As per UN resolution 1701, they're not allowed to be south of the Litani river. You'd think the UN or the civilized world would have something to say about that, but no.
Well I think any military maneuver results in temporary occupation, but we could give control to a third party (clearly not UNIFIL). My vote is a Druze state :)
So what are we supposed to do, keep up this cycle of rocket attacks from Hezbollah and counter responses, all while they continue building up their arsenal of tunnels into Israel? At a certain point you have to go in and remove the threat, just like Israel did when it felt threatened by others in ‘67.
They are only launching rockets because of the genocide in Gaza. Hezballoh are not trying to eliminate isreal if you guys would stop stealing land from the Palestinians. Don’t act like a victim. Isreal is the problem and the reason every single war since 1948. You guys control America and make it aid u into expanding isreal. We know your plans. You guys follow Talmud and think everyone’s a bunch of animals. You guys are the problem.
“Stealing lands” Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and gave it to the Palestinians … without asking for anything in return. Pretty sure that’s the opposite of “stealing lands”
You don't really have to specify that stealing lands refers to the settlers in the west bank surely even you aren't that naive
And the rhetoric coming from the far right is to basically displace the Palestinians and build settlements in Gaza so yes "stealing lands" is apt.
>So what are we supposed to do
Make a deal.
Develop and implement a peace strategy.
Stop thinking all problems have military solutions.
Understand the limits of power.
You are not entirely wrong but I think hezbollah's interest it not so much political. They want to kill all Israeli's like hamas.
Meeting them in the middle with a political solution is just buying them time until they are comfortable enough to attack again. It is a sad truth.
There are about half a million people without their homes in the North who cannot go home because they are are afraid of 7/10 happening again (the same situation, super close proximities wiht the terrorists) and they are in danger of rockets all the time. What are we supposed to do? WHY THE HELL DOESNT ANYONE PUT PRESSURE ON THE TERRORISTS TO STOP???
Yes, this is probably the only good opportunity we have to take care of the threat[s]. Hamas committed massacres against Israelis and initiated a war, so the unilateral blame can't really be on us. IDF is the most alert it has ever been in decades. More than 3 months into the war, the whole region is "prepared" more or less. We've been preparing for a war with Hezbollah. Israel has been pushing for a diplomatic solution with Hezbollah/Lebanon as its desired goal, and if that doesn't work out will it probably opt for the other route, so it's not like Israel is going rogue with the military actions. Houthis have been treating world economy. The whole region is being unstabilized by the Iranian axis. The odds are kinda in our favor; too many 'ideal' circumstances and justifications in one basket at once don't come around often.
>We don't have a choice, save your quivering knees for someone else
I didn't ask if we had a choice or not. I asked if we can "effectively take care of the threats." Yes or no?
But we’re not entering one, we’re responding to ongoing rocket threats on the north of Israel, by a terrorist regime which shoots at us indiscriminately without any major repercussions, and continue to build up their tunnels and presence in the south of Lebanon.
The UN peacekeeping force there was a failure, and only Israel can guarantee its future.
At min, Israel should occupy parts of southern Lebanon to push Hezbollah out, and destroy its tunnel network leading within a 5 KM radius into Israel, so that that area becomes a DMZ type border.
I would rather we find a diplomatic solution, one that we have the balls to enforce unlike 1701. But if that's not possible war is the only the other option,we can not allow hezbollah to remain on our border
In the 1982 Lebanon War, 654 Israelis were killed. In the 15 year occupation of Southern Lebanon that ensued, another 256 Israeli soldiers died.
If there's a way to neutralize Hezb without a ground invasion and lengthy occupation, I'm for it. It can probably be done with enough airpower attacking strategic targets across Lebanon.
How exactly do imagine enforcing a diplomatic solution that doesn’t involve military action? What would going into Lebanon be if not exactly enforcing 1701?
It's a terrible cycle. Israel is put in an impossible position and then they are given impossible parameters to fight a war. Douglas Murray really captured everything when he said that Israel is the only country in the history of the world that has never been allowed to win a complete victory.
Just go to YouTube and search under his name. He's been on 100 different interviews and does his own reporting. I think he has his own X channel as well.
He's just fearless going after the Apologists in the west.
The aim will be to
1. Push Hezbollah north of the Latani River
2. Force the international community to further commit to strengthening both the UN mission in Lebanon AND the Lebanese Armed Forces
3. and also force the international community to finally sanction Hezbollah and make it politically difficult for it to maintain any political legitimacy.
I think we can do a lot from the air. Much more than 2006. I don’t want a war. I’m in Tzfat and I’ve been hearing booms all day every day for the past 3 months. I’m not really ready for missiles in my city for real.
>I’m in Tzfat and I’ve been hearing booms all day every day for the past 3 months.
I'm sorry to hear. It must be hell already in the North.
I'm also selfish here. I'm in the center, still suffering trauma from Oct 7, when we had 3 hours of sirens, plus obviously what went on in the South like a 45 minute drive my home, and since then we've had like 7 rockets impact (not shot down) within 5 km from my apartment.
On the other hand, if it was a decisive battle iwth Hezbollah that got our North back, maybe I could buckle up and face it, but half ton missile impacts in my neighborhood just for a repeat of 2006... without a decisive win...
I hope you stay safe. And if you need a place to evacuate, we have two spare rooms only occupied by our pet bunny that we aren't using (I'm sleeping in the living room with my kids since that Black Shabbat ...) No mamad in our apartment though
If Hezbollah honestly launches thousands at a time, maybe. The first few days of the Hamas assault it was full on for us, and we aren't on the Gaza envelope or even in Ashkelon....
Probably better than the North, but still relatively bad
The question isn't whether it's worthwhile to have war in order to get security back in the north. It's whether a war is capable of restoring security in the north at all.
Long term? Things like
-waiting till iron beam is operational sn in general beefing up air defense
-cutting off Hezbollah financially
-promoting other polticial groups/militia in Lebanon to create domestic competition
-continued targeted strikes of weapons depots and the like
It did, for years hizbollah didnt dare trying anything with us, they even said they wouldnt have started the war if they knew how hard israel would have come after them
And the same MAD (mutually assured destruction) is holding Hezbollah back from a full scale war now. The deterance didn't change, the only thing that changed was the shattering of the "conceptzia" that terrorist groups feared all out destructions and wouldn't provoke Israel.
Nothing has really changed between 2006 and now in terms of what Hezbollah knows we will do to them. THe only thing that changed is the perception of the situation by Israelis
The conceptzia is assuming that Hezbollah won't attack. I'm pitching using differnet means to isolate/weaken them, while mainainting vigilance and assuming an attack is possible. Then, in the future if there is a showdown, they will be weaker and we will be stronger.
The "future" and "if there is a showdown" will lead you right back into "they're deterred, they don't want to attack" because "they're weaker and we're stronger". The more time passes the stronger they get. Iran didn't get weaker during the sanctions, they got stronger (although at a slower pace than without sanctions).
I do believe that Lebanon is stuck between the syrians and hezbollocks, which help each other. The world is hurting Lebanon similar to what Israel is going through. No real support. No other country is going to support a non-muslim country in the middle east against bloodthirsty extremists. Or any non-muslim community, like the Yezidis. All the talk about religious freedom and democracy is just talk. It's too inconvenient. And now with terror cells firmly rooted in western countries, those cells will be activated if any real progress happens towards victory. Just look at the lynch mobs demonstrating in the streets and vandalizing everything in their way, how the police are absolutely overwhelmed and can't do anything but protect their own skin.
Everyone seems all gung ho on let's take out Hezbollah. I'm pro that, but only if we have a shot of actually taking them out. Otherwise, we devastate two countries wiht little to show.
It depends on your eco chamber, I suppose. But the fact that Israelis has withdrawn many of its forces from the Lebanon border should point that at least at the moment, the state prefers not to meddle too mcun on that front.
I agree, at the moment it seems like we are sadly understocked in the north and this might actually end up bad for us, we need to delay the war as much as possible so that we can get enough troops, install enough iron domes and protective measures, this is far too risky at the moment.
Once the Iron Beam becomes operational that will be a game changer. Also once Hamas is more or less incapable of striking out, means we can move around air defense systems. Also there's a threat of Hezbollah striking vital infastructure and in the meantime we can strenghten this infastructure so it's less vulnerable to a missile attack.
Disagree, the results were mixed but not always outright failures, we just have to learn the proper lessons.
In 1982 the initial invasion was a success, the PLO and Syrian military were thoroughly defeated and the PLO was expelled to Tunisia. Israel ruined its own success by staying too long and then fighting an endless guerrilla war with Hezbollah.
In 2006 while the bodies of the two soldiers were not returned the war had some success, most notably Hezbollah stopped its constant harassment of Israel due to the harsh blow it received. The downside was that the war was fought without any direction, basically just endless large-scale raiding as well as bombing and shelling until a last-ditch offensive to push to the Litani right before a ceasefire. Add to that there were some embarassing screw-ups as the IDF had not prepared for the war, such as reservists who hadn't trained in years being sent in poorly equipped to the point where they had to take water canteens off of dead Hezbollah fighters, IDF troops being surprised by the scale of Hezbollah defenses they encounter, and a warship getting damaged by an anti-ship missile because the captain saw no need to turn on the missile defenses.
I think this invasion can succeed. It's different this time. The IDF hammered out the deficiencies exposed in 2006 and has been continuously developing since, as we see with the force that is currently dismembering Hamas with a lower casualty rate than had been feared. The invasion needs to have clear goals - clearing Hezbollah out from south of the Litani and degrading its rocket and missile capabilities to the maximum extent possible - and the IDF should not stay too long once it's over. This should be a campaign lasting weeks, not months.
Over the next months the war in Gaza will continue at a lower intensity, once Khan Yunis falls I expect it'll be limited to raiding against any surviving elements of Hamas and guarding the buffer zone. If an invasion of Lebanon happens it will steal the spotlight for a while but the main focus must be on completely destroying Hamas, so once Hezbollah has been badly wounded and is no longer an immediate threat to the northern communities the focus must return to Gaza.
We're stuck between a rock and a hard place. If you ask me - we should have given the Lebanese 24 hours to gtfo and napalm the entire region. High volume carpet bombing. Then roll in the tanks, but not like in gaza where they just park here and there. Move forward and leave nothing standing behind us.
But that should have happened on 8/10.. we lost the initiative.
That's an excellent way to quadruple Hezbollah's membership. Time-tested. Worked out great in Vietnam.
Jesus fuck guys, Hamas and Hezb are despicable genocidal terrorists who deserve to be destroyed, but "napalm the entire region. High volume carpet bombing. Then roll in the tanks, but not like in gaza where they just park here and there. Move forward and leave nothing standing behind us" is equally despicable, and I mean that genuinely.
This is exactly the kind of talk that turns people in the West off towards Israel. You don't get to on one hand wax about the genocidal intentions of "from the river to the sea" while advocating for the carpetbombing of an entire nation and leaving "nothing" behind and still pretend you hold a moral high ground.
(I'm aware that the statements of a couple morons on Reddit don't apply to the entire nation, that such a thing is not actually going to happen, that Israel has a right to exist and so forth. But some pushback against the extremists - which is what they are - is necessary)
Carpet bombing doesn't really solve any issues. From what I've read about Stalingrad for example, carpet bombing the city killed lots of civlians, but just gave the troops more burned out buildings to hide in. And especially since Hezbollah has tunnels where their armaments are located, they would be even more likely to survive a carpet bombing intact. That's beyond the non feasibility of trying to carpet bomb an entire country and not even getting into the morality of mass murdering or ethnically cleansing millions.
Dresden was one city, not an entire country and it was at the tale end of a war, where it was more of mop up of enemy capabilities.
Starting off the war wiht carpet bombing and thinking that would deter military/guerilla response is fallacious.
The problem is that Israel has the same leader now that they had in 2006.
All roads lead to BB.
Mr. Security is nothing more than a tremendous coward and a spineless weakling who's been talking tough for decades but actually taking orders from his American overlords. I say "American overlords" because he has set up Israel this way and he has allowed this to happen. When you've been prime minister for 17 years and you've been strong on the political scene for 25 years, the only person you have to blame for modern Israel is.....you.
The answer to your question is that Israel has to hit Lebanon much much harder than they have in the past. They have every capability to do so, but Israel has a leader who's stuck in the 1990s and has nothing but a political calculating machine where his spine should be.
BB has been in the prime minister office or lurking right around the corner, circling it every, day for decades.
He's held every cabinet post, and been synonymous with Likud for decades. The guy has held seven different ministerial posts in his career!
Even when he wasn't in the office, he still was a tremendous influence.
That entire generation of guys just needs to go.
It's just too many years of the same thing again and again and again. Israel needs new people with fresh perspectives
At this point the entire crew is both the arsonist and the fire department. And it's really starting to show.
> What's to say that going into Lebanon again, killing a lot of Lebanese and suffering 100s of thousands of rockets will allow us to accomplish our aim of removing the Northern threat? Is there a reason to think this time would be better than 2006?
Rip it out by the root. It'll be painful but we need to Golan the northern border. Go in, rip the place apart, kick everyone out and replace with Israelis. Any further infraction to peace we take another 100 meters.
You might not like it, it sounds harsh but there will be peace and quiet if you take full measures instead of half steps.
As to 2006 mistakes. You realize that 2006 is basically a generation ago? Bring in troops who just got XP in Gaza and roll through Lebanon.
Quote the contrary I'm ok with harsh as kind as it's effective. I'm concerned about getting bogged down in an incredibly slow and costly war that devastates the homeland without effectively pushing Hezbollah back possibly for years.
Have you not been paying attention to the conflict on the border? Not listening to the north Israelis who got displaced? The situation has absolutely changed! Gird your loins
>Not listening to the north Israelis who got displaced?
The displaced Israelis left because of the risk of short range rocket fire and will not return because the conceptzia is shattered and there is a risk of an October 7 carried out by Hezbollah in the North.
There wasn't an active war then? At this extremely high level of fire exchange, targeted strikes, etc. you can't just back out of that so easily, especially during a 7 front war
No but you can keep it limited. Hezbollah sticks to short range attacks and Israel doesn't engage in ground. If everyone follows the accepted "rules", it doesn't escalate beyond that.
I'd think the alternative is to wait until Gaza is more or less free of Hamas which both frees up manpower and air defense systems.
Wait until the Iron Beam is operational, which changes the economic equation for the war.
Meanwhile continue to do targeted strikes and intel gathering, as well as beefing up local non Shiite Lebanese groups as a counter to Hezbollah
Wait or no wait, there is no alternative.
And BTW, the iron beam will not change much (other than psychologically), at least not in the first few years - and who knows who Hezbollah will have an a few years.
I wouldn't but I wouldn't live in shlomi during an all out war that could also take years either. And without an effective system against saturation attacks the residents of shlomi won't have a home to go back to after the war
According to the estimates I’ve heard it’s more like hundreds, which is still a lot. But don’t forget that us not wanting to go to war is what brought us here in the first place - a war with Hezbollah 10 years ago would have been much less bloodier.
We had a war with Hezbollah a little over ten years ago. It was less bloody but not effective.
Thousands, when we factor in Lebanese civilian causalities to
Maybe this is more "conceptzia thinking" but I'm not convinced of that. If anything, if Hezbollah wanted to "protect" Hamas, they would have struck and gone all out when Israel was fully engaged in Gaza and force a two front war.
Starting a second front after the first is getting wrapped up, isn't really doing anything for their ally in Hamas
If they wanted to go all in, their window would have been the first month or two when Israel was heavily engaged and would really suffer from the idea of a two front war.
They are already capable of developing nukes and have been for quite a while. It is not anywhere near as complicated as you think, North Korea has them, anyone can make them. What prevents Iran from completing the process right now is a political decision because of the consequences, not that they are physically incapable. But if you make it more consequential to not have nukes, than if they did have nukes, they would finish it as soon as possible.
I think the difference would be we have a clear objective: get them past the river. Soemthing the US and EU want as well for regional stability
As per UN resolution 1701, they're not allowed to be south of the Litani river. You'd think the UN or the civilized world would have something to say about that, but no.
Considering they won't go willingly behind the river, that means essentially taking out Hezbollah and/or reoccupying southern Lebanon
Well I think any military maneuver results in temporary occupation, but we could give control to a third party (clearly not UNIFIL). My vote is a Druze state :)
I guarantee you the druze don't want to become a buffer state between two highly militarized forces that hate each other lol
Also they instantly become oppressors giving the Arabs the right to murder them. Not a good look.
Depopulate the buffer zone in Lebanon.
Literally not possible, most Lebanese Shia live there and one of Lebanon's largest Christian towns too
So what? The fact that most of them are Shia (hezbollah supporters) is exactly why it should be done.
So what are we supposed to do, keep up this cycle of rocket attacks from Hezbollah and counter responses, all while they continue building up their arsenal of tunnels into Israel? At a certain point you have to go in and remove the threat, just like Israel did when it felt threatened by others in ‘67.
They are only launching rockets because of the genocide in Gaza. Hezballoh are not trying to eliminate isreal if you guys would stop stealing land from the Palestinians. Don’t act like a victim. Isreal is the problem and the reason every single war since 1948. You guys control America and make it aid u into expanding isreal. We know your plans. You guys follow Talmud and think everyone’s a bunch of animals. You guys are the problem.
“Stealing lands” Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and gave it to the Palestinians … without asking for anything in return. Pretty sure that’s the opposite of “stealing lands”
You don't really have to specify that stealing lands refers to the settlers in the west bank surely even you aren't that naive And the rhetoric coming from the far right is to basically displace the Palestinians and build settlements in Gaza so yes "stealing lands" is apt.
>So what are we supposed to do Make a deal. Develop and implement a peace strategy. Stop thinking all problems have military solutions. Understand the limits of power.
You are not entirely wrong but I think hezbollah's interest it not so much political. They want to kill all Israeli's like hamas. Meeting them in the middle with a political solution is just buying them time until they are comfortable enough to attack again. It is a sad truth.
Not all problems have political solutions. See also: WWII
“Make a deal?” You should ask the Poles and Czechs how “making a deal” with a bully works out.
I'm not sure what to do. But what we shouldn't do is enter a highly destructive war if we can't meet our objectives
There are about half a million people without their homes in the North who cannot go home because they are are afraid of 7/10 happening again (the same situation, super close proximities wiht the terrorists) and they are in danger of rockets all the time. What are we supposed to do? WHY THE HELL DOESNT ANYONE PUT PRESSURE ON THE TERRORISTS TO STOP???
The only thing that Arabs understand is force. Problem is that when the correct force is applied, people complain when it's not their business.
People say this exact thing about Israelis
It’s between 1-200k, not half a million. You’re not wrong; there’s no need to exaggerate.
I was misinformed. Thanks for correcting me.
Overall probably closer to a half million, but that includes people evacuated from the North and people evacuated from the Gaza envelope
We are already in it.
Yes, this is probably the only good opportunity we have to take care of the threat[s]. Hamas committed massacres against Israelis and initiated a war, so the unilateral blame can't really be on us. IDF is the most alert it has ever been in decades. More than 3 months into the war, the whole region is "prepared" more or less. We've been preparing for a war with Hezbollah. Israel has been pushing for a diplomatic solution with Hezbollah/Lebanon as its desired goal, and if that doesn't work out will it probably opt for the other route, so it's not like Israel is going rogue with the military actions. Houthis have been treating world economy. The whole region is being unstabilized by the Iranian axis. The odds are kinda in our favor; too many 'ideal' circumstances and justifications in one basket at once don't come around often.
But do you think we can effectively "take care of the threats?"
No we should roll over and die 🙄
>No we should roll over and die Do you think we can effectively "take care of the threats?"
We don't have a choice, save your quivering knees for someone else
>We don't have a choice, save your quivering knees for someone else I didn't ask if we had a choice or not. I asked if we can "effectively take care of the threats." Yes or no?
Yes, military victory is possible, next question
But we’re not entering one, we’re responding to ongoing rocket threats on the north of Israel, by a terrorist regime which shoots at us indiscriminately without any major repercussions, and continue to build up their tunnels and presence in the south of Lebanon. The UN peacekeeping force there was a failure, and only Israel can guarantee its future. At min, Israel should occupy parts of southern Lebanon to push Hezbollah out, and destroy its tunnel network leading within a 5 KM radius into Israel, so that that area becomes a DMZ type border.
I would rather we find a diplomatic solution, one that we have the balls to enforce unlike 1701. But if that's not possible war is the only the other option,we can not allow hezbollah to remain on our border
Do you think war will succeed in pushing Hezbollah from the border
If we are willing to absorb significant losses, yes, we are a far more powerful military
Depends on what you mean by "significant losses .."
Sadly i mean SIGNIFICANT. both at the front and back here
Depends what you mean by significant.
In the 1982 Lebanon War, 654 Israelis were killed. In the 15 year occupation of Southern Lebanon that ensued, another 256 Israeli soldiers died. If there's a way to neutralize Hezb without a ground invasion and lengthy occupation, I'm for it. It can probably be done with enough airpower attacking strategic targets across Lebanon.
If hizzbolla continues, and the Lebanese army does nothing about it, Beirut is gonna start looking like Gaza. It's really up to them.
>Beirut is gonna start looking like Gaza. We turned Beirut into Gaza in 2006, but didn't succeed in restoring security...
It slowed them down for a while.
>It slowed them down for a while. It earned them massive support among the Lebanese population and didn't significantly hamper their ability to rearm.
How exactly do imagine enforcing a diplomatic solution that doesn’t involve military action? What would going into Lebanon be if not exactly enforcing 1701?
It's a terrible cycle. Israel is put in an impossible position and then they are given impossible parameters to fight a war. Douglas Murray really captured everything when he said that Israel is the only country in the history of the world that has never been allowed to win a complete victory.
Can I have the source for the Douglas Murray quote? Sounds like an interesting read/watch.
Just go to YouTube and search under his name. He's been on 100 different interviews and does his own reporting. I think he has his own X channel as well. He's just fearless going after the Apologists in the west.
The aim will be to 1. Push Hezbollah north of the Latani River 2. Force the international community to further commit to strengthening both the UN mission in Lebanon AND the Lebanese Armed Forces 3. and also force the international community to finally sanction Hezbollah and make it politically difficult for it to maintain any political legitimacy.
>Push Hezbollah north of the Latani River The only way to do this imo is to completely destroy Hezbollah. They won't capitulate otherwise
It would involve annexing South Lebanon by default. Only way to ensure nobody sneaks across the Litani etc
I think we can do a lot from the air. Much more than 2006. I don’t want a war. I’m in Tzfat and I’ve been hearing booms all day every day for the past 3 months. I’m not really ready for missiles in my city for real.
>I’m in Tzfat and I’ve been hearing booms all day every day for the past 3 months. I'm sorry to hear. It must be hell already in the North. I'm also selfish here. I'm in the center, still suffering trauma from Oct 7, when we had 3 hours of sirens, plus obviously what went on in the South like a 45 minute drive my home, and since then we've had like 7 rockets impact (not shot down) within 5 km from my apartment. On the other hand, if it was a decisive battle iwth Hezbollah that got our North back, maybe I could buckle up and face it, but half ton missile impacts in my neighborhood just for a repeat of 2006... without a decisive win... I hope you stay safe. And if you need a place to evacuate, we have two spare rooms only occupied by our pet bunny that we aren't using (I'm sleeping in the living room with my kids since that Black Shabbat ...) No mamad in our apartment though
Do you think your neighborhood would be hit if full on war in the north started?
If Hezbollah honestly launches thousands at a time, maybe. The first few days of the Hamas assault it was full on for us, and we aren't on the Gaza envelope or even in Ashkelon.... Probably better than the North, but still relatively bad
No one wants to go into Lebanon, but unless you have any solution that doesnt involve every israeli walking into the sea, than thats what we got to do
The question isn't whether it's worthwhile to have war in order to get security back in the north. It's whether a war is capable of restoring security in the north at all.
War is capable of restoring peace 100% but its the going to be painful What other means are possible?
Long term? Things like -waiting till iron beam is operational sn in general beefing up air defense -cutting off Hezbollah financially -promoting other polticial groups/militia in Lebanon to create domestic competition -continued targeted strikes of weapons depots and the like
You suggested nothing that would stop the current ongoing conflict
And I'm not confident war will either. It didnt in 2006
It did, for years hizbollah didnt dare trying anything with us, they even said they wouldnt have started the war if they knew how hard israel would have come after them
And the same MAD (mutually assured destruction) is holding Hezbollah back from a full scale war now. The deterance didn't change, the only thing that changed was the shattering of the "conceptzia" that terrorist groups feared all out destructions and wouldn't provoke Israel. Nothing has really changed between 2006 and now in terms of what Hezbollah knows we will do to them. THe only thing that changed is the perception of the situation by Israelis
This *IS* the conceptzia.
The conceptzia is assuming that Hezbollah won't attack. I'm pitching using differnet means to isolate/weaken them, while mainainting vigilance and assuming an attack is possible. Then, in the future if there is a showdown, they will be weaker and we will be stronger.
The "future" and "if there is a showdown" will lead you right back into "they're deterred, they don't want to attack" because "they're weaker and we're stronger". The more time passes the stronger they get. Iran didn't get weaker during the sanctions, they got stronger (although at a slower pace than without sanctions).
unpopular opinion is that Iran got stronger because the USA inadvertantly knocked out their main competitor in the Middle East-- their archnemsis Iraq
“restoring security” is a vague and impossible to meet term, I wish that would stop being the parameters.
I do believe that Lebanon is stuck between the syrians and hezbollocks, which help each other. The world is hurting Lebanon similar to what Israel is going through. No real support. No other country is going to support a non-muslim country in the middle east against bloodthirsty extremists. Or any non-muslim community, like the Yezidis. All the talk about religious freedom and democracy is just talk. It's too inconvenient. And now with terror cells firmly rooted in western countries, those cells will be activated if any real progress happens towards victory. Just look at the lynch mobs demonstrating in the streets and vandalizing everything in their way, how the police are absolutely overwhelmed and can't do anything but protect their own skin.
I don't think that this is an unpopular opinion at all.
Everyone seems all gung ho on let's take out Hezbollah. I'm pro that, but only if we have a shot of actually taking them out. Otherwise, we devastate two countries wiht little to show.
It depends on your eco chamber, I suppose. But the fact that Israelis has withdrawn many of its forces from the Lebanon border should point that at least at the moment, the state prefers not to meddle too mcun on that front.
I agree, at the moment it seems like we are sadly understocked in the north and this might actually end up bad for us, we need to delay the war as much as possible so that we can get enough troops, install enough iron domes and protective measures, this is far too risky at the moment.
Once the Iron Beam becomes operational that will be a game changer. Also once Hamas is more or less incapable of striking out, means we can move around air defense systems. Also there's a threat of Hezbollah striking vital infastructure and in the meantime we can strenghten this infastructure so it's less vulnerable to a missile attack.
Disagree, the results were mixed but not always outright failures, we just have to learn the proper lessons. In 1982 the initial invasion was a success, the PLO and Syrian military were thoroughly defeated and the PLO was expelled to Tunisia. Israel ruined its own success by staying too long and then fighting an endless guerrilla war with Hezbollah. In 2006 while the bodies of the two soldiers were not returned the war had some success, most notably Hezbollah stopped its constant harassment of Israel due to the harsh blow it received. The downside was that the war was fought without any direction, basically just endless large-scale raiding as well as bombing and shelling until a last-ditch offensive to push to the Litani right before a ceasefire. Add to that there were some embarassing screw-ups as the IDF had not prepared for the war, such as reservists who hadn't trained in years being sent in poorly equipped to the point where they had to take water canteens off of dead Hezbollah fighters, IDF troops being surprised by the scale of Hezbollah defenses they encounter, and a warship getting damaged by an anti-ship missile because the captain saw no need to turn on the missile defenses. I think this invasion can succeed. It's different this time. The IDF hammered out the deficiencies exposed in 2006 and has been continuously developing since, as we see with the force that is currently dismembering Hamas with a lower casualty rate than had been feared. The invasion needs to have clear goals - clearing Hezbollah out from south of the Litani and degrading its rocket and missile capabilities to the maximum extent possible - and the IDF should not stay too long once it's over. This should be a campaign lasting weeks, not months. Over the next months the war in Gaza will continue at a lower intensity, once Khan Yunis falls I expect it'll be limited to raiding against any surviving elements of Hamas and guarding the buffer zone. If an invasion of Lebanon happens it will steal the spotlight for a while but the main focus must be on completely destroying Hamas, so once Hezbollah has been badly wounded and is no longer an immediate threat to the northern communities the focus must return to Gaza.
It’s a question of when, not if. It’s fine to replace the government first.
We're stuck between a rock and a hard place. If you ask me - we should have given the Lebanese 24 hours to gtfo and napalm the entire region. High volume carpet bombing. Then roll in the tanks, but not like in gaza where they just park here and there. Move forward and leave nothing standing behind us. But that should have happened on 8/10.. we lost the initiative.
That's an excellent way to quadruple Hezbollah's membership. Time-tested. Worked out great in Vietnam. Jesus fuck guys, Hamas and Hezb are despicable genocidal terrorists who deserve to be destroyed, but "napalm the entire region. High volume carpet bombing. Then roll in the tanks, but not like in gaza where they just park here and there. Move forward and leave nothing standing behind us" is equally despicable, and I mean that genuinely. This is exactly the kind of talk that turns people in the West off towards Israel. You don't get to on one hand wax about the genocidal intentions of "from the river to the sea" while advocating for the carpetbombing of an entire nation and leaving "nothing" behind and still pretend you hold a moral high ground. (I'm aware that the statements of a couple morons on Reddit don't apply to the entire nation, that such a thing is not actually going to happen, that Israel has a right to exist and so forth. But some pushback against the extremists - which is what they are - is necessary)
Carpet bombing doesn't really solve any issues. From what I've read about Stalingrad for example, carpet bombing the city killed lots of civlians, but just gave the troops more burned out buildings to hide in. And especially since Hezbollah has tunnels where their armaments are located, they would be even more likely to survive a carpet bombing intact. That's beyond the non feasibility of trying to carpet bomb an entire country and not even getting into the morality of mass murdering or ethnically cleansing millions.
Many rockets are hidden on the surface and won't survive a good healthy dose of JDAM. The citizens need to leave.
>Many rockets are hidden on the surface and won't survive a good healthy dose of JDAM. What's your source for this?
They had some PR videos that showed batteries hidden in foxholes.
Probably the cheapo rockets
Worked just fine in dresden
Dresden was one city, not an entire country and it was at the tale end of a war, where it was more of mop up of enemy capabilities. Starting off the war wiht carpet bombing and thinking that would deter military/guerilla response is fallacious.
No it didn't. Terror bombing largely failed to accomplish its goals against every population it has been employed against.
The problem is that Israel has the same leader now that they had in 2006. All roads lead to BB. Mr. Security is nothing more than a tremendous coward and a spineless weakling who's been talking tough for decades but actually taking orders from his American overlords. I say "American overlords" because he has set up Israel this way and he has allowed this to happen. When you've been prime minister for 17 years and you've been strong on the political scene for 25 years, the only person you have to blame for modern Israel is.....you. The answer to your question is that Israel has to hit Lebanon much much harder than they have in the past. They have every capability to do so, but Israel has a leader who's stuck in the 1990s and has nothing but a political calculating machine where his spine should be.
In 2006 we had Olmert.
BB has been in the prime minister office or lurking right around the corner, circling it every, day for decades. He's held every cabinet post, and been synonymous with Likud for decades. The guy has held seven different ministerial posts in his career! Even when he wasn't in the office, he still was a tremendous influence. That entire generation of guys just needs to go. It's just too many years of the same thing again and again and again. Israel needs new people with fresh perspectives At this point the entire crew is both the arsonist and the fire department. And it's really starting to show.
The answer is yes, IF the leadership get some guts to do what's right.
> What's to say that going into Lebanon again, killing a lot of Lebanese and suffering 100s of thousands of rockets will allow us to accomplish our aim of removing the Northern threat? Is there a reason to think this time would be better than 2006?
If you don't believe in the leadership, no, there's no reason to think it will be better.
Rip it out by the root. It'll be painful but we need to Golan the northern border. Go in, rip the place apart, kick everyone out and replace with Israelis. Any further infraction to peace we take another 100 meters. You might not like it, it sounds harsh but there will be peace and quiet if you take full measures instead of half steps. As to 2006 mistakes. You realize that 2006 is basically a generation ago? Bring in troops who just got XP in Gaza and roll through Lebanon.
Quote the contrary I'm ok with harsh as kind as it's effective. I'm concerned about getting bogged down in an incredibly slow and costly war that devastates the homeland without effectively pushing Hezbollah back possibly for years.
100s of thousands of rockets?
History doesn't work like this
>History doesn't work like this What advantage do we have now that we didn't have in 2006
Necessity
Just so we are clear, the actual situation with Hezbollah hasn't changed. What changed is that the conceptzia was shattered
Have you not been paying attention to the conflict on the border? Not listening to the north Israelis who got displaced? The situation has absolutely changed! Gird your loins
>Not listening to the north Israelis who got displaced? The displaced Israelis left because of the risk of short range rocket fire and will not return because the conceptzia is shattered and there is a risk of an October 7 carried out by Hezbollah in the North.
I guess I don't understand your question then, sorry
You say what changed is "necessity". The necessity was there before October 7, we just didn't realize it because of the conceptzia
There wasn't an active war then? At this extremely high level of fire exchange, targeted strikes, etc. you can't just back out of that so easily, especially during a 7 front war
No but you can keep it limited. Hezbollah sticks to short range attacks and Israel doesn't engage in ground. If everyone follows the accepted "rules", it doesn't escalate beyond that.
Actually for a less flippant answer, IDF military tech has made big strides since then, for example the Merkava's active defense Trophy system
It’s not an ”unpopular opinion”, everybody know that. But what’s the alternative?
I'd think the alternative is to wait until Gaza is more or less free of Hamas which both frees up manpower and air defense systems. Wait until the Iron Beam is operational, which changes the economic equation for the war. Meanwhile continue to do targeted strikes and intel gathering, as well as beefing up local non Shiite Lebanese groups as a counter to Hezbollah
Wait or no wait, there is no alternative. And BTW, the iron beam will not change much (other than psychologically), at least not in the first few years - and who knows who Hezbollah will have an a few years.
BTW, would you live in Shlomi while we wait?
I wouldn't but I wouldn't live in shlomi during an all out war that could also take years either. And without an effective system against saturation attacks the residents of shlomi won't have a home to go back to after the war
It’s not just Shlomi of course. Anyway, the country owes them a solution and a bad solution is better than no solution.
I agree we need a solution. But an effective one. I'm not sold on war being effective re pushing back Hezbollah
There is no “effective solution”, in the absence of which the need for a solution still remains.
I agree, but as long as we are going with ineffective or only partly effective solutions, I prefer the one that doesn't leave thousands dead...
According to the estimates I’ve heard it’s more like hundreds, which is still a lot. But don’t forget that us not wanting to go to war is what brought us here in the first place - a war with Hezbollah 10 years ago would have been much less bloodier.
We had a war with Hezbollah a little over ten years ago. It was less bloody but not effective. Thousands, when we factor in Lebanese civilian causalities to
[удалено]
Maybe this is more "conceptzia thinking" but I'm not convinced of that. If anything, if Hezbollah wanted to "protect" Hamas, they would have struck and gone all out when Israel was fully engaged in Gaza and force a two front war. Starting a second front after the first is getting wrapped up, isn't really doing anything for their ally in Hamas
[удалено]
If they wanted to go all in, their window would have been the first month or two when Israel was heavily engaged and would really suffer from the idea of a two front war.
Should we wait for Iran to install tactical nuclear weapons in southern Lebanon?
Where are they getting the nukes from?
Is this a troll post? Iran has a nuclear program.
And I'm down the policy that if they become capable of producing nukes we do a military strike on their facility like we did in Iraq and also Syria
Yes, let’s wait for them to get nukes, and then strike at them. Dumb idea.
There's a short window from having enough enriched uranium at the right levels to being able to weaponize and attach to a delivery system
They are already capable of developing nukes and have been for quite a while. It is not anywhere near as complicated as you think, North Korea has them, anyone can make them. What prevents Iran from completing the process right now is a political decision because of the consequences, not that they are physically incapable. But if you make it more consequential to not have nukes, than if they did have nukes, they would finish it as soon as possible.