logo
Druze worry about being left behind in post-war Syria

Druze worry about being left behind in post-war Syria

BBC News12 hours ago
When the gunfire started outside her home in the Damascus suburb of Ashrafiyat Sahnaya, Lama al-Hassanieh grabbed her phone and locked herself in her bathroom.For hours, she cowered in fear as fighters dressed in military-style uniforms and desert camouflage roamed the streets of the neighbourhood. A heavy machine gun was mounted on a military vehicle just beneath her balcony window."Jihad against Druze" and "we are going to kill you, Druze," the men were shouting.She did not know who the men were - extremists, government security forces, or someone else entirely - but the message was clear: as a Druze, she was not safe.The Druze - a community with its own unique practices and beliefs, whose faith began as an off-shoot of Shia Islam - have historically occupied a precarious position in Syria's political order.Under former President Bashar al-Assad, many Druze maintained a quiet loyalty to the state, hoping that alignment with it would protect them from the sectarian bloodshed that consumed other parts of Syria during the 13-year-long civil war.Many Druze took to the streets during the uprising, especially in the latter years. But, seeking to portray himself as defending Syria's minorities against Islamist extremism, Assad avoided using the kind of iron first against Druze protesters which he did in other cities that revolted against his rule.They operated their own militia which defended their areas against attacks by Sunni Muslim extremist groups who considered Druze heretics, while they were left alone by pro-Assad forces. But with Assad toppled by Sunni Islamist-led rebels who have formed the interim government, that unspoken pact has frayed, and Druze are now worried about being isolated and targeted in post-war Syria.Recent attacks on Druze communities by Islamist militias loosely affiliated with the government in Damascus have fuelled growing distrust towards the state.
It started in late April with a leaked audio recording that allegedly featured a Druze religious leader insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Although the leader denied it was his voice, and Syria's interior ministry later confirmed the recording was fake, the damage had been done.A video of a student at the University of Homs, in central Syria, went viral, with him calling on Muslims to take revenge immediately against Druze, sparking sectarian violence in communities across the country.The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring group, said at least 137 people - 17 civilians, 89 Druze fighters and 32 members of the security forces - were killed in several days of fighting in Ashrafiyat Sahnaya, the southern Damascus suburb of Jaramana, and in an ambush on the Suweida-Damascus highway.The Syrian government said the security forces' operation in Ashrafiyat Sahnaya was carried out to restore security and stability, and that it was in response to attacks on its own personnel where 16 of them were killed.
Lama Zahereddine, a pharmacy student at Damascus University, was just weeks away from completing her degree when the violence reached her village. What began as distant shelling turned into a direct assault - gunfire, mortars, and chaos tearing through her neighbourhood.Her uncle arrived in a small bus, urging the women and children to flee under fire while the men stayed behind with nothing more than light arms. "The attackers had heavy machine guns and mortars," Lama recalled. "Our men had nothing to match that."The violence did not stop at her village. At Lama's university, dorm rooms were stormed and students were beaten with chains.In one case, a student was stabbed after simply being asked if he was Druze.
"They [the instigators] told us we left our universities by choice," she said. "But how could I stay? I was five classes and one graduation project away from my degree. Why would I abandon that if it wasn't serious?"Like many Druze, Lama's fear is not just of physical attacks – it is of what she sees as a state that has failed to offer protection."The government says these were unaffiliated outlaws. Fine. But when are they going to be held accountable?" she asked.Her trust was further shaken by classmates who mocked her plight, including one who replied with a laughing emoji to her post about fleeing her village."You never know how people really see you," she said quietly. "I don't know who to trust anymore."
While no-one is sure who the attackers pledged their allegiance to, one thing is clear: many Druze are worried that Syria is drifting toward an intolerant Sunni-dominated order with little space for religious minorities like themselves."We don't feel safe with these people," Hadi Abou Hassoun told the BBC.He was one of the Druze men from Suweida called in to protect Ashrafiyat Sahnaya on the day Lama was hiding in her bathroom.His convoy was ambushed by armed groups using mortars and drones. Hadi was shot in the back, piercing his lung and breaking several ribs.It's a far cry from the inclusive Syria he had in mind under new leadership."Their ideology is religious, not based on law or the state. And when someone acts out of religious or sectarian hate, they don't represent us," Hadi said."What represents us is the law and the state. The law is what protects everyone…I want protection from the law."The Syrian government has repeatedly stressed the sovereignty and unity of all Syrian territories and denominations of Syrian society, including the Druze.
Though clashes and attacks have since subsided, faith in the government's ability to protect minorities has diminished.During the days of the fighting, Israel carried out air strikes around the Ashrafiyat Sahnaya, claiming it was targeting "operatives" attacking Druze to protect the minority group.It also struck an area near the Syrian presidential palace, saying that it would "not allow the deployment of forces south of Damascus or any threat to the Druze community". Israel itself has a large number of Druze citizens in the country and living in the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights.Back in Ashrafiyat Sahnaya, Lama al-Hassanieh said the atmosphere had shifted - it was "calmer, but cautious".She sees neighbours again, but wariness lingers."Trust has been broken. There are people in the town now who don't belong, who came during the war. It's hard to know who's who anymore."Trust in the government remains thin."They say they're working toward protecting all Syrians. But where are the real steps? Where is the justice?" Lama asked."I don't want to be called a minority. We are Syrians. All we ask for is the same rights - and for those who attacked us to be held accountable."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Palestine Action loses appeal hours before terror ban due to start
Palestine Action loses appeal hours before terror ban due to start

The Independent

time2 hours ago

  • The Independent

Palestine Action loses appeal hours before terror ban due to start

Palestine Action has lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge to temporarily stop it being banned as a terror group, less than two hours before it was due to come into force. Earlier on Friday Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. The move is due to come into force at midnight after judge Mr Justice Chamberlain refused the bid for a temporary block. Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, judges refused to grant the temporary block. The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said: 'The judge was entitled to take the view that the harm identified… would be the product of an individual's decision not to comply with the order.' She added that there was 'no real prospect of a successful appeal'. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid. Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis, added: 'You are not going to get to the Supreme Court before midnight.' The judge said that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid. In their 11-page written judgment, the judges said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law. 'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.' In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.' She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told appeal judges that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' which was 'all the more impressive given the time constraints'. He added that the judge 'was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did'. The barrister said: 'The judge conducted a very careful analysis of all the matters he relied upon.' Mr Watson also said that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech. 'There was no error by the judge in concluding that there was a serious question to be tried while at the same time acknowledging that he couldn't, on the material in front of him, say that it had strong prospects of success,' he added.

Palestine Action lose 11th-hour appeal to stop being banned as a terror group after High Court judge refused a bid to temporarily halt them being outlawed
Palestine Action lose 11th-hour appeal to stop being banned as a terror group after High Court judge refused a bid to temporarily halt them being outlawed

Daily Mail​

time2 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

Palestine Action lose 11th-hour appeal to stop being banned as a terror group after High Court judge refused a bid to temporarily halt them being outlawed

Palestine Action has lost its 11-hour appeal to stop it from being banned as a terror group, less than two hours after losing a bid to halt it come coming into force. Earlier today, Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, failed in her bid to get the High Court to temporarily block the Government from classifying the group as a terrorist organisation. This came before a potential legal challenge to the decision to proscribe the group under the Terrorism Act 2000. The ban is set to take effect at midnight after Judge Mr Justice Chamberlain denied the request for a temporary block. In a late twist, Ms. Ammori's legal team appealed the decision at the Court of Appeal on Friday evening. However, around 10:30pm, the Court also refused to grant the temporary injunction, paving the way for the controversial move to proceed. The founder's representative told the court that the ban would have a 'chilling effect on free speech'. But Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said: 'The judge was entitled to take the view that the harm identified... would be the product of an individual's decision not to comply with the order.' She added that there was 'no real prospect of a successful appeal'. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid. Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis, added: 'You are not going to get to the Supreme Court before midnight.' The judge said that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid for a stay. In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.' She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told appeal judges that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' which was 'all the more impressive given the time constraints'. He added that the judge 'was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did'. The barrister said: 'The judge conducted a very careful analysis of all the matters he relied upon.' Mr Watson also said that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech. 'There was no error by the judge in concluding that there was a serious question to be tried while at the same time acknowledging that he couldn't, on the material in front of him, say that it had strong prospects of success,' he added. The proposal for the ban which had been approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords earlier this week, will make membership and support for the direct action group a criminal offence, punishable by up to 14 years in prison. High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Ms. Ammori's legal team was also denied permission to appeal and was advised to take their case directly to the Court of Appeal. Currently, 81 organisations are already proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Hamas, al Qaida, and National Action. During the hearing, Raza Husain KC, representing Ms. Ammori, argued for the suspension of what he called the 'ill-considered' and 'authoritarian abuse of statutory power' until a hearing scheduled for around July 21. Mr Husain told the London court: 'This is the first time in our history that a direct action civil disobedience group, which does not advocate for violence, has been sought to be proscribed as terrorists.' The barrister said that his client had been 'inspired' by a long history of direct action in the UK, 'from the suffragettes, to anti-apartheid activists, to Iraq war activists'. The hearing later in July is expected to deal with whether Ms Ammori can bring a High Court challenge over the planned proscription. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that there was no 'express provision' to protect lawyers representing her in the potential legal challenge from criminal consequences if the ban came into effect. She also said that if the ban came into effect the harm would be 'far-reaching', could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh later named Normal People author Sally Rooney, who lives abroad and 'fears the ramifications for her, for her work, for her books, for her programmes' if she shows support for Palestine Action. 'Is the Prime Minister going to denounce her, an Irish artist, as a supporter of a proscribed organisation?' 'Will that have ramifications for her with the BBC, etc?' Ms Ni Ghralaigh asked. In his written judgment, Mr Justice Chamberlain said it was 'ambitious' for Palestine Action to claim it was not 'concerned in terrorism', as the 'action which immediately preceded the announcement of the decision to lay a proscription order was against an RAF base'. He also said that Ms Ammori's arguments 'contain at least one serious issue to be tried, namely that the order is a disproportionate interference with the rights of the claimant and others' under the European Convention on Human Rights. But he ruled that issuing a temporary block on the ban 'even for a short period' would 'deny the public important protections which the order is intended to confer'. He said: 'In my judgment, some of the consequences feared by the claimant and others who have given evidence are overstated.' He continued: 'It will remain lawful for the claimant and other persons who were members of Palestine Action prior to proscription to continue to express their opposition to Israel's actions in Gaza and elsewhere, including by drawing attention to what they regard as Israel's genocide and other serious violations of international law. 'They will remain legally entitled to do so in private conversations, in print, on social media and at protests.' He added: 'It follows that it is hyperbole to talk of the claimant or others being "gagged" in this respect, as the claimant has alleged. 'They could not incur criminal liability based on their past association with a group which was not proscribed at the time. 'That said, there is no doubt that there will be serious consequences if the order comes into effect immediately and interim relief is refused.' In a statement issued following the judgement, the co-founder said the public were being left 'in the dark about their rights to free speech'. She said the 'We are seeking an urgent appeal to try to prevent a dystopian nightmare of the Government's making which would see thousands of people across Britain wake up tomorrow to find they had been criminalised overnight for supporting a domestic protest group which sprays red paint on warplanes and disrupts Israel's largest weapons manufacturer to disrupt the flow of arms to Israel's genocidal war machine. 'We will not stop fighting to defend fundamental rights to free speech and protest in our country and to stand up for the rights of the Palestinian people. 'The Home Secretary is rushing through the implementation of the proscription at midnight tonight despite the fact that our legal challenge is ongoing and that she has been completely unclear about how it will be enforced, leaving the public in the dark about their rights to free speech and expression after midnight tonight when this proscription comes into effect.' She went on to say: 'Hundreds of thousands of people across the country have expressed support for Palestine Action by joining our mailing list, following and sharing our social media content and signing petitions, and many, including iconic figures like Sally Rooney, say they will continue to declare 'we are all Palestine Action' and speak out against this preposterous proscription, demonstrating how utterly unworkable it will be. 'As Justice Chamberlain acknowledged in court today, it is unclear what expressions of support could lead to arrest and potential prosecution with sentences of up to 14 years in prison. 'We would only have only a few hours to disband our entire organisation and dismantle all of our infrastructure, including closing bank accounts and deleting our mailing list and social media platforms. 'This is despite the fact that we have not had the opportunity to defend our fundamental rights in court and challenge this unlawful, authoritarian and utterly absurd proscription. 'If we ultimately succeed in overturning the proscription, we would have to start from scratch, having lost everything we have painstakingly built over five years.' Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the High Court there was an 'insuperable hurdle' in the bid to temporarily block the ban of Palestine Action. The barrister also said that if a temporary block was granted, it would be a 'serious disfigurement of the statutory regime'. He said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Friday's hearing comes after an estimated £7million worth of damage was caused to two Voyager planes at RAF Brize Norton on June 20, in an action claimed by Palestine Action. Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22, are accused of conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage. They were remanded into custody after appearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court and will appear at the Old Bailey on July 18. The hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain will conclude later on Friday, with the High Court judge expected to give his decision at the end of the hearing. A further hearing to decide whether Ms Ammori will be given the green light to challenge the decision to ban Palestine Action is expected to be heard later this month. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'.

Hamas says it has given ‘positive' response to latest ceasefire proposal
Hamas says it has given ‘positive' response to latest ceasefire proposal

BreakingNews.ie

time4 hours ago

  • BreakingNews.ie

Hamas says it has given ‘positive' response to latest ceasefire proposal

Hamas says it has given a 'positive' response to the latest proposal for a ceasefire in Gaza but said further talks were needed on implementation. It was not clear if Hamas' statement meant it had accepted the proposal from US President Donald Trump for a 60-day ceasefire. Advertisement Hamas has been seeking guarantees that the initial truce would lead to a total end to the war, now nearly 21 months old. In a statement issued late Friday, Hamas said it has 'delivered the response to the mediators, which was positive'.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store