Al-Assad is changing the rules of the clash with Israel

On the other hand, voices criticizing the failure to an automatic Syrian military reaction to the aggression were raised, calling for a military response as soon as possible in order to preserve the morale. Hence, did the strike affect the vitality of the Syrian army and how did Syria respond, specifically President Bashar Al-Assad? 

Of course, the Israeli aircraft bombed and hit military targets, but the damages could be refurbished and the Syrian army is able to continue and to maintain its high degree of readiness. In fact, two days after the strike only, the said army proved that it is dynamic and have controlled the Khirbet Ghazali; a stronghold of the armed opposition on the Damascus, Daraa highway. 

As for the Syrian response, it was a comprehensive strategic response that could be understood through displaying the reality of the Syrian-Israeli confrontation. 

Ever since signing the Separation of Forces Agreement on the Golan front on May 1974 and the deployment of the International separation forces on both sides of the border, tranquility has been widely spread at that front and the Syrian-Israeli rules of clash represented in the calm between the two countries were established. 

However, Israel has moved the clash to Syria’s border neighbor i.e. to Lebanon, and since that time Israel is clashing with the Palestinian resistance, Syria, and the Lebanese resistance. In 2004, Israel violated the Separation Agreement by carrying out raids on Ein Saheb in Damascus countryside, and in 2007 it carried out a raid on Al-Kaber site in Der Al-Zor with no Syrian military response. Months ago, Israel launched a raid on the Jmraiya site and last week it launched raids on several locations in the countryside of Damascus: Al-Hamma, Dimas, Jmraiya, and Kudsia, and also with no Syrian response. 

After these raids, Israel has begun to change the rules of clash with Syria and to violate the Separation of Forces Agreement monitored by the International forces in the Golan Heights. Yes, President Al-Assad responded and announced from his side also changing the rules of the clash, but how? 

First, what are the rules of the clash? They mean in the military science the rules that are adopted by the armed forces when using force i.e. when carrying out military operations at the International, regional or national levels, whether in the armed conflicts or the peacekeeping missions. They are rules that have legal, military, political, strategic and operational dimensions. 

The NATO describes the rules of clash as directives issued by an authorized military side that hand paints the conditions and limits based upon which the armed forces are allowed to initiate a clash or to continue it. The rules of clash are not tactical instructions to guide the military commanders, but they draw a framework for the clash, such as regulating the use of weapons or responding to a hostile attack. Therefore, the rules of clash are amended and changed so as to ensure an adequate response to any emergency. 

Based on the concept of the rules of clash, President Al-Assad has taken number of decisions to change these rules, while Israel seeks to change them in its favor. The first decision was announcing that directives were issued to the field commanders to respond immediately to any Israeli aggression without going back to the leadership, and this means that the Syrian military response to any Israeli offensive became a standing order and not an emergency or a situational one. These directives form a qualitative development in the military commanding work. 

The second decision was that Al-Assad announced the opening of the Golan front in front of the resistance after Israel violated the Separation of Forces Agreement repeatedly without any condemnation at the UN Security Council or at the General Secretariat of the United Nations, which is part in the Agreement and is charge of monitoring its implementation through the separation forces. 

Hence, opening this front leads to resisting attacks inside the Golan Heights, which are according to the International law rightly attacks because the Golan Heights is an occupied Syrian Arab land. This comes after the failure of the diplomatic and political efforts to bring it back to Syria and there is no other way to liberate it, but to start a legitimate armed resistance. The launching of resistance would drain Israel as an army, government and society, which can difficultly bear this, especially in the current circumstances. 

The third decision was a clear and explicit response to the Israeli allegations that it has bombed convoys or sophisticated weapon stores that were on their way to Hezbollah in Lebanon. 

Assad’s responded that Syria will not only allow the passage of weapons to Hezbollah, but will itself provide the Lebanese resistance with arms and added, “This was stressed by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary General of Hezbollah, in a recent speech, when he said that he will send balance breaking weapons, and this an existing fait accompli”. This means that he will send qualitative weapons that would change the balance of power in the current conflict.

This development is considered as if moving from one stage to another in the conflict with Israel, where both Syria and the resistance are facing a stage where the rules of the clash have changed and are moving to a new stage entirely different from the previous one. 

This allows us to foresee the nature of the next confrontation, where it will be different from the confrontations in 2006, because the Israeli warplanes would lose the freedom to move, fly, and use the Lebanese airspace as was the case in the 2006 war. The air defense force is likely to be covering Syria and extending to Lebanon and the resistance is probably going to obtain sophisticated air force capable of addressing the Israeli aircraft flying over Lebanon. 

President Al-Assad has changed the rules of the clash existing ever since 1974, and thus we are now facing a new reality. Israel will pay a dear price when facing this decision and this will not only be limited to money but would be also related to its security, stability, and its image in the region and the world. The Arab world would enter into a new phase with the outbreak of a resisting war of attrition against Israel. 

In fact, the behavior of the international community will change towards the new resistance’s war and the new balance of deterrence between Syria and the Lebanese resistance on the one hand and the Israeli enemy on the other hand, and it will only have to acknowledge this new reality and to go back to its previous resolutions that do the Arabs and the Palestinians justice and to start to implement them after being overlooked for decades.