A widespread wave of debate and outrage erupted on social media after a video circulated showing Fatah leader and former Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh sharply attacking Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa. Speaking at a debate at Oxford University, Shtayyeh said that al-Sharaa was “sleeping in the same bed as the Americans and Israelis,” adding that Israel had nevertheless dared to strike Damascus and seize new areas in southern Syria. His remarks prompted angry reactions from activists and political writers, many of whom called them offensive and unexpected given Syria’s current circumstances.
Political researcher and analyst Yasser al-Za’atara noted that criticizing Syrian-Israeli contacts on the grounds that they amounted to normalization or were futile amid the “Zionist rampage” would be understandable, and that similar statements had already been made. However, he himself went on the offensive against Shtayyeh, saying that hearing such words from an official of a movement that had ceded 78% of Palestinian land to the Zionists, then agreed to turn what remained into territory disputed and subject to negotiations, and later headed a government under an authority that “sanctifies” security cooperation with the enemy could only be viewed as insolence. In his view, the Palestinian people’s and the Palestinian cause’s central problem lies precisely in this movement, its organization and its authority, regardless of how many officials within it may change.
Many writers and users drew attention to the contradictory nature of Shtayyeh’s speech: he began by addressing Ahmed al-Sharaa as a “dear friend” and then shifted to a direct accusation. They said it was truly shameful for such humiliating expressions to come from a Palestinian figure addressing the Syrian president, who faces Israeli threats every day while parts of his country are occupied amid fears of further Israeli expansion. It was emphasized that al-Sharaa refuses to cede Syrian territory and insists on the return of the Golan Heights, fully aware of how much this demand complicates Damascus’s relations with the US administration, which previously recognized Israeli sovereignty over the heights.
In the same context, observers warned of the negative consequences of such statements, describing them as absurd and offensive. They argued that Shtayyeh’s words, or those of anyone else, only deepen the rift between the two countries and open the door to strife between brothers. Calls were made to keep any Palestinian disagreements with the Syrian leadership within proper political bounds and to completely avoid language involving accusations of treason, vilification and personal insults.
One comment that stood out was posted by a user named Ahmed al-Tamimi, who wrote that such speeches “neither add nor take away anything.” Others had been saying the same things for a long time, he added, and repeating them now merely reflected a loss of direction. In the same post, he sarcastically remarked that this was precisely what some “masters” excelled at: empty noise and useless philosophizing in front of others. The reaction reflects widespread rejection of the use of political disagreements for personal insults, as well as demands that discussion of relations with Syria remain objective and responsible.
Comments on the news
Who is Ahmed al-Sharaa, and how did he come to power in Syria if the article calls him president? - Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known as Abu Mohammed al-Julani, is the former leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which controlled Idlib province. After Bashar al-Assad’s regime fell in December 2024 following an offensive by opposition forces, he became Syria’s de facto leader. In January 2025, representatives of Syrian factions declared him president for a transitional period at a meeting; the appointment did not result from nationwide elections but reflected the balance of power after Assad’s overthrow. This is why the article calls him president, although his legitimacy remains transitional and is disputed by some Syrians and international actors.
Which areas in southern Syria did Israel seize, and why are they strategically important to Damascus? - After Assad’s fall in December 2024, Israeli forces entered the demilitarized zone in the Golan Heights, including the Quneitra area, Mount Hermon (Jabal al-Shaykh) and several communities along the 1974 disengagement line. Israel also carried out strikes and established forward positions in Quneitra and Daraa provinces. These areas are important to Damascus because they lie 40–60 kilometers from the capital, control approaches to it, provide surveillance and early-warning capabilities, and affect water resources and routes toward Lebanon. Losing control of them weakens Damascus’s security and reduces Syria’s strategic depth.
Why do the Golan Heights remain a key point of dispute between Syria and Israel, and how did the US recognition of Israeli sovereignty over them affect the parties’ positions? - Israel captured the Golan Heights in 1967 and annexed them in 1981, but the UN and most countries consider them Syrian territory occupied by Israel. For Syria, the issue concerns sovereignty, territory and water resources; for Israel, it concerns security and control of a strategic highland. In 2019, the United States recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan, strengthening Israel’s position and easing diplomatic pressure on it, but this did not change the position of the UN or most states. Damascus continues to demand the return of the heights, although its ability to achieve this has weakened since the civil war. The US recognition also complicated any future negotiations by creating a precedent for unilaterally changing the status of territory.
Full version: How did users on social media react to Mohammed Shtayyeh’s attack on the Syrian president?