SOUTH LEBANON — Recent statements by Grand Mufti of Syria, Osama al-Rifai, regarding the nation’s agrarian reform lands have sparked a renewed and impassioned debate on one of Syria’s most contentious socio-economic debates.

In what many interpreted as a sweeping religious ruling, al-Rifai declared it impermissible to buy, sell, mediate, enter, or even pray on lands distributed under agrarian reform. 

His position, seen by some as aligned with the orientation of the current de facto authorities, triggered sharp reactions—particularly among economists who warned of the social and political consequences of reopening a file that dates back more than sixty years. 

Critics argue that beneficiaries of agrarian reform committed no wrongdoing and should not bear moral or religious guilt, stressing that many large estates before 1958 were accumulated through inequitable systems, and that agrarian reform in Syria followed broader post-colonial trends aimed at dismantling semi-feudal land structures and redistributing resources more fairly. 

Syria’s agrarian reform unfolded in three phases between 1958 and the early 1970s, resulting in the confiscation of vast tracts of land and the redistribution of hundreds of thousands of hectares to tens of thousands of rural families.

Although official assessments later acknowledged administrative flaws and limited productivity gains, the reforms fundamentally reshaped rural society.

Over decades, inheritance, subdivision, and sales expanded the circle of those connected to redistributed land, embedding agrarian reform deeply into Syria’s social fabric.

The memory of 2011 adds another crucial dimension; many rural families who had once benefited from land redistribution later participated in early riots—not in rejection of reform itself, but in response to economic liberalization, declining agricultural subsidies, drought, and shrinking state support.

Agrarian reform had once integrated rural communities into a social contract; the weakening of that support strained the relationship between state and countryside. 

Reopening the land question today risks serious instability. Properties have been inherited, developed, and exchanged across generations. 

Attempting to reverse ownership would create legal chaos and likely provoke widespread rural anger. Beyond the internal social dimension lies a broader strategic one.

For decades, Syria maintained significant agricultural self-sufficiency, reinforcing national resilience. Years of imposed war, infrastructure destruction, and rural displacement have already eroded that capacity. 

The weakening of Syria’s agricultural base does not occur in isolation; as the country becomes more dependent on imports and external supply chains, its sovereignty is constrained.

In this context, many argue that the Israeli enemy stands to benefit strategically from Syria’s economic fragmentation and agricultural decline.

Recent events in Quneitra intensified these concerns. Residents reported Israeli helicopters spraying unknown chemical substances over agricultural lands near the border in multiple villages. The operations, repeated several times within two weeks, sparked fear among farmers uncertain about potential environmental and health risks. 

Local agricultural authorities collected soil and plant samples for laboratory analysis, but uncertainty persists. 

Moreover, the systematic theft of livestock, particularly sheep, has exacerbated Syria's agricultural crisis. Reports indicate that Israeli forces have been involved in the organized stealing of sheep from Syrian farmers, undermining rural livelihoods and further destabilizing the agricultural sector. 

Such thefts not only deprive farmers of their vital assets but also reflect a broader pattern of resource exploitation that weakens Syria’s self-sufficiency. 

Beyond immediate environmental worries, these incidents are seen by many as part of a broader pattern in which agricultural stability becomes vulnerable in regional confrontations. Even the perception of contamination can discourage cultivation, disrupt planting cycles, and weaken local markets.

Ultimately, the debate over agrarian reform and the incidents in Quneitra converge on a single issue: agriculture in Syria is not merely an economic sector. It is tied to social justice, political legitimacy, food security, and national sovereignty. 

Revisiting this legacy without careful consideration risks reopening historical wounds and further undermining a fragile rural society still struggling to recover.