Talk:2024 Israeli invasion of Syria

Israel's invasion started at least in October 2024, not December 2024

At least two journalistic sources (albawaba, New Arab) reported on Israel's invasion in October 2024. Operations in December 2024 should be seen with the context of these incursions and annexations, rather than as developments that started in December. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prefigurative (talk • contribs) 05:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

1974 ceasefire broken?

Several reports are showing that Netanyahu intends to breaks the 1974 ceasefire agreement and seize a buffer zone in the Syrian Golan heights Jubabb (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The size fire is broken due to two reasons. .A. One of the sides that signed the size fire has collapsed and no longer exists. .B. Rebels from Syria attacked the UN buffer zone annulling the agreement anyway.

Since the Syrian Arab government no longer exists and Syrian forces have attacked the ceasefire has ended. Hinga toka (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

"Syrian opposition" is no longer opposition

The article should refer to them as rebel militias. 2001:4C4E:2484:5100:F30C:8EA9:5B3A:359E (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

They were an opposition during the events that the article mentions them in the context of. Dieknon (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Israeli invasion started after Assad's fall from power, hence no longer opposition forces. 2001:4C4E:2484:5100:9EF4:2B0A:45C8:EE59 (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Invasion?

Is this really an invasion? It seems more akin to a small-scale cross-border operation, which Israel carried out many times throughout its history. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

According to the Israeli journalist Amichai Stein (KAN): “Israeli official says that In the coming days, Israel might capture more areas inside Syria, and further deepen the attacks against strategic targets in Syria, to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of the rebels”. https://x.com/AmichaiStein1/status/1865821853178015897 Tarek lb (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

So this is an invasion to you? And X is a source? 188.129.81.218 (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Times of Israel says "Israel takes up posts in area for the first time since 1974" and it is not disputed that Netanyahu has said that the 1974 Agreement on Disengagement between Israel and Syria is no longer being recognized. If you are aware of previous instances of this please share.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Date 8 December 2024 – present

(0 days). A zero day long invasion? Air attack on Damaskus? They just destroyed chemical weapons. Who are you people anayway? "2024 Israeli invasion of Syria" I'm gonna start writing my book on this invasion to finish before the end tomorrow. 188.129.81.218 (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

How would it be called otherwise?

I know "invasion" has a negative connotation but since it seems like IDF will be staying there a while, you can't call it an incursion, and there isn't anything that can be used to appropriately describe the situation. GenioRetrasado101 (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I would call it "2024 Israeli intervention in Syria" SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing "small-scale" about two or more brigades.

Israel already occupies the Golan Heights illegally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_497). They've illegally annexed that territory with no plan to return it. That was an invasion. In this case we're talking about an invasion (capture) of additional Syrian territory. Temporary or otherwise.

It was accompanied by widespread destruction of Syrian defence force materiel. Regardless of whether you believe this is justified in the interests of Israel's security, this has all the hall-marks of an invasion and is consistent with an attempt to influence Syria's internal affairs.

Galerita (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic aside collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You all slander peace-loving Israel, there is no invasion there, it's just that the territories of Syria themselves peacefully join Israel in gratitude for liberation from Syrian control — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.90.102.112 (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC) I would love to read any legitimate new source that states this NewishIdeas (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Exactly and if you insist otherwise you are antisemitic. 67.68.4.160 (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Title change

2024 Israeli invasion of Syria → 2024 Israeli invasion of Quneitra — I think changing the title to "2024 Israeli invasion of Quneitra" would make more sense, since it was announced by Israel that they're only going to be operating in the UN buffer zone between Syria and the Golan Heights, which the Syrian government or the rebels had not been in full control of anyways. CapLiber (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, Israel has reportedly already taken control of Khan Arnabah, located beyond the UN buffer zone. Other regions of Syria have also been bombed, including Damascus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Just a thought, maybe the word "incursion" would fit the situation better? Doesn't "invasion" tend to imply a more widespread deployment of forces? 2601:406:8500:D790:3941:246C:ED60:D50E (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for the moment. Statements by Israeli officials are just announcements, not actions, so changing to Quneitra would be WP:CRYSTAL. The Israeli bombings, beyond the group troop invasion, look like they're in al-Suwayda Governorate too. Boud (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

What source do you have to say "look like they're in al-Suwayda Governorate too"? Viral weirdo (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Statements by Israeli officials are just announcements, not actions, so changing to Quneitra would be WP:CRYSTAL. That's really not how WP:CRYSTAL works—we know Israel is operating in Quneitra, but we don't know if they're planning to use any ground forces outside Quneitra. If the situation changes we can change the name. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose since IDF soldiers have reportedly entered Al Harra, which is well beyond the 1974 ceasefire line. Ok123l (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I searched google in English and in all the ways I could, but I found no source for Israelis entering Al-Harra. Do you perhaps have an Arabic source (or any other language) that claims such a thing? Viral weirdo (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

https://syria.liveuamap.com/ Ok123l (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Liveuamap, the source you cited, is using another source to make that claim. Can you guess what that other source is? Oh yeah it's X, formerly Twitter. Read WP:RSPTWITTER, Twitter (x) is listed as "generally unreliable" in the Perennial sources list. It makes things worse when you mention that the Twitter post did not even include imagery, and the account is unconfirmed. Viral weirdo (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, Israel has taken control of Tell al-Hara which is in Daraa Governorate not Quneitra. And this per WP:RS not just Twitter. Also, there is an accompanying invasion of Syrian airspace that extends well beyond Quneitra--Brian Dell (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Literally which WP:RS? Show it to me. Is it in Arabic or Hebrew, because I can't find anything? Viral weirdo (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Please read the article and its references. Doing so will help keep this Talk page focused on the article content.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, the situation is still developing, and it is clear this is an invasion of the previous Syrian government, unlike what specific areas of Syria Israel has invaded into; even Hebrew Wikipedia named the page this way. RatherQueerDebator (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

WAITI do not support this name as it is provocative rather than informative but more importantly it is not yet time to determine its name as we should wait and see what happens. Guillem 001 (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, at least for now.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 05:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Add UN as a third party

un is not directly helping israel's invasion so they should be put as a third combatant just like with lebanon Sanad real (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Support, the given sources attribute the claims of "Israel helping the UN forces defend themselves" to, well, Israel. Without any independent confirmation, we can't state that UN forces are fighting alongside Israel. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The UN forces are not there to fight. The IDF helped them fend off a single attack. That's it. They're not a belligerent. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

But in that case, they shouldn't be shown on Israel's side either. Either remove them entirely (the best solution) or put them as a third party. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

they (UN) fought side by side with Israel so either they appear on Israels side or aren't added in the first place. They are not a third faction that fighting both sides. Guillem 001 (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Putting them as a third faction implies they’re fighting Israel too which they aren’t the combat experienced by the UN has been solely against FSA units not against Israeli forces. Takinginterest01 (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Peacekeepers are not combatants. Why do we need to include them at all? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

They are combatants if they are engaged in combat UN forces were attacked and repelled attacks side by side with IDF making them involved. It provides context and historical insight to the infobox which most people look at first and foremost when visiting a Wikipedia article. Takinginterest01 (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The whole invasion currently is aimed for the DMZ , No matter if the UNDOF is being helped by the Interim Government or Israel they are part of the conflict in one form or another , Besides , Peacekeepers even with harsh rules of combat are still combatants with the aim of keeping the DMZ protected . Twilightsskies (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

They defend their positions if fired upon, that's it. The attack was a single incident. They are not combatants. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

1 attack is enough to justify them being added if their DMZ being occupied wasn't enough to justify it Twilightsskies (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

While you are entitled to your opinion, the current infobox will mislead our readers. Sometimes third parties take hits. That does not make this a three-way fight, or a fight in which UNDOF is somehow aligned with Israel against Syrian rebels. Hell - have the rebels even resisted so far? Everything about this reeks of a rushed narrative. Why don't we calm down and see how things unfold? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The IDF was reinforcing the UN after rebels attacked the UN buffer zone. Israel and the UN forces are on the same side in this situation. Hinga toka (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

the un literally condemned the Israeli invasion today Sanad real (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

What happens on the ground and in the UN (wich is located in far away in the US) are not one of the same. Not to forget the UN has almost 200 member States so the UN has never been unanimous so any condemnation is from certian factions of the UN and never the entirety of the UN after all even Israel is part of the UN and it would be stupid to expect anyone to condem themselves. Guillem 001 (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"salvation government"?

The map contains the description "Syrian salvation government". That is propaganda language and should not be used in an encyclopedical article. ~ Maltebruessel (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This is literally how this government is named. We cant do anything about that. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"temporarily" occupied

"The quotation marks are used to express doubt or reservation, which hence violates the principles of NPOV. Pacifico (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

In this case, it looks like it might be direct quoting, as the full phrase is that the area was to be "temporarily" occupied to "ensure that no hostile force embeds itself next to the border of Israel". However, I agree with you that it does come across that way and that the quotation marks around "temporarily" should be removed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Map is missleading

The current map that appears in this article is misleading. Most of the colored territory was not invaded to in 2024, but 1967. It is not clear what territory was invaded in 2024. יוניון ג'ק (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The lighter blue part is what has been invaded in 2024, although I agree the difference isn't very visible on this scale. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Ecrusized, is it possible to create a new map, with a better difference in colors? יוניון ג'ק (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Alternate name

Any objections to "2024 Israeli incursion into southwest Syria"? cc @Chaotic Enby🧺🧺 @Boud📚📚 @Ok123l📘📘 @CapLiber📘📘 @SolxrgashiUnited🐣🐣. I think "invasion of Syria" is extremely confusing as a title—it makes it sound like they're invading the whole country with a large force. – Closed Limelike Curves📘📘 (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. "Incursion" sounds like a euphemism. We're talking about invading another sovereign state, which we call "invasion" as the factual term (e.g. Russian invasion of Ukraine rather than "Special military operation", and more recently 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for an alternate name? The problem is that invasion isn't quite accurate, because an invasion refers to a large-scale military operation. "Incursion" isn't meant to be a euphemism—see e.g. 2023 Belgorod Oblast incursions, 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq, or 1991 Zeila incursion. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

That is a good point, and seeing the other examples I understand your point of view. As the fog of war is there and the situation is still developing, I think both could make sense but that it is best to wait a few days to see where this is going. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The situation is developing, but WP:CRYSTAL BALL prohibits us from titling based on speculation—right now all we know is there's been some small-scale deployment. If the conflict escalates, we can change the title back. (I'm skeptical, but who knows.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The question is whether Israel has the aim to grab a land or temporarily occupy the land. Beshogur (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Then the article definitely needs to be retitled, per WP:CRYSTALBALL—we can't imply we know anything about what Israel is going to do. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Wait My impression is that there's currently no WP:COMMONNAME in the English-language press (the Israeli English-language press cannot be expected to be neutral for this topic), with Al Jazeera English calling it a land grab, territory 'seizure', or a buffer grab per Netanyahu, or a takeover (none of which are either incursion or invasion). I don't see much English-language mainstream media coverage - and obviously this will be a sensitive question for newspaper editors in how to frame the events. If we had some expert sources (not vague "analysts", but political scientists with real expertise) predicting that the invasion would be limited to a small band near the Golan Heights, then "incursion" might become justified based on that. I would tend to wait to see either if a WP:COMMONNAME emerges, or if it becomes clear that the invasion is limited enough to be descriptively called an incursion. Boud (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

More generally, I don't think "Call something an invasion until we have proof that it's not an invasion" is how Wikipedia works. The burden of proof lies on editors claiming that Israel is conducting an "invasion". – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

See below—looks like sources have settled on either "deployment" or "incursion".– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Presumptively oppose The air attacks are not confined to southwest Syria. However, air campaigns-only normally don't change governments or lead to territorial changes so would not oppose a move from "invasion" to "incursion" provided there were no territorial changes (whether annexation or indefinite occupation). The fact that Israel is reporting rejecting the 1974 border agreement creates a presumption in my view that we will see territorial changes and that such changes are a motivation for the military initiative taken. This presumption would be rebutted by a full Israeli withdrawal within the next few weeks. I don't believe either "the whole country" or large scale is an appropriate standard for invasion or not: a small invasion or regional invasion is still an invasion.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support.Calling it an invasion is malicious, not neutral and devoid of NPOV. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Wait as per Boud until sources settle on something. Cortador (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support.I agree with you. Its not an invasion! SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Israel is staying on the golan hights as it is strategically stupid to go any further. They from the start said they are temporarily guarding the Golan hights after rebel forces attacked the UN buffer zone around the time the Assad regime fell. Israel is securing its borders until the chaos in Syria calms down rather than invading Syria to cause more chaos. Hinga toka (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support - RS report that this is a limited incursion into the DMZ, not a general invasion. Israel already "invaded Syria" in 1967 to occupy the Golan, so specifying the location as Quneitra would also be apt. PrimaPrime (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment—I've found RSes describing it. FT has described it as an "incursion", as does the Economist. US sources seem to avoid this term, since it's a bit charged; it seems like the most common term is "Deployment", or simply describing it as troops "Entering" the region: CNN calls it a "deployment". NYT also calls it a "deployment". That said, these feel a bit euphemistic to me. Other terms: BBC reports that Israel "seized control" of locations along the border. WSJ reports that Israeli troops "occupied a buffer zone" and describe it as a preemptive step to avoid any spilling over into the Israeli-occupied Golan. I can't find any examples of RSes calling it an "invasion", and this term seems to originate from a tweet. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

c.f. @Chaotic Enby, @Boud, and @Cortador. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Israeli leaders have explicitly said they wanted to take more than only the demilitarized zone, with defense minister Israel Katz stating that one of the objectives was [t]o establish a security zone extending beyond the buffer zone. At this point, calling it incursion or deployment is extremely euphemistic. Al Jazeera calls it a "seizure" of land, and AP News also does. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Israeli leaders have explicitly said they wanted to take more than only the demilitarized zone—agreed, I'm not disputing that.

Al Jazeera calls it a "seizure" of land, and AP News also does—no objections to saying that Israel "seized territory in Syria", like these sources do, but I'm having trouble working that into a title (something about "2024 Israeli seizures" just doesn't seem right to me :p).

The main problem here is the word "invasion" is incorrect—an invasion is a large-scale operation—and is likely to mislead readers (it certainly misled me when I first read it!). Calling it that when any RSes haven't violates both NOR and NPOV, because "invasion" has a very strong negative connotation of unprovoked aggression. Rebutting the presumption against calling something an "invasion" requires extraordinary sourcing and a very strong justification (e.g. common name and overwhelming consensus among RSes).

I'm also increasingly concerned about this article's abuse by people with less-than-savory motives or regard for the truth, e.g. claims on Twitter that Israel is planning to attack Damascus or that Assad only fell because "the Israelis did it". – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "invasion" is not ideal given the current size of the operation, although "incursion" or especially "deployment" still carry a euphemistic tone. Personally, I think "offensive" (on the model of 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria) would be a good compromise. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Turkey has taken large chunks of Syria to create its own buffer zone yet it is not referred to as an Invasion. if Turkey controlling a chunk of Syria much larger than the entire Golan heights than there is no reason to call what Israel is doing an invasion other than to inject politics into the article. Hinga toka (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The Turkish one is called 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. Agree that "offensive" would work as an alternate wording, although I would also be tempted to call the Turkish one "invasion". Also, you have already !voted twice, please do not cast duplicate bolded votes. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If so than the name should be Offensive rather than Invasion, that would be more far more consistent. Hinga toka (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

"Offensive" is a huge improvement on "invasion". To me it still feels like it conveys too large of a scale (push along a whole front, rather than a few border actions). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Support as the current title is an example of WP:CRYSTALBALL. - Amigao (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

How? its not a speculation about the future but an ongoing invasion reported by RS.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Because no RS has described it as an invasion. The main justification that's been offered above for the term is that it might become an invasion, or a reliable source might call it an invasion at some point in the future. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment— Just as a suggestion for feedback/comparisons to other alternative names mentioned in this topic, a possible alternative name that might better capture the scope of the article in both the ongoing ground offensive in southern Syria and the widespread airstrikes across multiple Syrian governorates could be something along the lines of "2024 Israeli military operations in Syria", akin to the title of the Turkish military operation in Idlib Governorate article. It might be more inclusive of the nature of current airstrike operations and objectives outlined by Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz per 2024 Israeli invasion of Syria#Israeli plan versus "invasion" or "offensive" alone. Noble Attempt (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"Military operations" sounds too close to a certain Russian euphemism, and I'm surprised the article you link is titled like that rather than, well, "offensive". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Other Map

The map in File: Syrian Civil War map.svg needs to show the Golan Heights more clearly. I'm saying this here because the recent page on Wikipedia probably has more people watching it than the page on commons. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Missing context

This page is missing context as Israel created the new buffer zone in response to rebel forces attacking the UN buffer zone. “The IDF is now assisting the UN force to repel the attack,” the military said. That is some very important context which is completely missing from this page. Hinga toka (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hinga toka an IDF spokesperson is not an RS 143.58.201.47 (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Shaldag Unit

More "credible" (as in bigger news outlet) sources confirming participation of Shaldag unit during Israeli invasion (raid in Mount Hermon).

IAF Tweet

Channel 14 article

Israel Hayom article Redbeansoup (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Name of page is unduly provocative

@nobleattempt There are a bunch of articles pertaining to foreign involvement with the Syrian Civil War

Turkish involvement in the Syrian civil war

Russian involvement in the Syrian civil war

US intervention in the Syrian civil war

Lo and behold, when Israel is involved it's an invasion even though it said this was a temporary measure. Could you please change the name of the article in line with all the other articles and also in line with WP:NPOV

Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that Russia and the US supported Syrian forces, rather than occupying areas themselves. In the case of Turkey, the "involvement" article is a broad-topic one, but the military invasion is at 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, to which Turkish invasion of Syria redirects. For consistency, I wouldn't be opposed to "offensive" being used to also describe Israeli operations, but what Israel/Turkey did (invading territory) is not directly comparable to what the US/Russia did (supporting local forces). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree it should be renamed Guillem 001 (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Turkey has a taken land from Syria to crate a buffer zone that is tens of times larger than what Israel has taken and despite it the page is called Turkish involvement in the Syrian war thus in the name of objectiveness the page should be called Israeli involvement in the Syrian war. Hinga toka (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Turkey didn't take it, its controlled by Syrians. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree, but Wait— Agree due to the greatly different military objectives between the ground offensive in southwestern Syria and the airstrikes ongoing across Syria far beyond, which "invasion" or "offensive" doesn't fully represent. Wait because seems like users in the Alternative name topic are still debating which article name would fit the scope of the article best and there also being no WP:COMMONNAME in English-language publications or any specific name for the current military operations by the IDF or Defense Ministry yet, as far as I could find. It might be best for now to wait for maybe another day or two for the latter as the situation hopefully clears up more in the news, or for general consensus between users on an alternative name. Noble Attempt (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Noble Attempt but I don't see why it can't be changed to involvement now as a default name/placeholder until consenus is reached. For the life of me, I can't understand why you would go straight to invasion. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify the matter, I was not the user who changed the article title to 2024 Israeli invasion of Syria. When I wrote the article, I titled it Quneitra Governorate clashes (2024) based on the initial advancements occurring in the Quneitra Governorates. This was the edit that moved the article's name to what it currently is, shown in the edit description.

With how little consensus there presently is on whether to move the article and to what name, it is likely that attempts to move the page right now will be reverted until general consensus or a public WP:COMMONNAME is reached.

Asking for a move request under a specific proposed article name might help in expediting the name change, since it will concentrate all the ongoing name discussions here into a vote, which can then lead to the article name change without controversy or reverting the name back to the current name if general consensus is reached. Noble Attempt (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. , what Israels doing here is not "involvement", they have been involved in the war for many years, this is a further invasion.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  lol. you have a source for this? Or it's just your warm and fuzzy feeling for Israel? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree there's no need for the double standards between the countries. Unfortunately it seems to be a recurring theme with editors on Wikipedia שי - LionFireKing404 12:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The interventions of these other countries have been in support of local forces and militia. This action is being done by Israel alone to create a buffer zone, not to support local forces. This article is also about this specific action, not general actions taken by Israel throughout this war Lovelyfurball (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree the name is clesrly provocative. Wikipedia should remain apolitical and objective and the title of this article fits neither criteria. Ruffus of Old (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose The Israeli military has entered into a sovereign nation without the permission or consent from ANY factions (unlike Turkey, Russia or the United States) while extensively bombing it across it's entirety without any casus belli or justification. This is the textbook definition of an invasion.UncleBourbon (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Disagree None of the powers mentioned are changing the borders of their own country (although Turkey is basically creating buffer zones it is not moving buffer zones to push out its own borders). Here, Israel is moving the buffer zone east (what do you think a "sterile defence zone" means?) and subsuming the former buffer zone into its existing territorial claim known as the Golan Heights. The U.S. involvement has not and won't involve redrawing any maps. Neither did the Russian. One does not need a WP:CRYSTALBALL because official Israeli statements make it clear they are not satisfied with having the existing buffer zone act as the "sterile defence zone". They want it further east. By the way, Israel is adamantly denying involvement or interference in the Syrian civil war so would also disagree with a title change to "involvement".--Brian Dell (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Netanyahu stated however that this was only "a temporary defensive position until a suitable arrangement is found"[1] so it is not the permanent change of any map beyond the Purple Line, rather, since the Syrian Army cannot hold to the agreement anymore, Israel is doing so until the situation in Syria becomes clearer. שי - LionFireKing404 09:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Egyptian response to the invasion

I suggest including the response by the Egyptian foreign ministry to the invasion. Jubabb (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Already added to the page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

How can Syrians be arrested?

Syrian are on their own land, its the Israelis came and kidnapped them, why is it written as "arrested", arrested for what? under what jurisdiction did Israel "Arrest" them? These are captives and should be described as such. Midgetman433 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Its possible its fake as its a syrian cliam while no mention of it has currently been released from the Israeli side.

It may be wise to note that in the article that it is a what the syrian side claim and is yet to be proven with solid proof.

Howver if it did happen its likely due to either attacking Israeli forces leading to them arresting the alleged attacker wich is preferable to killing. Or due to the person in question trying to enter the Israeli side of the golan hights leading to the arrest. Guillem 001 (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh isn't that convenient, "if it did happen" *insert pro Israeli narrative* of those guy "asked for it" or did something to cause the Israelis to do such and such.

What about the possibility that the Israelis came into their village? what about that possibility? they minding their own business and the Israelis seeing opportunism to take more land and part of that requires the displacement of those people in their "buffer zone", as if they didn't take Golan in the first place as a "buffer zone". Why do we take the Israeli narrative as gospel?

"Its possible its fake as its a syrian cliam"

How about its possible its true b/c its not an Israeli claim. given Israel's record with the accuracy of their claims in recent conflicts. Of couse the Syrian side is more likely to be true, they are ones claiming their relative got taken, the Israelis can't be bothered to put out a press release on who they abducted. Midgetman433 (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

With today's events in Latakia..

.. I really think we should drop the focus on Quneitra and us this article for whatever Israel is planning for Syria in the foreseen future. It seems Israel is ramping up serious efforts to demilitarize Syria as much as possible, which makes it more than widening its borders vs Syria in the southwest. Thoughts? KajMetz (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree Israel has launched airstikes into Syria the entire war the thing that changed is the new buffer zone. Guillem 001 (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, but these airstrikes were, not always, but largely focused on the Iranian element with the Syrian AA capacities taken as collateral. Now it seems that the SAF if gradually being degraded to smoldering ashes. KajMetz (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Units Involved

Seeing as rebel forces have been attacked and Syria is now under rebel control, I think adding HTS as a belligerent would make sense. PeacockShah (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree for two reasons. Firstly there were no combatants on the syrian side. Secondly the fiction bordering Israel is the southern operations room wich is a spererate coalition of opposition forces that are not part of the HTS. Guillem 001 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Faction

Guillem 001 (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Remove Syrian Armed Forces

The syrian army had already collapsed and were none existant by the time Israel created the new buffer zone. Guillem 001 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree, by now there's no organised defense and syria aspect's statement to the situation of invasion. 5.151.139.52 (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Personally I'm for changing it from infobox military conflict to infobox military operation, since this is a completely one-sided attack than a conflict.UncleBourbon (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 10 December 2024

2024 Israeli invasion of Syria → December 2024 Israeli attack on Syria – The term "attack" (mixed with "strikes"/"airstrikes", a type of attack) is much more common than "invasion" or "incurious". Articles titled "attack" can also be multi-day event, including both ground and air components as set with the precedents of 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel & Attack on Sydney Harbour. Here is a list of sources for "attack", showing a full spread:

1. The Washington Post – "The attacks drew sharp condemnation from U.N. Special Envoy Geir Pedersen, who called for a halt to the attacks."
2. The New York Times – "Israel Says It Destroyed Syria’s Navy, Part of Wave of Post-Assad Attacks"
3. Al Jazeera – "Barrage of Israeli attacks destroys ‘important military sites in Syria" & "“Israel’s attacks on Syria are systematic,” said Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar, reporting from Damascus. “They are aiming to destroy Syria’s defense bases”."
4. Associated Press – "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed Tuesday that his country’s military launched an wave of airstrikes across Syria to destroy the toppled government’s leftover “military capabilities,” and said Israel wants relations with the new government emerging Syria."
5. BBC – "Syrian media reports say Israeli warplanes have carried out dozens of attacks across the country, including in the capital, Damascus."
6. BBC – "Israel has confirmed it carried out attacks on Syria's naval fleet."

This event is an "attack", not "invasion". In fact, there are very few sources for "invasion". In fact, after several Google searches, the only organization calling the Israel ground operation an "invasion" is The Guardian in a headline ("UN special envoy to Syria tells Israel it must stop airstrikes and ground invasion of Syria"), although, the U.N. special envoy's statement (directly quoted later on by The Guardian in the article) does not actually say the term "Invasion". So, it is obvious "invasion" is not the common-name term, given it appears only The Guardian is using it, in what appears to be editorialized misquoting.

With all that, I move we rename the article to "December 2024 Israeli attack on Syria", which encompasses everything that started on December 8: ground operations and airstrikes.

P.S. NOTE: "December" is maybe needed due to the Israeli airstrike on Damascus earlier in 2024. Although, it could be dropped. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

A problem with this analysis is that of course the airstikes reports are not going to be normally coupled with "invasion". "Attack" would not be wrong per se but I think there is every reason to believe the seizure of the buffer zone will last for a long time along with the "sterile defence zone" that Israel says it will impose in southern Syria. We should have a Wikipedia article associated with this, the most significant development concerning the Israel - Syria border since the 70s, that is not just another "attack" article. As Reuters reports, "it remained unclear how far beyond the designated buffer zone [Israeli] troops had stopped." A long as this remains unclear or disputed the Talk page arguments about the appropriate word to describe the change in territorial control (or sovereignty, if Syria can move in the "sterile zone" but not deploy military defence assets) are not going to be easily resolved.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is, based on past discussions over on list of invasions, this article does not qualify as sources are not calling it an “invasion”. We (as Wikipedia) have an article titled “invasion”, which does not qualify for the list of invasions article, due to a lack of sourced. No matter what, we actually cannot have “invasion” in the title per Wikipedia’s article naming guidelines. “Attack” is currently the most appropriate term until sources agree on “Attack”, “Incurious” or “Invasion”, or “INSERT TERM”, ect… The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Take a step back here and consider 3 facts no one disputes: 1) Netanyahu declaring the 1974 border agreement void 2) the buffer zone being fully occupied 3) Israel declaring that it will enforce a "sterile defence zone" in Syria. Put these three together and what have you got? An obvious intent to effectively unilaterally move the buffer zone east. You simply can't effect that result without an invasion. It can be a small invasion but it is still an invasion. I'm not going to edit Wikipedia using this argument because it is WP:OR but feel I have to say it here because there is this reality of a unilateral border change and whatever you want to call it is not going to change what it is. If someone wants to change the name based on the extremely low chance Israel entirely returns to former lines and this accordingly ends up just an "attack" well fine but anyone who thinks there isn't going to be a permanent territorial change here is kidding themselves.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You need to be careful here, Alot of those news websites you mention such as Al Jazeera and NYTimes are clearly biased against Israel, and will frequently use provacative language regarding Israel & Jews to incite their readership. 192.73.80.18 (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Times of Israel – “Defense Minister Israel Katz also issued a warning to Syria’s rebels, saying that any entity that poses a threat to Israel will be targeted relentlessly. “The IDF has acted in the last few days to attack and destroy strategic capabilities that threaten the State of Israel,” he said, during a tour of the Haifa Naval Base during which he was briefed on the Navy strikes on the Assad regime naval assets.” Even very clearly pro-Israel sources say “attack”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair Enough. FYI, Times of Israel isn't biased towards Israel to the level Al Jazeera is biased towards Arabs. 69.120.91.188 (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose invasion works much better. Setarip (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Enforcing WP:ARBECR for non-ECR user. Zinderboff (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose this is not a air raid or whatsoever as you try to present. Several sources already stated Israel starting to occupy several positions in Syria. Beshogur (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Please give sources for "invasion". If there are no sources for "invasion", then we cannot make up the idea that it is an "invasion". Your comment "Several sources already stated Israel starting to occupy several positions in Syria." is actually irrelevent to this discussion, unless you would like to make the title something regarding "occupation". Invasion =/= Occupation. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I said nothing about invasion. I am simply against your title. Beshogur (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Something like 2024 Israeli military incursion into Syria maybe. Beshogur (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd support "incursion", "intervention", or "offensive". – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The current title is accurate. Several sources including the AP and CNN, and other news sources indicated Israel went into Syria and "advanced" well past the existing buffer, not just attacked. That's the definition of an invasion. The title is accurate AS IS. 108.30.183.126 (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose attack implies that this is an isolated incident. I believe that all name changes should be put on hold until more details emerge. 98.222.66.91 (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose the mainstream media’s softening and cute language of Israeli crimes and invasion is expected and Wikipedia should base its conclusions by what is apparent. Attack implies a raid or airstrikes, incursions are more brief. Here we have seen several towns being occupied, including a regional capital and Israeli forces have spent several days in syrian territory violating its sovereignty and one of many ceasefires that Israel has constantly violated and never honoured. This is an invasion and should not be downplayed The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, Israel is occupying more land in Syria, "attack" doesnt not describe the situation correctly, "invasion" is better. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Give sources for "invasion" if it is the better term. Otherwise, saying ""attack" doesnt not describe the situation correctly, "invasion" is better" is original research that is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

● Oppose: We don't even know how Long it could go on for. "December 2024" suggests or implies it only lasted a day to a month, December in this case. InterDoesWiki (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Enforcing WP:ARBECR for non-ECR user. Zinderboff (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Your entire opposition reasoning violates WP:CRYSTAL as Wikipedia cannot predict an event will last into the future. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Israel seems to have named the incursion Operation Bashan Arrow. [2] Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support for multiple options: I think the word "invasion" in the current name could either remain, or be replaced with any of the following: "incursion into", "military operation in", or "attacks against". (In all three cases you'd delete the word "of"). Between these, I think "military operation" is the most accurate and appropriate but is not consistent with how we typically name other conflicts. Either "incursion into" or "attacks against" would be the next best choice. "Invasion of" is my least preferred option but is still acceptable. If "attacks against" is chosen, we need to add the "December 2024" disambiguation; in all the other cases we do not need to specify the month. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose move, "attack" is too general. Israeli forces have taken territory, so Incursion could be acceptable. Abductive (reasoning) 03:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Agree, "incursion" was also what I was thinking. RustyRapier (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Operations > Incursion > Intervention > Offensive > Attack >>> Invasion. The Guardian headline isn't an RS—c.f. WP:HEADLINE.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose This article is about a country's invasion of another country's territory through military practices. Airstrikes or other attacks are part of this military occupation. Per WP:NPOVTITLE - Adem (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The capture of sovereign Syrian territory is enough to be considered an invasion, even if they only establish territorial control for a few days.--KajenCAT (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose clearly an invasion, similar to Talk:2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon/Archive 1#Requested move 30 September 2024 Braganza (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Braganza: You do realize that discussion you just linked proves it should not be titled "invasion" right? That discussion was to rename that article to the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon because most RS called it an "invasion". We have literally a single source calling it an invasion. If it took most RS calling it an invasion to be renamed invasion, one source should not determine the course of Wikipedia. Since you just linked a source that referred to renaming based on what the majority of RS say, I would like for you to link any other sources which explicitly call this an "invasion" over "attack". Currently, 6 sources have been listed in this discussion supporting the "attack" term while 1 source has been listed for "invasion". Based on that discussion you linked, currently, majority of sources do not support "invasion". So, your oppose !vote is entirely backwards from your reasoning and makes no sense. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Braganza — an invasion is as invasion. --Plumber (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Original research !vote with no backing evidence. Plumber please link the Wikipedia policy where Wikipedians get to determine what an "invasion" is. Thank you! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• I am formally withdrawing this requested move discussion per WP:SNOW. In my view, there are too many editors currently supporting Wikipedia itself choosing what is or is not an "invasion", so a requested move at this time is pointless. However, per previous discussion in the past on the list of invasions article, this "invasion" will not be added to the list. Nonetheless, this requested move discussion is now formally withdrawn and can be closed as such. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Page for the Israeli airstrikes on the Syrian naval assets?

As pretty much the entire Syrian fleet has been destroyed I think it is significant enough to divide into its own page. 82.19.124.65 (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, It's a pretty significant historical event.

Should the page also include destruction of the whole Syria Air Force? Or will that have its own page? 69.120.91.188 (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Id say just have it be one page for the Israeli strikes on military assets. 82.19.124.65 (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2024

Gramatical error, misspelling of the word "destroyed" 31.217.25.165 (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Already done LizardJr8 (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinfold quote should be removed

Someone recently added a "Scholarly analyzes" subsection at the bottom of the international reactions section. This should be removed. First, "Scholarly analyzes" is misspelled. Second, it is not commonly included in the Reactions section for other conflicts on Wikipedia. Third, there's only one example given, which constitutes undue weight as it is not actually a scholarly analysis, but rather a quote taken from an interview given on Al-Jazeera: which is per consensus at WP:ALJAZEERA a biased source on matters relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict (note: this is not a statement as to the *reliability* of the source; which is a separate factor from bias). So what we're left with is a single quote from an interview with a biased network being given undue weight by being misrepresented as "scholarly analysis." Until there's actually some scholarly analysis to include, this whole section should be removed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, when is Wikipedia going to do something about quoting Al-Jazeera? It's obvious they are always trying to intentionally use provoking laguage inciting hatred towards Israel & Jews. When is Wikipedia going going to be simply be a source of factual information???? 69.120.91.188 (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

We have a consensus around quoting Al-Jazeera. It's fine most of the time, but there are times when it should be done with caution, and I think this is one of them. Pinfold's comments are not being peer-reviewed here, they're not being fact-checked, and they're an opinion-based sound-bite being given for an interview on a biased network, being presented as a "scholarly analysis", which is incongruous with our treatment of similar articles on military conflicts. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Belligerent

Is there any source putting syrian opposition as belligerent ?

israel invasion is met with no resistance or opponent belligrent to be included but is rather a unilateral form of aggression so far.

I dont think this is the right infobox to use here Stephan rostie (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 69.120.91.188 (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Ground offensive final paragraph

The paragraph that is uncritically repeating unnamed sources from the Southern Operations Room should be removed. It's got major sourcing/attribution problems and it amounts to giving undue weight to speculation from anonymous sources. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2024

Why is written "occupied"? Write control and dont let political-wieved-antisemetic reasons to lead the page. 2A02:14F:1F1:9825:CC13:7653:55F4:4AFD (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Bowler the Carmine | talk 06:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Name Change to Operation Arrow of Bashan in accordance to the Israeli Article

Operation Arrow of Bashan - Wikipedia

Given that Netanyahu has explicitly stated that the incursion into Syria is a 'temporary defensive position until a suitable arrangement is found'[3] rather than a permanent takeover of the land, invasion is misleading, especially after @MaskedSinger and @WeatherWriter pointed out how inappropriate the word "invasion" is שי - LionFireKing404 09:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NPOV. --Plumber (talk)

Infobox flag

At the infobox, as SAA doesnt exists no more, shouldnt be either no flag or both flags (former regime/new regime)? HCPUNXKID (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 69.120.91.188 (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2024 (2)

France has called on Israel to disengage from the ceasefire zone and to respect Syria's sovereignty. Tornadoboy7 (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for the source! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Map update

I see that the image creator (@Ecrusized) is blocked for edit-warring so posting here—Kan 11 is embedded with IDF here at Tel Kudnah, about 32.997121, 35.884719. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)