As Syrian government forces, with help from Iran and Russia, mount an offensive to drive rebel groups from their strongholds in the southwestern part of the country, and the rebels counterattack, fighting has intensified in Quneitra just over the border from the Israeli Golan. Last weekend, ten Syrian mortar and tank shells—aimed at rebel troops along the border—landed in Israel, causing the IDF to respond by attacking Syrian positions. Ron Ben-Yishai explains:

[T]he Syrian army tossed aside all of its rules of caution and fired at the rebel forces that attacked it without considering the fact the fire could spill over into Israel. The Syrian army usually avoids firing into Israeli territory, knowing how rapidly and aggressively Israel will respond, as part of its policy not to allow any fire into, or violation of sovereignty on, its territory.

This Israeli policy stems from the understanding that failure to respond aggressively to any spillover into Israeli territory, even an unintentional spillover, will be interpreted as a violation of Israeli sovereignty and could turn from a drizzle into a flood, not to mention wearing out the Israeli deterrence in the Golan Heights. Israel, therefore, has made it a point to respond. . . .

Saturday’s errant fire was unusual in two aspects: first, it included an unusual number of mortar shells and tank projectiles that landed in an open area in Israel, as opposed to the usual spillover of one or two mortar shells. Saturday’s incident also included direct tank fire, and the shooters were perfectly aware of the fact the shells would hit Israeli territory.

Second, there were thousands of Israeli travelers in the Golan Heights when the Syrian mortars were fired, and they could have gotten hurt. The Syrians, who are watching our area at all times, were aware—or at least should have been aware—of that fact, which is why the Israeli response was unusually severe.

Israel’s goals of freeing the hostages and defeating Hamas (the latter necessary to prevent further hostage taking) are to some extent contradictory, since Yahya Sinwar, the ruler of the Gaza Strip, will only turn over hostages in exchange for concessions. But Jacob Nagel remains convinced that Jerusalem should continue to pursue both goals:

Only consistent military pressure on Hamas can lead to the hostages’ release, either through negotiation or military operation. There’s little chance of reaching a deal with Hamas using current approaches, including the latest Egyptian proposal. Israeli concessions would only encourage further pressure from Hamas.

There is no incentive for Hamas to agree to a deal, especially since it believes it can achieve its full objectives without one. Unfortunately, many contribute to this belief, mainly from outside of Israel, but also from within.

Recent months saw Israel mistakenly refraining from entering Rafah for several reasons. Initially, the main [reason was to try] to negotiate a deal with Hamas. However, as it became clear that Hamas was uninterested, and its only goal was to return to its situation before October 7—where Hamas and its leadership control Gaza, Israeli forces are out, and there are no changes in the borders—the deal didn’t mature.