Talk:Israeli invasion of Syria (2024–present)

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

How to list new casualties in the infobox

Israel recently carried out another round of widespread airstrikes, and SOHR claims at least 4 killed, though it hasn't differentiated between civilians and soldiers. It's likely the two killed in Daraa were soldiers given SOHR mentions the strikes targeted the 112th Division in Izra, and they mention tanks in the first paragraph while Daraa 24 released video of armor being moved in Izra on the 24th (at least one T-55 and one T-62). However, SOHR as a source itself doesn't confirm those killed in Daraa were soldiers. Should the high estimates for each just be updated for now? As in, 5 – 15 civilians killed/2 – 7 soldiers killed > 5 – 19 civilians killed/2 – 11 soldiers killed? Or should they be left untouched for now to see if more definitive sources come out? UncleBourbon (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

No opinion here, but just want to point out there's an active discussion about SOHR on the reliable sources noticeboard here and while it's not complete, the general alignment there seems to be that SOHR has some reliability concerns, and in general probably should not be the only source on something (and if it is, perhaps that's a good indication that the claim is not ripe for inclusion). So I'd suggest that "or should they be left untouched for now to see if more definitive sources come out" seems most inline with the consensus there (and presumably if/when there are additional sources, it would seem aligned w/ the RSN discussion that SOHR could be added as well to bolster them as it'd no longer be a sole source.) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I should also add that two of the four casualties were probably in Lebanon instead of Syria, as the strike occurred at the border and SOHR describes it as being "in Juroud Al-Naby opposite to Sarghaya Town in Rif Dimashq" (emphasis my own), placing it in Lebanon. UncleBourbon (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright, so it seems SOHR somewhat addressed the question. Their update on 10 Mar lists total fatalities for 2025 at 2 civilians and 4 military. Counting the fatalities from their previous reports, that means the 2 from 25 February were military per SOHR.. I'll also add in bold "Per SOHR," as a stopgap measure due to the contested nature of the source, allowing readers to decide the veracity themselves. To do so without visual clutter I've removed the flagicons from "Strength" and "Casualties," since these are often absent in other infoboxes anyway, and have made a footnote so as not to have 12+ references for one figure clogging up the infobox. UncleBourbon (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I've also added SNHR sources for civilian casualties, as I've seen them regarded as more reliable than SOHR by some analysts. I plan to replace the later two citations when their report on civilian deaths for the month of March comes out. UncleBourbon (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

References

“Assad loyalists” faction in israel’s invasion infobox ?

I dont think assad loyalist faction in the infobox makes any sense or is relevant in anyway to the article of israel invasion of syria, i think it belongs to syria civil war article, not here.

i think it it should be removed from the infobox, but i would like to discuss it here first. Stephan rostie (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove the Assad loyalists. I'm not really opposing your idea but all I'm saying is the Assad loyalists are a major thorn to the current Syrian government. It's pretty obvious that the Assad loyalists are major player here since this event would significantly vary without one another. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

We dont much disagree. my take is that they are a major player in the Syrian civil war, not in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Syria Stephan rostie (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

In this particular article, the so-called "Assad Loyalists" were added because they attacked Israel, not the Syrian Government.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-troops-operating-in-syria-buffer-zone-come-under-fire-in-1st-such-incident/ Viral weirdo (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Has Israel harmed civilians in Syria?

Moving this discussion here. The question is has Israel harmed civilians in Syria, both by airstrikes and shooting of civilians by ground forces, some of which resulted in injuries and some resulted in deaths, and has Israel taken civilians as prisoner? The answer to all the questions appears to be yes:

• "“During the protest, the Israeli forces stationed at the Al-Jazeera barracks opened fire directly at the demonstrators, injuring a young man in the leg.” SOHR said".[1]
• "A child among at least five civilians were injured, one seriously, in gunfire by Israeli forces in the villages of Suwaisah and Al-Dawayah Al-Kabirah, as Israeli forces were attempting to disperse protestors"[2]
• "Israeli forces also advanced close to civilian houses in Al-Hamidyah village in northern Al-Qunaitrah, 100 meters, after opening the area’s gate and conducting intensive fire-combing operations. Furthermore, Israeli forces shot dead a young man from Jabatha Al-Khashab town in northern Al-Qunaitrah countryside."[3]
• "The Israeli army arrested a civilian and injured another by shooting at him in the vicinity of the town of Qudna in the Quneitra countryside in southern Syria."[4]
• "Near the port city of Latakia, Israel targeted an air defence facility and damaged Syrian naval ships as well as military warehouses. At least two civilian casualties have been confirmed, with further casualties feared as the airstrikes persist."[5]
• "The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that 11 people were killed, mostly civilians. It said there was a blast at a weapons depot belonging to the former Syrian regime and that it was “likely resulting from an Israeli attack.”"[6]
• "French journalist Sylvain Mercadier was detained for over four hours by Israeli forces in Syria while covering the army's advance in the country."[7]
  • "Jumhuriya.net said however that its journalists were still detained by Israel, despite clearly wearing vests indicating their status as members of the press."[8]
• "On February 15, 2025, Israeli occupation forces intercepted a SARC ambulance in the Rasm al-Share’ area of rural Quneitra governorate and detained its four-member crew—three volunteers and a driver..."[9]
• "Locals have reported Israeli encroachment on their land, unauthorised arrests, road closures, and housing raids,"[10]
• "Israeli forces arrested a young man from Kudna – Mazra’ah Al-Fityan village an hour before Iftar and took him to an unknown destination, amid growing concerns over ongoing arrests and rising security tensions in the area."[11]

Thus, I propose we summarize this in the lead as: "Israeli soldiers have shot at civilians, Israeli airstrikes have killed civilians, and Israel has taken civilians as prisoner." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I would be extremely wary about using SOHR as a source for statements like this, particularly given the less than two weeks old discussion of their reliability at RSN, which identified several areas of inaccuracies in their reporting; a general consensus even from editors broadly in support of them as an organization that we should avoid overly relying on their data, and a clear consensus that attribution should be required when used.Further, the purpose of an article lede is to summarize only the most significant points of the article body; I do not think that any of these events are significant to the article. I also see a complete lack of any attempt to balance this addition to the lede with any Israeli statements that may contradict these claims -- they may exist in the body, but if they're not likewise added to the lede it would create an NPOV issue. So for that reason, I'd oppose adding this summarization to the lede. This information belongs in the body, where it can be properly attributed and given the appropriate degree of weight. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll let the RSN discussion conclude/close. But there are non-SOHR sources above, including other RS that quote the RS, who have mentioned that Israel has harmed civilians in Syria. Why would it be an NPOV issue to mention civilian harm to the lead? In most articles, like Gaza war, October 7 attacks etc we do mention civilian harm in the lead, if it has been verified.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent Thank you for sharing our discussion. First and foremost, I want to clarify that the question I asked you was not whether Israel harmed Syrian civilians, but the reliability of the sources you are citing. However, that is not the focus here.

Now, let's address the issue you raised in the current discussion.

Regarding your statement that "Israeli soldiers have shot at civilians", the sources you provided paint a complex picture:

• This source supports the claim that one protester was wounded in the leg by Israeli fire, but it is unclear from the source whether he was a civilian or a militant.
• This SOHR source says that the IDF wounded five Syrian civilians.
• Another SOHR source states that the IDF killed a young man, but it is unclear from the source whether he was a civilian or a militant.
• This source reports that the IDF wounded one person who, according to his own account, was gathering wood in the area.

From this, it appears that there are reports of seven people (Some of them may be civilians, and some may not) being wounded by Israeli fire and one individual being killed, though his status remains uncertain. Given this, the information does not warrant inclusion in the lead section and may be more appropriate for the body of the article.

Regarding your statement that "Israeli airstrikes have killed civilians", one of your sources does indicate that an Israeli airstrike killed two civilians. However, it explicitly states that the strike targeted Syrian military facilities, and the civilian casualties were unintended. As for this other source, I have already pointed out that even SOHR itself states that it is uncertain whether the strike in question was carried out by Israel. This is why this article does not explicitly attribute it to Israel in the body text. So why are you insisting that it be stated in the lead as though it is an undisputed fact?

Regarding your statement that "Israel has taken civilians as prisoners", all the sources you cited use the terms "arrest" or "detained", which is fundamentally different from the term "prisoner" that you insist on using. For instance:

• This article describes how Israel detained a French journalist and a Syrian lawyer, but they were held for only four hours. That constitutes an detained, not taking someone as a "prisoner".
• Similarly, this source mentions a three-hour detention.
• In this SOHR source, it is claimed that a young Syrian was taken into Israeli territory, but it does not state that he was a civilian, he could have been a militant.

Therefore, your assertion that "Israel has taken civilians as prisoners" is inaccurate for two reasons:

1. The term "prisoner" does not appear in any of the sources you provided. Using it misleads readers into thinking that Israel abducted numerous civilians for an indefinite period, which is not the case.
2. The individuals Israel allegedly took into its territory are not confirmed to be civilians; some could have been militants.

Additionally, I agree with @Swatjester that many of your claims rely heavily on SOHR, a source whose reliability is disputed.

In conclusion, after analyzing all the sources you provided, there is insufficient justification to include any of the statements you proposed in the lead section. This is due to their marginal significance, their disputed nature, or the fact that the terminology you wish to use is incorrect and misleading. Rafi Chazon (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Lets focus on one thing at a time: WP:V. In each of the above, at least some cases of Israel harming civilians appear to be verifiable. A few comments:

• " one protester was wounded in the leg by Israeli fire, but it is unclear from the source whether he was a civilian or a militant." Protesters are civilians unless noted otherwise. If you really insisted, we could replace "Israeli soldiers have shot at civilians" with "Israeli soldiers have opened fired at protesters" or something similar.
• "states that the IDF killed a young man, but it is unclear from the source whether he was a civilian or a militant." Its implied by the source[12]: "Israeli forces also advanced close to civilian houses in Al-Hamidyah village in northern Al-Qunaitrah, 100 meters, after opening the area’s gate and conducting intensive fire-combing operations. Furthermore, Israeli forces shot dead a young man from Jabatha Al-Khashab town in northern Al-Qunaitrah countryside. Moreover, Israeli forces arrested all the residents of Rasm Al-Rawadi village and took them to the village school, causing widespread outrage among civilians."
• "the IDF wounded one person who, according to his own account, was gathering wood in the area." What does gathering wood have to do with being a civilian? The source is pretty clear that a civilian was targeted and wounded: "The Israeli army arrested a civilian and injured another by shooting at him."[13]
• " it explicitly states that the strike targeted Syrian military facilities, and the civilian casualties were unintended". Can you show me where the source[14] "explicitly" states that "civilian casualties were unintended"? I didn't find that.
• " even SOHR itself states that it is uncertain whether the strike in question was carried out by Israel" Again, the source[15] says the opposite: "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said...it was “likely resulting from an Israeli attack.”
• "all the sources you cited use the terms "arrest" or "detained", which is fundamentally different from the term "prisoner" that you insist on using." The terminology used in our articles, is governed more by WP:NPOV and WP:WTA, than by WP:V. For example, several RS listed at WP:RSP (eg Amnesty, Al-Jazeera) say Israel is committing genocide as a matter of fact, but so far we need to still attribute those claims. Likewise, we don't say Hamas is terrorist in wikivoice, but rather attribute that. In this case, "detain" could be neutral, but "arrest" is not neutral, even if a RS uses it. The reason being that Israel's sovereignty is not recognized internationally over Syria, and hence it lacks the jurisdiction to arrest anyone. It may however take people as prisoners of war during an armed conflict.
  • As an example, other sources say that Israel has "abducted" Syrians[16][17]. What word we use should be decided more by neutrality concerns.
• The detention/imprisonments are not all temporary. "Jumhuriya.net said however that its journalists were still detained by Israel"[18] which implies a longer-term detention.

After we agree it is verifiable that Israel has shot at and killed civilians in Syria, and took them as prisoner, then we can determine whether to include it in the lead or not. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Rafi Chazon:

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-834281 https://www.timesofisrael.com/one-said-hurt-after-idf-opens-fire-at-group-protesting-israeli-presence-in-south-syria/ Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Thepharoah17 for the references.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent Apologies for the delayed response.

At no point did I claim that Israel hasn’t harmed Syrian civilians. My criticism from the beginning has been that you're citing sources that do not explicitly say what you're implying, thereby misleading readers. A good example is the recent sources you provided, which you believe prove "that Israel has 'abducted' Syrians".[19][20] However, it takes only a moment to see that while these sources do mention that Israel took a Syrian civilian into its territory, the incident is unrelated to the events described in our article. The Syrian civilian was taken in September 2024, whereas the article deals with events that occurred starting in December 2024. This is a clear example of using sources that don’t actually support your claim, thereby misleading readers.

Another good example is your repeated assertion that this source definitively proves that Israel was responsible for the strike. I honestly don’t understand how you can overlook the fact that the term “likely” used in the source - or “believed,” as another source phrases it - clearly indicates that the event is not confirmed but rather a speculation that lacks conclusive evidence.

My second point was that none of the sources you provided use the term "prisoners," and therefore it’s inaccurate to include it in the article. Despite your explanation, I still fail to see how inventing terms not found in the sources can be justified. It seems inappropriate, and even misleading.

My third point was that while there are indeed sources stating that Israel harmed Syrian civilians, the significance of this is not substantial enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. Moreover, it's important to note that the infobox already includes information about the number of casualties, deaths, and "prisoners" (although I still disagree with the use of that term) since the start of the operation. Our discussion, however, was only about whether this information belongs in the lead section. I still don’t believe the scale of the event justifies its inclusion there - especially considering it's already mentioned in the infobox.

The sources brought by @Thepharoah17 further support my argument that the injured protester was not an innocent civilian but rather a perceived threat to IDF forces. Again, I’m not disputing the claim that Syrian civilians were harmed. My concern is with the wording, which seemed to suggest that Israeli soldiers were arbitrarily shooting innocent Syrian civilians.

I realize I’ve already gone on at length. If you'd like me to respond to the rest of your points, I’d be happy to do so, though I believe I’ve addressed the most essential parts. Rafi Chazon (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2025

Please change de facto leader to president as Ahmed al-Sharaa is now president of Syria. Thirurang Cherusskutty (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request

Remove the "armed civilians" from the civilian section of the infobox. A person who is armed is not a civilian Fyukfy5 (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Both sources define those casualties as civilians, and it's written in bold that those casualties are per those sources. I'm no international lawyer, but your ICRC source doesn't seem to back your stance; we don't have any evidence yet that the residents of Koya village were an organized force, or under the command of anyone. The SNHR statement says that these were residents who used their personal firearms to defend against incursions by Israeli forces, rather than members of a militant organization. At best Rule 5 of the ICRC would suggest that those armed lose protection against attack due to participating in hostilities, although "such a civilian does not thereby become a combatant."

Due to the seemingly disputed nature of how to classify a civilian armed with a personal weapon defending themselves or their property in an international armed conflict, I don't see this as a WP:NPOV issue and thus there's no reason to change the words of the source uses. This particularly being the case when I'm unaware of any substitute word that would be applicable, given there's no confirmation of militancy to use "militant" and ICRC suggests "combatant" is likewise incorrect. Describing them as "armed" in the infobox should be enough to allow readers to draw their own conclusions. If others disagree then we can discuss this and try to reach WP:CON.

However, I notice that I included the wrong url for the SNHR statement as source of that incident. I apologize and have fixed this. UncleBourbon (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

It's definitely a tough situation to define but the ICRC source says "...a civilian who participates directly in hostilities loses protection against attack" and the SNHR source says "Clashes ensued between the Israeli occupation forces and local residents, who used personal firearms..." Which I think would count as participating in hostilities. Perhaps another section for "armed individuals"?

I'd also like to make clear I don't think this is a violation of NPOV, it's tough to define these things I just think we need to make the context clearer. Fyukfy5 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if context is really an issue, since listing them as "(armed) civilians" has given you the context that they had likely lost their protection against attack. The WP:RS' list them as civilian casualties, and I don't think it's justified to change their overall classification if it isn't an WP:NPOV issue. Also, we don't know how many of the killed civilians were armed; SNHR says two were killed in the initial armed clash, causing the IDF to pull out and shell the village, which killed four more, wounding others including a woman. Given a woman was wounded and that "dozens of families" ended up evacuating to a neighboring village, it's questionable whether those four killed in the shelling were armed or not. As such describing them blanketly as armed already seems like enough of a measure in providing context, at least to me.

Honestly, I think it may be a good idea wait a few days until SNHR releases their monthly casualty report in early April. They said in their statement that their teams are still working to gather information on the victims, and it could effect the number of civilians they classify as having been killed by Israel in March. I added the two current sources for the killings in March mostly as a temporary measure until that report releases, after all.

I appreciate you acknowledging that it's a tough situation to define, by the way, and do agree. I just consider the way it's currently defined as the most acceptable out of the alternatives. UncleBourbon (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright I can accept that, I appreciate you taking the time to articulate your viewpoint Fyukfy5 (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

A civilian can be armed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Change "Syria's de facto leader Ahmed al-Sharaa" to "Syria's president Ahmed al-Sharaa"

• −

  Syria's de facto leader Ahmed al-Sharaa

  +

  Syria's president Ahmed al-Sharaa

  :
• Al-Sharaa is Syria's official interim president now, he's no longer just the de facto leader.:
• Sources mentioning his appointing Sources mentioning him as president:

User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 22:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Edit Request

In the lede it says "Israel's campaign in Syria was internationally condemned as an act of aggression and as a violation of international law." But the source says "drew international condemnation" and later says the the only international law violation allegation was by Saudi Arabia. The fact that Israel was internationally condemned in general (itself a very vague statement from the source) and the fact that it was accused by a single country of violating international law, does not mean that it was internationally condemned for violating international law.

Please change the paragraph accordingly. Perhaps something like "was internationally condemned and was accused of violating international law by Saudi Arabia's foreign ministry". Fyukfy5 (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 3 April 2025

israeli casualties on the infobox should be updated to 11 killed 27 injured https://hawarnews.com/en/clashes-with-israeli-army-in-daraa-leave-casualties