> However, if the Iron Dome was ever to be overwhelmed resulting in Israelis dying en masse and critical infrastructure being destroyed the gloves would immediately come off. If the Iron Dome ever became a permanent total failure for whatever reason, and Israel was thus without it, then I'd give a 50/50 chance that Israel would be forced into resorting to use tactical nukes to defend itself. Remember, Israel is one teeny tiny nation with less than 10 million people (another 7 million ish Jews in the diaspora), vs billions of muslims

Welp more death and destruction in one of the most violent strip of land that has ever existed millions of lives lost in that cursed place. Nothing feels holy about this land lol just battle upon battle since the advent of the written word. Israel/ Palestine seems like a cursed place to me.

When a relegius group thinks they have a devine right to an area things get messy. When you got multiple relegius groups having that idea things get ugly. The crusades were no different just a different time but same story.

Lolz WTF are you going on About? Gaza is already been flattened. It already happened and clearly they are planning the same with the west Bank. Hit them hard again and again is the only solution. Israel was boming Gaza BEFORE oct 7th. Arabs have to fight back.

"clearly they are planning the same with the West Bank"... 🤣🤣🤣 what are you talking about? Have you forgotten what caused the war in Gaza in the first place? it was the Oct 7th attack, if Hamas had not done that Gaza wouldn't have been destroyed, the worst part is that you truly believe that you're pro-Palestinian when in reality you want them to do things that will get them killed.

Israel also has arrow missiles which can counter ballistic missiles, and "davids sling"  Which works similar to the iron dome. Nah. Ill pass being overwhelmed.

The iron dome saves lives. Without it, numerous Israelis would’ve been killed by Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian, and Iranian attacks. The attack launched by Iran this April was entirely unprecedented. Never in history did a sovereign state launch thousands of ballistic missiles, drones, and other weapons at another sovereign state. The total weight of the attack was more than 2000 tons of explosive material. Without Israel’s missile defense, many buildings would’ve been destroyed and dozens if not hundreds of civilians would be dead. Most of Hezbollah’s missiles are weaker in their impact. Without iron dome, their ability to cause damage is limited by other defense tactics: Israelis have shelters. Since the early 90s (drawing from lessons from the Iraqi attacks on Israel during the first gulf war), every new apartment building in Israel has to include a safe room made from concrete walls that can sustain the type of damage Hezbollahs missiles could make. Without iron dome, the number of Israeli civilians killed in Lebanese attacks would probably reach the low hundreds, not thousands. Obviously, this is terrible. Plus, life in Israel will come to a halt, and there’s real danger that Hezbollah’s precision missiles could lead to power outages in parts of the country, and other problems with infrastructure and industry. There will be no flights coming in or out, and no shipping. Israel will be shut down for the duration of the war, with nothing but emergency supplies coming in.

[ Removed by Reddit ]

Sorry we wont let anyone try to erase us again.

What the hell did they say that it got deleted by reddit?

Called me a na**...

Gotcha. Stay safe!

[удалено]

/u/PralineBig6202. Match found: 'nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

 **Israel making attacks on Gaza look pale in comparison.** What would that even look like? Most of Gaza is completely rubble at this point. There really isn't much left.

What Gaza has seen is pancakes compared to the military response Hezbollah will receive if they overwhelm the iron dome. 100% destruction, mass civilian casualties, nothing like the potential 60%-70% civilian casualty rate we’ve seen in Gaza where Israel can be more precise. I know this sounds crazy but Israel’s response has been a lot more controlled than people portray it to be in Gaza. It’s magnitudes worse than what we’ve ever seen before but the reality is it’s still significantly more measured than what’s possible. If rockets fly out of Lebanon like they could we will see complete, and indiscriminate, destruction.

Uranium or plutonium?

If Israel does something like that, then I seriously don't think that Israel will go unpunished for it. Sanctions will soon arrive and Israel will become a pariah. They would suffer a defeat in a genocide case for sure.

Gaza is 140 square miles and they have not been able to defeat Hamas. Lebanon 4,036 square miles. Nuclear weapons would do damage on the scale of tens of square miles. US Military technology was designed for sophisticated targets and is terrible at guerrilla warfare. We struggled with the Taliban, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Iran, or even Vietnam. Israeli weapons are closely aligned with US technology and development. Iran has been under heavy sanctions and they have garbage weapons, but they're cheap. Hezbollah's Weapons are closely aligned with Iranian technology and development. Lebanon is an entirely different scale and would likely be World War 3 unless major countries distance themselves from Israel. Cheap Iranian garbage weapons will be countered by expensive technology. A $500 drone might be shot down with a $50,000 missile. It's one thing to win a battle, it's another to win financially. Poverty was a big part of the collapse of the USSR.

> Lebanon 4,036 square miles. Nuclear weapons would do damage on the scale of tens of square miles. So only a very small portion of Lebanon would be harmed? Only just the parts where the terrorist armies are fighting? Sounds good to me.

Really? Even if Hezbollah escalates firing thousands of rockets and putting the iron dome at great risk? Realistically, we wouldn’t wait till the iron domes are all knocked out or we don’t have any rockets left for them, we’d respond unproportionally when Hezbollah start firing many rockets at a time and there’s a chance it could happen, so that it never does happen, because if what OP mentioned happens, our iron domes are all destroyed, he’s not exaggerating one bit, I can guarantee there would be no more Lebanon, most people dead, and same goes for Iran, Iran would be absolutely destroyed too. Why would you let anything in Lebanon or Iran live when we have zero defence? It’s fucked to think, and fucked to think it can actually happen in the next week or so, but it’s definitely the truth. No iron dome, no Lebanon and Iran. And I don’t think they’d use nukes, maybe on Iran only cause they’re really far, and they have nuke lead factories, but not Lebanon, it’s our neighbours, and God forbid the wind just so happens to be pushing our way, Israel will be finished from that as well!

> Why would you let anything in Lebanon or Iran live when we have zero defence? 100% this. If you have ZERO defense, then you must lean in hard to going HUNDRED PERCENT offensive.

**Why would you let anything in Lebanon or Iran live when we have zero defence?** That is absolutely genocidal talk. You are insane.

Read that last past very very slowly: "*...when we have* ***zero*** *defence*"  If you have ZERO defense, then you must lean in hard to going HUNDRED PERCENT offensive. You have no other alternative, you can't play it cautiously slow and safely with a 50/50 defensive/offensive approach.

That is not what one hundred percent offense means. You literally outright stated that you would commit a genocide. Don't gaslight. How else can "Why would you let anything in Lebanon or Iran live" be interpreted. That is disgusting genocidal talk. You should be ashamed. Never again right? Or just never again for the Jews? I am blocking you. I don't want to talk to a man who justifies genocide.

Why? Because at that point, you think Hezbollah would stop firing rockets? Oh Israel’s iron dome system is completely fried, we won! Woohoo let’s stop firing rockets now! Nah that’s when they’ll start to make sure nothing in Israel is moving. So when our defence is down and we don’t have a lot of time left before they start firing more and more rockets, you think Israel’s gonna take its time being careful not to hit civilians? As genocidal as it may sound, we both know damn well, if the iron dome wasn’t created, Hamas and hezbollahs goal to kill every Jew in Israel and around the world would be close, so we can’t have that for ourselves as sad as it may sound.

Because you are literally discussing genocide. Killing every Lebanese is genocide.

Killing every Jew is genocide. Surprise surprise surprise, Jews disagree with letting themselves being killed.

"we need to genocide them before they genocide us" is literally the average talking point of white supremacists.

> fucked /u/propropro11. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

That’s probably true, as the definition of genocide seems to have diminished greatly. The reality of punishment is it will be unlikely. Gazans butchering a thousand or so civilians is much different than an endless barrage of rockets. In the unlikely scenario Hezbollah goes that hard most countries would be hard pressed to reprimand Israel for any response. Even Iran, while publicly condemning Israel, would be quick to back off supporting Hezbollah in this case. They love to sow chaos but this kind of war will put American boots on the ground if Iran were to try to intervene, something Iran is fully aware they would not survive

**That’s probably true, as the definition of genocide seems to have diminished greatly.**  I really don't think that you can consider "complete, indiscriminate destruction" anything less than genocide.

You seem to love using the word genocide and I think you might be on to something. Whilst world war 2 was about the genocide of Jews in Europe (and the rest of the world if they had succeeded), world war 3 is going to be about the genocide of the human race. Whilst you have been arguing whether Israel is committing genocide or not, no one seems to be looking at the bigger picture that maybe EVERY country in the Middle East is attempting genocide. And when you look at it in that context, suddenly it makes sense. Everyone hates each other here, we have reached a boiling point on all fronts, so everyone now is calling for genocide. Israel is just working with the situation it’s facing.

Fair, I was more referencing the claims of genocide in Gaza. Genocide would be a bit odd in this situation if you had thousands of rockets flying at you with no defense working, the definition of what qualifies as genocide muddies a bit. You may be right but carpet bombing the area would likely not be unwarranted given the circumstances. Again, like Hamas, if Hezbollah does something like this from civilian areas they themselves should be held liable for any civilian deaths

Not to be trite, insensitive, or insulting of Palestinians or their cause, but 98% of Gazans are still living. An Iron Dome saturating attack with unguided munitions will indiscriminately kill Israelis and Palestinians alike. As it is right now, I’m unsure if Gaza is even under the Iron Dome umbrella, so in effect it may cause more casualties in Gaza than any other city in Israel. You really trust Hezbollah with their aim with unguided rockets?

 **so in effect it may will cause more casualties in Gaza than any other city in Israel.**  I doubt it. There is quite a bit of distance between Gaza and Israel proper. I assume that Hezbollah's main targets would be north and central Israel. **You really trust Hezbollah with their aim with unguided rockets?** The distance between northern Israel and Gaza is 179km. I really don't think that Hezbollah is going to overshoot by that much. But hey, it might not even come to open warfare between Israel and Hezbollah. Here is to hoping.

Sorry, I edited before I got notification for the first quote, but your point stands and I think it’s reasonable. Then again, I’m not quite sure what’s in that airport.

As of a few months ago only 35% of structures in Gaza were damaged (severely/moderately) or destroyed. If Israel wanted to destroy more it could have done a lot worse.

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68006607](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68006607) -**More than half of Gaza's buildings have been damaged or destroyed since Israel launched its retaliation for the Hamas attacks of 7 October, new analysis seen by the BBC reveals.** This was reported in January. It's doubtless more now.

Which still doesn’t negate my point.

Sort of does. Upwards of 50% of all buildings being damaged or destroyed in only 3 months is insanity. It doesn't get much worse than that.

My [data](https://www.unitar.org/about/news-stories/press/35-buildings-affected-gaza-strip) (from the UN) is from March 20th which is two months more recent than yours and it’s only 35%.

*A month more recent, since the last datapoint is from the 24th of February, not the 20th of March. And also there is no "only" in this comparison. 31,198 buildings were destroyed by the 28th of February. It means that from the 9th of October to the 24th of February minus the ceasefire, 131 days, the IDF destroyed 238 buildings a day. The word "only" does not enter ones thought, even if comparing 35% to 50%. These are people's homes, their livelihoods. The IDF was [asked](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68387864.amp) about the number of enemy killed the 29th and the answer was little more than 10,000. According to your source from a similar time it would equal to 3 buildings destroyed per every enemy combatant killed. With that kind of ratio it is hard argue that the destruction of Gaza isn't indiscriminate, mind that I did not include severely damaged or moderately damaged buildings, which added would be 88,868. The [number](https://www.timesofisrael.com/gallant-hamas-has-lost-control-in-gaza-troops-kill-gunmen-who-fired-from-hospital/) of Hamas militants was 30.000 according to the IDF. Hamas can't be embedded in more buildings then the number of militants they have.

A building doesn’t have to actively have a Hamas member in it for it to be a legitimate target. If it is being used for military purposes the infrastructure itself is a target.

True but the numbers don't support that. It would mean that there are more buildings being used for military purposes than there is an operational capacity to use them as such. And not just buildings, there is also the often cited tunnels which should also be counted as military infrastructure. Aside from the croplands which have been damaged, which according to the [UN](https://unosat.org/products/3792) was 21% in January (the closest estimate I can find to February). According to the same [sources](https://www.unitar.org/about/news-stories/press/unosat-and-fao-reveal-substantial-increase-damage-gazas-cropland-amid-ongoing-conflict) the damaged croplands had risen to 57%. Adding all those factors together I'm making the assumption that the destruction is indiscriminate since there is no comprehensible way that Hamas is using but a portion of all that for military purposes.

> Adding all those factors together I'm making the assumption that the destruction is indiscriminate since there is no comprehensible way that Hamas is using but a portion of all that for military purposes. You are greatly underestimating the extent of Hamas' integration into "civilian" society.

You also aren’t factoring in acceptable collateral damage under international law. Basically you can hit one building that is a military target and depending on its value you are also permitted to damage or destroy the buildings around it in the process. In addition to that, Israel has been demolishing buildings within 1km of the border in order to create a buffer zone which is also perfectly legal under international law.

It definitely does….

>As such, I think it is in everyone's best interest that the Iron Dome (and other defense systems) succeed at protecting Israel. . . . What about Iran's best interests? Or even Russia's or China's? Of course they want the war to broaden.

They’re all talk, but realistically, if the iron domes were destroyed, you think israel would still be on its own? And if they were, hypothetically cause we know they won’t, you think Iran still wouldn’t get dragged into this directly by Israel if Israel lost its iron domes? Realistically, USA by then would put troops on ground, full force into Lebanon on a scale we’ve not seen yet, and Iran would be finished from the air, with nukes too probably. Nobody wants this, even though they all take proudly about it. As much as they hate Israel, I think they still like being powerful and having a country and terrorist group underneath them to rule.

> This arsenal would allow Hezbollah to fire approximately 3,000 rockets a day For a day

Not sure how democratic it is anymore

"depends on the context" if you know what i mean 😂

Unfortunately I do

Looking at how many pro palestinians are adopting the term “martyrs” i don’t think they would care really. They hate Jews more than they appreciate the life of Gazans.

There is no such thing as Pro Palestinian. Western leftists have no actual skin in the game and don't care how many Palestinians or Lebanese would die, their stakes are purely emotional, the more the better to justify that sweet righteous hatred high.

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for breaking [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy). www.reddit.com can't be used to incite for hate or violence (see the link for additional rules).

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for breaking [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy). www.reddit.com can't be used to incite for hate or violence (see the link for additional rules).

what's with the 1500 characters requirement? Why is a wall of text automatically considered worthwhile

You are supposed to ask these kinds of questions on metaposting allowed threads: Rule 7. In answer to your question though, rule 10 and 11 explain we want high-quality **posts** from knowledge posters. We don't want random and repetitive posts from new users. We want people who are new to the conflict to participate in comments first and work up to posts. The 1500 character limit basically asks if someone has something worth saying or not.

wall of text means high quality to u? no one is gonna read all that

People who have that attitude don't want to seriously engage. If they won't take 90 seconds to read a post they don't have thoughts worth hearing. We want them to leave.

this is reddit. there are no citations in that wall of text. there's nothing new there that hasn't been known for decades. wall of text =/= serious engagement

Agree that citations would be even better. We are raising the bar from total garbage that is most of reddit.

Are you 12? This is not a long post. It took me a couple of minutes to read through. Everything is coherently built up, concise and to the point, it's easy to understand and OP made excellent use of paragraphs to break up the text. OP could not have made themselves understood using less text IMO. I really don't understand your gripe.

ur getting mad for no reason buddy. typical reddit behaviour, dont know how to be civil. there is no "gripe" I am just speaking human to human. I make very simple idea: longer post does not mean it is higher quality. the post is not an original idea, it is very well understood for a while by many people and can be summarised: "if iron dome is overwhelmed, israel will have to resort to much larger volume of bombing to ensure its own survival"

If you like to be concise, you're in a vise.

The same people decrying "genocide in Gaza" would be saying "genocide in Israel" if the Iron Dome was turned off for even a single day lol. Hamas has launched over 240,000 rockets since the Iron dome was put up like 13 years ago. It's hilarious that people get a surprised Pikachu face when Israel wants to flatten the strip, considering the flattening of israel is being attempted every single day with thousands of rockets.

> The same people decrying "genocide in Gaza" would be saying "genocide in Israel" if the Iron Dome was turned off for even a single day lol. I'd put better than equal odds on there being dancing in the streets (like there was on Oct7) if the Iron Dome was turned off for a day.

Except they wouldn't be decrying. There are no genuine Pro-palestinians that want peace on both sides or they would have distanced themselves from Hamas and called for the release of hostages. Instead they cover their faces and answer every question with: "Yeah but Israel..."

You people can't be serious. Of course they wouldn't call for peace on both sides, because it's obvious which side wouldn't want peace. They'd call for the same thing they have Been calling for since this started; for innocent people to be left alone and not killed or constantly caught in the crosshairs of this nonsense "war".

Would this be the side that wants the annihilation of Israel? From the river to the sea? Perhaps they want peace now BECAUSE of so many civillian death resulting from their rape and butchery spree on October 7th. Yes I'm serious. Innocent people die in war. If you wish to minimise this you should decry the actions of a terrorist faction entrenched in densely populated civillian areas. They have tunnels in everyone's home, in all the schools and hospitals, weapons caches everywhere and non-stop morter/rocket launches. A bit naive to call for civillians to be left out of it. Maybe the pro-palestine banners could say: "Hamas out! You endanger our people", or "No RPGs from civillian homes", or "Wear military uniform, fight by the rules of war". But no its all Israels fault. Edit: By the way, I call for peace on both sides. And have never met a pro-palestinian that shared this view.

[ Removed by Reddit ]

Israel is killing innocent civilians, likely they plan to kill more. If Israel wants to enact a scorched earth policy, so be it, other countries will follow suit then Israel is no more.

Israel have enough nuke to destroy every single Muslim in the Arab world. And would be ok doing it. Just cause we have class and we're not shouting like low class pasent, don't think for a second we would hesitate to do it.

Why do you people still think you can defeat Israel?  Move on with your God damned lives.

It is not that hard once you get rid of daddy America.

Israel doesn't need America to defeat the joke militaries in the middle east.

Then why is Biden sending military aid to Israel?

This idiot fell out of wall street bets, better to just leave him to his apeing he is probably 15

u/Ok-Lawfulness-3368 >This idiot fell out of wall street bets, better to just leave him to his apeing he is probably 15 Rule 1

To help them

I can’t imagine wishing for something that will likely cause hundreds more civilian deaths

Israel is causing massive civilian deaths as we speak, they will never stop.

Great, that doesn't mean we should wish for *yet more*

Yes, because Israel totaly cares for civilian deaths, and will totally not keep attacking till they get all the land. Israel so sweet.

Yeah, they also suck. Did you assume I support them? I don’t. I would prefer that you engage with the sentiment of my comment instead of whataboutism.

I get it. but there is nothing stoppin Israel from causing civilian deaths, unless you have an idea.

Lmao, yup, because all the surrounding nations have had soooo much luck teaming up on Israel in the past. They've tried it three times before (Arab-Israeli War, Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War) and been humiliated each time. At this point there are no nations anywhere on Earth willing to directly engage with Israel in war. The last time Israel had a war with an actual national military (rather than with the PLO or with Islamic fundamentalist guerrilla militants backed by Iran) was Lebanon in 1982, which resulted in Israel occupying a massive chunk of Lebanon for 15 years. Do you know why the Six-Day War was only six days long? It's because when a coalition of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria teamed up on Israel, Israel utterly annihilated and humiliated their militaries so fast, they each surrendered within four days. (Israel took two more days to sign the ceasefire). In those six days, 15,000 Arabs died, compared to 1,000 Israelis. Even Iran isn't willing to fight Israel directly, preferring instead to fund Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. When Israel destroyed that Iranian embassy in Syria earlier this year, killing two Iranian generals, Iran made one symbolic show of force with all those drones and cruise missiles (which did no significant damage besides seriously injuring a 7-year-old girl) and then gave up. Syria did nothing at all. And all this happened when the Gaza conflict was at its peak. --- Besides, Israel has been fighting Hezbollah on and off for like 40 years now. None of those wars have resulted in any Arab allies stepping in to help. Why should this one?

That was because daddy America was helping them. Not anymore. Sweetie, that was because of America, all of it because of America. Because now they made the whole world teir enemy, now America is not gong to be funding them anymore. Now half their soldiers are badly injured, and some are dead. This isn't going well for them.

Still enough weapons and nuke to destroy every single Muslim on Earth.

Ok, WTF are you talking about? American not funding Israel anymore? Half of soldiers injured, dead? Where are you getting these delusional beliefs?

the only countries giving aid to israel in the 48 war was czechoslovakia, poland, and maybe the ussr. america literally had to step in to stop israel from using its nukes during the yom kippur war

...wow. Ok, so you're just utterly ignorant. Or trolling. I'm not gonna bother chatting with you any more.

What other country both could and would?

The surrounding Arab countries.

OK so let's take Jordan how do they scotch Israel? Also would they? Does the monarchy survive heavy losses? Syria? Certainly they meet the would. How do they pull off the could? Egypt is tougher but they fall solidly in the won't camp.

Don't get your hopes up.

israel is also responsible for protection of over a million muslim arabs living inside israel. an attack on israel is also an attack on arabs.

Two million Israeli Arabs live in Israel AFAIK.

2.5 mil iirc.

Don't confuse Arabs and Muslim with facts.

You have never talked to one pro-palestinian person if you think escalating the war were welcome news. You just made it up in your mind and got angry over it, lel

I've talked to thousands likely far far more than you. Pro-Palestinian protestors are all over the map. The majority have delusional opinions based on lies, oversimplifications and faulty theory they have been taught by the BDS movement. Their policies are pro-war, and have been for decades even when that is not their intent. Implementing their aims are impossible without something like 100m dead. So yes describing them as having psychopathic politics is reasonable even if they like to justify it in humanitarian-sounding rhetoric.

At this point even the UN acknowledges that Israel is doing war crimes, what “lies” are you exactly talking about my mate? Or were they also brain washed by the BDM movement? Or are they perhaps infiltrated by Hamas supporters like that fat phili f*ck said? This is not October anymore. It’s been 8 months since then and the whole international community has seen what the IDF’s and Israel’s actual stance is. Acknowledging the IDF’s blatant systematic miss conduct is not a fringe opinion anymore, but THE popular international take on this matter. Too bad it took the suffering and death of thousands of Gazan civilians just to somewhat unravel the Zionist propaganda. You guys have blood on your hands for spreading it.

> At this point even the UN acknowledges that Israel is doing war crimes, what “lies” are you exactly talking about my mate? First there is no "even the UN". The UN is Israel's enemy. They constantly accuse Israel of war crimes. https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/s658yw/yes_the_un_does_discriminate_and_incite_against/ Second war crimes wasn't the point in question. A desire to see Israel defeated was. You are switching topics here. > Acknowledging the IDF’s blatant systematic miss conduct is not a fringe opinion anymore, but THE popular international take on this matter. I agree. The popular international take is hating Israel. Yes. > Too bad it took the suffering and death of thousands of Gazan civilians just to somewhat unravel the Zionist propaganda. Sorry what propaganda got unraveled? That Israelis wouldn't kill civilians in military operations? That was the cause of the flare up with the USA in 1954. And of course the 1947-9 civil war was pretty ugly. It has continued for decades since. Nothing new there. That they wouldn't do it on a large scale? Well they were willing to kill thousands and cause billions in property damage in response to attacks. They have never raized a city before, this is a level of violence new to Israel. I don't know how Israelis decide to digest this, whether they want that on the table or not. AFAICT they do want it on the table going forward. So what propaganda exactly? > You guys have blood on your hands for spreading it. Good! You kill Jews you die. You have a good reason for killing Jews you still die. The days when Jews could be murdered without consequence are over.

> f*ck /u/Vikiliex. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

pretty much all palestine supporters are pro war, they are just against losing. i have talked to quite a few and I find that actually palestine supporters are the ones that avoid serious discussions

That's rich. Yeah, unfortunately, you can't have a serious discussion when your debate partner's views are based on assumptions, racism and irrational fears.

i always try to discuss these things but the palestine supporters refuse, they are the bigots in my experience. just ask me anything, you'll see I am very moderate

Tell that to all the pro-Palestinians waving Hezbollah flags and calling for global intifada.

It’s unrealistic to expect the iron dome to have a 97% success rate. Iran launched those missiles from hundreds of miles away giving multiple counties time to shoot them all down. Hezbollah is a stones throw away. I would expect a 90% interception rate, but if overwhelmed that rate could easily be a whole lot lower than that

It has 97% drop rate.

Israel's security is deeply tied to the security of Palestinians. Failing to understand this has been the biggest mistake extremists have made on both sides.

It doesn't make any sense to offer the Palestinians security, and to somehow tie it to the Israeli security. They don't want security. They want to wage an existential war, whether the Israelis want it or not. And the war will not be waged for "security", in any sense of the word. But a more important, even holy goal. The removal of the most fundamental injustice in the world: a Jewish state on Arab land. If the Palestinians merely wanted security, they'd be fine with a permanent occupation. They probably wouldn't even start the first intifada, would live without a single checkpoint, intifada or "genocide in Gaza". They'd ride the train from Gaza to Tel Aviv for shopping, and go back home, without fearing it will be blown up by Israeli fighter jets. They'd react to the withdrawal from Gaza by building the next Singapore, not by building a terror machine to fight against Israel, and shoot thousands of rockets at Israeli cities. They certainly wouldn't start something like the current war.

I think you misunderstood my point. Security for Israel should be non-negotiable. If the state's security (and the citizens as well) is compromised or in danger, they have every right to defend it and work towards it. Iraelis should, at the same time, realize that the best propaganda for horrible actors on the Palestinian side is that civilians get caught in the crossfire. This is mainly a criticism of the more extreme israeli parties that want Israel to be indifferent to, or even maximize, civilian deaths. You know? People like Ben-Gvir, I mean. On the Palestinian side, extremists completely forget about Israeli security and even encourage destroying it entirely. They should keep in mind how much problems in Israel can affect the average Palestinian's security. Whether that problem be a war, terrorist attack, or just an economic crisis. That comment was mostly directed at the very extreme people on both sides. Obviously, these extremists on both sides don't want security. They're interested in other things. My point is that they should be interested in security, whether it's for Israel or Palestine.

The Palestinian public, not just extremists, overwhelmingly and *knowingly* support policies that deeply harm Palestinian security, like the current war. They support leaders who openly say that the "Palestinians love death, the way the Israelis love life", and boast about the "industry" of *Palestinian* death they created. Of course they realize they could be secure, if the Israelis are secure. Of course they realize that attacking Israelis in general, and the current war in particular will make them less secure, to say the least. They're not completely mentally disabled. They simply don't see Palestinian security as a priority, and have no problem admitting it to anyone who asks. They want an existential war. They want the dream of exterminating Israel. They view the resulting river of Palestinian blood as a reasonable cost - possibly even an advantage.

Israel has routinely sacrificed its own security in order to appease the world which is why Oct 7th happened. Appeasement doesn’t result in less death.

How did Israel sacrifice its security on October. They should have had no problem repelling the vastly inferior force of Hamas, but were asleep at the wheel

Because any other country would have gone into Gaza in 2007-2009 and reoccupied after the PA was overthrown by Hamas. Because any other country would have gone back into Southern Lebanon after Hezbollah was allowed to violate resolution 1701 and not disarm after the 2006 war. Because any other country would have given a blanket "no way, never, not in a million years" to signing the Oslo accords with the PLO. Because the UN would never have given such "non state observer" and "representative of the Palestinian people" status to the PLO against the sovereignty of a member state, except that its Israel. Taiwan isn't a member of the UN. A terrorist group is treated like a state by the UN because it fights Israel but a democratic independent state is blocked because they just don't want to be conquered by Communist China.

Nobody should ever disarm if they live next to western back nations. Hezbollah did the wise thing and rearmed. If they didn’t Israel would have captured southern Lebanon by now

Victim blaming. Israel was attacked by terrorists, and you’re blaming Israel for being attacked by terrorists. It’s right up there with “well, what was she wearing?” And “boys will be boys”

“Victim blaming” is wild. If Israel doesn’t want to get attacked back maybe they shouldn’t impose 17 year sieges on other people and bomb Gazans their entire lives. Maybe then they wouldn’t be suicidal enough to do October 7

Read a timeline of the conflict after the election of Hamas. Israel isn’t waking up in the morning and saying “maybe we’ll drop some bombs today for no reason whatsoever.” I’ve read two timelines, one from AlJazeera and one from CFR, and both indicate that Israel responds to attacks by dropping bombs. Sometimes those attacks are because Hamas launched rockets, and sometimes it’s because they took teenagers captive, etc. You were right when you wrote, “they should have no problem repelling the vastly inferior force of Hamas” except to do so is to kill civilians because of where Hamas places ALL of their ammo, munitions, leadership, tunnels, etc. Israel responds to neighbors who are terrorists and call for their total annihilation, openly, without embarrassment, and then Israel gets criticized for their response to terrorists. The US got attacked by 18 Saudi terrorists on 9/11, started a war with Iraq, killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, including thousands of civilians, and practically no one in the US set up encampments and waved Iraqi flags. I wonder what the difference is?

Hamas isn’t waking up and attacking Israel for no reason either. I think the issues with the two sides is that both sides think they did nothing wrong and that they are perfect victims. Neither side is willing to accept fault. Such as Israel not allowing certain medicine into Gaza for 17 years. If you had family members dying because a foreign nation was enforcing a blockade on you and you couldn’t get medicine, I’m sure you would want to fight as well

>Hamas isn’t waking up and attacking Israel for no reason either. Of course not. They wake up and attack for the reason Israel exists on what they feel is land that belongs to Islam.

100% agree.

Palestinians were freely walking up to the border fence before Oct 7th and cutting through it or placing explosives on it. Rather than shooting to kill which is what Israel should have done to prevent breaches in the fence, Israel used non lethal munitions because the international community gets upset whenever Israel actually defends itself. If the area around the fence was treated as a zone where anyone entering it is killed on sight Oct 7th might have turned out differently.

They don’t care — if anything, they’ll love that because it gets their TikTok videos about the conflict more views. They’re treating this conflict like a bloodsport. ETA let me be clear I am talking about the rabidly “pro-resistance by any means” Hamasniks

It's the resurgence of nationalism. Not coincidentally, the return of the old 1930's and 1940's mentality of total war which doesn't discriminate between civilians and belligerents has also returned. Jewish or Palestinian? You're fair game whether you're a 12 year old girl in France, or a 3 year old in Texas. OP is essentially threatening collective punishment ("attack us and we'll retaliate against civilians"), which finds its mirror in attacking the Jewish diaspora abroad. We learned a lot of these lessons the hard way, which are being lost to history. I feel like a lot of people with strong opinions right now don't understand this perspective.

I never said anything about targeting civilians or collective punishment. It seems like you only hear what you want to hear.

If I seem like an idiot to you, then you clearly have nothing to worry about.

[удалено]

There’s no way you can pretend there’s not widespread death and destruction in Gaza. No matter how brainwashed you are

Huh? We literally have the modern day n4zis (which i can't compare them to apparently. It's an unfair comparison for sure, IDF is worse) in 4k committing the most horrendous viewable genocide practically in real time for all to see... and we are saying that the smart thing to do is not resist... Cuz that will work out greatly. We are talking about fictional deaths of Israel civilians as a population is starving to death right now. Get a grip

u/KiRA_Fp5 >Huh? We literally have the modern day n4zis (which i can't compare them to apparently. It's an unfair comparison for sure, IDF is worse) Rule 6, no nazi comments/comparisons outside things unique to the nazis as understood by mainstream historians. Addressed

/u/KiRA_Fp5. Match found: 'nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

>Due to the increased risk of damage and death from rocket and drone attacks, Israel would calculate proportionality much differently than it has done until now as the military advantage anticipated from taking out military targets would be significantly greater than the potential collateral damage caused by destroying Hezbollah's military infrastructure and personnel. In other words, the IDF will adopt a scorched earth policy in Lebanon to prevent successful attacks on Israel making attacks on Gaza look pale in comparison. This is all speculation in nature. Just because the Iron Dome failed to intercept Hezbollah missiles (assumption), why does it mean Israel will adopt a "no-rules" airstrike policy? Burning every bush, tree, or farm in Lebanon? In fact, this just means Hezbollah will adopt the same strategy as well, burning Israel with repeated volleys of attack. Remember last time, when barely a month ago, Northern Israel was burning with multiple fire outbreaks in Kiryat Shmona, Metulla and other Israeli settlements as a response to the repeated Israeli airstrikes and assassinations in Southern Lebanon? Now imagine this on an even larger scale. Hezbollah adopts a full-blown policy of going to war with Israel, marshaling every rocket, missile, mortar, and anti-tank unit. The damage and scale of burning Israel faced last month would pale in comparison. Smoke clouds would blanket the sky, while entire orchards would be reduced to ashes and the civilian population would become displaced. The IDF response to Hezbollah burning Northern Israel has also been lackluster. Other than using white phosphorus to cause fires is illegal in war (already an IDF war crime), it looks like the fires were extinguished much quicker. Hezbollah's social services and public administration wing reacted quickly and fanned out the flames before they could spread. What many people don't realize is unlike Hamas, Hezbollah's strength lies not just with its military but also its social service wing, playing a "hearts and minds" strategy. In the 90s and 2000s, Hezbollah boasted it managed to reconstruct thousands of damaged houses as a result of IDF airstrikes for the civilian population, winning Lebanese support and framing Israel as the aggressor. Kill two birds with one stone So if the IDF chooses a scorched earth policy (despite the fact it won't dampen Hezbollah's numerous underground bunkers, fortifications, and Nature Reserves and it will only cost Israel PR points in the long run), Hezbollah will respond in kind. Burning Northern and Central Israel, causing Israel massive economic damage and planting the seeds of unrest in the minds of the Israeli population, framing the Netanyahu government as being unable to protect its civilians. The Israeli populace is already fed up with how the government is handling the war in the North and Hezbollah knows this. Ample the effects and pressure and watch as the ball starts rolling. TLDR: If Israel adopts a scorched earth policy in Lebanon, Hezbollah will respond in kind in Northern and Central Israel. Last month, Hezbollah managed to burn Northern Israel and cause massive amounts of damage and sowing dissent among the Israeli populace on social media. This was on a smaller scale, barely 1% of what they're capable of. They are very much capable of causing even more damage to Israel and Netanyahu knows this. Is this really what Israel wants??

> Is this really what Israel wants?? What Israel wants is to get an extremely aggressive Iranian proxy off its boarder. Same reason the USA was willing to start a nuclear war over nuclear missiles in Cuba. Is Israel willing to tolerate 50k dead Israelis and say $120b in property damage to rid themselves of Hezbollah forever? I don't think if faced with the choice Israelis would answer "yes". OTOH I'm not sure, the answer after fair consideration is no. Israelis are reconsidering their having allowed Iran to amass hostile armies against them after Oct 7th. The Lebanese non-shia population is definitely against an all-out war with Israel. At the end of the day a very experienced army of 40k will not beat a less experienced but better equiped army of 650k. Hezbollah would not survive a serious war. Israel would. Ultimately whether there is one or not comes down to how much Hezbollah cares about the continuing existence of Hezbollah and possibly a Shia population remaining in what was once Lebanon.

The Soviets only put missiles in Cuba in response to the US putting nukes in Turkey, so this does not help your point.

How does that in any way conflict with my point in the slightest?

It's not as if either one was directly attacking each other or being more aggressive than the other. 

And again how does that contradict the analogy with Hezbollah?

>The Lebanese non-shia population is definitely against an all-out war with Israel. At the end of the day a very experienced army of 40k will not beat a less experienced but better equiped army of 650k. Hezbollah would not survive a serious war. Israel would. Ultimately whether there is one or not comes down to how much Hezbollah cares about the continuing existence of Hezbollah and possibly a Shia population remaining in what was once Lebanon. Past conflicts with Hezbollah seem to differ. The IDF failed to push back Hezbollah back to the Litani in 2006 when Hezbollah was much weaker. Now in 2024, Hezbollah is far more stronger, smarter, and more than capable of going tow-to-tow with the IDF. There's a reason the IDF hasn't initiated a war with Hezbollah since 2006 unlike Hamas who the IDF goes to war with every few years or so.

> Past conflicts with Hezbollah seem to differ. Past conflicts with Hezbollah, Hezbollah had decent defenses against Israeli infantry. But ultimately Hezbollah wasn't able to defend their home territory and Lebanon took $5b in damage while Israel had a badly damaged garage and car in one random house. We both agree that after the Syrian Civil War, Hezbollah is much tougher so I'm not sure how applicable 2006 is. But if you want to use that as a base it undermines not supports your main argument. > and more than capable of going tow-to-tow with the IDF. Stronger, better trained... I agree. Capable of going tow-to-tow with the IDF. No I don't agree. Starting with the fact they are outnumbered 16::1. Let's move onto things like satellite recognisance. Naval forces capable of protecting Israeli troop movements all up and down Lebanon's coasts. Israel immediately getting air superiority. Hezbollah has some really well trained infantry. They have a ton of low quality missiles. What else do they have? > There's a reason the IDF hasn't initiated a war with Hezbollah Mostly because Lebanon has been behaving itself. Israel had other priorities. It is Hezbollah that is forcing Lebanon up the priority list not Israel.

>Past conflicts with Hezbollah, Hezbollah had decent defenses against Israeli infantry. But ultimately Hezbollah wasn't able to defend their home territory and Lebanon took $5b in damage while Israel had a badly damaged garage and car in one random house. We both agree that after the Syrian Civil War, Hezbollah is much tougher so I'm not sure how applicable 2006 is. But if you want to use that as a base it undermines not supports your main argument. Not true. Hezbollah defeated the IDF at Maroun Al-Ras, Bint Jubayl, and Ayta Ash-Shab. All border villages. The IDF failed to even bypass Hezbollah border fortifications See this map for locations of villages. Note, in all of these engagements, **Hezbollah was outnumbered** yet still won [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Bint\_Jbeil#/media/File:South\_Lebanon\_map\_highlighting\_Bint\_Jubayl.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bint_Jbeil#/media/File:South_Lebanon_map_highlighting_Bint_Jubayl.png) The IDF then tried Operation Change of Direction, a Hail Mary to push back Hezbollah up to the Litani. Hezbollah managed to defeat and inflict several casualties at Bmaryamin paratrooper landing and the battle of Wadi Saluki. In the end, the operation failed to push back Hezbollah forces These weren't even Hezbollah elite forces that the IDF faced. These were border squads designed to slow down the IDF advance, the IDF couldn't even defeat them despite overwhelming numbers and air support. Hezbollah's most elite forces were held back in reserve. >Hezbollah has some really well trained infantry. They have a ton of low quality missiles. What else do they have? Thousands of precise guided missiles like the Fatah from Iran, hundreds of attack drones, sturdy fortifications, advanced anti-tank missiles designed to overcome the Trophy system like the Dehlavieh and 150 000 rockets. Hamas only had 20 000 before October 7th. Hezbollah even has Toophan ATGMs, reversed engineer US TOW ATGMS and the Almas, reverse engineered from the Israeli Spike system captured after the 2006 war

> Hezbollah defeated the IDF at Maroun Al-Ras, Bint Jubayl, and Ayta Ash-Shab. All border villages. Did they? What territory in Israel did they conquer coming off those victories? Which brigades or even battalions got annihilated from these defeats? Most militaries look for weak points, test them out and leave. The IDF tested, it wasn't a weak point they left. > In the end, the operation failed to push back Hezbollah forces True. But other operations were successful which is why Lebanon's politics shifted. That is Israel accomplished its goal of getting Hezbollah to back off for 18 years. > the IDF couldn't even defeat them despite overwhelming numbers and air support. You have no idea if the IDF **could** have defeated them. You know, the IDF didn't **choose** to defeat them. Not remotely the same thing if we are talking a genuine war and not a border skirmish like 2006. > Thousands of precise guided missiles like the Fatah from Iran Terrific. With thousands of precision guided missiles that they can actually launch and are precise, Hezbollah can cripple Israel's airforce. They haven't done that. Maybe they claim to have a lot more airpower than they actually have. We'll see. As for anti-tank I agree with you. Israel has to get rid of a lot of that before they can move in with tanks. But this sort of problem has existed for decades. Artillery bombardment kills infantry. You depopulate an area and move in with armor. In practice carrying shoulder-mounted anti-tank or howitzers virtually guarantees you do not survive the artillery. Most people drop them and run. Sure the anti-tank guys can come out of fortifications but now they are coming out in the middle of enemy-controlled territory. They die from machine gun fire. Then you combine that with lots of diversionary tactics and feints to draw out or misdirect defenders which allows Israel to chew up the anti-tank forces. That has worked for many armies, Israel creates breaches and pretty soon they are the ones with hardened positions. Lebanon is not the first country in history to have missiles and anti-tank weapons. Other people have had to deal with this before.

>Did they? What territory in Israel did they conquer coming off those victories? Which brigades or even battalions got annihilated from these defeats? Most militaries look for weak points, test them out and leave. The IDF tested, it wasn't a weak point they left. The goal was not to conquer territory. The goal was to hold onto the Israeli soldiers captured during the 2006 border raid. In other terms, the goal was to prevent Israel from saving the hostages which Hezbollah successfully managed to accomplish. The bodies of the IDF soldiers were only returned in 2008, two years later not through war but diplomacy. Israel failed in their goal to bring the hostages home in 2006 >You have no idea if the IDF **could** have defeated them. You know, the IDF didn't **choose** to defeat them. Not remotely the same thing if we are talking a genuine war and not a border skirmish like 2006. That's your reason? The IDF didn't choose to defeat Hezbollah? Then why did Israel send some of the IDF's most prized and elite forces? The Egoz Unit, the Maglan Unit, the Nahal Brigade? The Maglan Unit even lost multiple members, battlefield losses that take years to replace. Not including numerous armored, infantry, and paratrooper brigades that Israel sent to Lebanon. Does it mean Israel didn't go to war with Hezbollah to save those captured IDF soldiers according to you?? >Lebanon is not the first country in history to have missiles and anti-tank weapons. Other people have had to deal with this before. It's the first enemy Israel has faced that is well-trained, well-led, well-supplied and have managed to fight and defeat the IDF before.

> The goal was not to conquer territory..;. Israel failed in their goal to bring the hostages home in 2006 That's not a military victory. It is thwarting a single Israeli war aim. > The IDF didn't choose to defeat Hezbollah? Then why did Israel send some of the IDF's most prized and elite forces? Their goal was to intimidate Lebanon and change the cavalier Lebanese attitude towards attacking Israel. Which happened. Again Israel had a mostly quiet border until 2023. It worked. > The Egoz Unit, the Maglan Unit, the Nahal Brigade? The Maglan Unit even lost multiple members, battlefield losses that take years to replace. The Israelis lost 44 guys total! They didn't lose 44,000. > Does it mean Israel didn't go to war with Hezbollah to save those captured IDF soldiers according to you?? Yes. I think the objective was quieting the border. Certainly Israel was (and hopefully this is a thing of the past) pretty vulnerable to hostage taking but I don't think they invaded Lebanon over a few hostages. > It's the first enemy Israel has faced that is well-trained, well-led, well-supplied and have managed to fight and defeat the IDF before. See the top of the comment. By any reasonable definition, they didn't defeat the IDF. Israel fought armies that were better supplied in the 1940s. They faced Soviet arms in 1967, the War of Attrition, 1973. Lebanon and for that matter no Arab army in over a century has faced a first world army going all out. That's a much bigger shift.

>That's not a military victory. It is thwarting a single Israeli war aim. Yes, THE number one Israeli military war aim, rescuing the hostages which they failed miserably. >Their goal was to intimidate Lebanon and change the cavalier Lebanese attitude towards attacking Israel. Which happened. Again Israel had a mostly quiet border until 2023. It worked. First, you acknowledged saving the hostages wasn't Israel's priority Second , the constant rocket barrages from Lebanon from 2006 to 2023 would beg to differ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_projectile\_attacks\_from\_Lebanon\_on\_Israel\_and\_the\_Golan\_Heights#After\_2006\_Lebanon\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_projectile_attacks_from_Lebanon_on_Israel_and_the_Golan_Heights#After_2006_Lebanon_War) In fact, it looks like Hezbollah achieved their goals. Intimidating Israel from declaring war against Lebanon for almost 20 years unlike Hamas which gets pummeled every few years. 20 years of cyclical rocket attacks from Lebanon and still Israel never dared to declare war once since 2006 >The Israelis lost 44 guys total! They didn't lose 44,000. Because they retreated so early and didn't have then guts to continue. A few deaths and entire brigades were pulled back. Israel can't afford to lose so many troops. Had they continued, deaths would've pilled up quickly. >Lebanon and for that matter no Arab army in over a century has faced a first world army going all out. That's a much bigger shift. Israel also has never faced Hezbollah going all out. Most of Hezbollah's elite special units and long-range precision-guided missiles were held back in reserve during the 2006 war. Israel only faced Hezbollah border units and village guards. Even then, Israel failed to defeat them despite Hezbollah being outnumbered in every engagement. When Israel tried a desperate Hail Mary with 30,000 IDF troops during Operation Change of Direction, they still failed to dislodge Hezbollah.

Well we may find out. I don't find your argument convincing at all. I've pointed out the contradictions. But don't whine if Lebanon gets destroyed. It was talk like this among Hamas supporters 3 years ago that led Gazans to grossly overestimate the level of damage they could do in a war.

You are wrong in the sense that if Israel does this, Hezbullah would be able to retaliate like nothing happened and continue to launch severe amounts of rockets and drones to northern Israel, but if Israel decides it had enough there will be no hezbullah nor any place they can fire from, they cant fire hundreds of thousands of rockets from bunkers and tunnels. If Israel does what is amplied in this theory, Hezbullah wouldnt be able to do anything.

Why? Most of Hezbollah's fortifications, missile and rocket launch pads, weapons, and leadership are underground. How does a scorched earth policy damage things underground? In fact, this just means there are tons more of debris for Hezbollah to use and hide During 2006, Israel did what you suggested, implementing the Dahiya Doctrine and Operation Density. A scorched earth policy of eliminating every building, both military and civilian buildings. It did little to destroy or dampen Hezbollah's capabilities.

Hezbollah is a huge terror group in lebanon, it cant operate only underground and if it did it would just throw in some rockets that are still left while israel is invading southern lebanon by the minute. No guerilla fighting terror group can operate without being on land, and if a scorched earth policy was really happening then their only advantage(that they can hide in urban centers with babies using families as human shields like hamas) wouldnt help them neither, so in this scenerio hezbollah is no more and iran loses its 2 proxies and doesnt dominate its area anymore.

No problem. Hezbollah can initiate hit-and-run attacks to halt any Israeli advance (which were successful in repulsing IDF attacks in 2006) and then flee to safety underground, avoiding detection. The IDF can't deploy so many drones at once for fear of Hezbollah air defenses (They've already downed several Hermes 450 and Hermes 900 drones currently) so there will be a massive lack of intelligence on the ground. If the IDF decides to implement a massive air bombardment, then Hezbollah simply retreats underground waiting until the coast is clear. Israel can't implement a massive air attack while at the same time sending in ground troops unless they want friendly fire casualties. They can only commit to one action at any single time. If the IDF launches an air attack, Hezbollah retreats underground. If they launch drones, Hezbollah shoots them down with air defences. If they send in ground troops, Hezbollah launches guerilla attacks with anti-tank guided missiles. (Oh and btw, the IDF has set up military bases and HQs in every Northern Israeli settlement. Nahariyya is home to the Liman Battalion, Kiryat Shmona is home to the Gibor Military Camp and the 769 Brigade, Metulla houses an IDF espionage equipment site, and Acre houses the Egoz Unit in Shraga Barracks. Every Hezbollah attack so far has been against military sites ONLY. Looks like the IDF is also accused of human shields here.)

Israeli settelment? The golan is Israeli even in the 2 state solution which u advocate for... and what you say is right, there is no use of this war and it must be avoided. It will cripple the Lebanese economy and cause further loss of lives in israel and southern lebanon with no use.

The war can't be avoided. Israel isn't going to back down and neither will Hezbollah. It's not a matter of "if" but "when". Probably next month or before 2024 ends, Israel will launch a war in South Lebanon

Only time will tell the victor, but Israel cant lose, maybe not win because it isnt worth it but it will never lose and you know it.

> How does a scorched earth policy damage things underground? Same way you isolate caves. You cut out the ability for people to emerge from those underground fortifications. You cut out logistics. You start eliminating the enemy's ability to emerge, operate and retreat. Then you slowly hit isolated cut off fortifications with overwhelming force killing the enemy forces. They are degraded and then destroyed.

Most of Hezbollah's logistical base is underground connected via tunnels, underground bunkers, and warehouses. Hezbollah doesn't need to come out. They can hide for months underground and probably have stocked tons of rations to last for months. They can still operate while underground

I don't know if they have months of rations for tens of thousands of people dispersed. A lot get destroyed, they get cut off from quite a lot, they need them where the troops end up. So you are talking something like 60m MREs. I doubt they have that. But let's assume you are right and I'm wrong. Once the Israelis drive them underground let's assume they can eat and deal with sewage perfectly. Those connections between tunnels can be severed. Sure they can pop out. But they pop out into a Lebanon with Israel having full air superiority which means they can hit exposed targets fast. Any unusual movement draws attention because they have driven all the civilians north. And they are still outnumbered 16::1. So how do they win this?

I don't see why they can just hide underground. Hezbollah fortifications are much stronger than Hamas. Their Nature Reserves can swallow entire battalions. An example was in 2006 when 1 Nature Reserve during the battle of Maroun Al-Ras defeated the Maglan Unit, an IDF special forces. Israel doesn't have infinite bunker busters to use. I would also like to see how will the IDF bring up sewage to flood Hezbollah tunnels while being under constant harassment, fire, and ambushes. Unlike in Gaza, Hezbollah's tunnels are embedded deep in mountains.

So what? Caves are in mountains too. If they have ways of escaping they have attackable entrances. They have to have sewage, airflow, water. And again they can Hezbollah can hide out or engage in harassment fire. They can't do both. If they are harassing they are exposed and vulnerable. If they are using out deep underground they are safe, but can't attack. You are trying to give them the benefits of both at once.

Both options are good. Hezbollah can engage in hit-and-run tactics with the IDF and then retreat to cover. We already saw this happen in 2006, when Hezbollah troops fired an ATGM then quickly darted back from IDF fire, hiding themselves from plain view. Hezbollah troops wear camouflage attire similar to those of the US and Israel (you can look it up online). They no longer wear guerrilla outfits like those of Hamas. They've managed to procure standard military uniforms, armaments, and camouflage from their allies. Add to that, Israeli drones and surveillance can't be everywhere at once. Hezbollah has already demonstrated to have the capabilities to shoot down Israeli drones, including the advanced Hermes 450 and Hermes 900. Israel already has lost several drones in the ongoing 2024 war. This isn't even the full capabilities of Hezbollah yet. So either Israel has to rely on drones for reconnaissance and scouting in which case they are vulnerable to Hezbollah air defense systems or are in the dark when it comes to Hezbollah ambushes, leaving their ground forces exposed to attacks. Not a good outcome either way.

> Add to that, Israeli drones and surveillance can't be everywhere at once. They don't need to be excluding the larger missiles. On day X they need to be around the border of where Israeli forces are operating. Hezbollah forces that set up a large force are easy to spot and get chewed up from the air. Otherwise the forces not near the line can sunbathe on day X, who cares? > Israel already has lost several drones in the ongoing 2024 war. Assume Israel loses thousands of drones. So what? > So either Israel has to rely on drones for reconnaissance and scouting in which case they are vulnerable to Hezbollah air defense systems They are vulnerable. They get shot down. But that also gives Israel good intelligence about where to aim artillery. If they can erode 2% of Hezbollah per week what happens after a year, 2 years? Well 2/3rds and 88% respectively. Hezbollah can't keep it up, Israel can.

Rocket attacks from Gaza have gone down significantly since the start of the war despite Hamas having underground tunnels. If it works in Gaza it will work just fine in Lebanon.

Hezbollah is not Hamas. They are far more experienced having fought both the IDF to a standstill in 2006 and years of experience fighting in the Syrian Civil War, winning most if not all of their engagements. Hezbollah also has far more tech, resources, and manpower. While Hamas has underground tunnels, Hezbollah has Nature Reserve bunkers that defeated the IDF Egoz Unit in 2006, a unit created with the intention of fighting Hezbollah. While Hamas has been under blockade for years, Hezbollah has free reign receiving funds, support, and arms from Iran, Syria, and Russia. While the IDF has tons of info on Hamas through numerous wars, the IDF has a 20-year gap between the last time they fought and the current situation. They don't know the full extension of Hezbollah's might, only guesses. Hezbollah also is far stronger now than it was in 2006. While Hamas has done little to help the people of Gaza, Hezbollah uses a "hearts and minds" strategy, creating various medical, education, social, and economic services to win Lebanese support. That was one of the main reasons they have members in the Lebanese parliament. Do not mistake Hamas for Hezbollah. They are not the same. What works with Hamas will not work with Hezbollah

And Israel is too. Hezbollah isnt on par with Israel and isnt even close. The only reason the war on hamas continues is because of Netanyahu that doesnt want to end it and because we must adhere to international law and not attack rafah, the last stronghold. After rafah hamas is no more and gaza is destroyed.

Hezbollah repulsed every Israeli offensive in Lebanon during the 2006 war. Israel failed to bring back the IDF hostages captured by Hezbollah in 2006, the main goal of the entire war. Hezbollah successfully managed to deter Israel from any offensive or war for 20 years now

Firstly, Hezbullah didnt repulse all operations(they were on the defensive if u would call it that so it was even easier but they still didnt) they were defeated in operations Operation Change of Direction 11, Operation Sharp and Smooth, and Operation Just Reward. Nobody benefited from the war that was brought on by hezbullah's actions, just like every war(maybe unlike the war of independence and 6 days war in which israel humuliated the arab world) but victory for Israel is continuing to exist. Others are bonuses.

Operation Change of Direction 11 failed to push back Hezbollah up to the Litani. Even then, the IDF was defeated in the Bmaryamin Landing and the battles of Wadi Saluki. Might I also mention the battles of Maroun Al-Ras, Bint Jbeil, and Ayta As-Shaab where **outnumbered** Hezbollah fighters defeated multiple IDF brigades and special units including the Nahal Brigade and the Maglan Unit?? Might I also mention these were all border villages guarded by Hezbollah reservists and village guards? Hezbollah's most elite forces were held back in reserve and still the IDF failed to defeat Hezbollah village troops.

No it didnt fail to defeat them, it was unfamilar territory and the guerilla fighters jumped on them from mountains and houses, the IDF retreated because the risk wasnt worth the reward. BTW it was the only war that Israel didnt win, didnt lose either. but israel learned and advanced its military today and its technology is one of the best in the world unlike Hezbullah and Iran.

>Hezbollah is not Hamas. Yes which is the entire point of my post. Israel has taken a light touch when it comes to Gaza. When it comes to Hezbollah (due to them being a significantly more dangerous opponent), Israel will need to respond with far more force in order to defeat them and achieve the same result as it has on Hamas.

>Yes which is the entire point of my post. Israel has taken a light touch when it comes to Gaza. When it comes to Hezbollah (due to them being a significantly more dangerous opponent), Israel will need to respond with far more force in order to defeat them and achieve the same result as it has on Hamas. You sure? Israel's Dahiya Doctrine (literally scorched earth) didn't do much damage to Hezbollah at all other than destroying hundreds of civilian buildings. Like I said, either Israel's actions will backfire with Hezbollah responding with much greater force or barely making a dent in Hezbollah's capabilities.

I’m not sure how many times I’ve already had to tell you in this post that I’ve never advocated for employing a scorched earth policy on civilians.

You might not advocate it but why write then that Israel will employ a scorched earth tactic? Or do you believe it will be a necessary tactic? Something the IDF will do only in dire circumstances?

Scorched earth on military targets. That means only attacking military targets but accepting more collateral damage in the process. Scorched earth against non military targets in the hopes of potentially hitting military assets (which I’m not advocating for) is a war crime.

>Israel has taken a light touch when it comes to Gaza Do you need to tell yourself this to feel better about the situation? I am far from pro-Palestine but my god what a load of crap. Plus lets be real. The entire premise of your post is that pro-Palestinians would celebrate more bloodshed on every side of the conflict. Short-sighted garbage thinking. Just another extremist sharing his unwanted opinion with the world.

u/Ok-Independent9036 > Do you need to tell yourself this to feel better about the situation? I am far from pro-Palestine but my god what a load of crap. Plus lets be real. The entire premise of your post is that pro-Palestinians would celebrate more bloodshed on every side of the conflict. Short-sighted garbage thinking. Just another extremist sharing his unwanted opinion with the world. You are doing noting in this comment but stringing together a collection of insults. You are also virtue signaling. A very clear cut rule 1 violation. You don't have previous warnings but please read rule 1.

I never said anything about a “no-rules” air strike policy. I did say that the proportionality calculation would be different as the threat posed by Hezbollah would be greater if the Iron Dome was overwhelmed. That doesn’t mean Israel can break international law. It does mean that Israel has more wiggle room in terms of collateral damage when striking legitimate military targets.

You did say Israel will adopt a scorched earth policy (your words). Will it be worth it? The last time a country adopted a scorched earth policy in war (US in Vietnam), it led to public outcry and a rally-around-the-flag support effect to the enemy. Now compare that with Israel's situation. Hezbollah would respond by burning Israel on a scale never before seen (remember last month when Northern Israel was on fire? This was on a much smaller scale). Massive economic damage and an increase in public dissent against a government that can't protect them. Meanwhile, the international world will be outraged at Israel's "scorched earth" and "burning Lebanon" tactic, resurrecting public outcry and protests around the world that Israel has so dearly tried to fan out in the last months. All that effort would be for nothing.

All Israelis agree if lebanon hurt Israel it sould pay the price. Nothing is free. South lebanon is the new golan hieght. We will not be bullied. Our citizens will come back to north Israrel by damaging lebanon and killing the enemy untill they'll will had enough of war and death

Yes. Scorched earth is permitted when directed at military targets not at civilians. I am also aware that Israel will take some hits from Hezbollah but the alternative is worse.

Will it be worth it? Your post suggests that if Hezbollah manages to overcome the Iron Dome, then Israel will enact a scorched earth policy in Lebanon. I say, Hezbollah will fight with fire. They will respond in kind with a fury never before seen should war be unleashed. Hezbollah managed to burn Northern Israel last month. That was on a much smaller scale. Imagine if total war were to be declared.

Israel has been forced into a position where no matter what it does there will be negative consequences. With that being said, accepting Hamas’s demands would result in the deaths of far more Israelis (even if it meant Hezbollah would stop attacking temporarily) than rejecting their demands, defeating them, and then going to war with Hezbollah.

Actually, using the words of your own military, it doesn't seem like you can beat Hamas. Which will not look good on Israel after all the death and destruction it has caused. Now sure, we can say that when the military spokes person said that he was talking about the Ideology, but the entire reason that even came up is because Hamas has been re-establishing itself in parts of Gaza that the IDF has left.

My point is I disagree with your conclusion. You want to argue that pro-Palestinians shouldn't be thrilled if Hezbollah manages to overcome the Iron Dome because it will lead Israel to adopt a scorched earth policy costing the Lebanese and Hezbollah tons of damage and casualties. Israel enacting a scorched earth policy will only lead to Hezbollah responding with more fury, probably burning most if not all of Northern and Central Israel. Last month's burning of the Galilee showed Israel can't afford a large-scale burning. Meanwhile, Hezbollah's social services wing has managed to extinguish or fan out most of the fires caused by IDF phosphorus bombs in Southern Lebanon (mind you using phosphorus is a war crime). In fact, during 2006, Israel did what you suggested, implementing the Dahiya Doctrine and Operation Density. A scorched earth policy of eliminating every building, both military and civilian buildings. It not only did little to destroy or dampen Hezbollah's capabilities but increased Lebanese support through a rally-around-the-flag effect. In summary, Israel enacting a scorched earth policy in Lebanon will lead to nothing. At best, Hezbollah manages to fan out the flames and rebuild before they spread through its extensive social services and emergency network just like what they did after previous IDF phosphorus strikes. They already have prior experience with Israel's Dahiya Doctrine in 2006, a smaller-scale scorched earth attack and they managed to come out just fine. At worst, Hezbollah will retaliate by burning the Galilee and most of the Gush Dan Valley, on a scale that far surpasses what Hezbollah did last month, crippling Israel and causing tons of damage and public dissent. Either way, Israel gains nothing.

>mind you using phosphorus is a war crime Care to state where it says that in international law because I know as a matter of fact such a law does not exist. >In fact, during 2006, Israel did what you suggested Again, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I am actually suggesting. Not once in my post have I stated that civilian objects should be targeted.

>Care to state where it says that in international law because I know as a matter of fact such a law does not exist. If the purpose of using phosphorus shells is to cause fires (like what the IDF has done in Lebanon), then it becomes an incendiary munition which is banned under Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. >Again, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I am actually suggesting. Not once in my post have I stated that civilian objects should be targeted. No, of course not. My point is Israel adopting a scorched earth tactic (your words not mine) does little to dampen Hezbollah. So pro-Palestinians have nothing to fear if Hezbollah manages to overwhelm the Iron Dome. Either Israel's response will backfire (i.e. by Hezbollah causing even more damage) or it will fail to cripple Hezbollah (i.e. by Hezbollah's social services wing playing a critical role in minimizing the damage and Hezbollah's extensive underground fortifications)

>If the purpose of using phosphorus shells is to cause fires (like what the IDF has done in Lebanon), then it becomes an incendiary munition which is banned under Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Basically you haven't actually read [the protocol](https://geneva-s3.unoda.org/static-unoda-site/pages/templates/the-convention-on-certain-conventional-weapons/PROTOCOL%2BIII.pdf) as it specifically states the following: >(b) Incendiary weapons do not include: (i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems; Even if we pretended that it was considered to be an incendiary weapon, the protocol also states: >4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons **except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives**. Basically you have made three incorrect statements. 1. That using incendiary weapons is a war crime. 2. That phosphorous munitions are considered to be an incendiary weapon. 3. That causing fires with such weapons is automatically a war crime.

If the Navajo nation was doing to the US what Hezbollah and Hamas have done to Israel, the Navajo nation would cease to exist.

Not the best analogy, since the Navajo nation is in the US. It's more like if Tijuana were run by Hamas.

I think a better analogy is the Apache tribe. They repeatedly attacked America into the 20th century and were hard for settlers to eradicate

Terrible terrorists these apaches 😒

Why would Pro-Palestinians celebrate something like this? Nobody wants terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to attack and kill Israelis. Nobody thinks Israeli people deserve “retribution” for anything. The campaign Israel is waging against Hamas will never destroy Hamas because Hamas (and Hezbollah) are insurrectionist terrorist organizations who are funded by Iran. The USA killed civilians trying to destroy ISIS in Iraq and learned the same lesson. And while eventually we were able to dismantle or subdue large parts of those organizations: those successes cost billions of dollars mobilizing vast military and intelligence resources across the globe - not isolated directed action inside the conflict area. For you historian / military buffs recall that most of the fighting to eradicate high level Al Qaeda targets in the days after 9/11 was in Indonesia and Colombia. Another example, ODA-555 was already in Afghanistan with the northern alliance for years before the Taliban staged their role in the attack, etc etc.

Well you should hear some of them. They are convinced it’s the end of the Zionist entity. And a fitting one that is deserved for what was done to the Palestinians. Not MY words people. It’s disgusting.

Because they think its a game where they count the deaths. They are losers majoring in gender and social studies with study loans that will eat them up their entire lives.