J. E. Dyer posted an article at Hot Air today listing three things about the attack on Israel that he considered significant.
The first thing to be noted about the attack is that it was mounted from Egypt. This is a change. This is the result of the “Arab Spring” revolution that happened in Egypt this past year. That revolution will not bring peace–it will lead the world closer to war.
The article points out:
It’s too early to determine where alliances and affiliations will shake out in the future. But it’s not too early to recognize that Hezbollah and Hamas, along with their patron Iran, have reason to stake a claim in the future of Egypt. Their orientation is no longer as solidly centered on Syria as it was six months ago. Hamas’s horizons have traditionally been narrower than Hezbollah’s, but either one is in a position to see influence and freedom of action in the Sinai as an alternative to its traditional ties to Damascus. That bodes ill for Egypt.
The second notable point about the attack is that it was a sustained multi-pronged attack.
The article points out:
But the 18 August attack encompassed at least two buses and a car (the vehicle carrying the two Israeli children who were killed), as well as the emergency response forces and the IDF helicopters dispatched to search for the attackers. Nearly 7 hours after the initial attack (at almost 7:00 PM in Israel), gunfire was reportedly directed from the Egyptian side of the border at Israelis in the vicinity of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who was conducting a press conference from the site of the attack. That would seem to indicate that the terrorists were able to regenerate or hold forces in reserve on the Egyptian side of the border – a bad sign about both their tenacity and the security conditions in that part of the Sinai.
Again, this represents an escalation of previous attacks on Israel by its neighbors.
The third aspect of this attack is that it may create a perception that Egypt needs to increase her troop levels in the Sinai.
The article concludes:
The prospects, therefore, are for a continued, incremental expansion of the Egyptian troop presence in the peninsula. It is well to remember why the Sinai was demilitarized in the first place: to ensure that Egypt would not be in a position to launch a surprise attack on Israel. Establishing an ever-higher “normal” for the level of forces there will chip away at that insurance. Is Egypt anxious to launch an attack on Israel? Not today. But as an Egyptian troop presence grows in the Sinai – for reasons that seem iron-clad and urgent as they crop up – that could certainly change.
Obviously, none of this is moving in the direction of peace. Since Iran is pulling the strings on much of this activity, I wonder if the purpose of this activity is to take the eyes of the world off of what is happening in Syria. Syria is a puppet state of Iran, and the unrest there is not good news for Iran. A new government in Syria might have a streak of independence that could interfere with Iran’s plan for its middle east caliphate.