To mend Syria, Damascus must match words with deeds

In practice, Damascus took only a handful of highly publicised steps: announcing internal investigations and suspending two individuals involved in spreading hate speech. The Defence Ministry said it had formed a committee to identify the perpetrators, vowing the harshest penalties, even if that involved its own forces.

There have been several widely circulated videos documenting the violence. The ministry said everyone involved in them would be investigated, with the findings made public. The Interior Ministry also condemned the extrajudicial killings shown in these videos and pledged to bring the perpetrators to trial. This all suggests a commitment to accountability, but many question their credibility.

Critics argue that such investigations are inherently limited and unlikely to deliver justice, particularly if the perpetrators are affiliated with ministries, so the government needs to establish an independent, transparent, and impartial investigation with a commission whose composition is accepted by all parties, inviting both national and international human rights organisations to observe and support.

Token measures

So far, so limited. Syria's Ministry of Information announced disciplinary measures against two individuals who appeared in a TikTok video insulting religious community figures in Suweida. Calling themselves 'journalists,' these social media 'influencers' have now had their right to obtain press credentials revoked, but only for a year. If they repeat the offense, there will be legal action.

While these steps were presented as part of a crackdown on hate speech, many see them as inadequate, more akin to token gestures. Influencers' work does not fall under the ministry's formal jurisdiction, so accountability for such conduct may fall under a different legal framework. Others pointed to several prominent journalists—some with close ties to the transitional government—who have openly promoted hate speech yet faced no disciplinary action.

To many in Suweida and beyond, this is selective enforcement, and lays bare the performative nature of the announced measures. Rather than a serious effort to confront the deep‑rooted problem of hate speech and sectarian rhetoric, they are seen more as public relations exercises.

Combatting sectarian rhetoric requires a systematic approach to identifying and holding accountable all those who promote hate, starting with the most influential. While a new legal framework may not be feasible until a legislative body is formed, authorities can still apply existing laws.

Students targeted

Alongside the clashes in Suweida, alarming reports have surfaced of indiscriminate attacks against Druze students across Syrian universities, including discrimination, physical assaults, and even disappearances on several campuses. Some were reportedly dragged from their dormitory rooms and beaten by fellow students.

Families have also reported losing contact with their sons, to such an extent that WhatsApp and Telegram groups—some with thousands of members—are understood to have been created to identify, track, and target Druze students. Members publish names, dorm room numbers, and photos of the students, fully aware of the risks this exposure creates.

Despite the widespread nature of these violations, the authorities' response has been piece-meal at best. A few universities issued statements of condemnation. Some even met demonstrators calling for the expulsion of students from Suweida. But beyond that, little has been said or done. This silence emboldens perpetrators and fuels suspicion that the authorities tacitly condone such actions.

To put an end to it, the authorities must urgently establish clear mechanisms to protect students—and civilians more broadly—from attacks based on religious, ethnic, or political identity. This needs to be public, transparent, and consistently enforced. Perpetrators need to know that they will be caught and punished.

Since taking power, the transitional government has consistently vowed to chart a different course, raising expectations at home and abroad. While those vows are important, failing to back them with meaningful action risks deepening the very mistrust the government seeks to repair.

Progress takes time, but without tangible steps, promises quickly ring hollow. When expectations go unmet, they harden into disappointment, then anger. The erosion of trust is more than a political risk; it is a spark. Left unaddressed, it can ignite deeper divisions, fuel resentment, and drag Syria back into the very violence it is desperate to escape.