Israel vows to defend Syria's Druze after clashes on edge of Damascus
Israel has vowed to defend Syria's Druze community after deadly clashes over the weekend in Damascus involving members of the sect and the country's Hayat Tahrir Al Sham (HTS) rulers, adding to tension between minorities and the new authorities, and raising concerns about the possibility of more outside intervention in the country. At least three people have been killed since Saturday after forces loyal to HTS made incursions into the neighbourhood of Jaramana, near the road to Damascus airport, prompting the Druze to bring in reinforcements from the sect's heartland in the southern governorate of Suweida, residents said. Machine gun fire and the sound of rocket propelled grenades could be heard in the neighbourhood throughout Saturday as HTS forces surrounded the district, but could not seal it completely. A member of the inner circle of Sheikh Hikmat Al Hijri, the sect's spiritual leader in Syria, said the tension in Jaramana had abated on Sunday. "The situation has been contained," he said. He attributed the change to a visit by a Druze militia leader loyal to Mr Hijri, who arrived in Jaramana from Suweida and asked the community's armed members to reduce their presence in the streets. The Druze community, estimated to be around one million, are mainly present in Syria, Israel, Lebanon and Jordan. An Israeli Defence Ministry statement said that the Druze of Jaramana have come under attack. Large numbers of Druze live in the mixed neighbourhood of several hundreds of thousands of people. Syria's new leader Ahmed Al Shara, the leader of HTS, which led the toppling of the former dictator Bashar Al Assad on December 8, was linked to Al Qaeda before breaking off from the group and forming HTS. 'We will not allow the terrorist regime of radical Islam in Syria to harm the Druze. If the regime harms the Druze, it will be harmed by us,' the Israeli statement said. Mr Al Shara is aiming to consolidate control in outlying areas of the country. But he is facing resistance from leaders of the Druze and other religious and ethnic groups. Israel has also said it will not allow HTS to entrench itself in the south of Syria, which comprises Suweida and areas in the nearby governorates of Deraa and Quneitra. The two regions are adjacent to Israeli positions in the Golan Heights, where Israel has expanded a buffer zone in the last two months. Last week, Israel struck sites south of Damascus that formerly belonged to the Assad regime after HTS personnel moved in. Mr Al Shara has repeatedly signalled that no harm will come to members of the country's many minorities unless they were complicit in the crimes of the former regime, however tension has been rising between minorities and the new authorities. A statement by Druze clergy in Jaramana said that the Druze of Jaramana will always consider their "depth" to be Damascus, without directly addressing the Israeli pledge of support for the community. The statement said that "rogue" elements in Jaramana should face the force of the law, without naming them. Many see Sheikh Al Hijri as a protector of the Druze, by virtue of his religious stature and outside connections. He steered the community away from joining in the suppression of the peaceful 2011 revolt against Mr Al Assad as most young Druze dodged conscription. In August 2022, he supported a civil disobedience movement in Suweida that demanded the former leader's removal, which lasted until he was ousted in December. The anti-Assad movement in Suweida lasted so long because any attempt to violently suppress it was expected to be met with a response by Israel. Russia, whose influence has drastically waned in Syria, was also seen as not having favoured the use of mass violence against the Druze. The country remains fragmented, with Russia maintaining a coastal base near the Alawite Mountains, the core support region of the former regime. The US, which backs a Kurdish militia in the east, also has bases in the country. Mr Al Hijri has welcomed the removal of Mr Al Assad but has called for an inclusive civil administration to replace the former regime, implying that the new state must be secular. A European diplomat in Amman said the status of the Druze and other minorities was discussed during a brief meeting in Amman between King Abdullah and Mr Al Shara. The king condemned the Israeli attacks, and 'affirmed support for Syria's unity and sovereignty'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
US warns countries not to join French, Saudi UN conference on Palestine: Report
The US is lobbying foreign governments not to attend a UN conference next week sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to a US diplomatic cable reported by Reuters. The cable, sent to countries on Tuesday, warns them against taking "anti-Israel actions" and says attending the conference would be viewed by Washington as acting against US foreign policy interests. France, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is a US ally in Nato. Saudi Arabia is one of the US's closest Middle East partners. US President Donald Trump was feted during a May visit to Riyadh, where Saudi Arabia signed billions of dollars of investment deals with the US. France and Saudi Arabia are co-hosting the gathering between 17 and 20 June in New York. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters "We are urging governments not to participate in the conference, which we view as counterproductive to ongoing, life-saving efforts to end the war in Gaza and free hostages," the cable says, according to Reuters. "The United States opposes any steps that would unilaterally recognise a conjectural Palestinian state, which adds significant legal and political obstacles to the eventual resolution of the conflict and could coerce Israel during a war, thereby supporting its enemies,' it added. France had been lobbying the UK and other European allies to recognise a Palestinian state at the conference. However, Middle East Eye reported in June that the US has warned Britain and France against recognising a Palestinian state at the conference. At the same time, Arab states have been urging them to proceed with the move, sources told MEE. In late May, United Nations member states held consultations in preparation for the conference, during which the Arab Group urged states to recognise Palestinian statehood. The Arab Group said they would measure the success of the conference by whether significant states recognise Palestine, sources in the UK Foreign Office told MEE. Since the 1950s, successive American administrations have stated that their ultimate goal in ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a two-state solution. Many experts and diplomats have earmarked occupied East Jerusalem, the occupied West Bank and Gaza, which Israel seized from Egypt and Jordan in the 1967 war, as the heartland of a future Palestinian state. But US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee told Bloomberg News on Tuesday that a Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank was no longer a US policy goal. He said Israel's 'Muslim neighbours' could give up their land to create one. According to the cable, the US said that "unilaterally recognizing a Palestinian state would effectively render Oct. 7 Palestinian Independence Day'. Hamas led an attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, killing around 1,200 people. Israel responded by launching a devastating assault on Gaza that has killed more than 54,000 Palestinians, mainly women and children, and reduced the enclave to rubble. The US cable also said Washington was working with Egypt and Qatar to reach a ceasefire in Gaza and free the captives there. "This conference undermines these delicate negotiations and emboldens Hamas at a time when the terrorist group has rejected proposals by the negotiators that Israel has accepted,' it said. The Trump administration pushed Israel to agree to a three-phase ceasefire with Hamas in January. Israel broke that agreement by refusing to begin talks on ending the war permanently and unilaterally resumed attacking Gaza.
TECHx
3 hours ago
- TECHx
The UAE Media Law Update Everyone's Talking About
Home » Editor's pick » The UAE Media Law Update Everyone's Talking About New UAE Media laws introduce fines up to AED 1M for unlicensed content. Learn how to stay compliant with publishing, podcasting, and media rules. If you're in media, publishing, or content creation in the UAE, this is big. The UAE has rolled out a new framework that brings sharper clarity to what's allowed in media, and what isn't. From hefty fines to stricter licensing, these updates are reshaping the way media works across the Emirates. Let's break it down. Why This Matters With digital content growing fast, the UAE is pushing for more responsible media practices. The goal? Clear rules. Smarter regulation. And a media space that reflects national values while supporting creativity. Two new Cabinet Decisions, No. 41 and No. 42 of 2025, introduce detailed penalties and updated licensing structures for everyone in the media game. This includes individuals, institutions, and digital platforms, even those in free zones. The Big One: Content Penalties (Table No. 2) This is where things get serious. For the first time, violations are sorted into 20 categories across four severity levels, First Degree (least serious) to Fourth Degree (most severe). Fines range from AED 5,000 to AED 1,000,000. Here's what could land you in trouble: Disrespecting religious values (including Islam and other faiths): AED 100,000 to AED 1,000,000 Offending UAE leadership or national symbols: AED 50,000 to AED 500,000 Publishing content harmful to foreign relations: AED 30,000 to AED 250,000 Promoting sectarianism, terrorism, or violence: AED 100,000 to AED 500,000 Sharing fake, misleading, or immoral content: AED 10,000 to AED 100,000 Violating privacy or children's rights: AED 5,000 to AED 100,000 Ignoring age ratings or national identity standards: AED 5,000 to AED 100,000 Each case will be assessed based on its impact, media, economic, political, and social. Who Decides the Fine? A new body called the Committee for Violations of Media Content Standards will handle that. Made up of 3 to 7 media experts, the committee will decide the penalties based on severity and societal impact. They'll evaluate violations and match them to the right category and fine. Media Licenses Just Got Stricter Alongside content rules, Cabinet Decision No. 41 of 2025 and Table No. 1 of Decision No. 42 outline new rules for media activity licensing. From podcasts and electronic publishing to video production, every media activity now has: Clear license types Specified fees Administrative fines for non-compliance Operating without a license? You're looking at a minimum fine of AED 5,000. Repeat violations will cost more. Can You Appeal a Fine? Yes. If you've been penalized, you can file a grievance within 15 days. A response must be given within another 15 days from your submission date. This adds a layer of fairness and gives professionals a chance to explain or challenge decisions. What This Means for UAE Media These decisions mark a major moment for UAE Media. The new rules bring structure, transparency, and accountability to a fast-evolving industry. Whether you're a journalist, vlogger, podcaster, or running a digital platform, compliance is no longer optional. These updates ensure that freedom of expression and cultural responsibility can grow side by side. Media professionals now have clearer expectations and stronger guidance on what's acceptable, and what's not. Final Thought The UAE is moving toward a more ethical, secure, and future-ready media ecosystem. With clearer laws and better oversight, media professionals are now better equipped to create responsibly, without crossing red lines. Stay updated. Stay licensed. Stay compliant.
Middle East Eye
4 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Could David Cameron be prosecuted for threatening the ICC?
David Cameron, the former British foreign secretary, may be liable for prosecution under international law and within the UK for his attempts to obstruct the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC), experts have said. Middle East Eye revealed on Monday that Cameron privately threatened Karim Khan, the British chief prosecutor at the ICC, in April 2024 to defund and withdraw from the ICC if it issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. "A threat against the ICC, direct or indirect, is an obstruction of justice," Francesca Albanese, the UN's special rapporteur on Palestine, told MEE's live show on Tuesday. "It's incredibly serious that someone in a position of power might have had the audacity to do that." And Professor Sergey Vasiliev of the Open University of the Netherlands reacted: "If the reports are confirmed, David Cameron did cross the legal line when he threatened the Prosector with all kinds of consequences for applying for the warrants. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters "This is a serious matter that shows Cameron's utter lack of respect for the ICC's judicial and prosecutorial independence." What did David Cameron do? Cameron, then foreign secretary in Rishi Sunak's Conservative government, made the threat on 23 April 2024 during a heated phone call with Khan. Cameron told Khan that the UK would "defund the court and withdraw from the Rome Statute" if the ICC issued warrants for Israeli leaders. At the time, Khan and his team of lawyers were preparing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his then-defence minister, Yoav Gallant, as well as for Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Ismail Haniyeh and Mohammed Deif. Khan's office applied for warrants on 20 May, less than a month after the phone call. 'Per the reported dialogue, David Cameron clearly seeks to pressure the ICC Prosecutor's decision regarding whether to pursue warrants for Israeli officials' - Professor Tom Dannenbaum Six months later, on 21 November, the warrants were approved by a panel of judges, officially charging Netanyahu and Gallant with war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza since October 2023. MEE revealed details of the call based on information from several sources, including former staff in Khan's office familiar with the conversation and who have seen the minutes of the meeting. Cameron, a former British prime minister who was appointed foreign secretary by Sunak in November 2023, told Khan that applying for warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant would be "like dropping a hydrogen bomb". He said Khan was "on the brink of making a huge mistake" and that "the world is not ready for this". The report has drawn condemnation from British MPs who called for an investigation into Cameron's actions. Cameron has not responded to multiple requests for comment. Approached by MEE for a response to the exchange with Cameron, Khan said on Monday: "I have no comment to make at this time." What's the background to David Cameron's demands? The Conservative government was accused last year of being behind the delay in the ICC's issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli and Hamas officials, after filing a request with the pre-trial chamber to challenge the court's jurisdiction on Israeli nationals. The request prompted dozens of submissions from other states, but was later dropped by the Labour government, which came to power in July 2024. The revelations about Cameron came after the administration of US President Donald Trump said last week that it would sanction four ICC judges for investigations into the US and its ally Israel. In February, Khan was the first ICC official to be the target of US sanctions, carried out under an executive order issued shortly after Trump took office. The revelations also follow Khan's decision to take a leave of absence pending a UN-led investigation into alleged sexual misconduct, an accusation denied by his lawyers. What are the legal risks for Cameron? The ICC, established by the Rome Statute in 2002, is the only permanent international court that prosecutes individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It has 125 signatories, including the UK and all EU countries, though Hungary has officially begun the withdrawal process. Leading international law experts have told Middle East Eye that Cameron's behaviour is an attack on judicial independence, and is prohibited under the Rome Statute and British law as an obstruction of justice. Professor Tom Dannenbaum of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy said that, in general, the UK is entitled to withdraw from the ICC, and, upon exit, would then cease its financial contribution. Exclusive: David Cameron threatened to withdraw UK from ICC over Israel war crimes probe Read More » Additionally, as a state party to the Rome Statute, the UK can advocate budget cuts within the Assembly of States Parties, the court's governing body, without having to pull out. But, he said, the issue here arises before any such withdrawal or defunding. "The problem here is David Cameron's reported threat to condition possible UK action or inaction in those respects on the decisions of the ICC Prosecutor regarding whom to investigate and prosecute," said Dannenbaum. "That threat is deeply concerning. The rule of law depends on prosecutors' insulation from political pressure in their identification of individuals for investigation and prosecution,. That is true at the ICC just as it is in domestic systems of criminal justice." Under what law could Cameron be charged? The four experts MEE spoke to said the ICC could charge Cameron, given the nature of the phone call with Khan, based on Article 70 of the Rome Statute, which prohibits offences against the administration of justice. These include "impeding, intimidating or corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of forcing or persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties; and retaliating against an official of the Court on account of duties performed by that or another official." Dannenbaum argued that Cameron's threat to withdraw the UK from the ICC and defund the court may amount to "corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of … persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties". Although this particular provision has never been litigated before the ICC, Dannenbaum said, the relevant offence of "corruptly influencing a witness" has. "That case law indicates that 'corruptly influencing' includes 'pressuring' the protected person in a way 'capable of influencing the nature' of their contribution and thereby 'compromising' it, with the term 'corruptly' signifying the aim of 'contaminating' the person's contribution," Dannenbaum explained. "Per the reported dialogue, David Cameron clearly seeks to pressure the ICC Prosecutor's decision regarding whether to pursue warrants for Israeli officials. It is possible that this pressure would be understood to have been designed to 'contaminate' the Prosecutor's decision, although that concept may be less clear here than it is in the context of witness testimony. "Considerations regarding state withdrawal and budget cuts are plausibly 'capable' of influencing such decisions, albeit that the Prosecutor appears to have resisted the pressure in the case at hand." Given the above points, Dannenbaum concluded that Cameron's conduct may be consistent with the prohibited offences against the administration of justice listed under Article 70. The court has jurisdiction over Article 70 offences, irrespective of the nationality or location of the accused. What penalty could Cameron face? If successfully charged, Cameron is likely to face an arrest warrant by the court and, if convicted, could be sentenced to up to five years of imprisonment in The Hague or a fine. However, given the vulnerability of the ICC, with Trump's sanctions and Khan's leave of absence, Vasiliev suggested that Cameron's prosecution in The Hague would be "rather unlikely. "The ICC could in principle open the investigation into these allegations under Article 70 or request the UK to do so (or the UK could do so on its own). Whether this will in fact be done, is a big question." Could Cameron be prosecuted in the UK? Toby Cadman, a British barrister and international law expert, said that if the allegations are substantiated by clear evidence, then Cameron could be investigated at an international and domestic level "provided there's political will". Francesca Albanese: David Cameron could be criminally liable for threatening ICC Read More » In the UK, an investigation could be opened for the common law offence of obstruction or perverting the course of justice or the common law offence of misconduct in public offence, he said. An investigation in the UK can be carried out in accordance with Section 54 of the ICC Act 2001, which is based on Article 70 of the Rome Statute. The attorney general's consent would be required for any prosecution to go ahead. "It is quite clear that the allegation is serious and if the UK is committed to maintaining a system based on the rule of law with full respect for the state's international treaty obligations it should open an investigation and if the evidence supports it, bring charges," Cadman told MEE. Could Cameron be prosecuted outside the UK? But Vasiliev suggested that Cameron's prosecution before the courts of other states would be precluded by his functional immunity - the protection granted to senior officials if an alleged offence was committed during their official duties. "Cameron has a functional immunity for that act as he uttered those threats in the exercise of his official functions, and there is no exception to such immunity applicable in foreign courts for offences against the integrity of judicial system," Vasiliev argued. "The prosecution authorities of other states parties therefore will not eagerly pursue such a case."
