From New Lines Magazine
They serve in the army, pay their taxes and obey the laws of the land, but have never been granted equality and are now increasingly concerned for the future
The small, generally unobtrusive and law-abiding Druze community in Israel was briefly in the international news at the beginning of May, when it organized several demonstrations to demand that the Israeli military protect its coreligionists from sectarian violence in neighboring Syria. The protesters were responding to reports that armed militants loosely affiliated with the newly installed government of Ahmad al-Sharaa, the former jihadist who led the forces that ousted Bashar al-Assad, had attacked Druze areas and killed at least 100 people. Dozens of Israeli Druze blocked major intersections in the north of the country, where their villages are concentrated, and there was an additional demonstration in front of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s private residence in Caesarea. Israel’s Druze, unlike other Arab citizens, are subject to mandatory conscription in the army, where they often distinguish themselves in combat units; now they want tangible evidence that the state values and reciprocates their loyalty and service.
The Israeli air force did strike several targets in Syria, including the area near the presidential palace in Damascus; these actions, said Netanyahu, were undertaken “out of a deep commitment to our Druze brothers in Israel.” Netanyahu’s sincerity could be questioned on the basis of the targets that were hit, which went well beyond the areas where Druze were vulnerable. Many analysts have posited that Netanyahu’s true goal is to keep Syria politically destabilized and that he exploited an opportunity by claiming he was acting on behalf of the Druze.
On July 14, a new round of sectarian clashes erupted between Bedouin and Druze communities in Sweida, in southern Syria. Druze in Israel were horrified by videos and images of the violent attacks committed against Druze civilians, with hundreds killed, including the elderly and children. One image in particular, which shows a man in military uniform forcibly shaving the white beard and moustache of an elderly Druze man, echoes a well-known black-and-white photo of a Nazi soldier forcibly shaving the face of a religious Jew in Poland during World War II. The two images have been posted side by side by both Druze and Jewish Israelis on their social media accounts to indicate mutual sympathy. In other words, the Druze of Israel perceive the violence against their coreligionists in Syria as genocidal. They want the army in which they serve, which is often held up as the reason Jews need not fear another Holocaust, to offer protection.
Netanyahu responded with widespread bombings, including Syria’s military headquarters in Damascus on July 16. What is the goal here? There is most likely no long-term thinking involved. The Druze of Israel have no interest in encouraging Israel to divide Syria or undermine its sovereignty; they perceive the new government under al-Sharaa as hostile and the jihadists still operating as a threat from which the Druze of Syria need protection. Nor is it likely that Netanyahu’s goal is to divide or destabilize Syria. The Israeli military and wider population are completely exhausted by the nearly two-year military campaign in Gaza; they would hardly support a new front that would see their children dying in Syria on behalf of the Druze. The U.S., too, would not stand by if Israel launched a sustained military campaign in Syria, given the new friendship between al-Sharaa and President Donald Trump, and in light of the fact that U.S. officials, according to prominent Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, told Netanyahu twice between June 15 and 16 to calm the situation down in Syria, to “stop and take a breath.”
So why did the Druze citizens of Israel respond to the sectarian violence in neighboring Syria by demanding that the Israeli government take military action? The question is particularly relevant in that, while Israeli military intervention might deter the jihadists from attacking the Druze in the short term, the medium- and long-term implications are negative. The Israeli Druze see military intervention as a protective and defensive act, but many — perhaps most — Syrians see it as an attack on their country’s sovereignty. For this reason, it could have a significant negative impact on the future of the Druze in Syria as well as their relations with the government and the broader population. Given the obvious potential collateral damage to the Druze population’s position in Syria, the stated rationale underlying Israeli Druze lobbying for military intervention — fear for the survival of the community across the border — also speaks to the complex, fraught history of this small ethnic and religious minority’s relationship with the state.
Raslan Ibrahim is associate professor of international relations and political science at the State University of New York (SUNY) Geneseo.
More content from this blog
- The Political Erasure of Indian Muslims, by Harsh Mander – 1 June 2025
- Slavery and the Racialization of Humanity: Coordinates for a Comparative Analysis, by Laura Menin – 8 April 2020
- International Women’s Day Statement, by the Women’s Peace Network – 8 March 2025
- Once More on Hamas, by Dan La Botz and Stephen R. Shalom – 12 January 2024
- Does solidarity require the denial of sexual violence? by Catrin Lundström – 15 August, 2024