Latest Developments
Syria is considering its response after claiming its military fired on an IAF warplane that had violated its airspace and dropped ammunition.
For its part, the IDF has stated it would not comment, saying “It is not our custom to respond to these kinds of reports.” And while Ha’aretz quotes a spokesperson for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as saying there would be no comment beyond the military statement, Ynetnews reports that Olmert’s office said it was looking into the report.
One question is: did it happen?
It is hard to say, but the Post quotes Counterterrorism expert/Taylor Hicks lookalike Boaz Ganor as saying that if the overflight did occurr, it’s possible Israel was “collecting intelligence on long-range missiles” deployed by Syria in the north.
Other theories:
The other question is how will Syria respond? I don’t think they would dare do anything militarily. They’ll probably continue with their propaganda against Israel, claim we are the aggressors (they have already started in this regard), and continue to provide support for terrorists like Hizbullah and Hamas, who can fight on their behalf.
But if there are any major developments, I’ll keep you informed.
Updates (Israel time)
8:25PM: Reuters never ceases to amaze.
An Israeli Air Force fighter jet lands at an Air Force Base in northern Israel, July 20, 2006. Israeli warplanes bombed unidentified Syrian targets early on Thursday, causing no damage or casualties, the official Syrian news agency said. (Ammar Awad/Reuters)
This is a flat out lie on the part of Reuters. Syria did not claim that the IAF planes bombed any Syrian targets, but rather “dropped ammunition” over deserted areas.
10:45PM: The Jerusalem Post reports that Syrian President Assad has been holding consultations with his top officials. They also quote Syrian officials as saying that the planes dropped fuel tanks over deserted areas.
10:52PM: Syrian blogger Sasa:
So here’s what we know: Israeli planes flew from the Mediterranean, and managed to get halfway across the country before being fired on at Tell Al-Abyad, north of Raqaa, near the Turkish border.
Syrian air defences fired, the Israeli jets dumped ammunition (note the Syrian announcement said ‘dropped’ ammunition, rather than ‘bombed’) and made their way out of Syria.
Dumping ammunition or fuel is a technique to make a plane more maneuverable.
Now, Israeli Army Radio says there was no ‘air raid’, but has refused to comment on the veracity of the rest of the story.
This is important.
Israel felt the need to clear up the early confusion that they may have ‘bombed’ Syria. It seems they were only dumping ammunition.
Let’s be clear, there is very little new here. Israeli jets regularly enter Syria, and Syrian Air Defences regularly fire back. What is different here is that Syria has been playing the media game by putting the story out and getting control of it before Israel had the chance.
Almost 24 hours on, the best Israel has managed is to deny anything happened, but then clarify one element of what ‘didn’t’ happen.
10:58PM: It always helps to go straight to the source. This via Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA):
“Air defense units confronted them and forced them to leave after they drooped some ammunition in deserted areas without causing any human or material damage,” the Military spokesman said.
Meanwhile, Reuters have not issued a correction, despite the fact that the Syrians have not accused Israel of bombing any targets.
11:10PM: In this additional photo published a little over an hour ago, Reuters stick to their bombing story, and even add a little (not so) subliminal message.
An Israeli Air Force F-16 fighter plane flying above a traffic sign after taking off for a mission in Lebanon from an Israeli Air Force Base in northern Israel in this July 20, 2006 file photo. Israeli warplanes bombed unidentified Syrian targets early on September 6, 2007, causing no damage or casualties, the official Syrian news agency said. Syrian air defences fired at the incoming planes, which crossed into Syria after midnight local time, the agency said. REUTERS/Ammar Awad
11:45PM: A Western diplomat in Damascus has conjectured that the IAF planes were most likely positioned in the area to take photographs.
11:50PM: The Iranians have telephoned Syria, offering their assistance, while blaming Israel for this “intolerable attempt to create tension in the region.”
Friday Sept 7
12:00AM: Thoughts from the Conflict Blotter:
The more I think about it, it seems that the Syrians decision to dub it an “ammo drop” rather than an air strike is an indication that the Syrians are intent on deescalating and downplaying whatever actually happened last night. The Israelis, by refusing to confirm or comment on the incident, are playing along, and thus also helping to defuse what could have been a prickly situation.
I am not so sure. The Syrians needn’t have mentioned it if they were interested in “deescalating and downplaying.” For my mind, they dubbed it an “ammo drop” because that is likely what happened (assuming the planes did fly over Syria). And they could not claim it was a bombing since there was no visual evidence of this. After all, they normally engage in feasible lying.
12:10AM: Interesting analysis from Ron Ben-Yishai:
The Syrians don’t know what they saw Wednesday night on the radar screens and what they fired at. Israel has no interest in helping them understand what they saw or didn’t see. But in such situations like the ones created this summer between Syria, Israel and Lebanon, even a small spark – or even what seems like a spark – may lead to a big fire.
It is reasonable, however, to assume that the Syrians will not turn the recent aerial incident into a catalyst for launching hostile activities against Israel, or like one of their commentators called it, “The military option.”
The Syrians cannot say with certainty or prove that there was a plane or another aircraft, and they are also unable to describe the route used by that unidentified object.
This happens often as part of intelligence efforts: One side spots something – it doesn’t know exactly what it saw or what it fired at – and then sends an experimental balloon via the media, in order to be able to complete the missing details through the response.
This is probably why the IDF Spokesperson’s Office says, “We do not comment on reports of this nature.” Whether the Syrians saw something or did not see something, whether it was an Israeli aircraft or something belonging to another country – there is no reason why Israel should help the Syrians in their interpretation efforts, helping them improve their aerial defense system of course.
What is clear now is that in a situation of tension between two countries, each side carries out continuous surveillance efforts and intensive intelligence gathering in order to examine the other side’s intentions.
Often, not only the countries experiencing the tension, but also other countries and elements with an indirect interest in what is taking place in the area of tension, are observing and exerting efforts in the area.
The fact is that what the Syrians spotted did not open fire on them, but at the most released flares when the radar closed up on it. They too understand that if there was anything there, it is reasonable to assume that it belonged to the field of intelligence gathering. Such activities are routinely carried out by Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran and anyone meddling in what is happening in the region.
What is really worrying is the Syrian information minister’s declaration that his country “would find the way to respond to the Israeli infiltration.” It is possible that Syria is now looking for an excuse to initiate an escalation with Israel.
We are not necessarily talking about an all-out war, but it is possible that the Syrians would like to imitate Hizbullah’s harassments before the Second Lebanon War through rockets or terror attacks.
12:30AM: Russia expresses its concern over the reports, adding that it’s particularly troubling considering “this is the Middle East, a region already heavy with serious conflicts and tension.”
Meanwhile, Russia continues to arm Syria and Iran.
12:40AM: The Iranians are contradicting themselves. On one hand, Iranian Ambassador to Damascus Mohammad Hassan Akhtari accused Israel of this “intolerable attempt to create tension in the region.” On the other hand, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Muhammad Ali Husseini claims “The Zionist entity’s provocative move was meant to divert its domestic crises to more remote locales” because”Israel suffers from a lack of confidence following the war in Lebanon.”
Clearly, if we suffered from a lack of confidence, the last thing we would be trying to do is create tension in the region. I’m surprised Maths Genius did not work that one out.
7:05AM: Ynetnews quotes Syrian Expatriate Affairs Minister Bussaina Shaaban, who reportedly told Al-Jazeera’s English-language channel that Israel “..intervened in our airspace… which they should not do — we are a sovereign country and they should not come into airspace. We do not know yet” (if the aircraft dropped anything). The investigation is still going on on the ground.”
Meanwhile, still no retraction or correction from Reuters.
7:10AM: The Al-Jazeera website says something slightly different:
But asked by Al Jazeera if the Israeli jets had attacked targets in Syria, Buthayaa Shaaban, a Syrian government minister, would only confirm that the Israelis “intervened in our airspace”.
She said: “The Israeli aeroplanes went into our airspace at night on our northern borders and this is not really surprising. What are they going to do with about $30m of armaments except attack neighbouring countries?”
She said that Syria was still looking into the “ammunition” that the Israeli jets are alleged to have dropped.
9:13AM: An analysis of the current situation from Yaakov Amidror, former Head of Intelligence Assessment of the Israel Defense Forces (hat tip: Gateway Pundit).
The recent aerial incident involving reported Israeli airforce activity over Northeastern Syria along the Turkish Syrian border comes in the context of disturbing trends in Syrian military behavior. It is important to recall that Syria has served as a primary conduit to building up Iranian backed Hizbullah prior to the outbreak of the second Lebanon war in July 2006. Damascus supplied the majority of the heavy payload rockets Hizbullah fired at Israel including Grad-type 122mm Katyushas “220mm rocket,”(probably Syrian-manufactured Russian “Ouragan” Multiple Launch Rocket System [MLRS]) and “B302″ 302mm rockets. Syrian supplied rocket warheads usually contained anti-personnel munitions, of a mixture of lethal explosives and steel balls or fragments.
It should also be noted that Syria has increased the tempo of its military excercises and has removed road blocks that existed for years between Damascus and the city of Kunetra that is adjacent to its front line with Israel.
Historically, The Syrian Israeli military balance has been characterized by a gross asymmetry in Syria’s favor in the standing active service formations along the Syrian Israeli border. While Syria maintained its army in battle ready status, the bulk of the Israeli army was and continues to be organized around its army reserve forces that are only mobilized in the event of an imminent attack. For example, in October, 1973, Israel was forced to repel a massive Syrian ground assault with only 177 tanks against a total Syrian force of 1400 tanks that stretched back from the Golan Heights to Damascus providing an advantage of more than eight to one in Syrian armor.
At present, Syria’s behavior is a function of the following factors:
1. The Syrian perception that it has a realistic military option against Israel based on their view of Hizbullah’s successes in last summer’s war.
2. Syria’s continued sponsorship of radical Palestinian Islamic terror groups including Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine PFLP, and other Jihadi organizations.
3. A massive Syrian military build-up focusing primarily on scud (B,C,D) heavy rockets and chemical warheads with a massive commensurate increase in military spending over past ten years.. The primary Syrian armament build of the past few years includes a major investment in chemical weaponry in which Syria has become a regional superpower. It is important to stress that Damascus’ strategic decision to build up its military arsenal preceded the US decision to provide advanced military weaponry to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Syria’s recent military build up is all the more destabilizing in view of the decision by Russia to upgrade its influence in the region by providing state of the art Russian weaponry and military technologies and to reopen a Russian Naval base on the Syrian Coast. Additionally, Iran’s huge petro-dollar driven financing capabilities has played a major role in Syrian weapons procurement.
Current Syrian Israeli tensions are also punctuated by the additional Syrian strategic need to free itself of international pressure in the context of its continuing involvement in destabilizing Lebanon as well as Damascus’ interest in shaking off ongoing international pressure stemming from Syria’s suspected main role in the murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Syrian concerns over its deepening international isolation is also a function of its key role as a primary line of supply of weaponry and volunteers that continue stream unfettered over the Syrian Iraqi border to the Iraqi insurgency against US coalition forces as has been confirmed By General George W. Casey Jr, former US Commander in Iraq.
10:48AM: Ha’aretz reports that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert has been mum on any IAF entry into Syrian airspace.
And still on the subject of being mum and Olmert, his lesbian daughter’s partner has given birth to a baby girl.
11:20AM: Israel’s Science, Sport and Culture Minister, Ghaleb Majadele, has pretty much admitted we flew into Syrian airspace, saying we regularly do so, and that he doesn’t believe this latest incident will spark a war.
You may be wondering why Israel’s Science, Sport and Culture Minister was the one to admit to this. I am guessing it might have something to do with the fact that Majadele is an Arab government minister (in fact the first Arab government minister in Israeli history).
11:45AM: Mystery solved. The statement was made to the (presumably Arabic) Nazareth-based A-Sinara newspaper. And Majadele was also reported as saying that while he had no specific information about the flyover, it was likely that “the planes either entered Syrian airspace to take photographs or in error.”
Filed Under: Uncategorized
About the Author: An Australian immigrant to Israel, Aussie Dave has been blogging since early 2003.
[...] Israellycool points out a caption by Reuters: An Israeli Air Force fighter jet lands at an Air Force Base in northern Israel, July 20, 2006. Israeli warplanes bombed unidentified Syrian targets early on Thursday, causing no damage or casualties, the official Syrian news agency said. (Ammar Awad/Reuters) [...]
I’d have thought it far more likely that, rather than ‘ammunition’, the Israeli planes were releasing fuel ‘drop tanks’. They might do this if they thought they were under attack (to gain speed and agility), or because they were practicing for a long-range attack not on Syria but across Syria, or because they wanted to appear to threaten such an attack. If I was planning an air attack on Iran I would want to confuse and disperse that country’s defenses by simulating attacks from several directions first.
I don’t think it was a lie per se. I think that Reuters is so estranged from military realities that they just don’t see/understand the difference between dropping ammunition and bombing. These aren’t military tactics for them rather they are literary metaphors.
wlpeak, if Reuters doesn’t know what they’re talking about, they’ve got no business talking about it. If they were ignorant but honest, they could have simply repeated what the Syrian press release said.
Reuters is so dumb/crooked that they might have been referring to flares used to spoof heatseekers.
ZF and Richard are almost certainly both correct. The biggest clue is the report of Israeli aircraft going supersonic. That would be part of an escape maneuver, as would dropping of flares and drop tanks. Most fighters, including the F-16 cannot exceed Mach 1 while carrying external ordnance, including fuel tanks. Bombing maneuvers are usually conducted at airspeeds between 450 and 550 true airspeed and well below Mach 1.
So, is the picture really an Israeli Air Force fighter jet?
(Hey, it’s Reuters. If they say “the sky is up” I consider it unconfirmed.)
The Israelis are preparing for a strike into Iran. Using this base.
http://diggsc.typepad.com/4_mile_creek/2006/07/if_i_were_going.html
How interesting. Looking at the BBC news report, it appears the incident was halfway along Syria’s northern border, enroute to the Iraqi border, which by extension would lead to Northwest Iran. Considering the recent reports on centrifuge cascades, that’s at least suggestive of a rehearsal for a strike on Natanz (a la the Osirak strike).
I don’t think it’s feasible (and I used to be an expert on this sort of thing), without at least tacit approval from the US and refueling over Iraq . . . which I presume would not be forthcoming. (And a minor winge with some comments above, a perusal of pertinent maps suggests landing at an intermediate airport or multiple axes of attack would not be feasible.) But if that’s what it was, the dry run was obviously a failure.
[...] Dave, from Israel, wraps up reactions on the latest developments about the possible shooting of an Israeli warplane, which flew [...]
[...] = Jew-hating liars. Submit to Stumbled Upon! -Bill Quick comment on this [...]
cathyf,
Loved your take on Reuters. LOL
. . . which I presume would not be forthcoming.
Why? The US wants Iran’s nuke program to go up in smoke just as much as the Israelis do.
I’m not understanding the hoopla over this.
Only last year there was a much more aggressive action.
Here is a link to jog the memory.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3268747,00.html
Stan
I remember that, Stan. It just doesn’t help when the media refer to this latest incident as an IAF strike.
The links to Ghaleb Majadele statement don’t show anything about his statement. Are you sure the links are correct.
Thanks.
Sasa,
Thanks for pointing it out. I inadvertently inserted the wrong links, but have now corrected the error.
By the way, welcome to the blog. What is the mood like in Syria right now?
Blogger from Damascus? Coooool!
Why? The US wants Iran’s nuke program to go up in smoke just as much as the Israelis do.
Probably so, but there’d be no deniability (plausible or otherwise) if we allowed the IAF to conduct aerial refueling operations in Iraqi airspace. Nor would it be possible to hide what happened afterward. We could pretend we didn’t see them sneaking along the border–and it might even be possible actually to miss them, depending on terrain and radar coverage–but an AR track is out. Seems to me it’d be even more awkward politically than bombing the sites ourselves, especially amongst Iraqis.
Only last year there was a much more aggressive action.
More aggressive, but essentially a flyby on a coastal city. The current op, if reports are correct, represent a ~150 mile incursion into Syrian/Turkish airspace. I find that more interesting (especially since the most plausible explanation for the jettisoned equipment is drop tanks, which suggests a good distance yet to go).
You said:
“This is a flat out lie on the part of Reuters. Syria did not claim that the IAF planes bombed any Syrian targets, but rather “dropped ammunition” over deserted areas.”
A rather small distinction indeed, but should I be surprised at how sensitive you are to anything that might possibly be deemed critical of your beloved State for G-d’s chosen people?
Or are you perhaps just another Jew unable to shed the perpetual victim status viewpoint that you carry with pride? Hmmm.
Many thanks Dave. And thanks everyone for your welcome!
The mood in Damascus is nervous and hopeful.
Nervous that Israel might be searching for a pretense to attack – like yesterday’s air defence retaliation.
And hopeful that the two countries might – just might – finally sign a peace deal, get our land back, and stop pointing guns at each other. It feels so close.
I think I can say almost every Syrian hopes that one day we will be neighbours and friends, and we will be able to take a train from Beirut to Tel Aviv!
Best wishes,
Sasa.
Sorry, the Golan is no longer Syria’s. Hasn’t been for 40 years and B’ezrat Hashem (i.e., Insha’Allah) that’s the way it will remain till the end of time.
No one here is nervous and folks aren’t talking about war, other than when will Hizb’allah start the next one and will we still be asleep as we were last year.
Syria can have a peace deal when it learns to simply leave Israel alone for once and for all.
There won’t be any trains from Beirut until Lebanon takes control back of its country out of the hands of Syria and its proxy terrorists. I don’t picture this happening until the coming of the Messiah.
More likely, in the interim, Lebanon will be totally devoured by Hizb’allah, with Syria’s backing and blessing. After the last of Lebanon’s Christians submit to the Islamic powers that be and/or run away to the west, the Shi’ites and the Sunnis will slaughter one another, unless Assad can unite them in their eternal quest to kill the Jews first.
Latest, latest development.
Sorry, but I tend to take what DEBKA says with a grain of salt.
Yep, me, too. But you have to admit that we must have needed a really good reason to do this. Anyway, hush-hush.
Shy Guy,
I’m sorry you have such a hostile response. I hope for peace too. But there are many many barriers, starting with arguments like this:
“Sorry, the Golan is no longer Syria’s. Hasn’t been for 40 years….Syria can have a peace deal when it learns to simply leave Israel alone for once and for all.”
You can’t take land, shrug your shoulders and say now go away. It’s not peace you want, it’s submission. If you’re happy to admit that, then fine.
I just live in hope that the majority of Israelis don’t share your view, and want a genuine, fair and just peace.
Both sides must make compromises. If you really can’t see that both Israel and Syria have done anything wrong, then you will never have peace.
Sasa.
Grandpa Hafez should have thought about that before and during the 6 Day War when he contributed to the pan-Arab attempt to drown the Jews in the sea. Syria gambled and lost the land. Fair and square in the history of aggressive wars. Syria doesn’t want to play anymore? Too late! Now you’re paying the price.
Submission? As in surrender? It’s very simple. Let that be a lesson to Syria. Do it again and pray tell what will happen to Damascus next time around.
Word of advice: like father, like son. Hope you catch the hint.
Last time idiots by the names of Rabin and Barak talked out loud about giving back the Golan, the country was not jumping for joy.
There’s everything fair and just in losing land when you initiated the exact same attempt against another country.
You want peace? Quite whining and get over it already.
Why? Why does a beligerent dictatorship like Syria deserve an ounce of conciliation for their so far never-ending wickedness?
I have no problem with Syria ceasing its constant decalrations of war against Israel, whether directly or through its terrorist proxies all over the place, with all their HQs smack in Damascus.
When Syria ceases seeking the destruction and domination of the countries that surround it, you will have defacto peace. Nothing else needs to be done. It’s up to you.
Till then, Syria doesn’t deserve a sniff from anyone.
It’s a shame. I hoped for a friendly and fair debate. But when people close their minds, nothing can be achieved. Like I said before, I just live in hope that the majority of Israelis don’t share your view, and want a genuine, fair and just peace.
You just closed your mind. It was Israel that suggested peace immediately after the 6 Day War. Guess who was among the Arab dictators that said “No! No! No!” in Khartoum?
You think this debate is not “fair”? You’re nothing but a phoney whiner.
[...] has reported that the recent IAF flyover into Syrian airspace was in fact an air strike after [...]
Hi shy guy,
You may want to brush up on your history of Syria before mouthing off. Assad became head of Syria in 1970. That would be after the 1967 war – in case that wasn’t clear – and after the “No!No!No!” conference in Khartoum which happened in 1967 as well, so we can guess that Assad wasn’t one of the Arab Dictators….
Just because our enemies can’t be bothered with facts doesn’t mean we have carte blanche to talk nonsense.
Also to point out that the Majadele hasn’t “confirmed” anything. In fact there hasn’t been any backup for Syria’s claims at all. Anyone really believe our – Israeli – political system has learnt to keep mum?
Ah, latest reports suggest it was in fact a strike . . . probably to interdict missile supply to Hezbollah:
That’s considerably simpler than my “dry run on Iran attack” theory, which suggests gullibility on my part. Maybe it’s time to switch to decaf.
Oh, Danny Boy, Assad was Syria’s Defense Minister in 67. To quote Assad just prior to the war:
Do you think that Syrian Defense Minister Assad had no involvement with the Khartoum Resolution? He was the dominant figure in Syrian aggression against Israel from before the 6 Day War until the day he kicked the bucket.
So, Danny, your point was what exactly?
Interesting that the articles now claiming Israel was attacking people engaged in nuclear materials list NO sources.
The articles are filled with conjecture, heresay and speculation – all passed off as fact.
It’s this same ‘quality’ journalism which led America into a war with Vietnam, Iraq and soon Iran.
Please distinguish between factually supported information and hate driven propoganda.
To the best of my knowledge, all 3 wars mentioned by Jim above were not entered due to journalism.
Anyone hear anymore about this? No ongoing investigation by anyone? No IEAE investigation? No nothing hunh. Should we wonder why?
This issue has just disappeared of the map. Might one reason be that its’ propaganda value has already been served and sponged up by Muslimophiles (you)?
I wonder what religious group are behind the ownership of the media outlets who propagated these lies?
Jim,
Enjoy your last comment on my site. I’ll leave this one up for posterity since it shows the underlying reason behind your anti-Israel stance.
[...] could respond to the Jewish state’s ‘aggression and treachery’. (Graphic/Reuters) Israellycool noted that the Syrian government reported that the munitions were “dropped” -Not that [...]
There is nothing anti-Israeli about his stance, but of course for an Israeli cheer-boy like you, no doubt any criticism of Israeli evokes a paranoia response.
And oh, the western mass media is largely owned/managed or controlled by Jews. I just wonder if this is too influence public policy?
Given that Israeli is the only “western” democracy that is a racist state, I would suggest the Zionists in the media have been very effective at propagating their message of propaganda.
Who’s stance are you talking about, bugalugs? This post is 6 months old. I know you seem a bit slow on the uptake, but this is ridiculous.
Read up on some history, cleanse your soul of your Jew hatred and perhaps I’ll allow you to comment on here again. Until then, rack off.