1. Assure there will not be forces 2. Acquire a bargaining chip ahead of a future peace agreement with Lebanon 3. Signal to the Iranian axis and the rest of the Middle East that it has won this war, which is important deterrence.
Land is much more significant than life or property in the Middle Eastern culture. You could kill all of Hezbollah but one and they would emerge at the end of the conflict and claim victory, but you can't really spin reality to claim a victory when you lost land.
It's not israel's place as the aggressor to "assure" anything. Lebanon (and Palestine) have *at least* as much right to be safe from israel as israel has to be safe from them.
"Assuring" as used by you here should be taken in the same context as a controlling abuser "assuring" their spouse never disobeys them, or afrikaaners "assuring" that South Africans of other races have no power.
> 2. Acquire a bargaining chip ahead of a future peace agreement with Lebanon
Yes, this is territorial expansion as mentioned above.
> 3. Signal to the Iranian axis and the rest of the Middle East that it has won this war
Why would israel signal that Iran has won this war? Seems like they'd want to avoid attention on that.
Your take seems to hinge on holding an unfounded bayesian prior that israel is "the good guy" and therefore everything they do must be "defending". The world does not share this unfounded bayesian prior of yours, and thus remains unconvinced of the resulting conclusions drawn by israel and yourself. You will have to do a better job of convincing others, rather than simply asserting your opinions at them.
Without attacks from israel, there would be no response from Lebanon, Palestine, Iran, etc.
Israel also bombed southern Syria, to "protect the druze community". Syria has not attacked Israel, there are some random terrorist groups who did, but they attacked Israels' occupying forces in Syria.
Wake up: pretty much nobody believes the fascist, judeo-supremacist hordes of the current israeli government.
Are you sure you aren't in one of your own? Look to UNGA resolutions to see outside the bubble.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas
"...In an interview with Israeli journalist, Dan Margalit in December 2012, Netanyahu told Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Netanyahu also added that having two strong rivals, this would lessen pressure on him to negotiate towards a Palestinian state..."
When was Palestine a liberal democracy?
Their brief democratic period was inconvenient to Israel, which is why when Netanyahu decided to fund Hamas, he first said that Hamas is important to keep Palestine divided.
Israel had previously turned a blind eye to that after the large big confrontation in 2006, but since October 7th - and conveniently, Hezbollah unilaterally joining the attack on Israel a day later - a switch was flipped and Israel went all out, as was its duty.
Both russia and israel feel they should be able to unilaterally control their neighbors, and both have an equal non-right to do so. Both claim neighboring country land should be theirs, and both use military force and genocide to make that happen. Both even believe it is their religious birthright to do so.
israel and russia: two self-righteous peas in a pod.
Sometimes preventing blowback is the best strategy.
They should take a page from Indonesia’s book for example. Or turkey.
But this did not make the news that much. Not that interesting I guess…
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Israel%E2%80%93Lebanon_ce...
Interesting.
Hezbollah is part of the government in Lebanon and who the ceasefire was with and whose acts in was contingent on.
The relevance is pretty obvious.
'why are do you want to include both sides (including the actual governments on both sides) in a discussion about ceasefire' is a wild take.
In addition, both parties are who Israel was nominally in a ceasefire with. So extremely relevant to the discussion about Israel and ceasefires and not random whataboutism.
You seem to be implying discussion should be waived away if a counter party is both a government and a terrorist organization.
I'm not the one comparing Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
Though next time I'll put terrorist group in quotes, as everyone has their own opinion.
Israel has done more terrorism than Hamas.