And if an Israeli or a 3rd country passenger plane is shot down by mistake in Israeli or intl. airspace, or derbies kill civilians on the ground, those countries would then be justified to bomb Syrian AD sites.
If that passenger plane is emitting a civilian transponder code like it should be there is no chance of that happening.
This is not just the addition of some new more capable missiles (S-300)... this is the addition of a unified integrated air defence network...
And besides they are bombing Syrian AD sites anyway... every cruise missile attack includes airfields and air defence bases...
Thus, they won't be chasing them into Israeli airspace for their own good.
They didn't have the capability previously... but now they should be able to see well into Israeli airspace and they have the same rights to "Self Defence" as Israel does... if that costs a few Israeli civilians their lives then so what... when Syrian civilians get killed Israel just blames Hamas and Assad, so Syria can just blame Netenyahu and the Israeli military.
Don't agree on that. From the moment you engage in acts of war with another country, the consequences of retaliation (especially if commensurate and justified like shooting down the attacking plane after launching a missile) are to be borne by the aggressor, period. It can be spin into whatever madness MSM wants but that does not constitute an element of international law. And given the IAF is only using standoff weapons (of increasing range and speed), the only option Syria has is to attack them even outside of their air space.
Well to think otherwise would be to argue that if a Tu-160 is flying in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and launches a Kh-101 and it hits a target in the US that the US cannot reasonably try to shoot down that Tu-160 because it did it in international air space.
The fact is that these Israeli aircraft might be operating in international airspace or over Israeli airspace, but what they are doing is actually an act of war so attempts to shoot them down are perfectly legitimate.
These S-300V systems however need high ground to maximize its coverage. Still bit worried on low altitude penetration.
Low altitude would be a problem for most large SAM systems... I suspect they might use SA-3s for low altitude threats... but of course with an IADS they could deploy units with MANPADS and low altitude AA systems on likely flightpaths...
TOR and Pantsir will deal with any very low flying threats going up against the main SAMs or radars or HQs.