According to The Jerusalem Post, the Syrian government accused Israel of carrying them out. Tom Barrack, the U.S. envoy to Iraq and Syria, called the “confirmed Israeli airstrikes” an unnecessary escalation.
The Post cited an Al Jazeera correspondent who said four aircraft struck the runway. It also noted that other regional reports described the aircraft as unidentified and that the Israeli military had not addressed the recent strikes.
This is enough uncertainty for one runway.
Later, the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement. It said Israel and Syria had agreed to a security status quo. It alleged that Syria was about to violate this arrangement by allowing Turkish troops to deploy at an airbase near Aleppo.
“Israel repeatedly warned Syria,” the statement said. It added that Israel “will not tolerate threats to its security.”
The Post’s headline said Israel had confirmed the strikes. Its article used the more careful phrase “appearing to take credit.”
Those are not the same thing.
The Israeli statement did not mention Abu al-Duhur. It did not mention Idlib. It did not say Israel had conducted an airstrike.
It may have been a tacit acknowledgment. Governments enjoy speaking near the point. The point may have lawyers around it.
Still, an implication is an implication. It is not a confirmation wearing a smaller hat.
There is also a geography problem. The reported strike was in Idlib province. The Israeli statement referred to an airbase near Aleppo. The available record does not establish whether these descriptions concern the same installation. Nor does it independently establish the alleged Turkish deployment.
As of Tuesday morning, the Post said there were no reports of casualties or of the extent of the damage. That does not mean there were no casualties or damage. It means there were no reports yet.
Here is what can safely be said:
Strikes were reported at Abu al-Duhur. Syria and a U.S. envoy attributed them to Israel. Israel then described an alleged threat involving Turkish troops and an airbase, but did not explicitly say it had carried out the reported attack.
War is bad enough without manufacturing certainty from punctuation. If a government confirms a strike, it can say so. If it does not, the blank should remain.