In an unprecedented escalation, during the past few days the Israeli occupation carried out military strikes targeting the Syrian army sites in the city of As -Suwayda, in support of the local Druze factions that have been in open confrontations with the Syrian army and security forces.
The Israeli intervention this time was not limited to targeting the mechanisms of the Syrian army in the south, but the bombing has expanded to include the headquarters of the Staff Command in the capital, Damascus, which led to its destruction and a number of victims, in a clear message that exceeds the borders of the endosperm to the depth of the Syrian political and military decision.
Does this policy stem from religious and sectarian considerations? Or is it an expression of a security strategy that Israel draws to protect its borders and reshape the influence map in southern Syria?
“Blood Alliance” .. an ideological alliance that obliges Israel to Druze
The Israeli support for the Druze factions in As -Suwayda is not limited to political or security considerations only, but is based – in part – to what is known in the Druze and Israeli circles as “blood alliance”, which is a rooted expression in the collective awareness of the Druze community within Israel, and its symbolism extends to the Druze of Syria and Lebanon as well.
According to the narration circulating within the Druze religious circles, the “Blood Charter” between the Jews and the Druze has established since the exit of the Children of Israel from Egypt, in the meeting that brought the Prophet Moses to Shayeb -which is considered in the Druze tradition, one of the most prominent pillars of the monotheistic doctrine, which gives a spiritual dimension to the relationship, and makes adherence to it closer to the “era of life” not just a transitory alliance, according to the Palestinian study issued by the Palestinian study.
According to the study, which was published entitled “The formation of the identity of a thunderbolt minority: the Druze state in Israel”, what was known as the “blood alliance” arose between Israel and the Druze in 1956 at the invitation of David Ben Gurion, when an agreement was signed with 16 Druze leaders to impose compulsory service on the Druze in the occupation army, while the Arabs were excluded from the Muslims and Christians from that.
Despite the extensive opposition within the Druze community, the agreement was admitted to the support of some of the leaders who saw this an opportunity to improve the position of the sect within the Israeli regime. With the passage of time, the Druze served in special units and then in combat brigades, and some held high positions, most notably Ghassan Alyan.
This relationship is due to an ancient Zionist vision that considers the Druze different from the rest of the Arabs and can alliance with them against the Muslim majority, according to a political study by researcher Gabriel Ben Dor.
This concept has strongly returned to the forefront with the intensification of confrontations in As -Suwayda, where the spiritual and political leaders of the Druze community in Israel, led by Sheikh Mowaffaq Tarif, met, and directed public criticism of the Israeli government because of its “failure to support the Druze siblings in Syria”, considering that the official silence constitutes “a betrayal of the existing blood alliance between Israel and the Druze.”
Israeli media sources indicate that Israeli Druze leaders discussed the possibility of entering groups of youth youth who serve in the Israeli army into the Syrian territories with the aim of “fighting alongside the Druze there” in the event of what they described as “the government aggression on the endosperm.”
In a related context, the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – Tuesday 15 July – stated that Israel is “committed to preventing harm to the Druze in Syria, starting from the deep fraternal alliance with our Druze citizens in Israel, and their family and historical ties with them.”
Political employment of the sect
The relationship between Israel and the Druze was not an equal partnership relationship as much as it was – in many of its stations – part of a studied policy to break up the universal Arab identity, by granting privileges to specific sects and employing them in the service of the Israeli control project, politically, militarily and security.
Since the establishment of the State of Israel, Ben Gurion has sought to reshape the social structure of the Arabs within occupied Palestine, through the distinction between its ethnic and religious components, and the Druze has received the largest share of these policies, as they were granted a special legal status, and the mandatory service was imposed on them in the Israeli army, while the religious Jews and some other minorities were exempted.
Studies such as the “Van Leer Institute” report in Jerusalem (2015) confirms that this codified discrimination of the Druze produced an hybrid Israeli Druze identity, which was employed in multiple political and security contexts, while the sect was actually excluded from the real influence centers within the state.
In this context, the researcher in Israeli affairs, Khaled Al -Khalil, notes that “Israel has been keen since the 1950s to separate the Druze from their Arab and Islamic surroundings, and she devoted this chapter legally and institutionally, not with the aim of integration, but for the sake of the political and security use of the sect.”
Hebron adds to Al -Jazeera Net that the Israeli policies have sought to create a “distinctive” sect within the Arab society, which are treated differently to be a tool in the project of control and fragmentation, which was reflected later in dealing with the Druze of the Golan, and today extended to the Sweida factions.
David Corridor .. Expansion in the name of the community protection
The Israeli intervention in southern Syria, under the slogan “Protecting the Druze”, is linked to a deeper ideology vision known in the Zionist literature as the “David Corridor”; It is a strategic extension that is in line with the concept of “Greater Israel”, based on biblical interpretations attributed to Theodore Herzl, and the borders of Israel promised from the Nile River to the Euphrates River.
The project is a narrow geographical tape that extends across the heart of the East starting from the occupied Golan Heights in the southwest, and it passes in the southern Syrian governorates adjacent to Israel and Jordan, which is Quneitra and Daraa, then it expands east through the endosperm in Jabal Houran and enters the Syrian Badia towards the strategic crossing crossing on the Syrian -Iraqi -Jordanian border.
Through this project, the endosperm, through the Druze component, becomes a link in this “symbolic corridor”, which is intended to embody politically and geographically in the reality of the region.
This ambition is integrated with what is known as the Israeli “ocean doctrine”, as this doctrine is due to the establishment of Israel in 1948, where the occupation state faced challenges related to the absence of strategic depth and lack of population, which prompted its leaders, led by Ben Gurion, to develop a strategy based on building a western military superiority, while considering the neighboring Arab countries as existential threat sources.
This doctrine later evolved, and intelligence officer David bin Ouzil reveals in an interview with Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, and it became based on two pillars:
- The first belt: Fudating conflicts between Arab countries and their non -Arab neighbors (such as Türkiye or Iran), to weaken them and drain them into side conflicts that do not belong to Israel.
- The second belt: The exploitation of minorities in the region, especially near Palestine, by isolating them from their surroundings and linking their security to the security of Israel, which drives them to alliance with them out of fear.
According to this vision, observers believe that the Israeli intervention in As -Suwayda did not come as a humanitarian response as it claims the occupying power, but rather as part of a broader strategy to reshape Syrian geography in a way that serves Israel’s security and expansionist interests, investing in social components that are marginalized or political tension, and turning it into tools of regional influence at the moment of the collapse of the center.
It is mentioned that in addition to the Druze community, Israel previously tried to open channels with the Kurds and the Alevis, by providing various forms of political, military and media support, within the framework of a strategy aimed at undermining political centralization in Damascus, and stabilizing the reality of the division.
Political goals
The recent Israeli raids on Damascus, nor unprecedented intervention in southern Syria, do not seem just passing military moves, but rather – according to Israeli statements – are clear political messages targeting the new Syrian administration led by President Ahmed Al -Shara, which Tel Aviv is viewed with an apprehension, and accuses him of belonging to a “jihadist” stream within the new ruling institution in Syria.
Analysts believe that the Israeli support for the Druze community in As -Suwayda comes in the context of a multi -level pressure strategy, aimed at Strengthening the location of local allies such as Druze before any possible political or security arrangements in the south, And weakening the new central authority by creating foci of sectarian and regional turmoil.
Adding the imposition of new negotiating equations from the position of power, especially since Israel, according to political researcher Musa Al -Janiti, “always negotiated under the fire and under pressure to achieve greater gains.”
Al -Janati asserts – for Al -Jazeera Net – that Israel wants to employ the Druze paper in the upcoming negotiations with the new Damascus, in order to stabilize its security and geographical gains in the Golan and the peaks of Jabal Al -Sheikh and ensure that its military presence continues in 9 locations inside the Syrian territories.
He adds that Israel “cannot abandon the Golan”, and therefore seeks to escalate political and military pressure on the Syrian government and the Syrian people, to push them to make concessions related to geography, security and water.
On the other hand, the national Druze forces in the Palestinian interior warned of the danger of imposing the Druze in this confrontation, as the Druze Initiative Committee said that “Israel is trying to impose Abraham agreements on the new Syria according to its conditions, and seeks to drag the Druze into a battle that is not for them, taking advantage of the presence of Syrian militants paving this scenario.”
For his part, Syrian President Ahmed Al -Shara went out in a televised speech to confirm that “the Druze is an inherent part of the Syrian fabric”, pledging to protect their rights, and accusing Israel of seeking to “create chaos in Syria and dismantle the unity of its people after the fall of the defunct regime.”
Netanyahu .. and his personal accounts
The Israeli intervention in southern Syria does not seem to be merely a security movement to protect the Druze community as the official speech promotes it in Tel Aviv, but rather is interested in the Israeli affairs that it comes in the context of personal and political accounts of Netanyahu, who is trying to invest the situation to achieve multiple gains, inside the Israeli and on the international scene.
In a remarkable statement, Netanyahu said that his government is adopting a “disarmament” policy from the area south of Damascus to Jabal Al -Druze, adding: “We will not allow the military forces to go down south of Damascus, and we will not allow the harm to the Druze in Jabal al -Druze.”
However, behind this declared concern for the Druze, the director of a center of progress for dialogue and peacebuilding, Abdullah Hattawi, reads that he has a deeper motive represented in Netanyahu’s endeavor to improve his image in front of the Druze community inside Israel, especially the Druze soldiers in the Israeli army whose influence and influence are increasing.
In his interview with Al -Jazeera Net – Al -Ghadawi adds that Netanyahu is trying, in the face of the escalating international criticism, to present himself as a “peace” man defending minorities and human rights, although the reality – especially in Gaza – is lying to this speech, as his government is accused of committing systematic crimes that may rise to genocide, which prompted the International Court of Justice to demands precautionary measures against Israel.
As for the researcher in the Israeli affairs Muhannad Mustafa, he indicates in his talk to Al -Jazeera Net that Netanyahu is also driven by a personal contract related to the courts of corruption that chases him, as he strives to record achievements that restore his political glory and remove the stigma of judicial shame, in light of his firm conviction that he is “the greatest leader in the history of Israel.”
In this sense, it seems clear that the Israeli interference in As -Suwayda turns – in addition to its negotiating goals with Damascus – into a paper in Netanyahu’s personal battle, more than it is a moral response or human move, in light of a government whose lack of legitimacy increases in front of the Israeli interior and the world.