I think that the Syrian Army was demobilized and abandoned its positions is crucial. One partner of the agreement has left the scene the agreement cannot be fulfilled by Syria. Israel is completely right to secure the buffer zone until there is a legal successor to the Assad regime who can and wants to fulfill the agreement. The new Syria should be given the credit, that its intentions are good, of it lives up to its good intentions remains to be seen. Until then Israel is well advised to be watchful and on its guard.
The Israel Defense Forces on Sunday captured the Syrian side of the strategic Mount Hermon, along with a buffer zone that has existed between the countries since the 1970s; the military stressed that the move was temporary but also acknowledged that troops would likely remain inside Syrian territory for the foreseeable future.
Israel is preparing for potential chaos following the lightning-fast fall of President Bashar al-Assad's regime, which could lead to power vacuums, increased militant activity, and potential threats to Israel's security.
The 235-square-kilometer demilitarized buffer zone was established in the 1974 Agreement on Disengagement between Israel and Syria, which concluded the Yom Kippur War. UN peacekeepers have manned it for decades. This agreement was a crucial step towards maintaining peace and stability in the region. However, Israel said Sunday that with the fall of the Assad regime, it considered the agreement void until order is restored in Syria.
This is a SMART move which God willing should bring blessing to all of Israel: "Like the dew of Hermon that falls upon the mountains of Zion. There the LORD ordained blessing, everlasting life." Psalms 133:3
Removing resources from declared enemies is always good policy. The Syria that signed the peace keeping deals in Gola no longer exists. There is no legitimate reason to allow the known terrorists who have taken northern Syria to simply inherit the Syrian military assets.
Of course the aggressors who provided the need for war, (Iran, its proxies, and Turkey) having been trounced by Israel and themselves breaking the terms of their latest sham of a ‘ceasefire’ within hours of its’ announcement would howl about this very different situation. And the United Nitwits (I stole that term from Eve Barlow) naturally parrot their bedmates. Israel did the world a huge favor securing its borders and in the process destroying the equipment and infrastructure for mass murder left behind in the vacuum following Rat Assad’s escape. No thinking leader facing this kind of dangerous unknown future on its borders should have done differently. They should continue keeping the region safe by not leaving. It would be very good to see the real Mount Hermon, the one that shows up as inside Syria in Google maps, with a nice eastern perimeter down to the next valley surrounding it, inside Israel, as well as a few other strategic mountain vantage points.
No arguments with the main line of this article but "this wasn't the government we signed an agreement with" could be problematic, since that's exactly what Putin says in defence of his violation of Ukraine's "agreed" post -1991 borders. But that said, if I were in Israel's shoes I'd definitely be doing everything possible to beef up the defences around the Golan Heights right now.
One might argue that there is no longer any counterparty to the disengagement agreement to uphold Syria's obligations, and therefore the agreement is null and void.
Excellent points and questions. I think the last question has a clear answer—a deal is signed between states and remains binding on whatever government/regime succeeds the one in power over the state when the deal was signed. In that sense, IDF presence in the buffer zone looks like a technical violation. (I say this without criticism of the action itself.)
My question would be whether Syria pulling its own forces back was already a violation. I don’t know but I’d say it’s not much of a buffer zone if the army of the state on the other side isn’t present to keep it from becoming a no man’s land with no effective security. But I have no idea whether that sort of scenario (I.e. where the threat to one side isn’t the other state’s army but irregular forces) is addressed in the disengagement deal or in supporting law/precedent.
You said exactly why it is not a violation on Israel’s part — there is no successor state to Syria — yet. That is perhaps why Bibi says the IDF presence there is only temporary — until there will be a state that will be able to carry on and uphold the agreement.
Having walked large portions of the Golan border region with Syria, it is clear to me that until there is certainty of who is in control on the Syrian side and they express intent by word and deed to uphold the 1974 ceasefire agreement, the IDF has no choice but to take control of the DMZ area. Failure to do so would cause a loss of sovereignty on the Israeli side (I often wondered when I walked what was in the mind of any who could have, and may have, had me in their sights over the years). One lesson of October 7 is that enemy capability matters as much or more than Israeli deterrence. When most on the other side have a nefarious past and none of the relevant parties have expressed peaceful intent it would be malfeasance not to do what the IDF did.
Excellent move by Israel. It should be obvious now, that all Israel's efforts at rapprochement with neighbors and enemies are never reciprocated. Perhaps the time is now to make the final offer to the Arabs residing within the boundaries: If you do not wish to be a peaceful, and law abiding citizen in the State of Israel, please apply for a ticket to the country of your choice.
Appeasment was a non-starter for Chamberlain, and yielded similar for Israeli efforts, though well intentioned, yielded the same lethal harvest.These Arabs, sons of Ishmael, have attempted several times to eradicate the State of Israel and were handed three ignominious defeats, Wars have results and consequences to include the right of the winning power to decide whatever lands of the conquered it wishes to occupy.
I think that the Syrian Army was demobilized and abandoned its positions is crucial. One partner of the agreement has left the scene the agreement cannot be fulfilled by Syria. Israel is completely right to secure the buffer zone until there is a legal successor to the Assad regime who can and wants to fulfill the agreement. The new Syria should be given the credit, that its intentions are good, of it lives up to its good intentions remains to be seen. Until then Israel is well advised to be watchful and on its guard.
I don't think we'll ever let or guard down again. I hope
NO!!!
https://substack.com/@thinktorah/note/c-80789342
The Israel Defense Forces on Sunday captured the Syrian side of the strategic Mount Hermon, along with a buffer zone that has existed between the countries since the 1970s; the military stressed that the move was temporary but also acknowledged that troops would likely remain inside Syrian territory for the foreseeable future.
Israel is preparing for potential chaos following the lightning-fast fall of President Bashar al-Assad's regime, which could lead to power vacuums, increased militant activity, and potential threats to Israel's security.
The 235-square-kilometer demilitarized buffer zone was established in the 1974 Agreement on Disengagement between Israel and Syria, which concluded the Yom Kippur War. UN peacekeepers have manned it for decades. This agreement was a crucial step towards maintaining peace and stability in the region. However, Israel said Sunday that with the fall of the Assad regime, it considered the agreement void until order is restored in Syria.
This is a SMART move which God willing should bring blessing to all of Israel: "Like the dew of Hermon that falls upon the mountains of Zion. There the LORD ordained blessing, everlasting life." Psalms 133:3
amen
Yes, God wills it.
Removing resources from declared enemies is always good policy. The Syria that signed the peace keeping deals in Gola no longer exists. There is no legitimate reason to allow the known terrorists who have taken northern Syria to simply inherit the Syrian military assets.
Of course the aggressors who provided the need for war, (Iran, its proxies, and Turkey) having been trounced by Israel and themselves breaking the terms of their latest sham of a ‘ceasefire’ within hours of its’ announcement would howl about this very different situation. And the United Nitwits (I stole that term from Eve Barlow) naturally parrot their bedmates. Israel did the world a huge favor securing its borders and in the process destroying the equipment and infrastructure for mass murder left behind in the vacuum following Rat Assad’s escape. No thinking leader facing this kind of dangerous unknown future on its borders should have done differently. They should continue keeping the region safe by not leaving. It would be very good to see the real Mount Hermon, the one that shows up as inside Syria in Google maps, with a nice eastern perimeter down to the next valley surrounding it, inside Israel, as well as a few other strategic mountain vantage points.
No arguments with the main line of this article but "this wasn't the government we signed an agreement with" could be problematic, since that's exactly what Putin says in defence of his violation of Ukraine's "agreed" post -1991 borders. But that said, if I were in Israel's shoes I'd definitely be doing everything possible to beef up the defences around the Golan Heights right now.
One might argue that there is no longer any counterparty to the disengagement agreement to uphold Syria's obligations, and therefore the agreement is null and void.
The nice thing about annexing the buffer zone is that no one lives there.
Actually, that’s not true — there are villages in that region.
Excellent points and questions. I think the last question has a clear answer—a deal is signed between states and remains binding on whatever government/regime succeeds the one in power over the state when the deal was signed. In that sense, IDF presence in the buffer zone looks like a technical violation. (I say this without criticism of the action itself.)
My question would be whether Syria pulling its own forces back was already a violation. I don’t know but I’d say it’s not much of a buffer zone if the army of the state on the other side isn’t present to keep it from becoming a no man’s land with no effective security. But I have no idea whether that sort of scenario (I.e. where the threat to one side isn’t the other state’s army but irregular forces) is addressed in the disengagement deal or in supporting law/precedent.
You said exactly why it is not a violation on Israel’s part — there is no successor state to Syria — yet. That is perhaps why Bibi says the IDF presence there is only temporary — until there will be a state that will be able to carry on and uphold the agreement.
That might be right. I’m not sure. I’d kind of like to know, but don’t know where to look for this kind of information.
I get my information from news reporting and analysis from Israeli journalists I trust (mostly in Hebrew)
Having walked large portions of the Golan border region with Syria, it is clear to me that until there is certainty of who is in control on the Syrian side and they express intent by word and deed to uphold the 1974 ceasefire agreement, the IDF has no choice but to take control of the DMZ area. Failure to do so would cause a loss of sovereignty on the Israeli side (I often wondered when I walked what was in the mind of any who could have, and may have, had me in their sights over the years). One lesson of October 7 is that enemy capability matters as much or more than Israeli deterrence. When most on the other side have a nefarious past and none of the relevant parties have expressed peaceful intent it would be malfeasance not to do what the IDF did.
agree 100%
Excellent move by Israel. It should be obvious now, that all Israel's efforts at rapprochement with neighbors and enemies are never reciprocated. Perhaps the time is now to make the final offer to the Arabs residing within the boundaries: If you do not wish to be a peaceful, and law abiding citizen in the State of Israel, please apply for a ticket to the country of your choice.
Appeasment was a non-starter for Chamberlain, and yielded similar for Israeli efforts, though well intentioned, yielded the same lethal harvest.These Arabs, sons of Ishmael, have attempted several times to eradicate the State of Israel and were handed three ignominious defeats, Wars have results and consequences to include the right of the winning power to decide whatever lands of the conquered it wishes to occupy.
Shalom le' Yisrael.
(https://youtu.be/TFwqF2qVU38?si=_sss_AomAHF3NT79)