At first glance, Defense Minister Israel Katz’s reaction to the firing of two rockets from Syria onto the Golan Heights on Tuesday evening seemed incongruous:
“We hold the president of Syria directly responsible for any threat and [rocket] firing toward the State of Israel, and the full response will come soon. We will not allow a return to the reality of October 7.”
The first part is understandable. But the second? What October 7 reality was he referring to on the Golan? The massacres took place in the South, with Hamas terrorists invading from Gaza. How is that connected to rockets fired from Syria?
Simple. Before October 7, Israel’s security doctrine was one of containment, of not rocking the boat, of turning a blind eye at provocations along its borders.
Hamas flies incendiary balloons into Israeli territory, setting fields alight? Let it go; it’s not worth starting a war. Hezbollah provocatively pitches tents in your sovereign territory, as it did in spring 2023? Let it go; deal with it diplomatically. Don’t escalate, don’t endanger the tourism season in the North.
That changed on October 7. One of the consequences of that day was the collapse of the assumption that small provocations can be safely ignored. Had that mindset still been in place, Israel’s reaction to the two rockets from Syria that fell in open fields near Ramat Magshimim might have been: no harm, no foul. No injuries, no damage, no response. But no longer.
Katz's message signals something else: Israel no longer tolerates provocations
Though Syria was the one front where Israel took forceful preemptive measures even before October 7 – mainly to stop Iran from turning it into a launchpad – Katz’s message signals something broader: Israel will no longer tolerate even minor provocations from any direction.
And, so, the IDF responded not only with artillery at the source of the fire near Tasil, about 12 km. from the border, but also with a wide wave of airstrikes across southern Syria. Weapons depots, linked to the new Syrian regime, were hit. The response was far more than perfunctory.
And it did so even though US President Donald Trump has signaled that he wants to give Syria’s new president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, a chance to stabilize his country. Even though the move risked further international opprobrium. And even though tensions were already high between Israel and Turkey – Sharaa’s main patron and a country eager to leave its mark on post-Assad Syria
What makes the reaction more striking is the timing. About 20 minutes after the rockets from Syria were launched, sirens sounded across central Israel, triggered by a Houthi missile launched from Yemen. That missile, too, was intercepted, but the convergence of threats from Syria and Yemen within the span of half an hour demonstrated the multi-front security reality Israel remains up against.
And yet, while Israel responded swiftly to the rocket fire from Syria, there was no immediate retaliation against the Houthis for their latest launch. This contrast is striking.
Over the past few months, Israel has carried out a number of forceful strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen – including hitting the main Houthi sea ports and crippling Sanaa International Airport. Still, the missile fire from Yemen continues. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has acknowledged this reality, saying publicly that the Houthis’ time will also come. For now, however, Israel is choosing its timing carefully.
Syria is a particularly sensitive front. The Assad regime collapsed in December 2024. Sharaa has a very checkered past, to say the least: once a senior figure in the Nusra Front, with ties to al-Qaeda and a $10 million US bounty on his head, he is now trying to rebrand himself as a moderate statesman.
Trump, seeking post-Assad stability, has embraced him, even removing Syria-related sanctions. Sharaa is now scheduled to address the UN General Assembly this September, marking the first time a Syrian leader has done so in nearly 60 years.
His personal story intersects with Israel’s strategic concerns. Born in Riyadh to a family originally from the Golan Heights, Sharaa has a stake – both symbolic and possibly political – in that territory. His new government claims it wants calm and is trying to rein in armed groups in southern Syria: the Syrian Foreign Ministry said after Tuesday night’s attack that it “has and will not pose a threat to any party in the region.”
Yet, the ministry also said it could not confirm who fired the rockets at Israel, an acknowledgment that reveals a deeper problem: a government still struggling to exert full control. Israel’s response signaled to the new government, however, that it better exert control fast, or else it will pay the price for the failure to do so.
Israel also made clear it holds the Syrian regime responsible for anything that comes from its territory. That’s a strategic decision, and a shift from the past. It says: don’t tell us you’re not in control – if rockets are fired, you will pay the price.
There is also a question of broader strategic messaging. By responding forcefully and quickly, Israel is also speaking to other regional actors watching closely – Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran looking to reassert itself in Syria, and Hamas operatives attempting to regroup. The message is clear: Israeli deterrence is no longer passive or conditional. Every act of aggression, no matter how seemingly limited or small, will be met with real consequences.
Katz’s statement about not returning to the October 7 reality had nothing to do with geography and everything to do with mindset. The old mindset accepted provocations at the cost of avoiding escalation. The new mindset says the cost of ignoring provocations is far higher.
This new doctrine has been evident in Israel’s actions on the Lebanese front as well. Since the ceasefire went into effect there in November, the IDF has responded swiftly to Hezbollah violations, no longer relying on useless complaints to UNIFIL or diplomatic protests. A similar shift is now being applied in Syria.
That has broader implications. Syria’s new regime, despite its public moderation, cannot expect a grace period from Israel if its territory is used to launch attacks. For Sharaa, that presents a dilemma: he needs calm to consolidate power and build international legitimacy, but he does not yet have the ability to deliver that calm.
Israel, meanwhile, will not wait. The airstrikes in response to the rocket fire on the Golan were a warning – and a statement of policy. Jerusalem will not allow its enemies to test its restraint. Not anymore.
October 7 shattered illusions of deterrence and exposed the consequences of underestimating minor threats. In response, Israel is recalibrating. That recalibration extends everywhere.
It’s a new game.
