Inexpensive fiber-optic drones are challenging Israel’s high-tech defenses, shifting the military balance in the Middle East.
A recent video showing an explosive-laden drone striking an Israeli Iron Dome battery couldn’t have been more symbolic: Israel’s famous air-defense system, which cost billions of euros, looked powerless against a small aircraft that cost a few hundred euros.
While the video’s authenticity has not yet been verified, experts believe it is genuine.
The footage was published about a week ago by Hezbollah, a Lebanon-based pro-Iranian militia, which Germany, the US and several Sunni Arab states have classified as a terrorist organization.
The drone strike, if genuine, would mark propaganda victory for Hezbollah and reveal a significant vulnerability in Israel’s military capabilities.
I don’t see the same connection here that you do. A failure of Israel’s defensive weapons would require them to go on the offensive. The status quo from before the October 7 attacks was tolerable to Israel because they could shoot down incoming threats but if they no longer can, they must neutralize the ability of their enemies to launch those threats.
It’s impressive that it’s not already considered being “on the offensive” to invade and bomb multiple neighbouring countries, as well as actions like boarding boats in international waters and imprisoning the occupants.
Not to mention the rape.
I didn’t say that Israel is not on the offensive right now - it is. My point is that if the Iron Dome system is indeed compromised, that’s going to put pressure on Israel to stay on the offensive rather than to back down.
The iron working mean israel can stay on the offensive with no impunity
Israel cannot sustain a war againt a country like Iran without someone else doing the fighting.
It’s the impunity I hope they lose
I don’t know why you would assume that they would go further on the offensive.
All studies, publications, and reports show that if Israel didn’t have protection from retaliation, that they would be opposed to offensive operations if they experienced even a fraction of the horrors that they commit on others.
https://jewishcurrents.org/iron-dome-is-not-a-defensive-system
https://www.amacad.org/publication/daedalus/new-technologies-strategic-stability
Israel always wanted to be in perpetual conflict to continue it’s expansion. Conflict means the need to have superior firepower and defensive capabilities which help continue perpetrating it’s genocide unabated - it’s what Bibi pushed for these many decades.
https://www.972mag.com/netanyahu-hamas-october-7-adam-raz/
But if you take away the superior defensive capabilities and the risk of continued aggression (which is why there was opposition to funding the Iron Dome in the US) then Israel would think twice about it’s expansionist policies.
Yes, but it will also require them to use alternative forces on defence, and it will also induce many Israelis to leave. This will create financial and manpower shortages. This might induce even more depraved behaviour in the short term, but I guess that’s a risk Iran & Co. are willing to take to ensure long-term peace.
According to themselves, a day ending in y would require them to go on the offensive.
This is all a conflict of choice for them and the US and, if damage to the dome has any effect on them (which it probably won’t, since they’re so far gone down the colonialism genocide spiral), it would be to make them more cautious due to their own people being more vulnerable to consequences of their state terrorism.
The whole reason they’re invading Lebanon is because their defence isn’t infallible. Sitting back intercepting cheap missiles and mortars, waiting for the next ‘big one’ every once in a while would also come at a tremendous cost
No, you’re still bying their “self defense” narrative.
They’re invading Lebanon for the same reason invasions ever happen: in order to own or at least control land that belongs to another country.
There’s exactly one way that they could be safe from attacks from Lebanon: by stopping the occupation of and slaughter in Palestine.
More than half the population of Lebanon are Palestinians driven from their homes by Israel two generations back at most, and that’s what created Hezbollah.
Not Iran. Not antisemitism. Not spontaneous evil.
Hezbollah was caused by the same thing as most radical paramilitary groups: desperation and fury in the face of seemingly untouchable tormentors.
I’m not saying that they’d immediately disband the moment the occupation and genocide end, but it sure as hell would make the radicalization needed for recruitment harder to accomplish, especially as time goes on with no fresh atrocities.
Hezbollah has the same motivations that made Hamas reject a two state solution: they want the entire territory of Palestine under islamic rule. That’s their idea of “ending the occupation”. It’s part of their religious prophecy and they’re never going to betray their religion in a tradeoff for a peaceful solution
Yes, survival.
The fabled “two state solution” is a fig leaf, and a very bad one at that.
If you think that being a separate nation or even a separate but nearby nation that isn’t in any way hostile towards Israel will keep you safe from the IOF, I have a Pastafarian church in Damascus to sell you.
Hezbollah knows perfectly well they could choose the same path as Egypt and Jordan: don’t try to destroy Israel, don’t get attacked by the ‘iof’.
But then again, that would go against their entire raison d’être. They believe fighting Israel is their ticket to heaven, which they find more important than anything