Every few months, often after a period of particularly heavy fighting, politicians, analysts, lobby groups and activists begin discussing the efficacy of Israel's continued military occupation of the strip of southern Lebanon running all along Israel's northern border, the so-called "security zone".
Usually, once the debate has raged for a few days, it is quietly shelved, the stay-put camp having prevailed over the let's-get-out-now camp by arguing that, were the Israeli army to retreat to the international border, the Iranian-backed Hizbullah guerrillas and their colleagues would fill the vacuum.
Gen Amiram Levine, the sandy-haired combat veteran who heads Israel's Northern Command, said yesterday he is glad the latest flurry of public debate on the issue is now over. Gen Levine peddled the army's customary line about the proper arena for such a debate being the General Command (the guiding military forum presided over by the chief of staff) and not, as has been the case in recent days, the pages of the newspapers or the daily radio phone-ins.
But if he genuinely believes this round of questioning is over, Gen Levine is mistaken. Activists calling for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal held demonstrations all across the country yesterday. A movement, the "Four Mothers" group, led by mothers of soldiers serving in the zone, has collected tens of thousands of signatures in favour of a pullout. A Knesset lobby group has found support even within the cabinet of the Prime Minister, Mr Benjamin Netanyahu. But far more critically than any of this pressure, it has become evident that much of the army's top brass believes a reassessment of Lebanon policy is crucial.
Ironically, it is Gen Levine himself who let the cat out of the bag. Publicly, he has said that he "cannot and must not" accept the rising casualty figures in the security zone - close to 40 Israeli soldiers killed this year, not to mention the 73 soldiers killed in a helicopter collision en route to Lebanon in February, the dozens of losses in the ranks of the South Lebanon Army (SLA) militia which fights with Israel in the zone, and the deaths of south Lebanese civilians (seven to nine of whom died in the exchanges of fire this week alone).
Gen Levine denies that he recently told a private meeting he supported a unilateral pullout, but it is known that other senior officers do favour such a course, believing that Hizbullah would not extend its war across the border.
The reservations in the highest echelons of the army underline the growing sense that, in Lebanon, Israel is fighting a war it cannot win - against a highly-motivated enemy that knows the territory better and enjoys the support of much of the local population.
Mr Uri Lubrani, the Defence Ministry's chief Lebanon strategist, argues vehemently that the troops must stand firm. Were Israel to pull out, and Hizbullah to respond by targeting civilians across the border, he stresses, the army would have to re-invade in far greater strength. The SLA, which would have disbanded, would not be at its side, and the losses could be extremely heavy.
The army's chief of staff, Gen Amnon Shahak, yesterday publicly sided with Mr Lubrani, saying Israel could only leave after Hizbollah stopped fighting, and once the Lebanese government was prepared to deploy an authoritative military force to ensure border quiet.
But this stance is unrealistic. Hizbollah won't halt its attacks until Israel goes. And the Lebanese government won't deploy its army, or accept any other military buffer presence unless Syria, its patron, agrees. And Syria, in turn, will not negotiate a peace deal in south Lebanon unless Israel relinquishes the Golan Heights it captured from Syria 30 years ago - which this Israeli government is not prepared to do.
In such a hopeless climate, it is hardly surprising that the idea of a unilateral pullout, however risky, seems an attractive gamble, not only to many soldiers' mothers but, apparently, to many of their commanding officers too.
David Horovitz is mangaging editor of the Jerusalem Report.