[RD] War in Gaza News: Pas de Deux

By objecting to killing its leaders, you're showing support to their actions.
In the spirit of keeping this to the news, nobody was objecting to the death of Hezbollah leaders. This is not proof of anything that you think it is.

I'll repeat it again, generally: I don't think it's good for Israel for them to legitimise massive collateral damage in search of their goals. It invites the same behaviour in return, and Israel is acting as destructively as any labelled terrorists in the same area of the world. Which provides easy justification for that same behaviour to be returned.
 
I do kind of object to the death of Hezbollah leaders insofar as I'm firmly on the side of the resistance and hope to see Israel defeated, but killing Nasrallah, in and of itself, is at least within the bounds of armed conflict. Killing him plus a few hundred people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time is just Nazi horsehocky, and praising it is sick
 
I object to the targeting of Hezbollah leaders because targeting non-combatants is a war crime.
 
Sadly the murdering will just change sides at an israeli collapse.
Tragic, but there were reprisals too after Nazi Germany was pushed out of the territories they conquered. Nobody in the right mind thought that Nazi Germany shouldn't collapse.
 
in re a regional war: I simply don't feel Iran has the guts to attack Israel to defend Hezbollah, unless maybe Israel is going to insist on occupying its neighboring countries. Are Hezbollah really authentic Persians enough for Iranians to want to defend them?

Besides, we have yet to see any response from them 2+ months after Ismail Haniyeh (head of the Hamas politburo) was killed in Tehran.
They know the US will back the Israelis.
 
I feel like I have to point out that the United Nations organization was specifically structured to be powerless. It is intentionally designed to carry out the consensus of the body, particularly in terms of security. If the UN is doing nothing on a security topic, it is because there is no consensus of members on what to do.

There is no UN Army, and whenever the UN tries to act as an independent entity in security matters (1960-61 under Hammarskjold, the 90s under Boutros-Ghali) it ends very badly.
It would never have been possible to create a UN like that, if it also would include the USSR, and all third-part countries not part to the war in 1945.

An empowered UN with military capacity past 1945 would have been what it was in WWII – a military alliance, that kept on trucking into the post-war – sans the USSR.
1727599803534.png

The extraordinary achievement of the UN was the UN charter, and getting everyone to sign it in 1945. The problem we have now is that signatories don't abide to what was signed.
 
To you and Yeekim, are the people inhabiting all those apartment buildings just like cockroaches or pocket lint?
Not at all. I am giving those people the exact same amount of consideration I would be giving - or expecting to be given by anyone else - to myself in their stead.

The idea of a war being fought with no collateral damage to civilians is a pipe dream that has nothing to do with reality.

Not making them primary target is actually all that is required by rules of warfare - and 90% of observable reality in military conflicts sadly does not even meet this standard.
If so, I'd be very worried to be a civilian in Israel.
Spoken as if Israel's adversaries had ever even pretended to follow - let alone actually follow - any restriction against targeting civilians.
 
It's literally insane to act like Hezbollah destroyed Lebanon, when Hezbollah only exists because Israel destroyed Lebanon
That's about the same as pretending that the attack which started the war that is the subject of this thread came from the blue without any reason. Strange to see you make the exact sort of argument you blast others of doing.
 
The idea of a war being fought with no collateral damage to civilians is a pipe dream that has nothing to do with reality.
This is a strawman. Nobody said collateral damage in a war is always avoidable.

But it should at least be avoided, and Israel isn't avoiding it in the slightest. Therefore, criticism, especially around commentary that calls such brazen disregard for international law "impressive".
Spoken as if Israel's adversaries had ever even pretended to follow - let alone actually follow - any restriction against targeting civilians.
And in the event this is true, they're criticised for it, instead of being supported and bankrolled by Western governments.

No?

You certainly wouldn't be calling Iran impressive for doing the same thing to downtown Tel Aviv, would you? If any of Israel's enemies were carrying out a mirror of Israel's operations, with the same military aim (kill Israeli leadership), would you be commending it?
 
Last edited:
Sadly the murdering will just change sides at an israeli collapse.

The "Axis of Resistance" has essentially failed. Hamas has collapsed, Hezbollah has collapsed, Iran is a no show, the Iraqi militias don't know which way is west, Syria missile sites are being eliminated by US airstrikes as we speak, and the Houthi leadership is essentially next.
 
That's about the same as pretending that the attack which started the war that is the subject of this thread came from the blue without any reason. Strange to see you make the exact sort of argument you blast others of doing.

"Hezbollah exists because Israel destroyed Lebanon" is a simple statement of historical fact. Hezbollah was created to fight the Israeli army during its occupation of southern Lebanon in the 1980s.

Not making them primary target is actually all that is required by rules of warfare - and 90% of observable reality in military conflicts sadly does not even meet this standard.

The laws of warfare require proportional use of force in addition to not targeting civilians.

But of course, this is beside the point. Israel and its defenders don't believe the laws of warfare really apply unless white people are being attacked.
 
Nope, you are, and I can prove it.

Hezbollah is a violent terrorist organization that had hand in destruction of one of most stable Middle East countries, frequently bombarded civilian areas in last several decades which resulted, among other casualties, in death of Druze and Palestinian children and committed many acts of terrorism and oppression against Lebanon civilians. By objecting to killing its leaders, you're showing support to their actions.
That is not true, assuming by "one of the most stable Middle East countries" you mean Lebanon. Lebanon has never been particularly stable.
See, for example:

The very delicate sectarian and ethnic balancing act needed for independence in 1943:

The American intervention in 1958:

The influx of PLO fighters into Lebanon following Black September:

Israeli raids into Lebanon in the early 1970s:

The Lebanese Civil War, starting in 1975:

The Syrian invasion of Lebanon starting in 1976:

The first Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978:

Brutal fighting between co-religionists to consolidate power and influence:

The deployment of the MNF to Lebanon in 1982:

The second Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which completely screwed the pooch:

When Hezbollah emerged as a coherent group, but most historians and politicians put it sometime between 1982 and 1985; emerging as a response to the Israeli invasion and ensuing collapse of the Lebanese government.
According to Robert Fisk[97] and Israeli General Shimon Shapira[98] the date of 8 June 1982, two days after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, when 50 Shiite militants ambushed an Israel Defense Forces armored convoy in Khalde south of Beirut, is considered by Hezbollah as the founding myth of the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, the group's military wing. It was in this battle, delaying the Israeli advance to Beirut for six days, that the future Hezbollah military chief Mustafa Badreddine made his name as a serious commander.[99] According to Shapira, the lightly armed Shia fighters managed to capture an Israeli armored vehicle on that day and paraded it in the Revolutionary Guards' forward operating base in Baalbek, Eastern Lebanon. Fisk writes:

Down at Khalde, a remarkable phenomenon had taken shape. The Shia militiamen were running on foot into the Israeli gunfire to launch grenades at the Israeli armour, actually moving to within 20 feet of the tanks to open fire at them. Some of the Shia fighters had torn off pieces of their shirts and wrapped them around their heads as bands of martyrdom as the Iranian revolutionary guards had begun doing a year before when they staged their first mass attacks against the Iraqis in the Gulf War a thousand miles to the east. When they set fire to one Israeli armoured vehicle, the gunmen were emboldened to advance further. None of us, I think, realised the critical importance of the events of Khalde that night. The Lebanese Shia were learning the principles of martyrdom and putting them into practice. Never before had we seen these men wear headbands like this; we thought it was another militia affectation but it was not. It was the beginning of a legend which also contained a strong element of truth. The Shia were now the Lebanese resistance, nationalist no doubt but also inspired by their religion. The party of God – in Arabic, the Hezbollah – were on the beaches of Khalde that night.[97]

So no, Lebanon has never been what one could call a particularly stable country, except maybe for about a decade in the 1960s.
 
"Hezbollah exists because Israel destroyed Lebanon" is a simple statement of historical fact. Hezbollah was created to fight the Israeli army during its occupation of southern Lebanon in the 1980s.
Yeah, and what exactly caused the invasion of southern Lebanon in the 1980s ?
 
Yeah, and what exactly caused the invasion of southern Lebanon in the 1980s ?
According to Chaim Herzog (Israeli General and President from 1983-1993), writing in late 1982*, the Israeli invasion in 1982 had three primary reasons:
1) The fear that the successful Syrian invasion and operations against the Maronite and Christian factions had crossed a 'red line', and would eliminate Israel's most effective proxies in the Lebanese Civil War.
2) Disagreements about the scope of the American and Saudi brokered ceasefire between Israel and the PLO in 1981. Israel interpreted the ceasefire as applying to attacks on Israel from anywhere, with the PLO interpreting the ceasefire as only applying to the Israeli-Lebanese border. (Contemporary reporting in the New York Times seems to align with the PLO interpretation. https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/25/...-israel-plo-us-sees-hope-for-wider-peace.html) Herzog noted the PLO stayed quiet on the Israeli-Lebanon border, but had stepped up its attacks via Jordan, inside Israel, and on international Israeli targets. Herzog was also of the opinion that internal PLO struggles would see it renew hostilities soon.
3) The assassination by the Israeli ambassador to the UK by members of Abu Nidal, a breakaway group from the PLO.
The Guardian said:
The shooting of Argov in June 1982, historians now largely agree, provided the pretext that Begin and Sharon were waiting for. When told by intelligence officials that the ambassador’s would-be assassin had been dispatched by a group that had enthusiastically killed many of Arafat’s closest aides and allies, Begin and top military officials were unimpressed. “Abu Nidal, Abu Schmidal, they are all PLO,” chief of staff Rafael Eitan said.

Herzog also noted that Israel wanted to invade Lebanon earlier in the year, in April, hoping that the US wouldn't object out of fear of Israeli backtracking on its withdrawal from the Sinai. However, heavy US pressure forced Israel with abandon plans to invade Lebanon early in 1982.

*Writing in the aptly titled book "Arab-Israeli Wars: War and Peace in the Middle East from the War of Independence through Lebanon.
 

strangely upto this month ı would never see maps of this kind on the web . If one counts Palestine and Lebanon and Syria , the Northern border clearly involves more ... Like it will still be some time before Bibi crosses the Blacksea to help with the project or something .
 
It wanted to finish the job of annihilating the Palestinians driven out of Palestine 30 years earlier.
It's impressive how you can (rightly) blame people for being simplistic when they ignore all the events which led to the fight against Israel by Palestinians, yet can just turn around and do the exact same things when it's convenient for you.
But hey, as someone you closely know already said, "it's okay when my side does it".

Notice that I don't support the callous way Israel has been blasting civilians left and right, all in an attempt by what is for all intent and purpose a power-hungry terrorist simply trying to evade corruption charge, and supported by fanatics who are happy to see the world burn for their zealotry. Israel is making its bed and will have to lie with it, and the more they go down the rabbit hole, the more they are deserving the fallout that they might get in the end. Nor do I have any more sympathy for Hezbollah.
But well, the hypocrisy is hard to stomach.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom