Israel can protect Sweida’s Druze without supporting Syria’s separation - opinion

Ghassan Ibrahim argues that Israel should not support Druze separatism in Sweida, but instead encourage a political settlement within a united Syria, modeled on the SDF's integration path. He warns that backing Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri as the sole Druze representative is risky, and that an independent Druze entity could create long-term instability for Israel.

Ghassan Ibrahim argues that Israel should not support Druze separatism in Sweida, Syria, but instead encourage a political settlement within a united Syria. He draws a parallel to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which moved toward negotiations with Damascus over Kurdish rights rather than pursuing independence. Ibrahim warns that backing Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri as the sole Druze representative is strategically risky, citing reports of his alleged detention of opponents and his past interactions with Iranian-linked forces during the Assad era. The article highlights the students' examination crisis: the Syrian state prepared exam centers, but al-Hijri's so-called National Guard allegedly prevented students from reaching them. Ibrahim argues this shows the core problem is authority, not separation. He also warns that an independent Druze entity could create long-term identity dynamics among Israel's own Druze citizens and would lack international recognition, becoming a zone of influence rather than a stable state. The framing relies on a policy argument rather than neutral reporting, advocating for a specific Israeli approach.