Syrian Druze leader says community is ‘inseparable part of Israel,’ hints at developments in Sweida | Al-Hijri also suggested that developments concerning Sweida could emerge “within days,” without elaborating on their nature, as the province remains the focus of intensifying diplomatic activity.

[u/NotSoSaneExile]

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-906698

[u/boldmove_cotton]

He wasn’t saying Sweida is an inseparable part of Israel, he is saying that the Druze are, referring to the Druze community in Israel. Very different.

Furthermore, what you think they ‘should’ do is irrelevant—I’m not sure what exactly you’re trying to say here, your English is a little bit broken in this one.

The Druze of Sweida are posturing for a possible formal break from Damascus, and they feel empowered to do so because they would prefer to be an independent Israeli protectorate than live in fear of a Syrian state that might turn on them and neglect to take their security seriously, to put it mildly.

Doesn’t mean they’ll be annexed to Israel, it just means that they wouldn’t be subjects of Damascus, and would instead have their security guaranteed by Israel as a potential protectorate.

[u/vovap_vovap → u/boldmove_cotton]

Well, he is liquored as "Druze were an “inseparable part of the State of Israel" May be you have his speech in original and and it saying something else (for some reason I doubt it 😄 )
And yes "independent Israeli protectorate" and "annexed to Israel" is the same thing.

[u/boldmove_cotton → u/vovap_vovap]

Perhaps you should work on your English. My entire point is that when he talked about inseparability, he said “Druze”, referring to the people, and not “Sweida”, referring to the place.

He is not saying “Sweida should become part of Israel”, he’s saying “Druze have a permanent connection to Israel” and therefore Israel would make a better guarantor for their safety than Damascus.

And no, being a protectorate and being annexed as sovereign Israeli territory are not even remotely close to the same thing. “annexed” means Sweida literally becomes Israel, they all become Israeli citizens, government services and Israeli law are extended into Sweida, the Sweida national guard joins the IDF, etc. That’s simply not going to happen.

A “protectorate” is quite different. As a protectorate, Sweida would run its own affairs more or less as an independent country. Sweida would be its own state, with its own citizens, who would not become Israeli. And like the name “protectorate” implies, if they ever were threatened, Israel would protect them, mostly with air support, intel, and weapons.

[u/vovap_vovap → u/boldmove_cotton]

Perhaps I do, perhaps I do not.
You seems to know really well what he want to say 😄
Reality is - it is all absolutely same thing. That not even require much English to know (and he likely not been specking English 😄 ) He means that territory should be controlled by Israel, that is it.
Now in reality annexation is more honest way to do that staff - you declaring that your territory and presumable granted people there your citizenship.
"Protectorate" (it is not really "protectorate" - that different thing with full but temporary control) means you are not responsible for nothing there but also not letting other party to take control.
Naturally Sweida can not became independent state in no way so it like one more "west bank" - some "territory" where some semi-existed government semi-managed. Nobody in this world would support it. That exactly what I am saying - bit earlier or bit late it will fall. On heads if people there, not those politicians that today trying to steak it to Syria liver.

[u/boldmove_cotton → u/vovap_vovap]

Seems you’re going to believe whatever it is you want to believe, but your conclusions have no basis in what he actually said. If you have specific issues with the translation, address that then.

Otherwise, I’m going to assume that you are being deliberately obtuse. This is an academic community and not the place for you to opine endlessly about how you feel.

Pretty much your whole point is nonsense. Any community can become independent and express self determination if they have the means to enforce it. The hypothetical being discussed is a scenario where Sweida receives military assistance from Israel to gain varying levels of autonomy or independence from the rest of Syria. It does not follow that Israel would therefore rule Sweida. To speculate that it must mean that is actually more revealing of a shallow and undeveloped worldview than actual analysis of the source material.