talks are still in the early stages, Trump's engagement has raised the possibility of Syria's leadership eventually normalizing ties with Israel, although this process will likely take time.
Furat Alali explained: "We don't want to be part of the Axis of Resistance anymore. The Palestinian cause has been used to oppress us. We feel sympathy for the Palestinians, but now we need to focus on Syria and our future."
Lina Ali, a 24-year-old pharmacist from Latakia, told Fox News Digital, "We feel for the people of Gaza. We condemn the mass killings, but we are in a different situation. We are thinking about our own interests now. The idea of exploiting the Palestinian cause to oppress the Syrian people has been rejected. We are tired of this."
Another young woman interviewed by Jusoor News, a Pan-Arab media outlet, shared similar thoughts: "We are for anything that serves our country's interest. We've lived through difficult times. The country's economy is very weak. It's time for people to live."
An elderly Syrian man explained to Jusoor, "We've spent 40-50 years preaching Arabism and liberating Palestine, and what do we have to show for it? Nothing. It's time for peace."
The shift in Syria's stance on Israel is significant, especially given the historical enmity between the two nations. For decades, Syria and Israel have been locked in conflict, with the status of the Golan Heights remaining a key point of contention since its capture by Israel during the 1967 war. Syria's involvement in the Axis of Resistance, aligning with Iran and Hezbollah against Israel, has been a cornerstone of its foreign policy.
However, the recent emergence of interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa has raised new possibilities, as well as concerns.
Furat Ali said, "I was one of the journalists who extensively covered the violations of Jabhat al-Nusra before the fall of the Assad regime, the group Al-Jolani emerged from (using his previous name), which was part of al-Qaeda. I know exactly what they did. So, when I first heard that Al-Jolani was taking over Aleppo and challenging Assad, I was scared."
"But as time went on," she added, "when he rebranded himself as Ahmed al-Sharaa and promised a new direction, I saw he was smart. He managed to convince the West to lift sanctions and engage with him, bringing back international recognition for Syria. While we remain skeptical and cautious, what we're seeing from Sharaa domestically is so far being accepted."
Joseph Braude, founder and president of the Center for Peace Communications, highlighted the significance of the shift in public opinion within Syria. He noted, "People in Syria and Lebanon often associate the Palestinian issue with dictators who exploited it to justify corruption and brutality. There is a growing rejection of pro-Palestinian militancy, as many people now desire to turn the page and focus on new partnerships aimed at developing their own countries.
"We believe that it has become a majority view in Syria that if peace with Israel brings economic development and improvements, then it's worth pursuing."
He also pointed out that in countries dominated by Iran and its militias, ordinary people have the clearest understanding of the harm these groups cause. "They are among the most eager for a different future, increasingly calling for peace," Braude added.
As one man interviewed by Jusoor News put it: "We've suffered years of oppression and war. It's time for reconstruction. We need peace with everyone," another Syrian added' "I support normalization a million percent! If normalization with Israel, or America or whoever can bring us comfort, then I'm on board. We just want peace!"
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
5 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump appears to undercut US proposal to Iran, declaring he won't allow any uranium enrichment
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday appeared to undercut a proposal that was offered by his special envoy to Iran, saying he will insist that Tehran fully dismantle its nuclear enrichment program as part of any deal to ease crushing sanctions. Trump and Steve Witkoff, who is leading the negotiations for the U.S., have repeatedly offered inconsistent public messages about whether Iran would be allowed to retain the capacity to enrich uranium to lower levels for civilian purposes. The Trump administration maintains that it will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. The negotiations have been framed by Trump as both countries' best chance to avoid direct military conflict over Iran's nuclear program. Tehran, which denies seeking a nuclear weapon, has insisted that it will not agree to any deal that fully scraps its enrichment program. 'Under our potential Agreement — WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!' Trump wrote on social media. The White House didn't elaborate on the post. Trump's post comes after media reports that Witkoff's latest proposal to Tehran would allow Iran to retain low levels of enrichment for civilian uses like nuclear medicine and commercial power if it agrees to shut down its heavily protected underground sites for a period of time. The U.S. and Iran have engaged in several rounds of direct nuclear talks for the first time in years. Senior officials — including Witkoff and Trump himself — have said within the last few weeks that Iran would not be able to keep enriching uranium at any level. The proposal, reported by Axios and confirmed by two U.S. officials, called for the creation of a regional consortium to handle uranium enrichment for civilian uses — a plan first studied more than a decade ago in negotiations that led to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Trump was sharply critical of that agreement — which also allowed set limits on uranium enrichment but permitted Iran to maintain such a capacity — and withdrew the U.S. from it in 2017 during his first term. The officials spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss private diplomatic negotiations. The International Atomic Energy Agency found that Iran has further increased its stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels since its last update in February, according to a confidential report released by the U.N. nuclear watchdog on Saturday. Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, but Iranian officials have increasingly suggested that Tehran could pursue an atomic bomb. 'President Trump has made it clear that Iran can never obtain a nuclear bomb,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement before Trump's post. 'Special Envoy Witkoff has sent a detailed and acceptable proposal to the Iranian regime, and it's in their best interest to accept it. Out of respect for the ongoing deal, the Administration will not comment on details of the proposal to the media.' The proposal that Trump appeared to undercut on Monday evening included significant concessions by the administration certain to anger Israel along with pro-Israel lawmakers in the United States. Several of the main points were essentially the same or very similar to conditions outlined in the 2015 nuclear deal. Early iterations of that agreement negotiated by the Obama administration also suggested the possibility of a regional consortium that would put Iranian uranium enrichment above a certain level under the control of Iran and its neighbors. The idea was scrapped, however, because of Gulf Arab nations' objections and Iranian suspicions of the ultimate aims of the consortium. People who were involved in the 18-month negotiations for the 2015 deal reacted immediately to reports that the Trump administration might allow Iran to continue with an enrichment program at any level, particularly after senior officials repeatedly said Iran would not be able to retain such programs. 'This proposal poses a moment of truth for critics of previous Iran nuclear negotiations/agreements (and) those who have called for a no-enrichment, full-dismantlement deal,' Dan Shapiro, Obama's former ambassador to Israel, wrote on X. 'Will they hold Trump to the same standard?'
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss
The Trump administration is fighting to pause a second court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping and so-called reciprocal tariffs, the signature economic policy of his second term. The administration's new appeal, filed Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, comes less than a week after a very similar court challenge played out in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in New York, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. At issue in both cases is Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariff plan. The plan, which Trump announced on April 2, invokes IEEPA for both his 10% baseline tariff on most U.S. trading partners and a so-called "reciprocal tariff" against other countries. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify Trump's use of the emergency law to invoke widespread tariffs was struck down unanimously last week by the three-judge CIT panel, which said the statute does not give Trump "unbounded" power to implement tariffs. However, the decision was almost immediately stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, allowing Trump's tariffs to continue. But in a lesser-discussed ruling on the very same day, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, determined that Trump's tariffs were unlawful under IEEPA. Read On The Fox News App Since the case before him had more limited reach than the case heard by the CIT – plaintiffs in the suit focused on harm to two small businesses, versus harm from the broader tariff plan – it went almost unnoticed in news headlines. But that changed on Monday. Trump Denounces Court's 'Political' Tariff Decision, Calls On Supreme Court To Act Quickly Lawyers for the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – a Washington-based but still separate court than the Federal Court of Appeals – to immediately stay the judge's ruling. They argued in their appeal that the judge's ruling against Trump's use of IEEPA undercuts his ability to use tariffs as a "credible threat" in trade talks, at a time when such negotiations "currently stand at a delicate juncture." "By holding the tariffs invalid, the district court's ruling usurps the President's authority and threatens to disrupt sensitive, ongoing negotiations with virtually every trading partner by undercutting the premise of those negotiations – that the tariffs are a credible threat," Trump lawyers said in the filing. Economists also seemed to share this view that the steep tariffs were more a negotiating tactic than an espousal of actual policy, which they noted in a series of interviews last week with Fox News Digital. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify The bottom line for the Trump administration "is that they need to get back to a place [where] they are using these huge reciprocal tariffs and all of that as a negotiating tactic," William Cline, an economist and senior fellow emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said in an interview. Cline noted that this was the framework previously laid out by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had embraced the tariffs as more of an opening salvo for future trade talks, including between the U.S. and China. "I think the thing to keep in mind there is that Trump and Vance have this view that tariffs are beautiful because they will restore America's Rust Belt jobs and that they'll collect money while they're doing it, which will contribute to fiscal growth," said Cline, the former deputy managing director and chief economist of the Institute of International Finance. "Those are both fantasies." What comes next in the case remains to be seen. The White House said it will take its tariff fight to the Supreme Court if necessary. Counsel for the plaintiffs echoed that view in an interview with Fox News. But it's unclear if the Supreme Court would choose to take up the case, which comes at a time when Trump's relationship with the judiciary has come under increasing strain. In the 20 weeks since the start of his second White House term, lawyers for the Trump administration have filed 18 emergency appeals to the high court, indicating both the pace and breadth of the tense court article source: Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Budget Axes Program That Keeps Poor People From Freezing To Death At Home
WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump wants to make some pretty devastating cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services in his new 2026 budget request. But one of the cruelest is a line buried in HHS' Budget in Brief: 'The budget eliminates funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.' The federal block grant program, often referred to as LIHEAP, has been around for decades and helps millions of people in low-income households pay their energy bills. Critically, it helps seniors, families with children, and people with disabilities keep their heat on in the dead of winter and cool air blowing in the sweltering days of summer. More than 6 million households currently rely on LIHEAP for help with energy bills. The Trump administration appears to justify gutting LIHEAP by tying it to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in government, all of which Trump wants to eradicate. 'Savings come from eliminating radical diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and critical race theory programs, which weaponized large swaths of the Federal Government against the American people and moving programs that are better suited for States and localities to provide,' reads the HHS budget brief, just before it calls for zeroing out LIHEAP funding. To be sure, the president's budget request isn't going to become law. It has to make its way through Congress, where lawmakers will make all kinds of changes to it. But it's going to fall on Republicans to fight to preserve LIHEAP. The Trump administration has already crippled the low-income energy program. On April 1, HHS announced it was putting 10,000 federal employees on administrative leave through June 2, at which they would be terminated. This included the entire staff running LIHEAP. Twenty state attorneys general intervened in May and sued HHS, claiming the mass firings were illegal and calling for everyone's jobs to be restored. The lawsuit is still underway. State administrators that provide LIHEAP assistance still have federal money to keep operating this year, but without federal staff, the program's future looks grim. Trump zeroing out its entire budget certainly feels like its death knell. While Republicans in Congress are overwhelmingly beholden to Trump, they don't have strong margins in either chamber. If even a handful of GOPers push back on a provision in a bill, their opposition could tank the whole thing. LIHEAP could draw such pushback. House and Senate Republicans have called on HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to restore the program's staff and vouched for its need. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), one of the most politically vulnerable in his party, told Kennedy in April the program is 'vital' to his community. 'The program supports our most vulnerable populations, including seniors, individuals with disabilities, and households with young children under the age of six,' Lawler wrote to Kennedy. 'In FY 2023, 24% of New Yorkers reported being unable to pay their energy bill at least once in a 12-month period. During FY 2023, LIHEAP also helped prevent over 100,000 utility disconnections in New York alone, highlighting this program's critical need.' Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) led a bipartisan letter to Kennedy in April urging him to reverse course on LIHEAP staff cuts. 'We write regarding reports that you have terminated staff responsible for administering the LowIncome Home Energy Program,' reads their letter, signed by 13 senators. 'If true, these terminations threaten to devastate a critical program dedicated to helping Americans afford their home energy bills. 'It is an indispensable lifeline, helping to ensure that recipients do not have to choose between paying their energy bills and affording other necessities like food and medicine,' said the senators. Separately, Murkowski directly told the HHS secretary in May how crucial LIHEAP assistance is for people in her state. 'For us it's not a budget line item,' she told Kennedy as he testified before a Senate committee. 'You've been to Alaska. You know that the temperatures there can get really, really tough. [LIHEAP] keeps people from freezing to death in their homes.' The fate of LIHEAP will almost certainly come up this week on Capitol Hill, with both the House and Senate back in session and Trump's budget request now awaiting their action. Aides to Murkowski, Collins and Lawler did not immediately respond to requests for comment relating to Trump's budget request zeroing out LIHEAP funding.
