Israel strikes Syria again, claims to have killed alleged Hamas member
In a statement on Telegram on Sunday morning, the Israeli army said it had struck the alleged Hamas member in the Mazraat Beit Jin area.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that one person was killed and two others were wounded in the Israeli attack targeting a vehicle in the town near the United Nations-patrolled buffer zone.
Hamas has not yet commented on the death of the alleged member.
The observatory says Israel has carried out 61 attacks – 51 by air and 10 by ground – in Syria so far this year.
Two rockets launched from Syria targeted Israel earlier this week, a first since the fall of al-Assad.Two groups claimed responsibility for the attack.
The first group, named the 'Martyr Mohammed Deif Brigades', is a little-known group named after the Hamas military commander who was killed last year. A second little-known group, the 'Islamic Resistance Front in Syria', called for action against Israel from southern Syria a few months ago.
Israel struck southern Syria shortly afterwards, with Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz saying that he was holding Syria 'directly responsible'.
Syria's Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani condemned Israel's attacks and called them 'coordinated provocations aimed at undermining Syria's progress and stability'.
'These actions create an opening for outlawed groups to exploit the resulting chaos,' he said, adding, 'Syria has made its intentions clear: we are not seeking war, but rather reconstruction'.
Syria and Israel had recently engaged in indirect talks to ease tensions, a significant development in relations between states that have been on opposite sides of conflicts in the Middle East for decades.
But Israel has relentlessly waged a campaign of aerial bombardment that has destroyed much of Syria's military infrastructure. It has occupied the Syrian Golan Heights since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and taken more territory in the aftermath of al-Assad's removal, citing lingering concerns over the country's new government led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who it dismisses as a 'jihadist.'
Syria's new government has taken several major steps towards international acceptance after the United States and European Union lifted sanctions on the country last month, giving a nation devastated by nearly 14 years of civil war a lifeline to recovery.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Norway wealth fund excludes six Israeli companies linked to West Bank, Gaza
By Gwladys Fouche and Louise Rasmussen OSLO/COPENHAGEN (Reuters) -Norway's sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, will exclude another six Israeli companies with connections to the West Bank and Gaza from its portfolio following an ethics review, it said on Monday. The $2 trillion wealth fund did not name the companies it had decided to exclude but said they would be made public, along with specific reasons, once the divestments were completed. One possibility is they include Israel's five largest banks, which have been under review by the fund's ethical watchdog. Separately, the fund said it had also sold stakes in six other companies following a decision last week to only hold stakes in Israeli companies that are part of the fund's benchmark index. As of August 14, the fund had 19 billion crowns ($1.86 billion) invested in 38 companies listed in Israel, the fund's operator Norges Bank Investment Management said, a reduction of 23 companies since June 30. "More companies could be excluded," Norwegian Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg told reporters. ETHICS REVIEW The fund launched an urgent review earlier this month after reports that it had built a stake in an Israeli jet engine group that provides services to Israel's armed forces, including the maintenance of fighter jets. The reports spurred a fresh debate about the fund's investments in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories ahead of elections on Sept. 8, with some parties calling for the fund to divest from all Israeli companies, a step the government has ruled out. Norway's parliament in June rejected a proposal for the fund to divest from all companies with activities in the occupied Palestinian territories. "This debate helps sharpen our practices," said Stoltenberg. Critics say only a complete withdrawal from investing in Israeli companies would protect the fund against possible ethical breaches. Stoltenberg said that, from now on, the ethics watchdog and NBIM would have more frequent and faster exchanges of information to more rapidly identify problematic companies. Ethical exclusions from the fund are based on recommendations from the fund's watchdog, though NBIM can also divest from companies if it assesses that a company poses too much of a risk to the fund, whether the risk is ethical or not. "With more exchanges of information between the Council on Ethics and Norges Bank, it is possible that there could be more divestments of that kind in future," said Stoltenberg. Last Monday, the fund announced it was terminating contracts with all three external asset managers who handled some of its Israeli investments. ($1 = 10.1890 Norwegian crowns) Sign in to access your portfolio
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Katherine Clark backs off Gaza ‘genocide' comments
House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) said that she was not accusing the Israeli government of committing genocide in Gaza, despite saying at an event last week there was 'genocide and destruction' in the war-torn strip. 'Last week, while attending an event in my district, I repeated the word 'genocide' in response to a question. I want to be clear that I am not accusing Israel of genocide, ' she said in the statement to POLITICO on Tuesday. 'We all need to work with urgency to bring the remaining hostages home, surge aid to Palestinians and oppose their involuntary relocation, remove Hamas from power, and end the war.' Clark's statement was first reported by the Jewish News Syndicate. Clark made her comments at an event hosted by a Quaker organization in her district last week, POLITICO previously reported. At the event, she called on those in the audience to 'take action in time to make a difference … whether that is stopping the starvation and genocide and destruction of Gaza' or other major political issues. A spokesperson at the time did not walk back the characterization but also said that her position on the fighting in the region hadn't changed. Though Democrats across the country have been critical of Israel's ground offensive in Gaza, very few have called it a genocide. Clark is the second-highest ranking Democrat in the House and would have been one of the most senior members of the party to take that stance. The war in Gaza has roiled the Democratic Party, as politicians and potential 2028 candidates grapple with how to talk about the war and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - The Donbas is a poisoned chalice that neither Russia nor Ukraine should want
Whichever side in the Russo-Ukrainian War wins the Donbas loses the war. That is the savage and largely unacknowledged irony at the core of the struggle over the Donbas — a territory that has recently come to occupy center stage in President Trump's post-summit thinking about how to end the war. Inasmuch as Russia has occupied most of the industrial basin known as the Donbas since its first invasion of Ukraine in 2014 — and is highly unlikely to be driven from that territory anytime soon — Russia has already lost the war, regardless of how long it continues and whether or not a U.S.-brokered ceasefire or peace becomes a reality. The Donbas was the industrial powerhouse of the Soviet Union for decades, but the region was already going into decline by the 1970s and 1980s. When Ukraine became independent in 1991, it inherited what had largely become a value-destroying territory. The Donbas fed the corrupt appetites of local politicians, oligarchs and organized crime. Its working-class residents claimed to have an exalted status belied by a wretched reality. As the economist Anders Aslund put it in 2015, 'The Donbas is a rust belt of old mines, steel mills and chemical factories. Almost all the coal mines and chemical factories are inactive … The rebels have blown up railway bridges, complicating bulk transportation.' In 2016, Aslund estimated that it would cost some $20 billion to revive the Donbas. By 2025, the estimated cost of Ukraine's reconstruction had zoomed upward to $524 billion, a 26-fold increase. Much of that money would need to go to the Donbas, where most of the heaviest fighting has taken place. A reasonable guesstimate of how much it would cost to rebuild just the Donbas today is $200 billion — nearly one-tenth of Russia's reported annual GDP and slightly more than Ukraine's. If the fighting continues indefinitely, that sum will surely double or even triple. Neither Ukraine nor Russia has that kind of cash. It is conceivable that Vladimir Putin's fascist regime could squeeze some money out of its subjects, but Ukraine's democracy could not. Fixing the Donbas would bankrupt either state, especially as the international community and business are unlikely to offer much in the way of assistance. But the burden of owning the Donbas isn't just financial. It is also demographic, environmental and political. According to Aslund, writing in 2016, 'Ukraine claims 1.2 million internally displaced persons, while Russia reports half a million refugees from the Donbas, and the United Nations estimates that some 100,000 have fled elsewhere. If these numbers are reasonably correct, 1.8 million have fled and 1.5 million remain. Apart from some 45,000 fighters, the remaining population largely consists of pensioners and the destitute.' This was the Donbas 10 years ago. We don't know how many people fled after the full-scale Russian invasion of 2022, but the numbers must be substantial. In addition, the armed militias that served in the phony Luhansk and Donetsk 'People's Republics' were thrown at the front and suffered enormous losses. Whatever its exact size, the Donbas's overwhelmingly aged and impoverished population can hardly be the basis of an economic boom. And how many refugees will return? How many people will move there from other parts of Ukraine or Russia if and when peace is attained? The questions are largely rhetorical, especially as the Donbas is an environmental hell hole. According to the Conflict and Environment Observatory, the fighting since 2014 has 'created a risk of environmental emergencies and will leave a lasting legacy of groundwater contamination from flooded coal mines.' Moreover, 'following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, hundreds of environmentally sensitive sites have been caught up in the conflict.' The Donbas will also become the site of endless political instability. If Ukraine inherits the territory, pro-Russian elements, in cahoots with the Russian security services, are sure to stage provocations, assassinate local officials, sabotage plants and so on. If Russia keeps the Donbas, Ukraine is sure to engage in equally subversive activities. How fair and free elections could take place under such conditions is anybody's guess. Despite these similarities, there is one fundamental difference. Putin's fascist regime will thrive on repression and violence; Ukraine's democracy won't. Indeed, while Putin can crush whatever opposition he encounters, Ukraine will have to mollify and integrate it — a test it failed before 2014 and one that it is unlikely to pass after years of war. Will failing this test make Ukraine more or less likely to overcome existing hurdles and join the European Union and NATO? Again, the question is rhetorical. The Donbas's transformation into a permanent source of instability will have at least two negative consequences for Putin. It will divert Russia's coercive resources from other, equally unstable parts of the Russian Federation. It will also encourage some non-Russian regions — the north Caucasus comes immediately to mind — to press for greater autonomy and less Kremlin oversight. France and the German states fought for centuries over Alsace-Lorraine and the Rhineland. That made some sense, since both regions were economically, politically and socially developed. Not so the Donbas. It is a black hole and will remain so for years to come. For better or for worse, neither Ukraine nor Russia can just turn their backs on the territory without violating their constitutions and courting mass demonstrations. Of course, as far as Putin is concerned, a constitution is just a piece of paper. Even so, to abandon the Donbas would be to admit defeat and experience political suicide. Ditto for Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelensky. If winning means losing, does losing mean winning? Regardless of how they answer that question and what the terms of a possible peace deal might be, Ukrainians may take some consolation from the fact that, thanks to Putin's heady territorial ambitions, Russia will be stuck with that black hole for years to come. Indeed, Russia itself will progressively come to resemble the Donbas. That could be Ukraine's greatest victory. Alexander J. Motyl is a professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark. A specialist on Ukraine, Russia and the USSR, and on nationalism, revolutions, empires and theory, he is the author of 10 books of nonfiction, as well as 'Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires' and 'Why Empires Reemerge: Imperial Collapse and Imperial Revival in Comparative Perspective.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
