As usual in such cases, Israel on Sunday maintained an ambiguous stance on the airstrikes in Syria. It neither issued a denial nor claimed responsibility. "We aren't addressing it," was the official, unified, line expressed by all the relevant parties. This Israeli evasion of claiming responsibility coincides with all military operations attributed to Israel by foreign reports since the 2007 attack on the Syrian nuclear reactor until today. The rationale is clear: As long as Israel is not responsible, the side that was attacked (Syria, Sudan) can swallow the insult. But Israel's flaunting of an alleged strike would obligate a response, as an act of redemption. Under this umbrella of ambiguity, in the past three years Israel has carried out -- according to foreign reports -- a series of airstrikes in Syria, mostly targeting advanced weapons earmarked for transfer to Hezbollah in Lebanon. These attacks adhere to Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon's declared "Three Noes" policy: no to the transfer of chemical weapons; no to the transfer of weapons that can alter the strategic balance (long-range, accurate rockets, anti-aircraft systems, and land-to-sea missiles); and no to violating Israeli sovereignty. It can be assumed this was the case leading to the attack on Sunday -- the planned transfer of quality weapons to Hezbollah's hands. In this case, however, there were several unusual aspects: Numerous targets were hit simultaneously and in broad daylight (providing greater visibility for cameras on the ground), which made it impossible for Syria to toe the line of deniability and forced it to admit it had been hit. As always, we can also ask whether this means it will retaliate. A retaliation can come in the form of a direct attack (very unlikely) or indirectly, via terrorist organizations on the Golan Heights or Hezbollah along the border with Lebanon. In February this year, Hezbollah responded to an alleged Israeli attack on a weapons convoy on Lebanese soil, which allowed Hezbollah to claim it was "defending Lebanon." The attacks on Sunday were against targets on Syrian soil, a fact that theoretically absolves Hezbollah of its obligation to retaliate, but there is still no escaping the need for extra vigilance in the coming days along Israel's northern borders. However, there are currently no signs that anyone to the north -- in Syria, Lebanon or in Iran -- wishes to fundamentally alter the existing situation. Hezbollah still remains bogged down in the Syrian civil war, which means the Syrian regime continues to reward it with sophisticated weapons. Sunday's attack points to impressive intelligence and operational capabilities, but also to the limits of these capabilities: We must assume that for every thwarted weapons transfer of this nature, several others slip through the cracks. Emanating from the sidelines yesterday were claims that political motives were behind the operation, against the backdrop of the upcoming general elections. Israel has known politically motivated wars and operations, but those who complained on Sunday (Yesh Atid MK Yifat Kariv and Meretz MK Tamar Zandberg) are unfamiliar with the mechanisms required for such an operation to take place. The intelligence and requests to act rise from the ground up -- from the army or the Mossad -- and the political echelon must approve an attack or reject it, not the other way around. If anyone is "guilty" of attacking Syria, it is IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, who as of yesterday was still the least political figure in Israel.
