Lebanese are “confused,” along with UNIFIL and even senior government political and security officials, in explaining the reasons for the launch of rockets of unknown origin from Lebanon toward the occupied Palestinian territories, as happened on Tuesday. These operations have been repeated much in recent months, and are linked by certain conclusions and observations, although the perpetrator remains unknown. Among the conclusions, first of all, is that despite the risk of hitting civilians, which would invite violent Israeli response, the attacks have thus far succeeded in their deliberately refraining from targeting civilians; this leads to material damage and led a few months ago to the light wounding of Israeli civilians from flying glass shards. When the launchers of the rockets deliberately avoid hitting people, this means that they know where the rockets fall and know precisely what they are doing. The failure to strike hitting civilians in this case is like striking them; it requires a level of professionalism. Thus, despite the impossibility of controlling where rockets land in the first place, the deliberate non-targeting of civilians and military personnel with these “indiscriminate” rockets turns them into smart rockets, whose operators enjoy a level of professionalism in their calculations. To this conclusion we can add the observation that these rocket-launching incidents share the following: each time, one or more of these rockets is left behind, unfired (in the Houla incident, a rocket was launched and then four were discovered, primed for launch). Moreover, there is the observation that each time, a wooden rocket launcher is left at the launch scene, to make it easier for investigators to say that the operation was primitive. There is also professionalism in making these “primitive” weapons into “smart” ones. The second conclusion is that these operations also share the following: Israel conducts a technologically programmed automatic response. In this response, Israel assumes that the firers of the rockets are using a non-populated area, so they do not hit civilians in its response, whether those who carried out the operation do not want this, or whether Israel prefers to avoid this, so that another bloody violation (from among thousands) is not committed against Lebanese sovereignty. As Israel carries out its response, it might randomly hit those who fired the rockets as they are escaping in the hope that their affiliation is made known, if it is successful in hitting them. In such a case, the response will be limited. It seems like the third conclusion involves a common denominator among these operations, namely the nature of the political reactions to such an attack, especially by Israel. Each time, Israel holds the Lebanese government responsible, which is another kind of ignoring the perpetrator. Israel makes threats, voiced first by a “military source,” and then an “Israeli army spokeswoman, speaking to Army Radio,” then by a minister or deputy minister from the government. The accusations run like this: Palestinian groups, or Hezbollah, or a fundamentalist group, or nobody, according to the political circumstances that are in effect when a rocket is launched. Most likely, even if Israel knows who did it, revealing this means that it has called for a mobilization, or hiding to confront this response, while it might decide to target this group at a time that suits it. While neither the perpetrator nor Israel want to launch a confrontation, even if limited, to lead to a war. Regional adversaries until now continue to suspect each other when it comes to what they want and what they do not want, at the political moment surrounding the launching of rockets. The security incidents of this type are many, if one wants to count them. Also, the ignorance of the perpetrator of this kind of act, in a region experiencing rapid change and contradictory movements (oscillating between negotiation and confrontation), can result in the issuing of a statement in which responsibility is claimed, by proxy. It was said the most recent incident was a message of response to Israel's uninhibited treatment of the al-Aqsa Mosque and the entry of its police into the holy area, and a warning about this. It was said it was a response to the report by the secretary general of the United Nations about the implementation of Security Resolution 1559, on the continuing militia arms in the country, in violation of Lebanese sovereignty and decision-making. It was said that it was a warning and protest by those hurt by the Syrian-Saudi understandings about regional issues and Lebanon during the Damascus Summit between the King of Saudi Arabia, Abdullah bin Abdel-Aziz, and President Bashar al-Assad. Firm conclusions about any of the interpretations are left to the person to whom it was addressed, since something has happened between the two sides. A word is enough for the wise. The important thing is that the firers of “smart” rockets should not continue to think Lebanese are stupid; for they are the ones who always pay the price.
