I don’t think anyone is making the point that it’s literally the exact same thing.
But what we’re witnessing is that Israel can bomb a civilian population to rubble for months and months, and all the intensional community can stutter out is that they “have a right to defend themselves”.
Now they are bombing a foreign capital and sending in ground troops to their neighbouring country to fight off a militia that they themselves are responsible for creating by invading in the past, and we know exactly what the chorus will be. Right to defend themselves.
We will see our Lebanese friends and their families murdered, all for Israel’s right to defend themselves.
In Germany, the line was that they would stop at Poland. People make up different excuses for different atrocities.
I think a lot of people are rightfully fucking tired of excuses, and that’s the point. Not that it’s literally the same thing.
man some of these comments are so hard to understand.
You can’t fight against a militia that you created? So you can’t do war at all now? Russia can’t invade countries like Switzerland and Finland due to them having a lot of military presence?
The US can’t fight russia if they decide to invade the US since the US arguably had some influence over the death of the USSR being a superpower at the time of the coldwar.
Who cares if they in part created that millitia, it should only matter if one side wants to aggress the otherside, otherwise all bets are off. If both sides want to sit there and engage in military posturing, they’re free to do so, if one wants to aggress the other, they’re free to do so.
I see people saying that lebanon, and palestine are allowed to defend themselves, and i don’t think anybody disagrees, but it implies that you either think neither of these countries have a capable military force, or that israel is somehow not allowed to defend itself? Which either means you think israel is the aggressor in every instance here, all the way back to the founding of israel, which seems like an odd position to hold because that would be theoretically easy to fact check. Or that israel shouldn’t do anything in response to getting attacked because they have a bigger stronger military or something?
can you fill me in on what im missing here?
They created this militia by invading and mobilising resistance. Now they are doing the exact same thing. The only way I can see them exterminating Hezbolla this way is if they extend their genocide to Lebanon, and are successful at it. If not, all they achieve is to fill the next generations with hate just as they have done in the past.
If Israel backed off, recognized Palestine and Palestinian territory, ended illegal settlements and began complying with international law, sent Netanyahu to the Hague, apologized, recognized the equal human rights of Arabs, and promised to help rebuild infrastructure in Gaza and the West Bank and to help Palestine gain safety of water and electricity independent of Israel, and then committed to this agenda, they would achieve peace in a heartbeat.
But that’s unreasonable, right? But what exactly about it is unreasonable? Complying with international law? Recognizing Arabs as humans?
This would be the only way Israel could, in fact, defend itself. In fact, simply stopping the genocide would probably go a long way. But that’s still unthinkable for Netanyahu.
This notion of defence by bombing everyone around you is not sustainable when you need to defend yourself because everyone around you hates you. This is not the wars of the 19th century. Netanyahu is doing absolutely nothing to make Israel safer.
And worse still, he knows that. He never wanted to make Israel safe. Removing people is the point, no matter the cost. His project is to clean the land of Arabs. No matter the cost.
They created this militia by invading and mobilising resistance. Now they are doing the exact same thing. The only way I can see them exterminating Hezbolla this way is if they extend their genocide to Lebanon, and are successful at it. If not, all they achieve is to fill the next generations with hate just as they have done in the past.
and what else do you want them to do? Time travel to uncreate the militia so it doesn’t exist? I mean theoretically they could come to some sort of peace agreement, but who knows how well that would go. The other option is that israel does a little bit more trolling here. OR simply does nothing at all and lets hezbollah steam roll them.
Considering that we’re in the middle of a military conflict, and that neither side of any party seems content with peace, i think we can probably leave that one on the table here.
If Israel backed off, recognized Palestine and Palestinian territory, ended illegal settlements and began complying with international law, sent Netanyahu to the Hague, apologized, recognized the equal human rights of Arabs, and promised to help rebuild infrastructure in Gaza and the West Bank and to help Palestine gain safety of water and electricity independent of Israel, and then committed to this agenda, they would achieve peace in a heartbeat.
that’s a very real possibility, but this is literally going to be like 10 years of reparations here. It’s hard to say how stable the political climate is going to be between this. It’s also worth noting that this is nothing short of doing literally everything that israel can to get good graces from the arab world. Which even if it’s reasonable, still leaves a lot of room up for interpretation on whether or not it was “satisfactory”
But that’s unreasonable, right? But what exactly about it is unreasonable? Complying with international law? Recognizing Arabs as humans?
i think it’s unreasonable given the current context, complying with international law, and recognizing arabs as humans is something that i agree with, but i don’t think that israel literally wants to genocide arabs. From everything i’ve seen this conflict is about as expected as far as a middle eastern conflict goes, arabs are clearly more than willing to put themselves into this position. Repeatedly even. So if that’s what they want to do, i’m not going to stop them from doing it. Just as i’m not going to stop israel from fighting in this conflict either.
I think given 20 years and the end of this conflict currently as we know it, it might be reasonable. Depends on future conflicts and geopolitical relationships.
This notion of defence by bombing everyone around you is not sustainable when you need to defend yourself because everyone around you hates you. This is not the wars of the 19th century. Netanyahu is doing absolutely nothing to make Israel safer.
i don’t fundamentally disagree, but i don’t know if you really have any other options here. As you said, everyone around you hates you.
And worse still, he knows that. He never wanted to make Israel safe. Removing people is the point, no matter the cost. His project is to clean the land of Arabs. No matter the cost.
again i’m not really convinced that this is literally an ethnic cleansing, the Palestinians could at least do themselves a favor by not doing a terrorism to start the conflict in the first place. It would probably be beneficial if iran wasn’t a significant support line for hamas as well. There are so many points throughout history, where literally anything could’ve happened that stopped this conflict. None of them went anywhere.
note to the mods: given the amount of evidence, and the weight of the claim, i have no significant reason to believe that this is an ethnic cleansing or genocide. I could be wrong, but i’m not the UN ICC or ICJ so i have no say in the matter.
Yes they are. Look at the post. They are quite literally (in the words true meaning) making that point.
The person who first said “Germany has the right to defend themselves” was making a fairly nuanced point. That is, you can be the aggressor and still of course retain the right to defend yourself. Claiming “X has the right to defend itself!” is a deflective statement meant to justify disproportionate violence as we’ve seen in Gaza and now the West Bank.
Hezbolla is not Lebanon or its government. It’s not a declaration of war if the country (its official government) isn’t objecting to the entry
That’s an interesting take. I think you should ideally be invited before your military march into a foreign country and start bombing in order to claim it’s not an invasion. It’s not one of those things you can assume you have permission to do until the country you’re invading starts fighting back.
Lebanon is not Hezbolla. But the bombs are falling in Lebanon, and it is Lebanese civilians that are being killed and displaced. They are invading Lebanon,.
That Lebanon hardly has a government to speak of and is doing awfully already does not mean you can just rightfully bomb it. What the fuck.
Lebanon has a government and an army that is not Hezbollah. They do not want Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon either. Which is why you do not hear the Lebanese government denouncing or opposing Israel’s actions. You don’t see them going to the UN or the US telling them to stop Israel.
Just because you don’t approve of their government and response doesn’t mean you can just dismiss it.