Dotting the I’S & Crossing the T’S
As a permission from the leader of the resistance
More than a war & greater than a victory
Written by Nasser Kandil,
Before the speech of the leader of the resistance, I was among who described the exceptional process of Shebaa Farms, that its effect is almost up to the level of a full war, through showing the deterrent balances on one hand, and on the other hand, the messages which it has re-proven as a response of what Al Quneitra process has tried to remove them, regarding the regional and the international balances which the crucial conflicts in the region revolve about, and which Al Sayyed Hasan Nasrollah has summarized them in his speech before Al Quneitra process, by showing that the equation of game is over, but the Israeli wanted to say through Al Quneitra process that the game has not finished and nothing has been resolved, then Shebaa Farms process has occurred to ensure that we are here, if the game has not finished then come to the war, but the Israeli has retired and the equation has been proven .
After the speech of Al Sayyed and his new equations, and the comparisons which many have made from the position of estimation between the exceptional process and the war of July, Some have said that it has proven the consequences of the war of July after the repetitive Israeli attempts to deny them, so the process of Shebaa has happened to prove it, while others said that it is the last round which has not happened in the war of July to show the obvious consequences of the war, others said that it costs much lower, because it equaled half of the war of July, but as a permission from the leader of the resistance, I would like to say that the process is a full war and not less than a war, but it is more than a war, and its strategic position is preceding the war of July.
The battles are not chess games that are similar in their putting the stones and the rules of the game, there is no place for accumulation from one round to another, and there is no value for what is called the context in it. But the war is like the chess in everything except the context and the accumulation, in order to become a small battle that based on a historical accumulation within the context of resolving issues, magnitudes, and important roles according to a strategic level of a war that lasts for many years, in which thousands have been murdered and many countries have been destroyed, but it did not resolve major equations, because it came at the beginnings in timing and accumulations.
The strategic rank of the military confrontation is neither in the duration of a battle, nor the fire size, nor the magnitudes of the loses of the other party, if it was like that, then the war of July has to be an Israeli victory, but in the contrary, it was a historical victory for the resistance and a resounding defeat for Israel for two reasons, which determined the strategic position and rank of the battles and wars. The first one is the degree of congruence and accordance between the consequences of war for each party with what it has determined itself, or what was supposed to be its goals from the first day of the war. The second reason is how each party has thought depending on a comparison with the other, having more or less ability to go to the war once again, with these two measurements the resistance has triumphed and Israel has defeated in July 2006.
In the historical context of the confrontation, whatever the confrontation was, the moment has granted an articulated decisive strategic rank for this confrontation, where it occupies a role that does not correspond with the magnitude and the material results of the other ones , so it proceeds, because it accompanies during this historical moment all the wars’ balances and the confrontations which proceeded it, and it will control necessarily what is coming after it.
It is not intended to say that the historical moment of Al Quneitra process in all standards is equivalent to the decision of going to war, because it said that these are the red lines do not surpass them, and who dares, then come to the war since Israel is ready. The red lines are under the control of the resistance, because it is the most dominant authority in the deterrence’s balance. With the speech of Al Sayyed before days of the process the equation of the horror’s balance has been changed, it means the mutual deterrence, through a deterrence that the resistance has, and the red lines which are an Israeli decision of forming a security belt in Golan from the groups of ( Al Nosrah Front), the red lines are through preventing the resistance and Syria from behaving on the basis that Golan Front is open, and the approaching of it either from Hezbollah or from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in particular is prohibited and forbidden, Here is as Al Sayyed has said, when Israel has decided the process, and intended that it will go to the war, so it wanted to put the resistance in front of the challenge, when the resistance accepted the challenge and decided to respond in an exceptional qualitative way, it took the decision of war, here was the decisive decision, either to prove the equation of the authority of the resistance and the retirement of Israel, or Israel will go to the war or get what is related as the process of arresting in July 2006. Thus the Israeli retirement is the admission of the consequences of a war that has not happened, but it has occurred in the computers, and in the minds of military political leaders of the entity, and its results were resolved with a definite loss.
The first difference between this war and the war of July is the clarity of the decisive victory and its presence in any side, those who approach the war and not fear, not those who were afraid to go to war and continues climbing the ladder towards it, announcing as in any match, when the players are exchanging the moves, and when it comes the turn of a player in the second shift he announces his withdrawal of the match , then the referee announces the end of the match and raise the hand of the winner, while the triumph in July remains connecting with the Israeli failure in achieving the goals, and the injuries with affect the Israeli deterrence ability, and which made it incapable of going to the wars, while here the victory is crucial, Israel withdraws from the challenge and announces itself a country that is unfit for war, this is except the confusion which many wanted to affect the victory of July, by invoking the costs which Lebanon has bear in the construction, and the victims, in return of much less Israeli loses, while in this war the image is glorious and amazing because of the clarity and the pureness and the impossibility of denial.
The second difference is that the victory in July has arranged a diplomatic security military end, represented by the resolution 1701, through which the Israeli has failed despite of all the international support of issuing what it was aiming according to the seventh Report, which related to the depriving the arms of the resistance, The perseverance, the failure of the ability in achieving the goals, and the continuation of the falling rockets on the entity’s areas and its rallies. All of these lead to the starting of collapse in its internal front and the beginning of the decline in the limit of its goals, towards the acceptance of a formula that does not attack the resistant weapon, and does not put Lebanon or its southern neither under the control of internationalization nor under the Seventh Report, but it links the UNIFIL and its duties with the support of the Lebanese army. All of these do not prevent from saying that the resolution 1701 which expresses a certain percentage of the triumph of the resistance by overthrowing everything which serves Israel, as it is stated in the original version ,it has limited the movement of the resistance militarily and security compared with what it was before the war, Although restrictions have not affected the essence of identity of the resistance’s role and its arms, but this does not negate their existence, while this war has liberated the resistance from the restrictions, and accordingly the military and the security aspects of the resistance movement and its field maneuvers have been expanded as well its strategic move. Al Sayyed has neglected the engagements rules and announced the refusal of dismantling the fields and the arenas; he has issued a decision of linking the geographical fronts. This means that the resistance is moving from a consequence which it has accepted with the end of the war of July, which is the only protection force of Lebanon, if it exposes to aggression once again, and leaving the issue of the Shebaa Farms for the Lebanese government. Moreover it refrains the working in it, in order to be a way to Jerusalem after the war. It is a regional resistance that does not admit of the separation between Lebanese Southern Front and the Syrian Golan Front, and may the Palestinian Interior Front, its work does not restrict as a Lebanese force within the Lebanese borders, since it has launched its war in Shebaa Farms and at the gates of Golan and Jaleel together.
The third difference between the two wars is that the first war of July 2006 has come during the peak of the American rush to use the surplus of the Israeli force to form the new Middle East, the steadfastness of the resistance was enough to overthrow that plan, and the American politics have turned towards testing other alternatives, from the attempts of encouraging the change in Iran, in order to take it out of the resistance’s front and the Palestinian issue, in return of economical and regional costs, to the attempts of overthrowing the resistance in Gaza, and towards the Israeli- Palestinian settlements projects in order to form an Israeli- Arab alliance against the resistance, and trying to make a war’s front against Iran, ending with an attempt to overthrow Syria through the employment of the Arab popular grant, in order to turn it into comprehensive chaos that tests the opportunities of the cooperation with the Turkish – Qatari bilateral, in addition to the attempts of dominating the thoughts of the Brotherhood over the region, hoping to overthrow Syria and weakens the resistance alliance.
The second war between Al Quneitra and Shebaa has completed with the end of the American path, gaining the total failure towards discovering its allies which are infected with rickets, and the appearance of an existential war against terrorism. This war is proceeding as a challenge that the America has made it for its opponents, but it falls with its allies in its evil, in addition it becomes the priority which the needed considerations are inevitable to meet it. So the Israel as Saudi Arabia and Turkey are a losing alliance outside the American control. Truly, the speech of Obama about it as a painful blow that does not worth a war is the best expression.
Error! Not a valid embedded object.
The forth difference is that the war of July has happened while Iran was under the threat, siege, and sanctions, so the war of resistance was a defense of it even indirectly, but now the war is going on while Iran is approaching the three and a half decades of steadfastness against the wars and pressures through economical, political, diplomatic victory through the negotiations that approach the final ends. Thereby, if the first war in July was a test for the credibility of the resistance with its prominent ally represented by Iran, and the speech of Al Sayyed that it does not affect us if our allies have made use of our victories and share their consequences with us, this war is a test for the credibility of the alliance of Iran with the resistance, as it is a strategic balance of the negotiations position in the strategic constants according to both America and Iran. The war has proved to say that America not Iran which sold its constants and its allies to not disrupt the negotiations and its consequences. Furthermore, it resolved accordingly, an important strategic matter that is; For whose the supreme power in the equation of the region belongs? Which constants will rule the stage after the understandings? Which party will need the more negotiation and pay the cost of its protection from the account of its support for its allies; Iran or America? Iran has supported Hezbollah and its right to respond publically, while America has abandoned of Israel and what it has called (its legitimate right to self-defense)
What has happened was a war and more, its consequences were exceeding the victory in July, the coming days are enough to reveal the facts for those who cannot see.
More than a war, and greater than a triumph.
Error! Not a valid embedded object.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,
2015-02-02 | عدد القراءات 1797
