tptacek, it’s hard to take any of your analysis seriously when you label Hezbollah, a non-state controlled armed resistance militia , with no tanks, fighter jets or submarines a “neer-peer military adversary” of Israel, which essentially has full & unlimited access to US weapons stockpiles and latest defence technology (minus nukes and subs).
You are wittingly or unwittingly utilizing the same propaganda strategy of the IDF to lionize their enemies and exaggerate threats so they can use it as an excuse to commit war crimes and inflict severely disproportionate attacks on civilians. With all due respect, we can’t all be experts in everything so please stick to talking about tcp.
One reason I call them that is that they fought Israel to a standstill in southern Lebanon not long ago; the missile attacks were presumably an attempt to lure the IDF into a similar confrontation. Hezbollah is Iran; they are an instrument of the IRGC. Israel and Iran aren't near-peer military forces; they are peers. Israel cannot unilaterally overwhelm Iran.
>The reason I call them that is that they fought Israel to a standstill in southern Lebanon not long ago
First off, they did not fight to 'standstill' with Lebanon, they occupied 10% of the country for 18 years and fought right up to the gates of north Beirut during that conflict, controlling up to half the country at some point. Every war eventually stops to a standstill, but to say they 'fought Israel to a standstill' is completely misleading and disingenuous. 19,000 Lebanese civilians were killed and compared to only 700 Israeli soldiers. Does this outcome look like a war between two 'peer militaries'? You say this despite knowing Israel is armed to the teeth with latest US weapon systems against a poor country that is half its size.
>..the missile attacks were presumably an attempt to lure the IDF into a similar confrontation.
This isn't true Hezbollah have said since the start they'll stop sending rockets once Israel stops its attacks on Gaza. If your aim is to get Israel to stop its attacks, it doesn't make sense why you would want to lure them in to attack them. Their leader also accepted a ceasefire soon before his death. [1]
>Israel and Iran aren't near-peer military forces; they are peers. Israel cannot unilaterally overwhelm Iran.
What does 'militarily overwhelm' mean? The United States, while they can do serious damage, cannot 'military overwhelm' Iran either, and they are not military peers. Russia cannot 'military overwhelm' Ukraine either, does that mean they are 'peer miltiaries'? Of course not.
I was confused why you seem to have so much bias, but then after some quick investigation it makes sense. [2]
The end of your comment was a shameful personal attack* and disgustingly anti-semitic**, made worse (if possible) by internet insults. If you pull a trick like that on HN again, we will ban you.
I don't see how it's in your interest to discredit your own argument with gutter-level slurs, but if that's what you want to do, please do it elsewhere. I wonder how the many Jewish people arguing for the same position that you are, some of whom even have "jewish names", feel about posts like yours.
(* the tinyurl.com link at the end points to a "let me google that for you" with the query "is Ptacek a jewish name".)
(** I don't use language like this in HN mod comments very often, because I don't want to cheapen it, but this is an exception.)
You are wittingly or unwittingly utilizing the same propaganda strategy of the IDF to lionize their enemies and exaggerate threats so they can use it as an excuse to commit war crimes and inflict severely disproportionate attacks on civilians. With all due respect, we can’t all be experts in everything so please stick to talking about tcp.