What we talk about when we talk about airstrikes in Syria

In the real word you would call it a game – a silly game, at that. The act of pretending something that everybody knows happened didn’t actually happen, for the sake of saving a scintilla of face, or maintaining some ill-begotten strategy. Sometimes, unfortunately, it’s also called journalism.

When it comes to reporting on certain subjects Jerusalem prefers not to own up to, whether it be certain developments surrounding a radioactive textile plant in Dimona or military activities abroad, writers are forced to sprinkle their stories with a healthy smattering of reportedlies, allegedlies, purportedlies and supposedlies, topping it off with a steaming dollop of “according to foreign reports” for that mm mmm reasonable-deniability flavor.

One need not look further than Monday morning’s papers for a case study in the art of writing about things we aren’t actually writing about, with all three major dailies leading off with reports of airstrikes on military sites near Damascus. While the Assad regime quickly pointed a finger at Israel, the fourth estate in the Jewish state is not so forthcoming. It could have been the Bhutanese air force that attacked missile shipments headed for Hezbollah, after all.

All three papers carefully couch their headlines in the idea that Syria is doing the accusing and Israel is not confirming. “A blow in Damascus,” reads the main headline of Israel Hayom, for instance, which quickly is sure to add in the magic words of “according to foreign reports.”

In Haaretz, Amos Harel is careful to not give up the game, but says whoever carried out the airstrikes, they did it in line with Israel’s policy in the past.

“Officially, Israel neither confirms nor denies responsibility for the bombings. But its leaders have at various junctures made sure to covertly – and sometimes publicly — convey its messages to Damascus. Israel has marked red lines on the northern front, like the movement of advanced weapons from Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon, or any moves that undermine Israeli sovereignty. In such cases, Israel is prepared to use force to foil its rival’s intentions.”

Of course while there is plenty we think we know, there are also, as Donald Rumsfeld would say, known unknowns, like what was in those warehouses that were attacked.

Yedioth reports on reports that the targets were shipments of missiles from Iran to Lebanese terror group Hezbollah.

“Most of the reports said they were advanced rockets which had just landed in Damascus, like the Fateh-110 and M-600, with extremely accurate warheads of hundreds of kilograms which in a third Lebanon war would force Israeli citizens to thoroughly test their abilities to cope. Among these were ground–to-air missiles and Yakhont missiles which can be aimed at ships.”

Israel Hayom goes into a bit more detail about which missiles may have been included and why it would be so important for Israel to keep them out of Hezbollah’s hands. “In the past it’s been reported that Syria is arming Hezbollah with advanced Yakhont sea-to-sea missiles, which the army purchased from the Russians. Given that, senior sources in Hezbollah were quoted saying that they were obtaining weapons, including long-range missiles, which would allow the group to strike facilities and strategic infrastructure anywhere in Israel, including – for the first time since its founding — imposing a sea blockade on Israel.”

Not that Israel necessarily carried out the strike, mind you, but considering Syria says Israel did, we are still left wondering what kind of response Damascus is weighing.

In Yedioth, Alex Fishman says Assad will need to decide “whether to keep quiet or respond. It’s safe to assume that if he decides to respond it won’t come via rockets or missiles at Israel, but rather by following the model of keeping a low profile, like attacks along the border or at targets that will force Israel to think twice in the future.”

The strike on Damascus also managed to converge with the other big story of the day, the dissolution of the Knesset, after some lawmakers accused Netanyahu of ordering the strikes for political gain as campaign season starts.

Israel Hayom’s Dan Margalit calls the accusation “absurd bombardments,” and blames the lawmakers for tattling on Israel, which is pretending to have nothing to do with the attacks to allow Assad to save face in not responding (though Damascus’s immediate blaming of Israel shows that strategy to be somewhat misguided). He then turns his own turrets on MKs, saying that their words could end up imperiling Israel’s fighting forces.

“So what if these marginal MKs are babbling away their respect. That’s their right. And so what if the IDF cannot respond to the claims since it can’t take responsibility for the airstrike. But how much distrust and cynicism and needless doubt must MKs like [Yifat] Kariv and [Tamar] Zandberg winnow and disseminate for grandkids and kids in uniform and the general population, and for what?”

Israel’s possible aerial activities aren’t the only things being kept sorta, kinda under wraps. Haaretz reports that that the state comptroller long ago found issues with the company operating the oil pipeline from Eilat to Ashdod, the same line that broke last week, sending millions of gallons of oil gushing into the Negev and destroying a nature reserve, but an old policy kept word of it hidden.

The paper writes that the shroud of secrecy has surrounded the company since the late 1960s, to cover up its dealings with Iran’s shah, but after the spill, the same MK Zandberg has asked the state comptroller to review the policy of keeping the business clandestine and whether, considering that the shah is no more, how much of it is needed.

“The issue of safety is also shrouded in fog due to confidentiality and there is no outside oversight on questions such as what the company’s standards are and according to what criteria they are determined,” Zandberg wrote, according to the Haaretz report.. “It is not surprising that the responsibility for the most serious ecological disaster in recent years, and perhaps since the establishment of the state, is that of a company that has no public oversight and no transparency.”