Dotting the I’S & Crossing the T’S
The war is not an Israeli choice but the security zone
Written by Nasser Kandil,
Despite the moral impact which Israel has achieved through the raid that targeted the resistance’s fighters and assassinate them, it just a tactical topical circumstantial profit that summarized what Israel has informed the leader of the resistance that the game has not finished yet, and it has alternatives and options even if it was unable to go into war, and even it is anxious of the peace, so its option was the war of attrition in the Syrian front, which its beginning was the last raids in Dimas area in the countryside of Damascus, which targeted weapons that were heading to the resistance, and the raid of the day before yesterday was its culminating one through targeting a group of fighters, leaders, and symbols of the resistance. Here is the moral topical circumstantial profit of Israel that is opposing the moral loss of the resistance through the symbolism of the martyrs and their ranks.
What determined the Israeli profit’s magnitude is its coincidental time with the decisive equations of the resistance’s leader. This raid allowed the suggestion of Israel of its challenge. The speech and the timing of the raid will control the nature of the response to ensure the equations that the resistance’s leader drew. When the resistance’s leader drew the equation that the game is over, then he clarified that by mentioning three points, first, there is no chance of changing the Syrian equation and reviving the plan of overthrowing the regime, second, there is no chance of changing the direction of the Iranian nuclear program and its negotiations, and the going to consecrate the position of Iran as a regional international emerging power. Third, there is no chance of changing the reality of Israel as an unable entity of going to war, so the question becomes, through the raid, does Israel have a road map that enables it to change the equations or one of them, at least to say that the game has not finished yet?
The challenge in front of Israel is in how to find a path from this process for one of these three options, the rehabilitation of the ability of Israel as a country ready for war, or the rehabilitation of the opportunities to change the power’s balances in Syria, or a rehabilitation to fail the Iranian nuclear program negotiations. It is clear that the matters are confined between two choices of linking the process with the path of the Israeli intervention in the Syrian war, and the war with the resistance, away from virtual opportunities of linking the Iranian nuclear program and its negotiations, which there is no assumption of their relating with the process. Therefore, the matter is between the two choices of changing the Syrian scene or the deterrence balance with the resistance, or both of them, and thus the response will be a real beginning of the saying that the game has not finished yet.
Opening a gap between the process and the change in Syria on one hand and the balance with the resistance on the other hand depends on changing the raid into a path that is explained by a process that getting the resistance out of Golan on one hand and the controlling of Al Nosrah front in it, in order to have a link with the Lebanese geography on the other hand. Thereby, changing the security process into a military action that belongs to Al Nosrah and that is supported by Israel through necessary fires; after the ability of Al Nosrah and those who are with it had seemed that it is covered according to the basis of achieving this goal. It seemed that Hezbollah has succeeded in having geography for itself according to the linking paths between Lebanon and Syria. So does Israel choose to have the option of field entrance rather than taking Hezbollah out of Golan and the Lebanese Syrian borders towards granting Al Nosrah the opportunity of settling in the Lebanese territories which are close to the border of Golan and Palestine? If Israel had not done that, then it would not have had the bridge which allows it to claim that the game is still open and its outcome will be confined with the moral tactical aspect and with the loss which affects the resistance, and with the moral challenge which it has imposed on it.
On the contrary, the challenge which is imposed by the process after the speech of the resistance’s leader constitutes a reason for response in order to ensure that the game has finished, which means that Israel is incapable of going to the war on one hand, and that the situation in Syria is moving towards the interest of the country that is not subject to change on the other hand.
The resistance is carrying on of what it has, today it has the first indication of the maturity of Israel and the recognition of this fact, by avoiding Israel of any action across the borders with Lebanon, because the deterrence equations are controlling this front in a clear way, so this proves the incapability of Israel to go in war through its inability to respond to the respond in a way that requires a war, but it escaped to a level that was below the war. Moreover, providing the response in a way that proves the decisive change in Syria for the account of the Syrian country, its army, and accompanied with the resistance which becomes present in Golan, and which will move the excess of its power and its deterrent ability there. The issue then is who will resolve his control on Golan according to his equations? Will the resistance stabilize its control there and be able to control the closure of the ports around Lebanon? or will Al Nosrah proceed under the coverage of the Israeli fire? If we go farther, Does the change in the balances which is resulted from the process will be through the response, which will imposed by it as a reason to take Al Nosrah Front out of Golan Front and under the Israeli observation, without daring to take the risk of the intervention that transcended the lintel, or does the Israeli behavior reach the extent of threating to go to war?
Israel will pay highly the cost, means it will lose the opportunity of the security zone, which it has worked in for a long time, and which wanted it a gate of barters, through which it aims to grant a cosmopolitan resolution that covers it, and which will terminate the presence of Hezbollah in Golan Front, and which will move it as well to a situation like the resolution 1701, as long as the presence of the resistance there and which its symbolism has been targeted by the raid, ensures that the Front has been opened and that the security zone will not survive.
The response will be in the coming days, and tomorrow is so close.
.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh
2015-01-21 | عدد القراءات 1767
