Talk:Southern Syria clashes (July 2025–present)

Requested move 14 July 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Opposers accurately state that RS do not describe this as an offensive; as a title it would breach the policy on original research. (closed by non-admin page mover) CoconutOctopus talk 16:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

---

Southern Syria clashes (July 2025–present) → 2025 Suwayda Offensive – The military intervention of the Syrian armed forces is beyond a clash but a full offensive with syrian forces attacking deep inside As Suwayda and hence shall the article name be changed to fit it's intensity Legion of Liberty (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree - but just Suwayda not As Suwayda JaxsonR (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

the offensive is likely to end by a few days or even hours so the best recommendation for a name would be " 2025 Suwayda Offensive " Legion of Liberty (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Incursion would be better as it is more small-scale and appears to have ended The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Incursion does not fit the incident at all , it is a conflict over 100 casualities and the conflict consists much of South Syria , an offensive is fit for it Legion of Liberty (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Support Offensive is better given the extent of the actions taken by the Syrian Armed forces. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Merge three articles 2025 Jaramana clashes, Southern Syria clashes (April–May 2025) and Southern Syria clashes (July 2025–present) into one 2025 Southern Syria clashes Sgnpkd (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

soft support, i would prefer a hub article like Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria (2024–2025) Braganza (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I think "Syrian Offensive into Southern Syria" isn't exactly the correct title , When a foreign nation like Turkey launches an operation into Syria i think then only it's suitable otherwise "2025 Suwayda Offensive" is the top choice Legion of Liberty (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

i have not proposed a different title @Legion of Liberty Braganza (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Every one had a different background and reason and circumstances, I am strongly against this (referring to the comment by "Sgnpkd" in case the reply seemed misplaced). RamiPat (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Sgnpkd , even after merging all of it together it's definitely no longer a clash , considering the on going situation , it's the largest conflict seen in Syria 2025 Legion of Liberty (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - all 3 conflicts have different belligrents and the infobox would become very confusing. JaxsonR (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Would be good to create 2025 Southern Syria clashes to bring all of these together, either as a merge of those three or as a gateway to them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose The clashes/conflict started with an attack by Druze militias on areas controlled by Syrian government/HTS in Daraa. HTS launched a counter offensive in response to this. Ecrusized (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Strong support for moving it to 2025 Suwayda Offensive. At this point the scale of the fighting (hundreds dead) and the nature of the government's actions (pushing large numbers of troops and interior ministry men into the region to assert control) can only seriously be described as an offensive. "Clashes" implies something small-scale and localised whereas this has now become a national fight led from Damascus.

However, I strongly oppose merging the three articles into one as suggested by @Sgnpkd for the same reason as given by @RamiPat. The previous clashes involve different actors and occurred for different reasons, even if all were most broadly to do with the unsettled status of Suwayda in the future Syrian state.

I hope this is the right way of submitting my views. 'Clashes' is simply insufficient and undermines the intensity and qualitative purpose of the fighting at this point. It's not just Bedouin militias anymore. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I thought those clashes all involved Druzes, Bedouins and the new Syrian government, and were precursors to the current conflict. Sgnpkd (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - an offensive is something launched by only one side; these are clashes between three groups. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above. Skitash (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - The word "Offensive" indicates an attack by one side against the other. What apparently happened here is a conflict between two factions (Druze and Bedoiens) among the local community in Suwayda governorate which resulted in the Syrian government intervention to stop the conflict and later on the Israelis intervened to protect their interests. OKMG-1200 (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

  This is clearly misrepresenting events, though. In practice the Syrian government has not intervened to stop the fighting and to store the peace, but it has launched an offensive against the Druze specifically (NOT the Bedouin) in which it has sought to disarm and destroy Druze autonomy + autonomous militias. People saying these are just clashes between equals or that the government is merely taking a mediating role are being completely dishonest about things. A "mediating" force doesn't only target one side of the clashing parties and doesn't commit large-scale abuses against one of the sides. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

  That may well be an accurate account of the role of the "government" troops (themselves a very motley crew of formerly disparate militia), but there was already fighting before they (formally) entered Suweida. The Druze militias have not been bystanders either (a counterattack is still an offensive) and there is also an Israeli offensive occurring simultaneously. I think the article should reflect all of that. Duxbag (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  What I wrote here is based on the references sited in this article. If you want to dispute this please do so while providing reliable and neutral sources (see WP:RS) other wise I think you have been in Wikipedia long enough to know that your personal opinion is considered as original research (please see WP:OR) OKMG-1200 (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I couldn't find a single source cited in the article that describes the events as an offensive; given no discussion of sources has taken place in this discussion either, it appears to be something editors have just made up on their own to describe these events. Clashes on the other hand appear in many news articles, even after the Syrian government intervened. Yeoutie (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, same as Yeoutie’s comment above.

- RamiPat (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Clashes are still going on, massacres are being conducted by Hijri Aligned forces 45.155.123.11 (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per Yeoutie. Jusdafax (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Support Battle of As-Suwayda is honestly better tho Yesyesmrcool (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Not only in that city, they also launched and offensive in the north. JaxsonR (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

oppose per Asarlaí and Yeoutie 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - It is anything but an offensive. Clashes is by far the more appropriate term. That said, I would not opposed changing the title to "Suwayda clashes (July 2025-present) from the existing "Southern Syria clahes (July 2025-present) as the clashes are confined to the cities, towns and villages of the Suwayda Governorate. Lf8u2 (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose As there appear to be multiple belligerents with uncertain objectives and the word "offensive" implies a specific protagonist and pov. Multiple factions appear to be aggressors, but are claiming to be acting defensively. "Clashes" or "conflict" is more neutral, but also more broad and all-encompassing as several groups could be described as engaged in specific "offensives" right now. Duxbag (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Support - Together with the attacks by the IDF, this can reasonably be described as an offensive on Syria. Mormissen (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: Multiple belligerents, many local; government forces far from main player. Also no reliable media outlets are naming it as an offensive,but clashes is the common name.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Specific start date

No source mentions the exact start date (yet), but is most probably 10 July. Please add a specific date if a reliable source is found.

- RamiPat (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Found and added

- RamiPat (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Invitation to expand

@David O. Johnson, JaxsonR, and Asclepias tuberosa:, I am bringing to your attention this article to expand as more details are available if you wish to participate.

- RamiPat (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I'm interested. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm intrerested JaxsonR (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Evaporation123 Are you intrested? you are pretty good at making articles about this region. JaxsonR (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks but too focused on keeping track of specifically Israel/Palestine happenings right now. Don't want to stretch myself out too much. Evaporation123 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

English source

Here's an English source about the clashes: [9]. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! RamiPat (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for writing the article! Have a blessed day!

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 01:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Syrian Invasion

Syria has launched an invasion of Suwayda Governate and captured many cities, if you guys could find sources for it that would be nice. https://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2025/14-july-14-negotiations-have-begun-to-hand-over-the-remaining JaxsonR (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

wrong link https://syria.liveuamap.com/ JaxsonR (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Syria is not "invading" its own territory RamiPat (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Suwayda is controlled by Druze factions they are somewhat autonomous JaxsonR (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The Druze autonomy is self proclaimed and is NOT codified in any constitutional or legal framework, or it's recognized by the international community (except for Israel). So, we can't call the Syrian government intervention an "invasion". OKMG-1200 (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

i think it is not recognised by israel too שמי (2023) (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

And who voted for Golani and his Salafist regime? How is his government recognised by the Syrian people? FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

No one voted for Bashar, either. For dictatorships or (ahem) "transitional" governments, the standard is more based on international recognition and de facto control of the capitol and institutions of state. Likewise, for breakaway regions and autonomous movements, establishing a capitol/institutions and proclaiming an administration (and getting a wikipedia page) typically precedes international recognition. Duxbag (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Two-way or three-way war?

The infobox has Syria and Bedouin tribes on the same side. The fact that Syrian government checkpoints came under attack by Bedouin fighters appears to contradict this. 174.138.212.166 (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

its 4 way!!! Israel is not a "defender of the Druze" in anyway, they only CLAIM to be, also yes please make syria and bedoiuns different JaxsonR (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

this is what happended last time (yes i was the one who did; and yes i admit i was wrong) JaxsonR (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Israel explicitly aligned itself with the Druze groups. They should be grouped together in the infobox. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@RamiPat: It would be nice if you could explain the reason why you reverted my edit. Cheers, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Israel claimed to be intervening for the Druze but no Druze faction or leader acknowledged any direct or indirect cooperation or coordination. Israel can claim they're on the same side but we cannot say so without the other side confirming. RamiPat (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

This is highly misleading. there are many Druze people within Israel and Syria who called Israel to intensify the strikes in Syria, and even to annex the land Syrian Druze live in. ClydeGreene12 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

If you could cite sources for Syrian Druze aligning with Israel that would be helpful. I don't think anyone denied that some Israeli Druze are supporting the Israeli incursion into Syria, but the topic was Druze in Syria. Duxbag (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Israel has relentlessly attacked Syria for over a decade, even in non-Druze areas and their usual justification (when they give one) is pre-emption/self defense. Saying it's about protecting Druze is relatively new development. Duxbag (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Israeli strikes in Syria came after protests and pressure from the Druze to strike and intervene in Syria:

https://english.enabbaladi.net/archives/2025/07/mowafaq-tarif-calls-for-a-decisive-israeli-campaign-in-syria/

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-861080

https://www.timesofisrael.com/border-chaos-as-1000-druze-breach-frontier-into-syria-heavy-idf-strikes-hit-damascus/

Also, suggesting they don't really care about self-defense when they're targeting a regime (Assad's) that is aligned with Hezbollah and Iran and is transporting weapons intended for attacks on Israeli civilians, and later targeting jihadist terrorist organizations linked to Al-Qaeda, including groups like HTS whose members wear ISIS badges and took over large parts of the country and its military after Assad lost control, is interesting to say the least.

At least seven different NATO countries also "relentlessly attacked Syria" during the civil war. Was that unjustified, or would you suggest that those particular cases were just, despite those countries actually being thousands of kilometers away from the Syrian border? ClydeGreene12 (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Israel invaded Syria and bombed hundreds of sites in the months after Assad fell. Please see Israeli invasion of Syria (2024–present) for context. I never said they didn't care about self-defense, either. That may well still be a motive, whether stated or not. In any case, this serves a long term Israeli policy objective of cementing the landgrab in the Golan (where new settlements have been announced) and extending their sphere of influence deeper into southern Syria. Duxbag (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I would advocate for three column infobox (Druze, govt, Israel) but the Bedouin issue complicates it so I think I'd stick with two columns Druze/Israel and govt/tribes but using horizontal dividing lines on each side works. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to see this resolved to the level of specific groups, factions, or leaders where possible. Broad ethno-religious labels like "Druze" and "Bedouin" are common in early reporting from conflict zones, but can fuel a false impression that these groups are monoliths. We shouls be wary about stereotypes that can fuel ethnic tension such as "loyal minority" myths. Duxbag (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• The Syrian regime is firmly on the side of the Bedouins and have themselves taken part in the attacks on the Druze. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  But the govt has also intervened against Bedouins BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

References

Can we please pay more attention to referencing; some links are not real and some links that are ised again are not shown because the wrong name is used. Also, there are some errors in the formats. And finally, it is better to avoid Twitter.

and by the way, "Syria TV" is not "Syrian Television" and that naming would indicate it is the government official TV, which it isn't. RamiPat (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

"Syria TV" (Syria TV (Fadaat Media)) is a private network. While "Al-Ikhbariyah / Alekhbariya" (Syrian News Channel) is the state run news channel. RamiPat (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Anadolu Agency sources

Hey @David O. Johnson:, you marked an Anadolu Agency source with a BSN tag, I am not familiar with the reason but assuming it has something to do with their credibility?. Can you please tell me the reason so I know better when using them as a source

thank you.

- RamiPat (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

There's a list here: [10] of sources that have been discussed on Wikipedia before. Per WP:AAPOLITICS, Anadolu Agency is "generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics."

Yeni Safak is generally viewed as a poor quality source, from what I've read, as well.David O. Johnson (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot this is helpful

- RamiPat (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Map

Could we probably get a close-up map of Suwayda and Daraa?

- RamiPat (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Something like that?

Farcazo (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I guess yes, and maybe it can be added in a way that there's a button for showing the full map, map of the south, or both. I don't know how do that RamiPat (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes seems good RamiPat (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Something like:

Southern Syria clashes
Part of the Syrian civil war and the Israeli invasion of Syria
Date 13 July 2025 – present (2 weeks and 6 days) Location Suwayda Governorate and Daraa Governorate, Syria Status Ongoing Territorial changes The Syrian transitional government takes control of the city of Suwayda and several towns from Druze factions. Clashes persist amidst ceasefire agreement
Belligerents
Druze armed groups Israel	Syria	Bedouin tribes
Commanders and leaders
Hikmat al-Hijri Benjamin Netanyahu Israel Katz	Ahmed al-Sharaa Murhaf Abu Qasra Anas Khattab Nizar al-Hariri	Unknown
Units involved
Men of Dignity Israel Defense Forces	Syrian Armed Forces Syrian Army Syrian Police	Unknown
Casualties and losses
64 killed None	18 soldiers killed Several tanks struck by Israel 1 Shaheen drone shot down 1 army convoy destroyed and several struck	18 Bedouins killed
200+ injured from all Syrian sides, including civilians 12 civilians, including one woman, field executed.

References

Syrian Civil War not over yet

This article claims that the Syrian Civil War ended after the fall of the Assad Goverment. However, on the main article about the war it is still listed as ongoing? Which is the case? This can create confusion to readers.Mike_Delis (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not our opinions. The sources say the Syrian civil war has ended, so that's what we go with. There's an ongoing discussion about updating the main article to mark the war as ended, and most editors agree as of now. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 11:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say the war against Assad is over. There were many parallel conflicts though (HTS vs ISIS, ISIS vs SDF, SDF vs SNA, etc.) and those are not all over so it's a matter of definition. Go with what the sources are saying. Duxbag (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Pro Government Druze?

It's clearly that not all of the Druze community in Suwayda are against the Syrian Government and involved in the hostilities. These Druze like sheikhs al-Hinnawi and Jarbou and local commanders like Laith al-Balous have negotiated and signed ceasefires and agreements with the government. Should we add them as separate part to this conflict or under the government side but separated by line? OKMG-1200 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Yea but if reliable sources could be found to cite

- RamiPat (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I found one (at least for Laith). [11]. The relevant part is paywalled (so I can't actually see it in the article), but it comes up in Google as "Laith al-Balous, commander of the Druze Sheikh al-Karama Forces, who supports the new Syrian authorities, had been on the ground since the..." David O. Johnson (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson: and @RamiPat: If you find more sources, then please mention them here so we can discuss them and maybe put the pro government druze factions in the battle templet. OKMG-1200 (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

One ref is enough to add Laith, no? David O. Johnson (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• Calling for a ceasefire does not make one "pro-government". Scarcely any of Syria's minorities are "pro-government", as they have all been targeted and massacred by them, both before and after the current regime came to power. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe solution is to leave it out of infobox and give the nuance in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

  The Men of Dignity, Laith's group, and the Free Arab Gathering were all aligned with the government, at least earlier in the year. [12].

  Of course, the Men of Dignity have changed their position since then, but it still shows that there have been various Druze groups that partnered with the government. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I found another reference that describes Laith as "pro-government"; it also includes Suleiman Abdul-Baqi as another pro-government Druze figure. [13]. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Syrian Police

No one in the media or streets consistently uses police, people say الأمن العام (English: General Security)

- RamiPat (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Role of Suwayda Military Council

I would like to discuss the role of Suwayda Military Council. Apparently their are some reports of their involvement. However, I believe we should not put them as belligerent in this article without reliable sources. OKMG-1200 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@JaxsonR: I am tagging you as you were the one who added them.

I support the addition but may be better to find more sources and cite a miltiref.

- RamiPat (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

That is a reliable source, they attacked Ministry of Defence JaxsonR (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Casualties

Please add a reference for every number and with every update, do not add numbers without a reliable source. Cite all sources when mentioning differences in reporting. Remember that you can use notes for further clarifications.

Adding numbers without citing a clear and reliable source will result in the edit being reverted by other editors.

- RamiPat (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@TheOneDictator:

- RamiPat (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

How did government forces casualties jump from 204 to like 327, are we counting the tribal casualties with them or seperate? Muhllo (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Lajat tribe

Lajat tribe could be put as the unit of Bedouin tribes because Lajat is inhabited by Bedouin and would be known as part of Bedouin tribes. Farcazo (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Change of the result and title

Result of the conflict should be changed to Druze coalition victory, as HTS troops have withdrawn from the city, hence fulfilling the goal of the druze. As well as the title should be changed to battle for Suweida, as this reflects the goal of all parties involved. Mark1232321 (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, the government also claims success as it withdrew only military and kept poice forces formed from locals. Also all cited sources mentioned either clashes in southern syria or in Suwayda, no battle or offensive (rarely mentioned). RamiPat (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Do we have any evidence that the General Security Forces are still in Suwayda following the withdrawal of the army? Even if the Druze leadership agreed to it, we shouldn't state it as a fact until it materializes (if it does). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources state that it is a Druze victory? GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any sources that support your statement. If you wish to make any changes make sure you cite reliable and neutral sources. Also, according the sources cited in this article, only the Syrian Army withdrew with the General Security Forces remaining and Suwayda governorate being fully integrated. OKMG-1200 (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

It is certainly not true that this round of clashes resulted in the "full integration of Suwayda governate", as the infobox claims. Suwayda remains outside the control of the Syrian government. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree with @Mikrobølgeovn here. The France24 article states only that Druze spiritual leader has said that the Druze should be integrated. It says nothing about al-Hijri or if the Druze have actually been integrated Genabab (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Minor commanders

I don't know why the battle templet is filled with the names of minor commanders who were never mentioned by any other reliable source except a minor and largely unknown Israeli one. OKMG-1200 (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@JaxsonR: and @RamiPat: I am pinging both of you as you seem more familiar in dealing with different sources about this topic. OKMG-1200 (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I think anything lower than a regional commander (or at best a deputy of one) is not worth inclusion.

people who were added after al-Hariri were highly irrelevant and not mentioned in Syrian or Arab media whatsoever. RamiPat (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Soon at yours (~) inshallah 2A02:C7C:75B7:4F00:10FC:296:7F27:B8AE (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

TH does this even mean, please don't add meaningless comments RamiPat (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Potential copyright violation

Hi,

The diff here [14] appears to be a copy/paste directly from the source.

Please see WP:COPYVIO.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

There looks to be another one here: [15]. David O. Johnson (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I think I took care of all of them. David O. Johnson (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Broader Donbass-style conflict in the area?

The constant clashes between Syrian government forces and Israeli-backed Druze militias in the area, known as the Hauran/Hawran region, including the 2025 Jaramana clashes the bouts of fighting from April to May and the current clashes that have Israel bombing Damascus demanding that they withdraw from their own territory, all of this reminds me a lot of the War in Donbass, and has got me thinking: since these incidents and armed conflict are all intertwined and involve the same actors, and are broadly confined to the historic Hauran/Hawran region, should these incidents be grouped under a broader war/armed conflict in the south of Syria, starting roughly around the time that Israel invaded the country after the Fall of the Assad regime? I would go so far as to rename it the Hauran war or Hawran war, if not Southern Syria conflict or something like that. Please leave me your thoughts.

PS: Apparently, the Hauran/Hawran region has seen past rebellions by the local Druze against their authorities more than once, as seen in the 1909 Hauran Druze rebellion, which was an ill-fated Druze-led uprising against contemporary Ottoman administration of the area. GabMen20 (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

While I agree this conflict mirrors almost perfectly Russia's actions in Ukraine (from the excuse of defending an ethnic minority against seemingly non-existent persecution, to wanting to demilitarize a sovereign nation), there is already a page for it overall; the Israeli invasion of Syria (2024–present) covers all fighting from the fall of Assad to present. This particular bout of fighting is even listed as "Part of" that page. UncleBourbon (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but that article doesn't really cover the broader fighting between the Druze, Bedouins and the Syrian Government even though it is closely intertwined with the Israeli invasion and military activities within Syria. In fact, instead of making the Druze-Syrian government conflict a part of the Israeli invasion of Syria, I would suggest making it the other way around: that the Israeli invasion is part of the broader war in Hauran, and that the former should focus on direct Israeli military activities in Syria. What do you think? GabMen20 (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The comparison, in my opinion, is quite demagogic. It is nice that it was decided to simplify conflicts (let's ignore for a moment the imperial past of the Russian power of National perceptions in one conflict or the Syrian civil war with its many war crimes or the massacre of the Alawites in another region) and decide whether an ethnic minority is at risk or not without reliable sources. As I understand it, the concern in Israel is that the organization running the new regime has not given up the idea of jihad from al-Qaeda and will act against it when it gains strength near its border (along with the trauma of 7/10), not necessarily protecting the Druze that happened later. The protection of the Druze according to the following source is the product of pressure and the appeal of the Druze in Israel: https://news.walla.co.il/item/3765952. It is possible that supporting the minority allows for a kind of de facto detente in the region because as I understand it, the aspirations are only in the area near the border.

I will politely mention: Syria and Israel considered themselves enemy states regardless of the regime's identity for various reasons, Ukraine and Russia did not consider each other enemies until the revolution and Donbas. This is a key difference. שמי (2023) (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

"Non-existent persecution"? Israel is exploiting the situation, sure (just how they used Golani himself against the previous government), but Golani's Salafist groups have a long history of abuse against non-Sunni minorities (regardless of affiliation or not with the previous government), including massacres of Druze both before and after they took over Syria. Comparing to Ukraine is pointless if you know anything about Middle Eastern history, there is plenty of overlooked backstory there that is more relevant. FunkMonk (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

In fact, back in 1909 there was a large Druze-led uprising in the same region caused by the same religious tensions, the Hauran Druze rebellion, that was crushed by the Ottoman Empire. In my opinion, this should mean that the conflict is even more deserving of its own Wikipedia page, as well as it sharing the same dynamics of another armed conflict like that of Donbass. GabMen20 (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd very much appreciate it if you could please share sources for instances of persecution the Druze faced from the Syrian rebel groups who would go on to form the current government (rather than from the Islamic State). This conflict in question was caused in part by Druze militias taking Bedoin women and children as hostages in retaliation for Bedoin criminals stealing a Druze truck. As such the Druze militias (in particular Hikmat al-Hijri and his forces, who have rejected multiple attempted ceasefires) are instigators on some level in this conflict, rather than just victims of persecution. There are now instances of captured Druze men having their moustaches shaved and summary executions of Druze civilians, which is after the kidnappings and outbreak of fighting, and there are also instances of captured Bedouin civilians being summarily executed by Druze. (As per the most recently casualty assessment by SOHR) UncleBourbon (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

.The article does not describe the beginning in this way and it seems you are incorporating a late claim. In any case:

"Syria conflict: Al-Nusra fighters kill Druze villagers", 2015

There was also the confrontation earlier this year which affected sentiments.. שמי (2023) (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Uh, there have been multiple massacres and attacks on Druze by the Syrian rebels/now regime during the civil war, it's very easy to look up, some of these massacres even have Wikipedia articles (Qalb Loze massacre, Adra massacre, 2018 As-Suwayda attacks; note Nusra is the former name of HTS). Druze are seen as heretics, and it is part of Salafist ideology to kill them. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Bedoiun tribes "Insurgency"

Bedouin tribes claim that the ceasefire was only between Syria and the Druze and have started taking over cities, see this map (https://syria.liveuamap.com/) JaxsonR (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Here's another source: [16]. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

thank you brother JaxsonR (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

For me it should remain part of of the article and put in the infobox "Syria (July 13-17)" Farcazo (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Describing Sharaa's rule as a "regime"

It just seems needlessly pejorative to me; it's often viewed with a negative connotation.

I get that the quotes have to stay the same, but maybe we could change the instances in wikivoice where that phrasing is used.

Thoughts? David O. Johnson (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Strongly Support this. RamiPat (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Strongly Support. Changing would align better with WP:NPOV. Sentbuddy02 (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - he is an unelected, self-declared president, and a very large part of the Syrian population (basically everyone who isn't a religious Sunni Arab) resents him. FunkMonk (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  If we were to concede your unsourced claim, that's about 20% of the population, not a lot sorry Milk^'n'Thyme 08:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

  The SDF, Druze, and alawites JaxsonR (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

  I misread his comment as "only sunnis love him" sorry. His reasoning doesn't align with policy nonetheless Milk^'n'Thyme 08:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Kurds, Christians, Shias, Alawites, Druze. They have all been massacred by Golani's factions (under their myriad of rebrand-names, in Syria and Iraq) both before and after they took over. And in the long run, they all want federalisation, as they, oddly enough, don't want to be slowly exterminated. Moderate Sunnis aren't fans either. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• I don't know how popular he is or not, but for me the issue is more that "regime" and "government" were how we talked about Assad (and still talk about some of the holdouts). Sharaa and HTS may be in pole position to establish the new "regime" but the country is in a transitional period and we shouldn't presume too much. Specificity about the faction/ministry/unit in question is preferable here. Duxbag (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• Strongly Support The term "regime" is misleading when describing al-Sharaa's rule, as he is not an authoritarian leader like Ferdinand Marcos, Bashar al-Assad, or Nicolae Ceaușescu. Secondly, we need a reliable source that proves his governance can be considered a regime; see MOS:LABEL. HurricaneEdgar 06:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
• Strongly Support The word "Regime" carries a derogatory and negative meaning. I believe we should refer to President Al Sharaa administration with its formal and official name The "Syrian Transitional Government" or simply the "Syrian Government" because they have gained international recognition and they have substantial domestic support. OKMG-1200 (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  I have not yet formulated a position on the issue, but I would be happy to enrich the discussion.

  From the article on regime:

  "In politics, a regime (also spelled régime) is a system of government that determines access to public office, and the extent of power held by officials. The two broad categories of regimes are democratic and autocratic. A key similarity across all regimes is the presence of rulers of both formal and informal institutions, which interact dynamically to adapt to changes to their environment."

  ....

  The term regime is often used critically to portray a leader as corrupt or undemocratic. While the term originally referred to any type of government, in modern usage it often has a negative connotation, implying authoritarianism or dictatorship. Merriam-Webster defines a regime simply as a form of government, while the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "a government, especially an authoritarian one."

  That is, the terminology can have a critical or neutral connotation, depending on the speaker. I would like to point out that in the language of me, you could simply describe a form of government.

  I would add that the situation is that the government in Damascus came to power following the victory in the civil war and is in the stages of stabilizing and accumulating internal and external legitimacy. It is run de facto by Ahmed Shara's tahrir a shaam, and no elections have been scheduled because, according to him, this is a transitional period (that maybe will not end). שמי (2023) (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

pardon the lack of capitalisation, broken keyboard sufferer here.

i'm not entirely convinced by arguments against using referring to the incumbent syrian government as a regime, but i do think it would be more appropriate to just use government for now. Sisuvia (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Soft Support - he said elections will be held in a few years JaxsonR (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I will remind that no exact date has been set and that the elections will need to be equal and fair. We will leave aside the fact that the Arab Spring countries have not exactly reached a democratic regime (except for Tunisia, and that too has been challenged).שמי (2023) (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure when he wins a Mubarak-style landslide we should take it at face value. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Strong support, per WP:NPOV Milk^'n'Thyme 08:07, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Aftermath

The "Aftermath" section is getting filled with things that are getting relatively outdated and can no longer be considered an aftermath.

what can we do with the content?

- RamiPat (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

You can add this to thr timeline שמי (2023) (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Background

The background includes opinion of Npov source in this context. You can see here for different opinion:

https://www.bbc.com/arabic/articles/cy9xrp45dw2o שמי (2023) (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

i offer to remove or replace שמי (2023) (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Israeli propaganda rhetoric

Can we just behave like wikipedia editors instead of people who work for some governmental news agency for the Israeli government.

Many claims and wordings are being changed to what is used only by the Israeli media despite the other, or sometimes the original, reporting.

- RamiPat (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I support this sentiment Lf8u2 (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Israeli and Iranian Sources

@RamiPat: @David O. Johnson: @JaxsonR: @Mikrobølgeovn: @HurricaneEdgar: I believe it is well known fact that both the right wing Israeli sources and almost all of the Iranian sources are biased against the current government of Syria. I am wounding if we need to discuss that at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard because we can't rely on heavily biased sources. I am pinging several editors to discuss that here and weather we need to go the notice board. OKMG-1200 (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

What sources specifically? JaxsonR (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. For Israel, pretty much every major outlet except Haaretz has ties to the IDF that compromise their objectivity. The self-censorship on Gaza has not been subtle. Personal opinion, obviously. Iran doesn't have a free press and supported Assad. Duxbag (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Not true, And they are critical of the government and the IDF when they see fit. It simply doesn't fit with the agenda of certain stakeholders. 87.70.31.206 (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Censorship in Israel "On average, 2240 press articles in Israel are censored by the Israeli Military Censor each year, approximately 240 of which in full, and around 2000 partially.

Articles concerning potentially controversial topics must be submitted to the Israeli Military Censor in advance; failing to do so may cause the reporter to lose his right to work as a journalist in Israel and, in the case of foreign reporters, to be barred from the country."

Beyond the official censorship, many commentators have noted that the requirement to pre-screen content with the IDF has a chilling effect on what articles get written in the first place and what information is included in them. The IDF also "embeds" journalists and grants preferential access to those who agree to its terms. Haaretz is the only one that rejects those terms and maintains an independent press corps in the occupied territories.

The front page of the Jerusalem Post today, for instance, has articles about a potential offensive in Deir al-Balah and includes criticism from hostage families and the US, but doesn't mention at least 67 dead in Gaza like Haaretz or the international press do. Their "analysis" (editorial) on the Suweida conflict today is also notably supportive of the government line that this is about protecting Druze rather than weakening a potential rival. All fairly typical. Duxbag (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

His Honor mixes objectivity with legal restrictions (let's be honest, even in countries where there is no censorship, you may be punished if your publication causes security damage) and assumes that there are no journalistic source relations in other countries either. Censorship deals with more tactical security issues, such as an intelligence piece. A media outlet can express critical discourse about the army and the government (classic example: the October 7th failure, the lack of a "day after Hamas" policy in Gaza, the army's need to leave and return from places where it operated, etc.) even without that piece. This is simply not the agenda that certain agenda-holders want. Regarding the example you gave, have you considered the possibility that because of the Druze population in Israel, some of the Israeli public has a pro-Druze sentiment? Or do some journalist have more accessible Druze sources? I remember that when the Israeli media also covered the Syrian government's actions in the Druze stronghold, the international media focused on the airstrike in Damascus, which is more accessible from the peripheral Druze Mountain area. Only later did the international media also covered the government's actions. I saw an article on another site criticizing the government for lifting its opposition to the regime's return to the province and contradicting prior statements, did it also align with the government line? By the way, the government line is twofold, Netanyahu did not hide it. Both aid to the Druze and the demilitarization of southern Syria. He issued an official statement. Regarding Gaza, I found a post on the site's timeline referring to the report on the deaths [[17]], it simply stopped being a headline (Also on CNN by the way). On other sites it is mentioned [[18]] and here is an article: Regarding Deir el-Balah, the echo of the family's criticism and the claim that the activity in Deir el-Balah is a bluff and not a serious intention does not align with a government line or a military line that would prefer that there be no such analysis at all. As a general rule, journalists sometimes express support for a government or military line if it is factually correct in their opinion. Israeli media is Western media with its advantages and disadvantages. There is localism at times and there are different levels of professionalism (by the way, i admit i am not reader of the jpost a lot), but there are standards and critisism. I suggest that we not create a monstrous and ongoing thread that will waste our time and focus on the encyclopedia. From experience with such discussions prolonging.87.70.31.206 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed this isn't the time or place for a general discussion about Israeli politics. My thinking about using Israeli sources for anything related to military operations Israel is conducting is that there can be real legal and social consequences for reporting anything too "sensitive" in a country at war and that limits what makes it to print. So, unless the Israeli source has crucial information or context that other sources lack (and it might), there are good arguments for favoring articles from reporters in neutral countries. This goes for any country at war, not just Israel. Duxbag (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• Considering Golani was working towards normalisation with Israel and have been arresting Palestinian militants to this end, his groups never fired a single bullet against Israel, and the US took him and his group off their sanction's list, which they would never do without Israeli approval, things are certainly not as simple as they may seem to Golanist propaganda. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

'Aftermath' of the war?

The Syrian Civil War page says it's ongoing, as it is. Everywhere on the page only refers to an 'aftermath' - in the synopsis, infoboxes etc. So IMO that should be changed for consistency. Darer101 (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Support, RamiPat (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Support per darer JaxsonR (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Worth noting there is a dispute listed on the page about if it’s ongoing. GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2025

As I live in sweida city and I know what happens, combined with reliable sources like the Syrian Observatory for human rights, supposedly "war crimes" against Bedouins simple didn't happens, it was an effort by the state controlled media to create a state of deep sectarian hate in the country to justify oppressing druze, and to call for other Bedouin tribes to intervene, and since that Israel didn't allow the Syrian army to enter, they sent those tribes, and in a couple of days they will send forces to "restore peace" but in fact since that Sweida has been sieged for a week now and there is no electricity or internet no violations can be recorded. In fact since 13 of july when the government forces entered the city, there were several documented cases of Shaving people's moustache, such as the old man Marhag Shaheen, since that shaving moustaches in the Druze faith in prohibited, this is considered an act of humiliation Combined with many documented cases of looting people's houses and burning them, public executions, and forcing people to throw themselves from balconies and buildings. The most reliable source to all of this is the SOHR which has been the most reliable source in the entire Syrian civil war, their websites and Facebook page contain all the videos and the names of the victims Huile d'olive is délicieux (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LizardJr8 (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Confusion about death toll figures reported by SOHR

As I'm writing this, the latest figures from SOHR say that 940 people in total have been killed in Suweida, the infobox currently lists "84 civilians killed" and "168 killed in extrajudicial executions" as separate figures (implying that the latter are captured combatants rather than civilians), but I think there are some ambiguities that are confusing this.

According to the Guardian's live feed, the 940 deaths reported by SOHR include '326 Druze fighters and 262 Druze civilians, 182 of whom were “summarily executed by defence and interior ministry personnel”.' as per AFP (for a total of 588 Druze killed). These numbers are clearly derived from the SOHR report linked above, but some misinterpretation is going on since neither "326 fighters" nor "262 Druze civilians" appears in the text itself. Since I don't speak Arabic, I'm having to rely on google translate, but from what I can tell the relevant section is as follows.

The death toll since Sunday morning, July 13, as a result of clashes, field executions, and Israeli bombardment, has risen to 940, distributed as follows:

-406 people from As-Suwayda Governorate, including 80 civilians, including 4 children and 4 women.

-330 personnel from the Ministry of Defense and Public Security, including 18 members of the Bedouin tribes.

-15 members of the Ministries of Defense and Interior were killed as a result of Israeli raids.

- Three people, including a woman and two unidentified individuals, were killed as a result of the Israeli air force bombing of the Ministry of Defense building.

-One journalist was killed during the clashes in Sweida.

-182 people, including 26 women, 6 children, and an elderly man, were executed in the field by members of the Ministries of Defense and Interior.

- Three members of the Bedouin tribe, including a woman and a child, were executed in the field by Druze militants.

Since the 330 security personnel and 18 Bedouin are counted on a separate line, presumably AFP has interpreted the 406 figure in the first line as Druze only, but this is lower than 588 so clearly some people are being double-counted in the figures relayed by the Guardian. The figure of "326 Druze fighters" seems to have come from subtracting the 80 civilians mentioned in the same line from the total of 406. However, those same 80 people are later being added to the 182 "executed in the field by members of the Ministries of Defense and Interior" to arrive at "262 Druze civilians." Given that there have been reports of captives being summarily executed after surrendering, not all of these executions are of civilians, but the fact that the number includes 26 women, 6 children and an elderly man strongly suggests that many of them are civilians, which creates a discrepancy with the figure in the first line of "80 civilians, including 4 women and 4 children."

Obviously the fog of war makes it impossible to reliably know how many civilians have been killed on either side, but the infobox currently implies that it is only 84 civilians overall, which is clearly far too low. I would update it myself, but I'm unsure how to resolve the ambiguities in the SOHR figures which have clearly been misinterpreted by RS without resorting to WP:SYNTH Djehuty98 (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Are we counting Bedouin casuatlies with Syrian government casualties? because bedouin causalties have remained 18 despite them clashing with Druze militants the most during july 18-20. Muhllo (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Identity of victims

@שמי (2023) The sources you are citing do not say that the Druze are the majority of civilians killed. Sisuvia (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

"At least 86 of those killed were field executions of Druze civilians by government fighters or allied militias, as well as three Bedouin civilians killed by Druze fighters, SOHR said." 3 < 86

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/18/its-impossible-to-tell-who-is-killing-us-four-days-of-violence-end-with-hundreds-dead-in-southern-syria שמי (2023) (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@שמי (2023) Except the report does not state how many civilians have died, only that at least 86 were Druze. So you cannot say that a majority of civilians killed were Druze. Sisuvia (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

He counts how many civilians were killed in extrajudicial executions and says: 3 Bedouins, 86 Druze. שמי (2023) (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The Guardian reporter, citing SOHR, writes that atleast 86 Druze + 3 Bedouins out of an unspecified number of civilian deaths were from extrajudicial killings. I think it would be better if you specifically alter the wording to say something along the lines of "Abuses of Druze and Bedouin civilians have been reported, with the majority of victims of extrajudicial killings being Druze."

It's also worth noting that SOHR's count isn't definitive/exhaustive. I highly doubt that there have only been 3 Bedouins killed in extrajudicial killings. Sisuvia (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The original did not say "unknown." In any case, we are talking about the reports. I will politely point out that the paragraph talks about the actions before the reprisals that the Druze allegedly committed. This is described in the second paragraph. The dynamics on one level were: initial clashes between Bedouins and Druze, government involvement that includes allegations of a massacre of the Druze [and Israeli attacks on the the Syria government units, saying it for protecting the Druze], government withdrawal and allegations of massacres of the Bedouins, Bedouin response and the entering of government forces without any allegations against them. שמי (2023) (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Where did I say that the "original" (whatever that refers to) said "unknown"?

You make the argument that the lede follows the timeline of: clashes btwn Druze and Bedouins > government intervention and mass killings of Druze by government forces > government withdrawal > Druze reprisals against Bedouins, but the SOHR report you rely on counts civilian Druze deaths as a result of extrajudicial killings from 13 July up til 18 July, which encompasses the period when the government forces were allegedly involved in the massacre of Druze, their withdrawal, and subsequent Druze reprisals.

Regardless of that, as I said the SOHR is one organisation. Your phrasing makes it seem as if Druze being the majority of civilian deaths (as a result of extrajudicial killings or otherwise) is an objective fact rather than one estimate by one org. Sisuvia (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean the original text, the source itself.The problem is that in the version that does not mention what I wrote, the impression is given that between the 14th and 16th of the month both Druze and Bedouin were massacred, and a false symmetry is created that most of those massacred at that time were Bedouin. The problem is that the sources make the claim of massacres of Bedouins only after the government retreat. And these claims are given a platform in detail in the second paragraph. שמי (2023) (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Map key

The colours on the map would be useful if their was a key to explain them. Can someone add this please?  Tigerboy1966  14:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done - RamiPat (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

End date

End date seems to be 21 July. Are there any reports of clahses on the 22nd?

- RamiPat (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Also please see 22 and 23 July in the timeline, seems to indicate that 21 is the end date.

- RamiPat (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

A few corrections

Government forces are deployed to the administrative borders of the Suwayda governorate. Some pockets of bedouin fighters still inside the province. So it hasn't ended just yet. 188.71.249.85 (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 25 July 2025

Southern Syria clashes (July 2025–present) → Southern Syria clashes (July 2025) – Fighting has ended and title needs to be adjusted, the page cannot be moved right now due to being move protected. Requesting a page mover to make the change. Ecrusized (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 04:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not quite, the STG recently evacuated Bedouins from Suwayda. Please observe for some time, maybe for a week, then see if it has really ended. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 22:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - per @Freedoxm's explanation. I'd say we can wait until 1 August to make the move. Hsnkn (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Wait - per freedoxm JaxsonR (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Support - The title now needs to be moved given August is upon us and the clashes clearly ended over a week ago. To be honest I'm not sure why the title was ever (July 2025–present) rather than starting with (July 2025) and then later adding to –present) if it had stretched into August. Yeoutie (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Syria have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 04:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Inclusion of ISIS

The cited BBC article states;

عاد أحد المقاتلين العشائريين ليطلب منا الذهاب لموقع آخر بإصرار أكبر هذه المرة، فنزلنا عن التلة باتجاه السيارة، وحين ابتعدنا أخبرنا بأنه حاول عدة مرات أن يعطينا إشارة لضرورة المغادرة، وأن مجموعة أبو حذيفة تنتمي لتنظيم الدولة الإسلامية، وأنه تعرّف على واحد منهم على الأقل كونه يتحدر من نفس المنطقة التي يتحدر منها في محافظة الحسكة شرقي البلاد ولا يزال في صفوف تنظيم الدولة الإسلامية.

In English:

One of the tribal fighters returned, more insistently asking us to go to another location. We descended the hill toward the car. As we drove away, he told us that he had tried several times to signal to us to leave. He said that Abu Huzayfa's group belonged to ISIS, and that he recognized at least one of them, who was from the same area as him in the eastern province of Hasakah and was still with ISIS.

adding:

لم نتمكن من التأكد بشكل مستقل مما يقوله، رغم أنه أوضح أن المسلح ترك الحسكة والتحق بتنظيم الدولة ولم يعد منذ ذلك الحين.

In English:

We were unable to independently verify what he said, although he explained that the militant left Hasakah, joined ISIS, and has not returned since.

The argument that ISIS (or IS) is part of this is built on the fact that a guy recognized someone from the area he's from that was (and according to that same guy, still is) a member of ISIS. I think this claim may not be correct and should not be sufficient to include ISIS as a belligerent. Additionally, this claim (if true) cannot necessarily mean ISIS is actively a belligerent; it might be an isolated cell of one that broke off for that fight. ISIS has an electronic newspaper where it announces its fights or when its members kill someone in an "operation" even for lone wolves. Such an announcement was not made so far. RamiPat (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Just adding on, this Hawar News Agency article talks about a possible ISIS presence in Suwayda. Marco Rubio tweeted on 20 July that the Syrian government should "help end this calamity by using their security forces to prevent ISIS and any other violent jihadists from entering the area and carrying out massacres,"[19] implying that ISIS had not yet entered Suwayda. I know an SDF-affiliated news org and an offhand tweet aren't particularly good sources, but I just wanted to put them out. Hsnkn (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

BBC isn't some random news site. The source also talks about the behavior and statements of Abu Huzayfa's group which the journalist notes are typical of IS (including calling for the death of all Druze, and badmouthing other jihadists). The BBC reporter clearly considers the claim that this is an IS group seriously, and directly describes them as current IS members. If you want to question the claim, I would recommend that we add "(per BBC)" next to the group in the infobox to clarify the claim's origin. If other news sites such as Hawar make similar claims, we could add them as well. Applodion (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I think attributing the claim of ISIS being an active belligerent in this conflict would be a good idea. Sisuvia (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

To those placing ISIS with tribes and government;

Tribes and government were placed together because the tribes were out publicly in support of government and the government (represented by al-Sharaa) thanked the tribes for their involvement in at least one speech.

Absolutley zero of the tribes announced a collaboration with ISIS. And (goes without saying) neither fid the government as they are enemies and al-Sharaa's head is wanted for ISIS.

No official or even non-official announcement was made by ISIS on their involvement in the clashes nor on which side.

A supposed ISIS cell near a Bedouin group does not mean they're together, and reading the entire article does not showwe're even sure they're ISIS.

Another thing, these are tribes; a lot (but not all) of them are not represented by a clear body, so an ISIS cell with some random teibal fighters does not mean that there collaboration, especially that ISIS is a public enemy for a majority of those tribes involved and have committed massacres against at least one of them.

- RamiPat (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Lightspecs: could you read the last reply please.

I think even if they did not fight against each other on these clashes, it is still more misleading to put them on the same side as they're de facto and de jure enemies. Israel and the Druze groups are placed together because Israel is fighting for the Druze (at least publicly) and certain Druze groups asked for Israeli intervention.

Whereas the STG is an enemy of ISIS, they are fighting against each other, ISIS did not go to support anyone; just to kill the non-believers. RamiPat (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Hay'at al-Arkan 21July 2025.jpg
• Suwayda city 21July2025.jpg
• Syrian Internal Security heading to al-Mazraa 19July2025.jpg
• Syrian Internal Security in Suwayda 14July2025.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

As of 22 July, at least 145,600 people were displaced within As-Sweida

https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/syrian-arab-republic/syrian-arab-republic-flash-update-no-3-escalation-hostilities-sweida-governorate-22-july-2025 Syrian91 (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done; Thank you for providing the info and its source, the article has now been updated.

- RamiPat (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)