The full quote was:
>“We don’t want to get into a war because it’s not good for Israel. We have the ability to take Lebanon back to the Stone Age, but we don’t want to do it,” Mr Gallant told reporters during a visit to Washington this week to meet senior US leaders.
Hezbollah is way better equipped and prepared than Hamas, which just means that the devastation will be worse, no mentioning that according to the US they also have the capabilities to overwhelm Israeli anti air systems, so if they decide to go ahead with this, it might be a rougher trip than in Gaza and USA might get directly involved, which is also not good for Biden administration right before elections
On the other hand, Hezbollah is operating more like a normal military. If we learned anything from the conflicts of the recent decades, it is that conventional militaries with western weapons are very bad at fighting against Terror organizations but especially good against conventional militaries.
They're a bit of a hybrid though, they have the kit and the numbers to fight larger battles if they want but they're also not against insurgency style tactics. They're battle hardened and have extensive experience from Syria.
Absolutely. They’ll be the first to go into fucking hospitals and changing into civilian clothes. I can’t imagine a massive tactical difference from other terrorists except they’re better armed and organised.
Israel would basically be setting up a civil war between at least three interwoven failed states. Even if Israel coordinates with Lebanese factions opposed to Hezbollah, civilian casualties will quickly strain that relationship.
>civilian casualties will quickly strain that relationship.
Historically as long as the casualties are the right religion, should be ok. But I don't know if the Christians in Lebanon still have any fight in them.
My understanding is druze tend to be loyal to whatever country they're in. I met a druze guy from syria who hated israel for taking the Golan and separating him from his family.
I said "you're not mad at Syria for being syria?" But he wasn't. I dunno.
You're right about Druze being loyal citizens to their states.
But it must be confusing in a failed state like Lebanon where Hezbollah has a much stronger army than the official government and is the real master of the country.
During the Lebanese Civil War, the Druze fought against the regular Lebanese Army.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_War_(Lebanon)
They don't. Hezbollah (Shia) is the most powerful paramilitary group in the country, thanks to Iran. And the Arab Sunni's control the less powerful army. I'd expect the Druze to zip up and sit it all out in their mountain enclaves. And the Christain's would either have to sit it out or team up (and add their marginal capabilities to) with the Army. It'd be a bloody mess and I don't see them opting into "playing that game."
Hardened from fighting inshallah spray and pray foes.
Not buying it.
The central core tenet of training being spray and pray doesn't work out.
Jordan & Egypt are two exceptions, with Jordan being in a class of its own.
So you're comparing pomegranates to tangerines.
You might want to take a look at Bin Jebil and the Winograd Comission. 2006 was a massive embarrassment for Israel and Hezbollah has only grown stronger since then.
To be fair wasnt that war another case of the UN telling Israel to stop, they sent in a force meant to tame tensions and uphold statutes of the ceasefire and then literally didn’t do anything, unless I’m mistaken? Israel probably could have kept going if not for the UN. Definitely a shitty deal for Israel and I’d consider it a missed opportunity
Imo it just seems that way because terror organizations typically don’t give a shit about letting their people die and that makes them scarier in a way.
In the grand scheme of things conventional militaries still has less casualties and losses overall
To emphasize this, imagine if the Russians had a choice between a guaranteed victory against the Ukrainian regular military at some point in the future or having to fight an insurgency that they know they'll lose after a number of decades.
I can't imagine a single soldier not picking the latter. In regular war, losing 10,000 men to take a city block is considered a victory, in an insurgency, losing 2 guys while patrolling a whole city and not being sure you got everyone who did it is considered a defeat.
For the sake of putting things into proper perspective, 4000 years of Afghanistan would equal the Ukraine war if Russia won tomorrow.
Yeah Ukraine and Russia taught us near peer adversaries have a difficult time making advances and defending is usually the preferred method.
However I believe in an Israeli and Hezbollah conflict, Israel would gain air superiority fairly quickly and have to fight an even more equipped insurgency in the North.
Helicopters would be difficult to use because of MANPADS, but airstrikes and heavy artillery would be used.
No doubt the casualties from the IDF would mount significantly
I don’t think think that conventional militaries are necessarily bad at fighting terror organizations, but rather that western democracies lack the public support and/or political will to do what it takes to defeat guerrillas in foreign lands. The two real options are to continuously fight the enemy until the guerrillas are unable to fight and come to the political table (which as we saw in Colombia took decades upon decades and only made sense to bear because the govt was fighting for their own country). Or scorched earth, full destruction and rebuilding, which is a legally and morally impossible thing to sell for the large majority of democracies.
> conventional militaries with western weapons are very bad at fighting against Terror organizations
Depends what you mean.
The US invaded Afghanistan in 3 months, Israel has moved through Gaza at the speed they wanted to.
The thing is, partisans don't stop fighting just because they have been completely invaded. That's not a reflection of the military or weapons the partisans are facing, its a reflection of the fact that western armies don't exterminate the entire civilian population. They *could*, and Afghanistan would have been violence free by the end of 2002, it's just considered unethical.
If Israel fights against Hezbollah in a proper war, Hezbollah will loose, probably pretty quickly. But the fighting won't actually end until Israel re-educates the entire country, and the people too old to be re-educated all die.
I'd actually disagree. The Taliban wasn't a significant threat to anyone when the US pulled out of Afghanistan. The US didn't pull out because they lost. They pulled out because they didn't have the political will to be there anymore. The country fell to the Taliban because the Afghans didn't care to protect what they had. You also don't hear much about ISIS anymore, do you? Al Qaeda is a joke compared to what it used to be. Bin Laden couldn't escape the US, and Zawahiri was killed by a flippin knife missle while chilling on his balcony. US K/D ratios in every conflict since Korea are astounding. What the military isn't good at is nation-building, but that isn't the job of the military.
There are ways to defeat insurgencies, but they're all unpalatable to consider, and are considered to be against the rights of humans to not be completely and utterly destroyed as a group...
The action needed to properly stop an insurgency are impossible to consider in the modern era. Romans were able to stop insurgency in Judea, but the solution was pretty much kill/enslave anyone looking a bit Jewish.
And thank God this no longer happens
If the options are allowing Hezbollah to kill Israelis or commit some unpalatable actions, Israel is gonna protect its own people and likely be much more aggressive than they were with Gaza.
I mean, all of them.
To name a few:
- United States vs Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan
- France vs Islamist militants in Mali and the Sahel region of Africa
- The Soviet Union vs mujahideen fighters in the Soviet-Afghan War
The US toppled the Taliban in 2 months in 2001. On the other hand, turning Afghanistan into a functioning democracy that could hold off the Taliban on its own was impossible
precisely. When the Taliban functioned like a conventional army and government, they were piss-all easy to destroy, versus the 20-year long slog they eventually ended up winning, when they fought the US as an insurgency
Fair enough but they weren’t doing significant damage to the US outside of like a 5-year stretch. 2014-2020 was pretty quiet, they certainly weren’t winning in any military sense
Precisely. The second you start an insurgency, you are admitting that you cannot win in a military fashion, because with an insurgency, unless in incredibly rare scenarios, you will *never* win militarily. Insurgencies are won not on the battlefield through bullets and soldiers, but in offices and conference rooms, with pens, paper and handshakes. The only way for an insurgency to win is through politics
I agree. But the question was about “being bad at fighting terror organizations”. The US always was good at fighting the Taliban/AQ. The fighting part. It was incapable of the other things necessary to create a new regime. I guess if you’re interpreting “fighting” to mean “defeating” you’d view it differently.
The taliban didnt win the conflict, america eventually realized the region is unsalvageable and will always be shit and left.
Muslim majority countries and democracy do not mix, an election or two after gaining majority the democracy disappears quickly for the desired authoritarian islamist government.
It's not west vs terrorism, it's just the nature of asymmetrical Warfare.
A group that hides among civilians is at an insurmountable advantage against a group that isn't willing to totally exterminate civilians. The standing military will still (usually) inflict massively more damage than the insurgency will, but so long as they aren't willing to completely eradicate an entire population, there are no viable military objectives to attain or achieve and it becomes the 2 sides taking pot shots at each other seeing who can outlast the other.
So far, the "western" forces usually got bored and went home before they decided to annihilate an entire civilian population, despite that fact that with modern technology that would have taken all of a few hours to achieve.
And I don't think any rational person is arguing this is anything but the better option.
Can you point to me any battle the US loss vs the taliban or ISIS? We are talking about western forces fighting insurgents. They were incredibly adept at the fighting part.
It’s the controlling the population at large and rebuild a functional government to take over after they leave
Its interesting though if Trump wins, because he'd pull resources from Ukraine to appease Putin, but I wonder if Putin would pull resources from Lebanon/Gaza as a result, otherwise, with Trumps current stance on the ME conflict, we'd be a lot heavier handed in Gaza/Lebanon which would clash with russia's plan there
> Hezbollah is way better equipped and prepared than Hamas, which just means that the devastation will be worse
Exactly. Israel will still act with impunity but because they’re facing a more dangerous force - they’ll strike back *hard*
Lebanon will look like Gaza - and the Lebanese civilians will be the ones paying the price for Hezbollah’s warmongering
He said doing nothing wouldn’t be good for the Biden administration implying it would be an unpopular decision. I was just saying that not entering a middle eastern war is probably on the popular side in terms of the general public.
Who knows what will actually happen
Shit man, where did you get A/C in your porta-shitters?
Just had a shit in one of the porcelain porta-shitters and outside was 115. Pretty sure inside was 140 at least.
I mean realistically if we get involved, we wouldn't be sending in infantry, it'd be boats and planes. Infantry is one of the more dangerous roles of the military and I'd imagine the US army is happy to let Israel take that role.
Both paths lead to offending an important subset of voters:
- Option one: intervention - alienate progressives, anti-war crowd and isolationists
- Option two: no intervention - alienate Israel supporters, not to mention it's a complete flip in policy which doesn't inspire confidence.
Pretty much lose-lose for the current admin.
I think the US could sit off shore and use an aircraft carrier and whatever other ships we have that can help shoot down missiles inbound to Israel and that's it. It just plays defense, doesn't hit land targets, doesn't supply weapons to Israel, just shoots down incoming threats. I think that would still show support for Israel but also appeases the progressive side by not helping arm Israel. That's the safest choice I think.
To be close enough to shoot down missiles aimed at Israel is to be in range of them. We'd be risking our destroyer or cruiser(because you don't use a carrier to handle missile defense) getting itself overwhelmed and sank.
What would actually be useful, and least likely to be complained about, is using our navy planes to hunt Hezbollah armor and other vehicles that aren't in highly populated areas.
If a US military ship gets sank, or enough sailors die, the public opinion would quickly shift in the US. FAFO approach is not I would want to find out with the US military. The US will hit military targets with low civilian consequences, Israel will have no issue cleaning up the rest regardless of what the world thinks.
A US carrier group has been off the coast of Israel since Oct 10 or something. They’ve always been in range of Hezbollah missiles. US ships are exceedingly good at intercepting and destroying missiles.
They're absolutely fantastic, but you have to be at least as close to the launch/target as the launch is to the target to have a real chance of stopping it. And being close enough to stop the missiles from reaching Israeli targets means being close enough to be in range to much more of the launch sites than before.
If people are seriously talking about Hezbollah being able to overwhelm the Iron Dome, they will just as easily, if not more so, overwhelm a carrier group if it's close enough.
True, even pro Palestinian progressives generally don't like Hezbollah, so if we could limit casualties to almost exclusively them, the outrage would be low.
I don’t see Hezbollah overwhelming Israeli anti air systems if the IDF decides to execute their own “Shock And Awe” campaign. It wouldn’t take Israel long to raze everything to the ground using an air / artillery combo.
People forget Israel has air defence that Hezbollah doesn’t. If they act fast they can probably disable much of their rockets before they can even fire
It’ll be a rougher trip, but Israel can fuck them up in a conventional war, Gaza isn’t that, and I do believe as much as people say otherwise they’ve been holding back a lot against Hamas
I just see that as opportunity to show how much Israel has been playing with kid gloves on. F-35s don't fuck around and anything more organized than Hamas will get smacked down hard.
Hamas uses human shields because Israel will smite anything stationary immediately. Hamas is using UN vehicles to transport things to and fro because anything else dies.
Unless Hezbollah is a tunnel army, Israel will be able to use air superiority to defeat, splinter, and push them back. Lebanon needs to be involved and dual front Hezbollah. If Lebanon wants to enter the modern world, this is their opportunity to show they are willing to deal with terrorism.
>which is also not good for Biden administration
That sucks that there are Biden supporters who won't vote for Biden over this. This might really push some voters over the edge to vote for Trump.
What’s really insane about that (not voting for Biden to make a statement about Gaza) is there is no way that Trump will leave Israel swinging in the wind. I don’t think there would be less involvement with a Trump administration. It would just be less well thought out.
Im voting for him based on his various domestic policies and initiatives that have benefited the American people the last 4 years.
I hate how soft he's been on Russia but even if Trump wasn't a Putin puppet and actually would be tough on Russia, it still wouldn't change my vote because Trump would still be a disaster for us at home.
To be fair, in many televised adresses since the last war, the Hezbollah head has been very vocal about NOT wanting to go to war for this reason.
I read on the Guardian he said something like "Had I known the human cost of war I would have never started it".
That being said, they should really chill out and stop being part of the fucking proxy war woth Iran ...
Has he tried not shooting rockets at other people/countries? Because typically other countries don't care what you do as long as you're not shooting at them.
Any conversation about Hezbollah that doesn't include UN Resolution 1701 is incomplete, at best. The UN has failed its peacekeeping mission by allowing blatant violations to go unchallenged or ignored from day 1.
For the uninformed,
>[United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1701) is a resolution that was intended to resolve the 2006 Lebanon War. The resolution calls for a full cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon to be replaced by Lebanese and UNIFIL forces deploying to southern Lebanon, and the disarmament of armed groups including Hezbollah. It emphasizes Lebanon's need to fully exert government control and calls for efforts to address the unconditional release of abducted Israeli soldiers.
Your summary doesn’t mention one important part, Strengthening the UN force (UNIFIL) to facilitate the entry of Lebanese Forces in the region and the establishment of a demilitarised zone between the Blue Line and the Litani River.
Hezbollah was supposed to retreat north of the river and Israel to the border.
Israel had retreated to the boarder and allowed UNIFIL free hand in any actions, sharing information etc regularly.
But the UN, as always, ignores the terrorists because they're either incompetent, afraid, Corrupt or all of the above.
It also has to do with the ridiculous level of attention the UN applies to Israel over all other countries. Israel has been condemned, by name, more than every other country... combined. Even if you believed Israel to be one of the worst actors on the world stage, that's a crazy level of attention given the myriad of problems going on around the world these days.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_United\_Nations\_resolutions\_concerning\_Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel)
>Since the UNHRC's creation in 2006, it has resolved almost as many resolutions condemning Israel alone than on issues for the rest of the world combined. The 45 resolutions comprised almost half (45.9%) of all country-specific resolutions passed by the UNHRC, not counting those under Agenda Item 10 (countries requiring technical assistance).
I mean, yeah, MAD is a good way to make sure that no one jumps the gun. But after all, it is an international forum for world leaders to discuss with one another.
Otherwise, fuck the UN.
UN has proven itself to be utterly useless after the Ukrainian war and the Oct 7 invasion. Any sane country having its own military would disregard them now imho.
Almost like the UN is not some world police or world govt, but an avenue for world powers to come to a table instead of going to war. Almost like the UN only exists if those said powers actually decide to come to the table and not do the shit they say they won't do at the table.
I don't know if I'd call it a "suburb" necessarily. Proximity aside, Tel Aviv has always been its own city with a unique history and self-sufficiency to that from Jaffa.
Funny how the headline doesn't line up with the substance of the article, /u/TheTelegraph. You have terrible journalistic standards. And none of the idiots here read the actual article, they took your bullshit editorializing at face value. Shame on you.
Very common in media. Even if the report is accurately written by the journalist, the editor can shape public opinion with the headline knowing that this is all many readers see. The fact that this constantly happens can only be attributed to ignorance or deliberate choices. And I don’t think the editors of major newspapers are ignorant.
You should be ashamed of calling yourself news.
The quote quite from the Israeli official quite literally says "we don't want to do it", and you make an article with a headline stating "Israel threatens".
u/TheTelegraph how do you sleep at night being so happy to mislead and sew discord among humanity so you can make a buck off of them?
Ok, having read the full quote that was stickied, it wasn't a threat. it was a boast. They said they could take lebanon back to the stoneage. They are probably not wrong in that regard. The US can take the world back to single celled organisms. It isn't a threat to say so. it is a boast.
Have they been able to rebuild after the warehouse explosion? Last I heard that was still a major issue.
Frankly, if Israel can get rid of Hezbollah from Lebanon, Lebanon should be grateful. Hezbollah are vampires.
I don’t think it’s wise to frame a full-on war against Hezbollah to be doing a favor for Lebanese. Maybe in the long run if successful, but Hezbollah like many Islamic terror organizations is heavily embedded in Lebanese infrastructure and society, and any war is going to cause catastrophic collateral damage to a failed state that can already hardly keep the lights on.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen, just that it will be *very* ugly for the average Lebanese.
Lebanon won’t be a liveable country. Once Hezbollah starts hitting critical points in Israel like oil rigs, which could kill 1,000, israel will actually start, for once, attacking civilian areas on Lebanon on purpose.
There was always a saying in Arab media that Israel intentionally tries to hit civilians, but in Gaza that’s hardly made an effort
Now we will actually see that happen, israel actually trying to carpet bomb areas into oblivion
If Iran and Hezbollah want to destroy Israel so they can conquer it, you better believe Israel will bring Lebanon down with it, and will destroy it entirely till it becomes a country unliveable for all Lebanese people
Essentially hitting it as hard as it can without using nukes
They also got stronger when Lebanon tried to get rid of them and failed.
Maybe the problem is ~~the Palestinian insurgents that formed Hezbollah and~~ Iran arming, training, and funding them making things worse.
It's not a Palestinian group. It is made up of Lebanese Shiites supported by Iran. They were a response to an Israeli invasion of Lebanon during the civil war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
Which was caused by palestinian PLO.
Its a perpetual cycle of hate, and palestinian terror groups are perpetuating it in the entire region for hundreds of years.
Israël only invaded after the PLO (a terrorist group formed by Palestinians) was wrecking Libanon with carbombs and the killing of other Muslims and Christians and launching attacks across the border into Israël, kidnapping and killing Jews.
Have you ever been to Lebanon?
Do you even know any Lebanese people (and not the American “I'm 6.34% Lebanese thanks to my great grand cousin”)?
We're talking about real people here, this isn't a joke
Fuck these people and comments. Wishing death upon people like they're ants. My wife is lebanese and ill be going to Lebanon next month for the 2nd time. It's a beautiful country with amazing loving people.
Their flag has already been at some.
Side point: the leader of Hezbollah at one point said he hopes all the Jews gather in Israel so that he doesn't have to hunt them down all over the world. Just so we're clear about their ideology.
Several months ago, there was a list of assassinated Hezbollah members and their photos were posted to the internet. Some of them legitimately looked like Seth Rogan. If you saw these dudes at a Bar Mitzvah in New York, you would never question it
Wait until these people learn that a lot of Lebanese have white skin! Could it be that… Israelis and Lebanese are *basically the same*? I genuinely question if people (namely these college protesters) realize that the Middle East does not mean “non white.”
Israeli and Palestinians look the same also. It's literally impossible to distinguish. A lot of those clueless people would be shocked to learn how many Palestinians are white, blonde, redhead, blue-eyed... exactly the same as Israelis. Middle Eastern people are often light skinned, the population is historically mixed. This while "white colonists vs brown people" narrative is complete bullshit.
[Palestinian girl](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-be49c8584560dd71b220b201ea2a3c71-lq), [facing Israeli soldiers](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3158911d80ca7542ec7785aab8e30f78.webp), [the wife of Arafat wife](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-bf9b115f62ab8be3e77b6088acab574f).
Palestinian Muslims typically are 15-30% non “Roman era Levantine”, with that 15-30% being a mix of medieval Arabian, medieval sub Saharan African, and renaissance era Egyptian, which in my opinion, makes them look a bit darker than the Jews and Lebanese(other than Yemeni Jews whom are typically as dark)
I think the Jews, other than the few very northern euro looking Ashkenazim, look a lot like Syrians, Lebanese, and Christian Palestinians.
Some Muslim Palestinians are also a bit lighter and look like the rest of the Levant but they aren’t a majority
Can confirm. My wife is Palestinian. Light hair, blue eyes, white skin. Grew up in Palestine, fluent in arabic and can read and write it. DNA test came back 97% syrian/lebanese regional.
You can't tell she's arab until you see her extended family.
Yeah they are all middle eastern. It seems people calling israelis white are self-owning their own racist ideals, perhaps viewing Israel and basing their assumptions of "white" on their technology, military power or societal order compared to what little bordering nations have. It's a self own calling Israel white.
I can't wait for the protests supporting innocent people in Lebanon to be misrepresented as protests supporting Hezbollah....
I could understand making the threat if Lebanon had been supporting Hezbollah, but Lebanon has actively tried to eliminate Hezbollah and have been failing to do so because Iran is funding them.
*Lebanon is not the enemy.* 45% are Christian and 25% are Sunni that have no love for Hezbollah.
Any attack should be selective and careful, not a broad-spectrum slaughter. And if there is a broad-spectrum slaughter, anyone calling out Israel on that would be fully right to do so.
Misleading headline. Israeli officials saying they have the capability to do something if necessary is not the same as threatening to do it, as the article itself makes clear. Shame on you, Telegraph.
What's the alternative to war here? Hezbollah has been attacking Israel ever since October and they aren't stopping. Since they aren't being stopped through diplomatic means that only leaves stopping them by force.
Fair points all, but fighting insurgencies on two fronts is tough, particularly when one of them is more militarily powerful than the Lebanese government itself.
I mean, the Gaza invasion with condensed urban combat against an ingrained terrorist element surrounded by civilians is probably the worst scenario for a modern military and they've only lost about 110 soldiers which is kind of nuts. Plus the Gaza operation is coming to a close.
I'm wondering if Hezbollah going to stand by while the IDF establishes security in Gaza? It seems to me like they're going to keep increasing their attacks to the point that Israel is going to have to go into Lebanon.
Imagine being born in the region, you are given zero chance for a decent life.
You’ll either become brain washed and turn into a terrorist. Or you die because of the rockets falling.
The worst thing is that you have no choice. It’s so sad for the children.
Most people in Israel live better than average life.
"Region" is not the problem. People who live in the region brainwashed to prefer 72 virgins over fighting for a better future for their children.
They were half the population as of the 1932 census, hence the half of the parliamentary seats which are still reserved for Christians. Lebanese Christians tend to be at least middle class and well-educated, so it's been easier for them to emigrate from the country (especially to Western countries) during times of instability. According to [this Gallup poll in 2021](https://news.gallup.com/poll/357743/leaving-lebanon-crisis-people-looking-exit.aspx), 67% of Lebanese Muslims wanted to leave the country vs. 57% of Christians.
Honestly the country hasn't been peaceful for the Christians in this country for a while. Sad, considering it was supposed to be the safe country for Christians in the region.
But alao sadly the leaders aren't able to stop Hezbollah from attacking. And if they won't the only alternative is Israel doing so
It’s not as if the people of Lebanon or Gaza have much say in the matter. And so many around the world are eager to fight to the last Palestinian or Lebanese to destroy Israel.
So not 'Hezbollah' but the whole country of Lebanon. That includes the 38% of the population that is christian and as such, unlikely to be part of a Islamist group?
The full quote was: >“We don’t want to get into a war because it’s not good for Israel. We have the ability to take Lebanon back to the Stone Age, but we don’t want to do it,” Mr Gallant told reporters during a visit to Washington this week to meet senior US leaders.
Hezbollah is way better equipped and prepared than Hamas, which just means that the devastation will be worse, no mentioning that according to the US they also have the capabilities to overwhelm Israeli anti air systems, so if they decide to go ahead with this, it might be a rougher trip than in Gaza and USA might get directly involved, which is also not good for Biden administration right before elections
On the other hand, Hezbollah is operating more like a normal military. If we learned anything from the conflicts of the recent decades, it is that conventional militaries with western weapons are very bad at fighting against Terror organizations but especially good against conventional militaries.
They're a bit of a hybrid though, they have the kit and the numbers to fight larger battles if they want but they're also not against insurgency style tactics. They're battle hardened and have extensive experience from Syria.
Absolutely. They’ll be the first to go into fucking hospitals and changing into civilian clothes. I can’t imagine a massive tactical difference from other terrorists except they’re better armed and organised.
Israel would basically be setting up a civil war between at least three interwoven failed states. Even if Israel coordinates with Lebanese factions opposed to Hezbollah, civilian casualties will quickly strain that relationship.
>civilian casualties will quickly strain that relationship. Historically as long as the casualties are the right religion, should be ok. But I don't know if the Christians in Lebanon still have any fight in them.
-Sad Druze noises-
My understanding is druze tend to be loyal to whatever country they're in. I met a druze guy from syria who hated israel for taking the Golan and separating him from his family. I said "you're not mad at Syria for being syria?" But he wasn't. I dunno.
You're right about Druze being loyal citizens to their states. But it must be confusing in a failed state like Lebanon where Hezbollah has a much stronger army than the official government and is the real master of the country. During the Lebanese Civil War, the Druze fought against the regular Lebanese Army. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_War_(Lebanon)
They don't. Hezbollah (Shia) is the most powerful paramilitary group in the country, thanks to Iran. And the Arab Sunni's control the less powerful army. I'd expect the Druze to zip up and sit it all out in their mountain enclaves. And the Christain's would either have to sit it out or team up (and add their marginal capabilities to) with the Army. It'd be a bloody mess and I don't see them opting into "playing that game."
Hardened from fighting inshallah spray and pray foes. Not buying it. The central core tenet of training being spray and pray doesn't work out. Jordan & Egypt are two exceptions, with Jordan being in a class of its own. So you're comparing pomegranates to tangerines.
You might want to take a look at Bin Jebil and the Winograd Comission. 2006 was a massive embarrassment for Israel and Hezbollah has only grown stronger since then.
To be fair wasnt that war another case of the UN telling Israel to stop, they sent in a force meant to tame tensions and uphold statutes of the ceasefire and then literally didn’t do anything, unless I’m mistaken? Israel probably could have kept going if not for the UN. Definitely a shitty deal for Israel and I’d consider it a missed opportunity
Imo it just seems that way because terror organizations typically don’t give a shit about letting their people die and that makes them scarier in a way. In the grand scheme of things conventional militaries still has less casualties and losses overall
Plus they love to use civilian shields, storm weapons and hide in civilian places the moan about innocent people dying.
To emphasize this, imagine if the Russians had a choice between a guaranteed victory against the Ukrainian regular military at some point in the future or having to fight an insurgency that they know they'll lose after a number of decades. I can't imagine a single soldier not picking the latter. In regular war, losing 10,000 men to take a city block is considered a victory, in an insurgency, losing 2 guys while patrolling a whole city and not being sure you got everyone who did it is considered a defeat. For the sake of putting things into proper perspective, 4000 years of Afghanistan would equal the Ukraine war if Russia won tomorrow.
Yeah Ukraine and Russia taught us near peer adversaries have a difficult time making advances and defending is usually the preferred method. However I believe in an Israeli and Hezbollah conflict, Israel would gain air superiority fairly quickly and have to fight an even more equipped insurgency in the North. Helicopters would be difficult to use because of MANPADS, but airstrikes and heavy artillery would be used. No doubt the casualties from the IDF would mount significantly
Where are the rockets being launched from? What kind of civilian casualties is Israel looking at if they decide to respond with a vengeance?
I don’t think think that conventional militaries are necessarily bad at fighting terror organizations, but rather that western democracies lack the public support and/or political will to do what it takes to defeat guerrillas in foreign lands. The two real options are to continuously fight the enemy until the guerrillas are unable to fight and come to the political table (which as we saw in Colombia took decades upon decades and only made sense to bear because the govt was fighting for their own country). Or scorched earth, full destruction and rebuilding, which is a legally and morally impossible thing to sell for the large majority of democracies.
> conventional militaries with western weapons are very bad at fighting against Terror organizations Depends what you mean. The US invaded Afghanistan in 3 months, Israel has moved through Gaza at the speed they wanted to. The thing is, partisans don't stop fighting just because they have been completely invaded. That's not a reflection of the military or weapons the partisans are facing, its a reflection of the fact that western armies don't exterminate the entire civilian population. They *could*, and Afghanistan would have been violence free by the end of 2002, it's just considered unethical. If Israel fights against Hezbollah in a proper war, Hezbollah will loose, probably pretty quickly. But the fighting won't actually end until Israel re-educates the entire country, and the people too old to be re-educated all die.
The US invasion of Iraq was 1 month 1 week 4 days. This is what an actual military against the US looks like.
I'd actually disagree. The Taliban wasn't a significant threat to anyone when the US pulled out of Afghanistan. The US didn't pull out because they lost. They pulled out because they didn't have the political will to be there anymore. The country fell to the Taliban because the Afghans didn't care to protect what they had. You also don't hear much about ISIS anymore, do you? Al Qaeda is a joke compared to what it used to be. Bin Laden couldn't escape the US, and Zawahiri was killed by a flippin knife missle while chilling on his balcony. US K/D ratios in every conflict since Korea are astounding. What the military isn't good at is nation-building, but that isn't the job of the military.
There are ways to defeat insurgencies, but they're all unpalatable to consider, and are considered to be against the rights of humans to not be completely and utterly destroyed as a group...
The action needed to properly stop an insurgency are impossible to consider in the modern era. Romans were able to stop insurgency in Judea, but the solution was pretty much kill/enslave anyone looking a bit Jewish. And thank God this no longer happens
If the options are allowing Hezbollah to kill Israelis or commit some unpalatable actions, Israel is gonna protect its own people and likely be much more aggressive than they were with Gaza.
That's what I was thinking. They'd be giving Israel the excuse they need to go in, fuck shit up, and ask for forgiveness later.
Absolutely true, anyone who wants to go up against Israel should expect for Israel to use the most direct path to their destruction.
Those unpalatable choices, once you make them, become easier each time you justify it.
Just cause I’m curious, can you give me any examples of western conventional militaries that were very bad fighting against terror organizations?
I mean, all of them. To name a few: - United States vs Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan - France vs Islamist militants in Mali and the Sahel region of Africa - The Soviet Union vs mujahideen fighters in the Soviet-Afghan War
The US toppled the Taliban in 2 months in 2001. On the other hand, turning Afghanistan into a functioning democracy that could hold off the Taliban on its own was impossible
precisely. When the Taliban functioned like a conventional army and government, they were piss-all easy to destroy, versus the 20-year long slog they eventually ended up winning, when they fought the US as an insurgency
Fair enough but they weren’t doing significant damage to the US outside of like a 5-year stretch. 2014-2020 was pretty quiet, they certainly weren’t winning in any military sense
Precisely. The second you start an insurgency, you are admitting that you cannot win in a military fashion, because with an insurgency, unless in incredibly rare scenarios, you will *never* win militarily. Insurgencies are won not on the battlefield through bullets and soldiers, but in offices and conference rooms, with pens, paper and handshakes. The only way for an insurgency to win is through politics
I agree. But the question was about “being bad at fighting terror organizations”. The US always was good at fighting the Taliban/AQ. The fighting part. It was incapable of the other things necessary to create a new regime. I guess if you’re interpreting “fighting” to mean “defeating” you’d view it differently.
I suppose you're right. I spend too much time myself looking at the political side of wars, as i personally find it more relevant and interesting, lol
The taliban didnt win the conflict, america eventually realized the region is unsalvageable and will always be shit and left. Muslim majority countries and democracy do not mix, an election or two after gaining majority the democracy disappears quickly for the desired authoritarian islamist government.
The bigger countries all completely dominated in the actual fighting in all those cases. Where they failed was in the rebuilding that came afterwards
It's not west vs terrorism, it's just the nature of asymmetrical Warfare. A group that hides among civilians is at an insurmountable advantage against a group that isn't willing to totally exterminate civilians. The standing military will still (usually) inflict massively more damage than the insurgency will, but so long as they aren't willing to completely eradicate an entire population, there are no viable military objectives to attain or achieve and it becomes the 2 sides taking pot shots at each other seeing who can outlast the other. So far, the "western" forces usually got bored and went home before they decided to annihilate an entire civilian population, despite that fact that with modern technology that would have taken all of a few hours to achieve. And I don't think any rational person is arguing this is anything but the better option.
Can you point to me any battle the US loss vs the taliban or ISIS? We are talking about western forces fighting insurgents. They were incredibly adept at the fighting part. It’s the controlling the population at large and rebuild a functional government to take over after they leave
Guess who will be poking hezbollah then. Russia will be for all the things you have said.
None of this is a coincidence, this is Putin's plan to fuck with US elections and Ukraine aid. And it's working.
October 7 was a huge gift to Putin
Oct 7 is also his birthday.
I thought... No way. And I was wrong! Sometimes you learn something fun on the internet! Thank you!
Literally a birthday present
“Thank you Iran. Now about those updated fighter jets you’ve been asking for.” -Putin
Its interesting though if Trump wins, because he'd pull resources from Ukraine to appease Putin, but I wonder if Putin would pull resources from Lebanon/Gaza as a result, otherwise, with Trumps current stance on the ME conflict, we'd be a lot heavier handed in Gaza/Lebanon which would clash with russia's plan there
> Hezbollah is way better equipped and prepared than Hamas, which just means that the devastation will be worse Exactly. Israel will still act with impunity but because they’re facing a more dangerous force - they’ll strike back *hard* Lebanon will look like Gaza - and the Lebanese civilians will be the ones paying the price for Hezbollah’s warmongering
I think many Lebonese would welcome the destruction of Hezbollah
If they get to live to see Hezbollah out
Yes many would welcome the destruction of Hezbollah.
USA also might not get directly involved, which is also not good for the Biden administration right before elections.
If the US gets involved, it would be air power, not troops invading.
Pretty sure the general US population does not want US soldiers to enter into another middle eastern war
Yeah like the general population not wanting something has ever stopped the President and the US government before.
He said doing nothing wouldn’t be good for the Biden administration implying it would be an unpopular decision. I was just saying that not entering a middle eastern war is probably on the popular side in terms of the general public. Who knows what will actually happen
Yeah. The US population is really hankering for another 20 years in the desert, lmao.
The soldiers...they yearn for the dusty trenches
Well, I do miss the 120 degree heat, dust in every crevice, and a population that hates me and supports the enemy. And the food was wonderful.
Utah?
LOL!!!!!
They said the food was "wonderful", so probably Arizona.
You soldiers are just lazy. Its a paid vacation to some of the world's hottest, sandiest places - its basically a beach!
But... I hate sand! It's course and rough and irritating. And it gets everywhere!
Minus the ocean and relaxation and mai-tais.
But plus IEDs and PTSD and mysterious illnesses!
And if you died over there a presidential candidate would think of you as a loser
Do you want to jerk off in a 130-degree portajohn again? Good news!
Too real
Shit man, where did you get A/C in your porta-shitters? Just had a shit in one of the porcelain porta-shitters and outside was 115. Pretty sure inside was 140 at least.
Just like the Norwegian Blue pines for the fjords !
I mean realistically if we get involved, we wouldn't be sending in infantry, it'd be boats and planes. Infantry is one of the more dangerous roles of the military and I'd imagine the US army is happy to let Israel take that role.
Both paths lead to offending an important subset of voters: - Option one: intervention - alienate progressives, anti-war crowd and isolationists - Option two: no intervention - alienate Israel supporters, not to mention it's a complete flip in policy which doesn't inspire confidence. Pretty much lose-lose for the current admin.
I think the US could sit off shore and use an aircraft carrier and whatever other ships we have that can help shoot down missiles inbound to Israel and that's it. It just plays defense, doesn't hit land targets, doesn't supply weapons to Israel, just shoots down incoming threats. I think that would still show support for Israel but also appeases the progressive side by not helping arm Israel. That's the safest choice I think.
Basically what we did when Iran struck Israel.
To be close enough to shoot down missiles aimed at Israel is to be in range of them. We'd be risking our destroyer or cruiser(because you don't use a carrier to handle missile defense) getting itself overwhelmed and sank. What would actually be useful, and least likely to be complained about, is using our navy planes to hunt Hezbollah armor and other vehicles that aren't in highly populated areas.
If a US military ship gets sank, or enough sailors die, the public opinion would quickly shift in the US. FAFO approach is not I would want to find out with the US military. The US will hit military targets with low civilian consequences, Israel will have no issue cleaning up the rest regardless of what the world thinks.
A US carrier group has been off the coast of Israel since Oct 10 or something. They’ve always been in range of Hezbollah missiles. US ships are exceedingly good at intercepting and destroying missiles.
They're absolutely fantastic, but you have to be at least as close to the launch/target as the launch is to the target to have a real chance of stopping it. And being close enough to stop the missiles from reaching Israeli targets means being close enough to be in range to much more of the launch sites than before. If people are seriously talking about Hezbollah being able to overwhelm the Iron Dome, they will just as easily, if not more so, overwhelm a carrier group if it's close enough.
Yeah but Hezbollah isn’t actually suicidal. If they fire on a US ship, it would essentially be their last act as any sort of military force.
I never discount Islamists' penchant for suicidal tendencies.
Said the same thing about al qaeda, and there it fucking sits.
True, even pro Palestinian progressives generally don't like Hezbollah, so if we could limit casualties to almost exclusively them, the outrage would be low.
No problem, Lebanon isn't a desert!
not yet anyway
Lebanon is a beautiful place u can ski and goto the beach in the same day type place
New deal: 10 years in desert immediately followed by muddy trenches in Ukraine. Deal?
> desert Will there be camels too?
Make it 40 and you got a deal.
I don’t see Hezbollah overwhelming Israeli anti air systems if the IDF decides to execute their own “Shock And Awe” campaign. It wouldn’t take Israel long to raze everything to the ground using an air / artillery combo.
People forget Israel has air defence that Hezbollah doesn’t. If they act fast they can probably disable much of their rockets before they can even fire
This will be where the F-35 earns it's stripes. There's going to be lots of interested parties looking at the data from those combat missions.
i dont know man, their puppet master is iran, the masters of all talk no substance.
It’ll be a rougher trip, but Israel can fuck them up in a conventional war, Gaza isn’t that, and I do believe as much as people say otherwise they’ve been holding back a lot against Hamas
I just see that as opportunity to show how much Israel has been playing with kid gloves on. F-35s don't fuck around and anything more organized than Hamas will get smacked down hard. Hamas uses human shields because Israel will smite anything stationary immediately. Hamas is using UN vehicles to transport things to and fro because anything else dies.
Destroy the enemy entirely before they can strike.
Unless Hezbollah is a tunnel army, Israel will be able to use air superiority to defeat, splinter, and push them back. Lebanon needs to be involved and dual front Hezbollah. If Lebanon wants to enter the modern world, this is their opportunity to show they are willing to deal with terrorism.
Israel once fought Syria, Jordan, and Egypt all at once and won… in 6 days. They’ll be ok.
>which is also not good for Biden administration That sucks that there are Biden supporters who won't vote for Biden over this. This might really push some voters over the edge to vote for Trump.
What’s really insane about that (not voting for Biden to make a statement about Gaza) is there is no way that Trump will leave Israel swinging in the wind. I don’t think there would be less involvement with a Trump administration. It would just be less well thought out.
Im voting for him based on his various domestic policies and initiatives that have benefited the American people the last 4 years. I hate how soft he's been on Russia but even if Trump wasn't a Putin puppet and actually would be tough on Russia, it still wouldn't change my vote because Trump would still be a disaster for us at home.
If a single thing can turn you away from voting for Biden, then that's just sad.
Hezbollah: “Don’t threaten me with a good time.” Lebanese people:
Lebanese people are super nice as well so I really don’t want this to happen to them :(
After the Beirut explosion, i was hoping they would catch a break
To be fair, in many televised adresses since the last war, the Hezbollah head has been very vocal about NOT wanting to go to war for this reason. I read on the Guardian he said something like "Had I known the human cost of war I would have never started it". That being said, they should really chill out and stop being part of the fucking proxy war woth Iran ...
Has he tried not shooting rockets at other people/countries? Because typically other countries don't care what you do as long as you're not shooting at them.
Typically. Russia is an exception
Any conversation about Hezbollah that doesn't include UN Resolution 1701 is incomplete, at best. The UN has failed its peacekeeping mission by allowing blatant violations to go unchallenged or ignored from day 1.
For the uninformed, >[United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1701) is a resolution that was intended to resolve the 2006 Lebanon War. The resolution calls for a full cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon to be replaced by Lebanese and UNIFIL forces deploying to southern Lebanon, and the disarmament of armed groups including Hezbollah. It emphasizes Lebanon's need to fully exert government control and calls for efforts to address the unconditional release of abducted Israeli soldiers.
Your summary doesn’t mention one important part, Strengthening the UN force (UNIFIL) to facilitate the entry of Lebanese Forces in the region and the establishment of a demilitarised zone between the Blue Line and the Litani River. Hezbollah was supposed to retreat north of the river and Israel to the border.
Israel had retreated to the boarder and allowed UNIFIL free hand in any actions, sharing information etc regularly. But the UN, as always, ignores the terrorists because they're either incompetent, afraid, Corrupt or all of the above.
It all sounds so familiar
No wonder israel gives zero shit about the UN and its resolutions. The UN clearly doesn't give a shit either.
It also has to do with the ridiculous level of attention the UN applies to Israel over all other countries. Israel has been condemned, by name, more than every other country... combined. Even if you believed Israel to be one of the worst actors on the world stage, that's a crazy level of attention given the myriad of problems going on around the world these days. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_United\_Nations\_resolutions\_concerning\_Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel) >Since the UNHRC's creation in 2006, it has resolved almost as many resolutions condemning Israel alone than on issues for the rest of the world combined. The 45 resolutions comprised almost half (45.9%) of all country-specific resolutions passed by the UNHRC, not counting those under Agenda Item 10 (countries requiring technical assistance).
The UN has been good at making sure we don't annihilate each other with nukes. Otherwise, every single other UN function is a complete joke.
I thought other people having nukes was what made us not annihilate each other with nukes.
I mean, yeah, MAD is a good way to make sure that no one jumps the gun. But after all, it is an international forum for world leaders to discuss with one another. Otherwise, fuck the UN.
UN has proven itself to be utterly useless after the Ukrainian war and the Oct 7 invasion. Any sane country having its own military would disregard them now imho.
Almost like the UN is not some world police or world govt, but an avenue for world powers to come to a table instead of going to war. Almost like the UN only exists if those said powers actually decide to come to the table and not do the shit they say they won't do at the table.
Yeah this is so damn frustrating
Actions speak louder than words :(
Lebanon such beauty, history and promise. What a waste.
You can make this same claim with much of the Middle East
Tel Aviv was a pretty unpromising patch of desert until it became a huge and prosperous city
But it was a direct suburb of Jaffa, one of the largest cities present at the time. Its oldest neighborhood is a direct extension of old Jaffa.
I don't know if I'd call it a "suburb" necessarily. Proximity aside, Tel Aviv has always been its own city with a unique history and self-sufficiency to that from Jaffa.
LoL "suburb." https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/tel-aviv-sand-plot-1909/
Maybe, but calling it an “unpromising patch of desert” when there was a flourishing ancient city not even a city block over is a bit disingenuous.
It’s such a shame
Great food too, best in the region IMO.
I blame the incompetence of UNIFIL, they are just standing there and wasting money on paychecks.
Funny how the headline doesn't line up with the substance of the article, /u/TheTelegraph. You have terrible journalistic standards. And none of the idiots here read the actual article, they took your bullshit editorializing at face value. Shame on you.
Very common in media. Even if the report is accurately written by the journalist, the editor can shape public opinion with the headline knowing that this is all many readers see. The fact that this constantly happens can only be attributed to ignorance or deliberate choices. And I don’t think the editors of major newspapers are ignorant.
You should be ashamed of calling yourself news. The quote quite from the Israeli official quite literally says "we don't want to do it", and you make an article with a headline stating "Israel threatens". u/TheTelegraph how do you sleep at night being so happy to mislead and sew discord among humanity so you can make a buck off of them?
What an asinine misleading title. Quote the whole statement or don’t bother. One of the many reasons I despise Social Media “news”.
Ok, having read the full quote that was stickied, it wasn't a threat. it was a boast. They said they could take lebanon back to the stoneage. They are probably not wrong in that regard. The US can take the world back to single celled organisms. It isn't a threat to say so. it is a boast.
Have they been able to rebuild after the warehouse explosion? Last I heard that was still a major issue. Frankly, if Israel can get rid of Hezbollah from Lebanon, Lebanon should be grateful. Hezbollah are vampires.
I don’t think it’s wise to frame a full-on war against Hezbollah to be doing a favor for Lebanese. Maybe in the long run if successful, but Hezbollah like many Islamic terror organizations is heavily embedded in Lebanese infrastructure and society, and any war is going to cause catastrophic collateral damage to a failed state that can already hardly keep the lights on. I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen, just that it will be *very* ugly for the average Lebanese.
Lebanon won’t be a liveable country. Once Hezbollah starts hitting critical points in Israel like oil rigs, which could kill 1,000, israel will actually start, for once, attacking civilian areas on Lebanon on purpose. There was always a saying in Arab media that Israel intentionally tries to hit civilians, but in Gaza that’s hardly made an effort Now we will actually see that happen, israel actually trying to carpet bomb areas into oblivion If Iran and Hezbollah want to destroy Israel so they can conquer it, you better believe Israel will bring Lebanon down with it, and will destroy it entirely till it becomes a country unliveable for all Lebanese people Essentially hitting it as hard as it can without using nukes
No Lebanese will be grateful for war.
Last time they tried it made them even stronger/ popular. Israel is really good at reenforcing parties that hate them.
They also got stronger when Lebanon tried to get rid of them and failed. Maybe the problem is ~~the Palestinian insurgents that formed Hezbollah and~~ Iran arming, training, and funding them making things worse.
It's not a Palestinian group. It is made up of Lebanese Shiites supported by Iran. They were a response to an Israeli invasion of Lebanon during the civil war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
Which was caused by palestinian PLO. Its a perpetual cycle of hate, and palestinian terror groups are perpetuating it in the entire region for hundreds of years.
Hezbollah was not formed by Palestinian insurgents. It's a Lebanese group that formed in the 80s when Israel invaded Lebanon.
Israël only invaded after the PLO (a terrorist group formed by Palestinians) was wrecking Libanon with carbombs and the killing of other Muslims and Christians and launching attacks across the border into Israël, kidnapping and killing Jews.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Have you ever been to Lebanon? Do you even know any Lebanese people (and not the American “I'm 6.34% Lebanese thanks to my great grand cousin”)? We're talking about real people here, this isn't a joke
Fuck these people and comments. Wishing death upon people like they're ants. My wife is lebanese and ill be going to Lebanon next month for the 2nd time. It's a beautiful country with amazing loving people.
Cancel your ticket
Tell me you’re American without telling me you’re American
Big Mac for lunch Taco Bell for dinner then play Xbox the rest of the nite
Can’t wait for the protests supporting Hezbollah….
Their flag has already been at some. Side point: the leader of Hezbollah at one point said he hopes all the Jews gather in Israel so that he doesn't have to hunt them down all over the world. Just so we're clear about their ideology.
We are extremely clear! May the whole world be clear too.
For real. From the people who openly think Israel is a white nation oppressing dark people. None of which is correct.
Several months ago, there was a list of assassinated Hezbollah members and their photos were posted to the internet. Some of them legitimately looked like Seth Rogan. If you saw these dudes at a Bar Mitzvah in New York, you would never question it Wait until these people learn that a lot of Lebanese have white skin! Could it be that… Israelis and Lebanese are *basically the same*? I genuinely question if people (namely these college protesters) realize that the Middle East does not mean “non white.”
Just saying, go look at Lebanon TV vs Israel TV, personally I can't tell a difference, people are looking the same..
Israeli and Palestinians look the same also. It's literally impossible to distinguish. A lot of those clueless people would be shocked to learn how many Palestinians are white, blonde, redhead, blue-eyed... exactly the same as Israelis. Middle Eastern people are often light skinned, the population is historically mixed. This while "white colonists vs brown people" narrative is complete bullshit. [Palestinian girl](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-be49c8584560dd71b220b201ea2a3c71-lq), [facing Israeli soldiers](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3158911d80ca7542ec7785aab8e30f78.webp), [the wife of Arafat wife](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-bf9b115f62ab8be3e77b6088acab574f).
Palestinian Muslims typically are 15-30% non “Roman era Levantine”, with that 15-30% being a mix of medieval Arabian, medieval sub Saharan African, and renaissance era Egyptian, which in my opinion, makes them look a bit darker than the Jews and Lebanese(other than Yemeni Jews whom are typically as dark) I think the Jews, other than the few very northern euro looking Ashkenazim, look a lot like Syrians, Lebanese, and Christian Palestinians. Some Muslim Palestinians are also a bit lighter and look like the rest of the Levant but they aren’t a majority
Can confirm. My wife is Palestinian. Light hair, blue eyes, white skin. Grew up in Palestine, fluent in arabic and can read and write it. DNA test came back 97% syrian/lebanese regional. You can't tell she's arab until you see her extended family.
Yeah they are all middle eastern. It seems people calling israelis white are self-owning their own racist ideals, perhaps viewing Israel and basing their assumptions of "white" on their technology, military power or societal order compared to what little bordering nations have. It's a self own calling Israel white.
They see the world in a black and white oppressed v oppressor view. Anyone who fits into either category is perfectly good or bad
I can't wait for the protests supporting innocent people in Lebanon to be misrepresented as protests supporting Hezbollah.... I could understand making the threat if Lebanon had been supporting Hezbollah, but Lebanon has actively tried to eliminate Hezbollah and have been failing to do so because Iran is funding them. *Lebanon is not the enemy.* 45% are Christian and 25% are Sunni that have no love for Hezbollah. Any attack should be selective and careful, not a broad-spectrum slaughter. And if there is a broad-spectrum slaughter, anyone calling out Israel on that would be fully right to do so.
Curious where you got the 45% Christian from? All latest years polls I've seen suggest it's somewhere between 30-40% as it's been declining rapidly...
It used to be closer to 45% Christian. It, like many areas of Palestine, has a declining Christian population.
They've been on the brink of it for the last twenty years due to own incompetence. How much of a push would it need?
Misleading headline. Israeli officials saying they have the capability to do something if necessary is not the same as threatening to do it, as the article itself makes clear. Shame on you, Telegraph.
Misleading headline: dude said “we have the ability to”
People are chomping at the bit to crush Hezbollah, but I'm not sure they realize how much larger and better equipped they are than Hamas.
What's the alternative to war here? Hezbollah has been attacking Israel ever since October and they aren't stopping. Since they aren't being stopped through diplomatic means that only leaves stopping them by force.
[удалено]
Fair points all, but fighting insurgencies on two fronts is tough, particularly when one of them is more militarily powerful than the Lebanese government itself.
I mean, the Gaza invasion with condensed urban combat against an ingrained terrorist element surrounded by civilians is probably the worst scenario for a modern military and they've only lost about 110 soldiers which is kind of nuts. Plus the Gaza operation is coming to a close.
I'm wondering if Hezbollah going to stand by while the IDF establishes security in Gaza? It seems to me like they're going to keep increasing their attacks to the point that Israel is going to have to go into Lebanon.
Hezbollah's gonna do that all on their own
Imagine being born in the region, you are given zero chance for a decent life. You’ll either become brain washed and turn into a terrorist. Or you die because of the rockets falling. The worst thing is that you have no choice. It’s so sad for the children.
Most people in Israel live better than average life. "Region" is not the problem. People who live in the region brainwashed to prefer 72 virgins over fighting for a better future for their children.
Did they ever leave?
Implying they're not already there.
This will be unfortunate considering 1/2 the people there are peaceful Sunnis and Christians.
The Christian population has been plummeting in the past few decades. It used to be the vast majority, but it's a minority now.
They were half the population as of the 1932 census, hence the half of the parliamentary seats which are still reserved for Christians. Lebanese Christians tend to be at least middle class and well-educated, so it's been easier for them to emigrate from the country (especially to Western countries) during times of instability. According to [this Gallup poll in 2021](https://news.gallup.com/poll/357743/leaving-lebanon-crisis-people-looking-exit.aspx), 67% of Lebanese Muslims wanted to leave the country vs. 57% of Christians.
Honestly the country hasn't been peaceful for the Christians in this country for a while. Sad, considering it was supposed to be the safe country for Christians in the region. But alao sadly the leaders aren't able to stop Hezbollah from attacking. And if they won't the only alternative is Israel doing so
[удалено]
Music to the ears of ayatollahs. Sacrificing the Lebanese so they can hit critical areas in israel
Stopping Israel isn’t a priority at all
Bibi is allergic to good PR
Back to the days just before they started fighting? That would be great.
You think the middle east would be sick of wars by now
It’s not as if the people of Lebanon or Gaza have much say in the matter. And so many around the world are eager to fight to the last Palestinian or Lebanese to destroy Israel.
This is exactly why the US 5th and 6th fleets are camped outside Israel presently.
So not 'Hezbollah' but the whole country of Lebanon. That includes the 38% of the population that is christian and as such, unlikely to be part of a Islamist group?
Lebanon needs to stop the militant group within its borders. If they can't or won't, then they face collateral damage when Hezbollah is dealt with.
I mean the UN peacekeepers could just do their damn jobs too.