To understand the escalation in Lebanon, we must confront what Israelis are thinking

[Gunnersforthecup]

Rather good and well-informed article in the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/28/escalation-lebanon-israelis-benjamin-netanyahu-hamas-hezbollah

"It is almost certainly true that the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has political reasons for prolonging the conflict. But while a majority of Israelis would probably like a different prime minister, many don’t want to stop the war until they think that both Hamas and more particularly Hezbollah – which has tied its actions directly to Gaza – have been neutralised as serious threats.

And that is because behind both groups they see an Iran that is dedicated to their destruction...

This isn’t simply about the US and its western allies. This time the Gulf states – and most of all Saudi Arabia – are going to be key actors. The prize of normalisation with Israel has not disappeared. But the price has gone up. It will certainly include the effective containment of Iran and its allies – and an answer to real, not simply declarative, Palestinian statehood. And this time we need to make it stick. Otherwise the pain we are seeing now will not simply not go away. It will get a lot worse."

Well if Gaza is anything to go by, I think that they’re thinking that they won’t stop until they’ve taken out every Hezbollah in the country by destroying it.

I don’t see how that could work though as Hezbollah is well supported in Lebanon as they’re been effectively keeping Isis (just over the border) at bay for many years, from what I can gather. No doubt this has been to Israel’s advantage.

Aside from Hezbollah, Lebanon looks fascinating. It looks like a wonderful, vibrant place to experience, with people from different cultures and religions living peacefully alongside each other. Preserved traditions and history, beautiful buildings and the Lebanese food looks amazing.

Before the occupation of Palestinian and Lebanon, Jewish people were also living peacefully in Beirut. I don’t think that’s the case anymore…

"Deliberate" is another irresponsible word choice. I mean, yes they are deliberately bombing areas where there are displaced people but you're clearly trying to imply by your chosen phrasing that they're deliberately bombing those areas because there are civilians there, which is not the reality. Again, goes to show the importance of words and how important it is to use them correctly and responsibly without trying to stir up further hatred.

This is a lot like continuously slamming my head against a brick wall.

But yes, they should be held accountable for any war crimes if there have been any.

Also intrigued to find out what other "bizarre assumptions" I've made. Or is that another one of those things people say in the hope others won't bother fact-checking for themselves because it's a good little soundbite?

Where did I say any of it is fine?

So I guess from your reply that there wasn't actually anything disturbing about my rhetoric and you were, in fact, just blindly agreeing with the previous posters?

But yes, they should be held accountable for any war crimes if there have been any.

I'm glad you feel the IDF should be held accountable for war crimes but I'm concerned that you question whether there is any. That is not in doubt.

"Deliberate" is another irresponsible word choice
It is not an irresponsible word if you are of the opinion that it is deliberate, it is the correct word to use. Argue whether it's deliberate or not, not the use of the word.

Maybe you didn't say it, but your post implied it.
The fact that you appear to dismiss my reaction to your post by accusing me of
"blindly agreeing with previous posters" is also telling.

I don't think they're twisting anything they are using language they feel is appropriate for what's happening, disagreeing with that is fine but suggesting they are living on another planet and twisting words is a poor way to try and make an argument.

They are using language that has a directly opposite meaning than what they are saying in order to prevent a false narrative and/or be inflammatory, which is textbook "twisting things".

I didn't imply that at all. In fact, I've said a few times that I think Israel should have done better. So I didn't imply it, that's just something you've decided I've implied despite evidence to the contrary.

What is it telling of? Feel free to point out examples of my supposed disturbing rhetoric, alternatively explain what exactly you agreed with the poster on?

No. My comment reflects current Hamas agreements which state that they are not currently an existential threat to the State of Israel because they have agreed to the 1967 borders between Israel and a Palestinian State.

You sound like someone who might be interested in buying a bridge I have up for sale. Special offer, just for you!

No, the ‘complete liberation of Palestine’ refers back to a Palestinian State based on the 1967 borders.

If you look at a map, the West Bank is on the West Bank of the River Jordan (from the river) and Gaza is on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea (to the sea). A Palestinian state using the 1967 borders would indeed stretch “from the river to the sea” as would their neighbouring state of Israel.

For the past thirty years, Palestinians have not been allowed to move between the West Bank and Gaza due to the setup of IDF military check points, barrier fences and walls, and complex permit systems based on their residency cards. That is why freedom to move about from the river to the sea within their own state is an important goal.

That’s what “from the river to the sea” means in the Likud charter for Israel too.

The geography is such that both states can be free from the river to the sea.

They are recognising the 1967 borders between a Palestinian state and Israel.

Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.

They reserve the right to resist occupation until such time that there is a state along the 1967 borders.

Ofc, the way they are doing it is through terrorism, which is illegal and what makes them terrorists.

You're purposely ignoring the numerous times they mention in the charter that they won't recognise Israel and never will, and will continue "resistance and jihad". Why is that?

😂 really you believe Hamas, oh my gosh

If Israel had not invaded Lebanon in the first place, then Hezbollah probably would not exist.

Israel never left Gaza without “ironclad security arrangements” because it built a massive wall around it, blockaded it by land, air and sea and controlled everyone going in or out, all food and supplies going in or our, all medicine going in or out, all water/power going in or out, all humanitarian money going in or out.

If we look at Gaza as a precedent, then it should tell us that withdrawal and then building a wall and doing a complete blockade is not how you gain security. It was too heavy handed.

Indeed. It contradicts the earlier claim they aren't a threat. I mean who would believe them!

So, Hamas are terrorists and Hezbollah aren't? What's the difference?

Because these statements are likely referring to not recognising all the illegal per the ICJ Israeli settlements that are within the Palestinian state defined by the 1967 borders as legitimate parts of Israel.

No, I believe the facts on the ground as to their military capabilities.

That's quite an assumption to make. Is it based in any fact at all? Did you see the bit where it's from the river to the sea and also all the way down to Eilat that is considered Palestine in their eyes?

Facts on the ground as provided by whom exactly

How did you conclude that?

Is that what you meant @ToBeDetermined ?

CIA