Israel launches airstrike against Lebanon-bound convoy in Syria

No incursion into Syrian airspace, sources indicate.

Israel has entered into the conflict in Syria, launching an airstrike against a convoy of Lebanon-bound weapons, according to officials from the country speaking on condition of anonymity.

Haaretz reports:

The officials said the shipment was not of chemical arms, but of "game changing" weapons bound for the Lebanese militant Hezbollah group. They say the airstrike was early Friday. They did not say where it took place.

CNN adds a crucial piece of context: the attack took place without an incursion into Syrian airspace. Barbara Starr, its Pentagon correspondent, writes:

Based on initial indications, the U.S. does not believe Israeli warplanes entered Syrian airspace to conduct the strikes.

Haaretz confirms that the Israeli air force has what are referred to as "standoff" bombs, designed to coast low along the surface before hitting their targets, which could "in theory" allow Israel to attack Syria from Lebanon. Indeed, CNN reports that the Lebanese army claimed 16 flights by Iraeli warplanes penetrated Lebanon's airspace between Thursday and Friday.

It is the second time that Israel has hit Syria in recent months. The Guardian reports:

Israel bombed a convoy in Syria in January, apparently hitting weapons destined for Hezbollah, according to diplomats, Syrian rebels and security sources in the region.

While Israel remains technically at war with Syria – having occupied the Golan Heights area of the country in 1967 and never signed a peace treaty since – the two nations have remained peaceful until recently. If, as Israeli officials claim, these are solely to do with the far more recent conflict with Lebanon, then the stakes in the Middle East have not changed substantially.

Update: An earlier version of this post mistakenly identified the source of the arms.

An Israeli fighter takes-off. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

David Cameron: "Taking more and more refugees" is not the answer to the migration crisis

As the migrant crisis worsens, the Prime Minister refuses to allow desperate people into Britain, citing "peace" in the Middle East as his priority.

David Cameron says "taking more and more refugees" is not the answer to the global migration crisis.

Amid calls for the UK to allow more people in, to help ease the record numbers of migrants entering Europe and to provide asylum for desperate people attempting to cross the border, the Prime Minister insists upon keeping the UK's doors closed.

Preferring to focus on the situation in the Middle East, Cameron commented:

We are taking action across the board... the most important thing is to try to bring peace and stability to that part of the world . . . I don't think there is an answer that can be achieved simply by taking more and more refugees.

His words come on the day that harrowing photos of a young Syrian boy, washed up dead on a beach near the Turkish resort of Bodrum, have been published. The child was from a group of 12 Syrian refugees who drowned attempting to reach Greece.

The Labour leadership candidates are taking a different stance. In a much-praised speech this week, Yvette Cooper urged the UK to take in 10,000 more refugees, warning that a failure to do so would be, “cowardly, immoral and not the British way”.

Andy Burnham too has called for Britain to take more people in (or, in his words, "share the burden"): "This is a humanitarian crisis, not just a tedious inconvenience for British holidaymakers, as our government might have us believe."

Now read this week's leader on the migration crisis, "The wretched of the earth", calling for the UK to accept more asylum seekers

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.