Why doesn't Al-Qaeda attack Israel. Did u ever wonder that?
I'm speculating here, but I suspect they knew they would face opposition from other "Arab" countries who had already decided to accept Israel (mainly because it's occupation didn't involve their own land). To prove their case, and thus gain support for their cause, they attacked the United States in accordance with a small provision (Qisas Retribution). I believe they expected that the counter strikes the U.S. would make in retaliation, would force the hand of Jihad - the people would have to defend their lands from the ensuing occupations. It would also expose the active military role the United States plays concerning Israel.
I don't think they fully expected the counter strategies the United States would make use of during these battles. For instance, the manipulation of media and propaganda or the enormous psychological toll the people in the lands of Jihad would have to endure. Living without food, power, water or work for months and even years, it was enough to turn the people against their own, just for the illusion of stability.
It is for all these reasons I can't help but be amazed by the spirit of the fighters who remain. Sounds weird, I know. I'm an American and one would think I should have some respect for my own soldiers but when I consider how the people in my country would react, given like circumstances, I don't think they have that kind of resolve. I saw this during hurricane Katrina, the people degraded in weeks, not years. So, needless to say, I'm kind of let down by the thought that Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan don't fully respect and support their fighters who, Heaven only knows, have more than earned it.
But, to stay on topic, an attack on a fully armed Israel (man, do I hate calling it that), would require a perfect strategy that would involve key locations. You could not take on their forces from one location. I think Lebanon was a perfect example of that. You would have to engage them in coordinated attacks from at least three separate locations to gain any ground for advancement. This is why you heard people like Abu Musab al Zarqawi state: We fight in Iraq but our eyes are on Jerusalem. Without Iraq, Lebanon and Syria - together - there is little point in even considering a campaign against Israel. Personally, I would prefer five separate locations for engagement. But the sad reality is there are these religious and cultural disputes that create divisions deep enough to prevent these groups from pooling the intel and resources needed for coordinating such a major offensive. Allah will grant no exception to the rule:
Hold fast, ALL of you, to the rope of Allah... and be not divided! You either obey (pull yourselves together) or you fall. {My interpreation of the meaning}
This is why I'm upset with the religious scholars. If I were in command of these matters, I would summon them all to Council to be done with their complaints because their complaints are (what I would percieve to be) preventing me from forming the alliances I need to save the Muslim nation. That is, they have become the weakest link in the chain (eg: the very cause of the divisions that my enemies have enjoyed).
Of course, I'm just a woman... and what do women know about such things?
The Ninth Scribe