Moving within the thickets of geopolitical Islam in the 21st century is a difficult task. Seeking to identify current causative factors of instability or predict classic ‘what if?’ scenarios is challenging. Since the beginning of the year, political currents from North Africa to the Middle East have ramped up foreign policy issues that are as inviting as a root canal. The continuing flux from established leadership to new and still emerging political power grids have many rocked back on their haunches with a wait-and-see attitude. What is happening in Egypt is mind-blowing. The Muslim Brotherhood consents with a private wink to the antics of the Wahabi flank to bolster their own political offering for a moderate and centrist government. The Wahabi court jesters mount a campaign against the appointment of a Christian governor in Qena. The pictures of the protesting mob offended me. The latest goal is bearded Egyptian men and one million veiled women by Ramzan. When fashion is forced by intimidation, call it for what it is: governance by thugs. Somewhat like the Iranian ‘Party of the Wind’ theme, decent Egyptians await political outcomes prior to declaring loyalties. Early this year, media blustered with dramatic images of Tunisian citizens with fists clenched in the air. Journalists bequeathed a noble title, ‘Arab Spring’. I merely labelled a new file, ‘Yoke of Iron’. Undoubtedly, the last six months have challenged my own thoughts in a greater manner than any specific bloc of events of the prior five years. The emergence of the emancipation and self-determination movements in rapid succession continues. The mad scramble and rise of the clerics across destabilised regions is difficult to follow. Established political templates with mature administrative organisations contain seasoned political followers. They are strong on the stalk and ready to disperse their political grain. The scripted public consumption statements are numerous. Analysts gnaw on these things and what is truly transpiring within the indigenous political barracks is obscured. What has caught me off guard a bit is the quick adaptation of soft guerrilla warfare tactics within regional geo-spaces. So I request a spirit of accommodation as I use Israel as an object lesson. Please do not misconstrue what follows as a pro-Israel stance and turn tail growling the word ‘Zionist’. What occurred along their borders requires neutrality of greater opinion for purposes of this column. Let me briefly familiarise you with four classic signals of soft guerrilla warfare. The subtle signals that differentiate innocent freedom of expression from soft guerrilla warfare can be captured once the scent is picked up. The scent organ of the governmental body is the security apparatus. But it is important that citizens also recognise, differentiate and conceptualise issues of state and sovereignty. Examination of current events outside of our conventional modalities of thought is needed. n A primary signal of possible soft guerrilla warfare is the dependence on human mass to achieve political goals. Human mass can be used as an avatar of unknown political masters. Who were the political masters of the two ‘protests’ orchestrated along Israel’s border? n Secondly, soft guerrilla warfare lacks public and discernible leadership. It does not have the look or feel of an organisation such as Greenpeace stepping out to protest in a city where a G8 summit is convened. Such groups have recognised leadership. They also present as the Ady Gil making contact with the Shonan Maru; in other words, recognised and seasonal operations. And while soft guerrilla warfare will lack a public face the protest will contain a highly scripted message. n An additional signal is what I call the ‘get on the bus’ phenomenon. It is part of the stagecraft that seeks a deliberate and accommodated population aggregation to soften up a political target. The subsequent ‘spontaneous combustion’ of the crowd looks remarkably familiar. Something just does not feel right, in the gut. Such was the sought-after look for the crowds gathered along Israel’s border. Soft guerrilla warfare has the cadence of manipulation as opposed to free will. It has the strut of an agitprop cell. n A paternalistic hand is always in the background to give guidance to those willing to give a stab at glory with their best protesting lunge. The ‘Arab Spring’ provides perfect environmental and geopolitical factors for acts of soft guerrilla warfare. Political instability is not a catalyst, rather a vacuum. Within this vacuum interested parties work against designated targets. New geopolitical realities are desired and there is no lack of human fodder for the cannons. Highly passionate populations needing an outlet for their energies can find purpose in chaos. Israel chose to use deadly force against both of the recent protests. Were the events crafted by outside agency? Israel knows the answer. Outside a familiar habitat behaviour cannot be predicted. The protests were dealt with in a manner to leave little doubt that Israel will not allow its borders to be used as a semi-permeable security membrane. Will global media tentacles disassociated from any event over 48 hours old remember the names of the deceased? It is unlikely. But the families of those who were killed by Israeli forces will remember forever. Of concern is the blurred line between rightful and legal protest manoeuvres and the incitement achieved by hidden players. The strife rippling across Syria with dire consequences to their citizenry is one thing. They endure harsh consequences from the very ones who are bound by an oath to protect them. Soft guerrilla warfare employs skilled silent partners in the background. And these partners are giving consent to a marriage of politics and violence. The writer is a freelance columnist. She can be reached at tammyswof@msn.com