What would the region look like today had Israel not tucked its tail and committed to a unilateral withdrawal from Southern Lebanon? It seems to have been a more disastrous strategic mistake than the withdrawal from Gaza. Antoine Lahad's Southern Lebanon Army crumbled into detritus, Hezbollah had free range of movement to build up the militia so much that it subsumed Lebanese institutions.. And it made Iran realise how successful its proxy warfare had become. Even Arafat dangled it over the heads of the Israeli negotiation team at Camp David and Taba; warning about the "Southern Lebanon precedent". Which then turned into the Al-Aqsa Intifada, because Fatah saw that Israel was in retreat.
>>18451177Probably would still be a massive shit show for Israel, occupying land still entails spending a lot of resources on patrolling it, managing it, and then inevitably having to deal with protecting the settlers fucking around (something so annoying even the Sayeret Matkal were publicly protesting about and denouncing). Diplomatically a lot worse too since Lebanon is indisputably recognized as a sovereign nation worldwide and has decent enough ties to France for a relevant first world partner to speak up for them, whereas Palestine has always been fucked in that respect since their only truly powerful "allies" (i.e the Soviet Union, kinda, and China, kinda) don't do anything of material value to actually help them since 1991.
>>18451185Would it have been less of a shitshow without the '06 Lebanon War and the various Gaza wars, though? I wonder if the SLA counterweight in the South would have made for a healthier Lebanon, too. It provided institutional pathways for Lebanese Shi'i that weren't Hezbollah. The 2000s & 2010s corruption has been ruinous for the country.I think the SLA abandonment is the more important thing I want to hone in on. If it had been further empowered, the drawbacks you describe could have been mitigated. And between the SLA and Hzb for Lebanese sovereignty, I'd imagine the SLA would sooner shake Israel than Hzb Iran. Can't help but feel awful for the guy, to live in exile, dropped like a piece of rubbish.
>>18451177>more disastrous strategic mistakeFor Lahad and his army, not Israel. Israel isn't fighting with the Hezbollh as, now and even in 2000, the turkish are the enemies>turned into the second IntifadaWhich failed.>because Fatah saw that Israel was in retreat.They saw badly.>Hezbollah had free range of movement to build up the militia so much that it subsumed Lebanese institutionsOnce again, lebanese matters.>with protecting the settlersNope, peotecting the Israeli inhabitants.>something so annoying even the Sayeret Matkal were publicly protesting about and denouncing.Nice antisemitic delusion; take your pills.Finally, the opponent who want to genocide the Jews and other populations (minorities, anti-corruption people) is the wacky and disgusting turkish regime, who never accepted the 1918 turkish defeat and want to try to invade the middle east again, as well as Greece, the russian caucasus and North Macedonia.
>>18451177The withdrawal was a disaster for Israel, but that doesn't mean the alternative was better for Israel. Sometimes there are no good choices. The real solution was not getting into Lebanon in the first place, which directly led to the creation of Hezbollah, who aren't just going to go away now. Israel created it's own problem here.
>>18451408>Israel created it's own problem here.Their problems are literally always of their own creation.
>>18451548Yeah OP's post is kind of hilarious. Was it a mistake to withdraw from south Lebanon or should we have just kept our army there and lose dozens of guys to IEDs every year? What, we just shouldn't have invaded in the first place? Who would have thought
>>18451353The Turks are the only force preventing the zionists and americans from commiting a complete holocaust on palestinians, lebanese and syrians
>>18451197>If it had been further empoweredIt wasn't an issue of empowerment, the SLA couldn't achieve good recruitment numbers and the guys they could recruit were consistently smoked by Hezbollah. Israel couldn't rely on them and had to reinforce them with their own troops. You see they were already being empowered as much as possible. It was because Israel had to empower them that they were bleeding troops, including a brigadier general to a Hezbollah IED in 1999. There was no option for Israel to stay in Lebanon unless it would be cool with that rate of attrition.
>>18451580You mean the Iranians
>>18451580The Turks are close allies of Israel, pakibro. I've noticed south Asians really look up to Turkey for some reason. Erdogan has done a great job with his marketing. But you realize Turkey operates the crude oil pipeline that powers the Israeli genocide machine right?
>massive influx of America-bad, Churchill-bad, Israel-badSigh… what blew up now?
>>18451592Are you illiterate by any chance? This post is literally saying Israel should never have stopped occupying Lebanon. It's pro-Israel
>>18451592This is the least anti-Israel I've seen on this website outside of /k/
>>18451408Hezbollah were a creation of Iranian subversion. Why do you think Khomeini assasinated Imam Musr al-Sadr in 1978? Squashing the Palestinian militias in Beirut after their Black September war forced them to renounce armed resistance against Israel. Until the Israeli left showed weakness in the 1999 election, they became a docile mutt, and even ended up fumbling their cards further during Sharon's election. You're right that there were no good choices, but since the Southern Christian communities saw themselves as protecting their villages from foreign aggression, the SLA's attrition was palatable.https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP06T00412R000505690001-5.pdf>>18451564Israel wasn't substantially losing guys. SLA took the brunt of the casualties. Far more Northern Israeli civilians have been injured and killed since the withdrawal than during the time of the security zone.>>18451588You raise good points, after all, even Lahad thought that an Israeli withdrawal was the wisest decision. But a unilateral one, with no deal, no dialogue between the LAF and Syria? That was foolish.
>>18452543>SLA's attrition was palatable.Demonstrably incorrect. It was ineffective and didn't collapse for no reason.>Israel wasn't substantially losing guys. SLA took the brunt of the casualties. Yeah heavy casualties forced Israel to withdraw and outsource to the SLA. The SLA was ineffective, forcing Israel to put its soldiers in harm's way again. Then more casualties, leading to more withdrawals. Rinse and repeat until they were forcibly removed. In a 3 week offensive in early 2020, 7 Israeli soldiers were killed in south Lebanon. Unilateral withdrawal (defeat) was announced shortly thereafter. So your mistake is in viewing withdrawal as a unilateral "choice". Israel had no choice. >Far more Northern Israeli civilians have been injured and killed since the withdrawal than during the time of the security zone.>But a unilateral one, with no deal, no dialogue between the LAF and Syria? That was foolish.Same as above. Your statements assume Israel had any option. Just because withdrawal was bad for Israel doesn't mean it was a bad "choice", it was a bad outcome that it was forced to accept because of its military defeat. Also, LAF has no say (too weak to do anything as a result of Israel's own policy, another example of Israeli shortsightedness), and Syria was backing Hezbollah by that point.
>>18452674>In a 3 week offensive in early 2020early 2000*
>>18452674The unilateral withdrawal was no strategic necessity, it was a partisan decision made under a government in the throes of international capture. Ehud Barak is literally on tape describing to Jeffrey Epstein how tens of thousands of goyim must be imported to dislodge the national religious vote. Those casualties you describe are hardly of any cost compared to the constant cross-border raids, kidnapping of soldiers, and shelling of Northern villages after the withdrawal. Over 40 Jewish civilians were killed by Iranian munitions during the Second Lebanon War. Literally in the same year, instead of skirmishes in the security zone, Hezbollah invaded the Golan Heights to abduct and murder IDF soldiers, in October of 2000.So, either you receive occasional attrition on the enemy's territory, where Israeli civilians can go about their livelihoods so that career soldiers protect the homefront, or you lose all deterrence, the war is brought to your territory, and your enemy is stronger and better situated than ever before.It is a simple choice retrospectively, and it was transparently a fool's endeavor to trust the international community to enforce any mandate that would provide Israel security.
>>18452691Yeah dozens of casualties every year protecting territory you can't hold also has no strategic necessity Shlomo. And Hezbollah was getting stronger while Israel was in Lebanon.
>>18452696Dozens of casualties, dozens! Do you know how many people die from heart attacks and car accidents each year in Israel? You must be a retard if you confuse cause and effect for Hzb's ascendance like that.Fact: Before withdrawal, Hzb didn't lay a finger on muh sheba farmsFact:The Israeli left waved a white flag, signaling to the Arabs that they would turn on their friends in a heartbeat, showing falsely that Israelis couldn't stomach a morsel of fallen soldiers in the goal of making terrorist kebab. This rippled out into the territories, like a shark sensing a dangling leg.No strategic necessity? What do you think deterrence is?
>>18451592OP is openly Israeli
>>18452706deterrence is the last grasp cope, it doesnt work and never has kek
>>18452706>No strategic necessity? What do you think deterrence is?Uh, you'd actually have to WIN to create deterrence. Doesn't look like the strategy of losing guys to IEDs was deterring Hezbollah very much in the 90s
