An Israeli war on Egypt; taking a stand is a duty

Written by Nasser Kandil,

There are facts that must be fixed before discussing the position which must be adopted by the forces of the resistance axis, its elites and its followers towards the terrorist operations which target it. For sure, it is a position of solidarity from the initial clear considerations towards the nature of the terrorist aggression against the Egyptian people, its security, and its stability without any ambiguity. What we want to discuss is beyond the initial, humanitarian, moral, and national position especially because in Egypt there are no ambiguities similar to the situation of the war in Libya and the infiltration of terrorism behind local facades in an open civil war.

The first fact is that the debate about the Egyptian-Saudi relationship and its ceilings in the Egyptian foreign policy must not prevent taking into consideration what is going on in Egypt. The subject of the official political discourse of Egypt which sometimes is wrong and sometimes is right is not the war and the position towards it, especially if the one who launches this war bets on the non-cohesion of the axis of resistance behind Egypt in its war, because it monopolizes making use of confusions which are created by the debate about choices, positions, and the resulting differences at least at the level of the public and the elites, in addition to the decision-makers level.

The second fact is that during the crucial moment experienced by the region with the double-breaking of the war waged by Washington against the axis of the resistance, and the terrorism in Syria and Iraq Israel seems at the most difficult state of confusion, and the searching for mechanisms for the new demarcation lines. Due to Egypt’s size and its geographical, political, military, and population status, and its open policy on the major countries and their settlements it is nominated to play roles, while Israel is feeling that it is a source of danger on its plans, and a reason of concern about its considerations whether in Syria or Lebanon. Both of them are a source of concern to Israel directly, especially in Palestine where Egypt as Israel is present powerfully, but they are not present together.

The third truth is that the arrangements of the Israeli house means the arrangement of the so-called backyards, most importantly Golan, the southern of Lebanon, and Gaza, it is an impossible arrangement with the Israeli capacities alone, and it is impossible through the Israeli wars, moreover it is not possible but only if Israel succeeds in embroiling Egypt to exert pressure on Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon, and through exerting pressure on the resistance in Palestine as a condition for its sponsorship. Israel succeeded in making use of the terrorist operations which targeted Egypt to link them with the relationship between Hamas Movement and the Muslim Brotherhood organization and confusing the Egyptian security about the sponsor party of terrorism, as well as the borders through which the terrorists get the safe shelter. During the crisis of the Gulf-Egyptian relationships with Qatar and its effect on Hamas, the Israeli bet was on the joint Egyptian-Israeli reaping, regarding the future of the resistance weapons in Gaza as a weapon of support of terrorism, which is a condition for lifting the double siege of the Egyptian and Israeli sides on Gaza, but the Egyptian position was decisive by neutralizing the resistance’s weapons from the negotiation.

The fourth fact is that the experience of the Egyptian security and its long history do not allow it to believe the hypothesis of the ability of the terrorist groups to possess the ability to move as armies without borders that form a safe shelter and without a support that protects it in infiltration, moving, transforming weapons, equipments, and funds. Despite all the tension in the relationships of Egypt with Turkey and Qatar and despite all the harm from which Egypt suffered through the long positioning of Hamas under the ceiling of the Muslim Brotherhood and their conflict with the government in Egypt. The Egyptian security succeeded in tracing the lines to discover the Israeli sponsorship of the terrorist groups in Sinai, especially after the Egyptian President has already warned according to the reports received by the security services about the hypotheses of the displacement of ISIS after its defeat in Syria and Iraq towards Sinai, before the last massacre which interpreted these expectations which built on information that documents the Israeli role in transferring and putting the militants of ISIS in Sinai in conjunction with the position of Egypt which sponsors the Palestinian reconciliation, including neutralizing the weapons of the resistance.

Depending on all of that there is a strategic intelligence war between Egypt and Israel, its title is Sinai, as a backyard of Israel and an alternative capital to ISIS or an Egyptian full-sovereign territory. The subject of attraction is the usage of ISIS by Israel to subdue Egypt and to oblige it to change its regional intervention starting from Gaza by positioning in a hostile position against the forces of the resistance, towards linking its intervention in Syria and Lebanon with the same hostile titles in exchange of the security of the Egyptians which Israel thinks that it has control on it by having control on ISIS. So Egypt and its position in the new maps of the region becomes the winning card in drawing balances and in determining the status of Israel as a loser or as a winner in the wars of the region. It is the conflict over Egypt.

If the resistance’s forces in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen cannot make an influence in this confrontation but through the solidarity with Egypt, its government, army, people and transcending all the differences about the political and the media performance, and in calling the public and the elites to express this position with strength and stability, the resistance forces in Palestine is called to know that this war is the war of its existence, so it has to wage it along with Egypt strongly, and to disclose what it has as facts and documents about the relationship of ISIS and the other formations of the Takfiri terrorism with Israel. This is the task of Hamas mainly and it has many things to do, but most importantly is the ability of the resistance forces to contribute in a way that does not expose Egypt to danger by making the security of Israel versus the security of Egypt. The proper equation is that the relationship of Israel with tampering the Egyptian security will not put the weapons of the resistance into negotiation, but the security of Israel will be under negotiation, so the Israeli government which is keen on its security has to stop tampering with the Egyptian security, because this tampering aims at driving Egypt to accept the blackmailing by obliging it to discuss the fate of the resistance’s weapons.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,