Is Israeli strike in Syria for its safety or repeated pattern of history of 1967 Jerusalem?

Introduction

Israel’s recent military actions in Syria following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime appear to be driven by a combination of security concerns and strategic opportunism, reminiscent of its past actions in Jerusalem and other territories.

Security Justifications

Israel has justified its strikes in Syria as necessary for its national security:

The Israeli military claims to be targeting Syrian military sites containing chemical weapons and long-range missile stockpiles to prevent them from being acquired by “extremists”.

Defense Minister Israel Katz stated that the military aims to “destroy heavy strategic weapons,” including missile and air defense systems.

Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar asserted that these actions are intended to prevent weapons from falling “into the hands of extremists”.

Strategic Expansion

However, several aspects of Israel’s actions suggest motives beyond immediate security concerns:

Israeli forces have moved into the demilitarized buffer zone along the Golan Heights, which has been a UN-monitored area since 1974.

There are reports of Israeli troops advancing beyond the buffer zone, with some claims of forces reaching as far as 25 kilometers from Damascus.

Israel has conducted over 400 strikes across Syria since Assad’s departure, targeting a wide range of military infrastructure.

Historical Context

This situation bears similarities to Israel’s past actions:

In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem during the Six-Day War and subsequently annexed it, along with surrounding areas.

The occupation and settlement of the West Bank, which began in 1967, has been ongoing for decades, making it one of the longest military occupations in modern history.

International Reactions

The international community has expressed concern over Israel’s actions:

Several Arab nations have accused Israel of exploiting the chaos in Syria to expand territorially.

The Arab League asserted that Israel was “exploiting the developments in the internal situation in Syria”.

Conclusion

While Israel maintains that its actions are purely for security reasons, the scale and nature of its operations in Syria suggest a potential for longer-term strategic gains.

The situation bears resemblance to past instances where initial security justifications led to prolonged occupation, as seen in Jerusalem and the West Bank.

As the situation develops, it remains to be seen whether Israel’s presence in Syria will be temporary or evolve into a more permanent arrangement.