Further “Israeli” Failure Refutes “Readiness” for War

Yahiya Dbouk- "al-Akhbar Daily"*

Hizbullah neither confirmed nor denied Tel Aviv's "accusations" as to the drone infiltrating occupied Palestine's airspace and flying long above military establishments and bases.

Any information declared by "Israel" shall remain unconfirmed by Lebanon; this is the way Hizbullah usually works- whether Hizbullah did or did not launch the drone.

However, "Israel" almost absolutely confirmed the drone was launched in Lebanon, also that it was on an intelligence mission: collecting information on vital "Israeli" military and security sites.

Significantly, this was declared only two days after the "Israeli" Defense Minister Ehud Barak had "confirmed", ""Israel" is the strongest "state" in the Middle East. We have nothing to fear because "Israel" is ready for any scenario initiating in the north of "Israel" (occupied Palestine)."

Significant, too, was "Israel's" almost complete dependence on analysis and indicators rather than clear evidences to learn about the details of the drone infiltration.

This further proves the "Israeli defense" air forces absolutely failed to act like they were supposed to do. Also considerably, news leaks tell Tel Aviv was too late to understand what had happened. It took Tel Aviv a relatively long time to determine the route the drone had taken, also whether the drone had been launched in the Gaza Strip, Sinai, or Lebanon. Eventually, "Israel" decided to accuse Hizbullah of the drone infiltration.

The failure was so great that the "Israeli" officials raced to make threats and announce it was essential that "Israel" firmly "counterstrike" in consequence with the so-called "terrorist air operation".
But, in fact, threatening is quite different from acting; it is really dangerous for "Israel" to "counteract".

Although Tel Aviv is "concerned with counteracting" and is "interested" in doing so, it is even more concerned with provoking no further reactions. If Tel Aviv acts, then an unwanted comprehensive military confrontation will break out. Eventually, Tel Aviv won't change its threats into reality; this is the very last thing it currently seeks.

Supposing the "Israeli" accusations"- which Hizbullah wouldn't confirm anyway- are correct, we'll realize two things: While Hizbullah faces all internal and external challenges and pressures upon its sound stance on Syria's crisis, Hizbullah is still very vigilant and ready to strike "Israel". Even amid the political uncertainty prevailing in Lebanon, Hizbullah confirms "Israel" has been the main enemy and will continue to be so. The other thing we'll realize is: The bets of certain sides, including Tel Aviv, on Hizbullah's busyness are wrong or at least exaggerated.

Being undeniably serious, the recent failure of the "Israeli" intelligence and military does contradict with "Israel's" continuous talk during the past few years; "Israel" has kept talking about its "absolute readiness" to confront Hizbullah in the coming war, which "Israel" has promised "will be different" from "the Second Lebanon War".

Notably, since 2007- more probably a few months after "the July War", "Israel" confirmed its military was "absolutely ready" to make use of the "morals" of "the Second Lebanon War".

During the past few years, "Israel" has continuously- almost monthly- confirmed its "military readiness". This might make any observers think that Tel Aviv's readiness now overcomes Hizbullah's readiness; also that Tel Aviv can now deal with a war involving all UN member states as the United Sates and the former Soviet Union.

In 2007, several "Israeli" militants and politicians in Tel Aviv declared "having learned morals and lessons" after failure in the earlier war.
They as well declared the "Israeli" military was "ready" for the coming war. In 2008, "Israel" doubled its readiness", and so in 2009 until 2012. But having messed up, the "Israeli" intelligence and defense air forces make us believe that the war "Israel" claims is going to win will be quite different from what "Israel" says.

The recent failure, in addition to other factors, refutes the "Israeli" story on "readiness"- more precisely, exposes exaggeration in the story. So the main question is:

Had "Israel" been as "strongly ready" as it has claimed during the past few years, then why would it have abstained from- even feared- confronting Hizbullah in spite of all of its motives and interests?

*Translated and edited by moqawama.org