 Hello, and welcome to this week's International Roundup. This week saw a considerable escalation in West Asia, with Israeli forces launching at least two rounds of attacks on Syria. And Syrian forces also responding by attacking Israeli positions in the Jalan Heights. To talk more about this issue, we have with us Prabir Pulkayasar, Interim Chief Newspaper, Prabir. Welcome. So, could you just basically first give us a bit of detail about what exactly has happened in the context in which these attacks took place? It's interesting that the Western media seems to be painting this as something Israel responding to Iranian attacks. The reality is that these have been clashes or attacks by Syrian forces against Israel and Israeli attacks against Syria. Look at what Israel has done in Syria. They have in the last six, seven years had at least 100 times struck Syria with either missiles or aircraft and missiles. So looking at this history that Israel has to claim they're somehow the victim seems very strange. In this particular case, they have been a series of attacks they have had in arms against other targets, which they've always called as Iranian targets. But essentially, there were targets in Syria of Syrian forces where Iranian soldiers or other troops may also have been there. But they have all been Syrian bases. They have been Syrian military facilities, which were attacked. By any stretch of imagination, to call them as Iranian positions would be wrong just as if you call any American base in any part of the world as American territory, it would be wrong. But essentially, they are under the sovereign jurisdiction of that country. Everybody has to accept that Bashar al-Assad government is the legal representative or the legal government of Syria. Coming to the specific set of exchanges we are talking about, again, different versions. On 9th, we know that Israel had struck Syria 9th of May. We know that they had also struck Syria earlier. They have bragged about it, that we have the ability. I think this is the date of April, they have said we have the ability, 9th and 30th of April, they have said we have the ability to strike forces anywhere we want. This is something that is a bit ongoing. And it is also true at some point, Iranians or Syrians had to respond in some form. Iranian soldiers have died, Syrian soldiers have died. So what was the response going to be? Earlier, we had seen that when Israeli air forces strike at Syria, at some point, finally, Syria struck back. And one aircraft, Israeli aircraft was shot down. Once that was shot down, now all the missiles that are launched are really launched from either Lebanese air force, airspace, or Israeli airspace. They're not getting into Syrian airspace anymore. So the question is, what response Syria was going to bake to the continuous military strikes, the missile strikes that are going on inside Syria? This time, after the Qunitra area being attacked, this seems to have triggered this round of attacks, Qunitra area was attacked. And after it was attacked, Israel and the Syrians responded by having a barrage of strikes against Jolaan. Jolaan is occupied territory, Syria, it's really Syrian territory. International law is very clear on that. United Nations resolutions are very clear on that. Israel is in occupation of Jolaan illegally. So therefore, instead of attacking Israel, what Syria has done is attacked illegal occupation of Israel in Jolaan, which relatively is a softer target. Because internationally it's very difficult for Israel to claim they have been attacked. They have attacked the Jolaan Heights, Israel encampments over there. They have attacked radar installations over there. And by some accounts, some of those targets have been hit. The Israelis have claimed that they have the iron dome shield and that did not let anything come into the over Jolaan, into Jolaan. But it seems that that could be, could be wrong and some targets were hit. We don't have enough information right now to talk about that. In retaliation, 70 strikes seem to have been really have been made by Israel on various targets in Syria, Damascus, near Damascus, other areas also. Quenetra is of course within shelling range, just as Jolaan Heights is within shelling range. So there is also artillery forces being used and tank artillery being used. In fact, Israel used tank artillery in Quenetra to target or create some of this. Shelling attacks, strikes if you will. What happened is that they attacked a large number of military targets. In Syria, there were 70 of them that seem to have been attacked. Yes, they have caused some damage. There is one S-200 radar installation, they seem to have taken out. There is a panzer battery, which seems to have been taken out. But compared to the amount of missiles unleashed, the damage seems to be still quite light. The argument they have taken out of all Iranian capabilities, of course, is a bogus one because as we know, most of this air defense capabilities are really Russian supplied air defense facilities. And what seems to have been taken out seems to be a very light damage, if you will. Now question is that what is the future? One thing is important, the air missiles, the air strikes that took place, the aircrafts were all inside Israel. So they did not cross the Syrian air into Syrian airspace. And all of these were really air to surface missiles. There are also some surface to surface missiles. There are also some shellings. All of this has happened. The interesting issue is the defense minister, Avigar Liberman, has now said, this is over, we have taken out everything. Iranian forces have been completely defied. We have won and therefore we hope nothing further happens. Now if we take for granted that Israel always is telling the truth and everybody else is lying, well, they have been victors. If we take what seems to be available on the ground, and Syrians have been quite open about what has happened. They're openly telling people what's happened. They're allowing people to go and see. They're allowing reporters to go and see all this. So if we take what seems to be visible to us, it would appear that Syrian air force and defense facilities are relatively intact. So it does seem that what Israel is doing now saying that we henceforth do not think we need to strike Syria again. If that is so, just as the engagement which led to one aircraft, Israeli aircraft being shot down near Jullan again, if that is what reset the, shall we say, terms of engagement between Syria and Israel, does this set due terms of engagement in terms of missile strikes? And it does seem that Syria's message is very clear. We are willing to take some losses, but if you attack again, if you use missile strikes again, then we have the ability to retaliate at least in Jullan. The last point is all the media, Western media seems to be buying the, shall we say, the Israeli line, that Iran attacked these forces. Iran attacked in Jullan. Now, the question is, it attacks from Syrian territory. So how does Israel or Western media know that Iranians were doing the attacking? Of course, the missiles launched could have been Iranian manufactured, Iranian origin missiles. But how by what stretch of imagination does it become an Iranian attack? So I think the red herring of Iran is being brought into the equation time and again. But the real issue is that it is the reworking of the equation of what now Israel can do in Syria. And I think that is the really important question that this does seem to show, that the terms of engagement between Syria and Israel is probably likely to change. And this is tacit Russian support. They have said now they might give them S-300 air defense systems, which will make it much harder for Israeli air force to operate in Syria and also have such missile strikes. So I think that the vulnerability of Israel now is also there to Syrian missile strikes, at least in Jullan. I don't think Syria is going to attack Israel proper, because that would bring United States into play. But if they do attack in Jullan, I think it's going to be very difficult for the global or the international opinion to rally behind Israel and claim something serious has happened. Of course, it never happens when Israel attacks Syria or Israel attacks Lebanon. As you know, this then gets, shall we say, the whole pass, that they're allowed to do it, but others are not allowed to retaliate, at least in Israel. Can we step back a bit and look at Israel's motivations per se? So Israel has constantly claimed that it's under threat in the region. And a lot of its actions, a lot of the narrative has been that it is being surrounded by enemies who are constantly threatening it. But if you look at the military strength of Israel, for instance, it is one of the strongest armies in the region, it is the only country in the region which has nuclear weapons. So what exactly is Israel afraid of? Or so what is the logic behind this narrative as well as these military actions, so to speak? I think the narrative of Israeli victimhood allows it to commit aggression at will and browbeat at least the Western powers regarding their complicity in, shall we say, the Holocaust or Germany did. And what many of these powers, many of these powers are done to their indigenous Jewish population. So it's this collective guilt, as it were, Israel holds by always talking about its victimhood. The interesting part is you raised that here is a country with supposedly a stockpile of 100 nuclear weapons. That should be enough to protect it from anybody else in the region considering nobody else has nuclear weapons, including the great evil power they think or they paint Iran. That doesn't have nuclear weapons. And no country in its right mind would risk having nuclear weapons launched against it for what would be essentially small victories. Whether it be Lebanon, Jordan, or Egypt, where the Gaza is an open source for Israel. So its ability to protect its power outside its borders, that is what Israel considers is at stake. Significant military, shall we say, superiority over any regional power so that they should be able to go and bomb or attack anybody at will. They did it for Lebanon for a long period. If you see from 73 onwards till 2006, they had the ability to bomb Lebanon at will. They did bomb Lebanon a number of times. In 2006 was the first time they faced, in spite of the fact that demolished Lebanon's infrastructure, they faced militarily a huge threat in terms of Hezbollah. They could not advance, they could not even advance to the literary river, which is pretty close to their border. And they got bogged down within two to three or four kilometers of their borders. And this supposedly the most, shall we say, superior force in the region, not being able to advance more than two to three, four kilometers. At that time, Hezbollah did not launch serious missile strikes against Israel. They did continuously launch missiles against Israel, didn't hit Tel Aviv, did hit certain targets, but they were sparing in the attack they launched and they kept up that attacks right through the entire war that took place. So they also made sure that Israel could not claim that they had taken out all Hezbollah's missile positions, which they did after 34 hours. They said, we have taken out everything. They couldn't do that. So after 2006, Hezbollah is now much stronger than it was in 2006. It has recently, has gained a significant victory in the elections. In fact, Hariri has lost a number of seats. Even Israel claims that Hezbollah has won and is now the government in Lebanon, not strictly true, is still going to be a tripartite arrangement and Hariri still may be a big player over there. The interesting part is everybody concedes that marching in Lebanon into Lebanon is not going to be easy and bombing Lebanon this time, that the bomb Beirut, then Tel Aviv also might face bombings. And if that happens, then there is an equalization of forces by which projecting military power into Lebanon is no longer feasible. We have seen this military, shall we say, battle in Syria, the proxy war, civil war, whatever they may be, people may want to call it. What it has left is a battle-hardened Syrian army. It's being helped by Iranian forces, sure. It's been helped by Syrian, by Russian air defense systems, various other things. But at the end of it, it's a much more battle-hardened army. And it is not the army which would cut and run if, for instance, Israeli troops attack it. Israel has helped Al-Qaeda and ISIS forces near Julaan against Syrian government forces. So this is already happened. But increasingly, their ability to do so is weakened because, A, Syria is much stronger now, militarily. And secondly, their forces, which are fighting the Syrian government forces in the region, has actually is collapsing. So given that, the ability of Israel to project power into Syria is also weak. Now, why does it bother Israel? I think in the larger sense it makes a difference if we consider Israel is a settler colonial state. The settlers are at the moment a minority if we take West Bank and Israel proper and put the populations together. The Palestinian Arab population, I'm counting both historical Palestine, which is a part of it, which is Israel, and West Bank today outnumber the Jewish population by a whisker. And this means that Israel either has to continue as Israel has either to continue as an apartheid state or it has to expel its population outside the borders, whatever the borders they decide is going to be the border. So therefore, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria become important because these are the areas which then have to take the 6 million, 4 million, 5 million, whatever they expel, Palestinian population. And therefore, their ability to project military power outside, shall we say, Israel proper and West Bank, I'm counting, is occupied territory, which is what it is. That if this is to happen, then the need that military projection outside their borders, they would like that these people, these countries are not able to resist this expulsion and that is the reason they really want that military edge, significant military edge over the neighboring powers. And I think that is what it is losing. Lebanon earlier, now Syria, Egypt, was always a question mark after 1973 when Israel realized Egypt was always going to rebound and therefore the peace treaty at that time, specifically with Egypt. Jordan is a puppet country in some sense, puppet of the United States. It's going to swing, which whoever is militarily more powerful, but that would explain why at the moment they are so afraid of losing the military edge in Syria. Thank you for talking to us, Prabir. That's all we have time for today. Keep watching Newslink.