Monday, May 26, 2014

Nasrallah's Latest Speech: A Call For War On Israel

The Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s belligerent speech Sunday night, May 25, on the 14th anniversary of the IDF’s withdrawal from south Lebanon, was taken by Israel’s top military chiefs as the precursor for operational plans to bring his forces up to the Israel border in South Syria and the Golan – not just to fight Syrian rebels, but to challenge the IDF.

This conclusion is shared by Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz and his deputy Maj. Gen. Gady Eizenkott...military sources say they have been watching the spate of reports Damascus and Beirut have been planting in the last fortnight, which describe Hizballah as poised for a major offensive to prevent Syrian rebels taking Quneitra opposite Israel’s Golan border.

The Israeli army is accused of backing them with firepower.

The official Saudi publication Okaz reported Saturday, May 17, that Hizballah had sent surveillance teams to the battle ground to lay the ground for an operation to keep the vitally important Golan town from falling to rebel forces.
The next day, Sunday, Damascus issued an official notice of the death of Lt. Gen. Hussein Ishaq, Syrian Air Defense Chief, of wounds he sustained Saturday in an Islamist Jabhat al-Nusra attack on the Mleia base outside Damascus.

The Syrian government is known never to report the deaths of high-ranking officers. This unusual release raised suspicions in Western intelligence sources. They wondered what an officer so senior was doing in this small base, and how he came to be caught up in a local firefight.

The answer they came up with was that the late general was sent to Mleia to prepare Syria’s air defenses as cover for a Hizballah operation. The rebels discovered this and ambushed his convoy before it reached the base.

Other Saudi sources disclosed Saturday, May 24 that the Iranian Al Qods Brigades chief, Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who is in charge of his country’s military operations in the Syria conflict, had arrived in Damascus to study the state of battle on the Golan, although no other source has confirmed this.

From the Israeli side, our sources report that no major Hizballah troop advances have been sighted heading in the direction of southern Syria and the Golan - only the advance surveillance teams which turned up briefly last week on the Syrian side of the Hermon range overlooking the Golan.

Nevertheless, Nasrallah’s speech set off alarm signals.
In all the many pugnacious speeches the Hizballah chief has delivered against Israel in his 22 years as secretary general of the Lebanese Shiite Hizballah, he has never before gone into detail on the intelligence he claims to have obtained on IDF operations. But in his latest peroration, he did just that - in reference to alleged IDF actions in southern Syria.
“When the senior strategist of Hizballah – or any military group – shows off his intelligence on enemy moves in detail, that is a declaration of war,” said one Western military source.

Nasrallah made it clear he was not talking about Israel’s medical aid to rebels wounded in battle, but the IDF fire he said was aimed at Syrian units and positions on the Golan. Its purpose, he said, was to carve out a security zone in southern Syria.

“This would not be a ‘good fence,’” he said (in reference to the friendly border between South Lebanon and Israel in the years 1978 and 2000, that was manned by the IDF-founded South Lebanese Army). It will be much more than that.”
Nasrallah accused Israel of incursions across the “land border between Hizballah and Israel,” including the shooting of farmers. “Until now we haven’t reacted, but left it to the Lebanese army and UNIFIL,” he said. “But no more: For the next violations, we will hit back at once,” he said.

This was taken by Israel’s military chiefs as a threat by Hizballah to make war on Israel from two fronts: Lebanon and Syria.

What makes PLO chief and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas tick?

In 2008, when Abbas rejected then prime minister Ehud Olmert’s expansive offer of Palestinian statehood, he did so for the same reason that Yassir Arafat rejected then prime minister Ehud Barak’s expansive offer of Palestinian statehood at Camp David in 2000.

In both cases, the PLO chiefs believed that if they waited, they could get everything they demanded from Israel – and more – without giving anything away.

As Abbas and Arafat both saw it, eventually either the Israeli Left would successfully erode Israel’s national will to exist, or the Europeans and the US would join forces to coerce Israel into giving up the store. Or both. So there was no reason for the PLO to give up anything.

To get everything in exchange for nothing all they had to do was continuously escalate the PLO’s political warfare against the legitimacy of Israel internationally, and escalate its subversion of Israeli society through political intrigue and terrorism.

Back then, Abbas and Arafat looked forward to the day when they could frame Israel’s unconditional surrender and nail it to their wall.

As Palestinian affairs expert Reuven Berko wrote in an article published by the Investigative Project on Terrorism last week, if in the past Abbas wouldn’t make a deal with Israel because he could get more by saying no, today Abbas cannot make a deal with Israel.

Any deal he concludes will lead to his overthrow.

Noting that Abbas was recently threatened by al Qaeda chief Ayman Zawahiri who called him, “a traitor who is selling Palestine,” Berko explained, “The threats, veiled or not, by radical Islamists… and a quick look at [the] Arab-Muslim world, especially Syria, have made it clear to the Palestinians what the future has in store for them, and it now appears that in the meantime, they prefer the status quo to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.”

 First, neither the Americans nor the Israeli Left are willing to let the peace process go. US Secretary of State John Kerry’s decision to devote two hours to yet another meeting with Abbas last week, despite Abbas’s unity deal with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, shows that Kerry is constitutionally incapable of disengaging.

Likewise, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni’s wildcat diplomacy, which involved an unauthorized meeting with Abbas in London last week, demonstrates that like the Americans, Israel’s Left cannot relent.

Livni and her comrades have no issue other than the Palestinian issue. Their political survival is tied to the peace process.

The second problem is Abbas. Whereas he needs to prevent a settlement to keep the jihadists at bay, he needs to escalate the conflict to keep the local Palestinians at bay and maintain the support of the Europeans and the American Left.

Only by scapegoating and criminalizing Israel worldwide can Abbas maintain his relevance to the international Left.

And only by enabling and glorifying terrorism and actively inciting for the destruction of Israel can Abbas maintain what is left of his credibility among the Palestinians – five and a half years after his term of office legally ended.

The two-state model is his life preserver. The policy paradigm is based entirely on the false claim that the cause of all the region’s ills is the absence of a Palestinian state. That state, it is believed, would exist save for Israel’s land greed.

Those who uphold Abbas and the status quo ignore the consequences of Abbas’s own imperatives. In the international arena, preserving the status quo requires Israel to maintain its allegiance to the two-state paradigm’s inherent and malicious slander of the Jewish state. This allegiance in turn makes it impossible for Israel to defend itself effectively against the Palestinian led campaign to deny its right to exist.

The time has come for Israel to show Abbas the door. It would be best if we can do it quietly – offering him the opportunity to relocate to somewhere warm and retain all the loot that he and his cronies have siphoned off for their personal use.

Once Abbas is gone, Israel will have to choose between applying its laws to parts of Judea and Samaria and offering the Palestinians outside those areas a limited form of autonomy, or applying its laws to the entire region, conferring permanent residency status on the Palestinians and offering them the right to apply for Israeli citizenship.

Alarmists argue that without Abbas, Israel will go broke having to finance the Palestinian budget. But this is ridiculous. Once you subtract the hundreds of millions of dollars that go missing every year, and you take into account that Israel managed to govern the areas for 24 years, you realize that this is just one more empty threat – like the demographic threat — made by people who have no political existence without the facade of a peace process.

Abbas is not an asset. He is a liability. It is time to move past him.

No comments: