Ceasefire announced after dozens killed in Syrian sectarian clashes
Defence minister Murhaf Abu Qasra said in a statement that after an 'agreement with the city's notables and dignitaries, we will respond only to the sources of fire and deal with any targeting by outlaw groups'.
The clashes began with a series of tit-for-tat kidnappings and attacks between members of local Sunni Bedouin tribes and Druze armed factions in the southern province, a centre of the Druze community.
Government security forces that were sent in on Monday to restore order also clashed with Druze armed groups. During the day, Israel struck a Syrian government military tank and said it was acting to protect the Druze religious minority.
In Israel, the Druze are seen as a loyal minority and often serve in the armed forces.
State-run news agency SANA did not give any details about Tuesday's strike. However, the Britain-based war monitor the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Israel struck a tank belonging to the Syrian military as forces began to move in deeper into Sweida city.
Earlier on Tuesday, religious leaders of the Druze community in Syria called for armed factions that have been clashing with government forces to surrender their weapons and cooperate with authorities as they entered the provincial capital of Sweida.
One of the main religious authorities later released a video statement retracting the call.
The initial statement called for armed factions in Sweida to 'cooperate with the forces of the Ministry of Interior, not to resist their entry, and to hand over their weapons to the Ministry of Interior'.
The statement also called for 'opening a dialogue with the Syrian government to address the repercussions of the events.'
The commander of Internal Security in Sweida Governorate, Brigadier General Ahmad al-Dalati, welcomed the statement and called for 'all religious authorities and social activists to adopt a unified national stance that supports the Ministry of Interior's measures to extend state authority and achieve security throughout the province'.
Sheikh Hikmat Al-Hijri, a Druze spiritual leader who has been opposed to the government in Damascus, said in a video message that the previous statement by Druze leaders had been issued after an agreement with the authorities in Damascus but 'they broke the promise and continued the indiscriminate shelling of unarmed civilians'.
'We are being subjected to a total war of annihilation,' he said.
Some videos on social media had showed armed fighters with Druze captives, inciting sectarian slogans and beating them.
The Druze religious sect is a minority group that began as a 10th-century offshoot of Ismailism, a branch of Shiite Islam.
More than half the roughly one million Druze worldwide live in Syria. Most of the other Druze live in Lebanon and Israel, including in the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 Middle East War and annexed in 1981.
Clashes have on several occasions broken out between forces loyal to the government and Druze fighters since the fall of President Bashar Assad in early December in a lightning rebel offensive led by Sunni Islamist insurgent groups.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
19 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Votes at 16 policy ‘hopelessly confused', claim Conservatives
Paul Holmes asked in the Commons why the Government plans to lower the voting age while 16 and 17-year-olds are not allowed to buy lottery tickets or alcohol. He summoned democracy minister Rushanara Ali to the despatch box to take questions about the Government's plans, which it had originally set out in a written statement. Conservative shadow housing, communities and local government minister Mr Holmes told MPs: 'This strategy has finally revealed their ambition for allowing a 16-year-old to vote in an election but not stand in it, probably because young people are being abandoned in droves by the Labour Party. 'So, why does this Government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in? 'Isn't the Government's position on the age of majority just hopelessly confused?' Responding, Ms Ali said: 'This Government was elected on a manifesto that committed to granting 16-year-olds the right to vote and protecting our democracy from foreign money. 'So, can I remind (Mr Holmes) that his party lost the election in the worst general election defeat for decades? It's no wonder that the party opposite are scared of the electorate. 'The truth is, young people deserve to have stake and to have a say in the future of our democracy. Young people can vote for any party they like, and it speaks volumes that (Mr Holmes) would prefer for them to be silenced.' Ministers will bring forward a bill before 2029 which will include extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year olds, and work to create a system of automated voter registration, according to the Government. Teenagers aged 16 or over can already vote in Holyrood, Senedd and local government elections in Wales and Scotland, but not in UK parliamentary elections. The Government has also vowed to close 'loopholes' which allow foreign donors to give political parties money through UK-based companies. Ms Ali said the Conservatives 'sat in government for 14 years and did nothing to close the gaping loopholes allowing foreign interference and foreign money to enter' the system. She later set out that the Government would 'give courts the powers to increase sentences for those who are hostile to candidates', and added: 'An aggravated factor for intimidatory offence will be introduced allowing courts to pass proper sentences. 'We will also remove the requirement to publish addresses of candidates, and we will consult with the Crown Prosecution Service and Sentencing Council and other judicial bodies.' Mr Holmes had earlier asked why the Government had chosen to announce the changes in writing. 'Instead of the democracy minister using this democratic chamber to announce a new wide-ranging strategy on democracy, the Government chose to announce it to the press in the Monday Number 10 lobby briefing, typical of Government by press release,' he said. 'Why has there been no consultation of political parties to date?' Liberal Democrat Cabinet Office spokeswoman Sarah Olney said there are 'many aspects' of the proposals which her party supports. She asked: 'Will they finally scrap first-past-the-post and introduce fair votes via proportional representation?' Ms Ali replied: 'The Government has no plans to change the electoral system for UK parliamentary and local elections.' The minister also took a question about banning cryptocurrency donations. Labour former minister Liam Byrne said: 'I welcome the measures to take out dark money from our politics, but they will mean nothing unless we move forward aggressively to ban cryptocurrency donations into British politics. 'They are used for money laundering, they are used to disguise dark money, they have no role in British politics. Will she confirm the elections bill will ban cryptocurrency donations?' Ms Ali said: 'Our reforms on political finance to further strengthen our democracy will apply to all donations, regardless of form, and that includes cryptocurrency.'
North Wales Chronicle
19 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Votes at 16 policy ‘hopelessly confused', claim Conservatives
Paul Holmes asked in the Commons why the Government plans to lower the voting age while 16 and 17-year-olds are not allowed to buy lottery tickets or alcohol. He summoned democracy minister Rushanara Ali to the despatch box to take questions about the Government's plans, which it had originally set out in a written statement. Conservative shadow housing, communities and local government minister Mr Holmes told MPs: 'This strategy has finally revealed their ambition for allowing a 16-year-old to vote in an election but not stand in it, probably because young people are being abandoned in droves by the Labour Party. 'So, why does this Government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in? 'Isn't the Government's position on the age of majority just hopelessly confused?' Responding, Ms Ali said: 'This Government was elected on a manifesto that committed to granting 16-year-olds the right to vote and protecting our democracy from foreign money. 'So, can I remind (Mr Holmes) that his party lost the election in the worst general election defeat for decades? It's no wonder that the party opposite are scared of the electorate. 'The truth is, young people deserve to have stake and to have a say in the future of our democracy. Young people can vote for any party they like, and it speaks volumes that (Mr Holmes) would prefer for them to be silenced.' Ministers will bring forward a bill before 2029 which will include extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year olds, and work to create a system of automated voter registration, according to the Government. Teenagers aged 16 or over can already vote in Holyrood, Senedd and local government elections in Wales and Scotland, but not in UK parliamentary elections. The Government has also vowed to close 'loopholes' which allow foreign donors to give political parties money through UK-based companies. Ms Ali said the Conservatives 'sat in government for 14 years and did nothing to close the gaping loopholes allowing foreign interference and foreign money to enter' the system. She later set out that the Government would 'give courts the powers to increase sentences for those who are hostile to candidates', and added: 'An aggravated factor for intimidatory offence will be introduced allowing courts to pass proper sentences. 'We will also remove the requirement to publish addresses of candidates, and we will consult with the Crown Prosecution Service and Sentencing Council and other judicial bodies.' Mr Holmes had earlier asked why the Government had chosen to announce the changes in writing. 'Instead of the democracy minister using this democratic chamber to announce a new wide-ranging strategy on democracy, the Government chose to announce it to the press in the Monday Number 10 lobby briefing, typical of Government by press release,' he said. 'Why has there been no consultation of political parties to date?' Liberal Democrat Cabinet Office spokeswoman Sarah Olney said there are 'many aspects' of the proposals which her party supports. She asked: 'Will they finally scrap first-past-the-post and introduce fair votes via proportional representation?' Ms Ali replied: 'The Government has no plans to change the electoral system for UK parliamentary and local elections.' The minister also took a question about banning cryptocurrency donations. Labour former minister Liam Byrne said: 'I welcome the measures to take out dark money from our politics, but they will mean nothing unless we move forward aggressively to ban cryptocurrency donations into British politics. 'They are used for money laundering, they are used to disguise dark money, they have no role in British politics. Will she confirm the elections bill will ban cryptocurrency donations?' Ms Ali said: 'Our reforms on political finance to further strengthen our democracy will apply to all donations, regardless of form, and that includes cryptocurrency.'
.png%3Fwidth%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Are suspended Labour MPs undisciplined? Readers have their say
Sir Keir Starmer's decision to suspend four Labour MPs for defying the party whip has triggered a strong reaction, both inside and outside Westminster. The punishment meted out to Rachael Maskell, Chris Hinchliff, Brian Leishman, and Neil Duncan-Jordan comes after the government was forced into two major U-turns on planned welfare cuts amid its largest backbench rebellion to date. Some see the suspensions as a reassertion of control before MPs leave for summer recess, especially given rumours that disaffected Labour figures are in talks with Jeremy Corbyn about forming a new party. Starmer's supporters, including Labour minister Jess Phillips, argue the rebel MPs were right to be punished for 'slagging off their own government'. Meanwhile, the prime minister's critics say the move exposes his weakness, not his authority. Union leaders have condemned the actions as 'authoritarian' and warned of a deepening rift between Labour and the labour movement. The rebel MPs have defended their stance as a matter of principle, insisting they were elected to stand up for struggling constituents, not to rubber-stamp legislation they believe will cause harm. Independent readers also weighed in with strong, but divided, views. Some backed the need for unity and discipline in government, but others questioned Starmer's leadership style. Here's what you had to say: You sign up to follow party discipline If you get elected using the party's funding, logistics and "brand", you have signed up to follow party discipline and – on a three-line whip –to back the government. That's pretty much written in stone from the moment you put yourself forward as a candidate. In all parties. You might feel obliged to rebel on some matter of conscience, perhaps. But you do so knowing full well what the consequences are. SteveHill Do you think Keir Starmer was right to suspend the rebel MPs – or is Labour silencing dissent? Share your thoughts in the comments. Behaving like an undisciplined bunch Starmer is right to do so. A group of Labour backbenchers are behaving like an undisciplined bunch of student protestors, not members of the governing party. Maybe it's because Labour holds power so rarely, but it invariably has a troublesome internal opposition who don't seem able to grasp that once a party is in government, the primary duty of MPs is to govern in the national interest and adopt collective responsibility – and then to represent the views of their constituents. Their own political and ideological preferences come some way down the list of priorities, and undermining their own government by throwing their toys out of the pram when they don't get their own way is stupid. The voters don't like divided parties which fight internal wars – that was a large part of the reason they chucked the Tories out. If the impression that the left has run amok and is creating anarchy takes root, then Labour will be toast and we will get the Tories back (or even worse, Reform). If that happens, the 'rebels' will have enabled the destruction of the welfare system and a rollback on what Labour has achieved on NHS improvements, net zero, green policies, and much else. Being in power and achieving something, even if not everything that all MPs want, should be far preferable to being back in opposition and achieving nothing. Tanaquil2 Have a backbone Being in government is not easy, and difficult compromises sometimes have to be made for the longer term. It's called not cherry-picking your favourite policies (remember the Brexit negotiations?) without being responsible for not being able to do other things. They will be someone else's favourites, and that way lies chaos. Support the government or don't, but have the backbone to call a vote of no confidence. The government is responsible to the people—not Labour Party members or other parties, for that matter. Longsands No easy fix Each MP should also have a duty to consider how to ensure the best for their constituents in the long term. This government is struggling to put right long-term abuses which have been levied on the ordinary British public for decades, many since Margaret Thatcher. Lies about giving ordinary people bigger stakes have been sold ever since, while the few accumulate more and more wealth and power. It will take a decade to rebalance some of this, and many of us will suffer in the short term for the greater good and for true democracy. Alas, there is no easy fix, even though many (most?) MPs would like to be able to offer one to their constituents. Reeves and Starmer seem to be doing the best they can with a lousy hand of cards and a rigged deck! Greym Primary duty I am reminded of Winston Churchill's comments about the duties of an MP: "The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. Burke's famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organisation or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there is no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy." So an MP's primary duty is to the good of the country, then to his constituents as a whole, and only then to his party. Starmer has suspended MPs for doing their duty by putting the good of their constituents higher than party obligation. WellActually He can't sack them all! His vindictiveness is a sign of his weakness, as noted above. Leisham is the MP for Alloa and Grangemouth (Scotland); his suspension will likely set off alarms in the Scottish Labour Party, where Starmer is becoming increasingly unpopular. 26.6 per cent of children in Alloa and Grangemouth live in poverty. Brian Leisham, as a Labour MP for the area, has consistently opposed Starmer's policies, particularly those intended to worsen the lives of poorer people in Great Britain. He stuck to his principled approach in the welfare cuts debacle. I suspect that many other Scottish Labour MPs will continue their opposition to Starmer. In the end, he can't sack them all! PaleHorse A group of 'martyrs' If he thinks he can assert his authority this way, then it will backfire, and he has created a group of "martyrs" who will feel free to be highly critical of his policies with no fear of retribution. It might even set an example. Other than that, he should have a word with himself over the summer, and ask why Labour MPs could possibly object to cutting PIP support dressed up as reform – a reform that wasn't even in the manifesto. He doesn't seem to understand how it looks on the ground when they take freebies whilst cutting from the poorest. And if he still doesn't understand why the rebels did what they did, he should resign. His top-down leadership style of commanding over 400 Labour MPs was always going to have its limitations. These people have opinions and are voicing them, but Starmer seems incapable of taking anything on board. It's a very old-fashioned, top-down leadership style. More modern styles engage with people and take them with them. Having kicked out any dissenting voices during his time in opposition, he has surrounded himself with yes-people, and now he is reaping the rewards. Organisations with those kinds of structures are always destined to fail. Leftyandproud One step towards a dictatorship This should not happen in a representative democracy. Each MP has an obligation to their constituents and their conscience, and should be free to vote in line with them. A cabinet should convince its MPs to vote for party policy, but forcing them to vote a certain way – which these bans effectively do, is one step towards a dictatorship. BigDogSmallBrain Heavy-handed Looks a bit heavy-handed to me, an outsider. These MPs gave an honest opinion and tried to persuade the government that it was making a wrong move. Once again, the government has handled an obviously sensitive issue clumsily, and the presentation came over badly. Advice to the government – if anyone should get the boot, it is your current PR advisers. There have been a series of bad calls over the past year that looked bad from WFA onwards. Learn or suffer the consequences. 49niner Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day's top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click 'log in' or 'register' in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.
