Israeli air strikes target Syria after Golan death

[simple1]

I wouldn't worry about Israel.

I agree with everything that you have said, but one thing they don't have - unless I have missed it somehow - is America's latest bunker-busters and most people feel that is what is needed to destroy every nuclear facility completely. They might not have bombers that can deliver them easily either. I forget.

US successfully tests bunker buster bombs

The results of the test were reported to the US's ally states, among them Israel, to show that Washington is serious about its intentions to strike Tehran's nuclear facilities, and to demonstrate its ability to specifically target Iran’s underground Fordow uranium enrichment plant near the city of Qom.

http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/US-conducts-successful-test-of-bunker-buster-bombs-315809

However…

Israel has 2,000- and 5,000-pound bunker-buster bombs, some of which were delivered by the Obama administration. Iranian planners, however, might hope that these will prove insufficient to do major damage. The U.S. should remove such doubt by providing Israel with the capability to reach and destroy Iran’s most deeply buried nuclear sites. The U.S. could do this by providing an appropriate number of GBU-57 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs, known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator or MOP, and several B-52 bombers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/04/08/to-curb-iran-should-we-give-israel-bunker-busters/

What would you do if you were the US decision maker?

[Morch]

I'm not at all sure what you're saying. I just made the points that Israel isn't afraid to bomb anyone, and that unlike the US which recently declined to bomb Syria after much political wrangling, Israel strikes before talking about it to the whole world or waiting for public opinion.

Well, now I'm not sure which part of what I'm saying you're not at all sure about, NeverSure .

The Israeli PM's decision making issues have been discussed on almost every Israeli and Arab media outlet, in various context. Decisive he is not. Talks the talk, yes.

A good example of this (which I hope will not derail the topic further) is the whole saga of a possible Israeli strike against Iran. A lot of talk, a lot of posturing, but no cigar. Exactly the same thing with the last round of hostilities in the Gaza Strip - ground troops were held up for days, reserves called, tough talking, no ground move.

Attacking these Syrian army camps wasn't going to make a whole lot of noise world wide, didn't carry much risk of hitting civilians or placing Israeli troops in harms way and played nicely for domestic consumption. Plus Assad Junior might have a talk with local commanders to make sure all are on the same page.

Israel got zero interest to make things worse, the attack was a response and a message that a line was crossed.

I seriously can't understand you. You're rambling about things I never said. This quoted post you are so worried about never says that Israel is decisive - you came up with that topic by yourself. I simply said that they strike without telling the world about it first, unlike a recent event in the US where the POTUS' desire to bomb Syria was widely debated first.

I also said they aren't afraid of anyone in the ME, and they aren't. If they choose not to bomb someone, it's not going to be out of fear.

That's all I said, and keep repeating. Where do you get all of this other stuff???

Alright, guess I equate "decisive" with "telling the world about it first". As in not having a whole lot of public debate before getting in.

Still think that the notion that Israel doesn't "tell the world" ahead of actions is a bit of myth. It is, perhaps, relevant mostly to covert long range strikes. The two examples cited, were instances of quite the opposite - a whole lot of public debate, a lot of media coverage and many leaks. Both came to naught - much in the same way that the USA backed off from the Syrian thing.

I think that using such phrases as "they aren't afraid of anyone in the ME" sounds a bit juvenile. Israeli governments and the IDF, as well as the Israeli media and public are rather well aware of potential consequences of certain military actions. Such things are surely considered when the military makes its plans, and are subject to much public debate and discussion. If this was meant to convey that Israel feels pretty confident of its military might relative to its neighbors, then yes - but again, a whole lot less cockiness then there used to be a few decades ago.

[Morch]

A good example of this (which I hope will not derail the topic further) is the whole saga of a possible Israeli strike against Iran. A lot of talk, a lot of posturing, but no cigar.

IMO. that means almost nothing. Striking Iran's nuclear facilities is a very big deal and the US could do it a lot more effectively. Netanyahu has to let Omama try to negotiate or he will never cooperate on a nuclear facility strike and Israel stands a good chance of losing any cooperation from him at all - on anything. They don't trust him and for good reason. However, if Israel has to do it on their own, my guess is that they will, but at a time of their choosing.

Well, the point more about there being a very lively public debate and media circus regarding the possibility of an attack. Pretty much in the same way there was with the USA-Syria stand off. The other example, regarding a possible ground move during the last round of hostilities in Gaza Strip, amounted to the same thing.

This is not to say that Israel does not act when it deems it should, just that in certain situation, especially those with some potential for becoming a mess, there's certainly less rushing in compared to the past.

EDIT: reading a bit down the topic, I see that it is kinda hard to give an example without things getting a little derailed... this is not about Israel-Iran, but about Israel-Syria.

[coma]

What total rubbish. To suggest Assad is a friend to Israel is Bullshit. That is all. That you have to say I may have had one too many and belittle my post shows you have no idea of what you are talking about. Attack the post not the poster.

Still on it ? Yawn ! Change the record.

[coma]

I'm not at all sure what you're saying. I just made the points that Israel isn't afraid to bomb anyone, and that unlike the US which recently declined to bomb Syria after much political wrangling, Israel strikes before talking about it to the whole world or waiting for public opinion.

Israel got zero interest to make things worse, the attack was a response and a message that a line was crossed.

Not the right message to send I am afraid. It is just telling lunatic militants that attacking Israeli targets in the region is a good thing. By way of attracting an Israeli response which is attacking Assad's forces. Playing into the hands of these militant thugs. Essentially have Israel do the militants dirty work for them. Do you see ?

The Syrian crisis been ongoing for about three years now. Considering the relative violence reported around most of the country, the border with Israel has been generally quiet, with very few incidents. This can be attributed mainly to Syria's regime's reluctance to open another front (vs. Israel), and an effort to keep a lead on things near the border area.

The IDF seems to be positive that the attack (a rather advanced version of an anti-tank missile) originated from a Syrian army post, and was carried out by Syrian soldiers. Now, that doesn't mean that they were under orders to carry out the attack, just an indication that Assad's grip on the army is not perfect.

I do understand your point, and there is some merit to it. But if Israel's claims that the attacks did come from the Syrian army, well...there's no other address, really. The current situation in Syria being what it is, doubt that going thorough the usual indirect diplomatic channels alone would have sufficed.

Your post has merit. But I, along with many others around the world, would just like to see some solid evidence that it was Syrian soldiers. In a precarious situation like this, solid evidence keeps all informed, in check and gives them a mandate. Israel has one of, if not the best intelligence networks in the world, yet they still cannot confirm who,what,where,when,why and how ???? Therefore their response was nothing short of a knee jerk reaction and way out of proportion. As usual. They take the use of lethal force way too likely. Almost a " kill one of us we will kill 10 of them ' attitude. Shows lack of restraint, civility and breeds Israeli hatred in the region. I really think they can do better than that. The thing is that they clearly don't want to.

[Credo]

<snipped>

Therefore their response was nothing short of a knee jerk reaction and way out of proportion. As usual. They take the use of lethal force way too likely. Almost a " kill one of us we will kill 10 of them ' attitude. Shows lack of restraint, civility and breeds Israeli hatred in the region. I really think they can do better than that. The thing is that they clearly don't want to.

The fact that Israel exists is the only thing most in the region need to hate them.

[Ulysses G.]

Shows lack of restraint, civility and breeds Israeli hatred in the region.

Their neighbors will hate them no matter what they do and the Arabs are not exactly known for restraint or civility either. When in Rome...

[Morch]

Israel got zero interest to make things worse, the attack was a response and a message that a line was crossed.

Not the right message to send I am afraid. It is just telling lunatic militants that attacking Israeli targets in the region is a good thing. By way of attracting an Israeli response which is attacking Assad's forces. Playing into the hands of these militant thugs. Essentially have Israel do the militants dirty work for them. Do you see ?

The Syrian crisis been ongoing for about three years now. Considering the relative violence reported around most of the country, the border with Israel has been generally quiet, with very few incidents. This can be attributed mainly to Syria's regime's reluctance to open another front (vs. Israel), and an effort to keep a lead on things near the border area.

The IDF seems to be positive that the attack (a rather advanced version of an anti-tank missile) originated from a Syrian army post, and was carried out by Syrian soldiers. Now, that doesn't mean that they were under orders to carry out the attack, just an indication that Assad's grip on the army is not perfect.

I do understand your point, and there is some merit to it. But if Israel's claims that the attacks did come from the Syrian army, well...there's no other address, really. The current situation in Syria being what it is, doubt that going thorough the usual indirect diplomatic channels alone would have sufficed.

Your post has merit. But I, along with many others around the world, would just like to see some solid evidence that it was Syrian soldiers. In a precarious situation like this, solid evidence keeps all informed, in check and gives them a mandate. Israel has one of, if not the best intelligence networks in the world, yet they still cannot confirm who,what,where,when,why and how ???? Therefore their response was nothing short of a knee jerk reaction and way out of proportion. As usual. They take the use of lethal force way too likely. Almost a " kill one of us we will kill 10 of them ' attitude. Shows lack of restraint, civility and breeds Israeli hatred in the region. I really think they can do better than that. The thing is that they clearly don't want to.

I think there is some difference between not being able to confirm the details and releasing all their information to the world media. Pretty sure that USA representatives were briefed, though. Doubt Israel would care to share its intelligence in such a way which would hamper further operations, if the need arises. Same applies for most countries - at most, they release some photos and video of the attack itself.

Many would say that it is up to Syria to control fire originating from their side of the border, rather than place the burden of proof on Israel. Still at a lose as how the Israeli response was "out of proportion", though - what do other countries do when a missile flies across the border and kills a citizen? If you refer solely to the casualty list, that's rather petty, and frankly, very much doubt Israel went for a large body count - attacks employed precision guided weapons. Actually, finding it another bad sign of Syrian army discipline going down the drain, as they had to be expecting some sort of retaliation, which would usually mean digging in a bit.

Once again, I can understand Israel being held to higher standards than its neighbors, that's fine. But guess there's a limit to this when you live in the jungle. Can't see that this specific attack will have much effect on Israel's image in the Middle East, relatively little condemnation this time.

A while back, by the way, similar incidents happened near the Syrian-Turkish border.

[coma]

I don't see the need to continue going around in circles on this subject. We've all said the same things in this thread as we've said in other threads related to Israel. There is NO end to this topic or the Israeli / Arab issue.

[ggold]

What total rubbish. To suggest Assad is a friend to Israel is Bullshit. That is all. That you have to say I may have had one too many and belittle my post shows you have no idea of what you are talking about. Attack the post not the poster.

Still on it ? Yawn ! Change the record.

So you are not able to debate your statement that "Like it or not Assad is a friend to Israel" which is just so much nonsense. Or will you be so kind to clarify those words. What was it that gave you that opinion?

[Steely Dan]

And at the moment also israel is being super sensitive since three teenagers have been kidnapped and r being held by the hamas

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The only Hamas 'evidence' is an accusation from Netanyahu who blames them for everything. It's a totally disproportionate response to the kidnapping (lock up as many Palestinians as possible and kill a few more) as well as the disproportionate response to the bomb (or whatever it was) from an unknown source in Syria.

The kidnapping aside, being rather OT - what would you consider a "proportionate" response to a missile fired across the

border, killing a civilian and wounding others?

For some western liberals the only proportionate response is to adopt the fetus position and invite another kicking.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Johpa]

Some say that Israel has the best intelligence in the world.

That highly lauded intelligence capability certainly did not help Israel when it comes to the PR war in the west, where they are now the reviled actor on the stage. And "great" intelligence did not prevent Netanyahu from becoming a political ally of the Republican neo-conservative movement, the people who brought the world the current debacle in Iraq.

[folium]

The Syrian crisis been ongoing for about three years now. Considering the relative violence reported around most of the country, the border with Israel has been generally quiet, with very few incidents. This can be attributed mainly to Syria's regime's reluctance to open another front (vs. Israel), and an effort to keep a lead on things near the border area.

The IDF seems to be positive that the attack (a rather advanced version of an anti-tank missile) originated from a Syrian army post, and was carried out by Syrian soldiers. Now, that doesn't mean that they were under orders to carry out the attack, just an indication that Assad's grip on the army is not perfect.

I do understand your point, and there is some merit to it. But if Israel's claims that the attacks did come from the Syrian army, well...there's no other address, really. The current situation in Syria being what it is, doubt that going thorough the usual indirect diplomatic channels alone would have sufficed.

Your post has merit. But I, along with many others around the world, would just like to see some solid evidence that it was Syrian soldiers. In a precarious situation like this, solid evidence keeps all informed, in check and gives them a mandate. Israel has one of, if not the best intelligence networks in the world, yet they still cannot confirm who,what,where,when,why and how ???? Therefore their response was nothing short of a knee jerk reaction and way out of proportion. As usual. They take the use of lethal force way too likely. Almost a " kill one of us we will kill 10 of them ' attitude. Shows lack of restraint, civility and breeds Israeli hatred in the region. I really think they can do better than that. The thing is that they clearly don't want to.

I think there is some difference between not being able to confirm the details and releasing all their information to the world media. Pretty sure that USA representatives were briefed, though. Doubt Israel would care to share its intelligence in such a way which would hamper further operations, if the need arises. Same applies for most countries - at most, they release some photos and video of the attack itself.

Many would say that it is up to Syria to control fire originating from their side of the border, rather than place the burden of proof on Israel. Still at a lose as how the Israeli response was "out of proportion", though - what do other countries do when a missile flies across the border and kills a citizen? If you refer solely to the casualty list, that's rather petty, and frankly, very much doubt Israel went for a large body count - attacks employed precision guided weapons. Actually, finding it another bad sign of Syrian army discipline going down the drain, as they had to be expecting some sort of retaliation, which would usually mean digging in a bit.

Once again, I can understand Israel being held to higher standards than its neighbors, that's fine. But guess there's a limit to this when you live in the jungle. Can't see that this specific attack will have much effect on Israel's image in the Middle East, relatively little condemnation this time.

A while back, by the way, similar incidents happened near the Syrian-Turkish border.

The initial IDF response was Merkava MBTs shelling Syrian Army positions. A 120mm tank shell is neither precise nor guided...

But that was deigned to be the appropriate response. What is so dull about these debates re Israel is that they seem to be so "binary", ie eithera stream of 1s or 0s. The pro-Israeli crew only do 1s and the pro-Palestinian crew only do 0s.

Reality, as ever, is a lot messier and more nuanced.

The Israeli military are far from perfect and Israeli intelligence is far from omniscient. Early examples such as Deir Yassin, Hula, Saliha or Lyddah in 1948, more recent examples such as the intelligence failure in 1973 or the tragedies of Sabra/Chatila1982, and Qana 1996. Similarly the US military has its No Gun Ri 1950, My Lai/My Khe1968, Haditha 2005, and the Brits have Amritsar 1919, Batang Kali 1948, Kenya 1952-60, Ballymurphy 1971, and Bloody Sunday 1972. All these incidents reflect the actions of scared young men, combined with/enabled by either a failure of leadership or an application of cynical, deliberately criminal leadership. Obviously our opponents have committed far worse atrocities and outrages but we are supposed to be the good guys....and atrocities never boost the good guys cause.

Bottom line is that all conflicts produce unpleasant, regrettable incidents that should never have happened. But if you engage in armed conflict, brutality and fear often overcome good intentions.

As ever the military will never be the sole answer in any conflict. They have an unpleasant, brutal job to do, and mistakes are made, sometimes intentionally, but at the end of the day resolution has to be a political one. So it will be in every ME conflict. Military "victories" are meaningless without a political resolution of the causes of the conflict. It does not mean capitulation or unilateral concessions, but instead a political compromise that allows all sides to feel enough of their grievances/desires have been satisfied to enable a long term peaceful resolution to occur.

[Morch]

The Syrian crisis been ongoing for about three years now. Considering the relative violence reported around most of the country, the border with Israel has been generally quiet, with very few incidents. This can be attributed mainly to Syria's regime's reluctance to open another front (vs. Israel), and an effort to keep a lead on things near the border area.

The IDF seems to be positive that the attack (a rather advanced version of an anti-tank missile) originated from a Syrian army post, and was carried out by Syrian soldiers. Now, that doesn't mean that they were under orders to carry out the attack, just an indication that Assad's grip on the army is not perfect.

I do understand your point, and there is some merit to it. But if Israel's claims that the attacks did come from the Syrian army, well...there's no other address, really. The current situation in Syria being what it is, doubt that going thorough the usual indirect diplomatic channels alone would have sufficed.

Your post has merit. But I, along with many others around the world, would just like to see some solid evidence that it was Syrian soldiers. In a precarious situation like this, solid evidence keeps all informed, in check and gives them a mandate. Israel has one of, if not the best intelligence networks in the world, yet they still cannot confirm who,what,where,when,why and how ???? Therefore their response was nothing short of a knee jerk reaction and way out of proportion. As usual. They take the use of lethal force way too likely. Almost a " kill one of us we will kill 10 of them ' attitude. Shows lack of restraint, civility and breeds Israeli hatred in the region. I really think they can do better than that. The thing is that they clearly don't want to.

I think there is some difference between not being able to confirm the details and releasing all their information to the world media. Pretty sure that USA representatives were briefed, though. Doubt Israel would care to share its intelligence in such a way which would hamper further operations, if the need arises. Same applies for most countries - at most, they release some photos and video of the attack itself.

Many would say that it is up to Syria to control fire originating from their side of the border, rather than place the burden of proof on Israel. Still at a lose as how the Israeli response was "out of proportion", though - what do other countries do when a missile flies across the border and kills a citizen? If you refer solely to the casualty list, that's rather petty, and frankly, very much doubt Israel went for a large body count - attacks employed precision guided weapons. Actually, finding it another bad sign of Syrian army discipline going down the drain, as they had to be expecting some sort of retaliation, which would usually mean digging in a bit.

Once again, I can understand Israel being held to higher standards than its neighbors, that's fine. But guess there's a limit to this when you live in the jungle. Can't see that this specific attack will have much effect on Israel's image in the Middle East, relatively little condemnation this time.

A while back, by the way, similar incidents happened near the Syrian-Turkish border.

The initial IDF response was Merkava MBTs shelling Syrian Army positions. A 120mm tank shell is neither precise nor guided...

But that was deigned to be the appropriate response. What is so dull about these debates re Israel is that they seem to be so "binary", ie eithera stream of 1s or 0s. The pro-Israeli crew only do 1s and the pro-Palestinian crew only do 0s.

Reality, as ever, is a lot messier and more nuanced.

The Israeli military are far from perfect and Israeli intelligence is far from omniscient. Early examples such as Deir Yassin, Hula, Saliha or Lyddah in 1948, more recent examples such as the intelligence failure in 1973 or the tragedies of Sabra/Chatila1982, and Qana 1996. Similarly the US military has its No Gun Ri 1950, My Lai/My Khe1968, Haditha 2005, and the Brits have Amritsar 1919, Batang Kali 1948, Kenya 1952-60, Ballymurphy 1971, and Bloody Sunday 1972. All these incidents reflect the actions of scared young men, combined with/enabled by either a failure of leadership or an application of cynical, deliberately criminal leadership. Obviously our opponents have committed far worse atrocities and outrages but we are supposed to be the good guys....and atrocities never boost the good guys cause.

Bottom line is that all conflicts produce unpleasant, regrettable incidents that should never have happened. But if you engage in armed conflict, brutality and fear often overcome good intentions.

As ever the military will never be the sole answer in any conflict. They have an unpleasant, brutal job to do, and mistakes are made, sometimes intentionally, but at the end of the day resolution has to be a political one. So it will be in every ME conflict. Military "victories" are meaningless without a political resolution of the causes of the conflict. It does not mean capitulation or unilateral concessions, but instead a political compromise that allows all sides to feel enough of their grievances/desires have been satisfied to enable a long term peaceful resolution to occur.

Barking up the wrong tree, I'm afraid

Never said that Israel intelligence is omniscient.

Agreed that most of these discussion are ruled by posters biases, replicating how these issues are discussed and treated on an international level. However, in general, it might be said that issues pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are somewhat less clear cut then security issues between Israel and Syria.

I do not believe anyone marked neither attack or response as a victory. That either could be solved by military might is, of course, a ridiculous stance, and yes - somewhere down the line sides would have to reach some sort of compromise, even if it does seem to be a ways off. Should have been easier with Syria (as opposed to Lebanon or the Palestinians), but that's split milk.

The initial response was indeed shelling by MBTs. That is more of a standard procedure, or as others called it here a "knee jerk" reaction. While relatively not considered precise, I think you'll find a few improvements were introduced over the years when it comes to relevant armament and and weapon guidance systems.

The way I understand the reports, after this initial "standard" response, further information brought about the decision to take more forceful action. While Israel's intelligence is not infallible, it is still as accurate as it gets when it comes to what happens a few kilometers over a constantly well monitored border.

As said in another post, holding Israel to higher standards then its neighbors is fine. Up to a point. The United Nations Security Council statement was surprisingly even handed this time. A retaliatory strike against military targets, after civilians were attacked is not, in my opinion, going overboard.

Due to the current situation in Syria, there is very little that can be done to improve relations between the two countries. Doubtful that this would have any significant bearing in relation to attitudes on both sides of the border.

[Yahooka]

For an Israeli citizen it must be assuring to know that it's armed forces will hit out at any enemy attacks on the country.

Without it Israel wouldn't be able to exist surrounded by countries on all sides who wish that Israel would cease to exist.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[boomerangutang]

This action is going to complicate the situation in the area even more.

The inheritance of western meddling in Pan Arabic Semite affairs is now becoming more apparent. Sure is turning out to be a dubious legacy. How long before western forces are embroiled in yet another pointless conflict and body bags return home full.

Little or no cost for body bags. Big profit for ordinance manufacturer's and arms dealers sales people though.

No one is screwing up M.East territories more than the M.Easterners themselves. Alternatively, what do you think the situations would be, in those countries, if there was no western military involvement? For starters, Kuwait would be a state in Iraq. I don't have any snappy answer, except to say the M.East would not be any better off without western involvement, and would likely be worse off. How? Because religious fanaticism would be even more prevalent widespread than it is now. Women would be getting stoned (not by pot) in public every day, girls would be forbidden from going to school, ....and a whole lot of other despicable things.

If Israel doesn't know the source of the alleged attack then what the hell were IDF attacking in response ? Most probably totally unrelated targets. As usual. Israel flying off the deep end with no facts and in a totally disproportionate manner.

Israel is a small country with enemies all around. It needs to remind them once in awhile (if there's not already a war) that they're tough and have good weapons. It's like the Thai expression "kill the chicken in order to scare the monkey."

It's also a message to whatever faction might take charge in Syria: "You can debilitate each other all you want in your own country, but don't for a minute think you're going on another campaign against Israel, 'cause you'll get more than your nose bloodied."

[Morch]

The current border incidents between Israel and Syria have very little to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

They don't even have much to do with the creation of the state of Israel, Syria's borderlines were drawn before

that.

Amazing how any topic to do with the Middle East in general, and specifically with Israel, can not be discussed

without bringing along a train load of baggage.

Same goes for many a real world negotiations, which is one reason they usually get nowhere. Perhaps a more

compartmentalized approach, focusing on matters at hand, facts, possible consequences and solutions would

be both more enlightening and constructive?

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted along with replies.