Politics

Solution needed: Suweida’s ceasefire is a pause, not peace

The guns may have fallen silent but in Syria’s Druze-dominated southern city, with the status quo enforced. That is dangerous, since it fails to recognise that Syria has now fundamentally changed

Karam al-Masri/Reuters

A member of the Internal Security Forces stands watch at a checkpoint in the village of Al-Mazra'a, after days of violence in Suweida between Bedouin fighters and Druze factions, on 20 July 2025.

Solution needed: Suweida’s ceasefire is a pause, not peace

Haid Haid

last update on 21 Jul 2025

A US-brokered ceasefire has brought a temporary end to the deadliest wave of violence to have hit the southern Syrian city of Suweida has seen in decades. What began on 13 July as a localised dispute between Druze and Bedouin groups quickly escalated into a full-scale military confrontation between Druze fighters and transitional government-aligned forces.

In just over a week, around 1,100 people are believed to have been killed, and tens of thousands displaced, shaking the foundations of Syria’s already fragile transition. While the violence had subsided at the time of writing, this feels more like a pause then a return to stability, the ceasefire reportedly just reinstating the pre-conflict status quo, with local Druze resuming de facto control over Suweida.

Halting the violence is a necessary first step, but it does not amount to a durable political settlement. Unless the core grievances that fuelled the escalation—such as political marginalisation and contested authority—are meaningfully addressed, the calm is unlikely to last.

Trigger point

The spark that ignited the violence was the kidnapping of a Druze trader, reportedly by individuals connected to Bedouin tribes. In response, a wave of retaliatory abductions unfolded, escalating into broader communal conflict. This type of incident is sadly familiar in southern Syria, where unresolved tensions and mistrust between communities continue to fester.

Karam al-Masri/Reuters — Bedouin fighters ride a truck in the village of Al-Mazraa, after days of violence in Suweida.

What set this episode apart was the decision of Syria’s transitional authorities to intervene militarily. Damascus framed its deployment as a mission to restore order, but many in Suweida saw it as a power grab—a perception rooted in unresolved disputes between local leaders and the transitional authorities, particularly over governance, security arrangements, and the identity of the future Syrian state.

Suweida’s Druze notables have long argued for decentralised governance and locally-managed security structures tailored to the community’s needs, whereas Damascus is wedded to a highly centralised, top-down approach. They are at an impasse, with negotiations having led to nothing, which helps explain why the state’s intervention was not as a peacekeeping mission, but as an attempt to reassert central authority by force.

Unless the core grievances that fuelled the escalation—such as political marginalisation and contested authority—are meaningfully addressed, the calm is unlikely to last

Tensions reached a boiling point as fighting broke out between government forces and units loyal to Sheikh Hikmat al-Hajri, the most prominent Druze religious leader. Damascus accused al-Hajri's fighters of attacking its forces in violation of prior agreements, while his followers claimed the government had broken its word and committed serious abuses on the ground.

Ceasefire, not peace

The situation took a sharp turn when Israel responded by launching airstrikes at Syrian government forces, key installations, and the Ministry of Defence in Damascus. Concerned about the potential for escalation, the United States—along with reported assistance from Turkey—intervened to broker the ceasefire announced by interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

He described it as a necessary measure to prevent further deterioration. Yet though the ceasefire is a welcome step toward halting the violence, it does little to address the root causes of the crisis. It restores the pre-conflict status quo without offering any meaningful steps toward a long-term political solution. This is a dangerous oversight.

The past week's events have deeply altered Syria's political atmosphere, exposing societal fractures and inflaming new ones. Anti-Druze inflammatory rhetoric increased after Israel's strikes, depict the Druze as collaborators or separatists, reinforcing sectarian narratives and fuelling calls for collective punishment.

A landscape shifts

The result has been a disturbing surge in incitement against the Druze minority, including calls to boycott Druze-owned businesses and expel Druze students from university dormitories. At the same time, many Druze—especially those aligned with al-Hajri—have grown increasingly distrustful of the state and its institutions, further eroding the transitional government's legitimacy.

Omar Haj Kadour/AFP — Bedouin and tribal gunmen keep a position during clashes with Druze fighters in Syria's southern city of Suweida, despite an announcement of a ceasefire.

What had long been a simmering sectarian undercurrent has now erupted into overt hostility. Hate speech, once whispered from the fringes, is now widespread and loud. This is precisely what makes the current ceasefire so precarious: it fails to account for how dramatically the political and social landscape has shifted.

A return to the pre-crisis arrangement is not a return to peace—it is a stumble back into a volatile and unresolved conflict. The ceasefire may have silenced the guns, but only a genuinely inclusive political transition can heal Syria's deep wounds. Without urgent action to address the root causes of the violence in Suweida, this fragile calm will not last. It is still possible to stop Syria descending into fragmentation, but the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

+ / -