What if Netanyahu did not retreat from the decision to plant the portals on the entrances to the al-Aqsa Mosque, after the security services said “Israeli» The cost of protecting the gates, carrying a new uprising and escalating is greater than the cost of dealing with the al-Aqsa mosque without these gates? Netanyahu himself had linked the acceptance of the security claim to the planting of the gates with the consent of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, which provided to the Israeli Government before the electronic crossings were set up, and their approval proved to be worthless to the Palestinian people?
Everything says that Palestine then will be on a date with an open confrontation involving armed factions, popular organizations, the street and the forces of the intifada in the occupied territories in 1948 and youth of the new resistance, and the Zionist extremism among the settlers and soldiers will ensure that the confrontations are transformed into an open- bloodbath soon to explode with the impact of a new war with Gaza.
The region is threatened by slipping into a war that is not far-fetched. Reasonable calculations have no place, when it comes to an Israeli decision based on electoral accounts and does not place strategic interests in the balance, and Netanyahu has already when the Hillary Clinton project was rejected in 2010, it was justified for President Barack Obama to say that he knew that this settlement bore the salvation of Israel, but it was cost to disarm thousands of settlers. This means losing the election. He decided not to lose his leadership and to strive to protect Israel.
According to this theory the hypothesis of Netanyahu’s obstinacy must be kept and maintained by electronic portals, thus going to confrontation. The settlements gate would then be closed. Unless Netanyahu invests to remove the gates, it is too late for a political solution, the region must prepare for the worst headed by resistance forces.
No one can imagine the absence of Netanyahu’s wasting of time and reading of the Lebanon resistance agenda, his expectation that it is preparing for such a confrontation, and that it will not leave Jerusalem and the extremity of singling out «”in the time of Arab abandonment and normalization with Israel. Israel must put in its account hypotheses “the type of entering of the resistance on the line to support al-Quds and al-Aqsa.”
A remarkable statement made by al-Sayyed Abdulmalik al-Houthi said that to Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s bet on the Yemenis is proper and they will be as good as he thinks of any future confrontation, and that the Yemenis will be where they should to be if there is a confrontation between Israel and the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine a talk that draws attention to the timing does it attract the attention of the Israelis when they discuss the options?