I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make by counting the number of individual attacks. In a war, you want to be attacking the enemy while preventing the enemy from attacking you. To the extent that this chart is meaningful (and I’m not sure it is, given that it does not take the size of an attack into account) it’s just showing that Israel appears to be fighting Hezbollah effectively - Israeli victory would mean reducing the red bars to zero.
Are you implying that Israel’s much greater number of attacks are because they are doing really tiny attacks or something? According to Wikipedia, 1642 Lebanese dead vs 52 Israelis. I.e. 31 times more Lebanese than Israeli deaths. So if anything Israel is killing more per strike, given that they only made 5 times more attacks (or 4 times more counting up until mid September). So it’s highly likely Israel is doing bigger strikes with less concern for civilian casualties. Notably, nobody is surprised about this given the horror we’ve all been watching for the past year.
Israeli victory would mean reducing the red bars to zero
Then good news. A cease fire in Gaza would achieve this. Shame Bibi doesn’t seem interested in that but he sure does love killing children so I guess it works out for him at least.
Are you implying that Israel’s much greater number of attacks are because they are doing really tiny attacks or something?
No, I’m just saying the graph is probably useless. Israel definitely is launching more and larger attacks, because that’s how you win a war. Ideally Hezbollah would be launching zero attacks because Israel launched the massive number of attacks necessary to cripple Hezbollah. A little red bar, then a big blue bar, and finally no red bar at all.
Israel is doing bigger strikes with less concern for civilian casualties.
Is this a joke? Hezbollah usually attacks with unguided rockets. This demonstrates zero concern for civilian casualties. Less than zero, actually, because the intent of the attacks is to cause civilian casualties. Relatively few Israeli civilians have died because Israel is successfully defending them, not because Hezbollah’s policy regarding Israeli civilians is different from that of Hamas.
A cease fire in Gaza would achieve this.
Even if that is true (and it would only be true in the short term) then Israel would still be foolish to make major concessions to its persistent enemies when it has the military power necessary not to. Meanwhile Hezbollah would be more inclined to launch future attacks because it would see that they worked.
No, I’m just saying the graph is probably useless. Israel definitely is launching more and larger attacks, because that’s how you win a war.
How can the graph be useless if it shows a point you agree with, that Israel is launching more and larger attacks?
Is this a joke? Hezbollah usually attacks with unguided rockets. This demonstrates zero concern for civilian casualties. Less than zero, actually, because the intent of the attacks is to cause civilian casualties. Relatively few Israeli civilians have died because Israel is successfully defending them, not because Hezbollah’s policy regarding Israeli civilians is different from that of Hamas.
Not joking. Just confused. Do you have a source for this about unguided rockets targeting civilians from Hezbollah?
This article among many others don’t mention this. In fact, according to them they are targeting troops and intelligence bases.
Hezbollah also fired more rockets and missiles into Israel - attacks that Mr Afif said were “only the beginning” of its response to Israel’s attacks.
Sirens sounded several times in the border town of Metula, where Hezbollah said its fighters had targeted Israeli troops with artillery and rocket fire without mentioning any incursion.
The group also claimed it had fired missiles towards two Israeli intelligence bases in the central Tel Aviv area. Paramedics said two people were injured on a highway near Kafr Qasim.
Much like with the IDF’s claims, I am not eager to believe what they say. I would just like to see the evidence for these unguided attacks because the death tolls and overall number of attacks do not seem to support this conclusion at all.
Even if that is true (and it would only be true in the short term) then Israel would still be foolish to make major concessions to its persistent enemies when it has the military power necessary not to. Meanwhile Hezbollah would be more inclined to launch future attacks because it would see that they worked.
The point is they don’t have to be persistent enemies. There can be peace, and the start of that is an actual two state solution. Given that the country was founded on ethnic cleansing, I totally understand why people in the region would see Israel as the enemy until they actually take genuine steps to rectify the situation. Currently, instead of this they are doing a genocide. And when this started is when Hezbollah started attacking, at least most recently. Not only that, they explicitly said that was why they attacked.
I am a bit concerned that your argument seems to be “why do peace and diplomacy when we can kill people until we’re safe?” It is incredibly short sighted to think that war can solve this persistent conflict. When was Hezbollah formed again? Oh yeah after Israel invaded Lebanon. So why would more war “solve” this issue rather than create new ones?
It’s easy to chest thump and drop bombs. Maybe it even makes you feel good. But all it does is guarantee more civilian deaths and displacement in future, on both sides.
To the extent that it’s accurate, it shows Israel attacking first. It looks more like Israel is provoking Hezbollah. Of course, this didn’t start last October.
I’m not sure you and Netanyahu agree on what Israeli victory would mean.
Israel is aiming to reoccupy Lebanon. These are the exact same tactics Israel always uses when expanding their Settler Colonialism
That weeklong “truce” really says it all about Israel.
The fact that it lasted only for a week, or the fact that not even during that week could Israel keep their rockets in their pants?
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make by counting the number of individual attacks. In a war, you want to be attacking the enemy while preventing the enemy from attacking you. To the extent that this chart is meaningful (and I’m not sure it is, given that it does not take the size of an attack into account) it’s just showing that Israel appears to be fighting Hezbollah effectively - Israeli victory would mean reducing the red bars to zero.
Are you implying that Israel’s much greater number of attacks are because they are doing really tiny attacks or something? According to Wikipedia, 1642 Lebanese dead vs 52 Israelis. I.e. 31 times more Lebanese than Israeli deaths. So if anything Israel is killing more per strike, given that they only made 5 times more attacks (or 4 times more counting up until mid September). So it’s highly likely Israel is doing bigger strikes with less concern for civilian casualties. Notably, nobody is surprised about this given the horror we’ve all been watching for the past year.
Then good news. A cease fire in Gaza would achieve this. Shame Bibi doesn’t seem interested in that but he sure does love killing children so I guess it works out for him at least.
No, I’m just saying the graph is probably useless. Israel definitely is launching more and larger attacks, because that’s how you win a war. Ideally Hezbollah would be launching zero attacks because Israel launched the massive number of attacks necessary to cripple Hezbollah. A little red bar, then a big blue bar, and finally no red bar at all.
Is this a joke? Hezbollah usually attacks with unguided rockets. This demonstrates zero concern for civilian casualties. Less than zero, actually, because the intent of the attacks is to cause civilian casualties. Relatively few Israeli civilians have died because Israel is successfully defending them, not because Hezbollah’s policy regarding Israeli civilians is different from that of Hamas.
Even if that is true (and it would only be true in the short term) then Israel would still be foolish to make major concessions to its persistent enemies when it has the military power necessary not to. Meanwhile Hezbollah would be more inclined to launch future attacks because it would see that they worked.
How can the graph be useless if it shows a point you agree with, that Israel is launching more and larger attacks?
Not joking. Just confused. Do you have a source for this about unguided rockets targeting civilians from Hezbollah?
This article among many others don’t mention this. In fact, according to them they are targeting troops and intelligence bases.
Much like with the IDF’s claims, I am not eager to believe what they say. I would just like to see the evidence for these unguided attacks because the death tolls and overall number of attacks do not seem to support this conclusion at all.
The point is they don’t have to be persistent enemies. There can be peace, and the start of that is an actual two state solution. Given that the country was founded on ethnic cleansing, I totally understand why people in the region would see Israel as the enemy until they actually take genuine steps to rectify the situation. Currently, instead of this they are doing a genocide. And when this started is when Hezbollah started attacking, at least most recently. Not only that, they explicitly said that was why they attacked.
I am a bit concerned that your argument seems to be “why do peace and diplomacy when we can kill people until we’re safe?” It is incredibly short sighted to think that war can solve this persistent conflict. When was Hezbollah formed again? Oh yeah after Israel invaded Lebanon. So why would more war “solve” this issue rather than create new ones?
It’s easy to chest thump and drop bombs. Maybe it even makes you feel good. But all it does is guarantee more civilian deaths and displacement in future, on both sides.
Don’t you want the killing to end?
To the extent that it’s accurate, it shows Israel attacking first. It looks more like Israel is provoking Hezbollah. Of course, this didn’t start last October.
I’m not sure you and Netanyahu agree on what Israeli victory would mean.