Written by Nasser Kandil,

Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah has asserted in the commemoration of the Brigadier General the martyr Samir Al-Kuntar that the response of the resistance is inevitable and this response will suit the martyr and his blood, because the resistance addressed the friend and the enemy and said that it cannot but to respond to the crime commensurably, Al Sayyed was addressing implicitly contrary to many similar cases the international and the regional background that stems from the paths of settlements which start in the region on one hand, and from the demanding of some from the resistance to consider its interest and the interest of its allies by leaving these settlements proceeding without disturbing them with any great event such as the expected response of the resistance on  the assassination  of the martyr Al-Kuntar, that will lead for a path of escalation that re-arranges the  distribution of the international and regional forces on different banks among the current positioning banks, thus the matter becomes who is with Israel and who is with the resistance, while now it is with the settlements and who is standing against them.

Some of the owners of this logic want from the resistance to transfer messages, their content is that the settlements through their developed controls are putting the profits in favor of the resistance and embarrassing the opposite campaign especially because they create a barrier that rises successively between Washington and each one of Riyadh, Ankara, and Tel Aviv. And because every escalating engagement with Tel Aviv will reposition Washington and will impose a position that brings the distances nearly, moreover it will re-agitate the traditional fronts once again. On the other hand those who are addressing the resistance say that Israel does not hide its need to lift its isolation, and to link the paths of settlements with finding an exist for its confused strategic security through escalation that provokes interventions that will end with a closing of Golan Front and a firm closing of the South of Lebanon front by an intensive internationalization on them, and that the resistance has no interest in exposing its strategic interests to risk just for the sake of revenge and to give Israel what it wants while it is able to assassinate according to the open account between it and Israel.

The leader of the resistance did not argue this hypothesis, he did not deny it or ignore it but at the same time he did not specify a time, a place or how will be the response, because the coming response surely will take all these matters into consideration and will not ignore them, and it will be as the resistance a school for surprises that is able to deprive Israel of the profits which it wants through imposing an escalating agenda on the region, the resistance has three elements to control the paths which are the time, place, and the means but not the principle of response which Al Sayyed has resolved that it is not subject for bargaining.

After leaving the matter for the “entrusted people” to draw the response in its suitable time, place and manner and to say to the Israelis you should be afraid today, tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow till the response comes, you have to be afraid for the fronts in the interior and the exterior. The entrusted people will excel as usual in depriving the Israeli from the paths he wants through the response and what is coming after, but Al Sayyed is leaving one thing; that those who are keen on stability have to go early to the Israeli and ask him to be ready to receive the respond and to refrain from responding to the response, instead of going to the resistance and ask it or to expect from it not to respond. Israel knows that the resistance will respond but not for the sake of revenge but in conformity with the rules of the deterrence balance which it cannot alienate of them after its qualitative process in Shebaa Farms. The return to the previous state before the process is available but not by the abstention of the resistance from responding, but by making Israel bears the slap which it will receive no matter how painful, and to refrain from responding to the response. It is known that in most cases such as the situation which “the entrusted people” that the response helps in achieving the persuasion of not responding, or ensures this persuasion.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

2015-12-28 | عدد القراءات 1815