Michael Livschitz

To be very clear: reality is very different from the rhetoric. The IDF takes extraordinary measures to mitigate civilian harm in Lebanon. In fact, as in Gaza, it employs more civilian harm mitigation measures than any military in past or current operations. The IDF issues evacuation warnings through multiple channels including text messages, phone calls, voicemails, flyers, radio, television, and social media. It operates dedicated civilian harm mitigation cells, tracks civilian presence through drones, cell phone data, and other ISR capabilities, and uses rigorous targeting processes that include legal reviews and proportionality assessments for any planned strikes. Legal reviews at lowest tactical level, and with the ability (which happens often as well as command decisions not to strike based on all context) to override commander decisions, unlike any other military. In southern Lebanon, these measures are particularly effective because civilians can move away from military objectives and active combat areas. Even in Beirut, the IDF has repeatedly provided warnings identifying specific buildings that will be struck and when. The warnings have proven so reliable that Lebanese citizens and journalists have set up cameras in advance to record the strikes. When targeting Hezbollah senior leaders, command meetings, or other military objectives in densely populated areas such as Dahiyeh (the Hezbollah controlled neighborhood of Beirut), the IDF relies on precision-guided munitions, small diameter munition (warheads with less explosives), and other low collateral damage munitions, detailed intelligence, and other methods designed to limit collateral damage while achieving the legitimate military objective. There is also no equivalency. Israel does not intentionally target civilians. Hezbollah is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization whose strategy includes deliberately attacking civilians. Hezbollah launches rockets, missiles, and drones at civilian communities in northern Israel (daily, despite any cease fires), targeting homes, schools, businesses, and civilian infrastructure. One side conducts legal reviews, proportionality assessments, civilian warnings, and precision strikes against military objectives. The other is a international designated terrorist group that intentionally places military assets among civilians while deliberately targeting civilians.

According to the 14-point draft agreement, the US is immediately lifting oil sanctions so Iran can resume selling oil, and giving Iran access to its frozen assets (estimated at around $300 billion globally). In return, Iran simply promises not to build nuclear weapons, while being allowed to keep its entire stockpile of enriched uranium. This isn’t a deal. This is surrender dressed up as diplomacy.

Israel would never have signed an MOU with Iran. Just think about what that stands for: Memorandum of Understanding. There is as much irony and mockery in that phrase as one can possibly imagine. This is not capitulation, not a treaty, and not an agreement. It is a parody of any rational solution. You can talk as much as you want about hidden pitfalls, double layers, and the wisdom of politicians who supposedly thought five steps ahead and then announced their great victory. All of that is smoke and mirrors, and an unwillingness to lose influence and political dividends. You cannot consider yourself smarter than everyone else and still fail to see that the emperor has no clothes. President Trump needed a way out of this war. He was in a hurry, and haste in matters like this is unacceptable. It puts at risk not only the military achievements of the United States, but also those of its closest ally, Israel. When it comes to fighting, we fight together. But when it comes to signing an agreement, the ally is suddenly not needed. No one asks whether Israel agrees to Iran gaining more from this deal than it had before the war. More than that, the Iranian regime had the nerve to present conditions it could never have dreamed of before its “defeat.” What is especially interesting is that a defeat in practical terms is being sold as a victory and a great achievement. A defeat precisely because such an agreement was drafted at all, and then signed. Is it really that easy to blackmail the entire world, hold it hostage through the Strait of Hormuz, terrorize an entire region, and then get away with it? Iran is allowed to have ballistic missiles because its neighbors or other countries have them? Brilliant logic. By that same reasoning, one could draw the same parallel with nuclear weapons, could one not? If others have them, why not allow Iran to become a nuclear power as well? But when choosing words that defend Iran’s right to build up its military potential, one should not ignore the fact that Iran is not comparable to its neighbors. It is the one using ballistic missiles to attack others, and ballistic missiles are offensive weapons by their very nature, not defensive ones. Lebanon is a separate issue. Iran insists on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon because Israel is making it harder for its creation, Hezbollah, to breathe freely and shell Israel with impunity. The whole international community welcomes the ceasefire in Lebanon. Israel would be glad if that were true. But Hezbollah is the side that refuses to stop firing and continues to attack civilians. So what is left? To defend itself. Israel will not allow anyone to dictate how it should live or how it should protect its people from relentless terrorist aggression. Would the United States, Spain, or France like to trade places with Israel and live under daily rocket fire? How quickly would their patience run out? And would the whole world then urge them to accept, as a fact of life, that their people are being killed by terrorists? Enough of the hypocrisy wrapped in concern and compassion. Israel will not depend on a memorandum of understanding, or on any other agreement that endangers its national security.

Israel would never have signed an MOU with Iran. Just think about what that stands for: Memorandum of Understanding. There is as much irony and mockery in that phrase as one can possibly imagine. This is not capitulation, not a treaty, and not an agreement. It is a parody of any rational solution. You can talk as much as you want about hidden pitfalls, double layers, and the wisdom of politicians who supposedly thought five steps ahead and then announced their great victory. All of that is smoke and mirrors, and an unwillingness to lose influence and political dividends. You cannot consider yourself smarter than everyone else and still fail to see that the emperor has no clothes. President Trump needed a way out of this war. He was in a hurry, and haste in matters like this is unacceptable. It puts at risk not only the military achievements of the United States, but also those of its closest ally, Israel. When it comes to fighting, we fight together. But when it comes to signing an agreement, the ally is suddenly not needed. No one asks whether Israel agrees to Iran gaining more from this deal than it had before the war. More than that, the Iranian regime had the nerve to present conditions it could never have dreamed of before its “defeat.” What is especially interesting is that a defeat in practical terms is being sold as a victory and a great achievement. A defeat precisely because such an agreement was drafted at all, and then signed. Is it really that easy to blackmail the entire world, hold it hostage through the Strait of Hormuz, terrorize an entire region, and then get away with it? Iran is allowed to have ballistic missiles because its neighbors or other countries have them? Brilliant logic. By that same reasoning, one could draw the same parallel with nuclear weapons, could one not? If others have them, why not allow Iran to become a nuclear power as well? But when choosing words that defend Iran’s right to build up its military potential, one should not ignore the fact that Iran is not comparable to its neighbors. It is the one using ballistic missiles to attack others, and ballistic missiles are offensive weapons by their very nature, not defensive ones. Lebanon is a separate issue. Iran insists on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon because Israel is making it harder for its creation, Hezbollah, to breathe freely and shell Israel with impunity. The whole international community welcomes the ceasefire in Lebanon. Israel would be glad if that were true. But Hezbollah is the side that refuses to stop firing and continues to attack civilians. So what is left? To defend itself. Israel will not allow anyone to dictate how it should live or how it should protect its people from relentless terrorist aggression. Would the United States, Spain, or France like to trade places with Israel and live under daily rocket fire? How quickly would their patience run out? And would the whole world then urge them to accept, as a fact of life, that their people are being killed by terrorists? Enough of the hypocrisy wrapped in concern and compassion. Israel will not depend on a memorandum of understanding, or on any other agreement that endangers its national security.

BREAKING: President Trump publicly rebukes Israel over its war against Hezbollah. "Israel's fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed." Trump said he opposed strikes that destroy apartment buildings filled with civilians and revealed he urged Israel to let Syria take the lead against Hezbollah instead. "If Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, he'll do the job. Syria will do the job."

It was a major mistake from the start to negotiate with Iran during a ceasefire and allow it to catch its breath. Iran was given two months to recover, and during that time the sides did not move a single step closer to a deal that would satisfy the United States and Israel. Concessions from the Iranian regime can be achieved only through force and pressure. Any other method, as reality clearly shows, brings no result. Then why even start talking about a memorandum of understanding, an MOU, when it never looked even remotely like an agreement in the first place? Everyone is well aware that after losing its top leadership, Iran will continue to play for time while rebuilding internal links and searching for solid ground. How exactly do you negotiate with a terrorist regime obsessed with obtaining nuclear weapons, a regime that has spent 47 years cultivating its proxies, waging war against Israel through them, and now actively participating itself while no longer hiding its intentions? Iran prepared for this moment for a very long time. Its enormous arsenal of ballistic missiles speaks clearly about its intentions. If it had managed to create even one nuclear warhead, it would undoubtedly have been mounted on one of those thousands of ballistic missiles and launched at Israel. The desire to become a nuclear power is not always about gaining immunity. The Iranian regime must either capitulate or accept a deal that completely strips it of its nuclear ambitions and dismantles its ballistic missile program, which was created not for defense, but for attacking its neighbors. Iran views peace negotiations as a sign of weakness from the West. It senses that everyone is exhausted and uses this, while also playing the Strait of Hormuz card and forcing the entire world to doubt the wisdom of a military operation against it. And as we can see, it is working, since the situation has reached this point. Now that Iran has violated the ceasefire and struck Israel with ballistic missiles because it wanted to protect its own creation, Hezbollah, do you still believe it is ready for peace? Iran thinks in completely different categories, categories inaccessible to Western thinking. That is why there is no point in treating it as a rational party to dialogue. The starting point must be one fact alone: it is a direct and relentless threat not only to the entire region, but also to basic human values.