At least since March, when its operatives set off a bomb near the town of Megiddo, injuring an Israeli, Hizballah has engaged in acts that seem intended to provoke Jerusalem, or at least to test its limits. Jacob Nagel argues that a firmer approach is necessary:
Israel must punish Hizballah for every provocation and attempt to change the situation on the ground in Lebanon, but this is not enough: Israel must also punish those who fund and encourage Hizballah, i.e., Iran. The Iranian punishment does not have to come immediately or directly; there are many ways and means to harm and weaken Iran.
The IDF knows how to carry out such a shift in policy. As has been the case in the recent operations in Jenin and many times in the past in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria, this must include the element of surprise, subterfuge, and a disproportionate response that will harm [Hizballah’s secretary general Hassan] Nasrallah, his organization, and the state of Lebanon. The fear of escalation is understandable, but it cannot be the leading factor in the decision-making process by the IDF and the cabinet. The IDF is the strongest power in the Middle East; those who should fear a potential deterioration are Hizballah, Iran, and Lebanon. If Israel will act wisely, this will be the case, as we have seen in the past.
Nasrallah understands strength and identifies weaknesses, and now his perception (never mind if he is right or wrong) is that Israel has been deterred; . . . he must be disabused of that notion.
I am definitely not calling for a war in the north, but in order to prevent a war, Nasrallah must understand that it will not break out on his terms, nor will it end by the power of his decision. If Nasrallah will not understand the message, Israel must take the initiative.