Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another


About Those Israeli Strikes on Syria

What some of the smart folks are saying

Print Email

As you may have heard, Israel is being blamed/credited with two airstrikes over the weekend on what’s believed to be Syrian missile sites. For some context, there is a civil war in Syria and, in late January, Israeli planes reportedly struck a weapons convoy heading west into Lebanon near the border between Syria and Lebanon.

The purpose of the not-so-mysterious blasts near Damascus? According to early conjection, a few objectives were achieved: Among them, the destruction of chemical weapons believed to be bound for Hezbollah on the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah Terror Expressway as well as many messages to Iran, one specifically about Israeli capability, boldness, and resolve.

More narrowly, according to some regional analysts, the strikes were viewed in Israeli security circles as a necessity to combat the proliferation of a powerful missile known as the Fateh-110, which has the capacity to strike nearly anywhere in Israel with more accuracy (especially if fired from southern Lebanon by Hezbollah) and can be fired easily.

On April 21, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon announced three red lines regarding the situation in Syria: chemical weapons crossing into rogue hands; a cross-border attack; and the transfer of sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah. The Fateh-110 missiles (also known as M600s) – the target of the Damascus strikes — certainly nuzzle up to that third line. Apparently, for Israel’s decision-makers these past few days, they cross it.

The Iranian-developed missiles have a 250-300 kilometer range, carry a 500-600 kilogram warhead — depending on the model — and, significantly, have a relatively advanced guidance system, making them more precise than the heavier and more lethal Scud D.

The strikes themselves, while in some ways a boon to the Syrian rebels as an emblem of a weakening Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, won’t endear Israel to the rebels because even in the Middle East, the enemy of my enemy is still considered the Zionist occupier. As Blake Hounshell noted over the weekend:

If it was indeed Israel, wow, this is awkward for the Syrian opposition. The regime will seek to exploit the raids to tie the rebels to the Zionist entity, after spending two years painting them as an undifferentiated mass of “terrorist gangs.” (Syrian television is already testing out this line, according to Reuters: “The new Israeli attack is an attempt to raise the morale of the terrorist groups which have been reeling from strikes by our noble army.”)

But the propaganda can cut both ways. The rebels can point to the Israeli attacks as yet more evidence that Assad’s army is for attacking Syrians, not defending the country. It’s not clear to me which argument will carry the day.

The Israeli attacks led some like Senator John McCain in Washington, D.C. to conclude that Western military engagement in Syria would not be met with a robust response from the Syrian air defense, which has been a concern.

“The Israelis seem to be able to penetrate it fairly easily,” Mr. McCain said on “Fox News Sunday.” He went on to say that the United States would be capable of disabling the Syrian air defenses on the ground “with cruise missiles, cratering their runways, where all of these supplies, by the way, from Iran and Russia are coming in by air.” Patriot missile batteries already installed in Turkey, he argued, could defend a safe zone to protect rebels and refugees.

In the meantime, Israel is keeping quiet about the attacks and Assad is threatening to retaliate.

Other notes: An early report this morning suggests that 42 elite soldiers died in the strike on the Syrian missile compound. Haifa Mayor Yona Yahav sought to prepare the city should it become the target of a Syrian retaliation.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

ginzy1 says:

There is no evidence or credible report that Israel hit chemical weapons per se. Rather the missiles were potential delivery systems. Bombing a chemical weapons depot or any facility holding them would be the worst way to destroy them as it could result in a release of the chemical (precisely what every one wants to avoid) and / or the security protecting the weapons would be destroyed allowing various nefarious & undesirable parties to gain access to them, which is also what one wants to avoid.

Hypothetically the best way to secure and / or neutralize chem weapons is via specially trained and equipped forces, a.k.a “boots on the ground” which nobody wants to do, not Israel nor the USA.

The above presumes that the binary components of Assad’s chemical
weaponry have either been combined, joined or co-localized. Reports from several months ago suggested this is the case. If the binary components are still well separated then there is a greater chance they could be destroyed by bombing although the problem of surviving components getting into the wrong hands still exists.

It should be emphasized that Israel’s Syrian “red line” is different from that of the Obamanoids, albeit with some overlap. Israel’s red line is not the use of chemical weapons but rather the transfer of chem weapons, advanced missiles, & heavy weaponry to Hezbollah. Thus the missiles are the major delivery system and their destruction reduces the utility of the chem weapon stocks, if most of the weapons are in the form of missile warheads. Presumably still available to Assad are chemical artillery shells & bombs.

Jerusalem / Efrat

It is real reassuring that Israel is putting the mohammedan dictators in their place.
If this had been done more often, then the scumbags would probable exercised more caution.

Israel does what Israel does. It is almost predictable that whenever we find an opportunity to hit an enemy, we take it. I think we should tone it down a bit but I also understand where Bibi is coming from. A weaker Syria, a weaker Hezbollah, these are good things in the short run, but military strikes make us into agressors just like those we aggress against. On a longer timeline, I don’t see that as being useful.

    Weakness is how Jews have been viewed for so long. The mandate of the Jewish state to foster strength is a concept that we all can understand and support.


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

About Those Israeli Strikes on Syria

What some of the smart folks are saying

More on Tablet:

Wolf Blitzer Explores His Jewish Roots

By David Meir Grossman — CNN host visits Yad Vashem and Auschwitz for the network’s ‘Roots’ series