By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Israeli forces, specifically the Shaldag Unit, seized the highest peak of Mount Hermon in Syria, securing a strategically vital observation point. Simultaneously, Israeli airstrikes targeted Syrian military installations, including weapons depots and production facilities, amid the collapse of the Assad regime. Prime Minister Netanyahu declared this a historic day, emphasizing Israel’s actions to secure its borders and prevent hostile forces from establishing a presence in the formerly demilitarized zone. The IDF reinforced its presence in the area and warned rebel forces against crossing the Alpha Line, while Hezbollah reportedly withdrew its forces from Syria. These actions reflect growing instability in southern Syria and Israel’s increased efforts to neutralize threats.
Read the original article here
Israel’s recent actions on Mount Hermon, specifically the reported securing of the strategic summit by the Shaldag Unit, raise complex questions about regional stability and Israel’s long-term goals. The move, ostensibly framed as bolstering border control in the wake of the weakening of Assad’s regime, has ignited intense debate.
The capture of the Hermon summit, a peak offering significant observation and defensive advantages, is presented by Israel as a necessary measure to secure its border and prevent the area from falling into the hands of potentially hostile groups following the collapse of the Syrian army’s presence. This action is viewed within the context of Israel’s ongoing, decades-long conflict with Syria, a conflict that has never officially concluded with a peace agreement.
Some observers argue that Israel’s actions are predictable, given a pattern of regional powers using opportunities to expand their influence and control. The perception that Israel’s actions are motivated solely by a desire for territorial gain is fueled by the historical context of the region, particularly the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leading many to assume Israel’s involvement in any regional upheaval.
The situation is complicated by the fact that the Hermon summit lies within a previously established disengagement zone, an area intended to create a buffer between Israeli and Syrian forces. However, the fall of Assad’s regime has rendered the 1974 agreement establishing this zone effectively obsolete, creating a power vacuum and a free-for-all for competing factions.
Israel’s justification for its actions centers around the need to prevent terrorist groups from gaining control of strategically important locations along its borders. This rationale is understandable from an Israeli perspective, emphasizing the imperative to safeguard its citizens’ security. The argument suggests that the current chaos in Syria makes it necessary to proactively secure its borders, rather than reactively responding to potential threats.
Critics, however, argue that Israel’s actions are a blatant land grab, masking expansionist intentions under the guise of security concerns. They draw parallels to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, highlighting what they see as hypocrisy in the international community’s response to similar behavior by different actors. The concern is that Israel’s actions, while arguably justified from a purely security standpoint, undermine international norms and weaken the legitimacy of international efforts to uphold peace and territorial integrity.
One suggestion proposes that Israel could mitigate the negative optics of the situation by transferring control of the Hermon summit to a trusted third-party nation. Several possibilities are mentioned, including the United States, Britain, Germany, or even a joint European force. This alternative would potentially de-escalate the situation and address concerns about Israeli aggression.
However, even with such a transfer of control, the underlying issues remain. The very fact that such a significant strategic location is now contested underscores the inherent instability of the region, the deep-seated conflicts between various actors, and the complexity of navigating geopolitical dynamics in this highly sensitive area.
The strategic implications extend beyond the immediate control of the Hermon summit. Some commentators note that the fall of Assad’s regime, influenced by factors ranging from the October 7th Hamas attack to the ongoing war in Ukraine, weakens Iran’s influence in the region. The severing of the direct connection between Iran and Hezbollah, via Syria, is viewed as a significant gain for Israel.
Ultimately, the capture of the Syrian Hermon is more than just a military operation; it’s a multifaceted event reflecting the complex dynamics of the Middle East. It exposes the underlying tensions, the competing interests, and the enduring challenges of maintaining peace and stability in a region marked by a history of conflict and ongoing struggles for power and territory. Whether viewed as a necessary security measure or an act of aggression, the event serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of peace and the complexities of intervention in a volatile geopolitical landscape.