• nonailsleft@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    1 month ago

    Do you think the current situation is going to turn out better than if Hezbollah hadn’t attacked?

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      In Lebanon? Probably not, by definition. In Palestine? Almost definitely yes.

      Edited because I misread/misinterpreted better as worse.

      • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        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

          • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            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

            • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 month ago

              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?

              • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                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

                • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  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.

                  • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    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

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Do you think hezbollah is attacking because of the ethnic cleansing already going on via “settlers” or nah?

      • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I think Hezbollah was fantasizing about doing some ethnic cleansing from the moment they were formed