I’m not interested in a “who started it” between genocidal colonists and Hezbollah. Hezbollah didn’t exist when Israel occupied Lebanon, it exists because it did, and it continues to have widespread suppory in Lebanon because Israel continues to be aggressive against all of its neighbors.
What’s interesting is whether the war could have stopped or not. As you know by now, Hezbollah agreed to stop fighting and kept their word while being bombed, giving Israel ample opportunity to get to their senses, if they had any sense to get to.
The point being that the USA did nothing to pressure Israel to stop bombing Lebanon, and hence thr MoU didn’t hold, since that was clause 1.
Why would you use the term “real aggressors” if you’re “not interested in who started it”???
Hezbollah was created for two main reasons:
To drive Israel out of Lebanon
&
To create a Shia heavyweight to influence Lebanon during and post civil war
Israel invaded Lebanon to stop the PLO from attacking them and try to create a christian buffer state. Hezbollah drove Israel out and defeated the PLO. So goal #1 accomplished, no? Then why would they keep attacking Israel from within Lebanon?
Goal #2, having Hezbollah dominate Lebanon politics as a proxy for Syria and Iran, has sure made the country into a paradise. Do you feel that made anything better?
Can you explain how the baseline idea of Hezbollah being allowed to attack Israel, reaching a ceasefire, then rearming to attack Israel again will make anything better?
They announced it directly after the MoU was signed (obviously they were prepared) and they kept their word for a month, while Israel was bombing Beirut every single day.
Ah yes, so what you really meant to say was that they agreed to temporarily stop attacking Israel
Why would you leave that out?
Anyway, the US did strongarm Israel into making a deal to freeze the situation in Lebanon. But of course not the way Iran and Hezbollah wanted it to. They wanted to give Hezbollah an opportunity to regroup and rearm for the next attack on Israel
Here’s a pretty objective article on the matter (which includes an important second angle besides the matter in Lebanon that caused the division in the Iranian regime)
No, they agreed to stop attacking Israel. There was no implication that they’d start again based on time passed. It is your interpretation that this was only tactical to allow them to regroup/rearm, and you’re entitled to interpret the facts in whichever way you like.
Not sure what insight you think the linked article is bringing. We were discussing why the Iran-US MoU collapsed, and your claim was that Iran broke the ceasefire. Do you think that the Guardian article supports your claim? I don’t think it does.
That article is exactly about why the MoU collapsed, as it touched on the matter that both sides had different interpretations of the vague stipulations. For the US, forcing Israel to come to an agreement with Lebanon was enough, while for Iran it wasn’t. For Iran, it said that they would get control over shipping in the Strait immediately, while for the US it didn’t.
As to “who broke the ceasefire”: I was replying to the statement that “the US broke it’s own ceasefire”, which implied that was about the situation in the Strait between the US and Iran and not about Hezbollah and Israel on the other side of the Middle East.
There was no implication that they’d start again based on time passed. It is your interpretation that this was only tactical to allow them to regroup/rearm, and you’re entitled to interpret the facts in whichever way you like.
Yeah you’d have to be childishly naive to believe or at least act the part to claim that that is up for interpretation
Here’s a pretty subjective article boasting how Hezbollah used the last ceasefire to rebuild for their next attack
Israel is a settler colonial power it’s goal is the steal people land and ethnically cleansing people from it . Such a country has zero right to defend itself , it is the agressor.
I’m not interested in a “who started it” between genocidal colonists and Hezbollah. Hezbollah didn’t exist when Israel occupied Lebanon, it exists because it did, and it continues to have widespread suppory in Lebanon because Israel continues to be aggressive against all of its neighbors.
What’s interesting is whether the war could have stopped or not. As you know by now, Hezbollah agreed to stop fighting and kept their word while being bombed, giving Israel ample opportunity to get to their senses, if they had any sense to get to.
The point being that the USA did nothing to pressure Israel to stop bombing Lebanon, and hence thr MoU didn’t hold, since that was clause 1.
Why would you use the term “real aggressors” if you’re “not interested in who started it”???
Hezbollah was created for two main reasons:
To drive Israel out of Lebanon & To create a Shia heavyweight to influence Lebanon during and post civil war
Israel invaded Lebanon to stop the PLO from attacking them and try to create a christian buffer state. Hezbollah drove Israel out and defeated the PLO. So goal #1 accomplished, no? Then why would they keep attacking Israel from within Lebanon?
Goal #2, having Hezbollah dominate Lebanon politics as a proxy for Syria and Iran, has sure made the country into a paradise. Do you feel that made anything better?
Can you explain how the baseline idea of Hezbollah being allowed to attack Israel, reaching a ceasefire, then rearming to attack Israel again will make anything better?
So many dead
Bla bla bla. Do you deny that Hezbollah agreed to stop attacking Israel?
He seems to deny Israel is a settler colonial power and deny genocide
Yes, but he also seems to deny the sequence of events as they transpired even a few months ago.
When?
They announced it directly after the MoU was signed (obviously they were prepared) and they kept their word for a month, while Israel was bombing Beirut every single day.
Ah yes, so what you really meant to say was that they agreed to temporarily stop attacking Israel
Why would you leave that out?
Anyway, the US did strongarm Israel into making a deal to freeze the situation in Lebanon. But of course not the way Iran and Hezbollah wanted it to. They wanted to give Hezbollah an opportunity to regroup and rearm for the next attack on Israel
Here’s a pretty objective article on the matter (which includes an important second angle besides the matter in Lebanon that caused the division in the Iranian regime)
No, they agreed to stop attacking Israel. There was no implication that they’d start again based on time passed. It is your interpretation that this was only tactical to allow them to regroup/rearm, and you’re entitled to interpret the facts in whichever way you like.
Not sure what insight you think the linked article is bringing. We were discussing why the Iran-US MoU collapsed, and your claim was that Iran broke the ceasefire. Do you think that the Guardian article supports your claim? I don’t think it does.
That article is exactly about why the MoU collapsed, as it touched on the matter that both sides had different interpretations of the vague stipulations. For the US, forcing Israel to come to an agreement with Lebanon was enough, while for Iran it wasn’t. For Iran, it said that they would get control over shipping in the Strait immediately, while for the US it didn’t.
As to “who broke the ceasefire”: I was replying to the statement that “the US broke it’s own ceasefire”, which implied that was about the situation in the Strait between the US and Iran and not about Hezbollah and Israel on the other side of the Middle East.
Yeah you’d have to be childishly naive to believe or at least act the part to claim that that is up for interpretation
Here’s a pretty subjective article boasting how Hezbollah used the last ceasefire to rebuild for their next attack
Israel is a settler colonial power it’s goal is the steal people land and ethnically cleansing people from it . Such a country has zero right to defend itself , it is the agressor.