The Path from Suwayda to Jerusalem Gains Momentum

Israel views strong nation states—especially Arab ones—as threats. It does not want any powerful states in its vicinity, and this perception directly shapes its policy toward Syria. Israel has never wanted a unified Syria with territorial integrity and a strong army—and it never will. This is an open secret known to anyone who has faced threats from Israel. For 80 years, Israel has worked to neutralize these perceived threats by fueling conflict across the region, turning instability into a routine part of Middle Eastern life.

But what makes this observation particularly striking is that it comes not from the usual critics, but from Tom Barrack, the U.S. Ambassador to Ankara and Special Envoy to Syria. While some may interpret his remarks as laying the groundwork for new American threats against Syria, they actually read more like a critique of Israel. His comments highlight the root cause of the chaos in the region—a place often described by outsiders as a swamp, a cradle of violence, or a hotbed of terror.

During a visit to Lebanon, Barrack told the Associated Press something that, in essence, shatters the dominant Western narrative about Israel. While that narrative has long lacked credibility in the region, for a U.S. official to articulate this view publicly is both surprising and significant. And if taken further, Barrack’s comments could challenge the entire orientalist framework through which the West views the Middle East.

The genocidal, terroristic state of Israel—lashing out like an unchained bull—plays a much more destructive role in the region than most imagine. It is not just responsible for its own direct wars and massacres; the broader order it has created fuels endless unrest, bloodshed, human rights violations, and the persistence of authoritarian regimes. And Israel prefers it that way. It sees democracy itself as a threat. Any government that actually represents its people is likely to confront Israel’s aggression—and try to contain it.

We saw this after the Arab Spring. When Mohamed Morsi became Egypt’s first democratically elected president, he didn’t just criticize Israel’s occupation—he adopted an openly anti-occupation stance. The result? He was ousted and replaced with General Sisi, a man an Israeli hardliner once described as “the best leader Egypt could have—for Israel.” Egypt’s brief democratic experiment was crushed in the name of Israeli security.

Similarly, Israel had no issue with the Assad regime, despite its brutal repression and the slaughter of over a million Syrians in 14 years. Even U.S. efforts to topple Assad were stymied—again, in the name of Israeli security. When the U.S. military deployed to Syria after Assad used chemical weapons, it quickly shifted gears, backing a status quo that kept Assad in power. Officially, Washington opposed Assad. Sanctions were applied. But if the U.S. had really wanted to remove him, it could’ve done so easily. Instead, Assad remained—because he was seen as preferable from Israel’s point of view. He killed Muslims, ran torture prisons, leveled cities, and displaced millions. And the U.S., capable of stopping him, looked the other way for the sake of Israeli interests.

Now, as Assad's regime crumbles and the Syrian people try to chart a new future, Israel is rattled. The new leadership, led by the al-Shara group, has made no threats against Israel or any other state. Their focus is on rebuilding, repatriating refugees, and stabilizing the country. Yet Israel still considers them a threat—and is already launching attacks to crush them before they gain traction. It’s doing what it always does: using its asymmetric military advantage to wage unjustified, one-sided assaults that cause immense destruction.

But this time, Israel may be overreaching. Its actions in Syria are tying its fate to Assad’s crimes. It may end up sharing responsibility for every atrocity committed by the regime.

Recently, Israel tried to provoke sectarian conflict in Suwayda by using local Druze collaborators, but this backfired. Arab tribes marched on Suwayda in defiance. While tensions have cooled for now thanks to government mediation, the tribal mobilization could be the first sign of a wider awakening in the Muslim world—long dormant, but no longer passive. What Israel and its reckless backers don’t seem to grasp is that their relentless contempt for humanity—and for 2 billion Muslims in particular—is reawakening the very force they fear.

There is a limit to how much people will tolerate. That threshold has been crossed. The march on Suwayda may soon turn into a march on Gaza—or even Jerusalem. Israel tried to carve a corridor from Suwayda to the northeast, toward the Euphrates, through the Druze. But what’s now more likely is that the tribes of Suwayda will carve a path from Suwayda to Jerusalem. And this time, Israel may not be able to stop them.