Le grand chemin vers Jérusalem : le Hamas trahit l’Iran et la Syrie

De Fida Dakroub pour Global Research



Généralités

Lorsque l’émir du Qatar, Hamad, fut arrivé à Gaza, à la tête d’une importante délégation comprenant son épouse, Moza, et son premier ministre, Hamad – celui-ci un cheikh non pas un émir –, il fut accueilli par le chef du gouvernement du Hamas, Ismaïl Haniyeh, qui eut organisé une cérémonie officielle grandiose pour l’occasion. Les deux hommes se tinrent côte à côte pendant que les hymnes nationaux palestinien et qatari furent joués. Certainement, un tapis rouge eut été déployé en son honneur ; et l’émir fut ensuite accueilli par un parterre de responsables du Hamas, dont les ministres du gouvernement de Gaza et un dirigeant en exil du mouvement, Saleh Arouri, venu dans le territoire palestinien pour cette occasion très glorieuse [1].

En plus, monsieur Taher al-Nounou, le porte-parole du chef du gouvernement du Hamas à Gaza, qui eût avalé sa langue en récitant les allégeances à son nouvel émir, déclara que cette visite avait une grande signification politique parce que c’était le premier dirigeant arabe – plutôt « arabique » selon notre nomenclature [2] – à briser le blocus politique [3].

Des fusées d’allégresse furent tirées, évidemment, dans le ciel de la bande de Gaza, assiégée, depuis un millénaire et quelque, par la soldatesque israélienne et la trahison arabe.

Dans les rues, des milliers de drapeaux palestiniens et qataris furent accrochés, ainsi que des photos géantes du cheikh Hamad : « Merci au Qatar qui tient ses promesses » (sic.) ; ou « Bienvenue » pouvait-on lire sur des panneaux le long de la route Salaheddine, qui parcourait le territoire palestinien du nord au sud.

– L’émir a accepté d’augmenter l’investissement du Qatar de 254 à 400 millions de dollars, déclara monsieur Haniyeh, lors d’une cérémonie à Khan Younès, en présence de cheikh Hamad, pour poser la première pierre d’un projet de logements destinés à des familles palestiniennes défavorisées, qui porterait aussi le nom de son Allégresse : Hamad ou l’émir du Qatar.

Cette omniprésence de son Allégresse qui précéda l’opération militaire israélienne baptisée « pilier de défense », cette précipitation subite de l’influence qatarie à Gaza, cette extase des chefs du Hamas au point de passage de Rafah, touchés par le Saint-Esprit du despotisme obscurantiste arabique, cette montée de l’émir pendant qu’il descendait, cette apparition pendant qu’il se cachait, ce silence pendant qu’il parlait, ce bruit pendant qu’il se taisait n’étaient pas un privilège de sa nature, comme le proclamaient l’émir et ses adulateurs, ni une hallucination collective, comme l’affirmaient ses détracteurs, non, simplement un faux calcul de la part des chefs du Hamas au lendemain de leur trahison ignoble envers la Syrie et l’Iran.

La trahison du Hamas envers la Syrie et l’Iran

Avant toute chose, ce qui manquait aux médias « résistants » pendant le dernier cycle de violences à Gaza, c’était le courage ! Non celui d’insulter leur « ennemi », ici Israël, mais bien plutôt le courage de décortiquer le soi-disant « allié » quand il se fut transformé en Dalila, et « l’alliance » avec lui en la chevelure convoitée de Samson [4]. C’est ce que les médias libellés « résistants » n’osèrent pas faire en réaction de la trahison du Hamas envers la Syrie et l’Iran.

D’ailleurs, loin des fracas des obus et des missiles tirés des deux côtés, une question très simple s’imposa dès le premier jour des opérations militaires à Gaza, sur laquelle ni les médias arabes « résistants » ni ceux d’Israël n’eurent pas la « générosité » d’y répondre : Quelle mouche piqua le premier ministre israélien, monsieur Netanyahou, pour qu’il donne le feu vert à une opération militaire ? La simplicité d’une telle question, au point de départ, n’exclut pas une certaine difficulté à répondre, au point d’arrivée ; et par « répondre », nous n’attendons pas, évidemment, un tel ou tel brouhaha médiatique qui ne sert ni à présenter les faits objectifs d’une telle opération ni à « répondre » à la question ci-devant. Autrement dit, tout ce que l’on eut dit, tout ce que l’on eut publié, que ça fût par les médias israéliens ou par leurs « ennemis », les médias « résistants », ne constitua, du point de vue de l’analyse de discours, aucune matière analytique des faits objectifs menant à l’opération « pilier de défense » ; et la seule synthèse à tirer des deux discours, israélien et « résistant », c’est que les deux groupes eurent bien maîtrisé, pendant le déroulement des opérations militaires, l’art de la propagande !

En effet, dès le début de la campagne impérialiste contre la Syrie, en mars 2011, le Hamas prit le camp de la soi-disant « révolution syrienne », voire de la guerre impérialiste contre la Syrie ; justifiant le « déplacement du fusil d’une épaule à l’autre », selon une expression libanaise, comme « soumission à la volonté des peuples arabes » en plein printemps des Arabes [5].

Il suffit de faire le parallèle avec la visite du premier ministre du mouvement islamiste palestinien Hamas, Ismaïl Haniyeh, au Caire, le 24 février 2012, lorsqu’il eut salué ce qu’il appela « la quête du peuple syrien pour la liberté et la démocratie [6] » (sic.).

« Je salue le peuple héroïque de Syrie qui aspire à la liberté, la démocratie et la réforme », déclara monsieur Haniyeh devant une foule de partisans réunis dans la mosquée d’Al-Azhar, pour un rassemblement consacré à « soutenir » (sic.) la mosquée Al-Aqsa, à Jérusalem, et le peuple syrien [7].

Il est intéressant de savoir aussi que la première visite officielle du premier ministre Haniyeh, hors du Gaza, fut pour les Frères Musulmans, dans leur quartier général de Moqattam au Caire, où il commenta que le Hamas était « un mouvement jihadiste des Frères musulmans avec un visage palestinien ».

Monsieur Haniyeh parlait devant une foule de partisans des Frères musulmans qui scandaient « Ni Iran ni Hezbollha » ; « Syrie islamique » ; « Dégage, Bachar, dégage espèce de boucher », tandis que sa Sainteté, monsieur Haniyeh, restait de marbre [8].

D’ailleurs, il faut noter que le Hamas n’est pas seulement un mouvement islamiste palestinien, mais il est aussi issu d’une idéologie précise, celle des Frères musulmans, pires ennemis du pouvoir politique en Syrie. Ses trois fondateurs, Ahmed Yassin, Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi et Mohammed Taha, étaient aussi issus des Frères musulmans ; ce qui explique la raison pour laquelle les chefs du Hamas se sont tournés contre le président syrien Bachar al-Assad, supporteur historique de la cause palestinienne, après qu’ils avaient reçu pendant de nombreuses années le soutien du pouvoir en Syrie face à Israël, pour se tourner brusquement 180°, pour se positionner dans le camp opposé à Damas, pour la trahir en prenant partie du camp de la Turquie, de l’Égypte et des émirats et sultanats arabiques du golfe Persique, pour se mettre en contradiction avec « l’axe-de-résistance », ou l’Arc chiite, selon la nomenclature de la réaction arabique et de l’impérialisme mondial.

Le Hamas sur le chemin d’un accord Oslo 2

Avant toute chose et selon Amos Harel, un analyste du quotidien israélien Haaretz, dès le début de l’opération militaire israélienne à Gaza, ni le Hamas ni Israël n’avaient intérêt à vagabonder dans une confrontation militaire prolongée, ni à s’engager dans une nouvelle « farce » comme celle de la guerre de Gaza en 2008 – 2009. En plus, Harel ajouta que l’évaluation des services de renseignements israéliens, rapportée au bureau du premier ministre Netanyahou, indiquait que le Hamas se considérait hors de la confrontation militaire, et n’avait pas intérêt à s’y mêler. Il précisa aussi que chaque fois que le Hamas devait choisir entre la valeur réelle de la résistance et le pouvoir politique, il choisissait toujours le deuxième [9].

Plusieurs indices nous entrainent à conclure ici que le Hamas se dirige vers un nouvel « Oslo », qui mènerait à une reconnaissance d’Israël.

Premièrement, en abandonnant « l’axe-de-résistance », en trahissant la Syrie et l’Iran, en recevant la bénédiction du Saint-Esprit de la réaction arabique, en se positionnant dans le camp des soi-disant « Arabes modérés », c’est-à-dire au sein de la guerre impérialiste contre la Syrie, le Hamas ouvre, en effet, une porte vers un nouvel « Oslo » qui mènerait à la reconnaissance d’Israël, parrainée, cette fois-ci, par l’émirat du Qatar. La visite « grandiose » de son Allégresse l’émir du Qatar à Gaza confirme cette hypothèse, surtout après que l’émir eut annoncé une aide de 400 millions de dollars US à Gaza [10] et 2 milliards de dollars à l’Égypte [11].

Deuxièmement, le parrainage de l’Égypte du dernier accord de cessez-le-feu entre Gaza et Israël, et sa conclusion subite, visait premièrement à couper le chemin aux autres organisations palestiniennes qui adoptent toujours le choix de la résistance, et qui ne se sont pas encore impliquées dans la Sainte-Alliance contre la Syrie, telles que le Jihad islamique, et le Front populaire pour la libération de la Palestine. À cela s’ajoute que l’intervention de l’Égypte et sa précipitation à déclarer un cessez-le-feu visaient aussi à maintenir l’autorité du Hamas à Gaza face au Jihad et au FPLP. Il faut noter ici que le Hamas ne prit part aux escarmouches qui précédèrent l’assassinat d’al-Jaabari entre Israël, d’un côté, et les organisations palestiniennes, de l’autre côté ; et que les combattants du Hamas ne tirèrent aucune balle contre Israël pendant les accrochages précédents ; leurs chefs ne voulaient pas se laisser entrainer dans une confrontation avec Israël, qui eût pu nuire à leur plan de se mettre sous la cape de l’émir du Qatar, Hamad. Plus tard, le Hamas fut obligé de prendre part des opérations militaires seulement après l’assassinat d’un de ses chefs militaires, al-Jaabari, sinon la « farce » eût été scandaleuse !

Troisièmement, lors de la déclaration au Caire du cessez-le-feu, le chef du Hamas, Khaled Machaal, ne fit la moindre allusion au rôle de la Syrie ni à celui de la République islamique de l’Iran, qui soutenaient, pendant de nombreuses années, la cause palestinienne, surtout le Hamas ; ce qui poussa le secrétaire général du Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, à faire allusion à l’ingratitude et au manque de reconnaissance des chefs du Hamas envers l’Iran et la Syrie [12].

Quatrièmement, la « surprise des surprises » que nous firent les chefs du Hamas, c’était la dernière fatwa [13] prohibant, sous peine d’excommunication, les attaques contre Israël [14] ! Une telle fatwa sert à établir un fondement et une légitimité religieux pour un prochain accord de paix entre Israël et le Hamas, et cela à trois niveaux : celui des relations avec Israël, celui des relations intra-palestiniennes, et celui des relations interarabes.

De la fatwa du Hamas prohibant les opérations militaires contre Israël

Primo, au niveau des relations avec Israël, une telle fatwa faciliterait, dans un futur proche, la déclaration de Gaza comme un territoire « indépendant », non pas d’Israël, mais plutôt indépendant de la Cisjordanie ; là où le chef de l’autorité palestinienne, Mahmoud Abbas, passe à Ramallah le restant de sa vie à lutter, pour ainsi dire, avec Simón Bolívar, contre la vacuité et l’ennui ; à chasser, dans son labyrinthe, les mouches vertes de son désœuvrement pénible [15]. En plus, cette fatwa confirmerait, avant toute chose, la frontière de la « Palestine » et l’officialiserait ! Non pas de la Palestine de 1948, ni celle de 1967, ni même celle de 1992, mais bien plutôt, une sorte de miniature d’une certaine Palestine quelconque et microscopique, qui s’étendrait tout au long de la côte méditerranéenne, du nord jusqu’au sud de la bande de Gaza !

Bravo Hamas ! Madre de Deus, nostro Sennor ! [16]

Secundo, au niveau intra-palestinien, une telle fatwa prohibe toute action militaire contre Israël, ce qui imposerait, par conséquent, le Hamas comme la seule autorité militaire, politique, civile et religieuse à Gaza, qui tiendrait seule la résolution de faire la guerre ou d’établir la paix avec Israël. Pourtant, cette « ascension » du Hamas au rang des dieux, officialiserait et institutionnaliserait non seulement son pouvoir à Gaza, mais aussi la division palestinienne et accélérerait la création de deux « entités » isolées et séparées l’une de l’autre par le territoire israélien : l’émirat du Hamas à Gaza et le comté de l’OLP en Cisjordanie.

Quelle comédie ! Quelle tragédie ! Et l’Éternel fut avec Josué, dont la renommée se répandit dans tout le pays [17].

Tertio, au niveau interarabe, la fatwa constitue une déclaration de la part du Hamas, aussi claire que le ciel bleu de Beyrouth au mois de juillet, indiquant la rupture complète avec le restant des pays arabes encore résistants à la normalisation avec Israël, et confirme aussi que la résistance n’est plus un choix ; et cela au grand dam du discours triomphaliste des fanfarons et des hâbleurs des médias palestiniens et de ceux libellés « résistants », au lendemain de la déclaration de la trêve entre Gaza et Israël.

Ce qui advint de Djeha-Hodja Nasreddin lorsqu’il coupa la branche sur laquelle il était assis

Djeha-Hodja Nasreddin était assis à califourchon sur une grosse branche de cerisier, ses culottes amples et son long burnous blanc enserrant sa taille et ses jambes se balançant d’un côté à l’autre, chaque fois qu’il maniait sa hache.

- Le salut sur toi, Djeha-Hodja Nasreddin Effendi ! Appela une voix en dessous.

- Sur toi le salut, Khalid Effendi ! Dit Djeha-Hodja Nasreddin assis en équilibre sur la branche. Posant sa hache, il arrangea son turban qui avait glissé sur le côté.

- Tu vas tomber de cet arbre ! l’avertit Khalid, regardes comme tu es assis !

- Tu ferais mieux de regarder où tu marches, rétorqua Djeha-Hodja Nasreddin. Les gens qui regardent les cimes des arbres et les nuages sont sûrs de se cogner les orteils.

Soudain, la branche s’est retrouvée au sol, suivie par la hache, puis par Djeha-Hodja Nasreddin. Il était trop occupé pour remarquer qu’il était assis du mauvais côté de la branche qu’il était en train de couper.

En guise de conclusion, il nous paraît que le sort du Hamas, après la rupture avec la Syrie et l’Iran, et après la précipitation de ses chefs pour se soumettre sous la cape de l’émir du Qatar, ne serait, en aucun point, moins tragique que le sort du mullah Djeha-Hodja Nasreddin lorsqu’il eut coupé la branche sur laquelle il était assis. Coupé de son arrière-front – l’Iran et la Syrie –, la bande de Gaza se trouve désormais victime des humeurs des rois d’Israël.

Fida Dakroub, Ph.D

Docteur en Études françaises (The University of Western Ontario, 2010), Fida Dakroub est écrivain et chercheur en théorie bakhtinienne. Elle est aussi militante pour la paix et les droits civiques.

Site officiel de l’auteur : www.fidadakroub.net

Notes:

[1] L’Orient-Le Jour. (23 octobre 2012). « L’émir du Qatar, “premier dirigeant arabe à briser le blocus politique” à Gaza ». Récupéré le 15 novembre 2012 de

http://www.lorientlejour.com/category/%C3%80+La+Une/article/784187/Lemir_du_Qatar,_%22premier_dirigeant_arabe_a_briser_le_blocus_politique%22_a_Gaza.html

[2] Nous distinguons dans nos écrits entre l’Arabe et l’Arabique ou l’habitant de la péninsule Arabique qui, vue son substrat culturel, se tient en opposition avec le premier, l’Arabe. Ce dernier eut créé en Syrie, précisément à Damas, et par l’entremise de la civilisation grecque et syriaque, ou chrétienne syrienne, l’une des plus grandes civilisations dans l’histoire humaine, la civilisation arabe.

[3] loc.cit.

[4] Parmi les textes de la Bible ayant inspiré les artistes, on trouve l’épopée de Samson et sa mésaventure avec Dalila. Cette histoire figure au Livre des Juges (13 : 1 – 16 : 22).

[5] L’auteur utilise l’expression ironique « le printemps des Arabes » au lieu du « printemps arabe ».

[6] France 24. (24 février 2012). « Le Hamas officialise son divorce avec le régime de Damas ». Récupéré le 26 novembre 2012 de

http://www.france24.com/fr/20120224-leader-hamas-salue-resistance-peuple-syrien-contestation-ismail-haniyeh

[7] loc.cit.

[8] loc.cit.

[9] Harel, Amos (15 novembre 2012). “Gaza escalation doesn’t necessarily mean Israel is headed for war”. Publié dans Haaretz. Récupéré le 26 novembre 2012 de

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/east-side-story/gaza-escalation-doesn-t-necessarily-means-israel-is-headed-for-war.premium-1.478169#

[10] Rudoren, Jodi. (23 octobre 2012). “Qatar’s Emir Visits Gaza, Pledging $400 Million to Hamas”. Publié dans le The New York Times. Récupéré le 26 novembre 2012 de http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/world/middleeast/pledging-400-million-qatari-emir-makes-historic-visit-to-gaza-strip.html?_r=1&

[11] Henderson, Simon. (22 octobre 2012). « Qatar’s emir visits Gaza ». Publié dans le Washington Institute. Récupéré le 26 novembre 2012 de

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/qatars-emir-visits-gaza

[12] Une annonce en public du secrétaire général du Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah. Récupéré le 26 novembre 2012 de

http://audio.moqawama.org/details.php?cid=1&linkid=3674

[13] Une fatwa est, dans l’islam, un avis juridique donné par un spécialiste de loi islamique sur une question particulière.

[14] Kamal, Sana. (27 novembre 2012). حماس تُحرّم خرق التهدئة وتسيّر دوريات حدوديّة Publié dans al-Akhbar. Récupéré le 26 novembre 2012 (vue le décalage de l’heure entre le Liban et le Canada) de

http://www.al-akhbar.com/node/172380

[15] Allusion au roman de Gabriel García Márquez « Le Général dans son labyrinthe ». Il s’agit d’un conte romancé des derniers jours de Simón Bolívar, le libérateur et le leader de la Colombie ; il retrace aussi le voyage final de Bolívar de Bogotá à la côte nord de la Colombie dans sa tentative de quitter l’Amérique du Sud pour un exil en Europe.

[16] Mère de Dieu, notre Seigneur. Le manuscrit des Cantigas de Santa María est un des plus importants recueils de chansons monophoniques de la littérature médiévale en Occident, rédigé pendant le règne du roi de Castille Alphonse X dit El Sabio ou Le Sage (1221-1284).

[17] Le Livre de Josué, 6 : 27.

Pillar of Impotence

by Gilad Atzmon

In the past week, the people of Gaza have been subject to some serious Israeli attacks. Some Hamas leaders and militants have been murdered and many more Palestinians - innocent civilians, babies, kids women and elders – have lost their live. Yet, Gaza is celebrating with the Hamas leadership never more popular.

So here is an interesting anecdote that deserves our attention. During the recent clashes Gazan militants launched more than 1500 rockets at Israel. These rockets caused rather limited damage with more than six Israeli fatalities. Militarily at least, this is far from a great achievement. And yet the Gazans are celebrating. Would Israelis be happy to learn that 1500 of their rockets had had such limited effect? Would any western army accept such a result at such a cost? The answer is a categorical NO. But the Palestinians are ecstatic, why, because they know they have won the battle and are now set to win the war. They won the battle, not because they killed six Israelis – actually they would have won it without hitting one single Israeli. They won it because they managed to deliver a message to Israel, world Jewry and the whole world.

For many years I have argued that the Palestinian war of the rockets should be seen as sending a message: Israelis! You are on stolen land! You took our houses, villages, cities, fields and orchards. You pushed us into the desert. You surrounded us with barbed wire. You starve us and you kill us simply to suit your political ambitions. So this rocket is a message to you all. Think about us and then look at yourself in the mirror. Enough is enough!’

For more than six decades the Israelis have dismissed this message. They surrounded themselves with ghetto walls and have sealed their skies with an Iron Dome. However, with Tel Aviv now under attack, Israel and Israelis have been confronted with their original sin.

In the last two days, the entire Israeli media has admitted the colossal defeat of the so-called Operation Pillar of Cloud. Just yesterday, the Israeli right wing Ynet wrote “Hamas stood up and won almost all fronts.... Hamas has managed to turn focus on Gaza, it made it into the centre of the political discussion.” It seems that the most hawkish Israel government ever, has failed to beat either Hamas or the Palestinian spirit. The Palestinians are stronger than ever while the Jewish State has been exposed as an impotent manic-depressive collective driven by a neurotic and impotent leadership.

If Zionism was ever there to counter Jewish diaspora ghetto paralysis, just to ensure that ‘never again’ Jews would be ‘led like lamb to the slaughter’, Netanyahu, Barak and Liebermann have proved in the past week that paralysis is inherent to Jewish political culture. Like all bullies, they are obsessed with power, but when they meet defiance, their vile paradigm instantly collapses.

Speech can provides us with an insight into what we most lack. Speech can reveal that which we prefer to keep hidden. But speech is also often rather misleading, there to shape our lies into a truthful narrative. But it is these ‘true lies’ that provide an access to the fearful-self. It is these ‘true lies’ that reveal the unconscious. So, when, for instance Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists preach to us about Jewish ‘humanism and universalism’ they are obviously lying yet are they not also expressing a yearning for such an ethos to really exist in their own culture? Similarly, when Israel refers to itself as ‘The only democracy in the Middle East’ it this not because Israel would really love to be such a true democracy? In other words, often, when we speak we demonstrate what we most lack i.e. that which we miss and desire, yet we cannot admit this to ourselves. When Netanyahu decided to designate his latest massacre as a Pillar of Cloud, he actually tried to disguise from himself and his people the fact that in reality, he is actually an impotent, and the cloud is actually one big duvet of lies, there only to conceal his shame.

Israel and the Israelis love to talk about their ‘power of deterrence’ - Israeli actions, there to deter Palestinians and Arabs from even contemplating the possibility of challenging the Jewish state. In fact, the entire Israeli foreign and military policy can be realised with reference to that power. Israel likes to see itself at the core of its neighbours’ anxiety. This explains the Israeli fascination with the accumulation of nuclear bombs and other WMDs. It explains the policy towards Iran and it also explains its brutal attitude towards the Palestinians.

Israelis are obsessed with ‘deterrence’ only because, deep down, they are aware of their own vulnerability. Israelis are fanatical about ‘deterrence’ because they know that when push comes to shove, they themselves are actually powerless. They are now exposed for what they are: a fragmented society dominated by egotistic hedonism. Israelis know that their underbelly is very soft indeed.

Israeli collective melancholia must be realised in the light of their inevitable encounter with their true nature. As Ynet admits, they have been defeated in almost every possible respect. As a society, they have been caught naked and their imaginary collective bond has proved to be a farce. In spite of Israel’s mighty, sophisticated army the Hamas leadership, together with the people of Gaza, remained defiant. In spite of relentless air raids, and till the very last moment, Hamas kept firing their rockets reminding Israelis what life in Gaza is really like. When it seemed that the IAF had done its worst (but achieved so little), the Israeli government called on its 75.000 reservists, hoping against hope that such a move would bully Hamas into surrender. Again they were wrong. Ismail Haniah made things very clear when he invited the Israeli reservists to try their luck and enter the strip. Israel was caught with its trousers down – and believe me, the vision of their collective genitalia was not a pretty sight!

‘Unconscious is the discourse of the other’ says Lacan. The fear of impotence is not the fear that you may not be up to much in bed, it is actually the unconscious nightmare that everyone around you is saying behind your back that you’re not up to much in bed. Israelis not just now admitting their impotence to themselves, they are also aware of now being seen as a bunch of arrogant, cowardly and helpless barbarians.

By the time it became clear that the Pillar wasn’t even semi-erect and the Cloud couldn’t cover even that embarrassing truth, Netanyahu, Barak and Liebermann as well as the whole of Israeli society realised that nothing was left of Israel’s power of deterrence - for the Palestinians have lost their fear.

Israeli hardware defeated by Palestinian morale

Assuming the ceasefire holds, it is now time to assess the preliminary results of the Israeli attack on Gaza, and I would score this one as a definite victory for Hamas.  Why?

Because it is pretty clear that the IDF was deterred from entering into Gaza whereas the usual orgy of violence unleashed by the Israelis on the Gaza Strip did not deter Palestinians at all.  It is also pretty clear that the Israelis were the ones who wanted a ceasefire whereas Hamas could have kept going, all for the same reason: there was nothing more left worth destroying in Gaza.
 
Bottom line: if anything, that pompous imbecile Netanyahu actually substantially weakened the deterrent capability of the Israeli military with the operation "Pillar of Defense".

Think of it this way: according to Time magazine, as of the 19 of November the IDF had launched more than 1,350 air, tank, and warship strikes against targets in the Gaza Strip (the actual figure will be substantially larger, of course).  And yet, even after such an intensive fire preparation of the battlefield, the IDF did not dare enter Gaza.  This is frankly pathetic and makes me wonder if the IDF is still capable of *any* real military operation (shooting unarmed civilians does not qualify).  This dismal performance is even more pitiful when you consider the rather lame performance of Hamas.

Having promised to open the "Gates of Hell"  Hamas delivered a missile assault which could be compared to the effect of a wet firecracker.  And yet, in all their misfortunes, the Palestinians are blessed to have paranoid cowards like the Israelis as their oppressors: the otherwise totally useless Qasssem missiles are still good enough to scare a population suffering from a form of psychosis Gilad Atzmon calls "pre-traumatic stress disorder".

The real deterrent capability of Hamas lies, of course, not in the Qassem missile, but in its foot soldiers which would have met any Israeli incursion inside Gaza with an intense combination of anti-tank fire, snipers, and highly mobile assault groups.  But the Israelis do not have what it takes for that kind of fight.

Operation "Pillar of Defense" pitted Israeli hardware against Palestinian morale, and that the latter clearly came out on top.

The Saker

Hamas launches a completely irresponsible missile strike on Jerusalem

This is plain crazy - according to various reports Hamas has shot missiles at the city of Jerusalem.  According to the BBC  "militants said they wanted to hit the Israeli parliament".  The missiles missed their targets and landed on the south side of the city without causing any damage.

What Hamas did today is sheer lunacy, there is no other way of putting it.  Shooting missiles which are so inaccurate at a city which contains not only what Jews think of as the "wailing wall", but also the al-Aqsa mosque, the Dome of the Rock and the Holy Sepulchre is absolutely irresponsible.  Just imagine what would have happened if any of these buildings had been hit!

Keep in mind that the distance between, say, the Knesset building and the Dome of the Rock is less than 3km:

It is impossible to fire an extended range but not accurate rocket like the Qassam M75/76 at the Knesset without a very real probability of hitting the Old City of Jerusalem and the sacred buildings it contains.

What Hamas just did is absolutely irresponsible and cannot be justified by any excuse, not even the savage brutality of the Israelis.  Finally, Hamas just gave the Israelis the perfect excuse to intervene and "disarm Hamas".

If "political Darwin Awards" were given out - Hamas most certainly would deserve one.

The Saker

Hamas opposes ‘tactical’ Palestinian statehood bid at UN

Haaretz reports:

The Islamist Hamas movement said Wednesday that President Mahmoud Abbas' plan to approach the United Nations for recognition of Palestinian statehood was a "tactical" move, part of a negotiations process, and therefore could not be backed.

The move was not based on principles and "Hamas and other factions are not part of this step and do not support it," Salah al-Bardaweel, a senior Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, told a workshop in Gaza City.

Hamas, which seized control of the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2007, opposes the general line adopted by Abbas, and in particular peace negotiations with Israel.

The movement is under a Western diplomatic boycott for refusing demands to renounce violence, honor past Israeli-Palestinian agreements and recognize Israel's right to exist.

Al-Bardaweel told the workshop that the consequence of getting the UN to recognize a Palestinian state would also be recognition of Israel's boundaries.

"Going to the UN draws the borders of Israel, which was established on stolen lands and still has no borders," he said.

Abbas' UN bid, he explained, would mean that the Palestinian state would exist only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war, and not in all of historic Palestine, as Hamas wants.

Moreover, he said, once a Palestinian state is ratified, "the Palestinian resistance won't be allowed to fire one single gunshot at the Israeli occupation."

Abbas said last week that he intends to submit the Palestinian's UN bid once he arrives in New York on September 19 for the General Assembly session.

Hamas never misses a beat (to do something wholly self-defeating, again)

Oh boy, just when I was considering the possibility that Hamas might not be its own worst enemy, came this:

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh (allegedly) said: "We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs".

Now, of course all sinners should be prayed for, and it is perfectly wise and good to ask God to have mercy on them, no matter how sinful their lives were. But to count a longtime CIA puppet, mass murdering Wahabi ideologue with the "true believers and martyrs" or to refer to him as "holy warrior" is just plain stupid. Sorry, I just can find no other word for this kind of totally self-defeating folly.

I can just about imagine the backslapping and high-fiving in Jerusalem and Washington.

Palestinians commit (yet another) huge strategic mistake

Big news: Hamas and Fatah have agreed to form a new interim government as part of a process of "reconciliation" and a "unity deal".  Yes, not only is Hamas going to join Fatah in a unity government, that government will be lead by, who else, Abbas!

When I read that this morning I though "Hamas leaders have gone totally insane!".   Think about it:

Who is Abbas?  He is exactly *nobody*.  He is not the "elected President of the Palestinian authority" simply because his term is over and his band of thugs never allowed any other elections to take place.  Until this deal with Hamas was made his legitimacy was exactly *zero*.

What is Fatah?  It's the utterly discredited and unmasked (thanks Wikileaks!) local combined franchise of the Shin Bet and the CIA.  Hamas might as well sign a "reconciliation" deal with the Shin Bet and join a "unity" cabinet under the leadership of Yuval Diskin (or Yoram Cohen)!

What about the timing?

The timing could not be worse.  Not only are there all the signs that a new, huge,  Freedom Flotilla will attempt to break the Gaza siege this summer, but the new Egyptian Foreign Minister, Nabil al-Arabi, has even told Al-Jazeera that Egypt is making preparations to permanently open the Gaza border!

So at a time when Abbas and his band of traitors are totally discredited and despised by all, at a time when Hamas' stance in Gaza was about to be vindicated, the Hamas leadership finds nothing better to do than give the local Shabak/CIA franchise manager a new legitimacy!

Sadly, Hamas as a record of brilliant tactics followed by total strategic incompetence (just remember how it totally failed to exploit the bringing down of the Wall between Gaza and Egypt).  But this latest decision goes beyond mere incompetence - it smacks of outright treason.

All of which is made even worse by the reaction rather crazy reactions in the rest of the world.  Israel and the USA are opposing it, I don't know if they do that because they are really stupid or because really really smart, while Iran and Hezbollah approve of it - probably because criticizing the entire Palestinian leadership is impossible for them.  It's a crazy world!

Whatever may be the case, and since I am not trying to be popular with anybody, I will clearly say that this is a disaster for all the Palestinian people.  Against Israel nothing of any value has ever been obtained by compromise and/or negotiations - only by resolve and active resistance.  Sadly, in the entire Middle-East only Hezbollah has really understood this and acted accordingly.

I never had much hope for Hamas as a movement which, after all, was initially created by the Shin Bet to be a counterweight to Fatah, but now I can only conclude that until a Hezbollah-like resistance organization crystallizes in reaction to the constant compromises and betrayals of the Palestinian leaders (Hezbollah was created as a reaction against the compromises and betrayals of Amal leaders) - little real progress will be achieved in Palestine.

The Saker

Dubai seeks Israeli prime minister’s arrest over murder of Hamas militant

The AFP reports (via Raw Story)

Dubai police said Tuesday they are seeking the arrest of Israel's prime minister and the head of its spy agency over the murder of a top Hamas militant in a hotel room of the Gulf city-state.

Police chief Dahi Khalfan said he had issued the demand for the arrest warrants as he was now certain they ordered the Cold War-style hit on Mahmud al-Mabhuh.

"I have presented the (Dubai) prosecutor with a request for the arrest of (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu and the head of Mossad," Meir Dagan, said Khalfan.

"I am now completely sure that it was Mossad," said the police lieutenant general.

Mabhuh, a founder of the Palestinian Islamist Hamas organisation's military wing, was found dead in a room of the luxurious Al Bustan Rotana hotel near Dubai's airport on January 20.

Dubai police have identified 26 suspects from the hit squad murder they say bore the hallmarks of the Mossad. The Hamas man had been drugged and then suffocated.

Khalfan said last month that Dubai would issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu if Israel was found to be implicated in the murder of the Palestinian militant.

Netanyahu "will be the first to be wanted for justice as he would have been the one who signed the decision to kill al-Mabhuh in Dubai," he was quoted as saying in The National newspaper on February 5.

"We will issue an arrest warrant against him," said the English-language newspaper published in Abu Dhabi.

Police say the suspects entered Dubai on fake passports using the identities of 12 people from Britain, six from Ireland, four from France, three Australians and a German, before fleeing the Gulf emirate.

Two members of the hit squad which killed Mabhuh had "returned to the United States after passing through a European country," said Dhalfan, who on Monday said the suspects were hiding out in Israel where they could avoid arrest.

Israeli officials have refused to confirm or deny the reports.

But Israel's media sees the killing as Mossad's work, and the probe has caused a diplomatic headache for the Jewish state with the countries whose passports were used summoning its envoys to hear angry protests.

On Tuesday, Ireland's Sinn Fein defended a town council's decision to remove a page in its guestbook signed by the Israeli ambassador over the alleged use of Irish passports in the Dubai murder.

The Israeli embassy in Dublin described the incident as "a rare exception" initiated by "publicity seeking" by Sinn Fein.

In Lebanon, an MP representing the Shiite militant group Hezbollah said security must be stepped up for all foreigners entering the country as they could be secret agents like the assassins in Dubai.

Australia meanwhile said that it was sending police to Israel to investigate how its passports were used in the elaborate plot

Khalfan told AFP Western passports would be closely inspected following the Mabhuh's murder but that Jews would not be singled out.

"We respect all people and all religions, whether they are Muslims, Jews, Christians or others," Dahi Khalfan told AFP, asked about remarks attributed to him that "all Jews" would be prevented from entering Dubai.

He said immigration services would be on their guard "after Israel's abuse of passports from Western countries," although there was no way of knowing if a Westerner entering the United Arab Emirates was an Israeli with dual citizenship.

"The officers of the immigration service will now look twice if they have any doubt about the documents or photos, and will scan them," he said.

So who won the war in Gaza?

Following the unilateral ceasefires of the Israelis and Hamas, it appears that the war in Gaza is over, at least for a (probably short) while, and this begs the question: who won? Predictably, both sides claim victory. Most pundits seem to lean towards saying that Israel won a victory, but not a complete one. Some say that Hamas fought better than expected and that it deserves high praise for not letting the Israelis into the urban areas of Gaza. I think that there are at least two very different levels in which what happened in Gaza needs to be appraised, a tactical one and a strategic one.

TACTICAL SCORECARD

One the tactical level, the reality is that we still do not know what really happened. Yes, we know that the Israelis report very few casualties and that Hamas claims that Israelis figures under-report the real casualties. I personally do not believe that the Israelis figures are fake, Israel is just not the kind of society where this can be done, at least not in meaningful numbers. So I accept the Israeli figures and they are very low: 13. In contrast, there have been 1300+ Palestinians killed (and another 5300+ wounded). That's a 1:100 kill ratio. What does this figure show? Only one thing:

The Israelis never really fought Hamas on the ground.

In fact, reporters on the ground repeatedly reported the following: the Israelis moved in at night and back out at daybreak. This bizarre tactic could only have one goal: to put pressure on Hamas without really engaging it. No real commander would ever give up all the ground his forces took in bloody combats at night each morning only to repeat the very same attack the next evening. Unless, of course, no "bloody combat" ever took place. So let me restate this here:

The Israelis never really fought Hamas on the ground.

So all that talk about the Israelis or Hamas having shown excellent combat skills is nonsense. The only 'combat' which took place was the Israelis shooting at Gaza from afar (air, sea, artillery, etc.) and the Palestinians hunkering down and trying to avoid the incoming fire. Only in that narrow sense did both sides perform rather well: the Israelis inflicted an immense wave of terror and suffering on the entire population of Gaza while the Palestinians managed to survive and fight to the very last day. The fact is that this entire war was a war of nerves. The Israelis wanted to "shock and awe" the Palestinians into submission and the fact is that they failed: Hamas is still defiant and in control of Gaza. Was breaking down Hamas really an Israeli objective? Probably not, not even the Israelis are that dumb. Did the Israelis really think they would get Shalit out? Again, probably not. So what was their objective?

1) Showing the Palestinians that the Israelis are still the ruthless killers they have always been and thereby restoring not their "deterrence capability" but their *terrorism capability*. This objective was clearly met: the Israelis have clearly proven to themselves, the Palestinians and the rest of the world that they are the ultimate terrorist state, the unrepentant Ueber-terrorist on the planet.

2) Showing the rest of the world that they have only contempt and hatred for what is otherwise known as "norms of civilized behavior" and international law in general. This explains the repeated attacks on ambulances, the shelling of mosques, schools, universities, UN compounds, etc. This objective was also clearly met: nobody in his right mind can seriously doubt that the Israelis have anything but hateful contempt for any legal or moral norm of civilized behavior.

3) The attack on Gaza was also a collective exercise in psychotherapy. After being abjectly humiliated by about 1000 Hezbollah operators in 2006, Olmert, the IDF and the Israeli general public badly needed to restore their self-image as the "superior race" in the Middle-East. That objective was also brilliantly met: what better than the kill ratio of 1:100 can restore the self image of a hate filled racist and convince him of his superiority?

Again, all these objectives were met and, what is crucial, were met without committing the huge mistake of actually trying to engage the Palestinian resistance on the ground. That is, I would argue, the biggest Israeli success: not having done something amazingly dumb. Hamas is not the party which initiated this war so one cannot really speak of "Hamas objectives" in this war. If anybody still thinks that Hamas was the party which started this war by firing Qassam rockets into Sderot, let me remind you here that it was Israel which committed the fist act of war by imposing a total blockade on Gaza (a blockade is legally an act of war). Still, by keeping the IDF confined to the non urbanized area of Gaza Hamas clearly succeeded in maintaining its deterrent capability. Bottom line: Hamas did not loose, nor did it accept some kind of idiotic "peace plan" offered by outside parties. Still, Hamas completely failed at inflicting any meaningful damage on the Israelis.

This is how I would score the tactical performance of the parties:

Israel: B+
Hamas: B-

STRATEGIC SCORECARD

True to themselves, the Israelis achieved somewhat of a tactical success at the price of a strategic disaster. Operation Cast Lead undoubtedly made things immensely worse for Israel in almost every imaginable aspect:

1) Even before the war on Gaza Israel was the most hated country on earth (which, considering that this is the last openly racist country on the planet, should surprise nobody). Now this hatred has increased by an order of magnitude. This is particularly noticeable among the Left and Left-leaning parties and movement.

2) The war on Gaza was also highly damaging to all the allies of Israel. For example, Mubarak, Sarkozy, Abbas and many others were gradually becoming desperate to find some kind of way to stop the war because their otherwise sycophantic attitude towards the "Jewish state" put them in an extremely difficult position with their own public opinion. Even in the USA and Turkey the disgust with Israel reached new heights. Sure, the war has now stopped, at least for a while, but nobody seriously doubts that all these politicians owe their power to the support of the US Empire and Zionist Lobby rather than to the fact that they represent the policies desired by their public opinions.

3) To make thing worse for Israel, I predict that there will now be a wave of legal attempts to bring the Israeli government and army officials to trial for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, etc. Sure, the Zionist lobbies and their ironclad control of most Western governments and of all the corporate press will mostly protect Israeli officials from such legal actions, but since the Zionist lobbies do *not* control all the courts worldwide, not even in the USA, the embarrassment generated by the constant cat and mouse game played between human right activists and Israeli officials will be immense. After all, it is hard to constantly speak about being "the only democracy in the Middle-East" and "sharing Western values" while constantly dodging international arrest warrants for war crimes and genocide.

4) There is no doubt possible that the war on Gaza made any possibility for a so-called "two state solution" even more remote than before. As Olmert (correctly) explained in 2007, if the "two state solution" fails Israel will be faced with an Apartheid like struggle. This is now exactly the dynamic which is taking place. All the tactical efforts of Israel (the Wall, the blockade and war on Gaza, the reneging on all the accords and pledges, etc.) have achieved only one thing: they have made a two state solution impossible. That leaves the Israelis only two options: either expel of kill the vast majority of Palestinians or live with them in one state. The former not being possible, the latter is inevitable and that, in turns, means giving up the sick dream nightmare of the ethnically pure "Jewish state".

5) In contrast to Israel, Hamas has achieved a huge strategic victory in this war. For the first time the Palestinians themselves managed to survive and ride out a full scale Israeli assault. Hamas itself, in stark contrast to Fatah, has proven that it is a real resistance movement. Sure, Hamas is not Hezbollah, not by a long long shot, but Hamas is not Fatah or the bad old PLO either. The Hamas leadership which has a long history of rather myopic decisions has this time managed to stay firm and it has immensely increased its worldwide prestige. There is still plenty of things which are wrong with Hamas, but it would be unfair and unreasonable to expect Hamas to grow into a Hezbollah like force overnight. Politics is the science of the possible and once the Israelis attacked Gaza there is very little the Hamas foot soldiers or leaders could have done much better than what they actually did.

This is how I would score the strategic performance of the parties:

Israel: F
Hamas: A-

In conclusion I want to point out one area in which Hamas performance can only be called absolutely disastrous: public relations. Hamas still does not have a real website to present its information in English in a systematic and timely fashion. During this war, Hamieh, Meshaal and other Hamas officials made statements which were never translated in full or published on the web. The Ezzedine al Qassam brigades have a forum, but it is run by incompetent people who instead of providing timely and relevant information basically are content to have people chat about this and that. Even worse, Hamas provided grossly misleading information about IDF soliders made prisoners, about destroyed Merkavas, and killed Israeli soldiers. All this painfully reminds me of Saddam's Minister of Information "comical Ali" (Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf). The sad fact is that Ha'aretz provided far more interesting and correct information that any and all the pro-Hamas outlets out there. In terms of public information Hamas deserves a shameful F for its absolutely inadequate performance.

That's pretty much sums up my impressions about this war. Since we simply don't know much about what really happened I am not insisting that any of the above is correct. I might have overlooked or misunderstood a lot so, please, drop by and let me know what you think. There are plenty among you, my readers, which know much more than I do about all this and I ask you to please share your insights with me and the rest of us.

The Saker

PS: I have just seen an article by Gideon Levy in Ha'aretz who, to my surprise, pretty much seems to agree with most of my analysis of this war though, of course, he casts his views in softer terms. Check it out, it makes, I think, for a rather good reading.

Hamas to Fight On if Israel Ceases Fire Unilaterally

Al-Manar reports: This unilateral ceasefire does not foresee a withdrawal" by the Israeli army,” Hamas’s representative in Lebanon Oussama Hamdan said Saturday. He stressed the resistance group will fight on if Israel orders a unilateral ceasefire in Gaza. "As long as it remains in Gaza, resistance and confrontation will continue," he said.

Speaking at a conference in Beirut, also attended by European representatives supporting the Palestinians, Hamdan added that Israel's proposal for a unilateral ceasefire, which was to be put to a vote of the security cabinet later on Saturday, was an "attempt to derail the Egyptian plan" for a reciprocal truce. “The different initiatives for a ceasefire were aimed at getting the Palestinians to concede things "which the enemy failed to achieve through the fighting,” he said.

Hamas would only agree to a ceasefire if the conditions set by the organization are met. "I would like to suggest to all the mediators to focus in their initiatives on halting the offensive and lifting the blockade and not to touch anything else."

He called on regional elements to stand by the resistance and warned Israel that “if we don't hear what we want, we'll return to the fighting arena."

'Don't suggest that we surrender because we haven't been defeated and we won't be defeated. Our determination grows stronger every day, because our debt to the martyrs whose blood has been spilled is bigger. We shall continue fighting, so don't suggest that we surrender,” Hamdan stressed.

The senior Hamas official called on the Palestinian people to continue the struggle and addressed resistance fighters in Gaza.

"Just like the resistance was victorious in Lebanon in 2006, you will win in January 2009."

"There are elements in the region which believe that the enemy treats them as a partner. They don’t understand that the enemy treats them like servants or like an improved image of the ancient slaves, but this is the 21st century," he said signaling several leaders dubbed by the US as so called ‘moderate Arabs.’

He also criticized Mahmoud Abbas, whose term as PA leader ended in January 9, for not showing up at the Arab summit in Qatar.

Hamdan stressed that Israel's leaders should be put on trial for committing war crimes in the Gaza Strip. He told the Europeans that "the Zionist entity enjoys a special status in the European Union."

He also congratulated the presidents of Venezuela and Bolivia for severing their diplomatic ties with Israel, and ridiculed Arab leaders who he said were letting Israel act without disturbances.

Ismail Haniyeh: My message to the West – Israel must stop the slaughter

I write this article to Western readers across the social and political spectrum as the Israeli war machine continues to massacre my people in Gaza. To date, almost 1,000 have been killed, nearly half of whom are women and children. Last week's bombing of the UNRWA (UN Relief Works Agency) school in the Jabalya refugee camp was one of the most despicable crimes imaginable, as hundreds of civilians had abandoned their homes and sought refuge with the international agency only to be mercilessly shelled and bombed by Israel. Forty-six children and women were killed in that heinous attack while scores were injured.

Evidently, Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 did not end its occupation nor, as a result, its international obligations as an occupying power. It continued to control and dominate our borders by land, sea and air. Indeed the UN has confirmed that between 2005 and 2008, the Israeli army killed nearly 1,250 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children. For most of that period the border crossings have remained effectively closed, with only limited quantities of food, industrial fuel, animal feed and a few other essential items, allowed in.

Despite its frantic efforts to conceal it, the root cause of Israel's criminal war on Gaza is the elections of January 2006, which saw Hamas win by a substantial majority. What occurred next was that Israel alongside the United States and the European Union joined forces in an attempt to quash the democratic will of the Palestinian people. They set about reversing the decision first by obstructing the formation of a national unity government and then by making a living hell for the Palestinian people through economic strangulation. The abject failure of all these machinations finally led to this vicious war. Israel's objective is to silence all voices that express the will of the Palestinian; thereafter it would impose its own terms for a final settlement depriving us of our land, our right to Jerusalem as the rightful capital of our future state and the Palestinian refugees' right to return to their homes.

Ultimately, the comprehensive siege on Gaza, which manifestly violated the Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibited the most basic medical supplies to our hospitals. It disallowed the delivery of fuel and supply of electricity to our population. And on top of all of this inhumanity, it denied them food and the freedom of movement, even to seek treatment. This led to the avoidable death of hundreds of patients and the spiralling rise of malnutrition among our children.

Palestinians are appalled that the members of the European Union do not view this obscene siege as a form of aggression. Despite the overwhelming evidence, they shamelessly assert that Hamas brought this catastrophe upon the Palestinian people because it did not renew the truce. Yet we ask, did Israel honour the terms of the ceasefire mediated by Egypt in June? It did not. The agreement stipulated a lifting of the siege and an end to attacks in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Despite our full compliance, the Israelis persisted in murdering Palestinians in Gaza as well as the West Bank during what became known as the year of the Annapolis peace.

None of the atrocities committed against our schools, universities, mosques, ministries and civil infra-structure would deter us in the pursuit of our national rights. Undoubtedly, Israel could demolish every building in the Gaza Strip but it would never shatter our determination or steadfastness to live in dignity on our land. Surely, if the gathering of civilians in a building only to then bomb it or the use of phosphorous bombs and missiles are not war crimes, then what is? How many more international treaties and conventions must Zionist Israel breach before it is held accountable? There is not a capital in the world today where free and decent people are not outraged by this brutal oppression. Neither Palestine nor the world would be the same after these crimes.

There is only one way forward and no other. Our condition for a new ceasefire is clear and simple. Israel must end its criminal war and slaughter of our people, lift completely and unconditionally its illegal siege of the Gaza Strip, open all our border crossings and completely withdraw from Gaza. After this we would consider future options. Ultimately, the Palestinians are a people struggling for freedom from occupation and the establishment of an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital and the return of refugees to their villages from which they were expelled. Whatever the cost, the continuation of Israel's massacres will neither break our will nor our aspiration for freedom and independence.

The writer is the Prime Minister of Gaza

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/ismail-haniyeh-my-message-to-the-west-ndash-israel-must-stop-the-slaughter-1366726.html

Edited transcript of Khaled Meshaal's speech on day 15 of the war on Gaza

Press TV reports:

In a speech from Damascus, Khaled Meshaal, Hamas' political leader spoke on the events arising from Israel's ongoing 15-day raid on the Gaza Strip:

The edited text of the Saturday televised address follows:

The Zionists wanted to impose a humiliating defeat on us because the only obstacle to confront them is resistance, especially in the Gaza Strip.

Perhaps the Zionists, because of the difference between the resistance in Lebanon and Gaza, thought that in comparison with Hezbollah, we were weak and they could regain the reputation of their army following its defeat in Lebanon. They tried to use the territories of Gaza to show their military might.

So this is a battle of demonstrating military strength, a fight or war to impose a defeat on our people. The Zionists thought that we were the weakest. However, the Zionists were surprised by the resistance.

All our supporters in the Arab and Islamic world as well as the West should be sure that the resistance in Gaza is in its best situation.

The resistance was able to absorb the strikes of the enemy and then take the initiative and day by day, we are seeing new surprises by the Palestinian resistance.

Just less than two hours ago we struck the airbase of Balnakhim which is 50 kilometers away from the Gaza Strip

The enemy had assigned aims for itself to achieve. These aims are now lessening with the passing of time. Israel wanted to destroy Gaza, wanted to end Hamas' control of Gaza as it said, the enemy wanted to destroy the resistance in Gaza, wanted to stop the rockets from Gaza.

But what are the Israelis left with today? They are now focusing and targeting north Gaza and are demolishing peoples' houses over their heads while trying to enter north Gaza and stop the rockets. However, the heroic resistance has not allowed them to make progress. In the south, they are trying to stop weapons reaching Hamas. They are trying to impose new realities whereby with the new situation they can negotiate for what better suits them, for instance in the Security Council.

They are trying to send a message to the Israeli population that they are victorious; that they have imposed new realities, in order to cover up their defeats in these 15 days. But very frankly the enemy has achieved nothing.

Let us make calculations. What has the enemy achieved? I can say with all confidence according to facts on the ground that from a military perspective the enemy has failed completely. Have they stopped rockets being launched? Now they are talking about ways to stop the rockets. They want to impose new facts on southern Gaza so they can guarantee their security as they allege. But they have not attained any of their aims. So what have they achieved?

The enemy has succeeded in one thing. In addition, to covering up for their loses, Israelis do not confess to their causalities and deaths among their soldiers. They prevent the media from entering into Gaza. Israel tries to cover up these losses by talking about friendly fire and road accidents. But the truth will come out and the Zionists will discover how many people they have lost and the magnitude of their failure in Gaza. They also try to trick the world and show that they have gone deep into Gaza by fabricated TV footage. They depict by means of false pictures that they have entered deep into Gaza.

So what has the enemy succeeded in? The enemy has succeeded in committing murders. Murders against the women and children of Gaza. Israel has grouped people in houses and then destroyed the houses. They kidnap people and then execute them in cold blood.

The enemy has succeeded in bringing about a new Holocaust on Gaza.

Let me now speak to Israelis and Zionists. What have you achieved in this war that you supported? You supported your leaders in going ahead with this war, but what have you achieved besides killing innocent children, breaking skulls and creating an ocean of blood in Gaza?

What have you achieved except a Holocaust that your leaders want to use to win the next elections in February? Palestinian blood is now a means for political achievements in your elections.

You complain about the Holocaust that was committed against you, but you today are now committing an even harsher Holocaust. The Palestinians can now make a museum of your Holocaust in Gaza…

What prevented the US from allowing Resolution 1860 being passed a week or two weeks ago? They wanted to give Israel a chance to kill more Palestinians and claim victory over Gaza. But when the resistance did not back down and Israel failed and when the magnitude of these massacres were uncovered and the USA and those who collaborated in this military campaign witnessed the dissent and intifada among the Muslim masses, which carries with it real danger, at that point they let the resolution pass.

But they took the teeth out of (UN Security Council Resolution) 1860. The resolution is a non-binding cease-fire with no date specified for the cease-fire.

The question now is about who should implement the resolution. Those who started the military campaign in the first place, the Zionists, should implement it and immediately pull out of Gaza. This is logic.

Concerning us, we want the immediate and complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and the lifting of the unjust siege on Gaza that has led to the current situation.

Our other request is the opening of all border crossings including the Rafah border crossing.

We, with an open mind, will deal with any initiatives and decisions based on these three requests.

Therefore, we will not accept any negotiations for a truce in the light of and under the pressure of a military campaign and siege.

Let the military campaign stop, let the Israelis withdraw, and let the rights of our people be admitted to, let them recognize our rights to live without a siege and closed border crossings, just like other humans, then we are ready to discuss a truce, just like we did before.

We will not accept a permanent truce, because it will take the right of resistance from the Palestinian people. The resistance is against occupation and military campaigns and therefore as long as occupation exists, resistance will too...

We will also not accept the interference of international forces because international forces will come only to protect Israel's security and any international force imposed will be considered as occupiers.

We will not accept any talks about strengthening the 'choke hold' on the resistance concerning its weapons. Some are speaking about the tunnels as if Gaza is a super power with advanced weapons, while we are people with very limited capabilities to defend our territories and ourselves. No body has the right to take our legitimate right for defense and resistance. The US, as if the whole of the Israeli arsenal does not exists, sends hundreds of tons of explosives and artillery shells to Israel.

In this context, we still sent our delegation to Cairo to talk about Egypt's proposal and other political plans. The November 2005 Rafah crossing agreement, must be reconsidered because this agreement really promoted the blockade on Gaza and we proposed different means and methods.

I call on Mr. Mahmoud Abbas - who called for national unity in the face of Israel's attacks - to declare to the world that we must agree to a Palestinian partnership between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas in Gaza, so that we can reach a firm arrangement in Rafah. This is appropriate choice for you. Anything besides this has no credibility when it comes to national unity.

We supported national unity from day one -- National unity based upon confronting the military campaign, but this needs honesty and credibility. All political detainees must be freed and the Palestinians in the West Bank must be free to hold protests without being arrested. We saw them arrested of course yesterday. We also call on Mahmoud Abbas to stop cooperating with the enemy and to stop negotiations with the Israelis. There is no future for these negotiations…

And to the Arab countries, by God you abandoned and degraded us. But if you made mistakes in the past go ahead and correct your mistakes before it is to late… I call on Arab countries not to welcome any Israeli official in their capitals.

The Arab leaders must coordinate and be aligned with the will of their people. Moreover, I call on Arab countries that have relations with Israel to tell the Israelis either that they should stop their war, or that the Arab countries will stop their relations.

After this resolution, the Muslim Ummah should not calm down and assume the atrocities are over. Resolution 1860 has not brought about any changes on the ground. Israel refuses the resolution and the battle in Gaza is in its most intense phase. What we need is more stern resistance in Gaza and we need more fierce protests in the Arab and Islamic world and the international community to achieve victory for the people of Gaza. We need a third 'Intifada' (uprising) in the West Bank and a revolution in the Arab, Islamic world until the enemy withdraws from Gaza, the siege is lifted and the border crossings are opened.

A very important point is that the Muslim world should stand by us. In spite of all these massacres committed by Israel, some say that we are the problem and the massacres are our fault. These are shameful words. What provided the atmosphere for the Zionists to boost their reputation (among their people) and to increase our wounds and impose new circumstances, for example the separation wall, settlement activities and so on, all happened at the time of negotiations.

Concerning are casualties and wounded, resistance cannot liberate without martyrs and casualties. It is better to achieve victory through martyrs and wounded, instead of having casualties without resistance and victory.

Some express fear that after all the sacrifices, the leadership of the resistance may collapse or make a settlement for example. On the contrary, the blood of our women and children and people will increase our cohesion and determination to achieve our aims. It is unjust that after all these massacres to just go and say lets make a truce. On the contrary, the price of this bloodshed is freedom and to decide our own destiny and to end the occupation and siege.

Will Hizballah intervene in the Gaza conflict?

by Amal Saad-Ghorayeb for The Electronic Intifada

While Israel fervently attempts to terrorize the Palestinians into submission in Gaza, many observers have started to wonder why Hizballah has refrained from stepping in militarily to assist its brothers-in-arms, Hamas. Such musings fail to take account of the constraints on Hizballah's room for action, as well as the circumstances under which Hizballah would ignore such constraints. The question that should be posed is not so much if Hizballah will act, but when.

As things currently stand, Hizballah is not in a position to directly help Hamas militarily by opening a new front with Israel. In the first place, Hizballah and its supporters have only recently recovered from the devastating impact of Israel's war against them in July 2006. A Hizballah offensive against northern Israel would surely be met with "disproportionate" force on Israel's part, which Israel has been threatening as much for several months now. Mass destruction and devastation aside, Hizballah would once again be faced with intense domestic pressures to disarm, and possibly, more externally manufactured, locally-executed conspiracies hatched against it that could drag it into the kind of civil warfare that the movement found itself in during May 2008.

Armed action by Hizballah would not only hurt the movement but would also harm Hamas whose status as a nationalist resistance movement, capable of defending its own people, would be greatly undermined and its raison d'etre called into question. Furthermore, since Hamas has thus far managed to withstand the Israeli onslaught on its own without suffering any significant damage to its organizational hierarchy or military infrastructure, Hizballah does not regard an intervention on its part as an exigent need.

The preconditions for Hizballah's active engagement in the conflict are two. First, if Hamas is left bleeding to death on the battlefield, either due to the decapitation of its leadership ranks or if its military infrastructure suffers a significant blow, drastically impairing its military performance and leading to its eventual collapse, Hizballah would likely step in. Second, if the organization is forced to accept a conditional ceasefire along the lines of the current French-Egyptian proposal that meets all of Israel's key demands while weakening Hamas militarily and politically, Hizballah would feel compelled to come to its rescue.

For Hizballah, the need to act under such circumstances would override all the attendant costs that come with such action -- a calculation which takes as its basis Hizballah's moral responsibility towards the Palestinians and the shared strategic fate between the two resistance movements. As expressed by Hizballah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah on 16 July 2008: "[the resistance] is one project and the resistance movement is one movement and has one course, one destiny, one goal, despite its different parties, factions, beliefs, sects and intellectual and political trends ... Resistance movements in this region, especially in Lebanon and Palestine, complement one another and are contiguous groups ..."

Hizballah's view of the conflict in Gaza

This moral and strategic imperative to act is also based on Hizballah's understanding of the current war as but one episode of an open-ended and comprehensive war waged by the US-Israeli-"moderate" Arab axis against the jabhit al-mumana'a (political and military resistance front) which includes Iran, Syria, Hizballah and Hamas. According to this narrative, the events unfolding are simply an extension of the July War of 2006, as evinced by Israel's admission that one motive behind its current onslaught is to restore the deterrence capability and image it lost in July 2006. Further bolstering this view is the virtually identical stand moderate Arab regimes have taken on Gaza as the one taken in July 2006. In fact, the perception of the Arab role has shifted from one of "silence" and concealed "collaboration" with Israel in the July War, to open "cooperation" and "partnership" with the Zionist state in its war against Gaza. So blatant has Arab, and especially Egyptian, government support for Israel's military campaigns become, that even UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (known for his sympathies to the US and Israel) chided Arab regimes on 29 December for "not doing enough" to help the Palestinians in Gaza, while Israeli officials and media continue to knowingly embarrass their moderate Arab allies by flaunting their newly out-of-the closet relationship.

Considering the extent of Arab cooperation with Israel in its latest military (mis)adventure and in view of the ferocity of the latter, the current Gaza episode is deemed a particularly dangerous moment in the regional conflict insofar as it represents not merely a war against Hamas, but against the Palestinian cause, or as Nasrallah described it on 29 December, "the fate of Palestine." Given that the Palestinian cause is embodied by Hamas and defines the political identity of its regional allies, this conflict is one in which the ideological and strategic stakes for all members of the resistance front are extremely high. Nasrallah admitted as much in his 28 December speech: "what is happening in Gaza will have repercussions not only for Gaza alone or Palestine, but for the entire umma [a term used to refer to the Arab nation in a secular nationalist context and for the world community of Muslims]. We must continue work and not be satisfied with an activity here, a demonstration there ... we must exert every effort to defend our people."

Hizballah's regional strategy in the Gaza conflict

For Hizballah, the Israeli offensive against Gaza must have been foreseeable given Israel's repeated violations of its ceasefire agreement with Hamas over the past several months and the latter's refusal to renew it at least a month before it expired. It is more than likely that Hizballah has been preparing for this eventuality alongside Hamas for some time now. In a sign of such coordination, on 15 December Nasrallah used a televised speech to mobilize popular support for an "open ended" campaign to lift the siege on Gaza that was to be launched on 19 December, several days before the Israeli assault began. It is no coincidence that the Hizballah leader chose to make this announcement one day after Hamas' political head, Khaled Meshal, formally declared the movement's ceasefire with Israel over on 14 December.

Over and above this political coordination, Hizballah must have helped Hamas ready itself for such an Israeli operation by providing weapons and training, as well as through joint military planning. Hizballah officials' strong confidence in Hamas' military performance appears to stem from an intimate knowledge of the organization's capabilities. This conclusion reveals itself in the assertion made by the head of Hizballah's parliamentary bloc, Mohammad Raad, who claimed on 2 January that "the enemy will be surprised by the range of rockets found in the resistance's arsenal in Gaza." This argument is further bolstered by Nasrallah's admission in March 2002 that the three Hizballah officials whom Jordan had captured as they were trying to smuggle weapons into the West Bank, did in fact belong to the movement, as well as his declaration at the time that "to supply arms to the Palestinians is a duty ... it is shameful to consider such an act as a crime."

Hamas' fighting style also seems to bear the hallmarks of the military tactics Hizballah used during the July War such as its use of underground bunkers and tunnel networks, as well as adopting similar rocket tactics, all of which suggest Hizballah's extensive training of Hamas' military forces. Nasrallah came close to admitting as much when he claimed on 31 December that "the resistance in Gaza benefitted more from these lessons [from the July War] than the Israelis." More than simply receiving military training, Hamas's military strategy appears to conform to the "new school of fighting" founded by Hizballah's assassinated military leader, Imad Mughniyeh (himself rumored to have personally trained and equipped several Palestinian groups over the years), which combines conventional and non-conventional, guerilla warfare that functions not only to liberate occupied territory, but to defend it from aggression.

Hizballah's strategy vis-a-vis Egypt

Not only did Hizballah coordinate its activity on the Gaza crisis with Hamas, but also with Iran. One such indication of this coordination was the fact that the Iranian campaign against Egypt's closure of the Rafah crossing was launched several days in advance of the one kicked off by Nasrallah, prompting Cairo to recall its diplomatic envoy from Tehran. On 12 December, Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, a member of the Assembly of Experts with strong ties to Iran's Supreme Leader, Imam Khamenei, disparaged Arab regimes in language reminiscent of Khomeini's revolutionary discourse of the 1980s: "Forget about silence. They are cooperating with Israel." Referring to Egypt by name, in light of its cooperation with Israel on the Gaza siege, Khatami asked: "where has your Islam gone, where has your humanity gone?" In a similar vein, in his 28 December speech Nasrallah denied the existence of an Arab "silence," insisting that it was an Arab "partnership" with Israel. Like Khatami, Nasrallah also singled out Egypt by name, warning it that if did not open the crossing then it too would be "partners to the crime, partners to the murders and partners to the Palestinian tragedy." To that end, the Hizballah leader called on "millions" of Egyptians to brave government repression and take to the streets to express their outrage, similarly urging the Egyptian armed forces to apply pressure on the regime to open the crossing.

While many have dismissed Nasrallah's verbal barrage on the Mubarak regime as little more than a diversionary or compensatory tactic designed to divert attention from or compensate for Hizballah's inaction, such a view fails to appreciate the unprecedented nature of this attack, as well as the wider strategy underpinning it. Not since the 1980s has Hizballah adopted such an inflammatory discourse against an Arab regime, or even singled out any one for attack. Not even during the July War, when Arab complicity with Israel was at its peak, did Nasrallah call on the Arab masses to exert pressure on their governments, nor did Hizballah's relations with those regimes take a turn for the worse thereafter. At the time, Hizballah clearly did not want to burn its bridges with Arab regimes or provide them with ammunition to invoke the Shiite scarecrow and stoke Sunni-Shiite tensions. In Gaza though, Hizballah has not found any such room for diplomacy and self-restraint. In his 7 January speech, Nasrallah warned that although Hizballah did not make enemies of those who had betrayed it during the July War, "we will make those who collaborate against Gaza and its people our enemies."

Hizballah's policy shift and its coordination with Iran on this matter signal a joint Iranian-Hizballah strategy of exposing the Mubarak regime's collusion with Israel and pressuring it to lift its siege of Gaza. These goals also fulfill the grander objective of shaking the foundations of the Egyptian-Israeli alliance which, in turn, would serve to weaken Israel's regional position. A strategy of this kind is deemed necessary given Egypt's "public embrace" of Israel, as one Israeli journalist put it (Haaretz, 9 January). In contrast to the July War when Egypt and other moderate regimes confined their collaborative role to blaming Hizballah for Israel's aggression, this time round Egypt has not even bothered to feign neutrality while secretly trying to benefit from Israel's campaign against Hamas. In this war, Egypt cannot even play the role of conspiring mediator because it is in fact, a party to the conflict. Egypt's foreknowledge of Israel's operation -- some would even argue, its demand that Israel launch such an operation -- is now common knowledge, as is the false sense of security it lulled Hamas into prior to the Israeli assault.

But the most palpable indication of Egypt's shared war aims with Israel is in its siege of Gaza and its ardent refusal to lift it. Hizballah and its allies view the opening of the Rafah crossing as being key to the outcome of the conflict. As Nasrallah explained on 28 December: "today the Egyptian stand is the cornerstone of what is going on in Gaza. If the crossing is opened, and water, food, medicine, and money, and even arms reach our people in Gaza, the epic victory in Lebanon will be repeated." Hizballah's wartime experiences demonstrate this fact only too well. Syria's opening of its border crossing with Lebanon, permitting the movement of weapons, goods and refugees, was pivotal to Hizballah's military success in 2006. In the case of Rafah, the opening of the border crossing is deemed even more indispensable for the Palestinians considering that it is not merely a supply line for Hamas, but a lifeline for Gaza's population who are besieged from all sides.

While Nasrallah's strategy has failed to persuade Mubarak to open the crossing, it did serve to greatly embarrass his domestic and regional standing and reduce his regime's role to a purely defensive one, preoccupied with formulating lamentable counter-arguments to the Hizballah chief's accusations, and rallying its moderate allies to its defense. Furthermore, to cover up for its moral bankruptcy the Egyptian regime has now formulated a ceasefire initiative in the vain hope that it can somehow restore its lost regional role. For the Palestinians though (not to mention the vast majority of Egyptians and Arabs), no action on Egypt's part can compensate for the opening of the Rafah border crossing. Moreover, the initiative itself serves Israel's interests and military objectives, as well as as those of Mahmoud Abbas, in so far as it merely seeks to reinstate the Fatah-Israel agreement of 2005 which called for the supervision of the border by Fatah security men and European monitors. Although Hizballah has yet to comment on the initiative, Hamas has expressed "major reservations" about it, while Iran has rejected it outright. It can be therefore surmised that Hizballah's and Iran's forthcoming strategy will be to ensure that Hamas is not pressured to accept the Egyptian proposal, which would weaken it politically and militarily. Hizballah and its allies will strongly back Hamas' refusal to become the Islamist equivalent of Fatah.

Hizballah's readiness to intervene militarily

While some commentators have suggested that a rift has emerged within Hizballah over the circumstances under which it should assist Hamas militarily, such assumptions seem implausible. As mentioned earlier, Israel's offensive against Gaza could not have taken Hizballah by surprise and it is therefore highly unlikely that the party's leadership was caught off guard and has suddenly found itself subject to internal pressures to take immediate action. As one of the pillars of Hizballah's ideology and strategic vision, defending Hamas and the Palestinians from Israel, is by necessity an issue which enjoys a party consensus.

Moreover, the party leadership has not publicly committed itself to a policy of restraint, nor is it likely that it has done so behind the scenes as some Lebanese officials in the rival March 14 camp have been claiming. When Lebanese parliament majority leader Saad Hariri announced earlier this month that he had received assurances from Saeed Jalili, the head of Iran's National Security Council, while the latter visited Beirut that Hizballah would not respond to the Israeli assault on Gaza, Nasrallah lambasted him for granting "free assurances" to Israel. In fact, upon contacting a reliable source at the Iranian embassy in Lebanon, this author was informed that no such assurances were given to Hariri on Jalili's part.

The reason then for Hizballah's constructive ambiguity, whereby it neither confirms nor denies its intent to join the conflict, is clear: although its resistance has so far remained on the sidelines of the conflict, it is highly improbable that it would continue to do so if Hamas were on the verge of collapse. Based on the centrality of the Palestinian cause to Hizballah and its strategic role in confronting the US-Israeli project, it cannot allow Hamas to be crushed militarily on the battlefield or politically, by means of a humiliating ceasefire arrangement that would weaken the movement. It is in this context that we should read Hizballah's recent pledges to "never abandon" the Palestinian cause. In another indication of the resistance movement's readiness to militarily support Hamas, Nasrallah made an underreported request to his followers in one of his addresses on 29 December marking the Muslim holy day of Ashura: "I hope that you who gather in this place ... will always be ready to respond to any call, position and decision." While this can be construed to mean that Hizballah's followers were merely being asked to support its right to defend itself in case of an Israeli attack on Lebanon, it could be argued that Hizballah hardly needs to ask the party faithful who have more than proven their loyalty to the resistance movement to support its right to self-defense. Besides, Hizballah does not formulate positions or decisions on self-defense, which is considered not merely a non-negotiable right but a duty that is incumbent upon it.

Scenarios of intervention

Although an armed intervention on Hizbullah's part would incur the wrath of Israel, rallying popular Shiite support for such a strategy would not prove too difficult if Hizballah depicted it not so much as opening a new front but as legitimate self-defense. Israel has provided the resistance movement with more than enough provocations of which it can avail itself and thereby use to ignite a war with the Zionist state. Aside from Israel's continued occupation of the Shebaa Farms and Ghajar, which the Lebanese government has thus far been unable to liberate through diplomatic means, Israel routinely abducts Lebanese civilians from the Lebanese side of the Blue Line, most recently in December 2008.

More frequently still, Israeli planes violate Lebanese airspace on a daily basis in violation of UN Resolution 1701. In fact, Hizballah issued a statement in July 2008 decrying the incursions as "provocative, unacceptable and condemned," urging the Lebanese government and relevant UN bodies to take necessary measures to end the violations. On 31 July 2008, Lebanon's Al-Akhbar newspaper, considered close to the movement, also reported that Hizballah was planning to take "practical measures" in response to the violations. Around the same time, several reports emerged in Arab media of the planned deployment of anti-aircraft missile launchers in the Lebanese mountains for the purpose of shooting down Israeli planes. But irrespective of the veracity of such reports, Hizballah would not even have to down any jets to protest the overflights, but could settle for firing anti-aircraft guns that "accidently" fall on northern Israeli settlements as it has done in the past.

Retaliating for Israel's assassination of Mughniyeh would also enable Hizballah to spark a war with Israel. That Hizballah will respond to the assassination is almost a certainty considering his political and military significance to the movement and recalling Nasrallah's 14 February declaration to engage in an "open war" with Israel, as well as the oath he made on 22 February to avenge his death: "Oh Hajj Imad, I swear by God that your blood will not go in vain." Perhaps Hizballah has reserved its right to respond for such a time when it would serve a much wider strategic purpose than mere tit-for-tat. What better purpose than to save the Palestinian cause from possible collapse?

Whichever scenario unfolds, Hizballah would still have to explain the timing of any defensive measure it takes. The movement would be fully justified in presenting its attack as a preemptive one and could legitimately argue that it lies next in the line of fire by an emboldened Israel that had succeeded in finishing off Hamas politically or militarily. As warned by Nasrallah on 28 December and again on 7 January, the possibility of an impending Israeli attack on Lebanon remained a very real one which Hizballah was more than ready to confront. As a matter of fact, Israel's threats against Lebanon did not commence with the war on Gaza but have been a persistent feature of its official discourse for well over a year now.

Hizballah's readiness for war

Hizballah began to respond to those threats not only with counter-threats but with a new discourse emphasizing the eradication of Israel as a Zionist state by means of "destroying its army." The linkage between Israel's survival as a state and its deterrence capability was not a new one for Hizballah, but as Nasrallah explained on 22 February 2008, the notion of destroying its "remaining deterrence" once and for all was. On Hizballah's first July War anniversary on 14 August 2007, Nasrallah stunned his supporters and Israel alike when he "promised" a "big surprise" in any upcoming war with Israel "that could change the course of the war and the fate of the region," and which would enable Hizballah to score "a historic and decisive victory." Not only would Hizballah decisively eliminate Israel's remaining deterrence, but it would do so quickly: "Any new war will be swift and the victory shall be fast" Nasrallah stated on 24 August 2008.

While many have conjectured that Nasrallah's threats suggest Hizballah's acquisition of advanced weapons such as anti-aircraft missiles, an equally valid conclusion (and one that doesn't rule out the former) would be that it has developed a new method or strategy of warfare involving a much larger number of fighters than has been used in the past. As declared by Nasrallah on 14 February 2008: "In any coming war, not just one Imad Mughniyeh will be waiting for you, and not just a few thousand fighters. Imad Mughniyeh has left behind him tens of thousands of trained, equipped and ready-for-martyrdom fighters." These fighters would display "an unprecedented method of fighting" which Israel had supposedly "never seen since its establishment," Nasrallah stated on 24 August 2008.

Regardless of Hizballah's readiness for war, and its potential to destroy Israel's military deterrence, what is certain is that for the movement and many of its supporters and allies, destroying the Zionist regime in Israel is no longer confined to the ideological realm but has entered the realm of strategic interests as well. Regional security requires that the perpetual threat that Israel poses to its neighbors be neutralized once and for all. While such logic may seem like a throw back to the 1950s and 1960s, the new thinking shares more in common with the American notion of "regime change" and one-state solution proposals rather than with "throwing the Jews into the sea." If the war against Gaza has achieved anything, it is that it has succeeded in drumming this logic in the Arab and Muslim political consciousness.

Amal Saad-Ghorayeb is a Lebanese political scientist, scholar and analyst who teaches at Lebanese American University, and author of book Hizbullah: Politics and Religion. She is currently working on a book on Iran's regional alliances with Hizballah, Hamas and Syria for IB Taurus which is due to be published in 2010.