Talk:2024 Israeli invasion of Syria

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)

Intervention means they take part in some other conflict. They do not, and that conflict is essentially almost over. They sent in their troops to occupy more Syrian lands, for their own gain. 109.87.36.102 (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

since it seems like IDF will be staying there a while, you can't call it an incursion

Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR we definitely aren't allowed to make any claims or implications that Israel will be staying there a while. If goes on a long time, we can change the title to something emphasizing permanence, e.g. "occupation". – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Israel already occupies the Golan Heights illegally (https://en.wiki.x.io/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)

How is this article called "Israeli INVASION of SYRIA" while we have a "https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Turkish_occupation_of_northern_Syria" article? Isn't it the EXACT same thing, even less legal because of the lack of justification that comes from the 1974 treaty? Shouldn't it be treated in the same way? Shouldn't it be called "Israeli 2024 occupation of UNDOF buffer zone" or something similar? Neuromanxer (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Israeli occupation of Syria began in 1967, this is an expansion, Israel has also invaded areas further then the UNDOF zone.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:33, 14 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) https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-833318 ha-ha-ha. As I told you, the source itself was added. This is not an invasion and annexation, but a probably "voluntary accession" like the land in East Jerusalem. But of course, since we are talking about Israel - this is different. 185.90.102.112 (talk) 15:25, 13 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)

"Special (military) operations" is only a euphemism when used to describe a large-scale invasion (because "special operations" almost always refers to small-scale operations). If you call small-to-medium military operation an invasion it's a dysphemism.

I can confirm that RSes are using "military operations" in some cases. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Apparently the IDF have denied some of the reports cited here, which seem to be from less-than-ideal sources (e.g. Saudi state TV, although I can't tell precisely how accurate Al Arabiyah is). The AP is also apparently going out of its way to clarify the operation is not an invasion. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

Invasion: An act of invading; especially: incursion of an army for conquest of plunder

"Invasion" is not the correct term here. (Please see the "By land" section under "Methods") ScionDeMartinez (talk) 20:57, 13 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)

Agreed What Israel has done so far is not an invasion. Israel has claimed it has moved its forces into a temporary defensive position to protect the Golan Heights and Israel from potential harm. I do not see involvement being a viable word. Incursion is a fair, neutral term. ScionDeMartinez (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Pin fold 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)

@Supreme Deliciousness:: Did you miss this discussion with your revert here? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes I missed it. According to your link, the 2024 RfC there was consensus that Al Jazeera is generally reliable and the quote is presented as being from Pinfold, so there is no issue.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Right, I'm not arguing the reliability of the source, as I noted above. I'm noting the bias of the source, in the context of being a) not actually a "scholarly analysis" subject to the expected rigors of peer review, extensive fact-checking, etc. but being presented as such, and 2) the undue weight of including a single, speculative quote from an individual media interview in a section typically reserved for reactions from states/heads of state and major international NGOs.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Its a new event so everything is news sources not really "peer review, extensive fact-checking". You want to change it to "Other views " ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

At a minimum but that just further highlights the problem with undue weight -- if we change it to "Other views", what makes this particular view worthy of inclusion vs. any other? It's not Pinfold's status as an academic -- it's not offered in an academic context, and so if it's simply offered as speculative opinion, that's the kind of thing we want to avoid privileging from a source with bias issues. Hence why I removed the section entirely, until we have a good reason to suggest it should be included beyond "it exists" (e.g. some evidence that suggests that the views themselves are noteworthy, or have prompted subsequent debate, or are otherwise important enough to include alongside state actor reactions at the head of state and ministerial level. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness: given the above points, would you consider self-reverting? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:05, 15 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'[2] 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)

The term "invasion" does not imply a permanent takeover of land, unlike the terms "occupation" and "annexation". Israelis may not like the term because of its negative connotation, but it fits perfectly well here. Зиновий Карлович (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The term "invasion" doesn't , but it does —invasions are defined by a family resemblance, with . An invasion typically involves:

• large troop movements, e.g. a field army (rather than smaller units like battalions)
• operations deep in enemy territory, rather than along a border
• a lack of provocation by the invaded country
• an objective of occupying a territory over the long-term.

In short, "invasion" is both large-scale and offensive; it isn't just any movement of troops into another country's territory. None of these are technically requirements or included in the definition (see List of invasions for counterexamples to each of these), but you'll be hard-pressed to find any "invasion" failing all of these criteria. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Drop 2024 from the title?

Since there is no article on any other Israeli invasion of Syria so far, perhaps the year should be dropped from the title, so the article would be renamed to simply Israeli invasion of Syria (which currently redirects to this article anyway) per WP:CONCISE, just like e.g. the article Russian invasion of Ukraine is not called something like Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present). Niokog (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

We should not do this. For one, it would create confusion with other historical Israeli military operations in Syria, even where our article is not named in the same format. For another, there's active discussion about changing the entirety of the name, not just the 2024 identifier -- we just literally had a RM be snowball closed without consensus for a change; so it's entirely possible such a change would be mooted by the outcome of that broader debate. When we revisit formal discussion around an RM for the page title, we should address it formally there. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of the move discussion, it was still technically ongoing when I opened this one, so I did not start a move discussion because one has to end before any other starts. Regarding ambiguity, the same concerns would hold for articles like Russian invasion of Ukraine and this seems analogous in terms of naming. If there are some other historical events which could be characterized as an "Israeli invasion of Syria", then a simple hatnote template should suffice if there is an article on any of such events, e.g. something like {{About|2024 military campaign|some other event|Article about that other event}}. Niokog (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

If the RM was ongoing, then it would have still been inappropriate to open a second discussion at the same time, so I'm not sure how that helps get us closer to resolving the issue. The Russian invasion of Ukraine -- which was itself preceded by 4 years of invasion prior to the so-called SMO -- is factually not particularly comparable, given that it was an annexation attempt aimed at seizing and *holding* land permanently. Also several orders of magnitude longer than Israel's been in Syria. In any event, I'm not here to debate a page name out-of-process, just to point out that this discussion *is* out-of-process. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

There's already been a much larger, much better-known invasion of Syria—anyone searching for "the" Israeli invasion of Syria a year from now is going to be very confused if it doesn't point to that time Israel invaded and occupied the Golan Heights, instead of that time troops entered 3 villages along the border. A Syrian would probably even be offended by how much this redirect minimizes the 1967 invasion—it's implicitly saying "this buffer zone is the worst thing Israel's ever done to Syria". – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Lede fails to deal with Legality and international law

The lede does not capture the international reaction and the legality of such actions. All of this text is not high priority Specific military objectives were given to the IDF by Defense Minister Israel Katz on 9 December, which included a complete takeover of the buffer zone and nearby positions, the creation of a security zone extending beyond the buffer zone free of heavy weaponry and military infrastructure, and the prevention of Iranian arms smuggling routes to Lebanon through Syria. When Ukraine was invaded the reaction and legality was in the lede. Inayity (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

That's primarily because when Russia invaded Ukraine, there was a near-unanimous consensus among reliable sources that the invasion was illegal under international law (explicit goal to annex parts of a neighboring country), whereas in the case of Israel there's been much less coverage and consensus. My—admittedly limited—knowledge of international law is that Israel's strikes fall into a legal gray area that's going to revolve around whether these operations are necessary or reasonable to maintain their security. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Inayity: It's unfortunate that the mainstream media have given very little attention to the legal characterisation of the invasion, but I think there may be sources from various UN bodies and human rights organisations available. Someone or some people need to do the source-finding and editing work of integrating them into the body of the article, and then a summary can go into the lead. I don't think that politicians' blabla justifies summarising in the lead, but legal analysis and reactions by notable sources should qualify as being notable. Closed Limelike Curves is right that the mainstream media have much less coverage and consensus in this case.

I modified the current third paragraph of the lead to make it a bit less focussed on the Israeli point of view, which hid the fact that the "buffer zone" is a buffer zone between a buffer zone in Syria (the pre-Dec-2024 Israeli-occupied part of the Golan Heights) and other parts of Syria, per international law. Boud (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

How much Syrian territory did Israel hold before and after the invasion

Could someone measure, how much Syrian territory Israel acquired in its current invasion (or tell me how to do it), they maps are there. --Boris Baran - ✉ 18:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless this is relating to proposed edits to the article, this is not the appropriate place for such requests. Additionally, unless said maps are published by reliable sources, and the data included in them verifiable and accurate/not-speculative, including that measurement would constitute original research. Given that this is a fluid, current event, and Israel has publicly stated it does not intend to hold this territory long-term, it's not clear that they have "acquired" anything. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I suspect Israel doesn't "hold" most of the territory marked on the map at all. It seems like the media reports of operations deeper in Syria trace back to reports on Twitter of Israeli tank sightings. I'm a bit skeptical about these reports' reliability (most people have trouble identifying whether a vehicle even is a tank, nevermind its national origin), but let's assume the media organizations reporting investigated and confirmed these sightings. Even then, the fact that an Israeli armored vehicle passed through a given territory in no way establishes Israel has established effective control over that territory.

I think the IDF has requested evacuations of some towns along the border. Maybe we could replace the current map with a map showing these villages? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Apparently the IDF have explicitly denied some of these reports. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Different pages for invasion and airstrikes; infobox military operation instead of military conflict

The invasion and the airstrikes are two different operations (the latter being titled Operation Bashan Arrow) with different objectives, and as such I feel both should have their own individual pages. In my opinion these should also use military operation infoboxes as opposed to military conflict ones, given Israel was/is the only belligerent and faced no opposition.UncleBourbon (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the military operation infobox does seem like a closer fit, given the lack of opposition. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Main page ITN

Could this be featured on the Main page ITN? Ladette (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Ask at WP:ITN. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Syrian military

Is there a reason why Israel's decimation of Syria's military has not been included in this article's lede, or is it being covered in another article? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

If you feel like adding that in the article, then do it. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Potential Additions to "Airstrikes"

The cities of Homs and Palmyra and the Tartus Governorate are other targets of Israeli airstrikes along with this, the fact that terrorists died in these strikes should be mentioned. (https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/10/middleeast/israel-syria-assad-strikes-intl/index.html https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-airstrikes-syria-russian-vessels-desert-tartus-naval-base/)

Palmyra, Homs, and Tartus

Additional potentially useful information and/or potential additional sources: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20241210-charred-remains-of-syrian-ships-after-israeli-strikes (More information on Latakia and Barzeh) https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdx921zreweo (A map of Israeli airstrikes mentions that sites hit may have been replanned)

I also am wondering whether or not previous airstrikes before the collapse of the Assad Regime should be added. Or at least simply stating that they occurred. ScionDeMartinez (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Reactions

Surely there are sources about SYRIA'S reactions to this event, right? 675930s (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

There's a social media claim - which is not a WP:RS - that The new Syrian government filed a formal complaint to the UN Security Council regarding Israel's violation of Syrian sovereignty and the 1974 Separation of Forces Agreement. If the claim is correct, then there should be official online documents available soon, and there should be WP:RS media stating that (despite the expected bias of western mainstream media in favour of The White Man's Burden to invade and bomb Syria on behalf of Syrians). Feel free to add sources here if you find them and don't currently have editing rights. Boud (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

"controlled by Syria"

Syria does not currently have a centralized government so it's nonsensical to refer to an area as "controlled by Syria." Instead the map should refer to that area as "controlled by [whatever militia controls that area next to the Golan]." Shaked13 (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

See Syrian transitional government. Boud (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

According to the Article on the Syrian Civil War, part of that area is controlled by the Southern Operations Room (which is not part of the Syrian Transitional Government) and part of that area is controlled by no one, so the article on Syrian Transitional Government is not relevant. Shaked13 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Based on the current state of Southern Operations Room, it does look "controlled by Syria" is misleading: the state of the state of Syria is unclear, per the sources, and quite likely fuzzy right now. Any objections to "controlled by Syrian groups"? The map for this article is not the place to try to sort out the degree of coordination between HTS and other various groups of the Syrian revolution. There are no sources showing any Syrian groups favouring the Israeli further invasion (beyond the Golan Heights) and bombing of Syria, as far as I can see. Boud (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree "Controlled by Syrian groups" makes sense Shaked13 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Boud (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

thank you

To be fair (and I understand this is a more difficult edit to make) the map image should also be updated so that the legend refers to the green area as "under control of Syrian groups," rather than "Syrian Transitional Government." (For the same reasons as above.) Shaked13 (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

What is the wisdom behind adding Syria and GJlani as combatants in the infobox, given that there was no exchange of fire from the Syrian side, and that Jolani himself said that Syria would not get involved in a war with Israel? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

None whatsoever. We should switch to a infobox without "belligerents". Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Source Viability

Are we going to take https://syria.liveuamap.com/ as a viable source, considering its source is always X.com? ScionDeMartinez (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if there's prior consensus specific to liveuamap from any prior debates (the SCW, Ukraine, etc.) but given that it's primarily driven by user submissions, I can't see how it satisfies WP:UGC, which categorically states that this kind of site is unacceptable. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

It's very unlikely that syria.liveuamap.com would be accepted as a WP:RS, although mentioning it as a sanity check for talk page discussions probably can't hurt. Liveuamap.com is a news aggregator of user-generated sources for breaking news, which often contain serious inaccuracies, even if they're live news reports by mainstream media. Liveuamap.com does claim to have some fact-checking in the sense of requiring multiple independent sources to agree, but it's very unlikely to be accepted as an WP:RS. Boud (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

UNDOF

In the UNDOF article, there is a mention of UNDOF exchanging fire with unknown assailants. In addition, there is a France24 report stating that the Israeli military is assisting UNDOF. Based on these, it does seem like UNDOF should be mentioned in the infobox. As for its placement, I'm thinking of a third column, similar to how UNIFIL is placed in the Israeli invasion of Lebanon's infobox. Please share your thoughts on this. JasonMacker (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)