It’s not a game-changer, but a gamble to either de-escalate or escalate the conflict in ways that advance Israel’s interests as Bibi perceives them to be, which is why a continuation of the status quo would be the last thing that he’d expect.
"After all, MAD is still in effect, though hawkish Israelis like Bibi and those around him might dangerously gamble that they could bait the US into intervening on their side in order to tilt the odds in their favor."
They aren't gambling. Israel no doubt already has US assurances thst they will come to the rescue if needed.
I don't believe that the US is ready to help out. If that was the case, why wouldn't Israel have already attacked Hezbollah back when it had more of a perceived advantage? Why wait until after it's fatigued and humiliated in Gaza and at its weakest in recent memory?
If the assurance are there, then strike while the iron is hot, so to speak. It doesn't make sense to wait until you're weak and desperate to start another large-scale war that might very well end with your annihilation.
Because I don't know that Israel had more perceived advantage, and Israel isn't desperate but wants to start a war now while support remains unlimited.
We've been hearing that one for years now, but the S continues to escalate all that time.
When confronted with an armed robber, a Colt Python held to his head is a better response than hoping that the robber gets a heart attack as a result of all the excitement.
Yeah, you mean, 'Better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it!', right? Not very original but it is a good point. Survival of the fittest and those with guns, I suppose, isn't neccessarily very original... Seems to be working for the Zionists at the moment, in any case.
Yeah, but when they get back, BOY are they gonna be MAD. If they were arguably too angry to make effective use of themselves when they had all of their fingers and toes (and arms and legs and testicles, etc.) WOW they will be SO MUCH more pissed off and effective when they get back! Ironically, as is so often the case in war, Israel will have given them exactly what the needed to pull themselves together and become a much more effective fighting force. They may feel humiliated and demoralised today but when the pendulum swings back they may find themselves vindicated and victorious. This was an extremely foolish move on behalf of the Zionists. 'He who laughs last, laughs best.'
The Arabs may turn out to be too stupid to take advantage what Israel has just given them, which is what the Israelis have convinced themselves of, of course; BUT, they may not. I guess it all depends on who you believe God loves most, and if god has favourites?!
I agree that it was foolish, but I did my best to try to understand why they went through with it anyhow, especially since it wasn't followed up in the 24 hours since with an invasion of Southern Lebanon when now would have been the best moment of any thus far to do so.
Yes, I must say, that IS odd. It leads me to conclude they simply couldn't resist indulging a sense of superiority by demonstrating how they've got their n-words on the run. That's what leads me to believe, 'He who laughs last laughs best!' From this point of view it was unusually, but unfortunately not uncharacteristically, foolish of the Zionists — a real shot in the foot. You'd almost have to genuinely believe God had chosen you for some special purpose to think you might get away with that. I can't honestly say I wish the best of luck to them.
"Its carefully cultivated reputation as the only “moral” country in the region is in tatters after the large toll that its conflict has exacted on Palestinian civilians..."
With all due respect, that reputation existed solely in the estimations of Israel's supporters, and there is literally nothing Israel could do that would change that estimation among the Americans, who will continue to strong-arm their catamites into following meekly along.
I didn't imply that I lend credence to that reputation, I wrote from the perspective of how Israel sees it. Please further familiarize yourself with my work, including how I was defamed as an anti-Semite by the State Department for my anti-Zionist analyses:
What a lot of folks in Alt-Media who feel passionate about something, be it support of Russia or opposite to Israel, struggle with is understanding how policymakers see everything and the way in which those perceptions shape policy.
In the case of Israel as I wrote, it's utterly humiliated, though by its own hand. Its collective punishment of the Palestinians put to rest talk of its "moral superiority" to the point where everyone in the West is now aware of what it's done even if some still support it.
I appreciate most of your analysis and have been a follower of your articles for a while. A few times, I don't see eye to eye with your write ups, but this is not the case here.
If I were to chime in, Israel, as you said has managed to offset a war with the entire axis because, as you well articulated, this could benefit Bibi in various ways i.e. involvement of US but also as a state actor it strengthens their regional outlook, as a nation still able to militarily engage with multiple adversaries. To what effect this remains to be seen, but in actuality, it's standing as a military power on the global stage has diminished greatly. If anything (excluding the nuke stockpile), it's at parity with the axis of resistance even without including Iran.
Speaking of the resistance, as to the perplexing question, why Israel did what they did. First off, the security and intelligence players in that nation are in a state of flux. I don't think some of the decisions coming out of Israel involve or take into consideration policy makers. Second of all, like a rabid or feral creature backed up into a corner, Israel is fighting dirty with whatever it can use to fend off it's impending demise. I say this because Answar-Allah or Houthis, recently sent an alleged hypersonic missile deep into Israel, whilst evading the layers of AD deployed. So thirdly in order to stave off a possible cascading attack, the rabid dog had to do something to stun the opponent, buying itself some time, hence why it was compelled to execute this pager terrorist attack.
Enjoy the new "Internet of Exploding Things" where nothing with connectivity is safe, every such electronic might be a weapon and requiring connected tech for work or personal communications means you've no refuge, no safety, no security, and no privacy.
Ask not for whom the pager beeps, it beeps for thee, m0+h3r£u¢k3r$.
Well said, Brev. I write this 14 hours after the initial comments began. Since that time, talkie-walkies have exploded; solar panels have caught fire; and other sundry "electronic" devices have exploded in homes throughout Lebanon. Since children were killed and hospital workers injured, Israel has clearly defined its protocol: no distinction between civilians and combatants.
What would an Arab country have to lose? They may wait to regroup and draw up strategic plans, but Israel has shown that they will annihilate whom they like when they like. They have no distinctions or boundaries. Again, what do Arab states have to lose? It's like being kidnapped and told to drive at gun point. If an individual feels they can take their captor, they wait for the judicious time and strike. They know they'll be killed in any case before the captor leaves. What have they got to lose?
The Arabs are not stupid. They know this better than anyone. They've tried to placate the Israelis and Americans. Now, they have nothing to lose because they're in a losing game no matter what they do. America will fire weapons, but Americans at home won't stand for direct involvement: there will be a hue and cry to disassociate ourselves with direct fighting. The streets will erupt in utter chaos. Has Washington forgotten how many Muslims they've allowed to enter the country?
"After all, MAD is still in effect, though hawkish Israelis like Bibi and those around him might dangerously gamble that they could bait the US into intervening on their side in order to tilt the odds in their favor."
They aren't gambling. Israel no doubt already has US assurances thst they will come to the rescue if needed.
I don't believe that the US is ready to help out. If that was the case, why wouldn't Israel have already attacked Hezbollah back when it had more of a perceived advantage? Why wait until after it's fatigued and humiliated in Gaza and at its weakest in recent memory?
If the assurance are there, then strike while the iron is hot, so to speak. It doesn't make sense to wait until you're weak and desperate to start another large-scale war that might very well end with your annihilation.
Because I don't know that Israel had more perceived advantage, and Israel isn't desperate but wants to start a war now while support remains unlimited.
But what if the US wasn't in any sort of state to be any sort of help?
We've been hearing that one for years now, but the S continues to escalate all that time.
When confronted with an armed robber, a Colt Python held to his head is a better response than hoping that the robber gets a heart attack as a result of all the excitement.
Yeah, you mean, 'Better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it!', right? Not very original but it is a good point. Survival of the fittest and those with guns, I suppose, isn't neccessarily very original... Seems to be working for the Zionists at the moment, in any case.
'He who laughs last...', however...
"...out of the war for now..."
Yeah, but when they get back, BOY are they gonna be MAD. If they were arguably too angry to make effective use of themselves when they had all of their fingers and toes (and arms and legs and testicles, etc.) WOW they will be SO MUCH more pissed off and effective when they get back! Ironically, as is so often the case in war, Israel will have given them exactly what the needed to pull themselves together and become a much more effective fighting force. They may feel humiliated and demoralised today but when the pendulum swings back they may find themselves vindicated and victorious. This was an extremely foolish move on behalf of the Zionists. 'He who laughs last, laughs best.'
The Arabs may turn out to be too stupid to take advantage what Israel has just given them, which is what the Israelis have convinced themselves of, of course; BUT, they may not. I guess it all depends on who you believe God loves most, and if god has favourites?!
I agree that it was foolish, but I did my best to try to understand why they went through with it anyhow, especially since it wasn't followed up in the 24 hours since with an invasion of Southern Lebanon when now would have been the best moment of any thus far to do so.
Yes, I must say, that IS odd. It leads me to conclude they simply couldn't resist indulging a sense of superiority by demonstrating how they've got their n-words on the run. That's what leads me to believe, 'He who laughs last laughs best!' From this point of view it was unusually, but unfortunately not uncharacteristically, foolish of the Zionists — a real shot in the foot. You'd almost have to genuinely believe God had chosen you for some special purpose to think you might get away with that. I can't honestly say I wish the best of luck to them.
"Its carefully cultivated reputation as the only “moral” country in the region is in tatters after the large toll that its conflict has exacted on Palestinian civilians..."
With all due respect, that reputation existed solely in the estimations of Israel's supporters, and there is literally nothing Israel could do that would change that estimation among the Americans, who will continue to strong-arm their catamites into following meekly along.
I didn't imply that I lend credence to that reputation, I wrote from the perspective of how Israel sees it. Please further familiarize yourself with my work, including how I was defamed as an anti-Semite by the State Department for my anti-Zionist analyses:
https://x.com/AKorybko/status/1726133288509538416
What a lot of folks in Alt-Media who feel passionate about something, be it support of Russia or opposite to Israel, struggle with is understanding how policymakers see everything and the way in which those perceptions shape policy.
In the case of Israel as I wrote, it's utterly humiliated, though by its own hand. Its collective punishment of the Palestinians put to rest talk of its "moral superiority" to the point where everyone in the West is now aware of what it's done even if some still support it.
I appreciate most of your analysis and have been a follower of your articles for a while. A few times, I don't see eye to eye with your write ups, but this is not the case here.
If I were to chime in, Israel, as you said has managed to offset a war with the entire axis because, as you well articulated, this could benefit Bibi in various ways i.e. involvement of US but also as a state actor it strengthens their regional outlook, as a nation still able to militarily engage with multiple adversaries. To what effect this remains to be seen, but in actuality, it's standing as a military power on the global stage has diminished greatly. If anything (excluding the nuke stockpile), it's at parity with the axis of resistance even without including Iran.
Speaking of the resistance, as to the perplexing question, why Israel did what they did. First off, the security and intelligence players in that nation are in a state of flux. I don't think some of the decisions coming out of Israel involve or take into consideration policy makers. Second of all, like a rabid or feral creature backed up into a corner, Israel is fighting dirty with whatever it can use to fend off it's impending demise. I say this because Answar-Allah or Houthis, recently sent an alleged hypersonic missile deep into Israel, whilst evading the layers of AD deployed. So thirdly in order to stave off a possible cascading attack, the rabid dog had to do something to stun the opponent, buying itself some time, hence why it was compelled to execute this pager terrorist attack.
I suspect that Israel's moral reputation before October 7 was solely the product of American carrot and American stick.
October 7th and the aftermath simply laid this fact bare where nobody could even pretend otherwise.
Moses should have operatives finish off the “identified” terrorists. Or maybe some non-Hezbollah Lebanese patriots will do it.
Mosad not Moses.
Enjoy the new "Internet of Exploding Things" where nothing with connectivity is safe, every such electronic might be a weapon and requiring connected tech for work or personal communications means you've no refuge, no safety, no security, and no privacy.
Ask not for whom the pager beeps, it beeps for thee, m0+h3r£u¢k3r$.
Well said, Brev. I write this 14 hours after the initial comments began. Since that time, talkie-walkies have exploded; solar panels have caught fire; and other sundry "electronic" devices have exploded in homes throughout Lebanon. Since children were killed and hospital workers injured, Israel has clearly defined its protocol: no distinction between civilians and combatants.
What would an Arab country have to lose? They may wait to regroup and draw up strategic plans, but Israel has shown that they will annihilate whom they like when they like. They have no distinctions or boundaries. Again, what do Arab states have to lose? It's like being kidnapped and told to drive at gun point. If an individual feels they can take their captor, they wait for the judicious time and strike. They know they'll be killed in any case before the captor leaves. What have they got to lose?
The Arabs are not stupid. They know this better than anyone. They've tried to placate the Israelis and Americans. Now, they have nothing to lose because they're in a losing game no matter what they do. America will fire weapons, but Americans at home won't stand for direct involvement: there will be a hue and cry to disassociate ourselves with direct fighting. The streets will erupt in utter chaos. Has Washington forgotten how many Muslims they've allowed to enter the country?