Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa and Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed the truce on Saturday, following intense Israeli
airstrikes across southern Syria and the capital, Damascus, earlier in the
week.
Israel
claimed the bombings were carried out to “protect” the Druze minority amid
spiraling violence in the southern province of Suwayda. However, critics argue
this justification is nothing more than a pretext for deeper interference in
Syrian affairs.
The clashes that erupted on July 13 between armed Druze
groups, Bedouin tribes, and Syrian forces in Suwayda have claimed hundreds of
lives.
Following
the ceasefire announcement, al-Sharaa accused Israel of deliberately reigniting
tensions in the region through its “flagrant aggression,” particularly the
bombing of Damascus and the south.
In a
statement saturated with militaristic bravado, Netanyahu declared that the
ceasefire was achieved “through strength, not through pleas, not through
begging.”
His
comments underscore Israel’s ongoing strategy of intimidation, rather than
diplomacy, in dealing with its neighbors.
While Israel frames its intervention as a humanitarian act,
the reality on the ground suggests otherwise.
Netanyahu’s
actions reflect a calculated effort to entrench Israeli hegemony in Syria under
the guise of minority protection. Despite agreeing to a ceasefire, Israel has
retained its grip on the Syrian territories it already occupies—territories
widely recognized as being under illegal occupation under international law.
Adding further complexity to the situation, al-Sharaa, whose
government maintains strategic ties with Washington, publicly thanked the
United States—particularly the administration of President Donald Trump—for its
role in brokering the ceasefire.
This
acknowledgment raises troubling questions, can Israel’s aggressive campaign be
separated from US geopolitical objectives in the region? Is Washington playing
the role of silent accomplice while Netanyahu enforces a militarized order
through unilateral violence?
The contradiction is glaring. On the one hand, al-Sharaa
condemns Israeli aggression; on the other, he expresses gratitude to the very
power widely seen as enabling it.
The good cop–bad cop dynamic between the US and Israel is
once again on display - Netanyahu leads with force, while Washington follows
with diplomatic posturing—both working toward the same endgame.
Israel’s invocation of the Druze issue appears part of a
broader strategy scripted by pro-Zionist lobbies to justify the flexing of
military might and normalize its presence deep inside Syrian territory.
The
ceasefire is not a gesture of peace but a tactical pause—a calculated move in
Israel’s long-term project of territorial expansion and political domination in
West Asia.
Past
precedents—from Gaza to Lebanon—show that Israeli ceasefires are often little
more than instruments of propaganda, soon violated when they no longer serve
strategic objectives. Expansionism, militarism, and occupation remain pillars
of Israeli policy.
This ceasefire, like others before it, cannot mask the true
nature of Tel Aviv’s ambitions. It is a smokescreen, designed to conceal more
sinister plans for redrawing the map of West Asia (the Middle East) to Israel’s
benefit.
Only sustained unity and strategic cooperation among Muslim
and Arab nations can resist this agenda and challenge the forces seeking to
destabilize the region under the pretense of peace.
