Here is
Moshe Dayan explaining Israel's intrest in Syria:
After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. I did that, and Laskov and Czera did that, and Yitzhak did that, but it seemed to me that the person who most enjoyed these games was Dado. We thought that we could change the lines of the ceasefire accords by military actions that were less than war. That is, to seize some territory and hold it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us.
And, from the same link, Jeremy Bowen mentioning Israel's threats to invade Syria:
The toughest threat was reported by the news agency United Press International (UPI) on 12 May: 'A high Israeli source said today that Israel would take limited military action designed to topple the Damascus army regime if Syrian terrorists continue sabotage raids inside Israel. Military observers said such an offensive would fall short of all-out war but would be mounted to deliver a telling blow against the Syrian government.' In the West as well as the Arab world the immediate assumption was that the unnamed source was Rabin and that he was serious. In fact, it was Brigadier-General Aharon Yariv, the head of military intelligence, and the story was overwritten. Yariv mentioned 'an all-out invasion of Syria and conquest of Damascus' but only as the most extreme of a range of possibilities. But the damage had been done. Tension was so high that most people, and not just the Arabs, assumed that something much bigger than usual was being planned against Syria.
As long as you insist on playing make-believe to claim none of this happened, we can't rightly have a rational discussion here.
I bolded the area you seem to overlook.
In the first one - the Syrians may have been baited, but they would shoot first. And they knew it would happen. They choose to shoot - they were not forced to
The second is that Syria was creating problems. If they did not stop the military action, there would be reprisals.
Sound familiar - poke Israel enough and then complain when Israel responds.
The Palestinians have learned well from the ARabs.
That is not what triggerred the '73 conflict.
In the third - it was a worst case scenario based on the second - but people want to take it as what is going to happen ignoring that it is qualified by actions of Syria
Israel does not want Syrian land unless it is for self defense against aggression from Syria.
Israel does not want Jordanian land unless it is for self defense against aggression from Jordan.
Israel does not want Lebonese land unless it is for self defense against aggression from Lebanon.
Israel does not want Egyptian land unless it is for self defense against aggression from Egypt.
Egypt and Jordan have show that they are not interested in going after Israel - the cost to them is not worth it.
Facebook
Twitter