There's no way they're just going to accept incoming rockets as a part of normal life. As long as Hezbollah keeps attacking them, they are going to retaliate
Change rockets to airstrikes and ethnic cleansing and Hezbollah to Israel and you'll understand how everyone in the region feels about Israel.
Do you think the current situation is going to turn out better than if Hezbollah hadn't attacked?
In Lebanon? Probably not, by definition. In Palestine? Almost definitely yes.
Edited because I misread/misinterpreted better as worse.
Can you explain how this is going to turn out 'better' for Lebanon? Innocent Lebanese (unless your point is there aren't any?) are dying every day
Oh shit I meant worse, not better. Worse for Lebanon, better for Palestine.
Can you explain how this is going to turn out 'better' for Palestine? I'd say that it just further discredits the call for a two-state solution
First, it takes heat off Gaza and the West Bank, especially if the conflict escalates further. Second,
I'd say that it just further discredits the call for a two-state solution
how so? Discredits the call for a two state solution according to who and for what reason?
It could prolong the war in Gaza, but unless Hezbollah mobilise their fighters for a ground invasion I think Israel has more than enough planes for both Gaza and striking back at launch sites etc. The main burden for Israel isn't military but it's the 100k refugees, which seems to be the reason they're turning up the heat now
It undermines a two-state solution because that would require the Arab nationalists to accept the state of Israel and, more importantly, stop attacking it. It's clear that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are never going to do that. And Hezbollah immediately attacking Israel in support of them after a major attack just shows that they too won't ever be able to agree to a normal relation
It undermines a two-state solution because that would require the Arab nationalists to accept the state of Israel and, more importantly, stop attacking it.
Before that Israel needs to accept that Palestine exists and stop robbing them of their right to self-determination (and, you know, not getting genocided). Israel has shown many times they have no intention of ever doing that, so how do you expect the resistance to accept them? Palestinians don't accept Israel because Israel in its current state is unacceptable and has no intention to change, simple as that. The last real chance for change was Rabin and you know how that ended. From that it was all one big farce.
If you want to know what I mean by Israel in its current state, well they should at least consider the idea of not making settlements and lifting the blockade before serious talks can start. Not saying they should do both of these things before any negotiations can begin, but when the response to "can you not build settlements/lift the blockade" is "no go to hell" there's not much to negotiate. This makes civil resistance impossible and therefore armed resistance the only method of resistance, hence Hamas's actions and Hezbollah's support.
Well I largely agree, except for one very important part and that's the 'before that... '. Why should one side accept peace before the other?
The ultrazionists have always been proven right and emboldened by their counterparts. The Arab Nationalists could not accept the borders in '48, so they attacked, which resulted in them losing territory. They could not accept the borders that resulted from that war, so they built up their strength and they attacked again, which resulted in them losing more territory. So they built up strength again and... Well you know where I'm going with this.
And keep in mind that meanwhile, even though ceasefire deals existed on paper, Arab nationalist and islamic extremists made sure to keep the fire burning with deadly terror attacks agains Israeli and jewish targets around the world.
As such is the nature of a religious conflict: they always want to be Numba One. They cannot accept losing any of their divine priviliges.
So they've been battling it out over Palestine for more than a century, and they're both wrong and they're both never going to give up. And when either breaks a border ceasefire again (such as Hamas and Hezbollah last year) , they're undermining the credibility of a two-state solution
Why should one side accept peace before the other?
It's not about accepting peace. One side (Zionists) are unwilling to entertain the very idea of an equal and just peace. You can't get anywhere with that. The Palestinian side has always been open to that idea, but without the oppressor deciding to consider the idea of not oppressing you'll never get anywhere. What, exactly, do you suggest Palestinians do here that will get them a state with real sovereignty?
And keep in mind that meanwhile, even though ceasefire deals existed on paper, Arab nationalist and islamic extremists made sure to keep the fire burning with deadly terror attacks agains Israeli and jewish targets around the world.
That has always been what ceasefires mean in this conflict, for both sides. You certainly don't see Israel not building settlements or not bombing Gaza or any of the other examples of
their colonialist aggression during ceasefires. This is irrespective of how faithfully the Palestinian side adheres to the ceasefire (see: 2008 and 2013 ceasefires).
The Palestinian side has always been open to that idea
That has no basis in reality. They tried to prevent the creation of a non-muslim state and failing that, they gathered troops to destroy it from day 1.
That has always been what ceasefires mean in this conflict, for both sides. You certainly don’t see Israel not building settlements or not bombing Gaza or any of the other examples of their colonialist aggression during ceasefires. This is irrespective of how faithfully the Palestinian side adheres to the ceasefire (see: 2008 and 2013 ceasefires).
Well regarding the West Bank, that of course is something where Israel is blocking a 'fair' solution as well. They're not much better than their opposition in that regard. But even if you look at it from a pacifist Israeli pov, there's a case to be made for wanting to control that territory, together with the Golan Heights: these are strategically important to keep Israel defensible. In the war of '67 they were lucky to learn of the plans of the coming invasion early enough to defend against them. But if they hadn't, Israel could have been overrun 'from within' from the West-Bank rather easily. Which is why the wish of the zionists converged with that of the military to keep it.
With Gaza it's quite the opposite: Israel decided in 2005 to just withdraw from it and leave them to themselves. They didn't just go bomb them 'for fun'. Continuing small terrorist attacks made them build a wall around them with tedious checkpoints. Hamas starts shooting rockets over it so they place interceptor missiles and, yes, try to bomb the launch sites and weapon deposits. Hamas overruns their defenses, kills or kidnaps everyone they can. So that's where we are now. It's not like Hamas was just peacefully sipping tea and going about their business, totally not launching near daily attacks on Israel, for 20 years
There's no way they're just going to accept incoming rockets as a part of normal life. As long as Hezbollah keeps attacking them, they are going to retaliate
Change rockets to airstrikes and ethnic cleansing and Hezbollah to Israel and you'll understand how everyone in the region feels about Israel.
Do you think the current situation is going to turn out better than if Hezbollah hadn't attacked?
In Lebanon? Probably not, by definition. In Palestine? Almost definitely yes.
Edited because I misread/misinterpreted better as worse.
Can you explain how this is going to turn out 'better' for Lebanon? Innocent Lebanese (unless your point is there aren't any?) are dying every day
Oh shit I meant worse, not better. Worse for Lebanon, better for Palestine.
Can you explain how this is going to turn out 'better' for Palestine? I'd say that it just further discredits the call for a two-state solution
First, it takes heat off Gaza and the West Bank, especially if the conflict escalates further. Second,
how so? Discredits the call for a two state solution according to who and for what reason?
It could prolong the war in Gaza, but unless Hezbollah mobilise their fighters for a ground invasion I think Israel has more than enough planes for both Gaza and striking back at launch sites etc. The main burden for Israel isn't military but it's the 100k refugees, which seems to be the reason they're turning up the heat now
It undermines a two-state solution because that would require the Arab nationalists to accept the state of Israel and, more importantly, stop attacking it. It's clear that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are never going to do that. And Hezbollah immediately attacking Israel in support of them after a major attack just shows that they too won't ever be able to agree to a normal relation
Before that Israel needs to accept that Palestine exists and stop robbing them of their right to self-determination (and, you know, not getting genocided). Israel has shown many times they have no intention of ever doing that, so how do you expect the resistance to accept them? Palestinians don't accept Israel because Israel in its current state is unacceptable and has no intention to change, simple as that. The last real chance for change was Rabin and you know how that ended. From that it was all one big farce.
If you want to know what I mean by Israel in its current state, well they should at least consider the idea of not making settlements and lifting the blockade before serious talks can start. Not saying they should do both of these things before any negotiations can begin, but when the response to "can you not build settlements/lift the blockade" is "no go to hell" there's not much to negotiate. This makes civil resistance impossible and therefore armed resistance the only method of resistance, hence Hamas's actions and Hezbollah's support.
Well I largely agree, except for one very important part and that's the 'before that... '. Why should one side accept peace before the other?
The ultrazionists have always been proven right and emboldened by their counterparts. The Arab Nationalists could not accept the borders in '48, so they attacked, which resulted in them losing territory. They could not accept the borders that resulted from that war, so they built up their strength and they attacked again, which resulted in them losing more territory. So they built up strength again and... Well you know where I'm going with this.
And keep in mind that meanwhile, even though ceasefire deals existed on paper, Arab nationalist and islamic extremists made sure to keep the fire burning with deadly terror attacks agains Israeli and jewish targets around the world.
As such is the nature of a religious conflict: they always want to be Numba One. They cannot accept losing any of their divine priviliges.
So they've been battling it out over Palestine for more than a century, and they're both wrong and they're both never going to give up. And when either breaks a border ceasefire again (such as Hamas and Hezbollah last year) , they're undermining the credibility of a two-state solution
It's not about accepting peace. One side (Zionists) are unwilling to entertain the very idea of an equal and just peace. You can't get anywhere with that. The Palestinian side has always been open to that idea, but without the oppressor deciding to consider the idea of not oppressing you'll never get anywhere. What, exactly, do you suggest Palestinians do here that will get them a state with real sovereignty?
That has always been what ceasefires mean in this conflict, for both sides. You certainly don't see Israel not building settlements or not bombing Gaza or any of the other examples of their colonialist aggression during ceasefires. This is irrespective of how faithfully the Palestinian side adheres to the ceasefire (see: 2008 and 2013 ceasefires).
That has no basis in reality. They tried to prevent the creation of a non-muslim state and failing that, they gathered troops to destroy it from day 1.
Well regarding the West Bank, that of course is something where Israel is blocking a 'fair' solution as well. They're not much better than their opposition in that regard. But even if you look at it from a pacifist Israeli pov, there's a case to be made for wanting to control that territory, together with the Golan Heights: these are strategically important to keep Israel defensible. In the war of '67 they were lucky to learn of the plans of the coming invasion early enough to defend against them. But if they hadn't, Israel could have been overrun 'from within' from the West-Bank rather easily. Which is why the wish of the zionists converged with that of the military to keep it.
With Gaza it's quite the opposite: Israel decided in 2005 to just withdraw from it and leave them to themselves. They didn't just go bomb them 'for fun'. Continuing small terrorist attacks made them build a wall around them with tedious checkpoints. Hamas starts shooting rockets over it so they place interceptor missiles and, yes, try to bomb the launch sites and weapon deposits. Hamas overruns their defenses, kills or kidnaps everyone they can. So that's where we are now. It's not like Hamas was just peacefully sipping tea and going about their business, totally not launching near daily attacks on Israel, for 20 years
Do you think hezbollah is attacking because of the ethnic cleansing already going on via "settlers" or nah?
I think Hezbollah was fantasizing about doing some ethnic cleansing from the moment they were formed
“As long as Israel keeps bombing their country, they are going to retaliate.”
The cycle of violence continues.
Yeah, if you convince yourself that it was Israel that restarted it on oct 8th, I'm sure you can get some solid sleep
(while people actually living there don't have that privilege)
Likewise if you can pretend all history only started October 7 then you can make yourself sound like the victim. But we both know better, I assume?
I'm making myself sound like the victim?
It's weird that you want to sound concerned about the cycle of violence continuing and then want to argue that last October doesn't really matter