Posts
 |
| Ben-Gvir wears a hangman's noose pin to back the Death to Terrorists bill, Monday, December 8, 2025 (Otzma Yehudit) |
The death of four Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon on Friday has once again exposed a widening divide between those who must confront the realities of war and those who prefer to theorize about it from a safe distance . . . like most politicians and pundits do.
Among the dead was Lt. Col. Dor Ben Simhon, commander of Battalion 52, along with three of his soldiers. Their deaths came after an attack by Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed terrorist organization that has spent decades embedding itself within Lebanon while threatening Israel's northern border.
 |
| Lt. Col. Ben Simhon |
According to the Israel Defense Forces, the battalion commander's tank was struck shortly after midnight. Military investigators are still determining whether the attack involved an explosive device or a drone launched by Hezbollah operatives.
The losses prompted a furious response from National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who correctly argued that Israel's enemies must be made to understand the consequences of attacking the Jewish state.
"With all due respect to the Americans, Israel must make it clear to the entire world that the blood of our sons and the security of our citizens are not up for bargaining. All of Lebanon must burn," Ben-Gvir said.
His remarks arrived at a particularly sensitive moment. Senior American officials have increasingly expressed frustration with Israel's continued military operations to defend itself. Israel is, of course, opposed to the MoU signed by President Trump on Wednesday that pretends to bring an end to the conflict with Iran, a country that hopes to bring back the 12th imam and totally annihilate Israel and Jews worldwide.
The losses prompted a furious response from National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who correctly argued that Israel's enemies must be made to understand the consequences of attacking the Jewish state.
"With all due respect to the Americans, Israel must make it clear to the entire world that the blood of our sons and the security of our citizens are not up for bargaining. All of Lebanon must burn," Ben-Gvir said.
His remarks arrived at a particularly sensitive moment. Senior American officials have increasingly expressed frustration with Israel's continued military operations to defend itself. Israel is, of course, opposed to the MoU signed by President Trump on Wednesday that pretends to bring an end to the conflict with Iran, a country that hopes to bring back the 12th imam and totally annihilate Israel and Jews worldwide.
One provision of the MoU extends the ceasefire to Lebanon, a condition that many Israeli officials regard with deep skepticism, knowing the 12th imam thingy and that anti-Semitism situation.
Their concern is totally rational.
Hezbollah remains heavily armed, deeply entrenched, and openly committed to Israel's destruction. To many Israelis, any arrangement that leaves that reality fundamentally unchanged appears less like a peace agreement than a temporary pause, as anyone with a functioning cortex would agree with.
Yet in an interview with The New York Times, Vice President JD Vance appeared dismissive of such concerns.
"There is this weird panic almost in the Israeli system that I've picked up on, where they assume that everything that is contemplated that is good for Iran will happen, but that will happen without the Iranians changing any behavior. And I just don't know why anybody would think that's true," Vance, who is not a Jew nor lives in Israel said.
It is a curious observation. After all, modern Israeli skepticism did not emerge in a vacuum. It was shaped by decades of experience with adversaries who routinely violated agreements, exploited ceasefires, and treated diplomatic concessions as opportunities for strategic regrouping. What some observers characterize as panic, others might call memory.
Vance acknowledged that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had not publicly criticized the memorandum but pointed to figures such as Ben-Gvir who had done so.
"It's clear that large segments of the Israeli political system and population are very sensitive about this deal," he said. "But I also think they're picking up on some misinformation about the deal and running with it and sort of panicking about it."
The vice president then offered a challenge to Israeli critics.
"I guess my response to them would be: What is your exact proposal? You're a country of nine million people. You can't just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have."
The question is fair enough. Yet it is equally fair to ask what alternatives are available when a neighboring terrorist army repeatedly attacks your citizens while openly declaring its intention to destroy your country. Nations do not choose the threats they face. They must deal with the threats that actually exist.
President Trump also voiced dissatisfaction with Israel's conduct in Lebanon during the G7 conference. After all, the terrorists crossed their hearts and promised to never kill anyone anymore.
"We have a little dispute over Lebanon," Trump told reporters. "I say, 'You can do a little softer touch, Bibi. You don't have to knock down a building every time somebody walks into it that's from Hezbollah.'"
Such comments reflect a familiar tension in Western policymaking. Leaders far from the battlefield understandably desire restraint and stability. Those living within range of Hezbollah rockets tend to place a higher premium on security, unlike politicians. The challenge, as always, is that while diplomatic agreements can be signed in conference rooms, the consequences of failure are paid for on the front lines.
For Israel, the deaths of Lt. Col. Ben Shimhon and his fellow soldiers serve as a stark reminder that Hezbollah remains a lethal threat. Any discussion of ceasefires, memorandums, or regional diplomacy must begin with that reality rather than attempt to wish it away.
Tweet
Yet in an interview with The New York Times, Vice President JD Vance appeared dismissive of such concerns.
"There is this weird panic almost in the Israeli system that I've picked up on, where they assume that everything that is contemplated that is good for Iran will happen, but that will happen without the Iranians changing any behavior. And I just don't know why anybody would think that's true," Vance, who is not a Jew nor lives in Israel said.
It is a curious observation. After all, modern Israeli skepticism did not emerge in a vacuum. It was shaped by decades of experience with adversaries who routinely violated agreements, exploited ceasefires, and treated diplomatic concessions as opportunities for strategic regrouping. What some observers characterize as panic, others might call memory.
Vance acknowledged that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had not publicly criticized the memorandum but pointed to figures such as Ben-Gvir who had done so.
"It's clear that large segments of the Israeli political system and population are very sensitive about this deal," he said. "But I also think they're picking up on some misinformation about the deal and running with it and sort of panicking about it."
The vice president then offered a challenge to Israeli critics.
"I guess my response to them would be: What is your exact proposal? You're a country of nine million people. You can't just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have."
The question is fair enough. Yet it is equally fair to ask what alternatives are available when a neighboring terrorist army repeatedly attacks your citizens while openly declaring its intention to destroy your country. Nations do not choose the threats they face. They must deal with the threats that actually exist.
President Trump also voiced dissatisfaction with Israel's conduct in Lebanon during the G7 conference. After all, the terrorists crossed their hearts and promised to never kill anyone anymore.
"We have a little dispute over Lebanon," Trump told reporters. "I say, 'You can do a little softer touch, Bibi. You don't have to knock down a building every time somebody walks into it that's from Hezbollah.'"
Such comments reflect a familiar tension in Western policymaking. Leaders far from the battlefield understandably desire restraint and stability. Those living within range of Hezbollah rockets tend to place a higher premium on security, unlike politicians. The challenge, as always, is that while diplomatic agreements can be signed in conference rooms, the consequences of failure are paid for on the front lines.
For Israel, the deaths of Lt. Col. Ben Shimhon and his fellow soldiers serve as a stark reminder that Hezbollah remains a lethal threat. Any discussion of ceasefires, memorandums, or regional diplomacy must begin with that reality rather than attempt to wish it away.
Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.
