The deputy chief of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad movement underlines that the Israeli occupation is fighting a losing battle as “Israel’s” strategic influence is diminishing.
The Israeli occupation’s strategic influence is diminishing at all levels, and it cannot support itself on its own without aid from the United States, Palestinian Islamic Jihad Deputy Secretary-General Mohammad al-Hindi told Al Mayadeen on Tuesday.
“The balance of power is changing; America has its own problems and challenges, and Israel does not have the support or capabilities to assert dominance in the region,” the Palestinian top Resistance official underlined.
"Israel's strategic influence is diminishing at all levels, the balance of power is changing; America has its own problems and challenges, and Israel does not have the support or capabilities to assert dominance in the region."
“There are new rules of engagement today,” al-Hindi said, stressing that Iran’s retaliation was a mere preliminary warning to the Israeli occupation.
“The West is complicit in Israel’s crimes in Gaza and Palestine and covers them. Yet, we’re ahead of a new landscape that necessitates reassessments,” he added.
"The West is complicit in Israel's crimes in #Gaza and Palestine and covers them. Yet, we're ahead of a new landscape that necessitates reassessments."
The United States, the PIJ deputy chief said, does not want a regional war, especially as it is during an election year, which implies that it would rather not back an Israeli attack that would bring escalation.
“Gaza today is the battleground that damaged Israel most as it tarnished the occupation’s image due to the fact that it is facing Resistance factions perfectly capable of manufacturing their own weapons despite the imposed blockade,” he underlined.
"Gaza represents the most challenging battleground for Israel that tarnished its reputation since it's facing [Resistance] factions that manufacture their own weapons despite the imposed siege [on Gaza]."
– Deputy Secretary-General of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Mohammad… https://t.co/iPbuxdpaQr
Moreover, al-Hindi wondered how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought to avoid a regional war as he sought a “tough response” to Iran’s retaliation.
“The Americans and Israelis want to retrieve the captives at the lowest possible price, but that issue the trump card in our hands,” he said. “The proposal that was presented as one drawn up by the mediators is an Israeli paper par excellence, and some of the terms in it are deceptive.”
Al-Hindi went on to tell Al Mayadeen that the resistance submitted its response to the proposal and that it made it clear that withdrawal was a pivotal part of any agreement, though it said that a withdrawal could be gradual. Another core demand is a ceasefire, which the Resistance stressed could also be gradual.
“Israel is forced to pay a price through the deal because of its strategic military failures on the battleground,” the PIJ deputy chief stressed.
“There is more to come […] We have more time for Israel to realize that it must pay the price,” he added. “Israel’s deterrence in the face of Iran has ended.”
“Israel is facing a real impasse and its options are limited,” al-Hindi concluded. “It has grown to appear weaker, and its strategic importance has diminished. Many countries will reassess [their ties to Israel] after the war is over.”
‘Israel’, US lost deterrence
The Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom considered that Iran’s retaliatory attack against Israeli targets is a stark reminder of the loss of Israeli and US strategic deterrence, highlighting that it created an opportunity to change the geopolitical situation in the Middle East.
The newspaper indicated that Iran has put itself in direct confrontation with “Israel”, even at a time that does not seem optimal for it, and has acted against US President Joe Biden’s warning not to.
It suggested that Iran “has established a sophisticated strategy and is patiently, endlessly trying to create a reality where there becomes a question mark about Israel’s existence, not just a theory.”
Elsewhere, the newspaper stressed that “Israel” must prioritize and focus efforts on attempting to harness the United States, alongside a large Western alliance, to deal with the Iranian attack to restore deterrence.
In a related context, the Israeli news website Walla! cited a security official as saying that “Israel’s” response to Iran’s retaliatory strikes may include targeting military infrastructure and weapon depots, extending to assassination operations against officials.
The security official added that estimates indicate the Iranians have not yet said their final word, pointing out that the main battleground would be in the Gaza Strip, and therefore, “we should not expect broad-scale attacks on Iranian interests.”
All eyes are on Rafah as Israel prepares to mount an invasion to expel Palestinians or decimate them. It is this pivotal battle that will either force Israel into a ceasefire or thrust the region into an all-out, multi-front war.
The temporary truce struck on 24 November between the Hamas resistance movement and the Israeli government could have paved the way toward successive truces and potentially a sustainable ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.
But the opportunity was squandered by Tel Aviv, who viewed the continuation of its genocidal war as a means to reshape Gaza’s political and security landscape under the guise of ‘restoring deterrence’ and mitigating domestic fallout from Hamas’ 7 October Al-Aqsa Flood Operation.
Now, nearly six months since the commencement of what Israel calls a ‘war of survival and existence’ against Gaza, it has become clear that the occupation state’s military aggression cannot unseat Hamas from either the Strip or the broader Palestinian political arena.
The recent flurry of indirect Hamas–Israel negotiations held in Paris, Cairo, and Doha have revealed a stark political reality: Hamas is the primary Palestinian negotiating party where Gaza is concerned. This tacit acknowledgment by Tel Aviv marks the strategic failure of one of Israel’s dual objectives set forth last October, aimed at eradicating Hamas and its allied resistance factions in the Strip.
Bibi’s political interests v domestic backlash
This reality raises questions about the potential pathways available to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he struggles with immense international pressure to stop the carnage. Will he persist with the war on Gaza and risk global pariah status, or will he be compelled to pursue a politically costly settlement? The latter option, it should be noted, will not be an easy fix. It could potentially unleash a storm of domestic backlash within Israel, with various political factions eager to hold him accountable from multiple angles.
Since Netanyahu abandoned the truce in November, prominent Israeli political commentators and even former prime ministers have been surprisingly unanimous in their assessment. They argue that Netanyahu’s decision to prolong the war serves mainly his personal political interests, allowing him to project an illusion of victory while evading political, security, and judicial scrutiny.
Accordingly, Netanyahu’s stance remains firmly opposed to a war settlement. He has instead doubled down on the necessity of eliminating the military capabilities of Hamas and its allies, and is ostensibly pursuing an ‘absolute victory’ through total war.
The prime minister’s roadmap hinges on continuing the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. In this scenario, he envisions the Battle of Rafah as the decisive climax that will definitively render the already terminal ‘two-state solution’ obsolete and permanently sever any ties between Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
The Battle of Rafah thus emerges as a pivotal juncture, delineating two competing trajectories: one driven by regional and international efforts towards a negotiated settlement, and the other dictated solely by Netanyahu’s ambitions.
Regional ramifications and Egypt’s dilemma
This raises complex questions about whether Netanyahu can prolong the war and influence regional and international actors – to buy time, if you will – all while factoring in the delicate balance of power involving Egypt and the wider regional war against other members of the Axis of Resistance.
Indeed, the Battle of Rafah presents a multi-level challenge for Egypt, encompassing political, security, and popular dimensions. Should the Israeli army invade Rafah, it will have significant implications for Cairo’s relations with Tel Aviv, in addition to severely impacting Egypt’s domestic security landscape.
A recent poll by the Washington Institute for Near East Studies revealed that three-quarters of Egyptians view Hamas positively. This popular sentiment influences Egyptian policy regarding potential Israeli actions in Rafah.
On 10 March, TheNew York Times and Wall Street Journal reported warnings from Egyptian officials on the potential suspension of the Camp David Accords if Israel were to attack Rafah.
Diaa Rashwan, head of the Egyptian Information Service, emphasized the seriousness of Israel’s occupation of the Philadelphi Corridor – a buffer zone on the Sinai–Gaza border designated by the Camp David agreement – stating it poses a grave threat to Cairo–Tel Aviv relations.
Dealing with the potential mass influxes of Gazan civilians seeking refuge and Palestinian fighters crossing into Egyptian territory also poses significant logistical and security challenges. This scenario also raises questions about the Israeli army’s potential incursions into Egyptian territory and how the Egyptian military would respond.
Moreover, any intensification of pressure on Rafah or a full-scale Israeli invasion will lead to widespread regional ramifications, potentially including the unraveling of the Abraham Accords. The Axis of Resistance has made it clear that the elimination of Hamas is unacceptable and, if threatened, may trigger a regional war.
Complicating matters further is the lack of substantive US pressure on Israel to halt its actions in Gaza. While the Biden White House seeks a ‘credible operational plan,’ it has not unequivocally opposed an attack on Rafah. This ambivalence enables and even emboldens Netanyahu to continue his military operations.
Rafah could reshape the region
Regardless of the outcome of the Battle of Rafah, both Israeli and US perspectives interpret it as a campaign directed against Hamas, which they view as an extension of Iranian influence in the region. This narrative aligns with what Thomas Friedman, writing for the New York Times, referred to as the new “Biden Doctrine,” which emphasizes confronting Iran and its allies in West Asia. This marks a significant shift in US strategy since 1979.
The convergence of US and Israeli interests casts suspicion on ongoing efforts to bring about a long-term ceasefire, with all eyes focused on the current round of talks in Doha. Amos Harel, writing for Haaretz, frames the discussions as a race toward either a negotiated ceasefire or a potentially expansive regional conflict involving multiple fronts.
Yemen’s Ansarallah movement, which last week expanded its naval operations into the Indian Ocean, has issued a stark warning against a Rafah invasion, threatening a sharp escalation in both sea and air operations, including the closure of the Bab al-Mandab Strait.
Similarly, the Lebanese front remains sensitive to developments in Rafah. Despite the northern front’s expansion since the onset of 2024, recent Israeli attacks targeting Baalbek, over 100 kilometers from the southern border, suggest Tel Aviv’s misguided willingness to escalate.
This possibility could spill over into reality if Israel invades Rafah, as the occupation army may resort to preemptive actions to mitigate perceived threats from Lebanese resistance forces.
Overall, the Battle of Rafah will likely reshape the regional conflict, adding new layers to existing pressure fronts. Importantly, it challenges the notion that Hamas stands alone, abandoned in Rafah, as various regional actors, including Iran and its allies, are closely watching and prepared to intervene.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
Ahmed AbdulKareem is a Yemeni journalist based in Sana’a. He covers the war in Yemen for MintPress News as well as local Yemeni media.
Ahmed AbdulKareem
In the courtyard of Yemen’s famous Al Shaeb Mosque, guards of honor stood at attention accompanied by the melody of military music as the funeral ceremony of Yemeni marines killed in the latest round of U.S. and UK strikes commenced. The mourners, many of whom traveled from the countryside to attend, walked alongside a long convoy carrying the bodies of 17 victims as it made its way through the streets of Sana’a. Mourners held aloft photos of the deceased or thrust their rifles into the air while chanting slogans condemning the United States. Several banners peppered the crowd, emblazoned with the label given to those who gave their lives in what many view as a struggle in defense of Palestine: “Martyrs on the road to al-Quds (Jerusalem).”
Seventeen pickup trucks ensconced in green drapes bore the bodies. They were escorted by family members alongside thousands of mourners leaving Sana’a for the hometowns of the victims who hailed from various regions of Yemen. The scene unfolded last Sunday when thousands of angry Yemenis took to the streets of Sana’a and other cities to hold a funeral for those killed by the attacks. “Retribution against American soldiers… We will not abandon our revenge,” some mourners proclaimed.
In Bani Matar, 70 kilometers west of Sanaa towards the Hodeida Road, the mothers of Ziad Ajlan and Hashem Al-Sawari watched the convoy from a rooftop as it carried along the bodies of their sons. Ziad and Hashem were not involved in the fighting; they were among a number of civilians killed in attacks launched by the U.S. Navy on the Yemeni mainland one week ago. My son was martyred on the road to al-Quds,” Ziad’s mother said proudly. “We will not be broken, and we will not abandon Gaza.”
U.S. and British officials maintain that their attacks target “Houthi” military positions – ammunition stores and missile launch sites, but the reality of the ground tells a different story. Yemeni civilians say they are blind and indiscriminate and often leave civilians maimed or killed. Assuming the U.S. and UK are acting in good faith, it is clear that their intelligence information is lacking. A truck belonging to a farmer carrying plastic pipes was targeted in an airstrike outside the city of Saada last week. It is believed that the pipes were mistaken for missiles.
This story has repeated itself ad nauseam throughout Yemen since the end of December when the multinational “Operation Prosperity Guardian” (OIR) was launched in a thus-far failed attempt to protect ships linked with Israel from Ansar Allah. This week alone, as many as 40 strikes were launched by the U.S. and the UK, most targeting the coastal city of Hodeida.
Coffins of Asnar Allah fighters killed in the U.S.-led strikes on Yemen are transported during a mass funeral in Sanaa, Yemen, Feb. 10, 2024. Osamah Abdulrahman | AP
THE FOG OF WAR
The danger of Washington’s attacks on Yemen’s mainland lies not only in exposing civilians to danger but has the potential to spark retaliatory measures taken by Ansar Allah should pressure from the public and family members of victims continue to mount.
On December 29, when U.S. forces killed 10 Yemeni sailors aboard three ships in the Red Sea, Ansar Allah refrained from retaliating. But when American and British bombs peppered mainland Yemen the next month, striking major cities with over 100 precision-guided missiles, leaving civilians dead and maimed, Ansar Allah reacted, carrying out a barrage of retaliatory attacks.
Some Yemeni officials have even hinted that two U.S. Navy Seals that the U.S. government claims drowned while boarding a boat smuggling weapons into Yemen were actually killed in combat. It is not known whether the soldiers were killed in attacks by Ansar Allah ballistic missiles or drones or during a failed commando operation as the U.S. claims, but what is clear is that the U.S. is covering its losses and information about the deaths of the Seals has been highly politicized.
In fact, many of the details surrounding hostilities between the U.S. and Ansar Allah have been cast in a heavy fog of war, and it will likely be years before the truth is revealed. What is certain is that Ansar Allah has caused direct material damage to U.S. military vessels, targeting numerous times with advanced missiles and drones launched. In the wake of every such attack, a statement was issued, reaffirming Ansar Allah’s right to take revenge for those killed in American and British bombing raids.
On January 31, the Ansar Allah announced that the American destroyer, the USS Gravely, was hit by several anti-ship missiles. In the wake of the attack, US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced that the Gravely had shot down an advanced anti-ship cruise missile. Later, reports emerged that the destroyer in question and other Western military assets in the area had failed to intercept the missile until it got within “4 seconds from hitting the U.S. warship.”
On January 25, Ansar Allah said that it had clashed with American destroyers in the Gulf of Aden and Bab al-Mandab for two hours. One U.S. Navy vessel was directly hit after a failed interception attempt, according to Ansar Allah, who have been improving their capabilities since 2014, after a failed Saudi-led and U.S.-backed bombing campaign left the country in tatters.
This undated photograph released by CENTCOM shows the vessel that was being boarded by US Navy Seals near Yemen in a raid that saw two commandos go missing
MANUFACTURING CONSENT
Although President Joe Biden has repeatedly claimed that the United States does not seek to expand the war in the Middle East, the actions of the US military are undoubtedly making the situation in the Red Sea more tense. In the wake of American airstrikes targeting Hodeida on Thursday – for the ninth time that day alone, Ansar Allah Armed Forces spokesperson Brigadier Yahya Saree revealed that the group would take “further measures” within its legitimate right to self-defense in response to the repeated U.S.-UK aggression. In the same statement, Saree announced that the Barbados-flagged British Bulk Carrier ship, the LYCAVITOS, was targeted by naval missiles while sailing in the Gulf of Aden, raising questions about the actual deterrence factor of America’s escalatory approach.
Prior to that, the leader of Ansar Allah, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, the leader of the revolution that the U.S.-backed Yemeni government in 2014, confirmed that any escalation on Ansar Allah’s part would be against Israel and to confront American and British aggression and would not target the interests of ordinary Westerners. The comment came in response to claims circulated in the media that Ansar Allah could sabotage a network of underwater internet cables that run through the Red Sea. “We do not plan to target submarine cables, and we have no intention of doing so, and what is reported in the media is a lie aimed at distorting our humanitarian position on the war on Gaza,” he said. Many Western media outlets promoted the claim, raising fears over the safety of infrastructure critical to the functioning of the Western Internet and the transmission of financial data. Yemen is strategically located, as internet lines connecting entire continents pass near it.
Airstrikes and claims that internet access may be cut off may be the tip of the escalatory iceberg, according to the government of Sana’a. The Minister of Information, Daifallah al-Shami, held a press conference on Thursday announcing that they have information that the UAE is seeking to recruit agents from multiple foreign nationalities in cooperation with Al-Qaeda and ISIS to target ships in the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea in order to confuse and distort operations carried out by Ansar Allah in support of Gaza. According to al-Shami, the move is supported by the U.S.
“WE WILL NOT ABANDON GAZA”
Contrary to what is being promoted in much of the Western media, which has taken the line that Ansar Allah’s Red Sea blockade has nothing to do with the ongoing genocide in Gaza, a review of the targets of Ansar Allah’s attacks makes their motivations clear. On October 19, Ansar Allah fired drones and missiles at Israel’s southern Eliat Port. In mid-November, the naval forces seized an Israeli ship headed towards occupied Palestine. Shortly after, Ansar Allah publically announced that the Israeli-linked ship would not be allowed to pass through the Baba al-Mandab Strait. Later, they announced that the ban on shipping would extend to all vessels attempting to reach Eliat Port. All of these measures were in support of a single, repeatedly declared goal, which was to pressure Israel to stop its war on Gaza and allow food and water to enter the besieged strip.
With visible sadness and anger, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi enumerated in a televised speech on Tuesday the reasons that motivate Yemen to continue operations to prevent international navigation supporting Israel in the Red Sea – the continued mass killing of the Gazans, renewed American support for Israel, including with lethal weapons and the use of internationally banned weapons against civilians in Gaza, including white phosphorus.
Al-Houthi said that “the Yemeni military’s retaliatory strikes in the Red Sea had proven to be effective as it led to the almost complete closure of the port of Umm al-Rashrash (the name of Eliat before Israel annexed it), and all food supply chains to Israel that were passing through the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab stopped by 70%, and prices in the Israeli market rose by 30-50% after ships were forced to divert course through the Cape of Good Hope.” Israel, he noted, was one of the largest beneficiaries of maritime trade, with imports in 2022 reaching to $133 billion “thanks to the Red Sea.”
Responding to those who question the feasibility of Ansar Allah’s position, Al-Houthi said that “Yemeni operations have caused repercussions for ship insurance,” noting that insurers are now refusing to insure ships heading towards the ports of occupied Palestine. “Not only that,” he added, “but insurance companies require Israeli and American ships to pay additional amounts of up to 50%.”
“Our operations at sea led to a decline in Israel’s total imports of products by 25% during the past months,” Al-Houthi said, “The Israeli Ministry of Economy and Industry admitted that the Red Sea operations harmed its trade relations with 14 countries.”
Amid threats of escalation and even whispers of a Western-led ground invasion of Yemen, Ansar Allah has reiterated its commitment to its mission. Mobilization, military training, demonstrations, and other activities will be continued as long as the aggression against Gaza continues, it has reaffirmed, saying that operations at sea will continue until Israel “allows food and medical supplies and the delivery of basic needs into Gaza.” “The U.S. and UK will not achieve their goals through aggression against our country, and the only solution is to stop the aggression and deliver food and medicine to the people of Gaza,” Al-Houthi vowed.
Hezbollah fighter, on border guard duty, sitting astride a motorbike blocking the pathway of an Israeli Merkava tank that had broken through the electric fence into Lebanese territories, the photo was taken by Al-Manar correspondent Ali Sheaib, Jalet al-Mahafer, 2022 (Al Mayadeen English- Designed by Mahdi Rtail)
To analyze and contextualize the burgeoning war in south Lebanon, this paper borrows the theoretical concepts of Galtung’s conflict theory and reviews Amal Saad’s recent article on The Guardian.
More than 100 days have passed since Al-Aqsa Flood came crashing down on the colonial outpost of US imperialism in West Asia; the tide has been only gaining momentum since. The war quickly spilled over beyond the territories of Occupied Palestine to include south Lebanon most notably.
Revisiting Johan Galtung’s Conflict Theory, this paper will borrow theoretical concepts introduced by Galtung to analyze and structure Al-Aqsa Flood. Galtung introduces a set of simplistic classifications and twin criteria that bring burgeoning conflicts into perspective and allow for a formal analysis.
The two classifications that I chose to expound on are Scale and Intensity. Scale will be useful to lay out the overarching context to then zero in on Lebanon which is the primary subject of study for this paper. Intensity serves to demonstrate conflict as being dynamic fluctuating along lines of escalation and de-escalation.
An interesting nuance that Galtung formalizes is that between Latent Conflict and Manifest Conflict. The former describes the underlying tensions, between two parties, that are not yet explicitly acted upon (typically, this state of affairs is understood to be “Negative Peace” where Direct Violence is absent). The latter describes the state of affairs where strife is actively occurring (Direct Violence breaks out).
Development from Latent Conflict into Manifest Conflict can also be understood using the heuristic of Galtung’s ABC Triangle of Violence. In the Triangle, Galtung pinpoints three focal points in conflict: Attitude, Behavior, and Contradiction. In the case of liberation struggles, as is the struggle against Zionist colonialism and US imperialism, the Contradiction is the nexus, the primary focal point from which violence spirals out of: the spiral of violence originates from Contradiction anddevelopsinto Attitudes and Behaviors. In Behavior, it develops as manifest conflict. In Attitude, it develops as latent conflict.
Galtung’s ABC Triangle of Violence: Contradiction Spiral (Illustrated by Arwa Makki)
Conflict Scale: Beligrents and Fronts
Gaza became ground zero for the war on October 7th, but Al-Aqsa Flood has resonated all throughout the region since.
Beligrents in support of the Palestinian Resistance in Gaza have included the Palestinian resistance factions in the West Bank, the Lebanese Resistance, the Islamic Resistance factions in Iraq, the Yemeni Armed Forces, the resistance, and the Islamic Revolution’s Guard in Iran. Beligrents on the side of the Israelis have included the US-led occupation coalition in Syria, the US-led occupation coalition in Iraq, the US-led aggression coalition in the Red Sea, and the Takfiri terrorist network in the region (Daesh, Jaish ul-Adl, etc.).
Fronts from which operations are being launched directly against the Israeli occupation, in addition to Gaza, include most notably South Lebanon (which serves as the second battlefront of this war), the West Bank (where lone-wolf stabbing/shooting/ramming operations and counter-raid concerted action by underground resistance cells have increased in frequency), in addition to Syria Iraq and Yemen (from where drones and missiles have been launched against the occupied territories most notably Al-Jalil “Galilee Heights”, Um Al-Rashrash “Eilat”, and even recently Haifa).
Complimentary fronts, from where operations don’t directly target “Israel” but rather aim to build up pressure on “Israel” and its imperialist proppers to consolidate a ceasefire in Gaza. These complimentary fronts include the Red and Arabian Seas (where the Yemeni Armed Forces and Resistance have enforced a naval blockade against Israeli and “Israel”-bound ships), northeast Syria (where US and coalition occupation bases are being shelled by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq), and Iraq (where, similarly, US and coalition occupation are being shelled by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq).
Concentric Fronts Surrounding “Israel” (Illustrated by Mahdi Rtail)
Mired “Israel” thrashes at the entire region
Throughout modern history, all parties involved in materially supporting the Palestinian resistance have been punished by being subjected to imperialist and zionist terrorism. Prior to the war, it had manifested primarily as economic sanctions (with the exception of Gaza, the West Bank, and Syria which had frequently fallen subject to Israeli military aggression in addition to economic sanctions).
After the war, especially after being frustrated by the little-yielding ground invasion of Gaza, this terrorism had manifested in brazenly more savage means. Over the span of the war, the Israeli occupation bombed Palestine Lebanon & Syria and US occupation forces bombed both Iraq and Yemen.
Jointly, the US imperialist forces and the Israeli Occupation Forces assassinated prominent resistance commanders: including IRGC commander Razi Mousavi (by “Israel”), Hamas politburo official Saleh al-Arouri(by “Israel”), Iraqi Kataib Hezbollah commander Moshtaq al-Saidi (by the US), and most recently Hezbollah high-ranking commander Wissam Tawil (by “Israel”)
In addition to a US-UK large-scale aerial aggression against Yemen last week, and the Daesh twin-terrorist bombings that targeted hundreds of Iranian civilians earlier this month.
Digressing briefly, Iran has long been sanctioned for materially and consistently supporting the Palestinian resistance: Economic embargos, political subversion, covert sabotage operations, assassinations, terrorist attacks, etc. The Islamic Republic of Iran even before getting involved in any proactive military action, before becoming neither a front nor a belligerent, has been subjected to imperialist warmongering and the terrorism of imperialism’s takfiri footsoldiers: affirming the persistent neocon tradition of hawkishness in the White House but discreetly through proxies.
Conflict Intensity: escalation or de-escalation
Carrying on with Galtung’s theory, violence as he defines is tripartite Direct Violence (commonly militaristic), Structural Violence (commonly in law or regime), and Cultural Violence (commonly in beliefs and consequent attitudes). The latter two are latent forms of violence: characteristic of Latent Conflict. The former is the manifest form of violence: characteristic of Manifest Conflict.
Manifest Conflict follows from an escalation in Latent Conflict. Similarly, escalation beyond a certain threshold would lead a Manifest Conflict to become an Escalated Conflict. Furthermore, Galtung details that a Conflict if escalated develops into Crisis or War (throughout the paper I will not be committing to the gradation-escalation levels of conflict, crisis, and war; I will be using war and conflict interchangeably).
Violence Intensity (Illustrated by Arwa Makki)
Conflict is not a sudden state of affairs that flutters in and out of existence at the whims of the conflict parties but rather is a long-lasting state of affairs that fluctuates along a scale of intensity, escalating and de-escalating: becoming dormant at times and resurfacing at others based on the development of events, and ceasing to exist only when the contradiction of interests is resolved (i.e. Positive Peace or Sustainable Peace is achieved).
This prospect of escalation is best understood as formulated by the Fourth Law of Dialectics: Quantity into Quality. A state of affairs intensifies accumulatively till it reaches a threshold whereby quantitative increase is not possible anymore and the state of affairs changes qualitatively into a different state of affairs (Politzer, 1946).
Gaza and South Lebanon: the build-up to the war
Despite the macroscopic scale of Al-Aqsa Flood, Gaza and south Lebanon remain thus far the only active battlefronts against the Israeli occupation.
Throughout recent history both Lebanon (primarily the South) and Palestine (primarily Gaza) have suffered severely under the plight of US-sponsored Israeli aggression: massacres, forced displacement, and occupation.
In this struggle, the two nations grew more radicalized against their enemy (bearing arms and organizing their people into resistance movements) and steadily consolidated their binational solidarity (institutionalizing their alliance and proliferating it as the Axis of Resistance).
In Gaza, in recent years, the latent structural violence of colonialism has been brazenly intensifying, especially with the extremist right-wing Cabinet headed by Netanyahu (installed in late 2022) and the increasingly frequent incidents of settler violence in the West Bank and al-Quds. October 7th 2023 was the threshold day. Violence broke out on a large scale after the Palestinian resistance had launched the long-deliberated operation that was the natural result of years of intensifying oppression. Latent Conflict developed into a Manifest Conflict and escalated at a sharp pace with the savage bombing campaigns and the ground invasion. The aggression against Gaza quickly snowballed into an all-out War (a high-intensity conflict).
Galtung’s Triangle of the Types Violence: Structural Violence Spiral (illustrated by Arwa Makki)
In Lebanon, the front erupted following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and in solidarity with the Palestinian Resistance. (Despite the intertwined stakes of Lebanese national interest and Palestinian national interest in contradiction to Israeli security) there was no buildup of a recent Latent Conflict between Lebanon and the Israeli occupation that reached a threshold on October 8th (in contrast to Gaza). The eruption of the front in south Lebanon came to echo Operation Al-Aqsa Flood i.e. in solidarity with the people of Gaza and their valiant and honorable resistance (as the opening of the resistance’s military statements commonly read).
Patience and far-sightedness
However other latent frustrations in Lebanon preceded the eruption of the battlefront. In addition to solidarity with Gaza and anticipating long-term advantages to Lebanese national interest, a key factor that goes unnoticed is the latent economic frustrations.
To digress again, when discussing the war build-up, a key prospect that commonly goes unnoticed is the radicalizing effect that the economic crisis has had on the Lebanese. In addition to national interest, binational solidarity, and religious fervor which are the primary drives mobilizing the Lebanese towards anti-zionist resistance, the prospect of accumulated economic frustration has radicalized a large segment of the Lebanese population against imperialism which was perceived to play a key role in enabling such a drastic crisis in Lebanon.
For the past 5 years, the Lebanese have experienced the worst socio-economic crisis in recent history after the Ponzi scheme engineered by the US-propped central bank chief crashed. A systematically un-industrial rentier economy structured by the US and the Gulf back in the 1990s broke down: coupled with active efforts to economically pressure Lebanon to draw political concessions regarding the resistance. In addition to a sectarian consociational regime of governance that is doomed into recurrent cases of zero-sum game gridlock, making it impossible for a government to make decisions regarding the economy, public policy, or foreign relations. Recent years have exercised an extensive economic strain on the Resistance.
Lebanese stability recurrently faltered as “protracted social conflict” seemed to sharpen in light of dire economic conditions (Edward Azar, 1990): with Christian right-wing parties and liberal NGO-type groups blaming the resistance for the crisis (for refusing to make the political concessions dictated by the West and the Gulf States that would restore the old insovereign rentier economic system).
Thus, the extensive social and economic strain on the milieu of the Resistance or the “masses of the Resistance” (as Sayyed Nasrallah commonly refers to them), radicalized them further against the US: who pulled out the centerpiece of the make-shift kaleidoscopic Lebanese economy they had engineered sending it crashing down on Hezbollah.
This new level of anti-imperialist radicalization among a segment of the Lebanese reaffirmed the aptness of the decision to organize into anti-zionist resistance factions; for “Israel” is understood to be an advanced outpost for imperialism in the region, and the security of “Israel” is understood to be one the primary objectives of imperialism in the region (in addition to accumulating super-profits for oligarchs).
If this frustration has been discharged satisfactorily by any means it was through anti-zionist military action. It’s poetic justice for the Lebanese to threaten Israeli security after being economically bullied for 5 years to concede to “Israel” its security by disarming the resistance.
Low-Intensity Conflict in South Lebanon
In Gaza, a latent conflict steadily intensified until a manifest conflict broke out: quickly escalating into a high-intensity conflict. In Lebanon, however, the conflict was the result of intensifying latent frustrations, national interest, and binational solidarity.
On October 8th, the front erupted in Lebanon and it has steadily escalated since, however, it has thus far remained, arguably, a low-intensity conflict.
Since the commencement of the first operation, the Lebanese resistance has deliberated not to give in to the appeal of adventurism (going all in for all-out war): for a set of reasons elucidated in the speeches of the Secretary-General of Hezbollah (which include losing the advantage of a surprise attack, the weakened Lebanese economy, as well as the comparative advantage of low-intensity conflict etc).
This strategy of decisively targeting Israeli military sites within the framework of a low-intensity conflict has proved effective in accumulatively inflicting small losses on the IOF (Israeli Occupation Forces), and building up pressure on “Israel”. The immediate and announced objective of the operations from Lebanon has been clear: building up pressure on “Israel” to concede to a ceasefire in Gaza.
In the long term, the persistence of the status quo of low-intensity warfare within the frame of the laws of engagement of deterrence between the Lebanese resistance and the Israeli Occupation Forces is a lot more harmful to “Israel” than it is to Lebanon given the nature of the conflict (profit-driven colonizers vs a popular indigenous liberation movement).
“You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win.”
-Vietnamese Communist Revolutionary Ho Chi Minh to French Colonizers on the eve of the liberation war (1946)
Low-intensity conflict: accumulative small gains, minimized losses
On the Lebanese battlefront, as aforementioned, the war burgeons within the framework of a low-intensity conflict which allows for decisive contained hits: accumulating in advantage.
In 100 days, the Lebanese resistance has executed more than 700 operations against the occupation. The resistance targetted all front-line military sites along the borders and even managed to target 17 settlements, according to figures cited by the Secretary General of Hezbollah in a speech earlier this month.
While the IOF continues to underreport losses fearing demoralization in the settler society, Israeli media outlets report that hospitals have been abounding with injured soldiers and cemeteries with killed soldiers. Israeli media also report that thousands of Israeli soldiers have been incapacitated; estimates range from 4,000 (confirmed) up to 30,000 (projected).
The primary objective of the Lebanese battlefront, as is the case with other complimentary fronts, has been to build up pressure against the Israeli-War Cabinet to agree to a ceasefire and a prisoner exchange deal on the terms of the Palestinian resistance, and dissolving the blockade against Gaza. The secondary objective of the Lebanese resistance, as is the case with other complimentary fronts, is the respective national interest (in Lebanon it manifests as consolidating the equation of deterrence and tipping its balance against “Israel” so that it concedes occupied Lebanese territories, namely Shebaa farms).
Both of these objectives are being steadily worked for in Lebanon. IOF losses in the north have been steadily accumulating:
Sabotaged Israeli surveillance and reconnaissance tech devices installed on the border (effectively blinding the IOF on the south-Lebanese border to a large extent).
Surmounting human casualties in the IOF which include injured, incapacitated, and killed.
Massive involuntary and voluntary relocation of Israeli settlers from the north to the center which the Resistance’s operations have resulted in.
Enforcing a de facto security belt inside “Israel” which is unprecedented in the history of the Lebanese-Israeli wars and the Arab-Israeli wars (as explained in the most recent speech of the Secretary-General of the resistance).
Spreading the Israeli army too thin.
The IOF spokesperson cited intense exhaustion as being a key factor behind the blunders of the IOF in Gaza and the underwhelming efficiency of the ground operation: Explaining that most soldiers have been on duty continuously without substitution because their compatriots are mobilized in the north.
Phase 3 in Gaza: de-escalation or redirecting escalation?
Due to the ongoing pressure against “Israel”, whether through the admirable steadfastness of the Palestinian resistance, the intensifying decisive operations by the Lebanese resistance, the blockade against Israeli navigation in the Arabian and Red Seas by the Yemeni Armed Forces and the Yemeni resistance, the increasingly frequent strikes against US occupation bases in Syria and Iraq by the Iraqi Resistance, and the international efforts to condemn “Israel” spearheaded by South Africa in the ICJ, the vehemence of the US-sponsored death machine in Gaza seems to be getting slowly quelled.
The US has announced that it will be pressuring the Israeli government to mitigate its genocidal war which has been detrimental to both parties’ international PR. The IOF has announced that it has started shifting to a lower-intensity Phase 3 (decreasing the bulk of troop presence in Gaza, relying more on airstrikes, and employing targeted raids).
Ever since the preliminary steps of Phase 3 started coming into effect under the plight of US pressure against the fascist Israeli War Cabinet, Netanyahu, along with his genocide boyband, seems to have started looking for different avenues to continue the war to perpetuate his ill-fated political career against a seemingly imminent soft-coup by the Biden administration.
“Israel” is pushing Hezbollah to its limits: Amal Saad
“Just as Israel revealed its plan to withdraw thousands of troops from northern Gaza for the next phase of its ongoing war, the senior Hamas official Saleh al-Arouri was killed in a targeted assassination in Beirut,” Amal Saad writes in a recent piece for The Guardian published on January 5th shortly after the assassination of Sheikh Saleh al-Arouri in Beirut.
Amal Saad elucidates the significance and possible implications of this grave attack against Lebanon which seemed to try to nullify the deterrence enforced by the Lebanese resistance against the IOF since 2006.
“Hezbollah is in all likelihood concerned that a failure to respond decisively will invite Israel to go on an extrajudicial killing spree in Beirut – not just against Hamas but also eventually against its [Hezbollah] own officials,” she explains. “This would require a carefully measured retaliation that simultaneously signifies an escalation in terms of scope and intensity, but falls short of all-out war.”
The Lebanese resistance’s retaliation followed one day later. A combined Kornet-Grad artillery attack by the Resistance pummelled the Meron airforce base which served as an intelligence military command hub for the occupation. The operation, as Amal Saad had reasoned was a high-intensity retaliation falling short of an all-out war.
Furthermore, she explains that the objective of the Israeli attempt at undermining the deterrence equation seemingly serves as an attempt at provoking Hezbollah into an all-out war.
“An even greater concern is that Israel is seeking to provoke Hezbollah into a full-scale war that would involve the US as a co-belligerent.”
“…whether or not Israel, which is incapable of confronting Hezbollah on its own, is seeking to drag the US into a full-blown regional war.”
Commenting on this, Amal Saad later emphasized that “Hezbollah is keen to avoid an all-out war – but it is ready for one.”
This was later emphasized in the latest speech by the Secretary General of Hezbollah on January 14th.
“We have gone to war within the framework of this low-intensity warfare,” he said
“[However] since 99 days we have been ready for war, we do not fear it. We will not hesitate. we will venture on this war [if it’s forced upon us]. We will fight with no boundaries any limits or any restrictions,” Sayyed Nasrallah warned.
Hypothesizing
Netanyahu seems to have foresaw the imminent dead end in Gaza. Complete withdrawal will turn Gaza into “Israel’s” Cuba: stuck in a perpetual Missile Crisis. Persisting with the ground operation will turn it into “Israel’s” Vietnam: a swamp of attrition warfare that would surely end his career and possibly end his state: steadily inching away at it.
The only way “Israel” could achieve the objectives of its ground operation (i.e. uprooting the resistance) is if every last Palestinian in Gaza was killed or expelled from the strip.
Killing 2 million people in the 21st century is not beyond “Israel” but it would end the US’ morally credible soft power. It would strip the latter’s imperialist foreign policy of its leading pretext.
Netanyahu’s plan seems to be spreading out the conflict: so that they can advertise the war as asymmetrical against “Israel” to legitimize direct US intervention.
Netanyahu is desperately flailing to provoke large-scale retaliation from the Axis of Resistance to justify a US invasion of the region to rebalance power relations in favor of “Israel” and perpetuate Israeli security for a couple more decades.
Netanyahu acts in line with the outdated teachings of his neocon mentors of the early 2000s, but the pragmatics of the US oligarchy have since recognized the futility of savage militarism in West Asia and have since switched course for proxy warfare and color revolutions for being more efficient.
Related Videos
What the Islamic resistance is presenting on the borders indicates that it has a strategic security mind that prevents it from falling
Displaced people from the Lebanese border villages: We left to make way for the resistance to confrontation, and the homes of the southerners were opened for us.
A tour by Al-Mayadeen correspondent monitors the Israeli occupation sites on the Lebanese-Palestinian border
Evening | The new strategy of the axis of resistance
The Israeli circles continued on Monday following up the repercussions of Hezbollah strike which targeted the Zionist surveillance air base located atop Mount Jarmaq (“Meron”), the highest peak in the ’48 occupied Palestine.
The Israeli media outlets indicated that the Israeli army was forced to operate new surveillance systems in order to avoid the complete information blindness in the North, knowing that Hezbollah border attacks have blinded the enemy’s outposts.
The military correspondent Alon Bin David said that the base was damaged by Hezbollah anti-armor missiles, quoting military sources as saying that the army operated more systems.
Related VIDEOS
Special coverage | Israeli sources: 9 Israeli officers and soldiers were killed in two attacks in Gaza within 24 hours
Politics Today with Dr. Ali Hamiyah – expert in strategic affairs
Interview with | Jaafar al-Husseini – military spokesman for the IRAQI Hezbollah Brigades
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah on Tuesday warned the Israeli enemy against launching an all-out war on Lebanon, affirming that the Islamic Resistance will then fight without any limit.
Sayyed Nasrallah affirmed that Hezbollah decided to join the war on October 8 in order to support the Palestinian people and resistance in face of the Zionist war on Gaza.
His eminence indicated that, till now, the operations carried out by Hezbollah are regulated in a way that abides by the Lebanese national interests, threatening the Israeli enemy that the limits will disappear in case of any Zionist war on Lebanon.
“Up till now, Hezbollah is engaging in tuned battle with the Israeli enemy, but limits will disappear if ‘Israel’ wages an all-out war on Lebanon.”
Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized that Hezbollah showed the utmost bravery when it joined the war on October 7 despite all the Israeli military capabilities and US threats, adding that Hezbollah fighters are ready to confront all the military choices of the enemy.
After Al-Aqsa Flood Operation, the Israelis and all their allies got extremely mad and planned to utilize the chance in order to wage an all-out war on Lebanon and the West Bank in addition to Gaza, but Hezbollah attacks and military readiness prevented the implementation of this scheme, according to Sayyed Nasrallah.
Had Lebanon’s front been calm when the Israeli war on Gaza started, the Lebanese would have waken up at midnight to see the Israeli war jets destroying everything, Sayyed Nasrallah affirmed.
Sayyed Nasrallah added that Hezbollah military alert and readiness frustrated the Israeli “surprise” scheme, affirming that the Resistance powerful attacks sent a clear message to the Israeli enemy that the group is brave and undeterred.
The US officials advised the Israelis to avoid any all-out war with Hezbollah for their keenness on the Israelis, not the Lebanese, Sayyed Nasrallah noted.
His eminence explained that on October 8 and 9, the Israeli cabinet witnessed discussion of plans to attack Lebanon, adding that one of the generals warned the political command against any involvement in an open war with Hezbollah to avoid the massive destruction of Gush Dan area dwelt by three-quarters of the Zionist population.
Sayyed Nasrallah pointed out that all the American, British, French, and German threats failed to oblige Hezbollah to stop attacking the Zionist border sites, underlining that he who plans to engage in war with the Resistance will regret.
“War with Hezbollah will be very costly. Hezbollah is now taking the Lebanese interests and conditions into consideration, but the same interests will be crossing all limits if an all-out war is launched on Lebanon.”
Addressing Hezbollah ceremony held to mark fourth martyrdom anniversary of General Qassem Suleimani & Hajj Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis in Beirut’s Dahiyeh, Sayyed Nasrallah indicated that the Israeli assassination of Hamas official Saleh Arouri in the southern suburb of Beirut is an aggression on Hamas command and Dahiyeh simultaneously.
Sayyed Nasrallah indicated that the attack on Dahiyeh, being the first 2006 war, is very dangerous, adding that all the Israeli indirect reassurances in this regard are rejected.
Hezbollah Secretary General condemned the assassination of the Palestinian commander, reiterating Hezbollah vow that this crime will not go unanswered.
Sayyed Nasrallah, in this context, offered condolences on the martyrdom of Sheikh Arouri, stressing that the martyr spent a life full of jihad and resistance.
Outcomes of Al-Aqsa Flood Operation
Hezbollah leader indicated that there were schemes, before Al-Aqsa Flood Operation, to stir sedition among the Palestinian factions in order to expel all the Palestinians from the Strip.
Sayyed Nasrallah underlined the importance of the Yemeni navy role of blocking the passage of the Israeli-affiliated ships through the Red Sea.
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that Al-Aqsa Flood Operation has so far left numerous outcomes, concentrating on the major losses inflicted upon the Israeli enemy and mentioning the following:
The first outcome is revitalizing the Palestinian cause after it was about to be thrown in oblivion and imposing proposing solutions, such as the two-state solution.
The second outcome is striking the bet on the exhaustion of the Palestinian people and resistance. The new generation proved to be as committed to the Palestinian cause as the former ones.
The third outcome is the rise of the popular support to the resistance groups in Palestine despite the massacres and the attempt to blame the resistance for the Zionist crimes.
The fourth outcome is the moral fall of ‘Israel’ and its image before the international community. During the last two decades, certain Arab media outlets tried to ameliorate the Zionist image, but the war on Gaza presented ‘Israel’ as a criminal. US surveys showed that 50% of the American youths considered that the ‘Israel’ must be eradicated and the Palestinian people must regain their rights.
The fifth outcome is striking the normalization path between some Arab regimes and the occupation entity.
The sixth outcome is the appearance of the Israeli entity as the main violator of the international laws. ‘Israel’ has violated all the international laws.
The seventh outcome is smashing the strategic deterrence power of the Israeli enemy. Hezbollah, the Palestinian and Iraqi resistance groups, and the Yemeni armed forces have proved that they are not deterred by the Zionist enemy and the United States.
The eighth outcome is overthrowing the information superiority of the Israeli enemy.
The ninth outcome is the Israeli failure to reach a swift victory.
The tenth outcome is the failure of the Israeli air force to settle the battle.
The eleventh outcome is the eradication of the Israelis’ trust in their command and army as well as the threat posed by the battle to the existence of the Israeli entity. Al-Aqsa Flood Operation contributes mainly to the demise of the occupation entity. Hundreds of thousands of Zionists left occupied Palestine.
The twelfth outcome is the eradication of the Israeli image of capability and power whcih the Zionists claim in their attempts to lure some Arab regimes to sign agreements.
The thirteenth outcome is the military failure and the psychological repercussions of the war on the Israelis. Thousands of Israeli soldiers have been either killed or wounded on Lebanon front, but the enemy does not acknowledge that. 300,000 Zionists have requested psychological treatment since October 7, according to Ynet. Hundreds of thousands of Zionists were displaced from the north of occupied Palestine.
The fourteenth outcome is the Israeli failure to reach any of the war targets.
The fifteenth outcome is deepening the internal strife among the Israelis.
The sixteenth outcome is smashing the American image and presenting USA as the main violator of the international laws. Who prevents Gaza ceasefire is the United States of America.
The seventeenth outcome is the failure of the international organization to protect the civilians in Gaza. All the Lebanese must acknowledge that only power can protect them from the Israeli aggression.
Martyrs Suleimani and Al-Muhandis
Hezbollah Secretary General reiterated condolences and felicitations on the martyrdom of General Suleimani, Hajj Al-Muhandis and their Iraqi companions, condemning the terrorist attack on Iran’s Kerman, which claimed more than 80 martyrs.
Martyrdom of General Suleimani terrified the enemies more than his presence, and the the attack on the visitors of his tomb is the proof, according to Sayyed Nasrallah.
Sayyed Nasrallah indicated that martyr Suleimani’s image, might and determination are present in all fields of resistance, adding that all the resistance achievements rely mainly on the sacrifices of the Iranian general.
Sayyed Nasrallah clarified that one of the main features of martyr Suleimani’s loyalty to the resistance was that he used to help every resistance group to reach self-sufficiency.
“Iraqi paramilitary and resistance fighters found Martyr Suleimani as the main supporter. US occupation forces were expelled from Iraq in 2011, thanks to the Iraqi resistance supported by Martyr Suleimani.“
Sayyed Nasrallah affirmed that martyr Suleimani contributed mainly to sustaining ties among the resistance groups in the entire region under the title of “axis of resistance”.
Sayyed Nasrallah said that martyr Suleimani was keen on sustaining the communication among the resistance groups in order to coordinate the acts of confronting the Israeli enemy, adding that Resistance groups in the region act according to the conditions of the country they exist in despite the strategic agreement on identifying the enemies, friends and targets.
In this regard, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that some journalists and politicians fail to understand the nature of the relations between Iran and the resistance groups and among the resistance groups themselves.
“ Axis of resistance is joined by masters who take their decisions independently, not servants who obey regulations blindly.”
Sayyed Nasrallah started his speech by offers condolences on the death of Hezbollah official Hajj Mohammad Yaghi and the martyrdom of the IRGC commander Sayyed Radhi Al-Moussawi in an Israeli attack on Damascus countryside.
His eminence also offers felicitations on Sayyeda Az-Zahraa (A.S.) Birthday and the advent of the new year.
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that he is scheduled to deliver a speech on Friday, adding that it will be devoted mainly to the Lebanese front.
It is worth noting that the ceremony was started with a recitation of Holy Quranic verses and a video which displays some aspects of martyr Suleimani’s life.
Marwa Osman and Karim Sharara analyze the speech of the leader of the Lebanese group.
PS: This is an educational video aimed at analyzing the speech. On this channel, we do not endorse the content of the speech or the ideology and goals of the militant group.
وأشار، خلال احتفال تكريمي أقامه حزب الله للشهداء مهدي محمد عطوي، حسين عباس فصاعي وابراهيم حبيب الدبق في كونين، أن «ما يحصل في غزة اليوم له ارتباط بكل قضايا أمتنا الأساسية، وبالقدس والمقدسات، وبكل قضية فلسطين، وبكل مواجهتنا مع هذا العدو المتغطرس على مستوى لبنان وكل المنطقة».
ولفت صفي الدين إلى أنّ «العالم كله يعلم اليوم أن ما يفعله الصهاينة في أطفال وشيوخ ونساء غزة إضافة إلى هذا الدمار فيها، هو فعل أميركي وأوروبي، وبالتالي، فإن كل زعيم دولي جاء إلى الكيان الغاصب ليؤيّد ويدعم وليشد على عضد هؤلاء الصهاينة، هو شريك في هذه الدماء والمجازر».
أكد رئيس المجلس التنفيذي في حزب الله، السيد هاشم صفي الدين، أنّ «مجازر غزة ستزيد من الشعوب الإسلامية والعربية تمسكًا وقناعة بالمقاومة، وستزيد المقاومين تمسكًا وقناعة واعتقادًا بصوابية ما ذهبوا إليه في المقاومة، وسيزيدنا جميعًا قناعة واعتقادًا ثابتًا راسخًا أنّ مع هذه العصابات الأميركية والأوروبية والإسرائيلية لا ينفع إلاّ لغة المقاومة والسلاح والصواريخ، ولذا سوف نكون حاضرين في كل جبهة بصواريخنا وسلاحنا».
وقال إنّ «ما حصل ويحصل في غزة يوصلنا إلى عدة نتائج، أحدها، أن أميركا ومعظم الدول الأوروبية والغربية مع أميركا، هي ليست دولًا، وجيوشها ليست جيوشًا لدول كما يقولون، وإنما هؤلاء عصابات ومافيا قتل وتجار دماء، وأميركا حقيقتها عصابة، والدول الأوروبية التي تحمي الكيان الصهيوني وتساهم في قتل الأطفال، هم عصابات وليسوا دولًا، ولا يجوز أن يتم التعاطي مع هذه الدول أنها دولًا حقيقية تؤمن بقوانين ومعايير إنسانية أو دولية أو تدافع عن حقوق الإنسان أو أي شيء من هذا النوع».
وشدد على أنّ «الذي يُساهم في قتل أطفال غزة على مرأى من كل العالم دون أن تتحرك مشاعره على الإطلاق، ليسوا أسوياء على المستوى الإنساني، وهم من الطغاة والجبابرة ومن الذين قتلت المشاعر الإنسانية في قلوبهم، ولذا ليس مسموحًا لأحد بعد الآن أن يأتي إلى بلداننا أو لأي سفارة غربية أو أميركية لتقدّم النصائح وفق معاييرها الخاصة على مستوى حقوق الإنسان والمطالب المختلفة التي يتحدثون بها ليلًا نهارًا».
وقال إنّ «الجواب الذي يجب أن يكون اليوم لكل الأميركيين والغربيين والصهاينة، هو أن المقاومين في بلدنا ومنطقتنا، متمسكون بسلاحهم وبمقاومتهم، وجاهزون دائمًا على خط المقاومة والجهاد والسلاح إلى آخر الطريق».
وأكد صفي الدين أنّ «كل ما يفعله وما سيفعله الأميركي والإسرائيلي ومن ومعهما مع الشعب الفلسطيني سواء في غزة أو في الضفة التي تنتفض اليوم، أو على مستوى التهديدات للمقاومين على امتداد منطقتنا، سوف يذهب مع الرياح».
وأضاف: «إذا كان الأميركي يستعجل الامتحانات والابتلاءات والتحديات، فعليه أن يعلم أنّ في أمتنا أبطالًا ومقاومين نفضوا غبار الذل وتاريخ المذلة عن أمتهم، وهم جاهزون في الميدان وكل مكان».
رغم انشغال العالم بالحرب العالمية الثالثة المنضبطة الدائرة على الأراضي الأوكرانية، التي تحاول من خلالها القوى الدولية العظمى والقوى الفاعلة ترسيم توازنات النظام العالمي لسنين مقبلة، والتي غطت تداعياتها بقدر كبير على مجريات الأحداث في منطقتنا التي لا تزال الأكثر اشتعالاً منذ عقود، فإن حقائق الجغرافيا وعقَد المواصلات البرية والبحرية عادت لتفرض حضور منطقة المشرق العربي وامتداداته في منطقة غرب آسيا كساحة رئيسة في أي عملية تحول جذري في التوازنات العالمية.
يمكن قراءة عودة اهتمام القوى الدولية بمنطقة المشرق العربي ضمن معركة صياغة عالم ما بعد الأحادية القطبية في أكثر من مفصل مؤخراً، كان منها حضور الصين المفاجئ كراعٍ للتفاهم السعودي الإيراني في آذار/مارس 2023.
كذلك، كان من تلك المظاهر إعادة نشر مقاتلات أميركية متطورة في المشرق العربي مؤخراً، بصرف النظر عن أن إعادة الانتشار تلك لم تكن مؤشراً على تحول في الاستراتيجية الأميركية العامة المبنية على عدم التورط في حرب جديدة في المنطقة.
أخيراً، جاءت زيارة الرئيس بشار الأسد والوفد السوري المرافق لبكين في أيلول/سبتمبر 2023، بناءً على دعوة من الرئيس الصيني، وذلك لحضور حفل افتتاح دورة الألعاب الآسيوية، بحضور نحو 12 من رؤساء الدول الآسيوية، ولتوقيع الرئيسين الصيني والسوري على اتفاقية الشراكة الاستراتيجية بين البلدين.
وقد قرأ البعض في تلك الزيارة رفيعة المستوى سعياً لتغيير المشهد الجيوسياسي الإقليمي، ونزعة صينية متزايدة لتحدي الهيمنة الأميركية التقليدية في المنطقة، لكن ضمن المحددات العامة للسياسة الخارجية الصينية التي تتسم بالحذر المدروس وبالتقدم البطيء نسبياً في المحافل الدولية.
يأتي ازدياد الحضور الصيني في ساحة المشرق العربي، لينضم إلى مجموع المؤثرات الدولية الأخرى القائمة في المنطقة أصلاً، فقد استعادت روسيا موقعها كمؤثر رئيس في مجرى أحداث المنطقة خلال الأعوام القليلة الماضية، لتصبح على قدم المساواة مع الحضور الأميركي المستمر والتقليدي في المنطقة من جهة التأثير.
وبهذا، صارت هذه العوامل الدولية مجتمعة تشكل واحداً من 3 ضوابط مفصلية تتحكم في توقيت الحرب الإقليمية الشاملة بين محور المقاومة والكيان المؤقت، بحسب ما يرى هذا المقال.
تعد فكرة الحرب الإقليمية أو ما يسميه البعض الانتقال إلى مرحلة الهجوم المعاكس الشامل من أكثر المواضيع تداولاً في الصالونات السياسية هذه الأيام، فالتساؤلات تدور عما إذا كانت هناك في الأفق حرب إقليمية مقبلة؟ ومتى تقع؟ وكيف ستكون طبيعتها؟
ولا يمكن واقعياً الجزم بالإجابة عن هذه التساؤلات، ولكن من الممكن محاولة حصر العوامل التي تشكل الإطار الحاكم لاحتمال نشوب حرب إقليمية شاملة، ووضعها ضمن 3 ضوابط أساسية: اثنان يدفعان نحو الحرب، وثالث آخر مثبط، على النحو الآتي:
الضابط الأول: اختلال موازين القوى
تشير الوقائع وطريقة تعاطي الأطراف الإقليمية مع الأحداث إلى حصول تبدل ملموس في موازين القوى التي كانت تحكم الإقليم لعقود، فإحجام الكيان المؤقت عن شن حرب واسعة على حزب الله في لبنان منذ 2006 من أجل القضاء على قوته أو تحييد خطره على أقل تقدير، وذلك رغم مراكمة الحزب المطردة لعناصر القوة العسكرية التي وصلت فيما وصلت إليه إلى حد امتلاكه الصواريخ الدقيقة وإنشائه “مطار الجبور” العسكري في جنوب لبنان على بعد 20 كيلومتراً فقط من الحدود مع فلسطين المحتلة.
يُضاف إلى ذلك عدم قدرة “جيش” الاحتلال على اجتياح قطاع غزة برياً لإنهاء وجود فصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية المسلحة فيه، بل على العكس، باتت الفصائل الفلسطينية تقيم المناورات العسكرية تحت مرأى ومسمع من “جيش” الاحتلال من دون أن يقوم بأي رد فعل يذكر، وذلك بسبب مجموعة حسابات معقدة عن الخسائر والأرباح لم يكن الكيان المؤقت ليقيم لها بالاً في الماضي القريب.
لقد جاءت حادثة خيمة حزب الله التي نصبها في مزارع شبعا لتختصر صورة الديناميكيات الجديدة التي باتت تحكم محدودية قدرة الكيان المؤقت على توظيف “جيشه” في مواجهة قوى التحرر العربي والإسلامي، ناهيك بعدم قيامه بعملية عسكرية ضد المشروع النووي الإيراني رغم تهديداته المتكررة بذلك، وحصره المواجهة في هذا المجال بالعمليات الأمنية والاستخباراتية، وذلك تفادياً لحرب لا يستطيع التنبؤ بمداها ونتائجها.
لطالما كانت حسابات الأطراف المتقابلة لتوازنات القوة فيما بينها العامل الأول المؤثر في نشوء الحروب في التجارب التاريخية عموماً، ويبدو أن أركان محور المقاومة باتت تشعر بفائض قوة يمكنها من الضغط على العدو في أكثر من ساحة وتجاوز خطوط كان يَعدها العدو حمراً في الماضي. كان هذا يجري تحت سقف رسمته لنفسها قوى محور المقاومة -أقله حتى اللحظة- يقضي بعدم الدخول في حرب مفتوحة في الإقليم ضمن معادلة “لا نريد الحرب، لكننا لا نخشاها”.
لكن لأي مدى يمكن أن يستمر اللعب على خطوط التماس من دون خروج الأمر عن دائرة التحكّم؟ كيف إذا كان تبدل موازين القوى لا يمكن رصده فعلياً من دون اختباره في الميدان بصورة عملية من خلال الحرب، ناهيك بإمكانية تبدل معادلة محور المقاومة طبقاً للظروف لتغدو: “نريد الحرب ولا نخشاها”؟
الضابط الثاني: صلابة مواقف الأطراف
ترى قوى التحرر العربي والإسلامي في المدى المتوسط إمكانية واقعية لإزالة الكيان المؤقت الذي تعده عنصراً أساسياً في إدامة منظومة الهيمنة الغربية التي تعرقل التنمية في المنطقة واستقرارها، حالها في ذلك حال باقي دول “الجنوب العالمي” التي ترزح تحت الهيمنة الغربية.
تتجلى الشواهد على ذلك في صراع امتد لعقود، كان آخرها مثلاً رفض الجمهورية الإسلامية القاطع لعروض قدمتها لها بعض الدول، تقضي بمقايضة تخفيف الغارات الجوية الإسرائيلية المتكررة على قواتها في الأراضي السورية، في مقابل تخفيف الدعم الذي تقدمه لفصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية المسلحة، ولا سيما في ساحة الضفة، ما عدته الجمهورية الإسلامية طرحاً يتناقض مع طبيعتها وأسس تكوينها العقائدي.
وكان رد محور المقاومة العملي في المقابل البدء بنقل بعض المنشآت العسكرية الإيرانية في سوريا إلى أماكن محصنة تحت الأرض، في محاولة لتقليص آثار الغارات الجوية الإسرائيلية، كما رشح من بعض المصادر.
كما أن خطوة إنشاء حزب الله “مطار الجبور” العسكري بالتعاون مع الجمهورية الإسلامية جاءت في السياق ذاته، إذ يمكن استخدامه -إضافة إلى كونه منصة هجوم على مواقع الاحتلال في الأراضي الفلسطينية المحتلة- كمهبط لطائرات نقل عسكرية متوسطة الحجم إذا اقتضت الحاجة ذلك، ما يؤمن لحزب الله خط إمداد آخر إلى جانب الخط البري الواصل عبر الأراضي السورية، متجاوزاً بذلك تهديد الغارات الإسرائيلية على شحنات السلاح المزعومة.
أما فلسطينياً، فمِن الواضح أن فصائل المقاومة المسلحة الفلسطينية ليست في وارد الدخول في تسويات مع الكيان المؤقت، منطلقةً بذلك من تكوينها العقائدي، ومن تجربة خدعة السلام ومسار “أوسلو” الذي انعكس ضرراً كبيراً على مسار التحرير. ويتجلى هذا المسار في تركيزها على تصعيد العمل المقاوم في الضفة وتطويره، بما تمثله الضفة من ساحة اشتباك استراتيجية مع الاحتلال.
نجد في المقلب الآخر أن الكيان المؤقت لا يستطيع التراجع طوعاً، ولو خطوة واحدة، إلى الوراء، فأي تراجع من ناحيته سيعد ضربة جديدة تقربه من تفككه، ناهيك بكينونته الاستيطانية والإحلالية وطبيعته الوظيفية في المنطقة اللتين تحولان دون تحوله إلى جسم منسجم مع محيطه الإقليمي.
لا يحتاج هذا الأمر إلى كثير من التدليل؛ فيكفي النظر إلى مخططاته المعلنة الرامية إلى تهجير العدد الأكبر من فلسطينيي الضفة وأراضي فلسطين 1948 على حد سواء، وعزمه الصريح على تهويد القدس، وهدم المسجد الأقصى، وتهديد الأماكن المقدسة الإسلامية والمسيحية في فلسطين المحتلة. كل هذا برغم ما قدمته له السلطة الفلسطينية مع دول التطبيع من تنازلات ترقى إلى مستوى الخيانات الوطنية، ورغم ما أبدته هذه الأطراف أمامه من انبطاح وخنوع.
إذاً، طبقاً لهذا الوضع الجيوسياسي الهش بين الأطراف المتقابلة، ستبقى خطوط التماس غير مستقرة، وستزداد مع الوقت احتمالات اشتعال الجبهات، إذ لن يستقر الإقليم إلا بإحدى حالتين:
– تسوية كبرى لا تلوح في الأفق، فكل ما شهدته المنطقة في العامين أو الأعوام الثلاثة الماضية كان مجرد تسويات موضعية أشبه ما تكون بالمسكنات التي تؤخر الانفجار الكبير.
– صدام إقليمي ترسم نتائجه شكل الإقليم المقبل وتوازناته، وهذا ما يبدو أقرب إلى الواقع حتى حينه.
الضابط الثالث: العامل الدولي
يعدّ الضابطان الأول والثاني دافعين نحو وقوع الحرب الإقليمية الشاملة، فيما يؤدي العامل الدولي دور الضابط المثبط في هذه المعادلة المتشابكة، إذ لا يمكن تجاهل تأثير الولايات المتحدة القوي في المنطقة واستراتيجيتها المبنية على منع تفجر الأوضاع في الإقليم في هذه الحقبة.
وقد تجلت تلك الاستراتيجية في أكثر من محطة، كان منها على سبيل المثال لا الحصر الموقف الأميركي الضاغط نحو التهدئة في معركة “سيف القدس” عام 2021، والوساطة التي قادتها لإبرام اتفاق ترسيم الحدود البحرية بين الدولة اللبنانية وكيان الاحتلال 2022، ضمن سياسة تفكيك الألغام القابلة للانفجار في المنطقة عبر التسويات المحدودة والموضعية، إضافة إلى رفضها المستمر للسير وراء الضغوط الإسرائيلية الداعية إلى مهاجمة الجمهورية الإسلامية عسكرياً على خلفية المشروع النووي الإيراني.
أما بالنسبة إلى روسيا، التي بات لها وجود إقليمي لا يقل أهمية عن الحضور الأميركي، فهي ليست معنية باشتعال الأوضاع في المنطقة أو بأن تكون جزءاً مباشراً في الصراع العربي-الإسلامي الإسرائيلي.
يبدو هذا واضحاً من سلوكها في التغاضي عن الغارات الإسرائيلية المستمرة على الأراضي السورية، أقله حتى هذه اللحظة، فروسيا بغنى عن الدخول في صدام مع الحليف الأول لأميركا والغرب عموماً في المنطقة، إضافة إلى علاقاتها مع الكيان المؤقت التي تضعها بالحسبان ضمن استراتيجياتها العامة.
ولعل روسيا تطمح إلى أداء دور عراب “السلام” في المستقبل بين الكيان المؤقت ودول المنطقة، ذلك بمعزل عن مدى صحة هذه القراءة الروسية للوضع الإقليمي وفرص نجاحها.
يبقى الحضور الصيني المتزايد والمستجد في الإقليم الذي لا بد من أنه سيكون من ضمن أولوياته تهدئة الأوضاع، وذلك بهدف تأمين بيئة آمنة للاستثمارات الصينية التجارية في الإقليم ومشروعها الاستراتيجي “الحزام والطريق”.
يشكّل العامل الدولي ثقلاً كبيراً لا يستهان به ضمن معادلة الضوابط الثلاث الحاكمة لنشوب حرب إقليمية شاملة، لكن ما دام العامل الدولي لم يرتقِ إلى مرتبة القدرة على عقد تسويات كبرى في المنطقة، فإنه سيظل عامل تثبيط مؤقتاً من دون أن يصل إلى مستوى تحقيق الاستقرار الدائم، وهذا ما يرجح أن تكون عليه الحال.
ضابط إضافي؟
يرى البعض في كون الطبقة السياسية الحاكمة في الكيان حالياً، التي يسيطر عليها المستوطنون والصهيونية الدينية الأكثر تطرفاً، عاملاً آخر يدفع نحو الحرب. هذا التقدير يحمل الكثير من الصحة في طياته بقدر أن رعونة وحمْق الطبقة الحاكمة في الكيان يمكن أن يدفعاها إلى خطوة في الأراضي المحتلة تؤدي إلى إشعال الجبهات، لكن مع هذا، يظل كيان الاحتلال محكوماً بمؤسسات متجذرة ترتبط بأجهزة “الجيش” والاستخبارات التي تصوغ تقديراتها وتوصياتها عادة بناءً على حقائق الميدان وبحِرفية.
ولا يمكن بحال تجاهل التأثير الأميركي الوازن في قرارات الكيان المرتبطة بشن الحروب، ويعد الحد من حجم النفوذ الأميركي في الكيان وتأثيره جزءاً من المعركة الداخلية المحتدمة بين المعارضة وحكومة الاحتلال هذه الأيام، لكن هذه المعركة لم يتم حسمها بعد، والأرجح ألا يكون هناك أي تبدل لمستوى النفوذ الأميركي على قرارات الكيان لأسباب لا محل لنقاشها هنا.
خاتمة
تعيش المنطقة العربية والإسلامية حالة من عدم الاستقرار منذ 1922، مما اصطلح عليه ديفيد فرومكين عبارة “سلام ما بعده سلام”، إذ دخلت المنطقة منذ ذاك الحين مرحلة شاذة تتنافى مع تكوينها العمراني وعمقها التاريخي الذي جعل منها منطقة مشتعلة على الدوام، وقنبلة موقوتة تنتظر الانفجار متى توفرت الظروف الملائمة لذلك، وليس هناك سبيل موضوعي كي تستعيد المنطقة استقرارها -أقله النسبي- إلا بخروجها من الحالة الشاذة التي تعيشها منذ نحو قرن من الزمن وإزالة الكيان المؤقت الذي يعد أحد أبرز أسباب إدامة عدم الاستقرار في المنطقة، بما يمثله من امتداد للوجود الغربي الاستعماري داخل الإقليم.
إذا كانت حال المنطقة تحاكي قنبلة موقوتة، فإن مجموع العوامل والظروف الإقليمية في هذه الحقبة تقترب أكثر فأكثر لتوفير صاعق التفجير.
يسابق الزمن هذه الأيام بين أمرين؛ نضوج ظروف التسويات الكبرى الدولية في معركة رسم عالم ما بعد الأحادية القطبية التي ستنعكس حتماً على المنطقة، بصرف النظر عن رضا الأطراف، ونضوج الظروف تماماً لحرب إقليمية شاملة أو وقوع خطأ في التقدير من أحد الخصوم الإقليميين يخرِج الأوضاع عن السيطرة، فأي الظروف ستنضج أولاً، علماً بأن التسويات الكبرى الدولية ليست قريبة، وطريقها ما زال متعرجاً ومليئاً بالمفاجآت؟
يظل السؤال العالق الذي يؤرق بال الكثيرين: هل فعلاً من مصلحة قوى التحرر العربي والإسلامي انتظار مجيء التسويات الكبرى الدولية لتكرار تجربة 1922 سيئة الذكر؟
ن الآراء المذكورة في هذه المقالة لا تعبّر بالضرورة عن رأي الميادين وإنما تعبّر عن رأي صاحبها حصراً
On Resistance and Liberation Day, Hezbollah Secretary General, Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, addressed the recent threats made by Zionist officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, against Lebanon and the entire axis of resistance.
He strongly emphasized that such a “Great War” would ultimately lead the Israelis to their own downfall.
During a televised speech on the Resistance and Liberation Day, Sayyed Nasrallah urged the Zionist officials to avoid making miscalculations in Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Palestine, Syria, and Iran.
He made it clear that it is not Hezbollah but the Zionist officials who should be cautious, stating, “Wait! We are the ones who threaten to wage a great war.” He warned that their recklessness could potentially ignite the entire region and pave the way for a disastrous conflict, referred to as the “Great War.” “Your follies, not ours, might blow up the entire region and lead to the Great War,” he said.
Sayyed Nasrallah stated that in the event of an all-out war initiated by the Zionist enemy, there will be an influx of hundreds of thousands of highly skilled fighters onto the battlefields. He emphasized that all borders would be opened, citing a humanitarian advantage over the Israelis in this context.
Sayyed Nasrallah indicated that the Zionist officials withdrew their intimidation after realizing that it has troubled the Zionist settlers, caused a dollar price hike, and threatened the touristic activities.
‘Israel’ must know none of the axis of resistance groups and states is afraid of it
Sayyed Nasrallah discussed several significant geopolitical developments that have shaped the conflict with the Israeli enemy. He emphasized that the axis of resistance has successfully maintained deterrence strategies tailored to each front, including Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Iran.
Regarding the recent Israeli aggression on Gaza, Sayyed Nasrallah highlighted that the deterrence formula remained unchanged, leading the Israeli enemy to issue threats against Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and the Palestinian people. However, he pointed out that the Zionist officials retreated from their intimidation tactics after witnessing Hezbollah’s military maneuvers.
The Hezbollah leader also noted the failure of the US-Zionist plot to impose normalization deals on Arab regimes without considering the will of the Arab people. He emphasized that even the conspiracy to bring the regional countries under Israeli influence was bound to fail, as victorious resistance groups emerged in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
In addition, Sayyed Nasrallah underscored the significant advancements made by Hezbollah and the entire axis of resistance in terms of materialistic, financial, and military development. He specifically highlighted the remarkable progress achieved in the fields of drones and rockets.
Sayyed Nasrallah also drew attention to the deep divisions within Israeli society and the vulnerability of their so-called home front, which undermines solidarity among the groups and states within the axis of resistance.
An important transformation highlighted by Sayyed Nasrallah is the Israelis’ increasing tendency to seek ways to avoid direct confrontation.
Emphasizing the role of human determination in achieving victories, Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized that the axis of resistance relies on this factor to uphold values of bravery and sacrifice.
Sayyed Nasrallah depicted contrasting images of the devout resistance youth and the disillusioned younger generation in Israel. He mentioned that Netanyahu had acknowledged a decade ago that Zionist youths were disengaging from Zionism.
Furthermore, Sayyed Nasrallah underscored the loss of influential leaders within the Zionist entity, in contrast to the overwhelming confidence placed in resistance leaders, movements, and states. He noted that the people within the axis of resistance are willing to sacrifice the lives of their children for this cause.
In response to accusations from America and Israel, Sayyed Nasrallah clarified that the components of the axis of resistance are defenders of their original homelands, not mere proxy groups. He contrasted this with the Zionists, whom he characterized as intruders and occupiers in the region.
Hezbollah Chief reiterated that Palestine will be liberated and that “we will pray at Al-Aqsa Mosque”.
The Secretary General of Hezbollah emphasized that the Israelis are apprehensive about the waning influence of US hegemony in the region and the world at large. He stated that the axis of resistance, which stood against the American era, will benefit from a new world system based on multipolarism.
Sayyed Nasrallah pointed out that the US retreat and failures have compelled them to reassess their presence and role in the region.
He tackled the strategic changes brought about by the achievements of the resistance in the past few decades, briefly mentioning the demise of the Zionist aspiration for a “Greater Israel” extending from the Nile to the Euphrates in 2000 and 2005 (referring to the Liberation of Southern Lebanon and Gaza, respectively).
Furthermore, he emphasized that even the Zionist objective of maintaining a “Greater Israel” was shattered in 2006 when Hezbollah defeated the Israeli military and in 2008 when the Palestinian resistance overcame Israeli forces in Gaza.
“Israel now hides behind walls and firepower, becoming incapable of imposing its terms in negotiations with the Palestinian people,” remarked Sayyed Nasrallah.
He affirmed that the conflict with the Zionist enemy is ongoing, with the Israelis making daily attempts to attack their territories.
Lebanon
Sayyed Nasrallah reassured that the Israeli feebleness grants Lebanon a larger extent of peace and security which would allow them to pursue their concerns.
In this regard, Sayyed Nasrallah indicated that the Lebanese would be able to follow up the maritime gas extraction project, adding that reports indicate a serious progress pertaining this file.
His eminence added that developing the touristic sector and attracting tourists requires peace and security in order to cope with the socioeconomic crisis.
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the Resistance is capable to protect Lebanon’s peace and security, adding that the army-people-resistance formula contribute to achieving this goal.
Concerning the presidential elections, Sayyed Nasrallah cited a positive regional atmosphere and called for further contacts and negotiations without preconditions in order to elect a new president.
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that addressing the BDL governor issue can be addressed through either a personal decision taken by Riad Salameh to resign or a judicial procedure that sacks him, noting the caretaker government cannot take any measure in this regard according to the Constitution.
Pertaining the Syrian refugees file, Sayyed Nasrallah reiterated his call on the government to send a high-ranking delegation to Damascus in order to hold talks about this issue.
Hezbollah Secretary General had started his speech by felicitating the Lebanese people on the 23rd anniversary of Resistance and Liberation Day, stressing that it is a great occasion which recalls a majestic victory.
Sayyed Nasrallah thanked Holy God and hailed the sacrifices made by the Resistance martyrs, injured, prisoners and fighters which contributed to the liberation victory.
Sayyed Nasrallah underscored the role of the other Lebanese and Palestinian resistance factions in addition to the role of the Lebanese Army and Security Forces in reaching this victory, greeting the Lebanese statesmen, politicians and parties which contributed to the feat.
Sayyed Nasrallah hailed the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria for supporting the Resistance during its fight against the Zionist occupation.
His eminence underlined the importance of conveying the experience of pride to the new generations in order to let them know about the occasion and keep committed to the Resistance that protects this victory.
How did the resistance establish deterrence equations?
Horror Temporary entity from the Iranian Khyber missile Is the attack possible? What about the “mother of all bombs”, a pre-emptive Russian nuclear strike?
Nasrallah warns Israel of miscalculation, Dubai is shaken, and the Israeli Foreign Ministry is commenting
Abdel Bari Atwan, how did Nasralla snatch sleep from the eyes of the Israelis?
How are the conditions of the people of the Lebanese border towns with occupied Palestine?
Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Nasrallah delivered on Thursday a speech as Lebanon celebrates the 23rd anniversary of the Resistance and Liberation Day.
At the beginning of his televised speech, Sayyed Nasrallah viewed that that ‘Resistance and Liberation Day’ is a great occasion that reminds of the great victory that was achieved in Lebanon. “The Resistance and Liberation Day is a great occasion that recalls the majestic victory which was achieved in Lebanon on this day.”
He further congratulated the Lebanese people on the beautiful and dear occasion. In addition, His Eminence thanked the Lebanese Army, the Security Forces, the Palestinian factions, and all presidents and political powers that supported the resistance, and thanks Iran and Syria who supported and are still supporting the resistance and all its leaders
Moreover, the Resistance Leader thanked all those who contributed to the victory a top of whom are the martyrs, the wounded, the liberated detainees, the Mujahideen and all their families.
Sayyed Nasrallah also thanked all the people who remained defiant and embraced, supported, and protected the resistance in all the Lebanese regions especially South Lebanon and Beqaa.
“After the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, and the withdrawal from Gaza, there is nothing called ‘Great Israel’,” he said, noting that “Today, ‘Israel’ hides behind walls and fire, and it’s unable to impose its conditions in any negotiations with the Palestinian people.”
Meanwhile, His Eminence underlined that “Those who suspect that the battle against our enemy has finished are mistaken as there is part of our land which is still under occupation.”
Sayyed Nasrallah highlighted the necessity of commemorating this occasion by saying: “The Lebanese generations and all people must be reminded that this victory was not granted, but was instead an outcome of long years of sacrifices.”
He also warned that Some sides seek to waste the achieved victory. “We have to prevent this.”
In addition, Hezbollah Secretary General clarified that “Our struggle dates back to May 17, which means the wrong choices, and May 15, which is the Day of Nakba, and reaches May 25th, which represents the right choices.”
“After the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, and the withdrawal from Gaza, there is nothing called ‘Great Israel’,” he confirmed, noting that “The occupation entity’s transformations, which was supposed to be strong and dominant, are the results of the long struggle and the history of sacrifices.”
Sayyed Nasrallah went on to say: “‘Israel’ has no interest in a multipolar world, but rather a one-pole world led by the US.”
“‘Israel’s’ internal division comes at a time the resistance axis enjoys great cohesion and steadfastness,” he stressed, pointing out that “Among the goals of the global war on Syria was to oust it from the axis of resistance.”
According to His Eminence, “The Iranian president’s positions during his latest visit to Syria after 12 years of global war on it confirm the coherence of the axis of resistance.”
Regarding the axis of the resistance’s strength, the Resistance Leader assured that “The pillar of resistance is the human, who believes in his cause and right and who possesses bravery and daring. The axis of resistance has an excellent human capacity as well as spirit in Gaza, Al-Quds, the West Bank, and the entire region.”
Commenting on the recent “Israeli” threats, Sayyed Nasrallah sent sounding messages: “The ‘Israeli’ has miscalculations if he thinks that the great war will be with the Palestinians only or the Lebanese only.
He further responded to “Israeli” PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s threats, by affirming: “You are not the ones who threaten with the great war, but we are the ones threatening you with it.”
On this level, His Eminence unveiled that “Any great war will include all borders and its areas and fields will be narrowed by hundreds of thousands of fighters, and we have tremendous superiority when we tackle the human aspect.”
Moving to the disturbed “Israeli” internal arena, Sayyed Nasrallah explained that “Today, there is a loss of confidence in the entity’s institutions, while our people have overwhelming confidence in the resistance leaders, movements, and countries, as they are ready to sacrifice the lives of their children in this path.”
“One of our strong points is the ‘Israeli’ enemy’s internal front, which is facing an ideological retreat,” he stated, noting that “One of the important transformations is that the ‘Israeli’ internal front is weak and feeble, and that the ‘Israelis’ are ready and seek to flee.”
His Eminence also viewed that “There is hope more than ever to liberate Palestine from the river to the sea. The enemy’s entity has lost its historic leaders.”
Assuring that the deterrence equation is what protects Lebanon, the Resistance Leader asserted that “The ‘Israelis’ backtracked their latest threats due to fear in the settlements and after Hezbollah’s latest wargames. Netanyahu has failed to restore deterrence through the latest Gaza confrontation. ‘Israel’ resorted to escalating its rhetoric after the failure in Gaza.”
On this level, he urged the “Israeli” enemy’s premier, war minister and army chief to be careful and not to make wrong calculations.
“We’re confident and certain that Palestine will be liberated and that we will pray in Al-Aqsa Mosque, as the occupying entity is moving towards demise,” His Eminence reiterated, noting that “Among the major transformations is the development of the resistance’s military capabilities, an example of which is what we have in Lebanon.”
Sayyed Nasrallah estimated that “The one who should fear the great war is ‘Israel’,” underlining that “The ‘Israelis’ failed to strengthen their deterrence and realized that they would pay the price for every attack.”
Moreover, he disclosed that “The “Israelis” retreated from their threats because of the decline in the touristic activity and the ‘shekel’ against the dollar.”
“The enemy must fear, pay attention and not be dragged to any miscalculation by committing any mistake in any country that might lead to a great war,” he added, noting that “The great war in the region will move the ‘Israeli” entity to the abyss and to its demise.”
To “Israel”, Sayyed Nasrallah sent a clear threat “The ‘Israelis’ must know that none of the resistance movements fears them. Any mistake might blow up the entire region.”
Calling on all Lebanese to put bickering aside amid the presence of a true protection umbrella for Lebanon. The resistance Leader underscored that “The ‘army, people and resistance’ equation protected Lebanon as security remains a prerequisite for any economic and political treatment.”
He also viewed that “The ‘Israeli’ entity managed to normalize relations with some Arab regimes, but it was unable to normalize relations with the Arab people. The occupation realized that the Arab regimes are incapable of imposing normalization on their people.”
Moving to the internal Lebanese arena, Sayyed Nasrallah called again the Lebanese to return to dialogue to address their crises. “The regional equations call for optimism,” he added.
His Eminence commented on the issue of ‘the Banque du Liban’s’ Governor: Either he steps down himself or the judiciary takes responsibility because the caretaker government doesn’t have the authority to remove him
“The issue of the Syrian refugees can be resolved through a decision to send a Lebanese government’s delegation to Syria,” he said.
On the presidential file, Hezbollah Secretary General concluded: “Further dialogue and contacts are required and we call for discussing the presidential choices without preconditions.”
Related Videos
Sayyed Nasrallah warns “Israel”: Any foolishness will lead to a major war | 2023-05-25
Political analyst Hossam Taleb And Military and strategic expert Dr. Amin Hoteit
Day after another, the Israeli army becomes convinced by an old hypothesis that the Zionist entity will engage in a multi-front confrontation. The recent resistance operations extending from the north to the south, all the way to occupied Palestine interior- the latest of which could have rolled into a wide round of fighting- only weighed this hypothesis as well.
Meanwhile, the recent operations imposed a pressure on both the political and security institutions in the occupation regime, as it deepened the state of confusion within the Israeli leadership.
However, such Israeli estimations not only did begin with the outbreak of the last “rocketry round” in the third week of the holy month of Ramadan, but rather that the latter represented a modest translation of a scenario present by the occupation leadership years ago.
Perhaps the “Chariots of Fire” military exercise, which was scheduled for 2021 and was postponed till 2022 due to the “Seif Al-Quds” battle, indicated that this scenario had been on the table since before.
According to Israeli estimates, Iran has made significant strides in its plan to deploy missiles, drones and advanced weapons around the Zionist entity, turning the occupied territories from the north to the south into a real battlefield.
As a result, the enemy lives with an obsession that it will face a harsh confrontation that simultaneously includes Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, all the way to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, especially since it is expected, in this case, to be subjected to destruction on scales that it has not witnessed throughout its history.
These estimates raised the level of concerns in the Israeli regime living with a permanent state of fear over any conflict in the region.
And what makes the picture more bleak for ‘Israel’ is that the multi-front war scenario, with its military and strategic risks, comes at a time when the Zionist entity finds itself “drowned in the most serious internal crisis in its history, while its prime minister is Benjamin Netanyahu, who promised to put Iran at the top of his priorities, is busy trying to save himself from the court’s ruling, as the people are divided,” said Chuck Freilich, former deputy national security adviser, as reported by Yedioth Ahronoth (April 19,2023).
Freilich added, “Saudi Arabia and the UAE have restored their relations with Iran, and Egypt is on the way to do so, as the regional alliance that Israel sought to build is disintegrating, with Iran’s relations with China and Russia deepening, and the crisis in our relationship with the United States is deep,” to conclude that “all the strategy that Netanyahu built has collapsed.”
The battles on more than one front have ceased, but the messages behind Megiddo operation and the subsequent missile strikes from Lebanon, Syria and Gaza against ‘Israel’ are still echoed by assessment and decision-making bodies across the Zionist entity.
In depth, the enemy’s institutions view the security developments that have taken place in recent weeks as a new phase that is highly intertwined, complex, and completely different from what they are familiar with in the maneuvers that simulated such scenarios.
Perhaps what frightens ‘Israel’ in this stage is that if it decides to retaliate it will find itself engaged in a multi-front battle that it fears and has been trying to avoid, while if it refrains from doing so, it will have accepted the erosion of its deterrent power.
The Israeli Minister of Defense, Yoav Gallant, confirmed in a security assessment session (on April 20) that ‘Israel’ is “at the end of the era of limited confrontations,” and that it is thus entering “a new security era that poses a real threat in all arenas at the same time.”
Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant
Gallant remarks reflect a shift in the conscious of the Israeli security institution and anticipate the Israeli decision makers’ cautious behavior towards its options in a bid to avoid a dangerous scenario that is seen by the Israelis as the “Day of Resurrection”.
The Israeli DM summed up this shift by the Israeli military establishment, and behind it the political establishment as well, by saying: “We have worked for years to assume that we can engage in limited conflicts, but this phenomenon is disappearing. Today there is a clear phenomenon, which is the united fronts.”
Gallant also expressed that Iran is the “driving force” for this phenomenon by providing “resources, ideology, knowledge and training for its proxies,” adding that the increasing dependence of all these powers on Iran prompts the Islamic Republic to “defy Israel.”
On the other hand, Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah was clear in his recent speech on the occasion of “International Al-Quds Day” (April 14), where he warned the enemy against relying on a policy that aims at engaging in a single battle based on the assessment that the people of the region do not want a war.
“This is a dangerous game,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, warning that the occupation’s calculations may drag the region into an all-out war, which will necessarily be multi-fronts.
For its part, the Israeli cabinet held a session on the threat emanating from Lebanon and Syria. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu deliberately coincided the session with the “Holocaust” anniversary, and “in the presence of all the security leadership in ‘Israel’, with the aim of sending a message of strength”, according to the Hebrew “Kan” channel.
Other reports stated that the session discussed the scenario of escalation on the northern front, as a result of a possible escalation in Gaza, according to the estimates of the Israeli security and military establishments.
As a result, the Israeli stances, as well as the political performance, reveal that the Zionist regime deals with all seriousness with the fact that the region has entered a new phase, with which the hypothesis of the multi-front battle has become more present on the table, prompting ‘Israel’ to discuss its possible options regarding it, especially in light of doubts over Tel Aviv’s readiness to wage such a battle.
Hence, the occupation’s limited response during the latest round is understood, as well as its focus on neutralizing “Hezbollah”, in a bid to avoid acts of reprisals.
Nevertheless, the realization of the multi-front scenario depends on a number of factors, including the possibility of the Israeli miscalculations, which will make it as if it is treading a regional mine that will explode and topple its internal front and the interests of its American sponsor in the region.
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah responded to the threats of the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu by similarly saying in an intimidating tone, “You Will See!”
Sayyed Nasrallah abstained from commenting on the missile fire from Southern Lebanon at the Zionist settlements, stressing that reassuring the Zionist enemy is forbidden.
Hezbollah will resort to silence and avoid clarifying the missile fire from Southern Lebanon in order to keep ‘Israel’ confused and terrified, according to the Resistance Leader.
Sayyed Nasrallah indicated that the Israelis themselves acknowledge that the response to the missile fire from Lebanon was feeble due to the balance of deterrence maintained by the Resistance, highlighting the strategic reflection of the Zionist keenness on avoiding any direct clash with Hezbollah.
“The Israelis have boasted the only achievement of avoiding any direct clash with Hezbollah.”
Sayyed Nasrallah said that the Israeli raids did not target any site for Hezbollah or Hamas, but that an irrigation canal and a banana farm were hit.
His eminence maintained that all the Israeli threats are useless, rather they reinforce the Resistance commitment to accumulate all the required capabilities in order to sustain the balance of deterrence and confront any Zionist aggression on Lebanon.
Any Zionist attack on the Lebanese territories or any person present in Lebanon will be responded to without any hesitation, Sayyed Nasrallah maintained.
Addressing Hezbollah central ceremony marking International Quds Day in Beirut’s Dahiyeh, Sayyed Nasrallah warned the Israeli enemy of any folly against Al-Aqsa Mosque, Al-Quds, West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon or Syria may lead to an all-out war in the whole region.
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that Imam Khomeini announced Al-Quds International Day more than 40 years ago in order to be an occasion of voicing and expressing solidarity with Palestine.
Sayyed Nasrallah indicated that marking Al-Quds International Day sends a message of solidarity with the sacrificing Palestinian people, adding that Muslims and Christians as well as Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of Resurrection in Palestine are not left alone.
His eminence pointed out that Marking Al-Quds International Day is also aimed at intimidating the Israeli enemy that feels concerned and has made void threats to all the surrounding countries.
Hezbollah Secretary General highlighted the developments that occurred since last year’s Al-Quds Day and reviewed their effects on the Palestinian cause.
To begin with, Sayyed Nasrallah underlined the recession of the US hegemony all over the world, shedding light on the Venezuelan sample.
America was obliged to back off in Venezuela after a political and economic siege, according to Sayyed Nasrallah.
Sayyed Nasrallah indicated that one of the most important factors behind the regional changes is the milestone US defeat in Afghanistan, “which was wailed by the Israeli officials”.
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that ‘Israel’, Gulf states, and other regional countries have become convinced that the US is unreliable for protection, adding that some Arab countries have started to consider dialogue and agreement as a way to maintain the regional stability.
Sayyed Nasrallah noted that USA is now concentrating on the confrontation with Russia and China more than Eastern Asia and the Middle East, adding that this is worrying the Israelis.
Such developments move towards a multipolar world system that cannot be ruled by the USA alone, according to Sayyed Nasrallah.
Sayyed Nasrallah pointed out that the US administration moves according to its interests, adding that it even imposed the normalization deals on the Arab countries and that the Israeli officials falsely claim they have made this “achievement”.
The US political decline will lead to the decline of the normalization deals as well as the Israeli deterrence power and strategic status.
The powerful emergence of the axis of the resistance from the global war run by the US which employed states and criminal organizations will affect the conflict with the Israeli enemy, Sayyed Nasrallah said, recalling the bets on the collapse of the the Resistance coalition.
Sayyed Nasrallah highlighted Syria’s recovery and the restoration of its diplomatic ties with a number of the Arab countries, including Algeria, Tunisia, Saudi, UAE and Egypt, mentioning also the issue of Syria’s return to the Arab League and the Turkish endeavor to normalize relations with Damascus.
Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized that Yemen, which we have supported since the beginning of the war in 2015, is witnessing positive developments pertaining the peace talks, noting that this would leave positive effects on the axis of resistance, Palestine and Al-Quds.
Hezbollah Chief hailed Algeria’s return to support the Palestinian cause displayed by the expelling of the Zionist delegation from the African Union Summit,
Sayyed Nasrallah highlighted Iraq’s considerable recovery from its crises, adding that the axis of resistance bets on the Iraqi people support to the Palestinian cause and underlining their enormous human and materialistic capabilities.
Sayyed Nasrallah also mentioned Iran development and steadfastness in face of the siege, isolation and recent trivial riots, adding that the Iranian-Saudi agreement has speedily started showing its positive outcomes.
Sayyed Nasrallah indicated that Iran-KSA pact frustrated the normalization schemes and the Israeli plot to establish coalition against Iran, adding that the concentration of the attack on the Islamic Republic is caused by the fact that it is the main supporter of the regional countries and resistance movements.
Hezbollah Leader indicated that the recent rift which appeared in the Zionist entity over the judicial amendments which reflect an existential war waged by Netanyahu and the right groups against the rest of the political parties.
This war would have turned to be bloody had not the US administration interfered few weeks ago to prevent the escalation would threatened the army, businessmen and all the Zionist society, according to Sayyed Nasrallah, who also highlighted the lack of confidence in the Israeli army and the military readiness to make sacrifices for the sake of the occupation entity.
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the escalating armed resistance in the West Bank, the popular steadfastness, sacrifice and support to the resistance fighters inside and outside Palestine, the youths participation in the heroic clashes with the Zionist occupation forces despite the discrepancy of military capabilities, the Palestinian persistence and insistence on defending Al-Aqsa Mosque in spite of the Israeli aggression versus the Zionist confusion and fear, and the growing capabilities of the resistance in the Gaza have maintained the certainty of victory.
Sayyed Nasrallah indicated that Syria considers several factors before deciding a response to the Israeli raids as its army units are deployed along hundreds of kilometers in face of the terrorist groups, warning Israeli enemy must beware that Syria may get rid of the current formula and respond at a certain time to the Zionist raids.
West Bank
Hezbollah Secretary General reiterated that the West Bank is indeed the shield of Al-Quds and Al-Aqsa Mosque, calling for supporting the West Bank and its resistance financially and militarily in order to sustain its steadfastness.
Sayyed Nasrallah asserted that all who can dispatch weapons to the West Bank, must do that, adding that the political support provided by the Arab and Muslim states is also important.
Sayyed Nasrallah warned the US and ‘Israel’ against any folly in the region will lead to a major war, warning the Zionist enemy against tampering with the Islamic and Christian sanctities in Palestine.
خلال أسبوع أغرق الإسرائيليون الإعلام برسائلهم الهادفة إلى جس النبض حول كيفية التعامل مع قضية عملية مجدو التي شكلت صفعة استخبارية كبيرة لجيش الاحتلال، فأطلق قادة الكيان السياسيون والعسكريون أكثر من بالون اختبار. فبعد الحديث عن دور حزب الله في العملية والإعلان عن ارجحية انتساب منفذ العملية الى الحزب وقيامه بعبور الحدود عبر نفق، وإعلان عن نية الرد إذا ثبت أن لحزب الله دوراً في العملية مهما كانت النتيجة، ثم إعلان عن ترجيح عدم وجود علاقة لحزب الله بالعملية، واعتماد رواية تقول إن المنفذ عبر الحدود اللبنانية، لكنه ينتمي إلى أحد المخيمات الفلسطينية، والتأكيد على نية الرد على مصدر العملية، والجهة التي تقف وراءها، كإشارة الى فصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية في المخيمات.
لم يكترث حزب الله للتحرش الإسرائيلي إعلامياً، واختار الصمت، الذي قال الأمين العام لحزب الله أمس، إنه من صلب الرد الذي قرره الحزب لإرباك جيش الاحتلال، وفي التدقيق بما قاله السيد نصرالله لن يعثر الإسرائيليون على أي جواب يتصل بالفرضيات التي تداولها الإسرائيليون حول عملية مجدو. وها هو السيد نصرالله يقول لهم، لسنا معنيين بـ تبديد شكوكهم أو تأكيدها، ولا مهمتنا مساعدتكم على حل المعضلات التي تعجزون عن حلها، بل سنفعل كل ما يزيد إرباككم إرباكاً، أما لجهة الفرضيات العملية لاحتمالات الرد الإسرائيلي، فلم يبق السيد نصرالله مجالاً للتأويل، وكان شديد الوضوح، ان أي عمل أمني او عسكري لاستهداف اي ارض لبنانية او أي شخص فوق الأرض اللبنانية، لبنانياً كان أم فلسطينياً، سوف ترد عليه المقاومة بقوة وسرعة، وقد يكون ذلك بداية حرب سيكون مصير كيان الاحتلال فيها مطروحاً على الطاولة.
كلام السيد نصرالله قد يكون بنظر البعض امتداداً وتأكيداً للسقوف التي رسمها سابقاً في معادلات الردع، ولكن هذا غير صحيح، لأن ما قاله السيد نصرالله بالأمس اذا جمعنا الرواية الاسرائيلية الى معادلة السيد للرد، هو ببساطة، أنه إذا قامت الفصائل الفلسطينية بعملية عبر الحدود اللبنانية، وقرّر جيش الاحتلال الرد عليها في لبنان، فإن المقاومة ستعتبر أن أي استهداف لأي بقعة أرض لبنانية او أي شخص فوق الارض اللبنانية، لبنانياً وفلسطينياً، عدواناً يستدعي الرد القوي والسريع، ولو كانت النتيجة أن تتدحرج الأمور إلى الحرب، وهذا يعني أن على جيش الاحتلال أن يعتبر أن قواعد الاشتباك الجديدة تلزمه بتحمل تبعات فشله بمنع التسلل عبر الحدود، عبر تقبل ما ينتج عن التسلل إذا عبر الحدود، لأنه سوف يكون مجبراً على الصمت بعد ذلك تحت طائلة التعرّض لرد قوي وسريع يهدد بالذهاب الى حرب.
هذا التراكم في معادلات الردع التي ترسمها المقاومة، منذ دخول المقاومة على خط ترسيم الحدود البحرية عبر المسيّرات التي استهدفت منصة كاريش، وفتحت طريق التفاوض نحو الاتفاق، يقول إذا أخذنا بالاعتبار تهديد السيد نصرالله باستهداف كيان الاحتلال وصولاً للحرب اذا ما مضى الأميركيون يدفعون لبنان نحو الفوضى، فإن المقاومة تستشعر لحظتها التاريخية المتمثلة بالتفوق الاستراتيجي في كل المجالات العسكرية على جيش الاحتلال، مقابل مأزق الكيان المتنامي ومأزق جيش الاحتلال عسكرياً في زمن الصعود الفلسطيني، والمقاومة تراكم معادلات الدرع بقواعد اشتباك جديدة، وهي بجهوزية مستمرة منذ الترسيم، تعتقد بأن فائض القوة لم ينل ما يعادله في اتفاق الترسيم، وما لم يفهم الكيان هذه المعادلة ويترجمها بخطوة كبيرة، بحجم وقف الغارات على سورية على سبيل المثال، سوف تكون أي حادثة قابلة للتحوّل الى حرب لا يعرف أحد إلى أين سوف تتدحرج؟
رسالة السيد هي جاهزون للحرب، فاركبوا أعلى ما في خيلكم، أو تراجعوا، وفتشوا عن نقطة التراجع التي ترضي المقاومة لتفادي خطر الحرب!
Bibi is by nature cautious – even timid. His radical ministers, however, are not, Alastair Crooke writes.
Michael Omer-Man writes: Almost exactly 10 years ago, a young star rising in the Likud party, spoke to an audience committed to the outright annexation of the occupied Palestinian territories, laying out his blueprint. A year later, this same speaker set out certain prerequisites to full annexation: Firstly, a shift in the way the Israeli public thinks about a ‘two-state solution’ for Palestine; and secondly, a radical recast of the legal system “that will allow us to take those steps on the ground … that advance sovereignty”.
What was reflected in this statement is the structural dichotomy inherent within the ‘idea’ of ‘Israel’: What then is ‘Israel’? One side holds that Israel was founded as a ‘balance’ between Jewishness and Democracy. The other says ‘nonsense’; it was always the establishment of Israel on the “Land of Israel”.
Ami Pedahzur, a political scientist studying the Israeli Right, explains that the religious Right “has always considered the Israeli Supreme Court to be an abomination”. He points out that the extremist Meir Kahane “once wrote extensively about the tension between Judaism and democracy and the need for a Sanhedrin [a biblical system of judges] instead of the extant Israeli judicial system”.
In Israel’s attempt to balance these opposing visions and interpretations of history, the Israeli Right sees the judiciary as deliberately having been tilted toward democracy (by one part of the Israeli élite). This simmering tension finally exploded with the 1995 Supreme Court claim that it possessed power of judicial review over Knesset (parliamentary) legislation deemed to be in conflict with Israel’s quasi-constitutional Basic Laws. (An Israeli constitution has been considered since 1949, but never actuated.)
Well, that ‘young star’ of 10 years ago – who asserted so forcefully “We cannot accept … a judicial system that is controlled by a radical leftist, post-Zionist minority that elects itself behind closed doors – dictating to us its own values – today is Israel’s Justice Minister, Yariv Levin.
And with time, Netanyahu has indeed already brought about that first prerequisite (outlined by Levin almost a decade ago): The Israeli public perspective on the two-state Olso formula is radically changed. Political support for that project hovers close to zero in the political sphere.
More than that, today’s Prime Minister, Netanyahu, explicitly shares the same ideology as Levin and his colleagues – namely that Jews have a right to settle in any, and all, parts of the ‘Land of Israel’; he also believes that the very survival of the Jewish people is dependent on the actuation of that divine obligation into practice.
Many on the Israeli Right, Omer-Man suggests, therefore see the Supreme Court as “the central impediment to their ability to fulfil their annexationist dreams, which for them are a combination of messianic and ideological commandments”.
They saw the 1995 Supreme Court ruling as ‘a coup’ that ushered in the judiciary’s supremacy over law and politics. This is a view that is hotly contested – to the point of near civil war – by those who advocate for democracy versus a strict Judaic vision of religious law.
From the perspective of the Right, Ariel Kahana notes that although
“they have continued to win time and again – but they have never held power in the true sense of the word. Through the judiciary, the bureaucracy, the defence establishment, academia, cultural elites, the media, and some of the economic wheelers and dealers, the Left’s doctrine continued to dominate Israel’s power foci. In fact, regardless of who the cabinet ministers were, the old guard has continued with its obstructionist insurgency”.
Today, however, the numbers are with the Right – and we are witnessing the Israeli Right’s counter-coup: a judicial ‘reform’ which would centralize power in the Knesset – precisely by dismantling the legal system’s current checks and balances.
Ostensibly this schism constitutes the crisis bringing hundreds of thousand Israelis on to the street. Prima Facie, in much of the media, at issue is who has the final word: the Knesset or the Supreme Court.
Or, is it? For, beneath the surface, unacknowledged and mostly unsaid, is something deeper: It is the conflict between Realpolitik versus Completion of the Zionist project. Put starkly, the Right says it’s clear: Without Judaism we have no identity; and no reason to be in this land.
The ‘less said’ fact is that much of the electorate actually agrees with the Right in principle, yet opposes the full annexation of the West Bank on pragmatic grounds: “They believe that the status quo of a “temporary” 55-plus-year military occupation is the more strategically prudent”.
“Formally [annexing West Bank] would make it too difficult to convince the world that Israel is not an apartheid regime in which half of the population — Palestinians — are denied basic democratic, civil, and human rights”.
That other unresolved contradiction (that of continuing occupation within ‘democracy’) is also submerged by the prevalent mantra of ‘Right wing Orbánism versus democracy’. Ahmad Tibi, an Palestinian member of the Knesset earlier has wryly noted: “Israel indeed is ‘Jewish and democratic’: It is democratic toward Jews – and Jewish toward Arabs”.
The mass of protestors gathered in Tel Aviv carefully choose to avoid this oxymoron (other than around the kitchen table) – as a Haaretz editorial a few days ago made clear: “Israel’s opposition is for Jews only”.
Thus, the crisis that some are warning could lead to civil war at its crux is that between one group – which is no longer content to wait for the right conditions to arrive to fulfil the Zionist dream of Jewish sovereignty over the entire Land of Israel – versus an outraged opposition that prefers sticking to the political tradition of buying time by “deciding not to decide”, Omer-Man underlines.
And although there are ‘moderates’ amongst the Likud lawmakers, their concerns are eclipsed by the exultant mood at their party’s base:
“Senior Likud officials, led by Netanyahu, have incited Likud voters against the legal system for years, and now the tiger is out of control. It has its trainer in its jaws and threatens to crush him if he makes concessions”.
The flames lick around Netanyahu’s feet. The U.S. wants quiet; It does not want a war with Iran. It does not want a new Palestinian Intifada – and will hold Netanyahu’s feet to the flames until he ‘controls’ his coalition allies and returns to an Hebraic ‘quietism’.
But he can’t. It’s not possible. Netanyahu is held limp in the tiger’s jaws. Events are out of his control.
A prominent member of Likud’s central committee told Haaretz this week:
“I don’t care if I have nothing to eat, if the army falls apart, if everything here is destroyed … The main thing is that they not humiliate us once again, and appoint Ashkenazi judges over us”.
The ‘second Israel’ genres have wailed against ‘the ten Ashkenazai judges’ who discredited their leader (Arye Dery), whilst breaking into a song of praise for the ‘only Sephardic judge’ who was sympathetic to Dery. Yes, the ethnic and tribal schisms form a further part of this crisis. (A bill that effectively would reverse the Supreme Court decision barring Dery from his ministerial position over previous corruption charges is currently making its way through the Knesset).
The appeal of Religious Zionism is often attributed to its growing strength amongst the young – particularly ultra-Orthodox men and traditional Mizrahi voters. What became abundantly clear and unexpected in recent weeks, however, is that the appeal of a racist such as Ben-Gvir, is spreading to the young secular left in Israel. Among young Israelis (ages 18 – 24), more than 70% identify today as Right.
Just to be clear: The Mizrahi ‘underclass’, together with the Settler Right, have ousted the ‘old’ Ashkenazi élite from their hold on power. They have waited many years for this moment; their numbers are there. Power has been rotated. The fuse to today’s particular crisis was lit long ago, not by Netanyahu, but by Ariel Sharon in 2001, with his entry to the Temple Mount (Haram al-Sharif).
Sharon had earlier perceived that a moment would arrive – with a weakened U.S. – when it might prove propitious for Israel to complete the Zionist project and seize all the ‘Land of Israel’. The plans for this venture have been incubating over two decades. Sharon lit the fuse – and Netanyahu duly took on the task of curating a constituency towards despising Oslo and the judicial system.
The project’s content is explicitly acknowledged: To annex the West Bank and to transfer any political rights of Palestinians remaining there to a new national state to the east of the River Jordan, on the site of what now is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. In the confusion and violence which would accompany such a move, Palestinians would be ‘persuaded’ to migrate to the ‘other bank’. As Hussein Ibish warned two weeks ago:
“We’re getting awfully close to the point where the Israeli government, and even Israeli society, could countenance a big annexation – and even expulsion [of Palestinians] – done in the middle of an outbreak of violence, and it would be framed as a painful necessity,” Ibish said. Such a move, he added, would be justified “as the government saying ‘We’ve got to protect Israeli settlers – they are citizens too – and we can’t let this go on anymore. Therefore we have to annex and even expel Palestinians.’”
To be fair, the unspoken fear of many secular protesters in Israel today, is not just that of being politically deposed, and their secular lifestyle circumscribed by religious zealots (though that is a major driver to sentiment), but rather, by the unspoken fear that to implement such a radical project against the Palestinians would lead to Regional war.
And ‘that’ is far from an unreasonable fear.
So there are two existential fears: One, that survival of the Jewish people is contingent on fulfilling the obligation to establish ‘Israel’ as ordained; and two, that to implement the consequent exodus of the Palestinians would likely result in the demise of the Israeli State (through war).
Suddenly and unexpectedly, into this fraught situation – with Netanyahu buffeted by a whirlwind of external and internal pressures – arrived a bombshell: Netanyahu was stripped of his ace card – Iran. In Beijing, China had secretly orchestrated not just the resumption of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran, but laid down the framework for a regional security architecture.
This represents a nightmare for Washington and Netanyahu – particularly for the latter, however.
Since the early 1990s, Iran has served both these parties as the ‘bogey man’, by which to divert attention from Israel and the situation of the Palestinians. It has worked well, with the Europeans acting as enthusiastic collaborators in facilitating (or ‘mitigating’ – as they would see it), Israel’s ‘temporary’, 55-year occupation of the West Bank. The EU even financed it.
But now, that is blown away. Netanyahu may ‘huff and puff’ about Iran, but absent a Saudi and Gulf willingness to lend Arab legitimacy to any military action against Iran (with all the risks that entails), Netanyahu’ s ability to distract from the domestic crisis is severely limited. Any call to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities is an obvious non-starter in the light of the Iranian-Saudi rapprochement.
Netanyahu may not want a show-down with Team Biden, but that’s what is coming. Bibi is by nature cautious – even timid. His radical Ministers, however, are not.
They need a crisis (but only when the ‘prerequisites’ are all lined up). It is clear that the wholesale stripping of Palestinian rights, in tandem with the emasculation of the Supreme Court, is not a project that can be expected to quietly proceed in normal circumstances – especially in the present emotive state across the global sphere.
No doubt, the Israeli Right has been watching how the Lockdown ‘Emergency-crisis fear’ in Europe was used to mobilise a people to accept a compulsion and restrictions to life that in any other circumstance they would never rationally accept.
It won’t be a new pandemic emergency, of course, in the Israeli case. But the new Palestinian Authority-led ‘SWAT-squads’ arresting Palestinian resistance fighters in broad daylight is bringing the West Bank ‘pressure-cooker’ close to blow-out.
Ben Gvir may simply decide to follow in Sharon’s footsteps – to allow and participate in the Passover ceremony of sacrificing a lamb on Al-Aqsa (the Temple Mount) – as a symbol of the commitment to rebuild the ‘Third Temple’, permission for which, hitherto has always been denied.
So what happens next? It is impossible to predict. Will the Israeli military intervene? Will the U.S. intervene? Will one side back-down (unlikely says ex-Head of Israel’s National Security Council, Giora Eiland)? Yet even if the ‘Judicial reform’ is somehow halted, as one exasperated Israeli forecast, “Even if this time the attempt does not succeed, it’s likely that they [the Right] will try again in another two years, another five years, another 10 years. The struggle will be long and difficult, and no one can guarantee what the result will be.”
تحوّل مؤتمر ميونيخ للأمن إلى منبر تحريضي لتصعيد الحرب ضدّ روسيا في أوكرانيا. فمن يستمع إلى خطاب نائبة رئيس الولايات المتحدة كامالا هاريس في المؤتمر، يلمس استمرار التصميم الأميركي على الحرب في أوكرانيا، حتى الإطاحة ببوتين وروسيا كلها، وفي آن واحد. فقد أعادت هاريس نغمة التهديد باعتبار بوتين مجرم حرب، أو مسؤولاً عن إبادة بشرية، الأمر الذي يعني إغلاق الباب في وجه السياسة والتفاوض، وتسعير الحرب حتى إنزال الهزيمة التامة بروسيا.
واتجهت الخُطب الأوروبية نحو المطالبة بالمزيد من تسليح أوكرانيا، وتشجيعها على الحرب حتى النصر. ولا يمثل الرئيس الفرنسي ماكرون تمايزاً حين يؤكد على المزيد من تسليح أوكرانيا، مع تلميح للبحث عن وساطة تفاوضية، لأنّ السياسة تُقرأ انطلاقاً مما تمارَس، وليس مما تقول.
وبهذا يمكن القول بحكم قاطع إنّ مؤتمر ميونيخ للأمن، قد تحوّل إلى مؤتمر للحرب، ويصبّ الزيت على الحرب في أوكرانيا، الأمر الذي يعني أنّ الخطر الذي يتهدّد العالم نتيجة الحرب في أوكرانيا ما زال قائماً على أوجه.
أميركا وأوروبا وحلفاء أميركا الدوليون يريدون من الحرب أن تُحسَم بالنصر ضدّ روسيا، وهو احتمال في طريقه لانتقال روسيا إلى استخدام النووي، إذا لم تستطع كسب المواجهة الميدانية من خلال الأسلحة التقليدية، دون النووية، لأنّ بوتين وهيئة الأركان الروسية، وأغلبية الشعب الروسي بالطبع، لا يمكن أن يقبلوا بالهزيمة العسكرية من خلال الأسلحة التقليدية، وحرب ممتدّة دون أن يلجأوا إلى السلاح النووي المحدود، وهم يملكونه، ويملكون السلاح النووي الشامل الذي يجعل الحرب العالمية حالة إفناء عام ليس فيها من منتصر.
والسؤال هنا إذا كان هذا هو قانون المواجهة الراهنة، فكيف يفكر قادة الغرب، وفي مقدّمتهم الإدارة الأميركية برئاسة جو بايدن، وهم يصعّدون الحرب في أوكرانيا إلى مداها الأقصى، فيما هم في الآن نفسه لا يذهبون، ولا يحتملون حرباً نووية شاملة؟ ولهذا فإنّ الإجابة عن السؤال: هو الرهان على استسلام بوتين وروسيا من خلال الحرب التقليدية. ولكن ما العمل إذا لم يحدث هذا الاستسلام، وأصبحت الحرب في عامها الثاني وَبالاً عليهم، أو تدخل النووي «الصغير» من جانب روسيا؟
الجواب: سيُضطرون إلى التراجع (الهزيمة عملياً) من خلال تدخل وسطاء أو مفاوضات، أو بغضّ النظر عن الشكل الذي يتمّ فيه التراجع.
وبالمناسبة، إذا وصلت الأمور إلى النووي الشامل فإنّ «المُخاطِر» المستعدّ للذهاب إليه، هو الذي سينتصر بعدم التراجع أولاً.
أما المؤشرات الجديدة التي راحت تصاحب خطابات مؤتمر ميونيخ للأمن، فقد جاءت كلها من جانب الإدارة الأميركية ونتنياهو. وذلك من خلال تصعيد المواجهة مع إيران ومحور المقاومة، الأمر الذي أخذ مع الردود عليه يُدخل الوضع في منطقتنا إلى احتمال اندلاع حرب إقليمية، أوسع وأخطر من الحرب في أوكرانيا. وقد جاء العدوان العسكري على حي كفرسوسة في دمشق، ليشكل خرقاً لما كان سائداً من قواعد الاشتباك، كما يعلن الدخول في مرحلة جديدة ذاهبة لطرق أبواب الحرب الإقليمية. فعندما يصرّح نتنياهو، إثر ذلك العدوان، بأنه لن يسمح لإيران بامتلاك السلاح النووي (وليس في هذا من جديد غير ما نشأ من ظرف عام جديد)، كما لن يسمح «بالتموضع الإيراني في سورية»، فهذا يعني أنّ القصف الصهيوني في 19 شباط/ فبراير 2023 على سورية، دخل في مرحلة جديدة من استهداف المواقع والأشخاص، وهو ما سيشمل أفراداً من حزب الله كذلك. فنتنياهو أخذ يُغيّر في قواعد الاشتباك التي سادت في السابق، حيث كان القصف الصهيوني على الأرض السورية يجري تحت سقفها، وضمن قيود متفق عليها بين الكيان الصهيوني وروسيا. وهذا يفسّر شدة ردّ الفعل الروسي في التعليق على العدوان الذي تعرّض له حي كفرسوسة في دمشق، والقلعة وحي المزرعة أيضاً. هذا التصعيد جاء بعد تصعيد أميركي بزيادة العقوبات على إيران، وتغيير في الموقف الأميركي في لبنان. وقد ردّ عليه السيد حسن نصر الله في خطابه الأخير في 16 شباط/ فبراير. وقد اعتبر أنّ أميركا تهدّد بضرب الساعد الذي يوجع حزب الله في لبنان، وهو انتقال بالتدخل الأميركي في لبنان، وضدّ حزب الله، إلى مستوى جديد يحمل تغييراً نوعياً، يختلف عن قواعد المواجهة السابقة في لبنان (للتدخل الأميركي) حتى الآن. طبعاً هذا التطوّر في الاستراتيجية الأميركية ارتبط بزيارة وزير الخارجية الأميركي إلى فلسطين، ولقائه بالرئيس محمود عباس، وطلبه منه أن تقوم سلطة رام الله بالسيطرة على الضفة الغربية، وأساساً على مخيم جنين ومدينة نابلس، لحساب الاحتلال الصهيوني، فضلاً عما يقوم به من استيطان، واقتحامات للمسجد الأقصى، وتهويد للقدس. فأميركا هنا تخطت سياستها السابقة في الضفة الغربية، باتجاه إحداث فتنة فلسطينية داخلية، تتهدّد الوضع الفلسطيني القائم كله. فالمشروع الأميركي هنا، يلتقي من حيث التوقيت والجوهر والهدف، مع التصعيد الذي استهدف إيران وحزب الله، والذي أخذ يضع المنطقة على حدود حرب إقليمية شاملة. وهنا تدخل أيضاً المواجهة بالمُسيّرات التي جرت في كلّ من أصفهان ومياه الخليج، حيث استهدف الكيان الصهيوني مواقع في إيران، في حين هاجمت طائرة مُسيّرة سفينة «كابمو سكوير» النفطية التي يملكها متموّل «إسرائيلي» في الخليج، الأمر الذي يصبّ في الأجواء نفسها التي راحت تتجه نحو الحرب الإقليمية. ويبرز السؤال: كيف تفتح أميركا جبهة إيران ـ محور المقاومة باتجاه حرب إقليمية، في الوقت الذي تتخذ فيه الحرب في أوكرانيا، أولوية لها في هذه المرحلة؟ قد يقفز أول ما يقفز إلى الذهن الجواب: ما يواجهه الكيان الصهيوني من تراجع وضغوط، لأنّ الأرض الفلسطينية حيث المواجهة فيها، في غير مصلحة أميركا والكيان الصهيوني، مما يجعل الانتقال إلى إيران ومحور المقاومة يصيب عصفورين في آن، وذلك في جعلها حرباً إقليمية، هروباً من أن تكون حرباً فلسطينية فقط. وبهذا تحقق الهدف الصهيوني فلسطينياً، كما الهدف الأميركي ـ الصهيوني ضدّ إيران وسورية ولبنان. وقد عبّرت أميركا عن شديد غضبها من إيران حول المُسيّرات الإيرانية التي اشترتها روسيا من إيران، ولو قبل حرب أوكرانيا، لأنّ هذه المُسيّرات أثرت نسبياً في مجريات الحرب، فأعلنت إدارة بايدن عن زيادة العقوبات ضد إيران بسببها. وبكلمة، بغضّ النظر عن أنّ الأولوية الاستراتيجية الأميركية تتركز على الحرب في أوكرانيا، إلّا أنّ الوقائع والمؤشرات آنفة الذكر، تشير إلى أنّ أميركا تتبنّى سياسات، في هذه المرحلة، تطرق أبواب اندلاع حرب إقليمية. فما دام الواقع أهمّ مما يُعتبر منطقياً أو قانوناً في إدارة الصراع، فإنّ المؤشرات الواقعية التي أخذت تبرز، تقول إنّ ثمة توجهاً قوياً في احتمال اندلاع الحرب الإقليمية، مما يجعل الاستعداد لها وكسبها، هو ما يجب أن يكون الشغل الشاغل، خصوصاً فلسطينياً، لما يعنيه ذلك من تقرير لمصير القضية الفلسطينية، ومصير منطقتنا، لعشرات السنين المقبلة.
The Zionist circles followed up attentively Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah’s Thursday speech in the memorial ceremony of the Lebanese resistance movement’s martyred commanders, Sheikh Ragheb Harb, Sayyed Abbas Al-Moussawi and Hajj Imad Mughniyeh, detecting the threats to ‘Israel’ in the context.
The Israeli media outlets highlighted on Sayyed Nasrallah’s threat to prevent the Zionists from continuing extracting oil and gas from Karish field and deal military blows to the occupation entity if the US administration insists on sowing chaos in Lebanon.
Arab affairs Anaylts Zvi Yehezkali called for dealing seriously with Sayyed Nasrallah’s threats, recalling the maritime confrontation with Hezbollah during which ‘Israel’ shuddered for fear of the Lebanese Resistance warnings.
The Arab affairs analyst Roil Kais underscored Sayyed Nasrallah’s concentration on the internal rifts in the Zionist entity, while the social media applications showed an immense interaction with his eminence’s speech aimed at blaming the local parties for stirring sedition in ‘Israel’.
Sayyed Nasrallah had stressed that whoever pushes Lebanon towards chaos and collapse has to expect chaos in the entire region and especially in the Zionist entity, adding that none can imagine what Hezbollah would do.
An infographic poster prepared by Al-Manar English Website on the fifteenth anniversary of Hajj Imad Mughniyeh’s martydom.
Hezbollah’s senior martyred commander Hajj Imad Mughniyeh, who was often referred to by Israeli enemy as the ‘untraceable ghost’, was an insightful leader who believed in the elimination of the Zionist entity.
His quote about the main goal of the resistance is till resonating after fifteen years on his martyrdom.
Though Israel’s past wars on Gaza have often been justified by Tel Aviv as a response to Palestinian rockets or, generally, as acts of self-defense, the truth is different. Historically, Israel’s relationship with Gaza has been defined by Tel Aviv’s need to create distractions from its own fractious politics, to flex its muscles against its regional enemies and to test its new weapons technology.
Though the Occupied West Bank – in fact, other Arab countries, too – has been used as a testing ground for Israel’s war machine, no other place has allowed Israel to sustain its weapon experimentation for as long as Gaza, making Israel, as of 2022, the world’s tenth largest weapons exporter.
There is a reason why Gaza is ideal for such grand, albeit tragic, experiments.
Gaza is a perfect place for gathering information once new weapons have been deployed and used on the battlefield. The Strip is home to two million Palestinians who live squalid lives with virtually no clean water and little food, all of them confined within 365 km² (approx. 181 mi²). In fact, due to Israel’s so-called safety belts, much of Gaza’s arable lands which border Israel are off limits. Farmers are often shot by Israeli snipers, almost at the same frequency as Gaza’s fishermen are also targeted, should they dare venture beyond the three nautical miles allocated to them by the Israeli navy.
“The Lab,” an Israeli award-winning documentary released in 2013, discussed in painful detail how Israel has turned millions of Palestinians into actual human laboratories for testing new weapons. Gaza, even before, but especially since then, has been the main testing ground for these weapons.
POLITICIANS’ PLAYTHING
Gaza has been ‘the lab’ for Israeli political experimentations as well.
When, from December 2008 to January 2009, then Israel’s Acting Prime Minister Tzipi Livni decided to, in her own words, “go wild” by unleashing one of the deadliest wars on Gaza, the Israeli politician was hoping that her military adventure would help solidify support for her party at the Knesset.
Livni, at the time, was the head of Kadima, which was established in 2005 by the former leader of the Likud, Ariel Sharon. As Sharon’s successor, Livni wanted to prove her own worth as a strong politician capable of teaching Palestinians a lesson.
Though her experiment then won her some support in the February 2009 elections, it backfired badly following the November 2012 war, where Kadima was nearly destroyed in the January 2013 elections. Eventually, Kadima vanished altogether from Israel’s political map.
This was not the first, nor the last, time that Israeli politicians have attempted to use Gaza as a way to distract from their own political woes, or to demonstrate, through killing Palestinians, their qualifications as protectors of Israel.
BIBI’S BOMBS
Yet, no one has perfected the use of violence to score political points as much as Israel’s current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Returning as the head of Israel’s most extremist government in history, Netanyahu is keen to stay in power, especially since his rightwing coalition has more comfortable support margins in the Knesset than any of Israel’s five governments in the last three years.
With a rightwing, pro-war constituency that is far more interested in illegal settlement expansion and ‘security’ than economic growth or socio-economic equality, Netanyahu should, at least technically, be in a stronger position to launch another war on Gaza. But why is he hesitating?
On February 1, a Palestinian group fired a rocket toward southern Israel, prompting an Israeli response that was intentionally limited.
According to Palestinian groups in the besieged Strip, the rocket was fired as part of the ongoing armed rebellion by West Bank Palestinians. It was meant to illustrate the political unity between Gaza, Jerusalem and the West Bank.
The West Bank is living its darkest days. 35 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli army in January alone, ten of whom perished in Jenin in a single Israeli raid. A Palestinian, acting alone, responded by killing seven Jewish settlers in Occupied East Jerusalem, the perfect spark of what is usually a massive Israeli response.
But that response has been confined, thus far, to the demolition of homes, arrest and torture of the attacker’s family members, military sieges on various Palestinian towns and hundreds of individual assaults by Jewish settlers on Palestinians.
BULLETS, BUDDIES AND “BAD GUYS”
An all-out Israeli war, especially in Gaza, has not yet actualized. But why?
First, the political risks of attacking Gaza through a long war, for now, outweigh the benefits. Though Netanyahu’s coalition is relatively secure, the expectations of the Prime Minister’s extremist allies are very high. A war with an indecisive outcome could be considered a victory for Palestinians, a notion that could alone break down the coalition. Though Netanyahu could launch war as a last resort, he has no need for such a risky option at the moment.
Second, the Palestinian Resistance is stronger than ever. On January 26, Hamas declared that it has used surface-to-air missiles to repel an Israeli air raid on Gaza. Though the Gaza group’s military arsenal is largely rudimentary, much of it homemade, it is far more advanced and sophisticated compared to weapons used during Israel’s so-called “Operation Cast Lead” in 2008.
Finally, Israel’s munition reserve must be at its lowest point in a long time. Now that the US, Israel’s largest weapons supplier, has tapped into its strategic weapons reserve – due to the Russia-Ukraine war – Washington will not be able to replenish the Israeli arsenal with constant supplies of munition the same way the Obama Administration did during the 2014 war. Even more alarming for the Israeli military, the New York Times revealed in January that “the Pentagon is tapping into a vast but little-known stockpile of American ammunition in Israel to help meet Ukraine’s dire need for artillery shells …”.
Though Israeli wars on Gaza are much riskier nowadays compared to the past, a cornered and embattled Netanyahu can still resort to such a scenario if he feels that his leadership is in peril. Indeed, the Israeli leader did so in May 2021. Even then, he still could not save himself or his government from a humiliating defeat.
The Palestinian Lions’ Den resistance group attacked an Israeli military checkpoint in Nablus on 1 February, as Israel’s National Security Minister Ben Gvir announced new measures against Palestinian prisoners.
The Lions’ Den announced the attack on its official Telegram group, saying that they “unleashed volleys of bullets on Sirra checkpoint to the west of Nablus” and that they could “withdraw safely” without losing any men.
Such hit-and-run tactics are a common strategy used by the Lions’ Den against Israeli forces to break their grip on a besieged area in the occupied West Bank.
The attack happened while Israel’s National Security Minister announced the closure of prisoner bakeries in the Ramon and Ketziot jails, a move viewed as collective punishment against Palestinian prisoners.
Ben Gvir’s office released a statement, saying, “The minister’s policy is to deny benefits and indulgences to terrorists imprisoned in Israel, to deny them benefits that can be denied by law and certainly to deny them rights that for some reason only terrorists and not criminal prisoners have.”
Prisons for Palestinians in Israel have been the scene of protest and acts of resistance in recent months, with reoccurring hunger strikesviolently suppressed due to the public’s fear of another intifada.
The Palestinian Prisoners Society (PPS) released a report on 31 January detailing the developments occurring across Israeli prisons in the aftermath of Israel’s massacre in Jenin and the subsequent Palestinian retaliation in Jerusalem.
According to the PPS, authorities in the Israeli Damon prison carried out a ‘massive crackdown’ on female prisoners, resulting in physical assaults against them and the unwarranted confiscation of their belongings.
In an allegedly leaked voice recording from Damon prison, an unidentified female Palestinian prisoner released an audio, saying, “Free people of Palestine, heroes of our resistance. From the prison of Damon, where your mothers and sisters are held hostage, where your daughters are abused, we raise our voices in the face of anyone who fears your liberation.”
The last few days have witnessed a dangerous and unprecedented escalation of tensions, and the Palestinian resistance has announced its readiness for the outbreak of all-out war.
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 
