Janice Gross-Stein

They've had it.

What changed this time was in southern Lebanon, even the Shia population are angry at Hezbollah for dragging them into yet another war.

How did they do that, Rudyard?

Hezbollah is the closest proxy to Iran.

That's where it started.

Hezbollah fired five rockets over the border as soon as the attack started, and that was it.

What does an occupation do here?

It actually shuts down

the anger that the majority Shia population in the south have against Hezbollah, it doesn't help the government of Lebanon, which doesn't have an army strong enough to do this, to get on with its job, which is to disarm Hezbollah.

It is at best one more temporary solution.

Displacing a population cements anger toward Israel into the future.

It is a, frankly, failed strategy.

And Israel does it, and this government in particular does it because they don't have a better option.

So there's no question you're right.

This is a strategic defeat.

The goals of the United States and Israel's goals are not 100% aligned.

There are differences.

But you've correctly outlined what Bibi Netanyahu hoped to get out of this.

And let me just have one comment.

You know, when this latest round started with Hezbollah, which started when Israel disabled the beepers, you may remember there were beepers that exploded.