Israel is taking control of part of Lebanon, because rockets were being shot at Israel from that part of Lebanon. If Israel had not been attacked from there, Israel would not have invaded. That is ethically and morally quite different from Russia’s unmotivated war of aggression to annex their neighbor.
Hezbollah itself was created in response to israel annexing part of lebannon. Why are you so hell bent on defending a genocidal state? Do they have videos of you on jeffrey island?
Link? I think there should be something exceptional to excuse the pager attack. Being a week old account, you should know how to post links [like](that).
I find it funny you default to moral difference or failing for the second time, while talking about a country that casually continues to genocide semites in Gaza well after the ceasefire in a way even the failing austrian artist couldn’t have thought possible.
Israel doesn’t get a free pass to drop apartment buildings because one dude sent a bottle rocket at Israel. Oppressed people tend to fight back when they are being oppressed. Why does Israel have the right to ‘defend’ itself when the people being shot and forced out of their homes do not?
Annexation in international law, is the forcible acquisition and assertion of legal title over one state’s territory by another state, usually following military occupation of the territory. In current international law, it is generally held to be an illegal act.>
Granted, that is from Wikipedia, and I only did a cursory search, but I’d say as a jumping off point it doesn’t really support the idea of annexing being OK. And ethically, the concept of ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ is arguably at play here, just because someone might have wronged you, doesn’t give you free reign in terms of retaliation.
I mean, our entire exchange prior to this has been about annexation, so that’s quite the goalpost shift. But assuming you’re being sincere, what’s the functional difference? Who decides when it’s OK to stop ‘occupying’ and that things can just go back to how they were before? Or does if just continue indefinitely?
But assuming you’re being sincere, what’s the functional difference?
Under international law, Israel has an explicit right to fight back, until Hezbollah promises to stop shooting rockets at Israel. It is completely black and white, international law gives the right to fight back.
Who decides when it’s OK to stop ‘occupying’ and that things can just go back to how they were before?
Hezbollah does. Hezbollah can promise to stop shooting rockets at Israel. Or Lebanon can choose to actually enforce control over Hezbollah.
How would you feel, if your neighboring country was shooting unguided rockets at random at your population centers, I wonder? Would you also feel that it was illegal to invade the neighboring country, to disable the launch sites?
Fighting back and occupying are not the same thing though. And where does self defence become aggression, as arguably Israel are not acting in a purely defensive manner. In terms of international law, there has to be an actual of imminent threat, and a response has to be proportionate, so again the argument could be made that Israel are not acting within that framework.
In terms of your point about Hezbollah promising to stop and that being an end to it, there have previously been ceasefires in place, agreed to by all sides, that immediately fall apart. So how does it work if you are occupying/annexing in self defence, but you are the one to break a ceasefire?
Fighting back and occupying are not the same thing though. And where does self defence become aggression,
The solution here is incredibly simple. Hezbollah stops attacking Israel. That is what Israel wants - Israel has no interests in using money and lives on occupying Lebanon.
There is the nation-state equivalent of personal responsibility here. Lebanon can credibly commit to make sure Israel is not attacked from Lebanese territory, if Lebanon doesn’t like Israel having to actively defend itself there. The overall moral outline is so clear it almost seems too obvious, especially for the Middle East - but as far as I can tell, the overall picture just is that one-sided.
there have previously been ceasefires in place, agreed to by all sides, that immediately fall apart.
What do you imagine that Israel gains, by occupying Lebanon? There is no gain for Israel, except to stop Hezbollah shooting rockets into Israel. Whereas the goal of Hezbollah is to destroy Israel, because they are religious fanatic terrorists. If this is not as black-and-white as it looks to me, then please explain what the motivations really are?
Israel doesn’t get a free pass to bomb, assassinate, and colonize wherever they want. People being oppressed fight back. That’s the very nature of existence.
Hezbollah started it? Not the guys who all wantonly moved into the neighborhood, and then started attacking everyone?
Cmon now. If you decide you’re on Israels side, that’s fine. Don’t try and make it out like the dudes who shoot medics and children for fun are somehow innocent in this.
Because they are the proxy of Iran, and Iran uses anti-semitism to distract their population.
Seriously, that is it. Why did you think that Israel and Iran are at war? They are 1000km apart. WTF would Israel care about regime change in Iran, if not just to stop Iran attacking Israel?
Dude at any point, are you going to develop even a meager amount of self-awareness (aim for, say, a field mouse) and understand that Israel are the bad guys?
None of your other points matter.
Israel is the bully and these other countries are just kids stuck in the bully’s orbit. And you’re siding with the bully. Grats on that, by the way.
Ok, so forgive my crassness, but to my eye, when you say something like that, your viewpoint seems to be analogous to saying “Nazi Germany was wrong for attacking France, but Poland had it coming”. I disagree with you, obviously, but I’d like to know why, since we both have access to the same historical facts.
There’s more details as to why I disagree with you, but it roughly boils down to: Israel has been committing atrocities since 1948 (and before), it is a colonial project, colonialism is as bad as slavery, Israel invaded Lebanon first in the 80s, killed 3500 Palestinian refugees in two nights there, and kept attacking untill well into the 2000s. In 2024, Israel struck Lebanon first. Is there any part there you disagree with? Because I find it hard to simultaneously believe all that, and that Israel is in the right for invading Lebanon.
Yeah, I can’t really make heads or tails of what you’re saying there. I’m still trying to figure out why you believe what you do. Did you get a chance to think about what I wrote in the comment you’re responding to?
Israel is taking control of part of Lebanon, because rockets were being shot at Israel from that part of Lebanon. If Israel had not been attacked from there, Israel would not have invaded. That is ethically and morally quite different from Russia’s unmotivated war of aggression to annex their neighbor.
Preceeded by israeli terror mass attack they boasted about for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Lebanon_electronic_device_attacks
I wonder why Israel has no friends. Maybe because they are an even worse neighbor than russia? And that’s all by design?
Which is itself preseeded by Hezbollah attacking Israel.
Why the fuck do you think Israel doesn’t have a right to attack Hezbollah, when Hezbollah has attacked Israel? Complete madness and amorality by you.
And only idiots blame Israel for hitting back at Hezbollah, after Hezbollah has attacked Israel.
Hezbollah itself was created in response to israel annexing part of lebannon. Why are you so hell bent on defending a genocidal state? Do they have videos of you on jeffrey island?
Link? I think there should be something exceptional to excuse the pager attack. Being a week old account, you should know how to post links [like](that).
I find it funny you default to moral difference or failing for the second time, while talking about a country that casually continues to genocide semites in Gaza well after the ceasefire in a way even the failing austrian artist couldn’t have thought possible.
Israel doesn’t get a free pass to drop apartment buildings because one dude sent a bottle rocket at Israel. Oppressed people tend to fight back when they are being oppressed. Why does Israel have the right to ‘defend’ itself when the people being shot and forced out of their homes do not?
Your mental gymnastics amaze me.
He learned that on jeffrey island
I’m not sure ‘but they hit me first’ is quite the justification for annexation you think it is.
In international law it is. And ethics, actually.
Granted, that is from Wikipedia, and I only did a cursory search, but I’d say as a jumping off point it doesn’t really support the idea of annexing being OK. And ethically, the concept of ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ is arguably at play here, just because someone might have wronged you, doesn’t give you free reign in terms of retaliation.
OK I were imprecise. annexation is not OK. occupation until they stop shooting rockets from Lebanese territory absolutely is OK.
I mean, our entire exchange prior to this has been about annexation, so that’s quite the goalpost shift. But assuming you’re being sincere, what’s the functional difference? Who decides when it’s OK to stop ‘occupying’ and that things can just go back to how they were before? Or does if just continue indefinitely?
Under international law, Israel has an explicit right to fight back, until Hezbollah promises to stop shooting rockets at Israel. It is completely black and white, international law gives the right to fight back.
Hezbollah does. Hezbollah can promise to stop shooting rockets at Israel. Or Lebanon can choose to actually enforce control over Hezbollah.
How would you feel, if your neighboring country was shooting unguided rockets at random at your population centers, I wonder? Would you also feel that it was illegal to invade the neighboring country, to disable the launch sites?
Fighting back and occupying are not the same thing though. And where does self defence become aggression, as arguably Israel are not acting in a purely defensive manner. In terms of international law, there has to be an actual of imminent threat, and a response has to be proportionate, so again the argument could be made that Israel are not acting within that framework.
In terms of your point about Hezbollah promising to stop and that being an end to it, there have previously been ceasefires in place, agreed to by all sides, that immediately fall apart. So how does it work if you are occupying/annexing in self defence, but you are the one to break a ceasefire?
The solution here is incredibly simple. Hezbollah stops attacking Israel. That is what Israel wants - Israel has no interests in using money and lives on occupying Lebanon.
There is the nation-state equivalent of personal responsibility here. Lebanon can credibly commit to make sure Israel is not attacked from Lebanese territory, if Lebanon doesn’t like Israel having to actively defend itself there. The overall moral outline is so clear it almost seems too obvious, especially for the Middle East - but as far as I can tell, the overall picture just is that one-sided.
Well - because Hezbollah are the ones who want war with Israel. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1701 , which Hezbollah broke.
What do you imagine that Israel gains, by occupying Lebanon? There is no gain for Israel, except to stop Hezbollah shooting rockets into Israel. Whereas the goal of Hezbollah is to destroy Israel, because they are religious fanatic terrorists. If this is not as black-and-white as it looks to me, then please explain what the motivations really are?
Israel doesn’t get a free pass to bomb, assassinate, and colonize wherever they want. People being oppressed fight back. That’s the very nature of existence.
Hezbollah started it. International law gives Israel a legal right to fight back.
Your nihilism, utter amorality, and utter ignorance frightens me.
oof. one week old account shilling for israel
Hezbollah started it? Not the guys who all wantonly moved into the neighborhood, and then started attacking everyone?
Cmon now. If you decide you’re on Israels side, that’s fine. Don’t try and make it out like the dudes who shoot medics and children for fun are somehow innocent in this.
There you go with your international law bullshit again
Any why were they shooting rockets from there?
Because they are the proxy of Iran, and Iran uses anti-semitism to distract their population.
Seriously, that is it. Why did you think that Israel and Iran are at war? They are 1000km apart. WTF would Israel care about regime change in Iran, if not just to stop Iran attacking Israel?
Ah yes it’s all antisemitism and mean iranians.
You’re definitely a jeffrey islander lmao
Dude at any point, are you going to develop even a meager amount of self-awareness (aim for, say, a field mouse) and understand that Israel are the bad guys?
None of your other points matter.
Israel is the bully and these other countries are just kids stuck in the bully’s orbit. And you’re siding with the bully. Grats on that, by the way.
Your viewpoint is more one-sided than a mobious strip.
Yes, Israel does some bad shit. But so does Hezbollah.
Israel is committing genocide. People being repressed by an imperialist group tend to fight back against those people oppressing them.
If you “both-sides” any harder, Karl Rove will appear at your house and ask you to join the cult lol
Is Israel committing a genocide in Gaza?
Yes.
Is Hezbollah commiting a genocide?
Ok, so forgive my crassness, but to my eye, when you say something like that, your viewpoint seems to be analogous to saying “Nazi Germany was wrong for attacking France, but Poland had it coming”. I disagree with you, obviously, but I’d like to know why, since we both have access to the same historical facts.
There’s more details as to why I disagree with you, but it roughly boils down to: Israel has been committing atrocities since 1948 (and before), it is a colonial project, colonialism is as bad as slavery, Israel invaded Lebanon first in the 80s, killed 3500 Palestinian refugees in two nights there, and kept attacking untill well into the 2000s. In 2024, Israel struck Lebanon first. Is there any part there you disagree with? Because I find it hard to simultaneously believe all that, and that Israel is in the right for invading Lebanon.
deleted by creator
Yeah, I can’t really make heads or tails of what you’re saying there. I’m still trying to figure out why you believe what you do. Did you get a chance to think about what I wrote in the comment you’re responding to?
sorry I misunderstood your message. It makes sense what you have written
deleted by creator
The US coup’ed Russia and the US coup’ed Iran.
Wow you must be very flexible with all the gymnastics you do.
You must be very limited, since you only reply with personal insults.
deleted by creator
You’re joking right?
You’re joking, right?