Perhaps it is still early to expect a new crisis with UNIFIL in South Lebanon, this time with the Lebanese Army which quickly deterred the Israeli violation on the border on Tuesday. While the incident of the tree which Israel insisted on cutting down and which was close to igniting a war revealed some gaps in UNIFIL's initiative to coordinate with the army, the surprise which [UNIFIL] revealed 24 hours after the clashes, i.e. its affirmation that the Israeli forces were moving outside the Lebanese territory raises the following question: Why didn't the international forces inform the Lebanese authorities about that earlier, assuming it were true? When Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barack announces that the “incident” was not planned in advance, i.e. was not intentional by the Lebanese Army or Hezbollah, his statement further increases Israel's ambiguity and confusion, as his acknowledgement comes a few hours after a security source in Jerusalem insisted otherwise. The Hebrew State asserts that it does not want a war, but mobilizes huge forces on the border. Certainly, it was shocked at the quick response of the Lebanese Army in the test it wanted to make through the “tree battle.” While the good news for the Lebanese is their army's deterrence and confrontation with the enemy, it is most likely that Israel, which does not usually need the pretext – any pretext – to launch a war on Lebanon, wanted also to test the possibilities of Hezbollah's interference and perhaps lure it into firing rockets, which would open the first chapter of the war. So the Lebanese did not disagree on the nature of the enemy which wanted to address a clear message after the Saudi-Syrian-Lebanese summit, stating that the Arab safety umbrella for this small country is threatened by any “provocation” that takes place beyond the blue line, as it entails a “decisive response.” Even though Hezbollah's abstention from interfering in Tuesday's battle - which coincided with the fourth anniversary of the victory achieved in the July war 2006 – surprised the Lebanese and was considered by Netanyahu's government as a transformation in the party's strategy, will not be repeated according to Hezbollah's Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah who said that this is for one time only…because the resistance is responsible for protecting the army too against Israel's aggression. After Tuesday's clashes, which followed the mysterious missiles on Al-Aqaba and Eilat, Netanyahu's government is preparing the arena for the expected war, whose sparks could be scattered in many directions, and which the International Crises Group expects to include Syria. While Washington uses the policy of the carrot and the stick with the Palestinian side so the latter accepts direct negotiations with Israel without any final guarantees, what will hinder the government of Netanyahu – or extremism – from staging the “ruinous” war to hit Hezbollah which it considers to be Iran's arm in the region?...According to the well-known Israeli calculations, this is an “inevitable” option if it wants in advance to restrict any costs for any revenge to hit Iran at a later stage. Once again, it is the policy of dancing on the edge of the abyss, even though there are some sides that believe that the introductions to the war are clear, manifested by the attempts to undermine the Lebanese domestic front, through Israel's circulation of an indictment that will be issued by the Special Tribunal looking into the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. It is the Lebanese domestic front which was quickly strengthened in a few hours after the clashes on the border, thanks to the blood of the army martyrs as well as a press martyr. But the lack of immunity appears once again between two paradoxes: Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's threat with the resistance's interference if the attack on the Lebanese Army is repeated, and the 14 March group's insistence on “the exclusive role of the legitimacy” in providing the necessary “defense and safety network” for the country, based on the “successful practical evidence” to the correct vision of these strategic defense forces. Therefore, the same division is renewed. The 14 March forces have always called for leaving the war and peace decision for the constitutional legitimacy institutions, which thus requires Hezbollah to abstain from any military response and turn this behavior into a pattern, unless an agreement has been reached with these institutions… As such, the army remains the leader and the resistance remains at its disposal for support. It is not unreasonable to say that the party responded to Arab advice not to be dragged into the Israeli trap, translating [this advice] into its position toward the clashes, in order to reduce the chances of a war… just as it responded to the Arab efforts to calm down the internal situation, particularly the Lebanese-Saudi-Syrian summit which was overwhelmed by the sedition projects plotted for Lebanon and the region. But [the party's] response is governed by a time limit as to the tribunal's issue, which Hezbollah's secretary general determined into weeks, awaiting a settlement-solution to the Israeli circulation of the indictment. While it is true that the March 14 group is committed to abstain from renewing the conflict over this issue, it is also true that this group's adherence yesterday to the tribunal – which Nasrallah considers to be “an Israeli project” – reveals the great differences among the two camps and the difficult mission of the Arab safety umbrella. Between the seeds of clashes and the war tree, Lebanon's immunity still hangs in the balance.
