According to Press TV , Hezbollah’s Deputy Secretary General Sheik Naim Qassem reaffirmed today that the movement has “100 percent solid evidence that Israel had killed martyr Mugniyah“. Interestingly, the Ha’aretz article had a somewhat different rendering of Sheikh Naim Qassem’s words: ” “we have clear proof, of 100 percent that cannot be doubted, that Israel is the head of the assassination” Qassem said there is no basis for the claim that others were behind the assassination. “Know that Israel is responsible and it must bear the whole responsibility.” “Know that Israel is responsible and it must bear the whole responsibility“.
Notice that Sheikh Naim Qassem specifically speaks of Israel being the *head* of the assassination, but says nothing about the “hands” which actually committed the murder. Keeping in mind that Mughniya’s widow has clearly accused Syrian agents of being behind the murder of her husband, I find this phrasing interesting.
Shekh Naim Qassem made this statement at the end of the 40 day mourning period which, this year, coincides with the Jewish feast of Purim, something which has some observers predicting an imminent Hezbollah retaliatory operation.
I very much doubt that Hezbollah will oblige and act in such a predictable manner. In fact, I suspect that Sheikh Naim Qassem is “rattling the cage” of the Israelis very deliberately, to get them to keep as high an alert level as possible for as long as possible. Why? Because Hezbollah fully understands that high level of alert are not sustainable beyond a relatively short while (those interested in this issue can read Richard Bett’s excellent book Surprise Attack: Lessons for Defensive Planning; the book is clearly dated, but its underlying analyses are still very pertinent).
Regardless of the fact that Hezbollah was *not* behind the bombings in Argentina, most Israelis and most Jews probably believe that Hezbollah did it – as a retaliation for Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Abbas Mussawi – and, therefore, that it could do it again (which it definitely could, which does not at all mean that it would). It thus appears that the anti-Hezbollah propaganda of the USA and Israel is now having its own unintended consequences: it strikes fear in the hearts of Israelis and Jews who now fear a similar attack. My guess is that Sheikh Naim Qassem is fully aware of all this and that he is using these fears to wear down the Israelis.
So will Hezbollah retaliate and could it choose an Israeli target outside Israel?
Probably yes. However, it is important to understand that Hezbollah does not at all equate the terms “Israeli” and “Jewish” (anyone doubting this should read Hizbullah: politics and religion by Amal Saad-Ghorayeb and, of course, Hizbullah: the story from within by Seikh Naim Qassem himself, a must read for anyone wanting to understand Hezbollah). Quite to the contrary, Hezbollah’s goes to great lengths to stress that its struggle against Zionism is not a struggle against either the Jewish people or Judaism. Even though many, if not most, Jewish institutions abroad do, alas, have close ties to the Israeli government and its security services, I do not think that Hezbollah will strike at them.
Hezbollah is all too aware of how aptly the Israeli leaders conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism and, unlike the PLO in the past, they will surely recognize that retaliating for Mughnieh’s murder by killing innocent Jews outside Israel will be both immoral and highly counter-productive. In fact, this is exactly what the Israeli leaders now hope that Hezbollah will do as this will only serve their purposes.
No – I predict that when Hezbollah does strike, it will be at a clearly identifiable Israeli government target, probably at a very high level (ministerial or equivalent). Where can one find such targets? In Europe, of course, but also in the Middle-East itself and, last but not least. in Israel itself. Without going into details here, I don’t want to be accused of giving anyone any ideas, I can say that there are several venues where mixed security jurisdictions result in relatively easy access to ministerial level personalities. For somebody willing to be arrested or die in the process, getting close to an Israeli minister is really a no-brainer. I personally have done so many times without ever being searched, x-rayed, or even challenged in any way: the Israeli security people could only provide last ditch close-up protection and the local security people (correctly) assumed that I was working for the local organizers. The fact is, getting a job which gives you physical access to world leaders is not at all has hard as some people think, and most security measures are worse than laughable. Again, if somebody wants to get close to a top official it is really easy to do so.
Could Hezbollah strike in Israel itself? I don’t know, but such an attack would be much, much harder. The biggest danger for Israeli officials are people like Yigal Amir with close ties to Israeli security organizations. The closest the Palestinians ever got to killing an Isareli minister was the assassination of Rehavam Ze’evi, who had already retired and who did not take the needed precautions for his security. While Jewish fanatics of the Gush Emunim might well get close enough to kill an acting Israeli minister, I just don’t see the Palestinians pulling off something like this. Could Hezbollah, who is far, far better organized and more capable than any Palestinian organization, do it? Possibly, and the psychological effect of striking at a top Israeli official inside Israel might just be worth the effort.
Needless to say, should Hezbollah attack a top Israeli official, regardless of the location of the attack, it would trigger an violent military response of Israel against Lebanon. Would that deter Hezbollah? I don’t think so, in particular not with the USA blocking any solution to the political crisis in Lebanon and with the USS Cole off the Lebanese coast. What incentive does Hezbollah have to maintain the status quo?
By all accounts, Hezbollah is now fully ready with 10’000 long range and another 20’000 shorter range rockets ready to be fired at Israel. Besides, so many observers have predicted a “round 2” war between Hezbollah and the humiliated and defeated Israelis that it is a safe bet to say that Hezbollah already knows that a war will happen no matter what it does or does not do. In this context, it makes perfect sense for Hezbollah to play on the Israeli’s nerves by issuing not so veiled threats while carefully planning the time and place of its retaliation. Sheikh Naim Qassem’s accusations are most likely part of a psychological preparation of the battlefield for the next war.
Thanks for the Hezbollah references. I have just ordered them.
This is peripheral to your thesis, but your reference of an AP source about Hezbollah having acquired 10,000 or more rockets since the last war cites Israeli sources. Do you think they are credible? In a war in which Israeli tanks and artillery are employed, won’t they need shorter anti-armor missiles? If they don’t have them, it could be a disaster for them, if war is provoked now.
So, before they go about retaliating against the Israelis it would seem to me that they would take precautions to be appropriately armed and equipped. There is so little in the MSM re details about Hezbollah’s military readiness that it would seem hard for anyone to make an informed judgement.
I read this is a very distracted way, but I can’t agree with it, even if I didn’t read it carefully for several reasons, the most imporant of which is: Press TV is a famous disinformation source!
They get it wrong more often than they get it right.
Two: Hezbollah is not a terrorist org that seeks to “retaliate” and strike up war. They lately have been defence of Lebanon, but to attack just to start a war is ridiculous.
I’ll read this again with more attention, but lately have been very involved in research on Lebanon and have met many Lebanese in the Bruxelles Tribunal and for sure, the last thing they need is to be painted as some strike first aggressor, because it is not even realistic.
These two Hezbollah books are really worth every penny you will spend on them. The first one is written by a very Western scholar (she even worked for Carnegie) but who has relatives in Hezbollah. Her book is intellectually honest at least. The second one is written by Hezbollah’s #2 person with a huge amount of very interesting info inside, including the number of Christians in the Resistance. If you are interested in more, I can post a bibliography of good Hezbollah books.
To answer you question, Hezbollah has plenty of anti-Armor weapons, including brand new Russian one which can smash right through the armor of the latest Merkava models. They also have upgraded RPG and good mines. But engaging the Israeli forces inside Lebanon is only part of the strategy, the second part is brining the war home to the Israeli public. For this the long range missiles are needed.
Hezbollah missile strikes in the depth of Israel also serve to paralyze the economy, which being in bad shape already, really does not need this.
Keep in mind that Hezbollah was not really hurt too much during the last war, it did not even use most of its forces, nor did it use its long range missiles. As for combatants, it has more than it could ever use.
No, Hezbollah is fine ready and its not like the Israelis could really come up with a dramatically different strategy from last time. Sure, they beefed up their tactics (after all, shooting Palestinian civilians does not quite prepare you to deal with Hezbollah), but other than better training I do not see how they could much improve their approach.
But maybe I am wrong. The Isarelis can be clever at times, and since they got their collective asses kicked so badly last time, they will be far more cautious and better prepared this time.
Still, the bottom line is that the further north towards the Litani they go, the worse their overall situation will be. Airpower cannot do the trick, and time will never be on their sides. So no matter what, invading Lebanon just sucks.
HTH,
VS
@thecutter: first, I never EVER called Hezbollah terrorist, in fact I have always disputed that characterization.
Look at the rest of my blog and you will see for yourself.
Second, I did NOT say that they would attack to trigger a war, only that since they know that a war is inevitable, they will not be deterred from attacking and that the timing of the attack can be useful to them to be able to set the tempo of operations.
I disagree with your characterization of PRESS TV which I have been reading and watching regularly and found to be at least as good as any other corporate media outlet and, besides, the key quote of my article is not from PRESS TV but from Ha’aretz.
Finally, just google “Naim Qassem” in google news and you will see that his speech was widely reported.
Also, to repeat: I am NOT making the claim that the Lebanese and/or Hezbollah are in any way the aggressor. I have no idea where you read this in what I wrote. Most of my blog is about the Israelis being the Ueber-terrorists of the planet and Hezbollah a fully legitimate national liberation movement.
I think that you are misreading what I wrote, or that my writing is getting so convoluted that it makes no sense ;-))
Kind regards,
The Saker
Striking at a target in Europe “maybe” is what most people might think of as a terrorist attack. It doesn’t matter if the target is indeed an Israeli minister. You don’t need to say it, because it is implied in such a kind of scenario.
As to Press TV, they might have some ok information, but I know recently of two whoppers. If you want, I can tell you about them privately.
I can also say this, and this is an idea that I have gained from many conversations with Paola of Uruknet, who (arguably) is not very fond of the actions that Press TV uses in isolating very much the Sunni and the Shi’a world, but she illuminated me a while ago with all of these reports coming out that “The war agaist Iran is immanent”. This going on for 3 or 4 years makes one start to look at it as a huge PsyOps thing, where either we have been lead to look where the finger is pointing for so long that we ignore Iraq, or we start to believe nothing whatsoever.
You see, Press TV probably doesn’t really mind that people ignore Iraq, but this is of course not the view of someone who reads or watches it frequently, just knowing about some of these extremely bad errors and disinformation.
Mentioning the military might (or not) of Hez is also another misleading thing. The biggest weapon that they have is the support of the people. Read my articles on this (the Lebanon ones I wrote about Rania Masri and Mustafa Badr al-Din in particular) and you will see that the weapons are just to make an effect on someone else. WHO? Good question.
all of these reports coming out that “The war agaist Iran is immanent”. This going on for 3 or 4 years makes one start to look at it as a huge PsyOps thing
Yes, but I still happen to believe that its for real. In 2006 I think that we came withing one millimeter of an attack on Iran, and I still think it is going to happen. There are several factors which severely disrupted the original plans:
1) Israel’s defeat in 2006
2) Fallon’s appointment
3) numerous leaks in the USA
4) the mess in Iraq
I realize that all of this can be seen as part of a strategic psyop, but I do not think that this is the case, if only because the risks of accidental war were, and still are, huge.
As for PRESS TV, I am not saying that I blindly trust them, only that they are certainly no worse than any other media outlet.
Lastly, I agree that Hezbollah’s biggest strength is the support of the people. But that does not prevent it from being the single most capable liberation movement in the world.
My 2cts.
VS
Why would the US need to get into another war just now when they are up to their necks in the Iraq one. Using the threat of Iran could be true prelude to war or it could be a big psy ops to maintain instability abroad and nervousness at home. I tend to believe the psy ops idea is more accurate. The US has too much to lose to get involved in such a war at this time. They also don’t have the forces to employ. It may not get the support of the “international community” and many countries have oil deals with Iran that they will not let a war stop.
The US may try economic strangulation, but outright war seems like a distant prospect.
Perhaps Press TV is no better or no worse, but they made a massive bit of disinfo that regards someone we know well. It was a very gross error they diffused and as well, many activists against the Iraqi occupation have found it has tried to insinuate a lot of false information regarding the resistance. Uruknet has disclosed some of this.
thecutter,
You are correct. We do have a lot to lose. But our elites are loyal to Israel, first, and the Israel-firsters have set their sights on Iran. It is apparent from the rhetoric of our presidential candidates, the media pundits, naval deployments, and the recent change in military leadership that an attack is definitely in the works. We do not when, how, or under what pretext, but it sure seems like it’s going to happen. Public opinion has been primed to accept Iran as a deadly foe that is “interfering” in Iraq and that is “sponsoring terrrorism.” All that is necessary for a full scale attack is a commander willing to obey the orders.
Nasrallah has made a number of statements regarding Hizb’s new capabilities that will greatly change the strategic balance. He even warned Israel would “loose its army” in another war.
Nasrallah is not known for great hyperbole. In fact, even in Israel during the war, the Israeli public considered Hizbullah’s comuniques more credible than their own.
My question is what kind of capabilites could he have been hinting about? Do you think they have more accurate missiles than before? i.e. accurate enough to target IDF assets or major economic hubs (oil refineries, airports, etc)?
Perhaps they now have a significant air defense capability but that seems too far fetched. It’s extremely difficult to shoot down F16s today.
@lysander: I was also rather puzzled by Nasrallah’s statements. You are correct, he is not at all known for hyperbole, no promises of a “mother of all battles” from him. So what did he mean?
First, it could be that he means that there is no military solution to the Resistance in Lebanon: if the IDF invades they are screwed, and if they don’t, they are still screwed. Could be that he means that if the Israelis reoccupy Lebanon they would be bogged down even worse than the last time.
Second, he could be referring to longer range missiles which could strike throughout the depth of Israel, including at Tel-Aviv and other major cities. That should would cause a massive panic.
Third, he might have some weapon in store which we do not know about, like the missile which sunk the Isareli warship on live TV in 2006. It would have to be pretty small in size in order not to be detectable and destroyable by the IDF. Your guess is as good as mine here, but new Russian MANPADS, Russian thermobaric (FAE) weapons like the RPO-A, more long range antitank missiles (although Hezbollah already has those), etc.
I personally do not believe that *any* one weapon system, no matter how neat on paper, can make a huge difference, so my best guess is a combination of #1 and #2.
HTH.