For a week, Israel and Hamas have engaged in a war in and around Gaza, one in which thousands of rockets and bombs have been expended, scores have died, and tens of thousands have been forced to take cover. But to the north in Lebanon, Hezbollah, the Islamic militia rained on Israel in a 2006 war, held its fire. Why?
Comment: Duh! Because neither Hizb'allah nor Lebanon is not being attacked!
The consensus among U.S. government analysts and academic experts is that Hezbollah, which has controlled the Lebanese government for more than four years, believes discretion is the better part of valor. As it has in the past, as in Israel's Cast Lead Operation against Hamas at the end of 2008, Hezbollah decided against creating a diversion that would have helped its like-minded but only sometime ally.
Roger Cressey, NBC News analyst and former deputy counterterrorism director for the National Security Council, notes that Hezbollah is now essentially the government in Lebanon [as it was democratically elected to be] and has different responsibilities, different agendas. "There has never been a correlation between events in Gaza and Hezbollah's strategic decision-making," says Cressey.
That doesn't mean Hezbollah wants to make peace with Israel, just that it's [allegedly] biding its time, and more importantly that, in the words of more than one analyst, "it has no dog in this fight."
"Hezbollah is now the party in control of the Lebanese government," Dr. Robert Danin, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow, told journalists in a conference call Tuesday. "That has a way of moderating one's behavior. If they attacked Israel, they know they would be taking the state of Lebanon to war."
Danin said Israel has made the distinction known to Hezbollah.
So Hezbollah is working off its own timetable, say analysts. The group has several equities it must be concerned about: Its political position in Lebanon, where as noted it is part of the governing party; the stability of one of its biggest protectors, the Assad regime in Damascus; and uncertainty over the political future in Iran, which has been its main protector and weapons supplier.
"Hezbollah's focus is elsewhere," added Danin. "Its relationship with Iran, its relationship with the Assad regime ... Hezbollah is in a very vulnerable position. Without Syria, it would lose its lifeline to Iran."
Comment: Danin's point is sounding very much like a strategic assessment. He appears to be mapping out the point that the Middle East is intentionally being destabilized.
If a Sunni government emerges in Syria, it would make Hezbollah's
In short, say [war] analysts, the bar is set high for
Both Israel and Hezbollah have to know that the success of the Iron Dome anti-rocket and missile system could, in the long term, dilute the value of that stockpile and could make Israel more confident in pursuing the
That is unlikely to happen for a while. Danin explained that Iron Dome, which has been so successful in knocking down Hamas rockets, is not designed to take out the long-range rockets and missiles
"Iron Dome would not have the same kind of effectiveness against Hezbollah's arsenal," added Danin. But if that arsenal were used against Israel, "
What about unleashing the Islamic Jihad Organization rather than rockets and missiles? "No reason to unleash the IJO in support of events in Gaza," said Cressey. It wouldn't be very effective and "they know they will pay a significant price."
There are other reasons for
Bottom line on Hezbollah for Cressey: "They will only take
Comment: You know, some writers and think tank warmongers might be shocked. There are actually countries and peoples whose only strategy is to be happy, safe, comfortable and secure. They do not blood-lust or sit around hating and plotting strategies how to overcome, murder and pillage others. Is that too difficult for governments of the West to imagine, or are the Western governments and their financial sponsors the ones sitting foaming at the mouth seeking ways to make it look 'humane' to rob, butcher and kill their way to more wealth?
For a recent and fair analysis of Western media's way of making talking points to control the direction of peoples thinking have a look at this:It's Palestinians who have the right to defend themselves
So while there are people in Lebanon who do hope and pray for Gaza and the Palestinian people, the reasons they likely do not seek to get involved in a war with the 4th largest army in the world, can be seen quite easily. 1. To try and keep things stable. 2. Hope that things will calm. 3. Prepare for the worst, as the whole house of cards may come crashing down any moment and bring on human suffering and misery on a scale not seen in this century.
It's as if the media's writers and analyst seek butchery with their way of telling things, sneaking bias directly into peoples minds.