Daraa Sets the Tone: What Syria’s Grassroots Resistance Means for Israeli Occupation

Eleven days after Syrian villagers in the town of Koya, in western Daraa, confronted an Israeli incursion— prompting a deadly response that killed six—locals once again rose up. On April 3, 2025, as Israeli forces attempted another advance, residents opened fire. This time, nine more Syrians were killed.

The second armed confrontation in less than two weeks has sparked a wave of questions: Is this the beginning of a grassroots resistance against “Israel’s” presence in southern Syria? And does it mark a turning point, as locals act where the new government in Damascus appears unable—or unwilling—to engage in open conflict?

This local resistance, echoing scenes from Egypt’s Suez in the 1970s, suggests that some Syrian communities may be turning to a model of armed popular struggle to confront Israeli Occupation armor and incursions.

But what’s really behind this sudden flare-up? Are these reactions coordinated and backed by Syria’s new president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, or are they spontaneous expressions of anger from communities refusing occupation?

What Happened in Koya?

On March 25, 2025, Syrians for the first time openly called for popular resistance in the south. In the strategic village of Koya, near the triangle border of Jordan, Syria, and the occupied Golan, young men confronted Israeli Occupation's patrols pushing into the village and fired shots to push them back.

The confrontation forced Israeli forces to retreat, only to respond with airstrikes and tank shelling that killed six Syrians and injured several others. The attack sparked widespread outrage across Syrian social media, fueling a growing belief that this escalating aggression could serve to unite Syrians in the face of a common enemy.

According to Foreign Policy, roughly ten local fighters resisted the Israeli 71st Division’s attempted ground incursion, firing warning shots into the air. In retaliation—claiming it was under direct fire—the Israeli military shelled the area and carried out at least one airstrike, killing six civilians.

Eyewitnesses said residents refused to allow the patrols into their village, prompting a clash that ended with Israeli forces retreating to the village’s edge before launching an air assault. The strikes triggered mass displacement, as terrified families fled to safer areas.

Locals and observers said the confrontation was a legitimate act of self-defense under international law, and called on the global community to act against what they described as unchecked Israeli aggression in southern Syria.

Some argue the answer may lie in building a sustained, civilian-based resistance movement—one capable of pressuring “Israel” to pull back from its repeated incursions and provocations, especially while Damascus remains unable to commit to a broader military response.

Then, just days after killing six in Koya—and hours after killing nine more in another town in Daraa—Israeli Occupation aircraft dropped leaflets on Koya on April 3, warning residents against the movement of “armed individuals” near the road leading to the Yarmouk Valley, which separates the two sides.

What Happened in Daraa?

The second popular clash with Israeli Occupation forces occurred on April 3, 2025, when residents of Daraa engaged in an armed confrontation with Israeli troops near the Jabiliyah Dam situated between the city of Nawa and the town of Tasil in western Daraa.

Armed with light weapons, local youth confronted armored Israeli forces from the 474th Brigade and managed to force them to withdraw. “Israel” acknowledged the clashes and even boasted about its response—carrying out ground and air strikes and killing those who had resisted.

When the young men opened fire on the Israeli Occupation forces, Israeli aircraft and artillery quickly intervened, targeting the fighters. the bombardment resulted in the death of nine young men and left 23 others injured.

In a statement published on Telegram on April 3, 2025, the Daraa Governorate reported “a wave of public anger and mobilization following this massacre, especially as it marks the first time Israeli forces have advanced this deep into the area.”

The funeral procession of the nine young men quickly transformed into a mass outcry—an eruption of fury, vows to resist, and calls to prevent Israeli forces from ever entering Daraa again. The streets echoed with chants and appeals for jihad and a full-scale popular resistance.

A notable development came with the statement issued by Druze cleric Sheikh Laith al-Balous, son of the late Sheikh Wahid al-Balous—the founder of the “Rijal al Karama” movement (the Men of Dignity movement), known for its anti-occupation stance in Syria’s as-Suwayda province. His statement addressed the events in western Daraa and praised the popular resistance.

To those who confronted the Israeli Occupation, he declared, “Yesterday, You wrote a new chapter of glory and sealed it with your pure blood as a testament of pride and dignity.”

“The blood of the martyrs is a trust upon all of us. It is the fuel that drives our determination and resolve.”  

“This struggle has never been just a battle of weapons—it is a battle for existence, for dignity, and for standing firm in the face of injustice and tyranny,” he added.

Fearing the growing threat posed by this renewed wave of popular resistance—now witnessed for the second time—”Israel” responded with overwhelming force. Its air force launched 12 intense strikes targeting sites in Daraa, the Scientific Research Center in Damascus, the Hama military airport, and the T4 airbase in eastern rural Homs.

Popular Resistance Implications

It became increasingly clear that the Israeli Occupation’s ground incursions and air assaults were not random. They appeared to serve two strategic objectives:

First, to impose a new political and military equation on Syria—either by applying military pressure or by pushing toward the fragmentation of the country. The goal seems to be dragging Damascus into a direct and unequal confrontation, exploiting Syria’s current lack of robust air and ground defenses, while seizing more of its territory.

Second, to exert pressure on the Syrian government to prevent the establishment of Turkish military bases in central Syria—bases that could challenge the Israeli Occupation’s unrestrained air operations over large swaths of Syrian airspace—and to avoid the outbreak of a direct confrontation between the two sides.

Yet, the Israeli Occupation’s greatest concern may lie elsewhere: the fear that this popular resistance could spread and grow, eventually reaching the occupied Golan Heights. As Israeli violence escalates—through bombing campaigns and civilian deaths—so too have calls for jihad. Banners raised in protests now declare: “Israel will fall, but Daraa will not.”

Mosques have begun broadcasting urgent calls over their loudspeakers: “Whoever owns a weapon, let him rise for jihad in the cause of God.”

Participants in a demonstration at Umayyad Square in central Damascus on March 29, 2025, held banners in both Arabic and English, declaring that “Syrian blood is not cheap.” During the funeral processions for several victims of the Israeli assault, the people of Daraa did not forget to chant in solidarity with Gaza.

On April 3, 2025, writers and political analysts told Quds Press that Syrian popular resistance will be the natural response to the Israeli aggression.

“The Syrian popular resistance will be the natural response to these attacks,” said political analyst and writer Ahmad Alhila. “The operations witnessed in the town of Koya and in Daraa represent a continuation of this resistance.”

Obayda Ghadban, Director of Research and Studies at the Diplomatic Institute (affiliated with the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs), stated that “this kind of aggression will push Syria to further develop its military capabilities—whether through local manufacturing, acquiring equipment, or enhancing training.”

These developments have stirred questions in Tel Aviv: Was the popular resistance spontaneous, or was it supported by the government of Syria’s new president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, as a strategy of attrition against the Israeli occupation?

The Israeli Broadcasting Corporation (Kan) reported that Ahmed al-Sharaa is taking steps to undermine “Israel’s security,” suggesting that he may be behind or directing this new wave of popular resistance.

These accusations surfaced at a time when Syrians on social media were discussing the presence of “other armed men”—in addition to local youth from Daraa—who took part in the armed response against the Israeli Occupation soldiers and were also killed in the clashes.

Director General of the London Center for Media Strategy (LCMS) Ahmed Ramadan stated that the confrontation with Netanyahu’s brutality marks the emergence of “a broad popular resistance that will not allow the Israeli Occupation to invade, dominate, or assault unarmed civilians.”

“Israel’s crimes in Daraa and the resulting grassroots pushback have brought about an unprecedented Syrian unity—between the people and the government—against the Israeli Occupation force.” He described what is unfolding as “a Syrian uprising without precedent.”

Syria, ‘Israel,’ and Turkiye

Following these confrontations, popular movements, and the intense Israeli airstrikes, Syria, “Israel,” and Turkiye issued three statements that pointed to a significant rise in tensions and fears of the region slipping into direct military conflict.

“Israeli forces launched airstrikes on five areas across the country within 30 minutes, resulting in near-total destruction of the Hama military airport,” the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated.

Syria accused “Israel” of “undermining post-war recovery efforts” and called on the international community to pressure the Israeli Occupation to halt its aggression and respect the disengagement agreement.

“The IDF will remain at the summit of the Hermon and the security zone indefinitely to ensure the security of the communities of the Golan Heights and the north, and all the residents of Israel,” Israeli War Minister Israel Katz responded.

“I warn Syrian leader Jolani: If you allow hostile forces to enter Syria and threaten Israeli security interests, you will pay a heavy price,” Katz added in a statement, addressing the Syrian leader with his former nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Jolani.

“The Air Force’s operations yesterday against the T-4 and Hama airports and in the Damascus area are a clear message and a warning for the future: We will not allow the State of Israel’s security to be harmed.”

Despite the new Syrian administration, led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, not issuing direct threats against “Israel,” Tel Aviv has carried out almost daily airstrikes on Syria for months, resulting in civilian deaths and the destruction of military sites, equipment, and ammunition of the Syrian army.

In what appeared to be a response to the Israeli war minister’s remarks, the Turkish Foreign Ministry condemned the Israeli strikes on Syrian sites, saying they “cannot be understood apart from a broader policy that feeds on conflict.”

Turkiye accused the Israeli Occupation of “destabilizing the region and fueling chaos and terrorism.”

Provocation Backfiring

The Israeli provocation of bombing Syrian cities and airports, along with carrying out incursions, raised expectations that Syrians would respond and begin a popular resistance, especially given the state's inability to engage in direct war with the Israeli Occupation.

Analysts and newspapers discussed the possibility that “Israel” was digging its own grave in Syria by attempting to show off and provoke the Syrians, pointing to the long-term risks this posed to the Israeli Occupation, coinciding with the beginning of a popular resistance that was expected to grow stronger and develop.

“The Trump administration may harbor its own concerns and skepticism about Syria’s interim government, but it is also aware of the historic and strategic opportunity presented by Assad’s departure and Iran’s strategic defeat at the heart of the Middle East,” Foreign Policy has learned.

“To grasp that opportunity and turn it into transformational regional stability, the Trump administration must use its rapport and influence with Israel to press for de-escalation.”

“On its current path, Israeli aggression risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, whereby a new Syria that once refused to present any hostile intent may end up having no choice but to respond if such unprovoked and deadly aggression continues to worsen,” the magazine warned.

Politician Basheer Nafi pointed out that “Israel will lose strategically in Syria, just as Iran did,” and he described tactical attacks as insufficient to compensate for its losses, emphasizing that a “new Syria” was emerging and rising again.

Israeli analysts joined in warning their government that this provocation against Syria could backfire on Tel Aviv and may open a new draining front in southern Syria, led by popular resistance.

Analyst Tzvi Bar'el of Haaretz said “Israel” is trying to impose facts on Syrian territory and is risking a wide-scale conflict. He warned that the Israeli-Syrian border could become “a catalyst for a global conflict.”

“The extent of the land taken, public declarations by Defense Minister Israel Katz that ‘Israel will remain in the security zone for an unlimited period and will not be reliant on others for our defense nor enable hostile forces to establish themselves in the area,’ and statements made by other Israeli officials point to much more far-reaching plans.”

“The move could lead Israel into conflict not only with the Syrian regime but also Turkiye and later perhaps the United States,” Bar’el added.

“Beyond plans to establish a ‘sterile zone’ along the border, Israel's actions are widely seen as an attempt to create a civilian ‘security zone,’ not just a military one.”

“The aim is to mobilize the Druze population concentrated in the city of as-Suwayda as an independent force to deter the presence of hostile groups and torpedo President Ahmed al-Sharaa's ambition to establish a unified Syrian state,” according to the analyst.

“Hence, the Israeli strategy of exploiting Syria's sectarian divisions to establish zones of influence – and potentially control – may conflict with regional and international forces.”