Israel Kills on Suspicion: A Dangerous Gamble That Could Backfire in Syria
https://x.com/ibrahimtmajed/status/1994379199407173883
Israel Kills on Suspicion: A Dangerous Gamble That Could Backfire in Syria
Israel’s recent assault on the Syrian village of Beit Jinn marked more than a tragic episode of violence; it revealed a new strategic doctrine that threatens to ignite the very dynamics Israel claims to be trying to prevent.
By attacking a civilian village on the basis of mere suspicion, Israel has revived the same approach that once plunged Lebanon into a decades-long cycle of resistance.
Today, in Syria, it risks making the same mistake again.
Israeli forces stormed the village of Beit Jinn after claiming, without evidence, that individuals from the village were planning operations against its troops stationed inside Syria.
When locals confronted the Israeli unit, 13 civilians were killed and many wounded, including women and children. Six Israeli soldiers, including two officers, were injured, and after losing a Humvee they couldn’t recover, Israel bombed it.
This was not a security operation. It was a message: Israel now kills on suspicion.
Israel as Judge, Jury, and Executioner
The Beit Jinn incident embodies a dangerous shift in Israel’s rules of engagement.
In both Lebanon and Syria, Israel has adopted the principle that if it believes someone might pose a threat, it reserves the right to eliminate them.
No investigation, no threshold of evidence, no process.
This preemptive elimination doctrine is not new; it mirrors the logic that guided Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
Back then, Israel assumed overwhelming force would permanently crush any armed opposition.
Instead, the most capable resistance movement the region had seen was created.
Syria’s Breaking Point
Israel’s repeated strikes on Syrian territory, its entrenched presence in the south, and its officials publicly declaring that Israel will not leave Syria are not just provocative، they are unsustainable.
No society, no matter how pressured or fragmented, accepts a foreign military force indefinitely.
The anger generated by constant Israeli strikes, civilian casualties, and the humiliation of foreign troops operating freely on Syrian land is quietly building a sentiment that is familiar across the region: the feeling that resistance is the only response left.
The Beit Jinn attack reminded the Syrians, even those who may have tolerated Israel out of fear or pragmatism, that Israeli presence is not temporary and Israeli violence does not discriminate.
And once a people reach that conclusion, the emergence of an organized resistance becomes a matter of when,not if.
Israel’s Structural Arrogance: A Persistent, Self-Destructive Blindness
Despite its military superiority, Israel has not changed at its core.
It continues to operate with the same arrogance and sense of supremacy that have historically undermined its stability. This mindset, believing that military force alone guarantees security has repeatedly driven Israel into confrontations that erode its deterrence instead of strengthening it.
Israel treats neighboring societies with the logic of domination , suspicion, force,and fear .
This approach creates a cycle in which Israel’s actions generate the very hostility it then uses to justify more violence.
Its attempts to cultivate local allies in Syria through pressure or fear reflect this same misunderstanding.
Israel imagines it can shape communities into smaller replicas of its own model, but it fails to grasp a simple reality: no society in the region aspires to resemble Israel.
A state defined by occupation and coercion cannot serve as a model for nations seeking dignity, stability, and sovereignty.
The problem is not the people of the region.
It is not even the global youth, American, European, or Middle Eastern, who increasingly reject Israel’s model of governance and military behavior.
The core problem is Israel’s own doctrine.
A doctrine built on suspicion, force, and the belief that security can be achieved by suppressing everyone else’s strength.
Israel as Judge, Jury, and Executioner
The Beit Jinn incident embodies a dangerous shift in Israel’s rules of engagement.
In both Lebanon and Syria, Israel has adopted the principle that if it believes someone might pose a threat, it reserves the right to eliminate them.
No investigation, no threshold of evidence, no process.
This preemptive elimination doctrine is not new; it mirrors the logic that guided Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
Back then, Israel assumed overwhelming force would permanently crush any armed opposition.
Instead, the most capable resistance movement the region had seen was created.
Syria’s Breaking Point
Israel’s repeated strikes on Syrian territory, its entrenched presence in the south, and its officials publicly declaring that Israel will not leave Syria are not just provocative، they are unsustainable.
No society, no matter how pressured or fragmented, accepts a foreign military force indefinitely.
The anger generated by constant Israeli strikes, civilian casualties, and the humiliation of foreign troops operating freely on Syrian land is quietly building a sentiment that is familiar across the region: the feeling that resistance is the only response left.
The Beit Jinn attack reminded the Syrians, even those who may have tolerated Israel out of fear or pragmatism, that Israeli presence is not temporary and Israeli violence does not discriminate.
And once a people reach that conclusion, the emergence of an organized resistance becomes a matter of when,not if.
Israel’s Structural Arrogance: A Persistent, Self-Destructive Blindness
Despite its military superiority, Israel has not changed at its core.
It continues to operate with the same arrogance and sense of supremacy that have historically undermined its stability. This mindset, believing that military force alone guarantees security has repeatedly driven Israel into confrontations that erode its deterrence instead of strengthening it.
Israel treats neighboring societies with the logic of domination , suspicion, force,and fear .
This approach creates a cycle in which Israel’s actions generate the very hostility it then uses to justify more violence.
Its attempts to cultivate local allies in Syria through pressure or fear reflect this same misunderstanding.
Israel imagines it can shape communities into smaller replicas of its own model, but it fails to grasp a simple reality: no society in the region aspires to resemble Israel.
A state defined by occupation and coercion cannot serve as a model for nations seeking dignity, stability, and sovereignty.
The problem is not the people of the region.
It is not even the global youth, American, European, or Middle Eastern, who increasingly reject Israel’s model of governance and military behavior.
The core problem is Israel’s own doctrine.
A doctrine built on suspicion, force, and the belief that security can be achieved by suppressing everyone else’s strength.
posted by Satish Sharma at
07:37
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home