As I've mentioned earlier, urban combat is extremely destructive, especially against a fortified and determined foe. This presents a unique opportunity to significantly weaken Israel's defense force which is composed of a relatively small, yet highly skilled and well-equipped regular army, potentially compelling them to increasingly depend on conscript-based, lower-quality troops over the long term.
A population of only 9 million people (of which only 7 million are Jews) could not sustain perpetual combat no matter how strong you try to portray them. They could only realistically recruit 15% of this number while the rest should stay back and run the economy. That is if Israel wishes to stay a high-income, normal country and certainly not turn into another Syria.
If Hamas's defense of Gaza could act like a sponge, absorbing and exhausting Israel in the south while Hezbollah in the North tried to divert and attrit Israel in a long campaign of perpetual combat in the form of raids, artillery duels, and sabotage which could gradually brings exhaustion of war to Israel's small population. They could shift the course of the conflict, if not now, then in the long run.
Israel could of course try an occupation of Lebanon and wipe out Hezbollah altogether, but something tells me they don't have the manpower for a two-front war and certainly not the number to occupy important cities. And Hezbollah of course could just rebuild in Syria.
I think it's time to bring back the mentality of the long war, wars used to span hundreds of years, not 6 like in WW2. Whatever blow they could achieve now, even if it's not sufficient to bring the country down, they would find it useful for future campaigns, The battle of Manzikert doesn't necessarily meant the fall of the Eastern Roman empire, but the cost incurred that day would be useful many years later.
They knew where certain troops were and even how long it would take for reinforcements to arrive.
