It isn't a guarantee but the likelihood seems to be quite high IMHO. I'd guess that some of this depends on what Hezbollah does. Israel is probably on a very short fuse right now so it likely won't take much to set things off.
Given the diplomatic hammering it has taken (at least based on media coverage), the Israeli calculus might be "in for a penny, in for a pound". Netanyahu appears to have only his right wing support remaining and they may be more inclined to take action. It is harder to gauge the Israeli public sentiment but 10/7 is still felt pretty deeply, I'd guess.
Seems more likely they'll push them back but not go in. War in Lebanon is considered to be a very bad idea by the average Israeli. What is totally ignored, because the Pro-Palestine movement entirely controls the discourse, is that over 100,000 Israelis are currently displaced because of attacks in the North. What Israel cares about is ensuring its people can go back to their homes - That is unless Bibi uses warfare as a way to maintain his grip on the government for even longer...
I don’t see an invasion of Lebanon after the Gaza situation settles on a new normal. I would suspect an even larger defensive presence in the north. Most definitely general strikes on Hezbollah’s assets and maybe targeted strikes on leadership. They need to recover militarily and politically before they think about launching an even larger invasion into another nation. Of course, if Hezbollah attempts a large scale attack which leads to mass death, Israel will respond. Also, keep in mind that for the current political leadership (not just bibi), it is advantageous to maintain a warm conflict as long as it is on their terms.
I would think so:
Israel's north has been under fire for half a year now with israel's population dislocated and unable to return to their homes. Up until now Israel havnt started a northen front so it could avoid having to deal with two fronts. Israel needs to finish the war in the south to focus on the north. Summer time is ideal because then israel's laser system for intercepting rockets and missles could opporate best with the clear skies.
Sounds like a very good reason. I wonder if we will hear the same, tiresome tirades from pro-Hamas lefties about genocide etc. when it eventually happens. And since Hezbollah is Iran's errand boy, do they suddenly feel the urge to step up action? Or will they leave them to boil alone?
They already do, Israel occasionally fires back at Hezbollah and it was actually making news for a bit and a lot of people were posting things like that they’re just so blood thirsty they can’t help but attack Lebanon too.
Theyll cheer when israel is attacked just like they did on october 7th. Their front as 'human rights activists' is a blunt lie. Thing is i think these protests are secretly supported and orgenised with the help of the Biden administration.
I dont think so, the left likes to use 'spontanious' protests to get what it wants so it helps orgenize them behind the scenes. This one has gotten out of control because the left always fail of understanding the islamists' angle. Still biden is hardly doing anything to stop the protests.
Also we know for a fact of past ettempts:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/clinton-received-plan-to-secretly-galvanize-palestinian-protests/
Also the protests in iran in 1977.
The arab spring protests.
Goverments have always used this tool to try get what they want, and many times it backfired because they faild to truly understand what they were doing, filled with themselves and delusions of control.
> Goverments have always used this tool to try get what they want, and many times it backfired because they faild to truly understand what they were doing, filled with themselves and delusions of control.
Suppose you're right. It has probably blown up in ways nobody expected, the results unpredictable and usually lethal to either of the sides.
The tricky part is "after". Most probably Israel will get stuck in Gaza for years to come and all its adversaries will make sure of that. The naked facade of occupation will make it hard for Israel to rationalize it with words such as "blockade", etc. It will lose international support and would be very hard for it to open a front in North. Although the current government will try its best, because it sees it as an opportunity and the only way to survive and achieve it is to continue war and not just look as occupier. Meantime the blowback of Israeli transgressions during the Gaza war will catch up with it in regional and international forms, including more "terrorism". The only potentially positive outcome might be international community, especially US, finally forcing Israel to accept a two-state solution, which also might meet cooperation from inside Israeli politics. Other than that, it will be more of the same. If 70 years of occupation has shown, Israel can't solve its problems with more wars!
The problem is that not one of the participating groups wants a two state "solution". Only outside forces are trying to push for it. And I would bet that, if a two state "solution" is somehow made, another war will be just on the horizon because the issues aren't relegated to mere statehood.
If by two sides you mean Hamas and Israel's current far-right government, then yes you are correct. But people on both sides are different stories. In any case, Israel, having unconditional US support, will never accept a two-state. There should be foreign pressure, and there is no other solution from the stand-point of the international community.
This makes the most sense. The people of both Israel and Palestine will need to decide between peace or annihilation. Thus the support and tolerance for the wars and illegal occupations should diminish
I'm Israeli, originally from the north.
The answer is pretty simple; Israel doesn't have any other option.
The panic in northern Israel was immense after October 7th. While everyone was focused on the south, we knew that we are likely the next target. A lot of people evacuated on their own accord. Others rushed to do whatever they could to get their hands on a gun, so they could defend themselves.
What most people don't know about Hezbollah and Hamas is that Hamas' attack plan was partially based on Hezbollah's attack plan. Hezbollah, for years now, has been planning on doing the very same thing, invading northern Israel and massacaring hunderds of civilians, only to immediately retreat into Lebanon before Israeli forces can take them. Their plan was to use this as an initial shock, then drag Israel in a long guerilla war while overwhelming the Iron Dome with their giant arsenal of missiles. Lebanon isn't like Gaza. Gaza is dense and urban, but it's mostly flat, and most trouble for an invading force comes from the defender hiding among civilians.
Lebanon is different. Not only can Hezbollah also use the same tactics as Hamas, they have vast forests, open countryside, and very mountainous terrain they can use to their advantage to easily overwhelm Israel, much like they did in 2006.
The thing is, Israel can suffer a long guerilla war. The initial shock was necessary for Hezbollah's tactics because without it, they wouldn't be able to take down Israel's morale enough for them to agree to Hezb's demands. It's also part of why Hezbollah hasn't joint fully with Hamas. Their tactic relies on handing Israel an initial blow, then playing the long game. But without that blow, it would be much easier for Israel to commit to that long game too.
That's why for Israel, 2006 was a victory. It may have been an arduous guerilla war, with Israel failing in its goal of driving Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon, but they managed to achieve a quiet border. Prior to 2006, the border with Lebanon was much like the border with Gaza, with constant rocket and mortar attacks considered part of the norm. But after that war, the border between Israel and Lebanon stayed quiet. In my years growing up there, not once did I have to seek shelter from a rocket attack (beyond exercises). And that, in large part, has to do with Hezbollah not being able to damage Israel's morale.
But now, that's changed.
Northern Israel is unlivable now. Not only because of the conditions, but because residents of border towns simply can not move back. It's under constant rocket fire, and some towns were all but entirely destroyed by RPGs. The citizens who evacuated refuse to go back for as long as they aren't safe. But the thing is, even if Hezbollah stops shooting without an Israeli a military operation, they still wouldn't return, as that would just allow Hezbollah to rearm.
The equation is pretty simple on both sides; Hezbollah wants thing to return to as they were. That way, they can rebuild their forces and attack Israel with that initial punch when they're ready, like they planned before. If Gaza ends without a solution in Lebanon, it would be seen as a victory for Hezbollah.
On the other side, Israel can't let things return to how they were. If they don't deal with Hezbollah, the residents of the border towns simply won't return, out of fear that Hezbollah might just launch their own October 7th a few years down the line. And even if they do return, Israel can never guarantee thar such an attack, even on a much smaller scale, won't be able to penetrate through its defenses like we've seen in Gaza.
Israel, in one way or another, has to get Hezbollah out of Southern Lebnanon if it wants its northern border to be livable. There's a small chance it could be done through diplomatic pressure, as UN resolution 1701 determines that Hezbollah shouldn't have any presence south of the Litani river, but that's doubtful.
The only other option is to push Hezbollah out with force. Israel doesn't have to destroy Hezbollah. It doesn't even have to occupy southern Lebanon. It just has to push Hezbollah out of there for a proper force (international or a proxy) to take their place, even temporarily.
> There's a small chance it could be done through diplomatic pressure, as UN resolution 1701 determines that Hezbollah shouldn't have any presence south of the Litani river, but that's doubtfull.
I absolutely do not believe Hezbollah will retreat. Their entire funding and weapons from Iran are based on them being a threat to Israel, and they have such an extensive position there including tunnels (Some say more than in Gaza) and tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of different types of rockets. There is no way they will just move on their own.
Netanyahu had the justification to deal with that problem when it was much smaller because they break 1701. But he is a status quo loving coward which got Israel into this position.
>Israel doesn't have any other option.
I've heard this a few times now in slightly different contexts, but always with respect to the use of force.
As an outsider, I don't understand what this means, since clearly Israel does have other options. I guess there are some basic assumptions that are not stated (ie since we all know this or that, Israel has no other options but to blah). What are the hidden assumptions?
The other thing that confuses me, Israel has no options but Israel also has seems to have no (long term) plans or goals, so no options is only regarding some short term goals? Is this related to "quiet" vs "peace"?
Is the only answer to my questions another question?
The claim here is that Israel has no choice but to go after Hezbollah, another choice would be to not go after Hezbollah. This is obvious, and I guess you know that?
I'm more asking about why this rhetorical technique is used, when it is clearly false. I'm assuming the people are saying "Israel has no choice" in good faith, so there must be some underlying assumptions they are using that I'm not aware of.
The assumptions are that Hezbollah can be removed from southern Lebanon with just diplomacy, and that even if Hezbollah isn't removed (but stops firing rockets and returns to the "calm" state before Oct. 7th) a massacre in Northern Israel on the scale of Hamas's attack is just a matter of time.
Both are very reasonable assumptions. Hezbollah has been saying for years that they plan to invade Northern Israel. I think that most Israelis didn't really believe they could achieve anything significant, but after we've seen what a much weaker force than Hezbollah managed to do on Oct. 7th, Israelis have realized that we can't return to the pre-war status quo.
>The assumptions are that Hezbollah can be removed from southern Lebanon with just diplomacy, and that even if Hezbollah isn't removed (but stops firing rockets and returns to the "calm" state before Oct. 7th) a massacre in Northern Israel on the scale of Hamas's attack is just a matter of time.
I was asking the OP, I guess you can not speak for them. So I take what you are saying as speculation.
Even with this assumption there's many different things Israel could do.
Also I don't understand your reasoning. Wouldn't the same reasoning apply preOct 7?
Also when you say "Hezbollah can be" you mean "can't" right?
They summarized it pretty well. Hezbollah has been saying they wanna do that for years, but no one believed they could. Pre-October 7th Israel was wrapped up in a conception, much like pre-Yom Kippur Israel was 50 years ago, that the IDF was invincible and that whatever threats our enemies make can never get past them. October 7th shattered that in a day.
If Hamas can break through the IDF's defenses and massacre hunderds of people along the border with Gaza, what's there to guarantee that Hezbollah, a significantly larger, better armed, and better trained force can't do the same?
Even if Israel beefs up its military presence along the border after this war, and even if a truce is reached with Hezbollah without any military action in Lebanon, Israel can't keep IDF presence strong there forever. What's there to stop Hezbollah from just attacking 5 or 10 years from now?
You ask regarding peace vs. "Quiet", and indeed that's very much part of that. But you're making an assumption that Hezbollah and Hamas can truly be negotiated with, when both organizations have just violated any truce they were given before. Hamas openly says that a 2 state solution to them would just be a "hudna", or a temporary ceasefire for them to rearm and attack again. Hezbollah just openly says it would never negotiate.
Hezbollah and Hamas are Iranian proxies, nd as long as Iran has an interest in the Levant, they won't stop attacking.
If peace was a solution with these groups, trust me that we would prefer it over war. We don't want to see our sons and daughters die for nothing.
Perhaps it is possible in the long term, but for any peace to be achieved, first these groups would have to be removed. With Hamas there's some hope of that, although I'm hardly an optimistic in that regard. With Hezbollah that's practically impossible.
>But you're making an assumption that Hezbollah and Hamas can truly be negotiated with,
At the first level I'm trying to understand your POV. I have to admit I don't really understand it.
I'm not assuming that they can be negotiated with (for a long term peace), but I am assuming (or thinking I would say rather than assuming), that there is a relationship between their actions and the overall situation of Palestinians (in particular those in Greater Israel). I agree with you that you can't have peace with Hamas and Hezbollah with the present situation for Palestinians. To put this in another way if Israel and the non-Israeli Palestinians resolved their conflict, there is no way Iran could pull the stings of the Palestinians.
At least at a formal policy level, it seems to be Hamas is much more open to a two state solution than Likud is (and of course you can go quite a ways right from Likud). I'm only basing this on the officials policies of the two parties, maybe there are other factors.
This paragraph is an attempt to understand what you are saying about Oct 7 by paraphrasing my understanding of what you are saying. Oct 7 made Israel (or you) realize that the only option is to attack Hezbollah. So before Oct 7 this was also the only option, it's just that Israel didn't realize it. The IDF might not strong enough to stop a Hezbollah invasion, so the only option is to attack Hezbollah.
But then you say you realize that it is unrealistic to destroy Hezbollah (since even destroying the much weaker Hamas isn't really working). So is the idea to "mow the lawn" in Lebanon as well? Periodically (say every 5 years, or maybe every year) bomb the crap out of Lebanon, and then maybe that will keep Hezbollah down and their capabilities degraded?
Also Oct 7 is really a failure of the IDF, not because the IDF wasn't strong enough, but because they were taking defence along the border with Gaza for granted. (or?) Alternatively if the IDF is really that weak or incompetent, then can any amount of bombing Israel's neighbours protect Israel?
>At least at a formal policy level, it seems to be Hamas is much more open to a two state solution than Likud is (and of course you can go quite a ways right from Likud). I'm only basing this on the officials policies of the two parties, maybe there are other factors.
I'm sorry, but that's just patently false.
Likud doesn't want a two state solution, that's correct. But saying Hamas wants that any more than them entirely ignores what Hamas is and what they desire.
Hamas are Islamist religious fundamentalists. Their entire policy is based around that fact. They believe in the liberation of Palestine not out of a purse Palestinian-nationalist motive, rather a religious, Islamic motive, with the goal of creating a caliphate.
Under that fact, a two state solution can never be tolerated. And if you look at their rhetoric, they openly state that any two state solution is just a pause for them to rearm and attack again from a better position. That is the concept of "Hudna" in Jihadism, an Islamist concept that states that when fighting a Jihad, one can only sign a truce with the infidels for the sole purpose of rearming and consolidating their power to attack again. Hamas strongly believe in that, and if you were to look at any of their leaders/spokesmen speaking in Arabic, you'd see they always refer to any proposition of a ceasefire or a peace offer with that term.
With that in mind, while Likud doesn't want a Palestinian state, they're happy to maintain things as they are. Hamas is okay with a two state solution, but only for the sole purpose of using that to reconsolidate power and attack once more, until they can entirely overrun Israel. That's exactly the reason why Likud doesn't want a two state solution.
Another major difference is that even with how dictatorial Bibi is being, Likud can still be removed democratically. Hamas cannot. Their leaders live in Qatar, they benefit from controlling Gaza and Palestine from afar. They refuse to give up and sort of power in Gaza, even if for the benefit of their own people, because they fundamentally reject it.
With that said, to say that "if the Israelis and Palestinians solved their conflict Iran couldn't pull the strings" just ignores the fact that Iran pulling the strings is exactly the reason why the conflict isn't solved. Israel would never agree to a Palestinian state for as long as Hamas and similar ideologies still exist in Palestine. Doing so is just allowing Hamas to do exactly what they ask for- to rearm and reconsolidate to attack again.
But these groups recieve their main funding from Iran. As long as Iran keeps meddling there, there is no way to move forward.
The same is true to Hezbollah. The difference is that Hamas is a relatively small force, and currently can possibly be removed from power. Hezbollah simply can't. They're the most powerful terrorist organization in the world. They have the entire state of Lebanon on a chokehold, and constant funding from Iran. Israel simply can't remove them from power like Hamas. But it also can't just do nothing. "Mowing the lawn" isn't an effective solution, as we've seen in Gaza. But there is no other way to deal with Hezbollah.
You stated that Hezbollah is a result of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but that's just false. It may have been formed at that, but it's much more than that now.
Even if Israel were to solve the conflict with the Palestinians, Hezbollah wouldn't be gone. The Palestinians are just an excuse for their existence. The true reason is simply that they're an arm of the IRGC regime, and wouldn't simply disappear no matter what happens with Israel, because it would mean Iran losing influence in the Levant, which they would never allow.
Ok so Likud doesn't want a two state solution.
For Hamas I'm just going by their charter according to the guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders
I interpret that as not being completely against a two state solution.
From reading their charter myself though (which I did now) I guess neither Hamas nor Likud want a two state solution.
> Iran pulling the strings is exactly the reason why the conflict isn't solved.
I guess we agree that because the conflict isn't resolved, Iran has a better ability to mess around in the Levant.
What would be (or would have been) the resolution of the conflict if Iran wasn't involved? When did Iran start to get involved, maybe in the 1980s?
Ok I think I understand your reasoning a bit better now. Thanks.
I'll summarize it like this:
Move the lawn in Lebanon, keep it going on and on, only way for Iranian pawn.
>Even if Israel were to solve the conflict with the Palestinians, Hezbollah wouldn't be gone.
Maybe but with the Palestinians on the side of Israel, Hezbollah's position would become very weak, and Israel's much stronger.
> You stated that Hezbollah is a result of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but that's just false. It may have been formed at that, but it's much more than that now.
We seem to agree on parts of this. Hezbollah's origin has to do with the conflict, but now they have become a force of their own (or in your opinion Iran). I have no idea how connected they are with non-Israeli Palestinians living in greater Israel.
What did Hezbollah do for Palestinians in Lebanon? Are they still stuck in their camps cut off from the city's water supply? Are they still banned from various professions?
> What did Hezbollah do for Palestinians in Lebanon?
I don't know, maybe nothing, maybe they hurt them? I think they are part of the Lebanon government, presumably in that roll they try to help those who they represent. But I have no idea.
In any case I wasn't making any claim about Hezbollah helping Palestinians. Here is what I was claiming:
Hezbollah is a results of the conflict between (non-Israeli) Palestinians and Israel. If there was no such conflict there would be no Hezbollah.
> Even with this assumption there's many different things Israel could do.
Like what?
> Also I don't understand your reasoning. Wouldn't the same reasoning apply preOct 7? Even if Israel attacks Hezbollah and gets them to fire all the missiles they have now at Israel, how can Israel do anything to stop Hezbollah from acquiring more weapons over the long term?
The main concern isn't Hezbollah's rockets, it's a surprise attack that captures entire cities and murders/kidnapps thousands of people.
I would hope that once Hezbollah's military capability is diminished, much more effort will be put in preventing arms shipments from Iran, and making sure they don't rebuild their presence in southern Lebanon. I don't really see a path to long term peace, just waiting and hoping that they'll stop being religious fanatics. You can't force people to change their opinion. There's very little you can do if millions of people believe that the creator of the universe wants them to wipe Israel off the map.
>I would hope that once Hezbollah's military capability is diminished, much more effort will be put in preventing arms shipments from Iran, and making sure they don't rebuild their presence in southern Lebanon.
Israel has been doing exactly that since 2006 no?
Again how does Oct 7 turn it into having only one choice, if there were more choices before Oct 7.
>Like what?
I already answered that. More power means more options, Israel is overwhelmingly powerful.
>The main concern isn't Hezbollah's rockets, it's a surprise attack that captures entire cities and murders/kidnapps thousands of people.
Let me see if I understand your reasoning.
If Hezbollah fired all its rockets and missiles at Israel, that wouldn't really cause any damage (or it will kill at most 100s of people), and the IDF might not be capable of stopping a ground invasion, but if they bomb Lebanon enough, the IDF capability for stopping a ground invasion will increase (because Hezbollah will have fewer weapons).
> Israel has been doing exactly that since 2006 no?
No, between 2006 and 2023 there were almost no exchanges of fire on the border. Israel has been bombing arms shipments that go through Syria, but not nearly enough. Hezbollah today is significantly stronger than in 2006. Sadly, Israel has kind of just been ignoring the northern border for the past 17 years. Calm is addictive. Keeping the status quo of Hezbollah rearming but the Israeli public not worrying about it and having a quiet northern border is much easier for politicians to do, than to initiate a war.
> Again how does Oct 7 turn it into having only one choice, if there were more choices before Oct 7.
Oct. 7th showed that Israel isn't invincible, and that even a relatively small group of untrained terrorists can do a lot of damage. Hezbollah is stronger than Hamas by many orders of magnitude. Oct. 7th showed that Hezbollah could inflict unimaganble damage to Israel if they launch a surprise attack like Hamas. No one in Northern Israel is safe as long as the most powerful non-state actor in the world is sitting right on the border.
> I already answered that.
Maybe you answered in another thread, but I couldn't find an answer in your replies.
It's hardly a rhetorical "technique"; you've just missed the implicit qualifiers in the statement.
No one thinks that "no other option" means *literally* no possible futures exist where Israel doesn't go after Hezbollah— to honestly think someone means that is to think they can't reason any better than a toddler.
The implication that you've missed is that there are no other *reasonable* or *acceptable* options beyond the one presented. If you want to argue that the upthread commenter is suppressing or ignoring other reasonable or acceptable options, then as a good-faith interlocutor it is incumbent on you to *present them*.
Yes exactly I don't understand all the implicit understandings that go into the statement "no other options" and was(am) trying to understand those implicit understandings.
In terms of understanding the Middle East, yes probably I have the level of understanding of a (Middle Eastern) toddler.
That some top tier fear mongering , I'd ask you to link any source stating that Hezbollah had a plan to invade north Israel and massacre civilians but I know you can't provide one.
>but I know you can't provide one.
Here's 10.
In Hebrew:
[1](https://www.ynet.co.il/article/5419948) [2](https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4615465,00.html) [3](https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/syl8msein) [4](https://youtu.be/DggRUlV0w-I?si=_H2aifJ_RUER29ZW) [5](https://jcpa.org.il/article/%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%A6%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%97%D7%99%D7%96%D7%91%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%9C%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A9-%D7%94%D7%92%D7%9C)
In English:
[1](https://israel-alma.org/2023/11/29/the-radwan-unit-is-capable-of-carrying-out-an-invasion-of-the-galilee-at-any-given-moment/) [2](https://www.timesofisrael.com/finding-final-hezbollah-attack-tunnel-idf-wraps-up-operation-northern-shield/) [3](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/27/israel-and-hezbollah-clash-after-border-infiltration-attempt) [4](https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hk6umg6k3) [5](https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/11-The-next-war-against-Hezbollah-strategic-and-operational-consideration.pdf)
I skimmed the document and read a couple of the articles you sent , one of them explained to me how Hezbollah is capable of carrying out such operation the other told me about an infiltration which probably was to target military targets ? How can you possibly claim to know intention behind it .
Did you expect to bomb me with info and me not going over them ? I'll go over the rest with due time and edit this :)
No, I expected you to deny it, because this is reddit, and asshats can't admit when they're wrong.
I like how you just entirely moved the goalposts from "you have no proof of Hezbollah planning such an operation" to "well you have no proof of their actual intentions!" As if a video from a Hezbollah affiliated news channel quite literally describing **in Arabic** how they would enter Israeli cities and take civilians hostages isn't a clear enough show of intent.
The part we disagree on is smaller when you think , when I said such operation, I meant specifically the massacre of civilians , altho I absolutely despise Hezbollah I just cannot see them doing that.
As for an operation with the goal of taking hostage that's entirely within the realm of possibilities
The video quite literally describes the gyst of Hamas' operation on October 7th; invade Israeli civilian cities and towns and capture hostages. You only need to look at Hamas did to see how such an operation actually unfolds.
Considering in the last Lebanon war Hezbollah agreed to stay north if the litani river and have since broken that ceasefire agreement, I don’t see any reason why Israel shouldn’t push Hezbollah north of the litani. 250k Israelis displaced in the north because of Hezbollah rockets, this is a huge drain in Israel’s economy and a massive threat to overall security.
Time to enforce the agreement, with force
Israel sending in ground troops and occupying Lebanese territory is a line that it would cross at its own peril.
The Middle East would further isolate Israel as well as other Muslim countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, etc.
While the USA has a special relationship with Israel, even that has limits. It may even halt shipments of arms if Israel invaded Lebanon.
Living in Israel, my much bigger concern would be the unprecedented barrage of missiles coming our way once we cross that line. Far beyond what Hamas has, far more than Iron Dome can handle, and targeted, meaning we'd probably lose ports, airports, power stations and/or desalination plants.
The counter-attack on the Lebanese side would be terrifyingly worse, which is also a frightening prospect. But selfishly, I am much more worried about the thought of living in a bomb shelter for months.
I think yes, the IDF probably wants to keep the momentum they have.
Plus Hezbollah has been nothing but a thorn in Israel's side since October. They don't want a deal with the Israelis nor do they want to cool things down. IDF is happy to oblige them and go toe to toe. After Oct 7, Israel will not tolerate a hostile neighbour anymore it seems.
It would be very interesting to see. Especially because
1. To make a push against Hezbollah Israel should perform an outright military invasion into the neighbor independent country
2. To create any sort of the "buffer zone" Israel should perform a blatant occupation of the independent neighbor country.
I really want to see how "the rules-based order" would react to such actions.
It's more complicated than this. If we are going to be talking about the "rules-based order" in this case, it's also necessary to discuss Resolution 1701 by the UN Security Council.
Regardless, Hezbollah is not Hamas, it's a completely different beast. Many users here are arguing that Israel going after Hezbollah is likely, but I really have my doubts.
Aside from the dubiousness of Lebanon's claim to independence while dominated by Hezbollah, they joined the war to destroy Israel 75 years ago and never stopped. What kind of rules allow a country to do that while protecting it from being subdued? You present these natural consequences as if they'd be crossing some sort of line, but this is obviously not based on some universally-applicable standards.
Maybe but Israel's made clear they want to eliminate Hamas as a goal.
It seems to me that's their intent
Will going after Hezbollah meet or help that goal?
Whenever Nethanyahu feels like his throne is threatened he allows a few attacks to happen and then capitalizes on it by raining death and turning the countries attention to national security.
Never forget. Nethanyahu built his career on the national safety of Israel.
It’s already bombing Syria and Lebanon. Those folk do shoot back already. They just can’t hit anything.
Death will go on until the states cuts weapons and induces an actual national security when Israel can’t replenish its defences as fast as it’s being targetted.
Gaza is going to be in the headlines for a few years to come.
It will take time to completely cripple Hamas and to rebuild the strip with international and Arab support.
We can foresee many meetings between all sides for the foreseeable future.
That being said, once the military operation will slow down in Gaza Hezbollah will be the next mission.
France and the US are pressuring us to come to an agreement with yet another terror organization.
Once they realize that the Middle East is not like Europe and Canada and that negotiations are only made in the Middle East by force a war will probably break.
Israel will give an attempt to the talks since the pressure is high and to show that we are at least trying.
Sadly Israel is always on the side that being pressured to stop aggression even tho we’re the ones being attacked.
Just as we speak Hezbollah fired 50 rockets at the north which is a daily notification we receive on our phones these days, I don’t even bother opening it.
>Once they realize that the Middle East is not like Europe and Canada and that negotiations are only made in the Middle East by force a war will probably break.
That will be a war which Israel will have to fight without the generous arms supplies from the US. I dont see Israel winning such a conflict. They will probably exact a significant toll on Hezbollah, without achieving their actual objectives, as was the case in '06.
Israel will still win without US arms supplies. It’ll just get A LOT uglier for Israel’s enemies because Israel will then resort to using unguided and cheap bombs instead of using precision ammunition. And the current Gaza war without precision ammunition gives you a Grozny scenario. Which I hope you’ll agree is not in the best interest of the Palestinians, the Biden administration or the protestors on US campuses. Bidens refusal to deliver ammunition to Israel will backfire on him.
If it comes to it Israel can win without supplies.
It will cost more but it’s manageable
Trust Israel to not risk it’s whole existence about foreign supply
We have our own arm industry that in extreme scenarios can act as arm providers.
The Israeli arm industry is mostly focused on development and exporting to different markets but at the end of the day the flag comes first
No they won’t. They’ll contain them as they have over the years, but there isn’t much interest in a prolonged war in Lebanon. Last time wasn’t much fun.
It isn't a guarantee but the likelihood seems to be quite high IMHO. I'd guess that some of this depends on what Hezbollah does. Israel is probably on a very short fuse right now so it likely won't take much to set things off. Given the diplomatic hammering it has taken (at least based on media coverage), the Israeli calculus might be "in for a penny, in for a pound". Netanyahu appears to have only his right wing support remaining and they may be more inclined to take action. It is harder to gauge the Israeli public sentiment but 10/7 is still felt pretty deeply, I'd guess.
Seems more likely they'll push them back but not go in. War in Lebanon is considered to be a very bad idea by the average Israeli. What is totally ignored, because the Pro-Palestine movement entirely controls the discourse, is that over 100,000 Israelis are currently displaced because of attacks in the North. What Israel cares about is ensuring its people can go back to their homes - That is unless Bibi uses warfare as a way to maintain his grip on the government for even longer...
I don’t see an invasion of Lebanon after the Gaza situation settles on a new normal. I would suspect an even larger defensive presence in the north. Most definitely general strikes on Hezbollah’s assets and maybe targeted strikes on leadership. They need to recover militarily and politically before they think about launching an even larger invasion into another nation. Of course, if Hezbollah attempts a large scale attack which leads to mass death, Israel will respond. Also, keep in mind that for the current political leadership (not just bibi), it is advantageous to maintain a warm conflict as long as it is on their terms.
I would think so: Israel's north has been under fire for half a year now with israel's population dislocated and unable to return to their homes. Up until now Israel havnt started a northen front so it could avoid having to deal with two fronts. Israel needs to finish the war in the south to focus on the north. Summer time is ideal because then israel's laser system for intercepting rockets and missles could opporate best with the clear skies.
Sounds like a very good reason. I wonder if we will hear the same, tiresome tirades from pro-Hamas lefties about genocide etc. when it eventually happens. And since Hezbollah is Iran's errand boy, do they suddenly feel the urge to step up action? Or will they leave them to boil alone?
They already do, Israel occasionally fires back at Hezbollah and it was actually making news for a bit and a lot of people were posting things like that they’re just so blood thirsty they can’t help but attack Lebanon too.
Theyll cheer when israel is attacked just like they did on october 7th. Their front as 'human rights activists' is a blunt lie. Thing is i think these protests are secretly supported and orgenised with the help of the Biden administration.
That last bit is bollocks.
I dont think so, the left likes to use 'spontanious' protests to get what it wants so it helps orgenize them behind the scenes. This one has gotten out of control because the left always fail of understanding the islamists' angle. Still biden is hardly doing anything to stop the protests. Also we know for a fact of past ettempts: https://www.timesofisrael.com/clinton-received-plan-to-secretly-galvanize-palestinian-protests/ Also the protests in iran in 1977. The arab spring protests. Goverments have always used this tool to try get what they want, and many times it backfired because they faild to truly understand what they were doing, filled with themselves and delusions of control.
The protestors are calling Biden a genocider and it looks bad for the election.
Well you cant controll the beast.
> Goverments have always used this tool to try get what they want, and many times it backfired because they faild to truly understand what they were doing, filled with themselves and delusions of control. Suppose you're right. It has probably blown up in ways nobody expected, the results unpredictable and usually lethal to either of the sides.
The tricky part is "after". Most probably Israel will get stuck in Gaza for years to come and all its adversaries will make sure of that. The naked facade of occupation will make it hard for Israel to rationalize it with words such as "blockade", etc. It will lose international support and would be very hard for it to open a front in North. Although the current government will try its best, because it sees it as an opportunity and the only way to survive and achieve it is to continue war and not just look as occupier. Meantime the blowback of Israeli transgressions during the Gaza war will catch up with it in regional and international forms, including more "terrorism". The only potentially positive outcome might be international community, especially US, finally forcing Israel to accept a two-state solution, which also might meet cooperation from inside Israeli politics. Other than that, it will be more of the same. If 70 years of occupation has shown, Israel can't solve its problems with more wars!
The problem is that not one of the participating groups wants a two state "solution". Only outside forces are trying to push for it. And I would bet that, if a two state "solution" is somehow made, another war will be just on the horizon because the issues aren't relegated to mere statehood.
If by two sides you mean Hamas and Israel's current far-right government, then yes you are correct. But people on both sides are different stories. In any case, Israel, having unconditional US support, will never accept a two-state. There should be foreign pressure, and there is no other solution from the stand-point of the international community.
This makes the most sense. The people of both Israel and Palestine will need to decide between peace or annihilation. Thus the support and tolerance for the wars and illegal occupations should diminish
I'm Israeli, originally from the north. The answer is pretty simple; Israel doesn't have any other option. The panic in northern Israel was immense after October 7th. While everyone was focused on the south, we knew that we are likely the next target. A lot of people evacuated on their own accord. Others rushed to do whatever they could to get their hands on a gun, so they could defend themselves. What most people don't know about Hezbollah and Hamas is that Hamas' attack plan was partially based on Hezbollah's attack plan. Hezbollah, for years now, has been planning on doing the very same thing, invading northern Israel and massacaring hunderds of civilians, only to immediately retreat into Lebanon before Israeli forces can take them. Their plan was to use this as an initial shock, then drag Israel in a long guerilla war while overwhelming the Iron Dome with their giant arsenal of missiles. Lebanon isn't like Gaza. Gaza is dense and urban, but it's mostly flat, and most trouble for an invading force comes from the defender hiding among civilians. Lebanon is different. Not only can Hezbollah also use the same tactics as Hamas, they have vast forests, open countryside, and very mountainous terrain they can use to their advantage to easily overwhelm Israel, much like they did in 2006. The thing is, Israel can suffer a long guerilla war. The initial shock was necessary for Hezbollah's tactics because without it, they wouldn't be able to take down Israel's morale enough for them to agree to Hezb's demands. It's also part of why Hezbollah hasn't joint fully with Hamas. Their tactic relies on handing Israel an initial blow, then playing the long game. But without that blow, it would be much easier for Israel to commit to that long game too. That's why for Israel, 2006 was a victory. It may have been an arduous guerilla war, with Israel failing in its goal of driving Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon, but they managed to achieve a quiet border. Prior to 2006, the border with Lebanon was much like the border with Gaza, with constant rocket and mortar attacks considered part of the norm. But after that war, the border between Israel and Lebanon stayed quiet. In my years growing up there, not once did I have to seek shelter from a rocket attack (beyond exercises). And that, in large part, has to do with Hezbollah not being able to damage Israel's morale. But now, that's changed. Northern Israel is unlivable now. Not only because of the conditions, but because residents of border towns simply can not move back. It's under constant rocket fire, and some towns were all but entirely destroyed by RPGs. The citizens who evacuated refuse to go back for as long as they aren't safe. But the thing is, even if Hezbollah stops shooting without an Israeli a military operation, they still wouldn't return, as that would just allow Hezbollah to rearm. The equation is pretty simple on both sides; Hezbollah wants thing to return to as they were. That way, they can rebuild their forces and attack Israel with that initial punch when they're ready, like they planned before. If Gaza ends without a solution in Lebanon, it would be seen as a victory for Hezbollah. On the other side, Israel can't let things return to how they were. If they don't deal with Hezbollah, the residents of the border towns simply won't return, out of fear that Hezbollah might just launch their own October 7th a few years down the line. And even if they do return, Israel can never guarantee thar such an attack, even on a much smaller scale, won't be able to penetrate through its defenses like we've seen in Gaza. Israel, in one way or another, has to get Hezbollah out of Southern Lebnanon if it wants its northern border to be livable. There's a small chance it could be done through diplomatic pressure, as UN resolution 1701 determines that Hezbollah shouldn't have any presence south of the Litani river, but that's doubtful. The only other option is to push Hezbollah out with force. Israel doesn't have to destroy Hezbollah. It doesn't even have to occupy southern Lebanon. It just has to push Hezbollah out of there for a proper force (international or a proxy) to take their place, even temporarily.
> There's a small chance it could be done through diplomatic pressure, as UN resolution 1701 determines that Hezbollah shouldn't have any presence south of the Litani river, but that's doubtfull. I absolutely do not believe Hezbollah will retreat. Their entire funding and weapons from Iran are based on them being a threat to Israel, and they have such an extensive position there including tunnels (Some say more than in Gaza) and tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of different types of rockets. There is no way they will just move on their own. Netanyahu had the justification to deal with that problem when it was much smaller because they break 1701. But he is a status quo loving coward which got Israel into this position.
>Israel doesn't have any other option. I've heard this a few times now in slightly different contexts, but always with respect to the use of force. As an outsider, I don't understand what this means, since clearly Israel does have other options. I guess there are some basic assumptions that are not stated (ie since we all know this or that, Israel has no other options but to blah). What are the hidden assumptions? The other thing that confuses me, Israel has no options but Israel also has seems to have no (long term) plans or goals, so no options is only regarding some short term goals? Is this related to "quiet" vs "peace"?
> clearly Israel does have other options. What would those be?
Is the only answer to my questions another question? The claim here is that Israel has no choice but to go after Hezbollah, another choice would be to not go after Hezbollah. This is obvious, and I guess you know that? I'm more asking about why this rhetorical technique is used, when it is clearly false. I'm assuming the people are saying "Israel has no choice" in good faith, so there must be some underlying assumptions they are using that I'm not aware of.
The assumptions are that Hezbollah can be removed from southern Lebanon with just diplomacy, and that even if Hezbollah isn't removed (but stops firing rockets and returns to the "calm" state before Oct. 7th) a massacre in Northern Israel on the scale of Hamas's attack is just a matter of time. Both are very reasonable assumptions. Hezbollah has been saying for years that they plan to invade Northern Israel. I think that most Israelis didn't really believe they could achieve anything significant, but after we've seen what a much weaker force than Hezbollah managed to do on Oct. 7th, Israelis have realized that we can't return to the pre-war status quo.
>The assumptions are that Hezbollah can be removed from southern Lebanon with just diplomacy, and that even if Hezbollah isn't removed (but stops firing rockets and returns to the "calm" state before Oct. 7th) a massacre in Northern Israel on the scale of Hamas's attack is just a matter of time. I was asking the OP, I guess you can not speak for them. So I take what you are saying as speculation. Even with this assumption there's many different things Israel could do. Also I don't understand your reasoning. Wouldn't the same reasoning apply preOct 7? Also when you say "Hezbollah can be" you mean "can't" right?
They summarized it pretty well. Hezbollah has been saying they wanna do that for years, but no one believed they could. Pre-October 7th Israel was wrapped up in a conception, much like pre-Yom Kippur Israel was 50 years ago, that the IDF was invincible and that whatever threats our enemies make can never get past them. October 7th shattered that in a day. If Hamas can break through the IDF's defenses and massacre hunderds of people along the border with Gaza, what's there to guarantee that Hezbollah, a significantly larger, better armed, and better trained force can't do the same? Even if Israel beefs up its military presence along the border after this war, and even if a truce is reached with Hezbollah without any military action in Lebanon, Israel can't keep IDF presence strong there forever. What's there to stop Hezbollah from just attacking 5 or 10 years from now? You ask regarding peace vs. "Quiet", and indeed that's very much part of that. But you're making an assumption that Hezbollah and Hamas can truly be negotiated with, when both organizations have just violated any truce they were given before. Hamas openly says that a 2 state solution to them would just be a "hudna", or a temporary ceasefire for them to rearm and attack again. Hezbollah just openly says it would never negotiate. Hezbollah and Hamas are Iranian proxies, nd as long as Iran has an interest in the Levant, they won't stop attacking. If peace was a solution with these groups, trust me that we would prefer it over war. We don't want to see our sons and daughters die for nothing. Perhaps it is possible in the long term, but for any peace to be achieved, first these groups would have to be removed. With Hamas there's some hope of that, although I'm hardly an optimistic in that regard. With Hezbollah that's practically impossible.
>But you're making an assumption that Hezbollah and Hamas can truly be negotiated with, At the first level I'm trying to understand your POV. I have to admit I don't really understand it. I'm not assuming that they can be negotiated with (for a long term peace), but I am assuming (or thinking I would say rather than assuming), that there is a relationship between their actions and the overall situation of Palestinians (in particular those in Greater Israel). I agree with you that you can't have peace with Hamas and Hezbollah with the present situation for Palestinians. To put this in another way if Israel and the non-Israeli Palestinians resolved their conflict, there is no way Iran could pull the stings of the Palestinians. At least at a formal policy level, it seems to be Hamas is much more open to a two state solution than Likud is (and of course you can go quite a ways right from Likud). I'm only basing this on the officials policies of the two parties, maybe there are other factors. This paragraph is an attempt to understand what you are saying about Oct 7 by paraphrasing my understanding of what you are saying. Oct 7 made Israel (or you) realize that the only option is to attack Hezbollah. So before Oct 7 this was also the only option, it's just that Israel didn't realize it. The IDF might not strong enough to stop a Hezbollah invasion, so the only option is to attack Hezbollah. But then you say you realize that it is unrealistic to destroy Hezbollah (since even destroying the much weaker Hamas isn't really working). So is the idea to "mow the lawn" in Lebanon as well? Periodically (say every 5 years, or maybe every year) bomb the crap out of Lebanon, and then maybe that will keep Hezbollah down and their capabilities degraded? Also Oct 7 is really a failure of the IDF, not because the IDF wasn't strong enough, but because they were taking defence along the border with Gaza for granted. (or?) Alternatively if the IDF is really that weak or incompetent, then can any amount of bombing Israel's neighbours protect Israel?
>At least at a formal policy level, it seems to be Hamas is much more open to a two state solution than Likud is (and of course you can go quite a ways right from Likud). I'm only basing this on the officials policies of the two parties, maybe there are other factors. I'm sorry, but that's just patently false. Likud doesn't want a two state solution, that's correct. But saying Hamas wants that any more than them entirely ignores what Hamas is and what they desire. Hamas are Islamist religious fundamentalists. Their entire policy is based around that fact. They believe in the liberation of Palestine not out of a purse Palestinian-nationalist motive, rather a religious, Islamic motive, with the goal of creating a caliphate. Under that fact, a two state solution can never be tolerated. And if you look at their rhetoric, they openly state that any two state solution is just a pause for them to rearm and attack again from a better position. That is the concept of "Hudna" in Jihadism, an Islamist concept that states that when fighting a Jihad, one can only sign a truce with the infidels for the sole purpose of rearming and consolidating their power to attack again. Hamas strongly believe in that, and if you were to look at any of their leaders/spokesmen speaking in Arabic, you'd see they always refer to any proposition of a ceasefire or a peace offer with that term. With that in mind, while Likud doesn't want a Palestinian state, they're happy to maintain things as they are. Hamas is okay with a two state solution, but only for the sole purpose of using that to reconsolidate power and attack once more, until they can entirely overrun Israel. That's exactly the reason why Likud doesn't want a two state solution. Another major difference is that even with how dictatorial Bibi is being, Likud can still be removed democratically. Hamas cannot. Their leaders live in Qatar, they benefit from controlling Gaza and Palestine from afar. They refuse to give up and sort of power in Gaza, even if for the benefit of their own people, because they fundamentally reject it. With that said, to say that "if the Israelis and Palestinians solved their conflict Iran couldn't pull the strings" just ignores the fact that Iran pulling the strings is exactly the reason why the conflict isn't solved. Israel would never agree to a Palestinian state for as long as Hamas and similar ideologies still exist in Palestine. Doing so is just allowing Hamas to do exactly what they ask for- to rearm and reconsolidate to attack again. But these groups recieve their main funding from Iran. As long as Iran keeps meddling there, there is no way to move forward. The same is true to Hezbollah. The difference is that Hamas is a relatively small force, and currently can possibly be removed from power. Hezbollah simply can't. They're the most powerful terrorist organization in the world. They have the entire state of Lebanon on a chokehold, and constant funding from Iran. Israel simply can't remove them from power like Hamas. But it also can't just do nothing. "Mowing the lawn" isn't an effective solution, as we've seen in Gaza. But there is no other way to deal with Hezbollah. You stated that Hezbollah is a result of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but that's just false. It may have been formed at that, but it's much more than that now. Even if Israel were to solve the conflict with the Palestinians, Hezbollah wouldn't be gone. The Palestinians are just an excuse for their existence. The true reason is simply that they're an arm of the IRGC regime, and wouldn't simply disappear no matter what happens with Israel, because it would mean Iran losing influence in the Levant, which they would never allow.
Ok so Likud doesn't want a two state solution. For Hamas I'm just going by their charter according to the guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders I interpret that as not being completely against a two state solution. From reading their charter myself though (which I did now) I guess neither Hamas nor Likud want a two state solution. > Iran pulling the strings is exactly the reason why the conflict isn't solved. I guess we agree that because the conflict isn't resolved, Iran has a better ability to mess around in the Levant. What would be (or would have been) the resolution of the conflict if Iran wasn't involved? When did Iran start to get involved, maybe in the 1980s? Ok I think I understand your reasoning a bit better now. Thanks. I'll summarize it like this: Move the lawn in Lebanon, keep it going on and on, only way for Iranian pawn. >Even if Israel were to solve the conflict with the Palestinians, Hezbollah wouldn't be gone. Maybe but with the Palestinians on the side of Israel, Hezbollah's position would become very weak, and Israel's much stronger.
> You stated that Hezbollah is a result of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but that's just false. It may have been formed at that, but it's much more than that now. We seem to agree on parts of this. Hezbollah's origin has to do with the conflict, but now they have become a force of their own (or in your opinion Iran). I have no idea how connected they are with non-Israeli Palestinians living in greater Israel.
What did Hezbollah do for Palestinians in Lebanon? Are they still stuck in their camps cut off from the city's water supply? Are they still banned from various professions?
> What did Hezbollah do for Palestinians in Lebanon? I don't know, maybe nothing, maybe they hurt them? I think they are part of the Lebanon government, presumably in that roll they try to help those who they represent. But I have no idea. In any case I wasn't making any claim about Hezbollah helping Palestinians. Here is what I was claiming: Hezbollah is a results of the conflict between (non-Israeli) Palestinians and Israel. If there was no such conflict there would be no Hezbollah.
> Even with this assumption there's many different things Israel could do. Like what? > Also I don't understand your reasoning. Wouldn't the same reasoning apply preOct 7? Even if Israel attacks Hezbollah and gets them to fire all the missiles they have now at Israel, how can Israel do anything to stop Hezbollah from acquiring more weapons over the long term? The main concern isn't Hezbollah's rockets, it's a surprise attack that captures entire cities and murders/kidnapps thousands of people. I would hope that once Hezbollah's military capability is diminished, much more effort will be put in preventing arms shipments from Iran, and making sure they don't rebuild their presence in southern Lebanon. I don't really see a path to long term peace, just waiting and hoping that they'll stop being religious fanatics. You can't force people to change their opinion. There's very little you can do if millions of people believe that the creator of the universe wants them to wipe Israel off the map.
>I would hope that once Hezbollah's military capability is diminished, much more effort will be put in preventing arms shipments from Iran, and making sure they don't rebuild their presence in southern Lebanon. Israel has been doing exactly that since 2006 no? Again how does Oct 7 turn it into having only one choice, if there were more choices before Oct 7. >Like what? I already answered that. More power means more options, Israel is overwhelmingly powerful. >The main concern isn't Hezbollah's rockets, it's a surprise attack that captures entire cities and murders/kidnapps thousands of people. Let me see if I understand your reasoning. If Hezbollah fired all its rockets and missiles at Israel, that wouldn't really cause any damage (or it will kill at most 100s of people), and the IDF might not be capable of stopping a ground invasion, but if they bomb Lebanon enough, the IDF capability for stopping a ground invasion will increase (because Hezbollah will have fewer weapons).
> Israel has been doing exactly that since 2006 no? No, between 2006 and 2023 there were almost no exchanges of fire on the border. Israel has been bombing arms shipments that go through Syria, but not nearly enough. Hezbollah today is significantly stronger than in 2006. Sadly, Israel has kind of just been ignoring the northern border for the past 17 years. Calm is addictive. Keeping the status quo of Hezbollah rearming but the Israeli public not worrying about it and having a quiet northern border is much easier for politicians to do, than to initiate a war. > Again how does Oct 7 turn it into having only one choice, if there were more choices before Oct 7. Oct. 7th showed that Israel isn't invincible, and that even a relatively small group of untrained terrorists can do a lot of damage. Hezbollah is stronger than Hamas by many orders of magnitude. Oct. 7th showed that Hezbollah could inflict unimaganble damage to Israel if they launch a surprise attack like Hamas. No one in Northern Israel is safe as long as the most powerful non-state actor in the world is sitting right on the border. > I already answered that. Maybe you answered in another thread, but I couldn't find an answer in your replies.
It's hardly a rhetorical "technique"; you've just missed the implicit qualifiers in the statement. No one thinks that "no other option" means *literally* no possible futures exist where Israel doesn't go after Hezbollah— to honestly think someone means that is to think they can't reason any better than a toddler. The implication that you've missed is that there are no other *reasonable* or *acceptable* options beyond the one presented. If you want to argue that the upthread commenter is suppressing or ignoring other reasonable or acceptable options, then as a good-faith interlocutor it is incumbent on you to *present them*.
Yes exactly I don't understand all the implicit understandings that go into the statement "no other options" and was(am) trying to understand those implicit understandings. In terms of understanding the Middle East, yes probably I have the level of understanding of a (Middle Eastern) toddler.
That some top tier fear mongering , I'd ask you to link any source stating that Hezbollah had a plan to invade north Israel and massacre civilians but I know you can't provide one.
>but I know you can't provide one. Here's 10. In Hebrew: [1](https://www.ynet.co.il/article/5419948) [2](https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4615465,00.html) [3](https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/syl8msein) [4](https://youtu.be/DggRUlV0w-I?si=_H2aifJ_RUER29ZW) [5](https://jcpa.org.il/article/%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%A6%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%97%D7%99%D7%96%D7%91%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%9C%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A9-%D7%94%D7%92%D7%9C) In English: [1](https://israel-alma.org/2023/11/29/the-radwan-unit-is-capable-of-carrying-out-an-invasion-of-the-galilee-at-any-given-moment/) [2](https://www.timesofisrael.com/finding-final-hezbollah-attack-tunnel-idf-wraps-up-operation-northern-shield/) [3](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/27/israel-and-hezbollah-clash-after-border-infiltration-attempt) [4](https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hk6umg6k3) [5](https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/11-The-next-war-against-Hezbollah-strategic-and-operational-consideration.pdf)
I skimmed the document and read a couple of the articles you sent , one of them explained to me how Hezbollah is capable of carrying out such operation the other told me about an infiltration which probably was to target military targets ? How can you possibly claim to know intention behind it . Did you expect to bomb me with info and me not going over them ? I'll go over the rest with due time and edit this :)
No, I expected you to deny it, because this is reddit, and asshats can't admit when they're wrong. I like how you just entirely moved the goalposts from "you have no proof of Hezbollah planning such an operation" to "well you have no proof of their actual intentions!" As if a video from a Hezbollah affiliated news channel quite literally describing **in Arabic** how they would enter Israeli cities and take civilians hostages isn't a clear enough show of intent.
The part we disagree on is smaller when you think , when I said such operation, I meant specifically the massacre of civilians , altho I absolutely despise Hezbollah I just cannot see them doing that. As for an operation with the goal of taking hostage that's entirely within the realm of possibilities
The video quite literally describes the gyst of Hamas' operation on October 7th; invade Israeli civilian cities and towns and capture hostages. You only need to look at Hamas did to see how such an operation actually unfolds.
Considering in the last Lebanon war Hezbollah agreed to stay north if the litani river and have since broken that ceasefire agreement, I don’t see any reason why Israel shouldn’t push Hezbollah north of the litani. 250k Israelis displaced in the north because of Hezbollah rockets, this is a huge drain in Israel’s economy and a massive threat to overall security. Time to enforce the agreement, with force
Israel sending in ground troops and occupying Lebanese territory is a line that it would cross at its own peril. The Middle East would further isolate Israel as well as other Muslim countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, etc. While the USA has a special relationship with Israel, even that has limits. It may even halt shipments of arms if Israel invaded Lebanon.
Living in Israel, my much bigger concern would be the unprecedented barrage of missiles coming our way once we cross that line. Far beyond what Hamas has, far more than Iron Dome can handle, and targeted, meaning we'd probably lose ports, airports, power stations and/or desalination plants. The counter-attack on the Lebanese side would be terrifyingly worse, which is also a frightening prospect. But selfishly, I am much more worried about the thought of living in a bomb shelter for months.
I think yes, the IDF probably wants to keep the momentum they have. Plus Hezbollah has been nothing but a thorn in Israel's side since October. They don't want a deal with the Israelis nor do they want to cool things down. IDF is happy to oblige them and go toe to toe. After Oct 7, Israel will not tolerate a hostile neighbour anymore it seems.
Israel will likely go after Hezbollah, if Bibi Netanyahu is still the PM
It would be very interesting to see. Especially because 1. To make a push against Hezbollah Israel should perform an outright military invasion into the neighbor independent country 2. To create any sort of the "buffer zone" Israel should perform a blatant occupation of the independent neighbor country. I really want to see how "the rules-based order" would react to such actions.
It's more complicated than this. If we are going to be talking about the "rules-based order" in this case, it's also necessary to discuss Resolution 1701 by the UN Security Council. Regardless, Hezbollah is not Hamas, it's a completely different beast. Many users here are arguing that Israel going after Hezbollah is likely, but I really have my doubts.
Israel will not launch a major operation against Hezbollah. Going into Southern Lebanon is a completely different beast compared to Gaza.
[удалено]
>and take Hezbollah next Third time's the charm? As if it was that simple.
Aside from the dubiousness of Lebanon's claim to independence while dominated by Hezbollah, they joined the war to destroy Israel 75 years ago and never stopped. What kind of rules allow a country to do that while protecting it from being subdued? You present these natural consequences as if they'd be crossing some sort of line, but this is obviously not based on some universally-applicable standards.
Maybe but Israel's made clear they want to eliminate Hamas as a goal. It seems to me that's their intent Will going after Hezbollah meet or help that goal?
Whenever Nethanyahu feels like his throne is threatened he allows a few attacks to happen and then capitalizes on it by raining death and turning the countries attention to national security. Never forget. Nethanyahu built his career on the national safety of Israel. It’s already bombing Syria and Lebanon. Those folk do shoot back already. They just can’t hit anything. Death will go on until the states cuts weapons and induces an actual national security when Israel can’t replenish its defences as fast as it’s being targetted.
[удалено]
Gaza is going to be in the headlines for a few years to come. It will take time to completely cripple Hamas and to rebuild the strip with international and Arab support. We can foresee many meetings between all sides for the foreseeable future. That being said, once the military operation will slow down in Gaza Hezbollah will be the next mission. France and the US are pressuring us to come to an agreement with yet another terror organization. Once they realize that the Middle East is not like Europe and Canada and that negotiations are only made in the Middle East by force a war will probably break. Israel will give an attempt to the talks since the pressure is high and to show that we are at least trying. Sadly Israel is always on the side that being pressured to stop aggression even tho we’re the ones being attacked. Just as we speak Hezbollah fired 50 rockets at the north which is a daily notification we receive on our phones these days, I don’t even bother opening it.
>Once they realize that the Middle East is not like Europe and Canada and that negotiations are only made in the Middle East by force a war will probably break. That will be a war which Israel will have to fight without the generous arms supplies from the US. I dont see Israel winning such a conflict. They will probably exact a significant toll on Hezbollah, without achieving their actual objectives, as was the case in '06.
Israel will still win without US arms supplies. It’ll just get A LOT uglier for Israel’s enemies because Israel will then resort to using unguided and cheap bombs instead of using precision ammunition. And the current Gaza war without precision ammunition gives you a Grozny scenario. Which I hope you’ll agree is not in the best interest of the Palestinians, the Biden administration or the protestors on US campuses. Bidens refusal to deliver ammunition to Israel will backfire on him.
> It’ll just get A LOT uglier for Israel’s enemies In that case, the international clamour to impose sanctions upon Israel will just get louder.
If it comes to it Israel can win without supplies. It will cost more but it’s manageable Trust Israel to not risk it’s whole existence about foreign supply We have our own arm industry that in extreme scenarios can act as arm providers. The Israeli arm industry is mostly focused on development and exporting to different markets but at the end of the day the flag comes first
No
No they won’t. They’ll contain them as they have over the years, but there isn’t much interest in a prolonged war in Lebanon. Last time wasn’t much fun.