EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world
on 12 May 13:52
nextcollapse
The issue with the headline is it implies the Lebanese are the aggressors, when Israel is using missiles to demolish infrastructure and killing indiscriminately so that they can occupy Lebanon and steal territory.
Also mention them as Pro-Iranian. They’re fighting against the destruction and occupation of Lebanon (where they’re from).
Vergissmeinnicht@lemmy.ca
on 12 May 13:58
nextcollapse
it implies the Lebanese are the aggressors
no, it doesn’t. It implies that Hezbollah are aggressors, which they are, just as much as Israel.
The Lebanese are the victims of both.
EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world
on 12 May 14:04
nextcollapse
Sorry, but clearly the people defending their country are the defenders. I’m not a fan of propaganda or doublespeak.
Vergissmeinnicht@lemmy.ca
on 12 May 14:37
collapse
Sorry, but clearly the people defending their country are the defenders.
Yes, the Lebanese army.
The IDF and Hezbollah are the aggressors.
Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
on 12 May 15:05
nextcollapse
The IOF have always been the aggressors. Hezbollah only exists because of the IOF invasions, ethnic cleansings, and settler colonialism of Lebanon.
Vergissmeinnicht@lemmy.ca
on 12 May 16:05
collapse
So the fact that an occupying terrorist group was spawned by an occupying terrorist group excuses their occupation and terrorism?
They could have been fighting Israeli aggression, terrorism, and occupation without becoming occupiers and terrorists themselves. But they didn’t.
Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
on 12 May 16:19
nextcollapse
Dude, we get it. You have no clue what you’re talking about. There’s some guides on hasbara I’m sure you can find, you could use the help.
After the 2008 war, the Goldstone Report addressed IDF strategy in 2009, determining that the “Disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy.”
1982
> The 1982 Lebanon war began on 6 June 1982, when Israel invaded again for the purpose of attacking the Palestine Liberation Organization. The Israeli army laid siege to Beirut. During the conflict, according to Lebanese sources, between 15,000 and 20,000 people were killed, mostly civilians.
> On 16 February 1985, Shia Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin declared a manifesto in Lebanon, announcing a resistance movement called Hezbollah, whose goals included combating the Israeli occupation. During the South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000) the Hezbollah militia waged a guerrilla campaign against Israeli forces occupying Southern Lebanon and their South Lebanon Army proxies.
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Lebanese_conflict
Israeli Withdrawal
> Throughout the painstaking process of confirming the Israeli withdrawal, Hizballah was at pains to declare its commitment to recovering the last millimeter of Lebanese territory, but it also acknowledged that it would not act hastily to reinitiate violence. In sum, Hizballah’s behavior and deference to state authority have worked to its political advantage. It reaped recognition in an unprecedented meeting between Nasrallah and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who praised Hizballah’s restraint and its promise of cooperation. The meeting with Annan offers a remarkable contrast with Hizballah’s earlier days, when it was hostile to the UN and especially to the UN force in
the south.
> Without an agreement between Syria and Israel, there will be little pressure on Hizballah to disarm. Syria’s calculated strategy is to allow Hizballah to serve as a constant reminder of the consequences of continuing to occupy the Golan Heights.This is a role that Hizballah is happy to play, given its enmity toward Israel. At the same time, it remains profoundly aware of the political costs of bringing destruction down on the heads of its supporters, and this further reduces the prospect that Hizballah will initiate attacks on Israel
- sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.2307/2676479
2006
> The doctrine is named after the Dahiya suburb of Beirut, where the Lebanese paramilitary group Hezbollah has its headquarters, which the Israeli military leveled during its assault on Lebanon in the summer of 2006 that killed nearly 1,000 civilians, about a third of them children, and caused enormous damage to the country’s civilian infrastructure, including power plants, sewage treatment plants, bridges, and port facilities.
> It was formulated by then-General Gadi Eisenkot when he was Chief of Northern Command. As he explained in 2008 referring to a future war on Lebanon: "What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on… We will apply disproportionate force on it (village) and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases… This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.” Eisenkot went on to become chief of the general staff of the Israeli military before retiring in 2019.
> While it became official Israeli military doctrine after Israel’s 2006 attack on Lebanon, Israel’s military has used disproportionate force and targeted Palestinian, Lebanese, and other civilians since Israel was established in 1948 based on the ethnic cleansing of indigenous Palestinians, including dozens of massacres to force them to flee for their lives.
- The Dahiya Doctrine & Israel’s Use of Disproportionate Force
2007 - 2
Vergissmeinnicht@lemmy.ca
on 12 May 17:55
collapse
You straight up equated Hezbollah with Israel as ‘both’ colonizers and terrorists.
‘Both-sides’-ing this makes no sense unless your goal is to manufacture consent for the Israeli aggression, or complete ignorance.
Vergissmeinnicht@lemmy.ca
on 12 May 18:56
collapse
Hezbollah committed acts of terrorism and political violence and intimidation in Lebanon
Hezbollah was fighting with Assad against the people of Syria and is, if not directly, at the very least indirectly responsible for the countless atrocities of the Assad regime against the people of Syria.
Again, Hezbollah could have chosen to simply fight Israeli aggression and leave it at that and I’d support them, but they didn’t.
‘Both-sides’-ing this makes no sense
You’re correct, ‘both-sides’-ing creates a false dichotomy. There are way more than just those 2 factions in this conflict. And sure, maybe Israel is the worst one, I’m not going to argue either way. But Hezbollah is pretty high up on the asshole ranking.
No amount of hizbollah intimidation of lebanese who hate them will remove their right to resist occupation. We are not in the position to find a perfect resistance groups. The day a more moral resistance group appear I would side with them over Hizbollah.
Hizbollah fought the groups who wanted to oust the butcher Assad not to protect Syrians but to cut weapons from Hizbollah used to fight the genocidal colonial power Israel is.
Was the axis and allies equally bad during world war 2 becuase many of the allies countries was colonial powers and was also involved in attrocities?
Vergissmeinnicht@lemmy.ca
on 12 May 20:15
collapse
No amount of hizbollah intimidation of lebanese who hate them will remove their right to resist occupation. We are not in the position to find a perfect resistance groups. The day a more moral resistance group appear I would side with them over Hizbollah.
Never argued against that point.
Your problem is insisting to pick a side.
You can acknowledge Hezbollah’s right to resist without siding with them. This isn’t a fucking sports match. Seriously, wtf?
Hizbollah fought the groups who wanted to oust the butcher Assad not to protect Syrians but to cut weapons from Hizbollah used to fight the genocidal colonial power Israel is.
That’s some serious mental gymnastics
Was the axis and allies equally bad during world war 2 becuase many of the allies countries was colonial powers and was also involved in attrocities?
Why are the only two options “good and bad” or “equally bad”
It’s a false dichotomy.
Both sides can be bad while being differently bad.
And some of the allies in WW2 were definitely bad, especially the Soviet Union, who just replaced one occupying force in Eastern Europe with another.
Your problem is not picking a side. You a have 3 options . Israel the colonial genocidal power threatening the whole region with more colonization regardless of anything, the useless Lebanese army who let Israel occupy with no push back in 82 and in 2006, 2026 and Hezbollah who is a resistance groups. Israel killed multiple Lebanese soldiers , the army did not retaliate . You can support Hezbollah right to defend the Lebanese state while condemning any atrocities they commit.
That’s some serious mental gymnastics
It is called context, something you lack. I condemn the target of civilians of all sides during the Syrian civil war including Hezbollah.
Why are the only two options “good and bad” or “equally bad”
Both sides can be bad while being differently bad.
Context again . Nazi germany was a bigger threat in world war 2. The only aggressor in the context was the axis
And some of the allies in WW2 were definitely bad, especially the Soviet Union, who just replaced one occupying force in Eastern Europe with another.
Also France and the British empire two of the bloodiest colonial power
Lol when did the lebanese ever defended a single lebanese? If the lebanese army was strong and was nit blocked from attacking Israel by France and the usa demands, hizbollah would have not existed.
This is only coherent with the “history started on Oct 7” mentality. Hezbollah are terrorists, so is the IDF. Trying to decide who’s in the moral right is madness, but who started it isn’t complicated or ambiguous.
Vergissmeinnicht@lemmy.ca
on 12 May 14:36
collapse
Trying to decide who’s in the moral right is madness, but who started it isn’t complicated or ambiguous.
Asking who started it is the wrong question to ask. And the answer changes constantly depending on when you ask it.
Without hizbollah south lebanon if not all lebanon would have been colonized . I don’t know how you shamelessly say Israel and Hizbollah are equally evil.
Vergissmeinnicht@lemmy.ca
on 12 May 20:06
collapse
I said both are aggressors, not both are equally evil.
The context of the post is israel vs hizbollah. It that context the only agressor is Israel.
Vergissmeinnicht@lemmy.ca
on 12 May 20:42
collapse
The context of the post is israel vs hizbollah. It that context the only agressor is Israel.
that’s complete bullshit.
If you take the timeline starting in 2026, then either Israel and the US are the aggressors and the scope is bigger than just Israel and Hezbollah, or you insist on limiting it to only Israel and Hezbollah but Hezbollah are the aggressors.
If you start from 2023, then again, if you only look at Israel and Hezbollah, then Hezbollah are the aggressors.
If you expand the timeline beyond that you really cannot limit the scope to just those two belligerents, because all the regional conflicts are way too interwoven.
Trying to look for simplistic good vs bad framing might be appealing but is ultimately dishonest.
Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
on 12 May 20:51
nextcollapse
You’ve already been linked sources that debunk what your saying. Try reading up before talking out of your ass
Vergissmeinnicht@lemmy.ca
on 12 May 21:15
collapse
The sources show that Israel is an aggressor, which I never disputed.
If you start from 2023, then again, if you only look at Israel and Hezbollah, then Hezbollah are the aggressors
This is not true, which the sources show.
Vergissmeinnicht@lemmy.ca
on 12 May 22:22
collapse
Hezbollah, a powerful armed group backed by Iran, said it had launched guided rockets and artillery onto three posts in Shebaa Farms “in solidarity” with the Palestinian people.
Vergissmeinnicht@lemmy.ca
on 13 May 00:00
collapse
Linked article disagrees with the info graphic, info graphic does not provide sources. What’s your justification of choosing the info graphic over the linked article?
The graph includes attacks since Oct 7, and clearly Israel was the aggressor.
Not to mention that the first attacks of Hezbollah were on Israeli settler colonialist outposts within occupied Syrian territory.
Hezbollah is opposed to all Israeli settler colonialism, not only in Lebanon but also in Syria and Palestine.
Vergissmeinnicht@lemmy.ca
on 13 May 10:19
collapse
And the articles accompanying this graph clearly contradict it, while the graph itself provides no sources. A graph itself is not a source.
mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 12 May 20:51
nextcollapse
Even in 2023 Israel was the aggressor. In response to Israel geocoding Palestinians Hezbollah launched rockets on occupied land, Israel went and targeted civilians infrastructures and Lebanese civilians . Israel is the colonial genocidal power , Hezbollah is the resistance group no amount of bullshit from your side is going to change that.
1982 Israel occupied Lebanon, Israel is the aggressor, 2006 Israel had Lebanese is jail, Israel is the aggressor, post 2026 Israel continued bombing Lebanese in breach of the resolution 1701 , Israel was the aggressor, 2026 Israel continued bombing Lebanon despite a cease fire, again Israel the aggressor.
Trying to look for simplistic good vs bad framing might be appealing but is ultimately dishonest.
Again the context in this post is Hezbollah vs Israel . Israel is the colonial genocidal power , Hezbollah is the resistance group.
Trying to look for simplistic good vs bad framing might be appealing but is ultimately dishonest.
You are trying to frame the debate as both are aggressors to reject Hezbollah right to resistance which would allow Israel to occupy under pretext of security, then start putting settlers and finally after few years declare sovereignty on those land. My stand is more nuanced with facts. I did acknowledge that Hezbollah did atrocities but in the context of the war still in the context of the post Israel is the only aggressor.
Vergissmeinnicht@lemmy.ca
on 12 May 21:12
collapse
Even in 2023 Israel was the aggressor. In response to Israel geocoding Palestinians Hezbollah launched rockets on occupied land, Israel went and targeted civilians infrastructures and Lebanese civilians.
Dude, you said Israel is the aggressor when only looking at Israel and Hezbollah and then include Palestine.
So are we looking at only Israel and Hezbollah, or are we looking at Israel, Hezbollah, and other factions? And if so, why are we only including the factions that help your case, instead of all factions involved?
You are treating this as a sports match, it’s fucking not.
mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 12 May 21:19
nextcollapse
Israel as the the colonial power who invasion colonizing Lebanon and other arab countries in a Greater Israel project is perfectly in the context . I included all the factions involved .
You are treating this as a sports match, it’s fucking no
I am not .You could have said Hezbollah has the right to resist Israeli occupation but let’s not forget Hezbollah atrocities and I would not have a problem with it . Your framing delegitimize that right. I am sick of hypocrites trying to delegitimize resistance groups and treat them like colonizers.
Vergissmeinnicht@lemmy.ca
on 12 May 21:48
collapse
I included all the factions involved .
Yeah, right:
The context of the post is israel vs hizbollah. It that context the only agressor is Israel.
I am sick of hypocrites trying to delegitimize resistance groups and treat them like colonizers.
Hezbollah had the legitimacy of a resistance group until they defeated the Israeli occupation of Lebanon.
Continuing to fight Israel from Lebanese territory without the express consent of the people and the government of Lebanon delegitimizes them as resistance fighters.
And their support of Assad and his Alawite oppression of Syria made them colonizers in their own right.
In the example of WW2 that you brought up, Soviet forces were the resistance fighters against Nazi aggression and colonization right until the point that Germany surrendered. Their refusal to then withdraw made them the aggressors and colonizers in turn. And that is not even to speak of the Baltics, where the Soviets were the original aggressors and colonizers.
Acknowledging the capacity of resistance fighters to become colonizers themselves is not hypocrisy. What is hypocrisy is letting the aggression and colonization of a group slide because they are/were resistance fighters themselves.
Hezbollah had the legitimacy of a resistance group until they defeated the Israeli occupation of Lebanon.
Hezbollah has legitimacy until Israel abandon the greater Israel projects and stop being a threat to Lebanon .
58% to 64% of the Lebanese population opposing Hezbollah’s immediate disarmament unless a guaranteed national defense strategy is established which do not exists. The government and the Lebanese army is inept to project Lebanon
And their support of Assad and his Alawite oppression of Syria made them colonizers in their own right.
Yes Hezbollah aggressed and murdered some Syrian civilians and it is condemnable, fighting groups financed by other foreign powers was also a motivation but again the context is the colonial power Israel vs Hezbollah. You don’t seem to understand the difference between colonialism and occupation either.
In the example of WW2 that you brought up, Soviet forces were the resistance fighters against Nazi aggression and colonization right until the point that Germany surrendered.
I was talking during WW2 against the axis not after Germany surrendered. I love how you also ignore France and Britain and only focus on the soviet. France did not wait for Germany to start aggressing it to declare and attacking war on the Nazis. Same with Hezbollah they will not wait Israel deciding to colonize before addressing the threat. Nobody would have used to the dumb rhetoric of both are aggressors , both are bad in context of world war 2.
Vergissmeinnicht@lemmy.ca
on 12 May 23:12
collapse
58% to 64% of the Lebanese population opposing Hezbollah’s immediate disarmament
Opposing Hezbollah’s immediate disarmament is not equivalent to consent to enter the war of Israel against Palestine.
You don’t seem to understand the difference between colonialism and occupation either.
Just rolling with how loosely you seemingly use the term. Israel may be colonialists in general, but in the specific context of Israel vs Hezbollah they are clearly not.
I was talking during WW2 against the axis not after Germany surrendered.
Yeah, conveniently leaving out one of the greatest examples of a resistance fighting force becoming the occupying colonialists?
I love how you also ignore France and Britain
What about France and Britain?
France did not wait for Germany to start aggressing it to declare and attacking war on the Nazis
The French government being the democratically elected government representing the French people and territory signed an alliance with the Polish government. As such Germany’s invasion of Poland was also an aggression against France, not the other way around. There is no such understanding between Palestine and Lebanon. Or Iran and Lebanon.
And sure, you could argue that Hezbollah are allied with the IRGC and Hamas, but Hezbollah is dragging Lebanon into the fight without consent.
Opposing Hezbollah’s immediate disarmament is not equivalent to consent to enter the war of Israel against Palestine.
Why would 58% of Lebanese would support Hezbollah maintaining it’s arm other than to be used against the Israeli threat?
Just rolling with how loosely you seemingly use the term. Israel may be colonialists in general, but in the specific context of Israel vs Hezbollah they are clearly not.
Israel want to create a greater Israel which include Lebanon. Hezbollah rocket was thrown on Shaba farms, Lebanese occupied land . It was not a mere support for Palestine. Not to mention Israel constantly breach the resolution 1701 yearly
The French government being the democratically elected government representing the French people and territory signed an alliance with the Polish government.
An alliance mean both side of the alliance has the obligation to protect the other when attacked but it doesn’t mean an aggression on Poland is an aggression on France. France attacked Nazi Germany before Nazi Germany attacked . France had a treaty of Poland exactly because the threat was real , they didn’t wait for the nazi to have one less resisting country because intervening. My last sentence was my main point because it is similar to Hezbollah not waiting for Palestine to be completely destroyed then wait for Israel to occupy and colonize Lebanon again.
If you think Hezbollah is dragging Lebanon into the fight without consent, then France dragged themselves into the war by signing a mutual defense alliance with Poland
Vergissmeinnicht@lemmy.ca
on 13 May 00:22
collapse
Why would 58% of Lebanese would support Hezbollah maintaining it’s arm other than to be used against the Israeli threat?
Oh fucking stop it. Threat against Lebanon specifically. A retaliation against Hamas, even if completely disproportionate and genocidal is not a threat against Lebanon.
Israel want to create a greater Israel which include Lebanon.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon kinda works against that claim.
Hezbollah rocket was thrown on Shaba farms, Lebanese occupied land
Not according to the UN?
Not to mention Israel constantly breach the resolution 1701 yearly
Unlike Hezbollah?
waiting for Palestine to be completely destroyed then wait for Israel to occupy and colonize Lebanon again.
Extraordinary claims again
If you think Hezbollah is dragging Lebanon into the fight without consent, then France dragged themselves into the war by signing a mutual defense alliance with Poland
Unlike the French government, Hezbollah didn’t have the representative authority to do so. Doing it without such an authority is in itself a form if aggression (against the people of Lebanon, not against Israel)
We could be starting the development of interstellar travel to Alpha Centauri … but instead we’re developing murder bots to get land for rich people and do it all in the name of sky gods written about in books by semi literate superstitious ancestors that lived in the desert 3000 years ago.
backalleycoyote@lemmy.today
on 12 May 21:25
nextcollapse
BigTurkeyLove@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 12 May 15:35
nextcollapse
Used to race fpv drones, flying a drone (especially ones weighed down) with the precision to hit a moving person takes skill and is not easy, definitely not something you are doing without training or practice.
Now the ones that fly above with all the built in stabilization that drop the tiny ordnance, that’s easy.
But good for them defending themselves with the means they have against this injustice.
It is amazing and heroic how the people of Hezbollah are defending themselves from these evil empires that are armed to the teeth with less resources and technology, their ingenuity and sacrifice is admirable.
GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca
on 12 May 23:58
nextcollapse
If you do what you love, you never work a day in your life
GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca
on 13 May 00:05
nextcollapse
Seeing drone footage from Ukraine war: “Ugh, I don’t want to see this snuff shit. What a senseless tragedy”
Seeing Hezbollah drone footage: “Yes… Yes! DIE! DIE MOTHERFUCKER!!!”
It’s interesting that Hezbollah and the IDF have swapped roles with Hez now the beleaguered defender against the rabid IDF similar to the way Iran seems to have the moral upper hand against the US aggressor. They both were on the nose about how rabid they were until a more rabid duo of Netanyahu and Trump kicked the door open and took centre stage.
threaded - newest
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/e0720aee-3fe2-4157-9441-924e6e56091c.jpeg">
The issue with the headline is it implies the Lebanese are the aggressors, when Israel is using missiles to demolish infrastructure and killing indiscriminately so that they can occupy Lebanon and steal territory.
Also mention them as Pro-Iranian. They’re fighting against the destruction and occupation of Lebanon (where they’re from).
no, it doesn’t. It implies that Hezbollah are aggressors, which they are, just as much as Israel.
The Lebanese are the victims of both.
Sorry, but clearly the people defending their country are the defenders. I’m not a fan of propaganda or doublespeak.
Yes, the Lebanese army.
The IDF and Hezbollah are the aggressors.
The IOF have always been the aggressors. Hezbollah only exists because of the IOF invasions, ethnic cleansings, and settler colonialism of Lebanon.
So the fact that an occupying terrorist group was spawned by an occupying terrorist group excuses their occupation and terrorism?
They could have been fighting Israeli aggression, terrorism, and occupation without becoming occupiers and terrorists themselves. But they didn’t.
Dude, we get it. You have no clue what you’re talking about. There’s some guides on hasbara I’m sure you can find, you could use the help.
Again, Hezbollah only exists because of massacres like Sabra and Shatila, along with the other massacres utilizing the Dahiya doctrine during the 6 Israeli invasions
1982
> The 1982 Lebanon war began on 6 June 1982, when Israel invaded again for the purpose of attacking the Palestine Liberation Organization. The Israeli army laid siege to Beirut. During the conflict, according to Lebanese sources, between 15,000 and 20,000 people were killed, mostly civilians. > On 16 February 1985, Shia Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin declared a manifesto in Lebanon, announcing a resistance movement called Hezbollah, whose goals included combating the Israeli occupation. During the South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000) the Hezbollah militia waged a guerrilla campaign against Israeli forces occupying Southern Lebanon and their South Lebanon Army proxies. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Lebanese_conflict
Israeli Withdrawal
> Throughout the painstaking process of confirming the Israeli withdrawal, Hizballah was at pains to declare its commitment to recovering the last millimeter of Lebanese territory, but it also acknowledged that it would not act hastily to reinitiate violence. In sum, Hizballah’s behavior and deference to state authority have worked to its political advantage. It reaped recognition in an unprecedented meeting between Nasrallah and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who praised Hizballah’s restraint and its promise of cooperation. The meeting with Annan offers a remarkable contrast with Hizballah’s earlier days, when it was hostile to the UN and especially to the UN force in the south. > Without an agreement between Syria and Israel, there will be little pressure on Hizballah to disarm. Syria’s calculated strategy is to allow Hizballah to serve as a constant reminder of the consequences of continuing to occupy the Golan Heights.This is a role that Hizballah is happy to play, given its enmity toward Israel. At the same time, it remains profoundly aware of the political costs of bringing destruction down on the heads of its supporters, and this further reduces the prospect that Hizballah will initiate attacks on Israel - sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.2307/2676479
2006
> The doctrine is named after the Dahiya suburb of Beirut, where the Lebanese paramilitary group Hezbollah has its headquarters, which the Israeli military leveled during its assault on Lebanon in the summer of 2006 that killed nearly 1,000 civilians, about a third of them children, and caused enormous damage to the country’s civilian infrastructure, including power plants, sewage treatment plants, bridges, and port facilities. > It was formulated by then-General Gadi Eisenkot when he was Chief of Northern Command. As he explained in 2008 referring to a future war on Lebanon: "What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on… We will apply disproportionate force on it (village) and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases… This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.” Eisenkot went on to become chief of the general staff of the Israeli military before retiring in 2019. > While it became official Israeli military doctrine after Israel’s 2006 attack on Lebanon, Israel’s military has used disproportionate force and targeted Palestinian, Lebanese, and other civilians since Israel was established in 1948 based on the ethnic cleansing of indigenous Palestinians, including dozens of massacres to force them to flee for their lives. - The Dahiya Doctrine & Israel’s Use of Disproportionate Force
2007 - 2
Can you quote the part where I disputed the fact that Hezbollah exists because of Israeli aggression, occupation, and terrorism?
I fully acknowledge and agree with that.
What do you think an aggressor is?
Or anti-colonialism?
You straight up equated Hezbollah with Israel as ‘both’ colonizers and terrorists.
‘Both-sides’-ing this makes no sense unless your goal is to manufacture consent for the Israeli aggression, or complete ignorance.
Hezbollah committed acts of terrorism and political violence and intimidation in Lebanon
Hezbollah was fighting with Assad against the people of Syria and is, if not directly, at the very least indirectly responsible for the countless atrocities of the Assad regime against the people of Syria.
Again, Hezbollah could have chosen to simply fight Israeli aggression and leave it at that and I’d support them, but they didn’t.
You’re correct, ‘both-sides’-ing creates a false dichotomy. There are way more than just those 2 factions in this conflict. And sure, maybe Israel is the worst one, I’m not going to argue either way. But Hezbollah is pretty high up on the asshole ranking.
No amount of hizbollah intimidation of lebanese who hate them will remove their right to resist occupation. We are not in the position to find a perfect resistance groups. The day a more moral resistance group appear I would side with them over Hizbollah.
Hizbollah fought the groups who wanted to oust the butcher Assad not to protect Syrians but to cut weapons from Hizbollah used to fight the genocidal colonial power Israel is.
Was the axis and allies equally bad during world war 2 becuase many of the allies countries was colonial powers and was also involved in attrocities?
Never argued against that point.
Your problem is insisting to pick a side.
You can acknowledge Hezbollah’s right to resist without siding with them. This isn’t a fucking sports match. Seriously, wtf?
That’s some serious mental gymnastics
Why are the only two options “good and bad” or “equally bad”
It’s a false dichotomy.
Both sides can be bad while being differently bad.
And some of the allies in WW2 were definitely bad, especially the Soviet Union, who just replaced one occupying force in Eastern Europe with another.
Your problem is not picking a side. You a have 3 options . Israel the colonial genocidal power threatening the whole region with more colonization regardless of anything, the useless Lebanese army who let Israel occupy with no push back in 82 and in 2006, 2026 and Hezbollah who is a resistance groups. Israel killed multiple Lebanese soldiers , the army did not retaliate . You can support Hezbollah right to defend the Lebanese state while condemning any atrocities they commit.
It is called context, something you lack. I condemn the target of civilians of all sides during the Syrian civil war including Hezbollah.
Context again . Nazi germany was a bigger threat in world war 2. The only aggressor in the context was the axis
Also France and the British empire two of the bloodiest colonial power
Most countries in the world do not design Hizbollah as a terrorist group, only israel’s western countries puppet does.
Quick question dumbass.
Where is the fighting taking place
Lol when did the lebanese ever defended a single lebanese? If the lebanese army was strong and was nit blocked from attacking Israel by France and the usa demands, hizbollah would have not existed.
This is only coherent with the “history started on Oct 7” mentality. Hezbollah are terrorists, so is the IDF. Trying to decide who’s in the moral right is madness, but who started it isn’t complicated or ambiguous.
Asking who started it is the wrong question to ask. And the answer changes constantly depending on when you ask it.
Both should equally fuck off.
Without hizbollah south lebanon if not all lebanon would have been colonized . I don’t know how you shamelessly say Israel and Hizbollah are equally evil.
I said both are aggressors, not both are equally evil.
The context of the post is israel vs hizbollah. It that context the only agressor is Israel.
that’s complete bullshit.
If you take the timeline starting in 2026, then either Israel and the US are the aggressors and the scope is bigger than just Israel and Hezbollah, or you insist on limiting it to only Israel and Hezbollah but Hezbollah are the aggressors.
If you start from 2023, then again, if you only look at Israel and Hezbollah, then Hezbollah are the aggressors.
If you expand the timeline beyond that you really cannot limit the scope to just those two belligerents, because all the regional conflicts are way too interwoven.
Trying to look for simplistic good vs bad framing might be appealing but is ultimately dishonest.
You’ve already been linked sources that debunk what your saying. Try reading up before talking out of your ass
The sources show that Israel is an aggressor, which I never disputed.
This is not true, which the sources show.
That’s what the sources say.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/e30f1d20-a27a-4e98-acf1-15e0f0c54e0a.png">
Linked article disagrees with the info graphic, info graphic does not provide sources. What’s your justification of choosing the info graphic over the linked article?
It was already linked, genius
aljazeera.com/…/mapping-israel-lebanon-cross-bord…
yeah, quote from that link
The graph includes attacks since Oct 7, and clearly Israel was the aggressor.
Not to mention that the first attacks of Hezbollah were on Israeli settler colonialist outposts within occupied Syrian territory.
Hezbollah is opposed to all Israeli settler colonialism, not only in Lebanon but also in Syria and Palestine.
And the articles accompanying this graph clearly contradict it, while the graph itself provides no sources. A graph itself is not a source.
Even in 2023 Israel was the aggressor. In response to Israel geocoding Palestinians Hezbollah launched rockets on occupied land, Israel went and targeted civilians infrastructures and Lebanese civilians . Israel is the colonial genocidal power , Hezbollah is the resistance group no amount of bullshit from your side is going to change that.
1982 Israel occupied Lebanon, Israel is the aggressor, 2006 Israel had Lebanese is jail, Israel is the aggressor, post 2026 Israel continued bombing Lebanese in breach of the resolution 1701 , Israel was the aggressor, 2026 Israel continued bombing Lebanon despite a cease fire, again Israel the aggressor.
Again the context in this post is Hezbollah vs Israel . Israel is the colonial genocidal power , Hezbollah is the resistance group.
You are trying to frame the debate as both are aggressors to reject Hezbollah right to resistance which would allow Israel to occupy under pretext of security, then start putting settlers and finally after few years declare sovereignty on those land. My stand is more nuanced with facts. I did acknowledge that Hezbollah did atrocities but in the context of the war still in the context of the post Israel is the only aggressor.
Dude, you said Israel is the aggressor when only looking at Israel and Hezbollah and then include Palestine.
So are we looking at only Israel and Hezbollah, or are we looking at Israel, Hezbollah, and other factions? And if so, why are we only including the factions that help your case, instead of all factions involved?
You are treating this as a sports match, it’s fucking not.
Israel as the the colonial power who invasion colonizing Lebanon and other arab countries in a Greater Israel project is perfectly in the context . I included all the factions involved .
I am not .You could have said Hezbollah has the right to resist Israeli occupation but let’s not forget Hezbollah atrocities and I would not have a problem with it . Your framing delegitimize that right. I am sick of hypocrites trying to delegitimize resistance groups and treat them like colonizers.
Yeah, right:
Hezbollah had the legitimacy of a resistance group until they defeated the Israeli occupation of Lebanon.
Continuing to fight Israel from Lebanese territory without the express consent of the people and the government of Lebanon delegitimizes them as resistance fighters.
And their support of Assad and his Alawite oppression of Syria made them colonizers in their own right.
In the example of WW2 that you brought up, Soviet forces were the resistance fighters against Nazi aggression and colonization right until the point that Germany surrendered. Their refusal to then withdraw made them the aggressors and colonizers in turn. And that is not even to speak of the Baltics, where the Soviets were the original aggressors and colonizers.
Acknowledging the capacity of resistance fighters to become colonizers themselves is not hypocrisy. What is hypocrisy is letting the aggression and colonization of a group slide because they are/were resistance fighters themselves.
58% to 64% of the Lebanese population opposing Hezbollah’s immediate disarmament unless a guaranteed national defense strategy is established which do not exists. The government and the Lebanese army is inept to project Lebanon
Yes Hezbollah aggressed and murdered some Syrian civilians and it is condemnable, fighting groups financed by other foreign powers was also a motivation but again the context is the colonial power Israel vs Hezbollah. You don’t seem to understand the difference between colonialism and occupation either.
I was talking during WW2 against the axis not after Germany surrendered. I love how you also ignore France and Britain and only focus on the soviet. France did not wait for Germany to start aggressing it to declare and attacking war on the Nazis. Same with Hezbollah they will not wait Israel deciding to colonize before addressing the threat. Nobody would have used to the dumb rhetoric of both are aggressors , both are bad in context of world war 2.
Opposing Hezbollah’s immediate disarmament is not equivalent to consent to enter the war of Israel against Palestine.
Just rolling with how loosely you seemingly use the term. Israel may be colonialists in general, but in the specific context of Israel vs Hezbollah they are clearly not.
Yeah, conveniently leaving out one of the greatest examples of a resistance fighting force becoming the occupying colonialists?
What about France and Britain?
The French government being the democratically elected government representing the French people and territory signed an alliance with the Polish government. As such Germany’s invasion of Poland was also an aggression against France, not the other way around. There is no such understanding between Palestine and Lebanon. Or Iran and Lebanon.
And sure, you could argue that Hezbollah are allied with the IRGC and Hamas, but Hezbollah is dragging Lebanon into the fight without consent.
Why would 58% of Lebanese would support Hezbollah maintaining it’s arm other than to be used against the Israeli threat?
Israel want to create a greater Israel which include Lebanon. Hezbollah rocket was thrown on Shaba farms, Lebanese occupied land . It was not a mere support for Palestine. Not to mention Israel constantly breach the resolution 1701 yearly
An alliance mean both side of the alliance has the obligation to protect the other when attacked but it doesn’t mean an aggression on Poland is an aggression on France. France attacked Nazi Germany before Nazi Germany attacked . France had a treaty of Poland exactly because the threat was real , they didn’t wait for the nazi to have one less resisting country because intervening. My last sentence was my main point because it is similar to Hezbollah not waiting for Palestine to be completely destroyed then wait for Israel to occupy and colonize Lebanon again.
If you think Hezbollah is dragging Lebanon into the fight without consent, then France dragged themselves into the war by signing a mutual defense alliance with Poland
Oh fucking stop it. Threat against Lebanon specifically. A retaliation against Hamas, even if completely disproportionate and genocidal is not a threat against Lebanon.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon kinda works against that claim.
Not according to the UN?
Unlike Hezbollah?
Extraordinary claims again
Unlike the French government, Hezbollah didn’t have the representative authority to do so. Doing it without such an authority is in itself a form if aggression (against the people of Lebanon, not against Israel)
Nitpicking is not an argument, it’s hasbara.
Wut? Israel has been attacking Lebanon for decades because of their “greater” Israel jerk-off fantasies.
literally the next fucking paragraph in my comment.
is it possible to unreact emojis on this platform? cause I did not intend to click that
Yup, pro-Iran is a mislabel when they’re obviously pro-Lebanon and anti-Israel first and foremost.
Drone warfare is becoming racialized just like terrorism in the media and for the same reason; it’s accessible to oppressed people.
Notice how noble it is when a Ukrainian defends his home with murder bots. Let an Arab do the same thing and it’s diabolical somehow.
Anything that helps kill more IDF oppressors is a good thing.
We could be starting the development of interstellar travel to Alpha Centauri … but instead we’re developing murder bots to get land for rich people and do it all in the name of sky gods written about in books by semi literate superstitious ancestors that lived in the desert 3000 years ago.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/b0798a8c-8799-4865-8fdd-71763ff8c1e0.jpeg">
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/081ee6ee-9aec-464c-a340-0d208ecd6306.jpeg">
🤔
O.O
That drone looks like it’s got cringe face. Like “sorry, I know you wanted to kill, but uhhhh, this is gonna be awkward…”
Can’t make this shit up
Used to race fpv drones, flying a drone (especially ones weighed down) with the precision to hit a moving person takes skill and is not easy, definitely not something you are doing without training or practice.
Now the ones that fly above with all the built in stabilization that drop the tiny ordnance, that’s easy.
But good for them defending themselves with the means they have against this injustice.
It is amazing and heroic how the people of Hezbollah are defending themselves from these evil empires that are armed to the teeth with less resources and technology, their ingenuity and sacrifice is admirable.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/defcce1e-b1fd-4062-9366-0c923e075ca2.jpeg">
If you do what you love, you never work a day in your life
Seeing drone footage from Ukraine war: “Ugh, I don’t want to see this snuff shit. What a senseless tragedy”
Seeing Hezbollah drone footage: “Yes… Yes! DIE! DIE MOTHERFUCKER!!!”
You can enjoy both
I do but I can only fap to one.
You do you pal.
While useful, you do have to be very close to the target to use this
Really depends on the drone honestly
It’s interesting that Hezbollah and the IDF have swapped roles with Hez now the beleaguered defender against the rabid IDF similar to the way Iran seems to have the moral upper hand against the US aggressor. They both were on the nose about how rabid they were until a more rabid duo of Netanyahu and Trump kicked the door open and took centre stage.