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.
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.
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.
No, nitpicking is how you arrive at the truth. And the truth is that Israel are genocidal aggressors. But the truth is also that Hezbollah are aggressors.
Calling any criticism of Israel’s enemies “Hasbara” is the exact same bullshit as Israel calling criticism “Antisemitism”. Different side of the same shit coin.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Wut? Israel has been attacking Lebanon for decades because of their “greater” Israel jerk-off fantasies.
literally the next fucking paragraph in my comment.
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.
Nitpicking is not an argument, it’s hasbara.
No, nitpicking is how you arrive at the truth. And the truth is that Israel are genocidal aggressors. But the truth is also that Hezbollah are aggressors.
Calling any criticism of Israel’s enemies “Hasbara” is the exact same bullshit as Israel calling criticism “Antisemitism”. Different side of the same shit coin.
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.
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.
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?