All Hank, all the time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I don't know why you think Hezbollah will gain greater legitimacy. First, Arab states that at least tacitly supported it have now done the opposite.

I'm not sure that the authoritarians who rule those states have a whole lot of legitimacy themselves. And those states aren't saying that Hezbollah is illegitimate -- they're disagreeing with what it has done.

Second, if they suffer heavy casualties, then their claims of being the army that would defeat Zionism will be shown to be hollow. (This leaves aside the benefits of dead Hezbollah soldiers.)

When Israel's bombing finally ends, they will be able to claim victory for standing up to all that firepower, casualties or no.

As for Israel's ability to damage Hezbollah.... I'm not sure that Iraq provides a meaningful guide. I suspect Israel's planning was a bit more thorough and more realistic.

Sure, but I'd be surprised if Israel plans to launch a large-scale invasion of Lebanon.

Certainly the bombing is not stopping the rocket attacks yet. That's why they are still bombing, and why they will likely have to cross the border in greater force.

But here's my real question: What would you have done? Does Israel simply let Hezbollah bomb and attack and kidnap, and do nothing? Or does it make more concessions -- prisoner releases, land given up, etc. -- in the hopes that this time, this prisoner or that acre of land will magically convince Hezbollah that Israel is a decent enough place to have a right to exist?

Perhaps bombing/raids focused on the portion of southern Lebanon controlled by Hezbollah and where the rockets are. I.e., not Beirut. There's a middle ground between rolling over and causing $2 billion of damage to the nation's infrastructure.

I don't think anything is convince Hezbollah that Israel has the right to exist. So the challenge for Israel to figure out how to supplant Hezbollah's control of southern Lebanon.