Introduction

It’s difficult to definitively say which actor can be trusted more to bring peace to Syria, as the situation is complex and each party has its own interests and motivations. However, lets examine some key points about each

HTS (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham)

HTS has evolved from its al-Qaeda roots and is trying to present itself as a more moderate force. They are Sunni Muslims.

Jalani is ex Al-Queda and ex- ISIS. People’s ideology does not change? Is this a very radical Sufi change or Christ blessed him to be pure and holy? All this is questionable and in which direction his role will change in near future.

Right now he is saying all the right things ‘what international community wants to hear’ or we have invited ‘Taliban2’ into Syria to begin with.

How will he bring justice to all minorities promised including Syrian Kurds which Turkey is after? Country of Druz and Republic of Sharia, which has 3 million Shia Muslims who are under Iranian influence indirectly.

The total population of these minorities in Syria who want freedom is 6 million

Total Population

Adding these groups together:

Syrian Kurds: 1.5 to 2.5 million

Syrian Druze: 750,000

HTS-controlled areas: Shia Muslim - 3 million

Total: ~6 million people.

HTS faces several challenges in dealing with the Shia population:

Overcoming deep-rooted ideological differences and historical animosities.

Balancing their Sunni Islamist base with the need for broader acceptance.

Addressing fears and mistrust within Shia communities, many of whom have fled or are considering fleeing HTS-controlled areas

They’ve pledged tolerance for religious minorities, but concerns remain about their commitment to democratic values and human rights.

Their track record in governing areas under their control has been problematic, with reports of human rights violations and restrictions on civil society.

Turkey

Turkey has emerged as an influential player in Syria and has supported various opposition groups.

Erdogan’s government has concerns about refugee issues and Kurdish autonomy in Syria.

Turkey’s actions have been pragmatic, balancing its own interests with regional stability.

Besides influence does he want piece of Syrian land?

Israel

Israel’s primary concern is its own security, particularly regarding Iranian influence in Syria.

Netanyahu has stated Israel’s willingness for peaceful relations with a post-Assad Syria, but has also conducted military operations to protect its interests.

Israel has already occupied buffer zone and many other parts deep in Syria staying its temporary. It’s hard to believe them given the same caption used for Palestine 5 decades ago.

Reliability of Leaders

Comparing Erdogan and Netanyahu:

Both leaders have pursued policies aimed at protecting their countries’ interests in Syria.

Erdogan has been more directly involved in Syrian affairs, supporting opposition groups and hosting millions of Syrian refugees. Given the history of Turkey, Armenia, US and Israel it’s hard to trust Erdogan. He can flip sides anytime with anyone.

Netanyahu has focused on preventing threats to Israel’s security, particularly from Iran and Hezbollah, closing door for Hamas and may be attack Iran nuclear establishment with support from US.

He cannot also be trusted but surely more politically savvy and trustworthy than Erdogan.

What is questionable his statements to ‘destroy chemical weapons to fall in wrong hands’ , which UN is already monitoring?

So what did Israel bomb? Bombing chemical weapons can cause a bigger aftermath in Syria as they are dangerous for environment? Citizen can die from inhaling the air.

Conclusion

Ultimately, trusting any single actor to bring peace to Syria is problematic. A lasting peace will likely require cooperation and compromise from multiple parties, including regional powers, international organizations, and Syrian factions themselves.

The reliability of leaders like Erdogan and Netanyahu in this process will depend on how their national interests align with broader peace efforts in Syria.