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?
From that wikipedia article it does seem like neither side properly engaged with the ceasefire, although does seem to be written in quite a one-sided manner, which is interesting considering the thread we’re in.
Someone else has already mentioned the pager attacks to you, which, related to one of my earlier replies, would not seem to be a proportionate response to an imminent or actual threat. You seem very determined in your replies to paint Israel as only responding to unprovoked attacks from Hezbollah, but putting aside who ‘started it’, there has clearly been escalation on Israel’s side. I don’t think you can put everything down to Hezbollah being ‘religious fanatic terrorists’ whilst having no consideration for the fact that Israel could easily fit that same description.
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.
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?
From that wikipedia article it does seem like neither side properly engaged with the ceasefire, although does seem to be written in quite a one-sided manner, which is interesting considering the thread we’re in.
Someone else has already mentioned the pager attacks to you, which, related to one of my earlier replies, would not seem to be a proportionate response to an imminent or actual threat. You seem very determined in your replies to paint Israel as only responding to unprovoked attacks from Hezbollah, but putting aside who ‘started it’, there has clearly been escalation on Israel’s side. I don’t think you can put everything down to Hezbollah being ‘religious fanatic terrorists’ whilst having no consideration for the fact that Israel could easily fit that same description.
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.