• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Decimated Hezbollah says it is ready for cease-fire talks with Israel

Bum

I survived. Suck it, Schrodinger.
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
20,513
Reaction score
25,071
Location
In a box.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Hezbollah said Tuesday it is now ready to engage in cease-fire talks with Israel, after suffering serious blows to its leadership and ranks in recent months.
The terror group in Lebanon made the announcement after firing more than 100 rockets at the Jewish state hours earlier.
Hezbollah’s deputy secretary general, Naim Qassem, publicly endorsed a truce with Israel, the first such time the terror group has proposed a cease-fire not conditioned on the war in Gaza.

I wonder why?

 
I'm not saying the article is true or false but the link leads to the New York Post.
 
Good for everyone, bad for Trump.
Like lots of other stuff.
 
How is it bad for Trump. Trump has been the biggest supporter of Israel. Joe has stated over and over that Israel has overstepped in it's response. The democrats under Joe/Kamala have nothing to do with this successful operation. In fact Joe and Kamala have repeatedly stated that they were trying to get Israel to stop it's operations.
Now Israel has gained the upper hand. I don't think it's time to stop yet. Hezbollah will simply pause, regroup and start again. History has proven this to be the case with terror groups. They haven't honored any cease fire yet.
 

You can, actually, kill your way out of a CT problem.

You just have to do a lot of killing; and make it clear you are willing to continue to do so.
 
cpwill said:
You can, actually, kill your way out of a CT problem.

You just have to do a lot of killing; and make it clear you are willing to continue to do so.
Click to expand...
Not seeing the problem...
 
I saw a hint of this "ceasefire" early today, later an off-handed reference to oil prices, but never did see an actual source until this thread.

I will say that Israel doesn't need a truce, or a ceasefire, or any other temporary measure. Israel needs a peace treaty. If getting a peace treaty means bringing Iran to it's knees, that is the route Israel should take.

Every time a ceasefire is declared, that ceasefire is broken again just as quickly as Iran's proxies can restock weapons and other material.
 
I hope it can be achieved. Anything that involves a reduction in the death of any civilians has to be a good thing.
 
absolutely
 
I'd tell em they have 30 days, no attacks of any kind, then we'll talk. In the meantime I'd hit all their command and control folks.
 
The ONLY way to end this conflict will be when one side or the other unconditionally surrenders.
A cease fire is nothing more than a time out in order to regroup and re-arm.
 
Integrityrespec said:
I'd tell em they have 30 days, no attacks of any kind, then we'll talk. In the meantime I'd hit all their command and control folks.
Click to expand...
Sorry, unworkable. I'm pretty hard core in my support for Israel. But you can't ask the other side to stop shooting, while you continue shooting at them for a month. That wouldn't work in any universe I can imagine. Ceasefire starts at the agreed upon time and date, any violations negate the ceasefire. Of course, I stated above that Israel doesn't need a truce or ceasefire, they need a peace treaty.

Your idea, in effect, says there will be no ceasefire, no truce, no peace.
 
Serenity said:
I hope it can be achieved. Anything that involves a reduction in the death of any civilians has to be a good thing.
Click to expand...

Let's put politics aside, and only examine history. Forget right or wrong, let's not try to justify anything that either side has done. Let us only look at history. Ceasefires and truces have been reached many times between Israel and her opponents. Time and time again, the ceasefire held only until those opponents have rearmed. What's more, Hamas has promised to repeat October 7th again and again. They promise to attack again just as soon as they replenish their stockpiles. History and Hamas' promise mesh perfectly.

Establishing a ceasefire or truce for the umpteenth time only guarantees that the conflict will continue into the next generation, and the next, and the next. With each generation, the casualty numbers will increase - probably geometrically.

It would be better to fight to the bitter end NOW, rather than continue the conflict into the next century, and the next, with ever increasing casualties.

To put it more bluntly, better we have half a million casualties today, than 50 million casualties spread over the not-very-distant future.

Or, as a doctor might put it, we need to apply triage, to decide which patients we can save, and which we cannot save.
 
And that's my point. This is the typical cease fire agreement we see from the terror groups. Cease fire, at least until we get back up and running and then hell breaks loose again. I wouldn't have a cease fire, I'd have a victory. They surrender, lay down all their arms and give up. Anything else is a waste of time and will only result in more fighting.
 
Serenity said:
I hope it can be achieved. Anything that involves a reduction in the death of any civilians has to be a good thing.
Click to expand...

I think that depends on how one is measuring. A bloodied war now that creates a more lasting peace is, I think, preferable to a series of short live peaces that create, in net, more loss
 
OK, after reading some more, and watching some Youtube videos, I think that Israel's best course of action right now is this.

1. Hezbollah required to blow munitions in place, starting at the border, and working back to the Litani River.
2. Once blowing up all the munitions to the Litani, serious peace talks begin.
3. Peace talks negotiate Hezbollah's continued mission of destroying munitions, from the Litani, northward.
4. Hezbollah disbands.
5. The Lebanon government take over peace talks.

To be clear, Hezbollah has no legitimate position from which to negotiate peace talks. Hezbollah needs to destroy it's war making capability and withdraw. At that point in time, Israel and Lebanon can negotiate a permanent peace solution. That solution would require evicting any and all known Hezbollah members from Lebanon.
 
I can imagine Hezbollah’s deputy secretary general, Naim Qassem desperately wants a cease fire. He's got the world's biggest bullseye on his back right now.

But no. Israel's offer should be surrender unconditionally and we won't summarily disassemble you with high powered explosives. We will still lock you up forever though.
 
Bum said:
Interesting...Hezbollah launched 100 missile and then wanted a cease fire?
Click to expand...
Israel should certainly fire 100 missiles back before they respond to the ceasefire request.
 
cpwill said:
I think that depends on how one is measuring. A bloodied war now that creates a more lasting peace is, I think, preferable to a series of short live peaces that create, in net, more loss
Click to expand...

I can’t choose to apply triage in a war zone where civilians are being killed over the option of a ceasefire with the possibility that the killing will end.

As a health care professional, it’s not a difficult decision for me to make.

If possible, limit death. Every time.
 

I can understand that perspective. It's pretty hard to put aside horror.

As a CT guy, my perspective is driven at least partly from watching greater horror emerge in one major case because we took our boot off AQI's neck.... and got ISIS.

The historical precedent that comes to mind here is Versailles. WWI was horrific, but the ending wasn't final, and led to WWII. Would it have been worth extending the first world war to avoid the second?

no *good* options
 
Until now, Hezbollah have consistently said they will keep fighting until Israel ends the war in Gaza.

Their offer of a truce no longer contains this condition for a ceasefire in Lebanon.

I think they might be getting the message that they can’t continue down this path.
 
I like this.

Some carrots are always good to include. Promise of economic cooperation with Lebanon. That sort of thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…