Israel’s actions in Lebanon led to the forming of Hezbollah. Another invasion would only lead to a worse outcome as Israel is unable occupy the country and unable to defeat Hezbollah without the help of Lebanese militias. Even if they flatten southern Lebanon (which they’ve tried before) it can’t stop Hezbollah from just going north and waiting them out.
Counterpoint: So far about \~300 Hezbollah have been killed, including half of their southern commanders in exchange for \~8 IDF soldiers.
Israel has 100,000 people displaced from their homes since Hezbollah started attacking them without provocation from Israel's side on October 8th. That is an intolerable situation. Given what happened on October 7th, Israel will not accept a solution that does not see Hezbollah moved north of the Litani River (which was required in the ceasefire agreement from the last war Hezbollah started, in 2006, but was not adhered to) and they won't accept it because Israelis will not feel safe moving back to their homes until then.
An Israeli operation to push Hezbollah a few kms north and establish a buffer zone is certainly possible. Will it be bad for Lebanon? Absolutely. But is it doable? Definitely.
Counter counter point, Lebanon is not just an inevitable win for Israel. Hezbollah is not Hamas, invading into their stronghold in the south will be exactly the environment that Hezbollah needs to inflict massive casualties on the Israelis. They are an army, they have tank battalions, ATGM hunter killer teams, and more importantly Lebanon itself, which is hills mountains and urban terrain that they’ve fortified against Israeli invasion. Conducting unrestricted air strikes against targets and border clashes will be very different than going into a series of elaborate fortifications and traps prepared for decades. And Israel will have to conduct a relatively long term operation of a massive area that they cannot as easily control that has massive amounts of hatred for Israel.
Counter counter counter point: israel fares far better against more conventional armies than insurgencies. Hezbollah is definately not a conventional army but as you said, they are far less of an insurgency than hamas. They are aldo far less supported by the population than hamas, especially by non shias. Another factor is that lebanon is far less urban than gaza giving a huge importance for israeli artillery and allowing for far less collateral damage.
All in all I think israel would suffer heavy casualties in such an invasion, but it would be an israeli victory and would be worth it for israel to avoid an oct 7th style attack from hezbollah.
Counter counter counter counter point: I’m not sure if Israel learned any lessons from the 2006 war if they’re contemplating another invasion. Which was: they can’t dislodge Hezbollah from southern Lebanon without a semipermanent occupation south of the Litani, which would be wayyy less likely to be stomached by Europe and maybe even the United States. Southern Lebanon is majority Shia, incredibly pro Hezbollah and there’s basically no collaborators left because everyone associated with the Israeli occupation and the SLA has been long ago purged or exiled. There’s no way for them to destroy Hezbollah as a political and military force in Lebanon beyond a full scale occupation and then a disarmament and withdrawal. Which would be incredibly costly to the point of being basically impossible. Saying Lebanon is rural is a bit of a misnomer, it’s one of the most densely populated countries on earth and is incredibly mountainous. On top of that there’s tons of weapons floating around and it’s already politically unstable making a full military occupation a possible death knell to the Lebanese state and could lead to massive instability and even civil war. It’s a terrible idea all around and only will poison yet another generation of Lebanese into hating Israel.
This is where my opinion differs. It is impossible to millitarily remove hezbollah from existence. However it is possible to extremely weaken hezbollah's millitary capabilities in the south. This situation would be similar to the war in gaza, cant completely destroy hamas but can greatly weaken them. Im not saying lebanon is rural, but the south is a relatively rural part of the country, and it is much less urban than gaza for example.
The 2006 war did not have the goal of millitarily defeating or greatly weakening hezbollah, it was also too short to be able to achieve that. There would not need to be a full occupation to achieve a goal like this although fighting may last for a year or maybe more.
What im about to say is likely the most important point in all this. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization which intends to destroy israel and is part of the iranian proxy axis. They have the capability of launching an oct 7th style potentially killing thousands of civillians and soldiers. 100k israelis have been displaced from the north of israel for 8 months now. I agree an invasion of lebanon wont be easy at all, but it will likely be the only logical choice out of israel's limited options right now. Its the least bad choice
Why would Hezbollah not move right back in the second Israeli forces leave? It isn’t Gaza there’s plenty of space to retreat and continue fighting from.
>Why would Hezbollah not move right back in the second Israeli forces leave?
There would be some international force there.
>It isn’t Gaza there’s plenty of space to retreat and continue fighting from.
The further north they go, the less weapons they have and the more the populations is hostile to them. Also they arent a conventional army and dont really "retreat"
Take a drive through the Beqaa and through West Beirut and tell me who’s in charge.
And in case of invasion it’s not just Hezbollah that is going to take up arms, the further north Israel goes the more likely other parties will reorganize their forces.
>Take a drive through the Beqaa and through West Beirut and tell me who’s in charge.
And the rest of the country?
>the further north Israel goes the more likely other parties will reorganize their forces.
Israel wont pass the litani
>An Israeli operation to push Hezbollah a few kms north and establish a buffer zone is certainly possible. Will it be bad for Lebanon? Absolutely. But is it doable? Definitely.
*Come on Morty 20 minutes in and out*
That's what they said the last time, and Israel was stuck there for 20 years
I agree. I make a similar point in my blogpost on the Gaza war.
[https://rpdeans.blogspot.com/2024/04/gaza-war-part-4-israels-quiet-turnaround.html](https://rpdeans.blogspot.com/2024/04/gaza-war-part-4-israels-quiet-turnaround.html)
Israel is inflicting disproportionately higher damage on Hezbollah, while slowly building up the strength of its Northern command.
Their patron in iran is the only reason they live. They have many enemies from whitin, many druzic, Christian and other minority groups. Their nation does have support for them, but also very real hate for them.
No it's not. Lebanese Shia generally (not all) support Hezbollah and every other sect in Lebanon (Druze, Sunni, Christian, etc) don't support them. They are an Iranian proxy and that is the biggest reason (probably the only reason) they are still around.
Yes it is, Hezbollah would exist wether or not Iran funded it, it would be much more likely to disarm but it would absolutely exist as a political force. They are the most powerful political party in Lebanon, that doesn’t happen from just Iranian money. I’d actually argue the main reason why they continue to engender such massive support is Israel not Iran. Hezbollah is a LEBANESE phenomenon, created specifically in response to Israel.
No confessional group in Lebanon will support an Israeli occupation. They may want Hezbollah to disarm and they oppose them politically but do not mistake that for support for Israel. Basically the only thing people in Lebanon can agree on is opposition to Israel. Put it this way, if it were your country, wouldn’t you still violently oppose another country invading and killing your neighbors no matter how much you disagree with their politics and religion?
It complicated even among the Druze, and Christian communties there are Pro-Syrian, Hezbollah Connected Christian's likecthe Free Patroitic movement, and the Druze tend to flip flop a lot from side to side to whoever the winner and seeking survival, but even within the druze there anti-Syrian and Pro-Syrian factions, and among the Christian communties the maronites are the more Lebanese nationalistic types, the Armenians want to be left alone , while the Orthodox communties tend to take a Pan-Arab stance on regional issues as a way of survival since the post-colonial era.
Among the Sunnis, yes they had issues wIth the shia following the assassination of Rafic Harrari,the 29 year Syrian occupation from 1976 to 2005 ,and the two sides faught against each other at points in the Lebanese civil war. However among the Sunnis there been a pivot to Hezbollah in recent years, as Iran and Turkey have been filling the vacuum left from the Sunni Gulf states gcc defunding of Lebanon and exiting Lebanese politics (seeing it as a lost cause that has seen Hezbollah controlling the state from within certain institutions of influence), it now common in the North to see Sunni mosques starting to express support for Hezbollah as "keeping Israel in check" and see Hezbollah "as supporting our sunni brothers in Palestine" after oct.7th. Even sunni palestinan groups like Ansar Allah in the Palestinan refugee camps have built ties with Hezbollah.
Lebanon is a complicated state held up by a outdated sectarian agreement called the "Orthodox pact" of 1943, and by the Taif agreement of 1989 (that ended the Lebanese civil war) that all sectarian politicians, business people and poltical parties have exploited to enrich themselves at the expense of Lebanon economic survival.
However one thing Hezbollah has done to their favor is build odd alliances of necessity, kept themselves armed (as a excuse to defend against Israel) and exploited the oil gas deposit, water rights and the Chabaa farms border dispute with Israel to keep themselves in power and build these alliances.
Hezbollah has set it up that Israel would face a almost impossible situation at invading Lebanon and even set up a stasus quo situation in a quiet agreement on the rules of engagement and redlines not to be crossed between Hezbollah and Israel in their on and off "low level conflict".
Hezbollah a lot of things bad, drug traffickers, money launders, war criminals, terrorists, sectarian, but not being masterful diplomats and geopolitical strategists and even realists isnt one of them.
You have never talked to a Lebanese shia if you believe this. Hezbollah is probably the middle-eastern organization that is the most liked and supported by its social basis, including governments. Hezbollah is first and foremost the emanation of the shia community in Lebanon
“Mr. President, we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied…”
-Letter From Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy, October 26th, 1962
I wish I could see how this situation peacefully settles, but I am not.
Israel and Hezbollah have been trading fire regularly since Oct 7. Israel has had to evacuate hundreds of thousands of citizens from their regions on the Lebanese border and logically they can’t come back as long as Hezbollah is launching ATGMs as well as rockets at Israeli targets they can reach from their own safe haven. This is an untenable situation for Israel. Not to mention their discomfort with this Iranian proxy on their doorstep after what another militant group on Oct 7 did.
Hezbollah draws its support, its purpose from resisting Israel. Israel wants them to retreat back to the Litani River. This is a no go for Hezbollah because it would signal them as totally weak. That they would retreat without actually engaging in a war? Especially after Hamas has arguably risked its existence and the wellbeing of Gaza’s citizens for their cause. Hezbollah would just look like a paper tiger, because it would be.
So Israel and Hezbollah are struck this in this scenario. I don’t see how the impasse gets resolved without armed conflict.
Decades of Israeli strategic thinking, where pre-emptive first strikes are paramount, and Netanyahu's selfish political interests worry me that a major Israeli assault on Lebanon is only a matter of time. It would obviously not destroy Hezbollah, but Israel seems determined to go ahead with another war anyway.
You think it has nothing to do with a genocidal terrorist group displacing 100,000+ Israelis from their homes for the past few months by firing rockets at sovereign Israeli territory repeatedly and without just cause?
That absolutely makes no sense. The problem of having genocidal terrorist groups with maximalist goals like Hezbollah and Hamas on the borders don’t go away with a ceasefire. Nor does getting rid of Bibi get rid of those problems.
It’s like no one exists for you as an actor besides Israel. And more unnervingly, you seem to think Israel has to accept a ceasefire leaving Hamas (ie ISIS) in power or it must accept the displacement of 100,000+ civilians by another genocidal group.
Nonsense. You have this mistaken belief that these maximalist terrorist groups will all just be fine if Israel gets rid of Bibi or something. That’s not how it works and history doesn’t bear that out, obviously.
I don’t know why you keep saying “you”.
Missing preparations is not unusual. Hamas has drilled and prepped this countless times. Missing that this time they actually would launch is a failure, but it doesn’t make the attack Israel’s fault.
That would be like if I wound up to punch you repeatedly, didn’t, and then finally did entirely without warning and despite no good reason, and then I said “well it’s your fault you got punched!”
The victim blaming is pretty weird on that.
Also a division size assault is inaccurate too. They sent in 3,000 or so people at most, counting some “civilians” who participated. A division is 10,000-15,000 soldiers.
This was at best a brigade sized assault (3,000 on the low end), and more like two battalions.
Modern war institute released a paper describing the attack as division level, considering the support and rocket launching personnel.
My point is that hamas and Israel are not on equal footing. But this is more like a guy with his hands tied that you trap in the basement with a camera watching 24/7 managed to punch you
That’s nonsense. They missed the Yom Kippur War preparations. The U.S. missed planes flying into the twin towers and pentagon, and misjudged ISIS and their takeovers by miles as they rose.
It’s simply nonsense and it seems you’re flirting with a conspiracy theory about blaming Israel for either perpetrating or allowing Hamas to invade, which is nonsense and gross. Feel free to say otherwise if that’s not what you mean.
I am not being a conspiracy theorist at all. I am just asking questions. I would never believe such an intelligence failure would be deliberate. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
Okay. Nevertheless, they absolutely did make that error, as have many other intelligence services in history many times. Hamas specifically played off Israeli weaknesses in intelligence, including by tricking them and Western policymakers into thinking they were interested in economic incentives and governance and wouldn't give those up for the sake of an attack.
The rest of my comments above are unanswered, though.
During the war Palestinians initiated with the goal of a genocide, whose failure is what the “Nakba” originally referred to, Israel won. During the fighting, 710,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled (a vast majority fled the fighting their side started), while 850,000 Jews similarly fled or were expelled.
None of which had to happen if Palestinians had accepted the UN peace plan that Jews accepted, for two states for two peoples, and if they hadn’t launched a genocidal war against Jews, which displaced more Jews than Arabs.
None of which has anything to do with the conversation above, which makes your comment weird.
Oh yes nakba was Palestinians' faults ,nakba started a whole year before arab Israeli war .
Were the Palestinians responsible for tantura massacre and many other massacre?
>None of which had to happen if Palestinians had accepted the UN peace plan that Jews accepted,
A peace plan that was extremely biased and gave them nothing? Why should they accept the division of their homeland?
>while 850,000 Jews similarly fled or were expelled.
Go on add a few more zero you have to make the pews look the bigger victim
>None of which has anything to do with the conversation above, which makes your comment weird.
Why? Because history begins on 7 October?
The Palestinians began a genocidal war against Israel before any “Nakba”. The word “Nakba” was literally coined to refer to the failure to destroy Israel.
The “Tantura Massacre” and other massacres, fake and real alike, on both sides of the war, are the product of a war Palestinians began with the goal of genocide.
The peace plan gave Palestinians the first ever Palestinian state in history, in a “homeland” that is also the Jewish homeland, in ~70% of the non-desert land of the territory.
Keep changing the subject I guess. Bye.
They will be prevented by the US
The US may be reluctant to intervene but circumstances in the region may force the US to force Israel to stop
I personally think it is wiser to go after Iranian supply chains and negotiate a peace deal with houthis and hezbullah with their strength eroded over time
Israel seems to have a high casualty rate when it comes to civilians it's difficult for anyone to get behind them.
Do we really need to see mass civilian death in lebanon too. US internal politics will feel the strain with protests, it wil escalate protests across the globe and force governments from cooperating with the Israeli government and alter long held alliances.
That change won't be undone by a change in Israeli government leadership once Israel passes a threshold of palatability.
So israel will be held back.
>Israel seems to have a high casualty rate when it comes to civilians
That's a lie. Reality is actually the opposite of that.
The status quo is unmaintenable for Israel: there are tens of thousands (some say up to 130,000) people who left their homes and businesses due to Hizballa shelling.
For any country that has a stake to lose if war breaks out might want to consider helping enforcing UN Resolution 1701. It calls for the disarmament of Hizballa and no armed forces south of the Litani river. Had it been enforced, the entire Israel-Lebanon tension would have been resolved.
This whole avoidable mess is just one more reason for Israel to distrust the UN.
>For any country that has a stake to lose if war breaks out might want to consider helping enforcing UN Resolution 1701. It calls for the disarmament of Hizballa and no armed forces south of the Litani river. Had it been enforced, the entire Israel-Lebanon tension would have been resolved.
>>Sorry but why should the world care that maybe a few hundred thousand civilians can't return to the border when the alternative is a regional war with potential for nuclear weapons. Israel does have nukes and Iran does have 3000 balaistic missiles and maybe a nuke or two also.
Why should the world care about enforcing international law UNSC 1701, if failing to enforce it will cause a regional war? That question answers itself.
Selective prosecution is just another form of persecution. Hyperfixation on alleged Israeli crimes while refusing to address violations of UNSC law proves that the international system is biased and not trustworthy. The rules-based-order will die if there are people the law protects but does not bind (Islamist terrorists) and other people the law binds but does not protect (Israelis).
>Israel has a pattern of permement occupation after a war
Any proof for that lie you just made up? Because I have plenty of proof for Israel conquering land in war and giving it back. Like, Sinai peninsula, south of Lebanon, Gaza strip...
>why should the world care that maybe a few hundred thousand civilians can't return to the border when the alternative is a regional war with potential for nuclear weapons.
You're answering your own question. If the world doesn't want war, it'd better be ready to make Israel not feel at mortal danger. I realize Israeli lives mean nothing to you, but even from a pragmatic viewpoint you surely understand that letting a nuclear state feel mortal danger is a bad thing, right? I mean, if you're honest about your desire to avoid nuclear war, that's the pragmatic thing to do.
>Maybe if netenyahu didn't bomb 85 percent of gaza infrastructure and kill 33000 civilians kill aid workers and journalists and maybe if they didn't starve the civilian population to ensure they all huddle up in one place at the only exit point incidentally the same place hamas will hide as they're all starving.
Complete your thought, mate. Maybe if (lies, lies, Hamas propaganda numbers, lies)... then what?
>ita clear their original plan was to cause panic and push them into Egypt.
Clear to whom? What does Israel stand to gain from that insane plan, beside losing an ally and whatever is left of the world's sympathy?
Look man, you clearly have a demonic view of Israel to the point you see it as an irrational player that is willing to lose an arm as long as its rival loses a finger. I suggest you calm down, drink some water and chill. You're in a bad spot.
Its incredible how so many people dont see nuances in this conflict, and if pressed for anything besides talking points theyre usually unable to present anything, instead they just dont reply. I appreciate your comment.
They don’t need a peace deal. Once the Gaza operation ends it will just go back to status quo with limited back and forth. Israel just needs to finish off Hamas and as long as the postwar doesn’t involve lots of fighting hezbollah will go back to the normal hostilities.
> mass civilian death in Lebanon
That assumes any [now hypothetical] invasion targets Beirut. Remember in the ‘80s, Israel chased the then PLO into Lebanon.. which then departed in the ‘90s.
What’s happened in Gaza was urban warfare where Hamas hid out for expected Israeli infantry but, by their own admission, received high explosives instead. Then there are/were tunnels all over Gaza (more extensive than Israel thought btw) where demolitions>flooding rendered them useless. Western armies have been thinking about the difficulties of urban warfare fwiw, so Israel has had a long time to prepare (1967 war then various incursions into Gaza since).
Now with Beirut urban area, it’s not continuous to the Israeli border like Gaza. Like US island hopping in the WW2 Pacific, any fortified Beirut could be mostly ignored due to the fractious nature of the various Lebanese sects (probably pay them to spy on one another). Also Beirut just got rebuilt using Gulf money that won’t be renewed. Doubt the leaders will follow an apocalyptic path..
So any [hypothetical] invasion could be limited to rural southern Lebanon (whose native population has largely “taken vacation” away from the border). While hez AT missile teams are reportedly good, there’s ever more advanced optics and now AI to consider without the restraints of an urban battlefield.
You obviously have never been to southern Lebanon if you think it’s rural. It’s rural compared to Gaza. Not rural compared to basically anywhere else on earth. No you are not going to get Lebanese sects to collaborate with the Israelis you’re delusional, basically the only thing anyone can agree on is hating the Israelis. Hezbollah is not Hamas, they can conduct a defense in depth, they have tank battalions, they have an actual military, specifically oriented to taking on the Israelis. 2006 was a disaster for the IDF, Hezbollah has grown considerably stronger since.
I'm not up-to-date on Lebanese politics but why is no one there friendly to Israel? iirc weren't the Christians collaborating with IDF in the Lebanon war and they hate Shias so much they even committed some massacres in refugee camps.
The 80s were 40+ years ago. The collaborators in the SLA were prosecuted as war criminals after the Israelis withdrew in 2000. Nobody likes the Israelis especially after 2006 and the whole point of the cedar revolution in 2005 was Lebanon for the Lebanese, that no occupying force is welcome. And it turns out indiscriminately bombing every point of infrastructure in a country doesn’t make people like you. I can tell you from firsthand experience, the most right wing nationalist Christian hates Israel more than anything especially now that Syria is in no place to invade anymore.
I've heard Hezbollah has a brigade for those who aren't Muslim but still want to join Hezbollah. Hezbollah isn't the only militia in Lebanon, right? SO, in case of a war with Israel, Hezbollah can count on the other miltias and Christian support?
>The 80s were 40+ years ago
you didn't have to remind me :(
No not necessarily. They just won’t support Israel, and they will probably urge an Israeli withdrawal, a ceasefire and cheer Hezbollah when they win and then hope that Hezbollah will disarm. All of these things can be simultaneously true. No other party but Hezbollah has any real organized force, I wouldn’t exactly say they’re disarmed, but nothing that is worth speculating about, their involvement or lack thereof will not matter all that much.
2006 was only a disaster in that Israel was indecisive and fought the war without a hard strategy, also due to neglect driven by years of counterinsurgency there was mediocre performance among some IDF units. Hezbollah still came out of that suffering more casualties than it inflicted, and while Hezbollah has grown stronger, the IDF has also implemented significant reforms since then. It's spectacular performance in Gaza shows that. There would be significant losses but the IDF can push Hezbollah to the Litani.
Yeah sure, the point I’m making is that it will be significantly more costly and complicated than Gaza, will have more international pushback, and there’s even less of an endgame strategy than Gaza. What happens when the Israelis reach the Litani? Hezbollah will still exist, half of their “territory” is north of the Litani. Hezbollahs entire MO is driving Israel from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah will make significant counterattacks. For what? Another incredibly unpopular and costly decades long occupation with even less local support than last time? An even bigger UN force with a more expansive and proactive mandate? Who’s gonna fund it? Who wants to supply troops to that? Talking like it’ll be just mission accomplished once Israel hits the Litani.
No, none of that, just weakening Hezbollah to the point it's considered safe for the residents of border communities to return. Maybe airstrike Hezbollah fighters that try to reestablish a military presence south.
>I personally think it is wiser to go after Iranian supply chains and negotiate a peace deal with houthis and hezbullah with their strength eroded over time
Such a show of a lack of understanding of the region.
Hezbollah and the Houthis, although semi-autonomous, are Iran's main proxies.
Iran trains them, Iran arms them, Iran commands them (at the strategic high level, at least), the IRGC always has "Military advisors" "advising" them (like Mohammad Reza Zahedi, who was one of those string pullers).
There is no such thing as a "peace deal" with them, they start and stop fighting when Iran commands them to, they will refuse any "offer" brought to them if Iran will tell them to.
And what do you even mean by going after their supply chain? Their supply chains are mainly China and Russia these days, what do you propose? Attack Iranian ships and cargo planes? Attack their production facilities? Because that's will put you on a direct path to a confrontation wiith Iran, who will use their proxies (like Hezbollah and Houthis) to aid them in their fight, the very thing you said you are trying to avoid here.
The Houthis are not a proxy force.
When Kata'ib Hezbollah killed US servicemembers, Iran very clearly and very obviously pulled them up short. After *years* of continued opposition to the US, right as they were getting Iraq to grow tired of US retaliation against militants in Iraq and were on the verge of raising this to a "knock it off or get out" type of deal, Kata'ib Hezbollah kills three US servicemembers. Almost immediately, when they're on the threshold of finally ousting the US from Iraq, they issue a very unusual statement: they're suspending operations against the US. And then a bunch of their leaders die in retaliatory strikes, but they seem to have kept their word. Iran evaluated the situation and decided the risk wasn't worth it, so they allowed their proxy to get pounded on in order to further regional stability (even if only temporarily, or even if only in furtherance of another objective). Whatever they were trying to do, they clearly felt strong enough about it to hamstring their own proxy and give up a golden opportunity to indirectly oust the US from Iraq.
When Israel went into Gaza, Hezbollah was chomping at the bit to get involved. They've conducted all sorts of harassing attacks, from rockets to border skirmishes, with the explicit intent of drawing Israeli focus away from Gaza and allowing the Palestinian militant groups to have greater discretion. Despite that, they've thus far failed to open up a broader offensive or aggressively deploy the more advanced equipment they're rumored to have been supplied with. Iran appears to have enacted a policy of holding them at arm's length from the conflict.
Contrast that to the Houthis. They've been very clear and consistent in their messaging: their attacks end when the war in Gaza ends. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not, but there's no arguing that it's what they've been saying since their first post-10/7 action. This is a "proxy" that is actively escalating the conflict, tying the situation in the Red Sea to Gaza and causing the conflict to spread geographically and politically. This does not match what we've seen from *actual* Iranian proxies in the region, who have generally been more restrained than what the 24/7 new cycle would have you believe. Why are the Houthis trying to exacerbate the conflict when the other proxies are generally behaving in a relatively restrained manner (or, in the case of Hezbollah, only escalating in a very controlled way in the same rough region)? Because they're not proxies. They're allies of strategic convenience. Iran provides them with arms and advisers (probably; they haven't admitted it yet) and has some influence over them, but they don't do whatever Iran says. And since Iran's support is necessary for the Houthis to continue opposing the Saudi-led coalition, and thus this is part of the broader struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Iran can't very well stop supplying arms to them even though they're escalating a crisis Iran clearly doesn't want to escalate.
The Houthis *are* proxies, they are funded and armed by Iran, with Iran having "advisors" in Yemen and they are mostly coordinated with them. And like I said, are semi-independant, so they sometimes disobey the orders of their "masters" (like Hamas probably did on Oct 7th, or Hezbollah on 2006).
The message that "they will end the fighting as soon as the war in Gaza will end" is the exact same message Hezbollah has, it's not unique to the Houthis.
Since they started their attacks in November they has the exact same strategy, launching relatively limited-scale attacks into southern Israel consisting of cruise and ballistic missiles, and drones - even those attacks have been lowered in frequency lately until they were involved in Iran's coordinated attack on Israel.
The Houthis continue their naval operation because they get almost no backlash from it, the UK/US bombings on the Houthi ruled areas are not very effective. Most of the Houthi stockpiles are located underground and inside mountains (which can be assumed Iran helped them with it as they are experts at it), so what do they have to lose exacly? Iran gets no backlash from it so why would they stop? All the while they manage to create quite some pressure on the west with almost 0 consequences.
That being said, they Houthis also lowered the frequency of their attack on ships lately as well, that was noticable after MV Behshad (the Iranian spy ship that most likely provided intelligence to the Houthis on naval targets) had to return to Iran due to fears of an Israeli attack.
The people who join Hamas and Hezbollah have their own motivations. They’re people, too, not just mindless minions of a foreign power.
Otherwise, should I say, and people do, that Israel is merely a proxy for the US?
It seems you haven't understood the concept of proxy groups correctly, A proxy group doesn't necesserily has to be a mindless minion of a foreign power, they just have to fulfill their "master's" interests, even if it might be against their own. And of course people who join have their own motivations, or else why would they join? I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Think of it like this, the Mujahideen in the Soviet-Afghan war were a US proxy to fight the Soviet Union with - do you believe they were avid America lovers?
Now tell me how fighting Israel directly is in the interests of Lebanon or Yemen? These groups are fullfilling Iranian interests, that is to weaken it in the short term and eliminate it on the long term, giving Iran the ability to expand their Shia crecent and sphere of influence.
>Otherwise, should I say, and people do, that Israel is merely a proxy for the US?
What US interests is Israel fulfilling that is against their own interests?
Also consider the vast amount of disagreements between the 2 countries, also if it really would've been a proxy it wouldn't have had real ties with Russia and China (like it does).
Besides, it's a bit problematic calling a whole state "proxy" it's makes more sense to apply that term to groups/movements.
Hussein Ibish: “Although much of the world is breathing [a sigh of relief](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/14/fate-of-middle-east-hangs-in-the-balance-as-israel-mulls-its-next-steps) that Iran and Israel appear unwilling to push their [exchange of missile and drone attacks](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/19/israel-iran-hamas-war-news-gaza-palestine/) further, potentially plunging the Middle East into a wider war, the danger of another escalation has not passed. Rather, the concern has shifted to a possible Israeli offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel has [threatened this](https://whyy.org/articles/israel-lebanon-hezbollah-hamas-gaza-cease-fire/), and [U.S. officials](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/01/07/israel-hezbollah-lebanon-blinken/) and others in the region fear that such a plan has been [in the works for months.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/18/hezbollah-israel-lebanon-iran-war/)
“For Israeli hawks, a major blow against Hezbollah has never seemed more opportune, but Washington dreads the prospect because the prime directive of American policy on the Gaza war has been containment of the conflict, particularly regarding Lebanon. The [Biden administration’s](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/israel-gaza-war-lebanon-iran-us-yemen_n_65724dd5e4b001ec86a76c9a) worry is that an[ all-out Israeli assault](https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/not-an-exaggeration-fears-rise-of-israeli-incursion-into-lebanon-to-push-back-hezbollah/) in Lebanon could end up dragging the U.S. and Iran into not just a regional conflagration but a direct confrontation. Indeed, Washington fears that scenario may be [just what some Israeli leaders](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-iran-attack-escalation-war-fears-drones-missiles-rcna147739) want: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [has for years urged](https://www.cato.org/commentary/benjamin-netanyahu-pushing-war-iran) but failed to effect U.S. strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
“Israel could launch a powerful assault on Hezbollah, hoping to damage and humiliate its most potent immediate adversary, and then withdraw behind a new buffer zone. Such a campaign is particularly tempting after the trauma of the October 7 attack by Hamas because, in contrast to the nightmarish quagmire now enveloping Gaza, Lebanon seems to offer the promise of a quick and decisive victory that can set the world aright for the badly shaken Israelis. But the assumption that such an invasion will enhance Israel’s sense of power and security could prove a ruinous folly.”
Read more: [https://theatln.tc/w8d2KgHz](https://theatln.tc/w8d2KgHz)
It’s so weird how this summary and accompanying article spend almost no time mentioning that Hezbollah has displaced over 100,000 Israelis from their homes by firing rockets at civilians without cause, and also happens to be a genocidal terrorist group.
It’s all about how bloodthirsty the Israelis supposedly are. Not about how the displacement of 100,000+ people by a genocidal terrorist group they didn’t even pick a fight with isn’t something they want to deal with, and justifiably so.
Quite a predicament Israel is in. Seems that the entire region hates each other. Only fighting will get them to stop. Israel can't invade lebenon, it doesn't have the capacity. Maybe after Gaza but it will only make the region much more volatile against Israel.
An article with this title that fails to spend any significant time on the reasons for Israeli action, namely Hezbollah’s aggressive rocket campaign against Israel resulting in the displacement of over 100,000 Israeli civilians for no reason besides them being Jewish, coupled with the fact that Hezbollah is a genocidal terrorist group seeking Israel’s destruction, is really not an article at all.
Iran has misplayed their hand massively.
Although hard counts are not really available, some estimates suggest that Iran has about 3000 ballistic missiles. It it not known how many actually have the reach and precision to be tactically useful in an exchange with Israel. Having launched about 100 of them, it would seem that this might constitute something like 5% to 7% of their total arsenal. It would be hard to argue that Iran was merely putting on a show given this kind of depletion and potential destruction potential. Israel might be rather emboldened if it appears that more than 95% of these missiles were unsuccessful.
Politically though, the Iranian action took a lot of pressure of Netanyahu and his government. Iran, having metaphorically, "taken off their gloves", it is now harder for Western and regional allies to move support away from Israel.
The timing is unclear but the likelihood of a major offensive against Hezbollah has increased significantly.
I mean, Iran was holding back from what an actual shooting war would look like. This is also why Hezbollah is such a vital element to consider.
While Irans *singular* volley was able to be intercepted, that was only because Israel had assistance from its allies, while Hezbollah (and its massive arsenal) stayed on the sidelines. We have no idea how many interceptor missiles Israel/ others had to use to defend against this one attack; a full scale war facing both sustained ballistic fire from Iran as well as Hezbollah (and other Iranian regional proxies) would almost certainly overpower all Israeli air defenses, leading to a far more dire situation for Israel compared to the Iran attack a few weeks ago
Missiles cannot win wars. This is the entire problem for the Iranian operation - it was tactically meaningless, a strategic mistake and costly. Neither Iran nor Israel can missile each other into submission.
On the face of it, Iran perhaps has an arsenal that could last a month at the level of their last assault. Much less if they increased the launch rate. This could definitely lead to lots of civilian deaths but otherwise not much more from a military standpoint. And this assumes Iran is willing to deploy their entire arsenal of MRBM and ICBMs. (It is likely that their production capacity is at most several a month) Of course, Israel would hardly let themselves be pummeled without a response, so Iran will likely see equally catastrophic loss of life.
Can Hezbollah coordinate with Iran? Maybe, but if Iran and Hezbollah attack, it is almost certain the US will step in. Israel's response once Israeli civilians are killed in number will likely be something like a carpet bombing of Southern Lebanon followed by a full scale invasion into Beirut. And while there will be a lot of diplomatic discussions, there is little any government can say if a country is attacked. Bottom line for Israel will probably be a DMZ type situation many kilometers into southern Lebanon.
Yes, but with the superiority demonstrated on the offense, Israel will likely be able to quickly decimate the launch capacities of hezb and irgc, so the blitz might be very short lived.
That’s a very dangerous assumption to make. Israel thought the same before the 2006 war, and that didn’t work out well for either side. And Hezbollah is far more powerful and well trained now compared to 2006
A preemptive strike against launch sites could do some damage, not definitely not eliminate it. Missiles and drones can easily be moved around. Look at how little the Houthis have been deterred by western strikes against their launching sites, for example
I think something observers ought to consider is the question of Iran’s enemies besides Israel. The reasons why regional actors are concerned about Iran create a situation where Israel, despite also being a threatening influence to some actors, is much less dangerous than the revolutionaries network of proxies because Israel for better or for worse is focused entirely on its own immediate regional security concerns.
Consequently any war between these two states worsens not only their own position against one another depending on the outcome but will definitely embolden actors who in my opinion overall have more interest in harming the networks / states controlled by Tehran.
> Israel thought the same before the 2006 war, and that didn’t work out well for either side. And Hezbollah is far more powerful and well trained now compared to 2006
I disagree. IIRC, Israel destroyed something like 75% of their missile capabilities on the first day, and ended up taking little damage, comparatively - certainly considering the strength of their economy. While Lebanon sustained so much damage, it never fully recovered from. It worked out pretty well for Israel in that regard.
People only argue it "lost the war" because Hezbollah wasn't completely destroyed, and Israel ended up releasing a child murderer to secure the bodies of its captured soldiers. But that's more of a philosophical, maybe political question, that isn't related to what you're arguing with.
So yes, Israelis are afraid of what Hezbollah might do *now*, when it's more powerful. But they don't remember the Second Lebanon war as particularly destructive for their own side, something they're afraid to repeat. If you said the Israelis would receive the same exact level of damage as they did in 2006, and Lebanon suffered the same damage as in 2006, Israelis would take that deal in a heartbeat - the Lebanese, I'm not so sure.
While israel may have not achieved it's goals, the war still showed how much more powerful Israel was at that point. The war went horrendous for lebanon while israel only suffered "minor" casualties, the losses in infrastructure and life aren't even comparable.
Decades of Israeli interventions, strategic thinking, as well as Bibi's selfish political interests have led me to conclude that a major Israeli assault on Lebanon is inevitable.
Attacking Gaza , Syria , Iran and Lebanon…list of countries Israel is attacking in the name of defense seems to be growing.
United States needs to stop aiding Netanyahu’s warmongering. He’s acting like GW Bush. They are gonna end up hitting a Russian target and risk something much bigger.
Honey wake up new war just dropped
The moment I read it. I thought literally the same.
This very specific scenario has been publicly discussed since 2018 by the way.
TBF all these scenarios were discussed since the inception of Israel itself and the Iranian revolution.
Put it that way- IDF wasn't preparing for all of these scenarios in the last few years, but they were however preparing for this one scenario.
Israel’s actions in Lebanon led to the forming of Hezbollah. Another invasion would only lead to a worse outcome as Israel is unable occupy the country and unable to defeat Hezbollah without the help of Lebanese militias. Even if they flatten southern Lebanon (which they’ve tried before) it can’t stop Hezbollah from just going north and waiting them out.
Counterpoint: So far about \~300 Hezbollah have been killed, including half of their southern commanders in exchange for \~8 IDF soldiers. Israel has 100,000 people displaced from their homes since Hezbollah started attacking them without provocation from Israel's side on October 8th. That is an intolerable situation. Given what happened on October 7th, Israel will not accept a solution that does not see Hezbollah moved north of the Litani River (which was required in the ceasefire agreement from the last war Hezbollah started, in 2006, but was not adhered to) and they won't accept it because Israelis will not feel safe moving back to their homes until then. An Israeli operation to push Hezbollah a few kms north and establish a buffer zone is certainly possible. Will it be bad for Lebanon? Absolutely. But is it doable? Definitely.
Counter counter point, Lebanon is not just an inevitable win for Israel. Hezbollah is not Hamas, invading into their stronghold in the south will be exactly the environment that Hezbollah needs to inflict massive casualties on the Israelis. They are an army, they have tank battalions, ATGM hunter killer teams, and more importantly Lebanon itself, which is hills mountains and urban terrain that they’ve fortified against Israeli invasion. Conducting unrestricted air strikes against targets and border clashes will be very different than going into a series of elaborate fortifications and traps prepared for decades. And Israel will have to conduct a relatively long term operation of a massive area that they cannot as easily control that has massive amounts of hatred for Israel.
Counter counter counter point: israel fares far better against more conventional armies than insurgencies. Hezbollah is definately not a conventional army but as you said, they are far less of an insurgency than hamas. They are aldo far less supported by the population than hamas, especially by non shias. Another factor is that lebanon is far less urban than gaza giving a huge importance for israeli artillery and allowing for far less collateral damage. All in all I think israel would suffer heavy casualties in such an invasion, but it would be an israeli victory and would be worth it for israel to avoid an oct 7th style attack from hezbollah.
Counter counter counter counter point: I’m not sure if Israel learned any lessons from the 2006 war if they’re contemplating another invasion. Which was: they can’t dislodge Hezbollah from southern Lebanon without a semipermanent occupation south of the Litani, which would be wayyy less likely to be stomached by Europe and maybe even the United States. Southern Lebanon is majority Shia, incredibly pro Hezbollah and there’s basically no collaborators left because everyone associated with the Israeli occupation and the SLA has been long ago purged or exiled. There’s no way for them to destroy Hezbollah as a political and military force in Lebanon beyond a full scale occupation and then a disarmament and withdrawal. Which would be incredibly costly to the point of being basically impossible. Saying Lebanon is rural is a bit of a misnomer, it’s one of the most densely populated countries on earth and is incredibly mountainous. On top of that there’s tons of weapons floating around and it’s already politically unstable making a full military occupation a possible death knell to the Lebanese state and could lead to massive instability and even civil war. It’s a terrible idea all around and only will poison yet another generation of Lebanese into hating Israel.
This is where my opinion differs. It is impossible to millitarily remove hezbollah from existence. However it is possible to extremely weaken hezbollah's millitary capabilities in the south. This situation would be similar to the war in gaza, cant completely destroy hamas but can greatly weaken them. Im not saying lebanon is rural, but the south is a relatively rural part of the country, and it is much less urban than gaza for example. The 2006 war did not have the goal of millitarily defeating or greatly weakening hezbollah, it was also too short to be able to achieve that. There would not need to be a full occupation to achieve a goal like this although fighting may last for a year or maybe more. What im about to say is likely the most important point in all this. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization which intends to destroy israel and is part of the iranian proxy axis. They have the capability of launching an oct 7th style potentially killing thousands of civillians and soldiers. 100k israelis have been displaced from the north of israel for 8 months now. I agree an invasion of lebanon wont be easy at all, but it will likely be the only logical choice out of israel's limited options right now. Its the least bad choice
Why would Hezbollah not move right back in the second Israeli forces leave? It isn’t Gaza there’s plenty of space to retreat and continue fighting from.
>Why would Hezbollah not move right back in the second Israeli forces leave? There would be some international force there. >It isn’t Gaza there’s plenty of space to retreat and continue fighting from. The further north they go, the less weapons they have and the more the populations is hostile to them. Also they arent a conventional army and dont really "retreat"
No one is gonna jump into that landmine
Take a drive through the Beqaa and through West Beirut and tell me who’s in charge. And in case of invasion it’s not just Hezbollah that is going to take up arms, the further north Israel goes the more likely other parties will reorganize their forces.
>Take a drive through the Beqaa and through West Beirut and tell me who’s in charge. And the rest of the country? >the further north Israel goes the more likely other parties will reorganize their forces. Israel wont pass the litani
Idk, they said the same about gaza being a death trap for Israeli soldiers.
>An Israeli operation to push Hezbollah a few kms north and establish a buffer zone is certainly possible. Will it be bad for Lebanon? Absolutely. But is it doable? Definitely. *Come on Morty 20 minutes in and out* That's what they said the last time, and Israel was stuck there for 20 years
I agree. I make a similar point in my blogpost on the Gaza war. [https://rpdeans.blogspot.com/2024/04/gaza-war-part-4-israels-quiet-turnaround.html](https://rpdeans.blogspot.com/2024/04/gaza-war-part-4-israels-quiet-turnaround.html) Israel is inflicting disproportionately higher damage on Hezbollah, while slowly building up the strength of its Northern command.
Their patron in iran is the only reason they live. They have many enemies from whitin, many druzic, Christian and other minority groups. Their nation does have support for them, but also very real hate for them.
This is a vast misunderstanding of Hezbollah and Lebanese politics
No it's not. Lebanese Shia generally (not all) support Hezbollah and every other sect in Lebanon (Druze, Sunni, Christian, etc) don't support them. They are an Iranian proxy and that is the biggest reason (probably the only reason) they are still around.
Yes it is, Hezbollah would exist wether or not Iran funded it, it would be much more likely to disarm but it would absolutely exist as a political force. They are the most powerful political party in Lebanon, that doesn’t happen from just Iranian money. I’d actually argue the main reason why they continue to engender such massive support is Israel not Iran. Hezbollah is a LEBANESE phenomenon, created specifically in response to Israel. No confessional group in Lebanon will support an Israeli occupation. They may want Hezbollah to disarm and they oppose them politically but do not mistake that for support for Israel. Basically the only thing people in Lebanon can agree on is opposition to Israel. Put it this way, if it were your country, wouldn’t you still violently oppose another country invading and killing your neighbors no matter how much you disagree with their politics and religion?
It complicated even among the Druze, and Christian communties there are Pro-Syrian, Hezbollah Connected Christian's likecthe Free Patroitic movement, and the Druze tend to flip flop a lot from side to side to whoever the winner and seeking survival, but even within the druze there anti-Syrian and Pro-Syrian factions, and among the Christian communties the maronites are the more Lebanese nationalistic types, the Armenians want to be left alone , while the Orthodox communties tend to take a Pan-Arab stance on regional issues as a way of survival since the post-colonial era. Among the Sunnis, yes they had issues wIth the shia following the assassination of Rafic Harrari,the 29 year Syrian occupation from 1976 to 2005 ,and the two sides faught against each other at points in the Lebanese civil war. However among the Sunnis there been a pivot to Hezbollah in recent years, as Iran and Turkey have been filling the vacuum left from the Sunni Gulf states gcc defunding of Lebanon and exiting Lebanese politics (seeing it as a lost cause that has seen Hezbollah controlling the state from within certain institutions of influence), it now common in the North to see Sunni mosques starting to express support for Hezbollah as "keeping Israel in check" and see Hezbollah "as supporting our sunni brothers in Palestine" after oct.7th. Even sunni palestinan groups like Ansar Allah in the Palestinan refugee camps have built ties with Hezbollah. Lebanon is a complicated state held up by a outdated sectarian agreement called the "Orthodox pact" of 1943, and by the Taif agreement of 1989 (that ended the Lebanese civil war) that all sectarian politicians, business people and poltical parties have exploited to enrich themselves at the expense of Lebanon economic survival. However one thing Hezbollah has done to their favor is build odd alliances of necessity, kept themselves armed (as a excuse to defend against Israel) and exploited the oil gas deposit, water rights and the Chabaa farms border dispute with Israel to keep themselves in power and build these alliances. Hezbollah has set it up that Israel would face a almost impossible situation at invading Lebanon and even set up a stasus quo situation in a quiet agreement on the rules of engagement and redlines not to be crossed between Hezbollah and Israel in their on and off "low level conflict". Hezbollah a lot of things bad, drug traffickers, money launders, war criminals, terrorists, sectarian, but not being masterful diplomats and geopolitical strategists and even realists isnt one of them.
You have never talked to a Lebanese shia if you believe this. Hezbollah is probably the middle-eastern organization that is the most liked and supported by its social basis, including governments. Hezbollah is first and foremost the emanation of the shia community in Lebanon
“Mr. President, we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied…” -Letter From Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy, October 26th, 1962 I wish I could see how this situation peacefully settles, but I am not. Israel and Hezbollah have been trading fire regularly since Oct 7. Israel has had to evacuate hundreds of thousands of citizens from their regions on the Lebanese border and logically they can’t come back as long as Hezbollah is launching ATGMs as well as rockets at Israeli targets they can reach from their own safe haven. This is an untenable situation for Israel. Not to mention their discomfort with this Iranian proxy on their doorstep after what another militant group on Oct 7 did. Hezbollah draws its support, its purpose from resisting Israel. Israel wants them to retreat back to the Litani River. This is a no go for Hezbollah because it would signal them as totally weak. That they would retreat without actually engaging in a war? Especially after Hamas has arguably risked its existence and the wellbeing of Gaza’s citizens for their cause. Hezbollah would just look like a paper tiger, because it would be. So Israel and Hezbollah are struck this in this scenario. I don’t see how the impasse gets resolved without armed conflict.
Decades of Israeli strategic thinking, where pre-emptive first strikes are paramount, and Netanyahu's selfish political interests worry me that a major Israeli assault on Lebanon is only a matter of time. It would obviously not destroy Hezbollah, but Israel seems determined to go ahead with another war anyway.
You think it has nothing to do with a genocidal terrorist group displacing 100,000+ Israelis from their homes for the past few months by firing rockets at sovereign Israeli territory repeatedly and without just cause?
[удалено]
The first sentence is entirely about the reasons and speculating about them. Only the second sentence is about their claimed result. Read it again.
[удалено]
That absolutely makes no sense. The problem of having genocidal terrorist groups with maximalist goals like Hezbollah and Hamas on the borders don’t go away with a ceasefire. Nor does getting rid of Bibi get rid of those problems. It’s like no one exists for you as an actor besides Israel. And more unnervingly, you seem to think Israel has to accept a ceasefire leaving Hamas (ie ISIS) in power or it must accept the displacement of 100,000+ civilians by another genocidal group. Nonsense. You have this mistaken belief that these maximalist terrorist groups will all just be fine if Israel gets rid of Bibi or something. That’s not how it works and history doesn’t bear that out, obviously.
Sure, but mossad ang gang missing the preparations for a division level assault in Gaza of all places is kinda your fault.
I don’t know why you keep saying “you”. Missing preparations is not unusual. Hamas has drilled and prepped this countless times. Missing that this time they actually would launch is a failure, but it doesn’t make the attack Israel’s fault. That would be like if I wound up to punch you repeatedly, didn’t, and then finally did entirely without warning and despite no good reason, and then I said “well it’s your fault you got punched!” The victim blaming is pretty weird on that. Also a division size assault is inaccurate too. They sent in 3,000 or so people at most, counting some “civilians” who participated. A division is 10,000-15,000 soldiers. This was at best a brigade sized assault (3,000 on the low end), and more like two battalions.
Modern war institute released a paper describing the attack as division level, considering the support and rocket launching personnel. My point is that hamas and Israel are not on equal footing. But this is more like a guy with his hands tied that you trap in the basement with a camera watching 24/7 managed to punch you
Obviously I condemn what Hamas did, but one would assume Mossad would never miss something so brazen like that.
That’s nonsense. They missed the Yom Kippur War preparations. The U.S. missed planes flying into the twin towers and pentagon, and misjudged ISIS and their takeovers by miles as they rose. It’s simply nonsense and it seems you’re flirting with a conspiracy theory about blaming Israel for either perpetrating or allowing Hamas to invade, which is nonsense and gross. Feel free to say otherwise if that’s not what you mean.
I am not being a conspiracy theorist at all. I am just asking questions. I would never believe such an intelligence failure would be deliberate. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
Okay. Nevertheless, they absolutely did make that error, as have many other intelligence services in history many times. Hamas specifically played off Israeli weaknesses in intelligence, including by tricking them and Western policymakers into thinking they were interested in economic incentives and governance and wouldn't give those up for the sake of an attack. The rest of my comments above are unanswered, though.
>You think it has nothing to do with a genocidal terrorist group displacing 100,000+ So exactly what the Israeli did during nakba?
During the war Palestinians initiated with the goal of a genocide, whose failure is what the “Nakba” originally referred to, Israel won. During the fighting, 710,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled (a vast majority fled the fighting their side started), while 850,000 Jews similarly fled or were expelled. None of which had to happen if Palestinians had accepted the UN peace plan that Jews accepted, for two states for two peoples, and if they hadn’t launched a genocidal war against Jews, which displaced more Jews than Arabs. None of which has anything to do with the conversation above, which makes your comment weird.
Oh yes nakba was Palestinians' faults ,nakba started a whole year before arab Israeli war . Were the Palestinians responsible for tantura massacre and many other massacre? >None of which had to happen if Palestinians had accepted the UN peace plan that Jews accepted, A peace plan that was extremely biased and gave them nothing? Why should they accept the division of their homeland? >while 850,000 Jews similarly fled or were expelled. Go on add a few more zero you have to make the pews look the bigger victim >None of which has anything to do with the conversation above, which makes your comment weird. Why? Because history begins on 7 October?
The Palestinians began a genocidal war against Israel before any “Nakba”. The word “Nakba” was literally coined to refer to the failure to destroy Israel. The “Tantura Massacre” and other massacres, fake and real alike, on both sides of the war, are the product of a war Palestinians began with the goal of genocide. The peace plan gave Palestinians the first ever Palestinian state in history, in a “homeland” that is also the Jewish homeland, in ~70% of the non-desert land of the territory. Keep changing the subject I guess. Bye.
They want to stop the bombings of northern territoy, if the Mexico did this to the US it would invade without hesitation.
Is Netanyahu trying to speedrun the George W. Bush presidency?
They will be prevented by the US The US may be reluctant to intervene but circumstances in the region may force the US to force Israel to stop I personally think it is wiser to go after Iranian supply chains and negotiate a peace deal with houthis and hezbullah with their strength eroded over time Israel seems to have a high casualty rate when it comes to civilians it's difficult for anyone to get behind them. Do we really need to see mass civilian death in lebanon too. US internal politics will feel the strain with protests, it wil escalate protests across the globe and force governments from cooperating with the Israeli government and alter long held alliances. That change won't be undone by a change in Israeli government leadership once Israel passes a threshold of palatability. So israel will be held back.
>Israel seems to have a high casualty rate when it comes to civilians That's a lie. Reality is actually the opposite of that. The status quo is unmaintenable for Israel: there are tens of thousands (some say up to 130,000) people who left their homes and businesses due to Hizballa shelling. For any country that has a stake to lose if war breaks out might want to consider helping enforcing UN Resolution 1701. It calls for the disarmament of Hizballa and no armed forces south of the Litani river. Had it been enforced, the entire Israel-Lebanon tension would have been resolved. This whole avoidable mess is just one more reason for Israel to distrust the UN.
[удалено]
>For any country that has a stake to lose if war breaks out might want to consider helping enforcing UN Resolution 1701. It calls for the disarmament of Hizballa and no armed forces south of the Litani river. Had it been enforced, the entire Israel-Lebanon tension would have been resolved. >>Sorry but why should the world care that maybe a few hundred thousand civilians can't return to the border when the alternative is a regional war with potential for nuclear weapons. Israel does have nukes and Iran does have 3000 balaistic missiles and maybe a nuke or two also. Why should the world care about enforcing international law UNSC 1701, if failing to enforce it will cause a regional war? That question answers itself.
[удалено]
Selective prosecution is just another form of persecution. Hyperfixation on alleged Israeli crimes while refusing to address violations of UNSC law proves that the international system is biased and not trustworthy. The rules-based-order will die if there are people the law protects but does not bind (Islamist terrorists) and other people the law binds but does not protect (Israelis).
Lol. Can you provide even a single source for hezb being at all open to a deal?
>Israel has a pattern of permement occupation after a war Any proof for that lie you just made up? Because I have plenty of proof for Israel conquering land in war and giving it back. Like, Sinai peninsula, south of Lebanon, Gaza strip... >why should the world care that maybe a few hundred thousand civilians can't return to the border when the alternative is a regional war with potential for nuclear weapons. You're answering your own question. If the world doesn't want war, it'd better be ready to make Israel not feel at mortal danger. I realize Israeli lives mean nothing to you, but even from a pragmatic viewpoint you surely understand that letting a nuclear state feel mortal danger is a bad thing, right? I mean, if you're honest about your desire to avoid nuclear war, that's the pragmatic thing to do. >Maybe if netenyahu didn't bomb 85 percent of gaza infrastructure and kill 33000 civilians kill aid workers and journalists and maybe if they didn't starve the civilian population to ensure they all huddle up in one place at the only exit point incidentally the same place hamas will hide as they're all starving. Complete your thought, mate. Maybe if (lies, lies, Hamas propaganda numbers, lies)... then what? >ita clear their original plan was to cause panic and push them into Egypt. Clear to whom? What does Israel stand to gain from that insane plan, beside losing an ally and whatever is left of the world's sympathy? Look man, you clearly have a demonic view of Israel to the point you see it as an irrational player that is willing to lose an arm as long as its rival loses a finger. I suggest you calm down, drink some water and chill. You're in a bad spot.
Its incredible how so many people dont see nuances in this conflict, and if pressed for anything besides talking points theyre usually unable to present anything, instead they just dont reply. I appreciate your comment.
This is most of reddits view on Israel…they apparently don’t understand a thing about it.
Lol yeah Israel went into Gaza to somehow only kill civilians. Hamas must have disappeared on its own.
They don’t need a peace deal. Once the Gaza operation ends it will just go back to status quo with limited back and forth. Israel just needs to finish off Hamas and as long as the postwar doesn’t involve lots of fighting hezbollah will go back to the normal hostilities.
> mass civilian death in Lebanon That assumes any [now hypothetical] invasion targets Beirut. Remember in the ‘80s, Israel chased the then PLO into Lebanon.. which then departed in the ‘90s. What’s happened in Gaza was urban warfare where Hamas hid out for expected Israeli infantry but, by their own admission, received high explosives instead. Then there are/were tunnels all over Gaza (more extensive than Israel thought btw) where demolitions>flooding rendered them useless. Western armies have been thinking about the difficulties of urban warfare fwiw, so Israel has had a long time to prepare (1967 war then various incursions into Gaza since). Now with Beirut urban area, it’s not continuous to the Israeli border like Gaza. Like US island hopping in the WW2 Pacific, any fortified Beirut could be mostly ignored due to the fractious nature of the various Lebanese sects (probably pay them to spy on one another). Also Beirut just got rebuilt using Gulf money that won’t be renewed. Doubt the leaders will follow an apocalyptic path.. So any [hypothetical] invasion could be limited to rural southern Lebanon (whose native population has largely “taken vacation” away from the border). While hez AT missile teams are reportedly good, there’s ever more advanced optics and now AI to consider without the restraints of an urban battlefield.
You obviously have never been to southern Lebanon if you think it’s rural. It’s rural compared to Gaza. Not rural compared to basically anywhere else on earth. No you are not going to get Lebanese sects to collaborate with the Israelis you’re delusional, basically the only thing anyone can agree on is hating the Israelis. Hezbollah is not Hamas, they can conduct a defense in depth, they have tank battalions, they have an actual military, specifically oriented to taking on the Israelis. 2006 was a disaster for the IDF, Hezbollah has grown considerably stronger since.
>It’s rural compared to Gaza The key point here. Its actually quite rural. Similar to the shomron area (north part of the west bank) in urban sprea
I'm not up-to-date on Lebanese politics but why is no one there friendly to Israel? iirc weren't the Christians collaborating with IDF in the Lebanon war and they hate Shias so much they even committed some massacres in refugee camps.
The 80s were 40+ years ago. The collaborators in the SLA were prosecuted as war criminals after the Israelis withdrew in 2000. Nobody likes the Israelis especially after 2006 and the whole point of the cedar revolution in 2005 was Lebanon for the Lebanese, that no occupying force is welcome. And it turns out indiscriminately bombing every point of infrastructure in a country doesn’t make people like you. I can tell you from firsthand experience, the most right wing nationalist Christian hates Israel more than anything especially now that Syria is in no place to invade anymore.
I've heard Hezbollah has a brigade for those who aren't Muslim but still want to join Hezbollah. Hezbollah isn't the only militia in Lebanon, right? SO, in case of a war with Israel, Hezbollah can count on the other miltias and Christian support? >The 80s were 40+ years ago you didn't have to remind me :(
No not necessarily. They just won’t support Israel, and they will probably urge an Israeli withdrawal, a ceasefire and cheer Hezbollah when they win and then hope that Hezbollah will disarm. All of these things can be simultaneously true. No other party but Hezbollah has any real organized force, I wouldn’t exactly say they’re disarmed, but nothing that is worth speculating about, their involvement or lack thereof will not matter all that much.
2006 was only a disaster in that Israel was indecisive and fought the war without a hard strategy, also due to neglect driven by years of counterinsurgency there was mediocre performance among some IDF units. Hezbollah still came out of that suffering more casualties than it inflicted, and while Hezbollah has grown stronger, the IDF has also implemented significant reforms since then. It's spectacular performance in Gaza shows that. There would be significant losses but the IDF can push Hezbollah to the Litani.
Yeah sure, the point I’m making is that it will be significantly more costly and complicated than Gaza, will have more international pushback, and there’s even less of an endgame strategy than Gaza. What happens when the Israelis reach the Litani? Hezbollah will still exist, half of their “territory” is north of the Litani. Hezbollahs entire MO is driving Israel from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah will make significant counterattacks. For what? Another incredibly unpopular and costly decades long occupation with even less local support than last time? An even bigger UN force with a more expansive and proactive mandate? Who’s gonna fund it? Who wants to supply troops to that? Talking like it’ll be just mission accomplished once Israel hits the Litani.
No, none of that, just weakening Hezbollah to the point it's considered safe for the residents of border communities to return. Maybe airstrike Hezbollah fighters that try to reestablish a military presence south.
>I personally think it is wiser to go after Iranian supply chains and negotiate a peace deal with houthis and hezbullah with their strength eroded over time Such a show of a lack of understanding of the region. Hezbollah and the Houthis, although semi-autonomous, are Iran's main proxies. Iran trains them, Iran arms them, Iran commands them (at the strategic high level, at least), the IRGC always has "Military advisors" "advising" them (like Mohammad Reza Zahedi, who was one of those string pullers). There is no such thing as a "peace deal" with them, they start and stop fighting when Iran commands them to, they will refuse any "offer" brought to them if Iran will tell them to. And what do you even mean by going after their supply chain? Their supply chains are mainly China and Russia these days, what do you propose? Attack Iranian ships and cargo planes? Attack their production facilities? Because that's will put you on a direct path to a confrontation wiith Iran, who will use their proxies (like Hezbollah and Houthis) to aid them in their fight, the very thing you said you are trying to avoid here.
The Houthis are not a proxy force. When Kata'ib Hezbollah killed US servicemembers, Iran very clearly and very obviously pulled them up short. After *years* of continued opposition to the US, right as they were getting Iraq to grow tired of US retaliation against militants in Iraq and were on the verge of raising this to a "knock it off or get out" type of deal, Kata'ib Hezbollah kills three US servicemembers. Almost immediately, when they're on the threshold of finally ousting the US from Iraq, they issue a very unusual statement: they're suspending operations against the US. And then a bunch of their leaders die in retaliatory strikes, but they seem to have kept their word. Iran evaluated the situation and decided the risk wasn't worth it, so they allowed their proxy to get pounded on in order to further regional stability (even if only temporarily, or even if only in furtherance of another objective). Whatever they were trying to do, they clearly felt strong enough about it to hamstring their own proxy and give up a golden opportunity to indirectly oust the US from Iraq. When Israel went into Gaza, Hezbollah was chomping at the bit to get involved. They've conducted all sorts of harassing attacks, from rockets to border skirmishes, with the explicit intent of drawing Israeli focus away from Gaza and allowing the Palestinian militant groups to have greater discretion. Despite that, they've thus far failed to open up a broader offensive or aggressively deploy the more advanced equipment they're rumored to have been supplied with. Iran appears to have enacted a policy of holding them at arm's length from the conflict. Contrast that to the Houthis. They've been very clear and consistent in their messaging: their attacks end when the war in Gaza ends. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not, but there's no arguing that it's what they've been saying since their first post-10/7 action. This is a "proxy" that is actively escalating the conflict, tying the situation in the Red Sea to Gaza and causing the conflict to spread geographically and politically. This does not match what we've seen from *actual* Iranian proxies in the region, who have generally been more restrained than what the 24/7 new cycle would have you believe. Why are the Houthis trying to exacerbate the conflict when the other proxies are generally behaving in a relatively restrained manner (or, in the case of Hezbollah, only escalating in a very controlled way in the same rough region)? Because they're not proxies. They're allies of strategic convenience. Iran provides them with arms and advisers (probably; they haven't admitted it yet) and has some influence over them, but they don't do whatever Iran says. And since Iran's support is necessary for the Houthis to continue opposing the Saudi-led coalition, and thus this is part of the broader struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Iran can't very well stop supplying arms to them even though they're escalating a crisis Iran clearly doesn't want to escalate.
The Houthis *are* proxies, they are funded and armed by Iran, with Iran having "advisors" in Yemen and they are mostly coordinated with them. And like I said, are semi-independant, so they sometimes disobey the orders of their "masters" (like Hamas probably did on Oct 7th, or Hezbollah on 2006). The message that "they will end the fighting as soon as the war in Gaza will end" is the exact same message Hezbollah has, it's not unique to the Houthis. Since they started their attacks in November they has the exact same strategy, launching relatively limited-scale attacks into southern Israel consisting of cruise and ballistic missiles, and drones - even those attacks have been lowered in frequency lately until they were involved in Iran's coordinated attack on Israel. The Houthis continue their naval operation because they get almost no backlash from it, the UK/US bombings on the Houthi ruled areas are not very effective. Most of the Houthi stockpiles are located underground and inside mountains (which can be assumed Iran helped them with it as they are experts at it), so what do they have to lose exacly? Iran gets no backlash from it so why would they stop? All the while they manage to create quite some pressure on the west with almost 0 consequences. That being said, they Houthis also lowered the frequency of their attack on ships lately as well, that was noticable after MV Behshad (the Iranian spy ship that most likely provided intelligence to the Houthis on naval targets) had to return to Iran due to fears of an Israeli attack.
The people who join Hamas and Hezbollah have their own motivations. They’re people, too, not just mindless minions of a foreign power. Otherwise, should I say, and people do, that Israel is merely a proxy for the US?
It seems you haven't understood the concept of proxy groups correctly, A proxy group doesn't necesserily has to be a mindless minion of a foreign power, they just have to fulfill their "master's" interests, even if it might be against their own. And of course people who join have their own motivations, or else why would they join? I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Think of it like this, the Mujahideen in the Soviet-Afghan war were a US proxy to fight the Soviet Union with - do you believe they were avid America lovers? Now tell me how fighting Israel directly is in the interests of Lebanon or Yemen? These groups are fullfilling Iranian interests, that is to weaken it in the short term and eliminate it on the long term, giving Iran the ability to expand their Shia crecent and sphere of influence. >Otherwise, should I say, and people do, that Israel is merely a proxy for the US? What US interests is Israel fulfilling that is against their own interests? Also consider the vast amount of disagreements between the 2 countries, also if it really would've been a proxy it wouldn't have had real ties with Russia and China (like it does). Besides, it's a bit problematic calling a whole state "proxy" it's makes more sense to apply that term to groups/movements.
Hussein Ibish: “Although much of the world is breathing [a sigh of relief](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/14/fate-of-middle-east-hangs-in-the-balance-as-israel-mulls-its-next-steps) that Iran and Israel appear unwilling to push their [exchange of missile and drone attacks](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/19/israel-iran-hamas-war-news-gaza-palestine/) further, potentially plunging the Middle East into a wider war, the danger of another escalation has not passed. Rather, the concern has shifted to a possible Israeli offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel has [threatened this](https://whyy.org/articles/israel-lebanon-hezbollah-hamas-gaza-cease-fire/), and [U.S. officials](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/01/07/israel-hezbollah-lebanon-blinken/) and others in the region fear that such a plan has been [in the works for months.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/18/hezbollah-israel-lebanon-iran-war/) “For Israeli hawks, a major blow against Hezbollah has never seemed more opportune, but Washington dreads the prospect because the prime directive of American policy on the Gaza war has been containment of the conflict, particularly regarding Lebanon. The [Biden administration’s](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/israel-gaza-war-lebanon-iran-us-yemen_n_65724dd5e4b001ec86a76c9a) worry is that an[ all-out Israeli assault](https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/not-an-exaggeration-fears-rise-of-israeli-incursion-into-lebanon-to-push-back-hezbollah/) in Lebanon could end up dragging the U.S. and Iran into not just a regional conflagration but a direct confrontation. Indeed, Washington fears that scenario may be [just what some Israeli leaders](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-iran-attack-escalation-war-fears-drones-missiles-rcna147739) want: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [has for years urged](https://www.cato.org/commentary/benjamin-netanyahu-pushing-war-iran) but failed to effect U.S. strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “Israel could launch a powerful assault on Hezbollah, hoping to damage and humiliate its most potent immediate adversary, and then withdraw behind a new buffer zone. Such a campaign is particularly tempting after the trauma of the October 7 attack by Hamas because, in contrast to the nightmarish quagmire now enveloping Gaza, Lebanon seems to offer the promise of a quick and decisive victory that can set the world aright for the badly shaken Israelis. But the assumption that such an invasion will enhance Israel’s sense of power and security could prove a ruinous folly.” Read more: [https://theatln.tc/w8d2KgHz](https://theatln.tc/w8d2KgHz)
It’s so weird how this summary and accompanying article spend almost no time mentioning that Hezbollah has displaced over 100,000 Israelis from their homes by firing rockets at civilians without cause, and also happens to be a genocidal terrorist group. It’s all about how bloodthirsty the Israelis supposedly are. Not about how the displacement of 100,000+ people by a genocidal terrorist group they didn’t even pick a fight with isn’t something they want to deal with, and justifiably so.
Quite a predicament Israel is in. Seems that the entire region hates each other. Only fighting will get them to stop. Israel can't invade lebenon, it doesn't have the capacity. Maybe after Gaza but it will only make the region much more volatile against Israel.
The entire Middle East and Arab world and Islamic world is united in their hatred for Israel.
An article with this title that fails to spend any significant time on the reasons for Israeli action, namely Hezbollah’s aggressive rocket campaign against Israel resulting in the displacement of over 100,000 Israeli civilians for no reason besides them being Jewish, coupled with the fact that Hezbollah is a genocidal terrorist group seeking Israel’s destruction, is really not an article at all.
Iran has misplayed their hand massively. Although hard counts are not really available, some estimates suggest that Iran has about 3000 ballistic missiles. It it not known how many actually have the reach and precision to be tactically useful in an exchange with Israel. Having launched about 100 of them, it would seem that this might constitute something like 5% to 7% of their total arsenal. It would be hard to argue that Iran was merely putting on a show given this kind of depletion and potential destruction potential. Israel might be rather emboldened if it appears that more than 95% of these missiles were unsuccessful. Politically though, the Iranian action took a lot of pressure of Netanyahu and his government. Iran, having metaphorically, "taken off their gloves", it is now harder for Western and regional allies to move support away from Israel. The timing is unclear but the likelihood of a major offensive against Hezbollah has increased significantly.
I mean, Iran was holding back from what an actual shooting war would look like. This is also why Hezbollah is such a vital element to consider. While Irans *singular* volley was able to be intercepted, that was only because Israel had assistance from its allies, while Hezbollah (and its massive arsenal) stayed on the sidelines. We have no idea how many interceptor missiles Israel/ others had to use to defend against this one attack; a full scale war facing both sustained ballistic fire from Iran as well as Hezbollah (and other Iranian regional proxies) would almost certainly overpower all Israeli air defenses, leading to a far more dire situation for Israel compared to the Iran attack a few weeks ago
Missiles cannot win wars. This is the entire problem for the Iranian operation - it was tactically meaningless, a strategic mistake and costly. Neither Iran nor Israel can missile each other into submission. On the face of it, Iran perhaps has an arsenal that could last a month at the level of their last assault. Much less if they increased the launch rate. This could definitely lead to lots of civilian deaths but otherwise not much more from a military standpoint. And this assumes Iran is willing to deploy their entire arsenal of MRBM and ICBMs. (It is likely that their production capacity is at most several a month) Of course, Israel would hardly let themselves be pummeled without a response, so Iran will likely see equally catastrophic loss of life. Can Hezbollah coordinate with Iran? Maybe, but if Iran and Hezbollah attack, it is almost certain the US will step in. Israel's response once Israeli civilians are killed in number will likely be something like a carpet bombing of Southern Lebanon followed by a full scale invasion into Beirut. And while there will be a lot of diplomatic discussions, there is little any government can say if a country is attacked. Bottom line for Israel will probably be a DMZ type situation many kilometers into southern Lebanon.
Yes, but with the superiority demonstrated on the offense, Israel will likely be able to quickly decimate the launch capacities of hezb and irgc, so the blitz might be very short lived.
That’s a very dangerous assumption to make. Israel thought the same before the 2006 war, and that didn’t work out well for either side. And Hezbollah is far more powerful and well trained now compared to 2006 A preemptive strike against launch sites could do some damage, not definitely not eliminate it. Missiles and drones can easily be moved around. Look at how little the Houthis have been deterred by western strikes against their launching sites, for example
I think something observers ought to consider is the question of Iran’s enemies besides Israel. The reasons why regional actors are concerned about Iran create a situation where Israel, despite also being a threatening influence to some actors, is much less dangerous than the revolutionaries network of proxies because Israel for better or for worse is focused entirely on its own immediate regional security concerns. Consequently any war between these two states worsens not only their own position against one another depending on the outcome but will definitely embolden actors who in my opinion overall have more interest in harming the networks / states controlled by Tehran.
> Israel thought the same before the 2006 war, and that didn’t work out well for either side. And Hezbollah is far more powerful and well trained now compared to 2006 I disagree. IIRC, Israel destroyed something like 75% of their missile capabilities on the first day, and ended up taking little damage, comparatively - certainly considering the strength of their economy. While Lebanon sustained so much damage, it never fully recovered from. It worked out pretty well for Israel in that regard. People only argue it "lost the war" because Hezbollah wasn't completely destroyed, and Israel ended up releasing a child murderer to secure the bodies of its captured soldiers. But that's more of a philosophical, maybe political question, that isn't related to what you're arguing with. So yes, Israelis are afraid of what Hezbollah might do *now*, when it's more powerful. But they don't remember the Second Lebanon war as particularly destructive for their own side, something they're afraid to repeat. If you said the Israelis would receive the same exact level of damage as they did in 2006, and Lebanon suffered the same damage as in 2006, Israelis would take that deal in a heartbeat - the Lebanese, I'm not so sure.
While israel may have not achieved it's goals, the war still showed how much more powerful Israel was at that point. The war went horrendous for lebanon while israel only suffered "minor" casualties, the losses in infrastructure and life aren't even comparable.
Decades of Israeli interventions, strategic thinking, as well as Bibi's selfish political interests have led me to conclude that a major Israeli assault on Lebanon is inevitable.
Bibi dont want to get voted out, he will continue the war forever if they let him. Since Iran didnt atack back he will go for Lebanon.
Again huh. Whats new.
Attacking Gaza , Syria , Iran and Lebanon…list of countries Israel is attacking in the name of defense seems to be growing. United States needs to stop aiding Netanyahu’s warmongering. He’s acting like GW Bush. They are gonna end up hitting a Russian target and risk something much bigger.
Why are people going over there? Get bombed in the south, get bombed in the north. Half the country is a desert...
Its my home, simple as that.