What Would an ALL OUT Hezbollah-Israel War Look Like?

[aygart]

You have a major mistake. You see win as "vanquish" or "totally end the threat forever".
Many countries have (and are!) successfully managed violent separatist and/or revolutionary movements for decades.

IL has learned many lessons over the last decades (especially the last year).
Hamas will not be a threat from Gaza ever again. IL will hold the philladelphi line, cut off the resupply lines, and the violent movement will end. It will simply run out of ammo. IL will (finally!!) secure the eastern border... and the same will be in YoSh.

His point is that guerilla warfare wears down the organized force and creates conditions where the internal politics is to capitulate.

[Just A Jew]

His point is that guerilla warfare wears down the organized force and creates conditions where the internal politics is to capitulate.

Great, he understands what its purpose is. That doesn't define what victory is.

[DaasTora]

My two cents: I think that the war in Gaza was nothing close to a success. It was not planned out but rather was a reaction to unimaginable terror. The loss of hundreds of soldiers and many thousands of wounded soldiers cannot be called success in any way. But tbh there’s no real way to have success in Gaza without doing literal “genocide” which is obviously not doable. I’ve been reading most of the comments in the forum and have yet to be convinced otherwise.

On the other hand the current situation with Hezbolla - Iran is nothing short of successful. We were all growing up knowing that Iran has this scary proxy on EY’s north border that can’t be touched. But this Friday that whole misconception changed. What will happen next, Hashem knows and all we can do is Daven for the safety of our brethren in EY, but the events in the past few weeks have definitely changed the Middle East forever. And no, they were not just “stunts”.

[Just A Jew]

My two cents: I think that the war in Gaza was nothing close to a success. It was not planned out but rather was a reaction to unimaginable terror. The loss of hundreds of soldiers and many thousands of wounded soldiers cannot be called success in any way. But tbh there’s no real way to have success in Gaza without doing literal “genocide” which is obviously not doable. I’ve been reading most of the comments in the forum and have yet to be convinced otherwise.

On the other hand the current situation with Hezbolla - Iran is nothing short of successful. We were all growing up knowing that Iran has this scary proxy on EY’s north border that can’t be touched. But this Friday that whole misconception changed. What will happen next, Hashem knows and all we can do is Daven for the safety of our brethren in EY, but the events in the past few weeks have definitely changed the Middle East forever. And no, they were not just “stunts”.

Success is achieving goals. That doesn't mean there aren't costs. We may have paid too much to achieve success, but they can be mutually exclusive cheshbonos.

[Chester7]

But tbh there’s no real way to have success in Gaza without doing literal “genocide” which is obviously not doable.

Would this be considered success?

IL has learned many lessons over the last decades (especially the last year).
Hamas will not be a threat from Gaza ever again. IL will hold the philladelphi line, cut off the resupply lines, and the violent movement will end. It will simply run out of ammo. IL will (finally!!) secure the eastern border... and the same will be in YoSh.

[Euclid]

My two cents: I think that the war in Gaza was nothing close to a success. It was not planned out but rather was a reaction to unimaginable terror. The loss of hundreds of soldiers and many thousands of wounded soldiers cannot be called success in any way.

This is a couple orders of magnitude less casualties than many were predicting. People were scared that there would be hundreds of soldiers killed per month (week?), not per year.

[Yehuda57]

1956 was arguably a win. Egypt survived.
1967 was a win in anyone's book. The Arabs survived.
1973, was at the end of it, at least resolved in ILs favor. The arabs survived.

1967 proves 1956 was not a win, just as 1973 proves 1967 was not a win. The second Lebanon war shows the first was not a win, as the third one shows the second wasn't a win.

IMHO, those who say Israel is winning are correct. But they have not won yet, not even close. They need to *finish* the job

[Just A Jew]

1967 proves 1956 was not a win, just as 1973 proves 1967 was not a win. The second Lebanon war shows the first was not a win, as the third one shows the second wasn't a win.

IMHO, those who say Israel is winning are correct. But they have not won yet, not even close. They need to *finish* the job

Why does victory need to be permanent in order for it to be considered a win? Why is this conversation so binary? Either we achieve everlasting peace, or we failed.

[Yehuda57]

Why does victory need to be permanent in order for it to be considered a win? Why is this conversation so binary? Either we achieve everlasting peace, or we failed.

There were successes, but a real victory means a lasting peace and security for your citizens. I's not like we're talking a victory and then 3 decades later a new threat emerges. These are all succeeding threats that emerge immediately from Israel's caving to pressure and not finishing the job.

[LongTimeLurker]

1967 proves 1956 was not a win, just as 1973 proves 1967 was not a win. The second Lebanon war shows the first was not a win, as the third one shows the second wasn't a win.

IMHO, those who say Israel is winning are correct. But they have not won yet, not even close. They need to *finish* the job

WW2 ended and within a few years the Korean war started. Not to mention the Soviet crushing of the Czech spring, or much later polish solidarity. Then there was the Vietnam war. 
Humans are basically at war with each other often.
What you're describing doesn't really exist in the annals of human history unless it involves the complete eradication and subjugation of the loser in ways that humanity no longer approves of.

[Just A Jew]

There were successes, but a real victory means a lasting peace and security for your citizens. I's not like we're talking a victory and then 3 decades later a new threat emerges. These are all succeeding threats that emerge immediately from Israel's caving to pressure and not finishing the job.

There is no finishing the job, just lowering the immediate threat. You can't eradicate radical Islamic antisemitism. It will always be there. And as long as Israel exists, surrounded by Muslim countries, the threat isn't going anywhere. You can manage it by measures of degrees - there will be periods where the safety of Israel's citizens is more (but never fully) secure, and periods when extreme and immediate action is needed so people can go about their daily lives. This is an issue we will never solve, only manage.

[DaasTora]

Would this be considered success?

Again, I’m not advocating that since it’s unethical and not doable but technically speaking no Palestinians = no terror from Gaza.

[DaasTora]

This is a couple orders of magnitude less casualties than many were predicting. People were scared that there would be hundreds of soldiers killed per month (week?), not per year.

Having less dead than anticipated doesn’t make a few hundred deaths good.

[yfr bachur]

There were successes, but a real victory means a lasting peace and security for your citizens. I's not like we're talking a victory and then 3 decades later a new threat emerges. These are all succeeding threats that emerge immediately from Israel's caving to pressure and not finishing the job.

The problem is that all this "should have finished the job" rhetoric totally ignores the geopolitical realities that did (and still do!) hamstring what IL is able to do.
If you get an arms embargo against the state, if you get the UN and other international actors to turn IL into a pariah state ala Saddam's Iraq or North Korea, or international boots on the ground enforcing an internationally imposed solution to the "palestinian issue" It don't do too much good that you whipped the hide of some overgrown arab cowboys playing with rockets and showed them who's boss.
IL had no choice in 1956, heck the IL allies UK and France were humiliated by the US telling them "Put away the guns boys, it's not playtime now". But it was a win. The Israeli objectives were achieved.
1967 the IDF was on the outskirts of both Damascus and Cairo... but was stopped by the world. But it was a win. The Israeli objectives were achieved.
Shalom Lagalil achieved the Israeli objectives. The fact that after many years of international and leftie domestic pressure it withdrew from SL, does not negate that. It only shows, again, that IL cannot rely on international law and forces to secure SL. The same for the 2nd Lebanon War.

[Euclid]

Having less dead than anticipated doesn’t make a few hundred deaths good.

I was talking to your point where you called the war a non-success *because* of the casualties.

[yfr bachur]

Again, I’m not advocating that since it’s unethical and not doable but technically speaking no Palestinians = no terror from Gaza.

Sorry for talking this way, but that's just stupid/insane.
If IL ever tried doing that, that would be the end of IL, politically and in reality.
Jewish blood around the world would flow like water.

[Yehuda57]

WW2 ended and within a few years the Korean war started. Not to mention the Soviet crushing of the Czech spring, or much later polish solidarity. Then there was the Vietnam war. 
Humans are basically at war with each other often.
What you're describing doesn't really exist in the annals of human history unless it involves the complete eradication and subjugation of the loser in ways that humanity no longer approves of.

There is no finishing the job, just lowering the immediate threat. You can't eradicate radical Islamic antisemitism. It will always be there. And as long as Israel exists, surrounded by Muslim countries, the threat isn't going anywhere. You can manage it by measures of degrees - there will be periods where the safety of Israel's citizens is more (but never fully) secure, and periods when extreme and immediate action is needed so people can go about their daily lives. This is an issue we will never solve, only manage.

Winning a war doesn't mean no other threat will ever emerge, it means ending the current threat. No, Israel cannot eliminate Islamic extremism. They can dismantle current their power structures and render them toothless. WW2 did not end Nazism. But the Nazis have no governing power with which to enforce their ideology. So yes, Nazis do exist, but they are left to make marches and there unfortunately are occasional mass shootings, but they were defeated as a threat to any country or people.

Israel can and must end Hamas and Hezbollah's ability to govern. While the latter is much larger and more formidable, in a way it may be easier as Lebanon has a power structure that can be used to fight them and end their rule. How much Iran needs to be hit in order for this to become a reality remains to be seen, but Iran itself is becoming more and more susceptible to attack and for their regime to be at risk.

This is also why I don't believe you need to kill every Hamas fighter to achieve a victory. If Hamas governance is destroyed, and instead of void, a governing entity is installed that can give Palestinians civil infrastructure the general populace will not feel the need as strongly to tie themselves to Hamas-like terrorists. Even if the ideology still exists in the hearts and minds of many, if they have no system in which to operate, Israel will be safe. Yes, there may be an occasional attack by lone wolf types, but nothing like Oct 7th, the intifadas, etc.

[DaasTora]

Sorry for talking this way, but that's just stupid/insane.
If IL ever tried doing that, that would be the end of IL, politically and in reality.
Jewish blood around the world would flow like water.

You obviously didn’t read my post. I said over and over that it’s not doable and that’s why I don’t see a path to success in Gaza.

. But tbh there’s no real way to have success in Gaza without doing literal “genocide” which is obviously not doable.

Again, I’m not advocating that since it’s unethical and not doable

[Just A Jew]

Winning a war doesn't mean no other threat will ever emerge, it means ending the current threat. No, Israel cannot eliminate Islamic extremism. They can dismantle current their power structures and render them toothless. WW2 did not end Nazism. But the Nazis have no governing power with which to enforce their ideology. So yes, Nazis do exist, but they are left to make marches and there unfortunately are occasional mass shootings, but they were defeated as a threat to any country or people.

Israel can and must end Hamas and Hezbollah's ability to govern. While the latter is much larger and more formidable, in a way it may be easier as Lebanon has a power structure that can be used to fight them and end their rule. How much Iran needs to be hit in order for this to become a reality remains to be seen, but Iran itself is becoming more and more susceptible to attack and for their regime to be at risk.

This is also why I don't believe you need to kill every Hamas fighter to achieve a victory. If Hamas governance is destroyed, and instead of void, a governing entity is installed that can give Palestinians civil infrastructure the general populace will not feel the need as strongly to tie themselves to Hamas-like terrorists. Even if the ideology still exists in the hearts and minds of many, if they have no system in which to operate, Israel will be safe. Yes, there may be an occasional attack by lone wolf types, but nothing like Oct 7th, the intifadas, etc.

I hear you. My point is that winning and success are not binary. There are degrees of measure to both. To say that because they didn't reach the absolute measures you'd like to see means that they have not won or have not succeeded, to the point of failure, is wrong, IMO.

[Just A Jew]

You obviously didn’t read my post. I said over and over that it’s not doable and that’s why I don’t see a path to success in Gaza.

I hear you. My point is that winning and success are not binary. There are degrees of measure to both. To say that because they didn't reach the absolute measures you'd like to see means that they have not won or have not succeeded, to the point of failure, is wrong, IMO.