Image 01 Image 03

Did Israel bomb Syria overnight? (Update – hit convoy of missiles headed to Hezbollah)

Did Israel bomb Syria overnight? (Update – hit convoy of missiles headed to Hezbollah)

That’s what some of the cable networks are reporting.

It was just mentioned by Jennifer Griffin on Fox News:

CNN reports:

The United States believes Israel has conducted an airstrike into Syria, two U.S. officials tell CNN.

U.S. and Western intelligence agencies are reviewing classified data showing Israel most likely conducted a strike in the Thursday-Friday time frame, according to both officials. This is the same time frame that the U.S. collected additional data showing Israel was flying a high number of warplanes over Lebanon.

One official said the United States had limited information so far and could not yet confirm those are the specific warplanes that conducted a strike. Based on initial indications, the U.S. does not believe Israeli warplanes entered Syrian airspace to conduct the strikes.

Both officials said there is no reason to believe Israel struck at a chemical weapons storage facilities. The Israelis have long said they would strike at any targets that prove to be the transfer of any kinds of weapons to Hezbollah or other terrorist groups, as well as at any effort to smuggle Syrian weapons into Lebanon that could threaten Israel.

The Lebanese army website listed 16 flights by Israeli warplanes penetrating Lebanon’s airspace from Thursday evening through Friday afternoon local time.

Update 5-4-2013Times of Israel reports:

Israeli officials on Saturday confirmed the Israeli Air Force carried out a strike against Syria and say it targeted a shipment of advanced missiles.

The officials said the shipment was not of chemical arms, but of “game changing” weapons bound for the terror group Hezbollah. One official said the target was a shipment of advanced, long-range ground-to-ground missiles.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


BannedbytheGuardian | May 3, 2013 at 8:03 pm

Whose side is Israel on ?

Well, regardless of who’s side Israel is on, (and I agree with Trapped, Israel is on Israel’s side,) it makes it harder for people to kill each other if the factories or storage facilities which contain conventional munitions have been destroyed. And mostly it makes it harder for those destroyed munitions to kill Israelis…..

BannedbytheGuardian | May 3, 2013 at 9:44 pm

Does Israel target the ‘rebel’ & al quaeda sites? That would be the equivalency argument .

    As a former military officer, I can assure you that as it pertains to Israel, that they are targeting those facilities which are a direct threat to their country. If a Syrian facility, regardless of faction, is identified as supplying arms or munitions to terrorist groups that attack Israel, they would most likely become targets as well.

      Paul in reply to Paul. | May 4, 2013 at 5:27 am

      Oh, but being a target doesn’t necessarily mean an Airstrike target, btw. There are other methods of disabling enemy supply trains.

BannedbytheGuardian | May 4, 2013 at 7:06 am

You are not IDF so you cannot assure me anything.

I am going to ask MissIsrael who was aN IDF ? officer at 19. She should know . She also thinks Obama is handsome.

So no – the IDF. Is not always smart.

    Speaking of smarts a person can believe that princess barry is handsome and still be opposed to everything that person stands for. Only simple minded liberals are incapable making that distinction.

    Furthermore genius you don’t need to be an IDF officer to be capable of grasping the concept, which by the way has been repeatedly demonstrated, that Israel will target whatever threatens Israel.


Hurray for them! This is good news. I wish we had such superb leadership like they do. God bless America and Irsrael.

I, for one, am amazed that people insist on testing Israeli resolve. The Israeli people have been in a fight for their lives for the better part of a century at this point. How could anyone expect them to react to an imminent threat in any other way (and, yes, he who is threatened is the one who gets to evaluate the seriousness of the threat and decide upon the best way to meet the threat)?

What makes this so difficult to understand? See the threat (and be darned sure you know what it is you see). Kill the threat.