FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Hezbollah is ignoring a fundamental principle, which is that if you plan to hurt an enemy you should not warn him in advance:

“Hizbullah will soon avenge the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh,” said Sheikh Ahmad Morad, a member of the Hizbullah leadership in southern Lebanon. “The revenge will be shocking and huge surprises are in store,” he added. “We will not allow Israel and its generals to enjoy stability…”

On Wednesday, the Prime Minister’s Office issued a renewed warning to Israelis abroad regarding Hizbullah’s intent to attack and possibly abduct Israeli citizens around the world. — Jerusalem Post

One thing to keep in mind is that Hezbollah is now a major component of the Lebanese government, and holds a veto power in the cabinet. In fact, the government has issued ‘guidelines’ which include this:

Lebanon, its army, its people and its resistance [Hezbollah] have the right to take action to liberate lands that have remained occupied at the Shaba Farms, the hills of Shuba village and the northern portion of the village of Ghajar, with all legitimate means possible, and to resist Israeli aggression.

There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that these ‘occupied’ areas — which are not considered part of Lebanon even by the UN — are simply pretexts to justify continued terrorism against Israel and Israelis. The assassination of Mughniyeh (for which Israel has denied responsibility) is just another pretext.

The various non-Hezbollah factions in Lebanon understand quite well that if Israel responds to Hezbollah actions, it won’t be just Hezbollah that suffers, just as anti-Nazi Germans didn’t escape the disaster of WWII. The parallel is quite close, too, considering that Hitler was appointed Chancellor after receiving about 1/3 of the popular vote, which is about the degree of support Hezbollah and its allies enjoy in Lebanon. But they have little leverage over Hezbollah and its Iranian and Syrian backers.

Historically the Arabs have been overconfident in their ability to confront Israel militarily.  They have interpreted the 2006 Lebanon war as a historic change in the balance of power, and have convinced themselves that Hezbollah’s forces are now the equal of the IDF. This is not the case. Lessons were learned, weaknesses corrected and plans made. If there is a next round — and a massive terror operation by Hezbollah could trigger one — then there is no doubt that the outcome would be much more favorable to Israel.

The real unknown (at least to me) in the equation is whether international forces (mainly, but not only, the US) will allow Israel to fight long enough to inflict permanent damage on Hezbollah. In 2006 Hezbollah was quite unpopular among US policymakers. I am not sure to what extent this still holds, since it seems that US policy toward Hezbollah’s patron Iran has undergone a shift since then.

Other issues include the presence of semi-hostile UN forces in Lebanon, the likelihood of a simultaneous outbreak of hostilities with Hamas, and the need to deter Syria from intervention. But I’m sure that all of this has been taken into account.

As I’ve written, Hezbollah and Hamas are probably more dangerous to Israel in the next few years than a nuclear attack from Iran. Israel’s leaders know this and know that they cannot permanently live under the threat of thousands of Hezbollah missiles.

My guess (as a very amateur psychologist) is that the characteristic Arab need to overcompensate for feelings of inferiority will cause Hezbollah to strike. An Israeli response may well mark the end of the line for Nasrallah.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Hezbollah

Boeing KC-767 Tanker

Possibly this is the “unspecified military equipment” that the US did not wish to provide to Israel:

During his most recent visit to the US earlier this month, Defense Minister Ehud Barak requested that America sell the IAF several Boeing 767 refueling planes. However, the White House refused, as it was not prepared to seem as though it was aiding a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the report said.

The IAF has a great need of the planes, as the ones currently used by the air force are extremely old.

Last week, Barak told Army Radio that the US had made it clear it was opposed at the present time to military action against Teheran…

[A US State Department spokesman said] that “the US is committed to Israel’s security” and that “the US would defend Israel from any attack from Iran.”– Jerusalem Post

The US cannot ‘defend’ Israel from a nuclear attack by Iran. Antimissile systems are not 100% reliable, even for long-range missiles, and there are other ways to deliver a bomb. The US can threaten Iran that if they attack Israel they will pay a price. But given the ‘realist’ policy that seems to be determining US policy and is likely to continue to do so in the next administration (see Caroline Glick: “Iran’s American Protector“), can Israel count on this as a real deterrent? Would you?

The US has several reasons to oppose an Israeli attack on Iran:

1. Iran would retaliate against the US as well as Israel, possibly interfering with passage of oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz as well as by ordering up terrorist attacks against American interests from its terror subsidiary, Hezbollah.
2. Iran would make things more difficult for the US in Iraq, from which it hopes to withdraw, by encouraging allied Shiite groups to attack Americans and Sunnis.
3. Some American policymakers believe that it is more important for America to have good relations with Iran than with Israel. In particular, they are concerned that Iran will ally herself with Russia to oppose American influence in the region.

Both Israel and the US are endangered by an Iranian nuclear bomb, but simply by virtue of geography Israel’s red line will be reached sooner. Therefore there will come a time when Israel feels that she has no alternative but to attack Iran while at the same time the US will oppose it.  The US will suggest that the danger is not as great as it seems, that possibly diplomacy can defuse the crisis, that it will threaten Iran, etc. There is a strong parallel here to the events immediately preceding the 1967 war, including possibly the mischievous activity of the Russians.

An Israeli attack without help from the US in the form of landing rights at US bases, the 767’s mentioned, etc. will be more difficult. But if (when) the point is reached that there is no alternative, then it — like the bombing of Egypt’s airfields in 1967 — will be undertaken regardless of difficulty. This may turn out to be more uncomfortable for the US in the long run.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Iran, refueling

One wonders how much of this — and similar arrangements today — is simply a product of cowardice and expediency, and how much comes about from a degree of approval for the goals, if not the means, of the terrorists.

Francesco Cossiga, former president of Italy, confirmed that his country for years provided Palestinian terror groups with sanctuary and allowed them to set up domestic bases in a secret deal according which the terrorists promised not to target Italian interests…

“The terms of the agreement were that the Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country, and they had freedom of entry and exit without being subject to normal police controls, because they were ‘handled’ by the secret services,” the former President wrote…

The pact with the Palestinians didn’t turn out too well for Italy. Palestinian factions are blamed for attacks against Italy in the 1970s and 80s, including an attack at Rome’s airport, its main synagogue, and the hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro in which the Palestinian terror pushed overboard a wheelchair bound American Jew, Leon Klinghoffer. Cossinga also said that Palestinian groups were to blame for a devastating 1980 explosion at an Italian train station that killed 85 people and wounded some 200. He said that was likely a “work accident” by Palestinians transporting explosives into Italy. — Israel Insider

You may recall that the Achille Lauro hijackers sailed to Port Said, Egypt, and after negotiations were allowed to board an Egyptian airliner bound for Tunisia. US President Reagan sent naval aircraft after them, and the plane was forced to land at a NATO base in  Sicily. After a standoff between Italian police and greatly outnumbered US Navy SEALS, the Italians took custody of the prisoners — except for their leader “Abu Abbas” who was allowed to go to Tunisia.  A few of the hijackers were tried, but most ‘escaped’.

Abu Abbas ultimately was captured by the US in Iraq, where he died in captivity.

As Paul Harvey would say, “Now you know… the rest of the story.”

Technorati Tags: terrorism, Italy

The poster reads: “Murderous terrorists are freed. So why won’t they free Yigal and Hagai Amir?” (Hagai is Yigal’s brother, who was convicted of being an accessory to murder and is serving a 16-year sentence).

Right-wing activists on Monday unveiled a second campaign calling for the release of Yigal Amir, the assassin of former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin.

The decision came Sunday in a meeting of the ‘Committee for Democracy,’ after the cabinet voted to release some 200 security prisoners as a goodwill gesture to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas…

A film called “Free Yigal Amir 2,” will be part of the campaign. The film will include footage of Hizbullah celebrations following killer Samir Kuntar’s release last month as part of the prisoner exchange for the bodies of captured IDF reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Kuntar killed three Israelis in a terror attack in Nahariya in 1979…

“I don’t see a problem with a film like this that has the goal of preserving democracy and balance. If Samir Kuntar goes home, there is no reason why Yigal Amir should rot in jail,” [Baruch] Marzel said during Sunday’s meeting. “The leftists need to understand that democracy means real and full equality. I personally think that Kuntar’s crime is many times more severe than Amir’s. For the sake of justice and fairness there is no reason that Amir and other national prisoners should stay in prison when Israel gives goodwill gestures to killers.” — Jerusalem Post

It should be obvious that Yigal Amir must stay in prison. The real problem is that Arab terrorists like Kuntar should not have been released. But letting Amir out wouldn’t fix that.

Having said that, Marzel does have a point, which is that the planned “goodwill gesture” is also  beyond belief:

The Prison Service published Monday afternoon the full list of 199 prisoners to be released as a goodwill gesture to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. The list includes some murderers and collaborators, as well as Palestinians who attempted to carry out terror attacks and murders.

Many of the prisoners slated to be released were convicted of attempted murder, including some convicted of firing at people, possessing weapons and explosives, selling arms, and placing bombs…

[two of them] are Muhammad Abu Ali, who murdered a reserve soldier in Hebron and a Palestinian detainee suspected of collaborating with Israel, and Said el-Atba, who planted three explosive devices in Petah Tikva and Tel Aviv markets and in Israeli buses. Israeli citizen Tzila Galili was killed in one of these attacks. — YNet

Note that this is not even a prisoner exchange, only a “gesture”! It is a slap in the face to the families of the murder victims, and to those who are still alive but maimed by the actions of these despicable criminals.

A source at the Prime Minister’s Office said that according to estimates presented by the defense establishment, the risk that the prisoners with blood on their hand will return to terror “is very very small.”

Even if true, this is irrelevant.  The ‘gesture’ is psychologically hurtful to Israelis, it damages Israel’s ability to deter terrorism in the future, and it sends a signal of weakness which actually encourages terrorism. So why are they doing it?

The Prime Minister’s Office released a statement saying, “This is a gesture and a trust-building move aimed at bolstering the moderates in the Palestinian Authority and the peace process.”

Translation: The US administration really wants an agreement before it goes home.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Yigal Amir, Palestinians, terrorism

News item:

The Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) in the Gaza Strip have announced that they are in possession of “Nasser-4” rockets that have a range of 25 kilometers and pose a threat to Ashdod…

The unveiling of the new rockets is a “clear violation” of the truce with Israel, Prime Minister’s Office spokesman Mark Regev told CNN.

“The cease-fire that was negotiated through Egypt was very specific that the Hamas movement and the other terrorist groups can’t use it as a period to import more weapons, more explosives, more rockets into the Gaza Strip,” Regev added.

Was there the slightest doubt that the terrorists would take this opportunity to improve their position?

Weren’t Israeli authorities aware of the hundreds of tunnels and the massive smuggling enterprise that has made absolutely everything available to Hamas and associates?

Since the ceasefire has been in effect, Hamas has imported cement for building bunkers and fortifications, and has mined strategic areas in the Strip. It has even sent operatives to Iran for training. Many observers predicted this, and certainly the Israeli government must have expected it.

Sometimes a ceasefire is advantageous to both sides, if it allows for a cooling off period during which negotiations can proceed for a compromise solution of a dispute. If there is a diplomatic opening, then it should be taken. That is one way to end a war.

But there is no imaginable compromise between Israel and Hamas, whose reason for being is to destroy Israel. Peace is preferable to war, but self-defense often requires violence. As I’ve written innumerable times, the war between Israel and Hamas can only end with one side or the other victorious. Israeli decision-makers know this too.

But nevertheless they agreed to a ceasefire which benefits Hamas. They got a certain amount of time free of massive rocket fire — although not entirely — which ‘solved’ the problem that Israelis living in rocket range were becoming more and more militant in demanding a solution. For now.

However, it created a greater problem, which will be reflected in casualty figures when the IDF finally confronts Hamas. This will be the case both for soldiers and for Isareli civilians in Sderot, Ashdod, etc.

Why did they do this? One reason is simply weakness: take the short-term gain and worry about the long term damage, er, in the long term. Another is probably international pressure on Israel not to do anything that might involve Palestinian civilian casualties.

There is an irony here: the official policy of the Israeli government today is to try to reach an agreement with ‘moderate’ Palestinians and to implement a two-state solution. This is being pushed hard by the US and the EU, to the point of forcing Israel to make concessions that are dangerous to her security. But the biggest obstacle to the success of this plan (if indeed it has any chance) — is Hamas!

No Palestinian state controlled or significantly influenced by Hamas could live at peace alongside Israel. But the growing power of Hamas has made it highly unlikely that a state could be established today that would not shortly become a Hamas terror state.

Therefore, if the US, EU, and others want Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and allow a Palestinian state to be established, they would do well to permit Israel to do what it must do anyway from the standpoint of self-defense, and put an end to Hamas in Gaza as well as the West Bank.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Hamas