Clashes continue in Sweida as ceasefire struggles to hold
Government forces were redeployed on Saturday to Sweida to halt the renewed fighting that had erupted late Thursday.
Shortly after the announcement, Syria's interior ministry said the fighting had stopped and that Sweida had been cleared of Bedouin tribal fighters. However, several clashes were reported to have taken place in the predominantly Druze region of Sweida.
Clashes began last Sunday between Druze militias and local Sunni Muslim Bedouin tribes in Syria's southern Sweida province. Government forces intervened, nominally to restore order, but ended up taking the Bedouins' side against the Druze.
On Thursday, government forces largely withdrew from the southern province of Sweida, a day after Israel launched several strikes on Damascus, citing a need to protect the Druze community.
However, shortly after, state media reported that Druze militants had launched retaliatory attacks on the Bedouin communities.
In his second televised address since the fighting started, al-Sharaa blamed the conflict's escalation between 'lawless groups on one side and Bedouin communities on the other, leading to an unprecedented deterioration of the situation."
He had urged all parties to "fully commit" to the ceasefire.
"Everyone must understand that this moment requires unity and full cooperation in order to overcome the hardships we all face and to protect our country and land from foreign interference and internal strife," he said on Saturday.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights report at least 940 people have been killed since clashes erupted on Sunday. Meanwhile, the UN estimated that roughly 80,000 people have been displaced.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
4 hours ago
- Euronews
Iran, E3 nations agree to resume nuclear talks after Istanbul meeting
Talks between Iran and the UK, France and Germany, known collectively as the E3 countries, concluded in Istanbul on Friday with both sides agreeing to continue discussions aimed at breaking the deadlock over Tehran's nuclear programme. The four-hour meeting, held at the Iranian Consulate, marked the first formal engagement since the 12-day conflict between Iran and Israel in June, which included US airstrikes on nuclear-linked sites. Discussions focused on the possible reimposition of international sanctions lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal, which limited Iran's enrichment activities in exchange for relief from punitive measures. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, who led the Iranian delegation alongside Majid Takht-e Ravanchi, described the exchange as "serious, frank and detailed," noting that both sides came with "specific ideas" and had agreed to further consultations. The E3 have warned that without visible progress, sanctions could be restored under the UN's "snapback mechanism", a clause in the 2015 agreement allowing the automatic return of sanctions if Iran breaches the deal's terms. A European diplomat, speaking anonymously due to the sensitivity of the negotiations, said the E3 had offered Tehran a temporary delay in triggering the mechanism, on condition that Tehran re-engage diplomatically, cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and address concerns over its rapidly growing stockpile of highly enriched uranium. "The snapback remains on the table," the diplomat said. Iran, however, insists that its enrichment activities are within its legal rights. Gharibabadi reiterated on social media that Tehran's nuclear efforts must be respected, adding that the talks should not serve as a "platform for hidden agendas such as military action." He also stated that Iran's involvement in the diplomatic process depends on "rebuilding trust," particularly in light of the US withdrawal from the 2015 accord under former President Donald Trump. "Iran has absolutely no trust in the United States," Gharibabadi wrote. In May, the IAEA reported that Iran's stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% purity had surpassed 400 kilograms, close to weapons-grade level. Since then, Tehran has suspended cooperation with the agency. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, speaking in Singapore on Friday, warned that inspectors must be allowed to return soon. "This is an international obligation of Iran," he said, urging movement "from words to reality." Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, speaking to Al Jazeera earlier this week, maintained that the country remains committed to international law and does not intend to pursue nuclear weapons. The talks in Istanbul come amid rising tensions in the region. Last month, Israeli and US military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites prompted retaliatory attacks on Israel and a US base in Qatar.
Euronews
7 hours ago
- Euronews
Five things to know about the ICJ's historic climate change ruling
On Wednesday, the UN's highest court delivered a historic opinion on climate change, outlining states' responsibilities under international law. It was the largest case ever seen by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), with more than 150 submissions from states, international organisations, and civil society groups. Over 100 states and international organisations took part in hearings last December. The ICJ is the world's highest court, but its 133-page advisory opinion is not legally binding. Although it doesn't establish new international laws, it clarifies existing ones and is likely to be cited in future climate litigation and UN negotiations like COP30 in Brazil later this year. Experts believe it could have a plethora of consequences for global climate action. But what do the key parts of the ICJ's advisory opinion actually mean? A healthy environment is a human right The ICJ affirmed that a 'clean, healthy and sustainable environment' is a human right, just like access to water, food and housing. In 2022, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution acknowledging this right. The ICJ confirmed this again on Wednesday, saying that a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is foundational for the effective enjoyment of all human rights. It means that, as Member States are parties to numerous human rights treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are required to guarantee the enjoyment of such rights by addressing climate change. Preventing climate harm is bigger than the Paris Agreement Big emitters were accused of trying to hide behind the Paris Agreement during the hearings for the case. In December, they argued that the international climate agreement was already a sufficient framework that outlined states' climate responsibilities. But the court confirmed that climate change threatens human rights and involves multiple branches of international law, from international human rights law to environmental law and the UN Charter, not just the Paris Agreement. This means any duty to prevent harm to the environment and protect the climate applies to all states, whether or not they are parties to specific UN climate agreements. The ICJ also emphasised the need for ambition and accountability, not merely having a plan. Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs are national climate plans that represent each country's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change. They are a core part of the Paris Agreement. The content of each country's NDC is as relevant to whether they are complying with their legal obligations as simply submitting one. Essentially, it means any plan must be ambitious and in line with climate science, reflecting a state's 'highest possible ambition', and must become 'more demanding over time'. States that fail to act on climate change risk are breaking the law 'Failure of the state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions … may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that state,' Court president Iwasawa Yuji said. He specifically mentioned fossil fuel production and consumption, as well as the provision of subsidies. This means countries that fail to take measures to protect the planet from climate change could be in violation of international law. If governments and parliaments fail to curb the production and consumption of fossil fuels, approve fossil fuel projects and roll out public money for fossil fuels, they could also be in breach of international law. The court also confirmed that countries are bound by international law to regulate the climate impact of businesses and companies within their jurisdiction, including fossil fuel firms. States harmed by climate change have a right to seek reparations The court affirmed that legal consequences for climate harm include restitution, compensation and guarantees of non-repetition. That means states responsible for unlawful emissions could be required to stop harmful actions, restore damaged infrastructure or ecosystems - or provide financial compensation for the losses suffered. The ruling paves the way for vulnerable nations to seek reparations from historical emitters for the harm they have endured from climate impacts like extreme weather. In other words, they could sue high-emitting nations, including for past emissions. 'If states have legal duties to prevent climate harm, then victims of that harm have a right to redress,' explains Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law. 'In this way, the ICJ advisory opinion not only clarifies existing rules, it creates legal momentum. It reshapes what is now considered legally possible, actionable, and ultimately enforceable.' The ICJ's opinion could affect current climate cases and future agreements The ICJ's opinion opens the door for other legal actions, from states returning to the ICJ to hold each other accountable to domestic lawsuits. 'This newfound clarity will equip judges with definitive guidance that will likely shape climate cases for decades to come,' says ClientEarth lawyer Lea Main-Klingst. 'And outside the courtroom, this result is a powerful advocacy tool. Each and every one of us can use this decision to demand our governments and parliaments take more ambitious action on climate change to comply with both the Paris Agreement and other applicable international laws.' That includes in the lead-up to and during upcoming negotiations at COP30, where the advisory opinion from the ICJ could be used as leverage.
Euronews
7 hours ago
- Euronews
Ateş' warnings against 'Islamisation' dangerous, German imams says
Since demonstrations in Berlin and Düsseldorf turned violent when supporters of Syria's new government clashed with pro-Kurdish demonstrators, discussions surrounding radical Islamism in Germany have been on the rise. At the protests last weekend, people celebrated the wave of attacks on Syria's Druze minority by Bedouin militias, which left hundreds dead, a wave of sectarian violence that threatened to derail post-war Syria's hopes of renewed stability. Around 400 people took part in the protests in Berlin, while 500 participants took to the streets in Düsseldorf, where the rally ended in violence and police officers were injured. The German-Turkish Imam Seyran Ateş criticised the demonstrations in comments to Euronews and issued an urgent warning against radicalism on the streets of Germany. "They were sent to Europe to cause unrest here, to recruit people for their ideology and to work on the grand idea of Islamising Europe," she claimed. Counterpoints by other imams So is Germany really being Islamised by extremists as Ateş claimed? Some of the country's other imams are now speaking out to Euronews, putting forward diverging opinions. Benjamin Idriz, an imam in Penzberg, countered: "I disagree with the insinuation that 'Islam' or 'the Muslims' want to threaten Europe." Anyone who uses the term Islamisation is "stirring up Islamophobia," he emphasised. "I consider Ms Ateş' statements, according to which young Syrians are allegedly being sent here to Islamise Europe, to be dangerous and simply irresponsible;" Idriz told Euronews. Idriz accuses her of adding "fuel to the fire". There are "of course individuals, with or without a migration background, who misuse religious terms" to incite hatred against people of other faiths. "There is no justification for this," he stated. "But identifying such people with a religion or an entire faith is as wrong as it is dangerous," Idriz said. According to Idriz, Islamisation is a "politically charged fighting term" stemming from "right-wing populist contexts" and suggests a "targeted infiltration of Europe by Islam". This is a narrative that is "close to conspiracy ideologies" and anyone using it is fuelling Islamophobia, he said. No connection with Islam, Berlin imam says Berlin imam Sharjil Khalid was also outraged. "The main function of these self-proclaimed Islam experts seems to be to make simplified general judgements," he told Euronews. This can be seen in the "decontextualised use" of Islamisation. The term is "increasingly being used in a populist way ... without regard for context or differentiation. This was also the case with the protests in Berlin and Düsseldorf." Khalid sees an ethnic conflict rather than one with Islam at its core. "Why is Ms Ateş suddenly linking these demonstrations, which were clearly about an ethnic conflict between Druze and Syrians, to Islam?" "We know that many people who read about Islam are hardly religiously educated. This was also the case with extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda or (the self-described) Islamic State (group)." "Reports have shown that many members had hardly any Islamic knowledge, and a large number were even illiterate. Despite this, a direct connection to Islam is repeatedly made across the board," he said. "What we are seeing in these riots is not an expression of Islam," emphasises Khalid, but "the result of profound ethnic and geopolitical problems". Any incitement to violence should be firmly rejected. "As an imam and Islamic theologian, I would like to remind you of a central tradition of the Holy Prophet Muhammad: 'A Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand people are safe.'" Outrage from Austria Ateş's warnings have made waves beyond Germany's borders. "With all due respect to the professional successes achieved by native German-Turks, but fear-mongering conspiracy theories such as 'The Islamists were sent to Islamise Europe' are less useful here," Austrian-Turkish political analyst Ercan Karaduman told Euronews. Karaduman has already appeared with Ateş on the "Talk im Hanger-7" show to discuss the subject. "I can't understand why people who think differently are subjected to death threats. Muslims shouldn't be allowed to do that either," he said, speaking about the death threats against Ateş. It can be observed how the "Taliban in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda with 9/11, Daesh terror in Syria, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Iran and its offshoots in Lebanon are forming generalised opinions about all Muslims and Islam in European societies," he said. Daesh is another term used for the so-called IS group by Arabic speakers to disempower it. Karaduman finds this unjustified. "This even creates blanket judgements about Muslims who have lived in NRW for generations and are even more German than the Germans," he explained. With regard to the radical protests in Berlin and Düsseldorf, he believes it would do no good to see "Islam as the source of the problem". "We need to focus on professional extremism prevention," says the Austrian political analyst with Turkish roots. Who is the 'liberal' imam Seyran Ateş? Ateş founded the first and so far only liberal mosque in Germany in 2017, where women and men have equal rights and Muslims of all sexual orientations can practise their religion openly. The feminist and lawyer was brought up in a conservative family and is fighting to reform Islam. The Ibn Rushd Goethe Mosque, which she founded in 2017, had to close temporarily last year due to an Islamist attack plot. Ateş has been under police protection for almost 18 years, but continues to campaign for gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights. Many in the Muslim world see this as a provocation. Egyptian religious leaders have issued a fatwa — a religious ruling — declaring prayers in her mosque "not valid". The price for her fight to establish a centre for liberal Islam has come in the shape of death threats, police protection and further pressure on her wellbeing. Ateş has already withdrawn from public life several times.
