one side needs to be completely annihilated for the other to know peace
The people making up Hezbollah do not need to be annihilated for that. Hezbollah needs to retreat above the Litani and surrender their weapons to Lebanon
because you had a hunch the side that was honoring it was only doing so as some kind of trick
Well that’s, indeed, where we differ. And why I posted that article of Hezbollah boasting that they used the previous ceasefire to do exactly that.
Imagine your neighbours attacked your family and when you fight them back into their basement they shout “Time-out! Ceasefire!!”.
Sure, you might want to give peace a chance and act righteous.
But now imagine that this already happened numerous times before. After you agreed to a ceasefire last year, they’ve been posting on facebook how they tricked you and restocked their ammo. How eager would you be to, again, agree to a ceasefire in that scenario? How (un)reasonable would it be to at least make them move a few blocks (so they can’t shoot your family as easily) part of that ceasefire deal?
No, you’re factually wrong here. Israel is not fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, they’re fighting the Lebanese people. They have declared the south of Lebanon as a “Shia-free” zone. They are trying to commit a genocide exactly as they are committing genocide in the West Bank and in Gaza. Retreat past the Litani will not stop them.
In any case. You have now openly admitted that you do not believe in a ceasefire, so I don’t know what the point is of arguing whether it was one side or the other that refused to honor it. I think you perfectly exemplify the reasoning of Zionists - you don’t need to honor an agreement, because the other side wasn’t going to honor it so you were just smart and broke it first!
And by the way, MEE isn’t the Media wing of Hezbollah, so the article you linked says 0. And even if it was threir official news channel, so what? Oh they said something that triggered you so now you have to bomb schools?
Sounds exactly like the apologism for America’s war. Some Iranians said “death to America,” and that somehow justifies the use of actual violence.
It is impossible for a reasonable person to engage with this kind of actual mental illness in good faith. I’m sorry. Fuck you and your shitty genocide apologism.
That is the only way to read your post. You’re holding a London-based editorial article as “proof” that a different organization wasn’t doing what they were literally doing. Hezbollah honored the ceasefire for a month while Beirut was being bombed every single day, but your editorial article makes it okay.
The editorial board of newspapers often provide commentary that isn’t strictly news, but rather the opinion of the staff or other contributors. They use that space to explain the context of the news cycle as they see it. It’s okay that it’s subjective because it is not presented as news.
The article that you linked is written by a regular contributor to MEE, who notably is not a member of the staff or editorial board. But even if he was, it’s still an independent news outlet and not the voice of Hezbollah. And even if it was Hezbollah’s media wing, them just saying something probably could not excuse a genocide, you know.
First of all, you’re the one linking this article and claiming it as evidence. This is an editorial at best, or an opinion piece. You decide.
I’m giving you credit by granting it the status of an editorial article, on account of the writer being a regular contributor and supposedly close to the editors. If you want to downgrade your own evidence, that’s fine by me.
The people making up Hezbollah do not need to be annihilated for that. Hezbollah needs to retreat above the Litani and surrender their weapons to Lebanon
Well that’s, indeed, where we differ. And why I posted that article of Hezbollah boasting that they used the previous ceasefire to do exactly that.
Imagine your neighbours attacked your family and when you fight them back into their basement they shout “Time-out! Ceasefire!!”.
Sure, you might want to give peace a chance and act righteous. But now imagine that this already happened numerous times before. After you agreed to a ceasefire last year, they’ve been posting on facebook how they tricked you and restocked their ammo. How eager would you be to, again, agree to a ceasefire in that scenario? How (un)reasonable would it be to at least make them move a few blocks (so they can’t shoot your family as easily) part of that ceasefire deal?
No, you’re factually wrong here. Israel is not fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, they’re fighting the Lebanese people. They have declared the south of Lebanon as a “Shia-free” zone. They are trying to commit a genocide exactly as they are committing genocide in the West Bank and in Gaza. Retreat past the Litani will not stop them.
In any case. You have now openly admitted that you do not believe in a ceasefire, so I don’t know what the point is of arguing whether it was one side or the other that refused to honor it. I think you perfectly exemplify the reasoning of Zionists - you don’t need to honor an agreement, because the other side wasn’t going to honor it so you were just smart and broke it first!
And by the way, MEE isn’t the Media wing of Hezbollah, so the article you linked says 0. And even if it was threir official news channel, so what? Oh they said something that triggered you so now you have to bomb schools?
Sounds exactly like the apologism for America’s war. Some Iranians said “death to America,” and that somehow justifies the use of actual violence.
It is impossible for a reasonable person to engage with this kind of actual mental illness in good faith. I’m sorry. Fuck you and your shitty genocide apologism.
They said something so now I have to bomb schools? I’m sorry if that’s what you read in my post
That is the only way to read your post. You’re holding a London-based editorial article as “proof” that a different organization wasn’t doing what they were literally doing. Hezbollah honored the ceasefire for a month while Beirut was being bombed every single day, but your editorial article makes it okay.
What do you mean by ‘editorial article’?
The editorial board of newspapers often provide commentary that isn’t strictly news, but rather the opinion of the staff or other contributors. They use that space to explain the context of the news cycle as they see it. It’s okay that it’s subjective because it is not presented as news.
The article that you linked is written by a regular contributor to MEE, who notably is not a member of the staff or editorial board. But even if he was, it’s still an independent news outlet and not the voice of Hezbollah. And even if it was Hezbollah’s media wing, them just saying something probably could not excuse a genocide, you know.
Why would you call it an editorial article if it’s not an opinion piece written by the editors?
First of all, you’re the one linking this article and claiming it as evidence. This is an editorial at best, or an opinion piece. You decide.
I’m giving you credit by granting it the status of an editorial article, on account of the writer being a regular contributor and supposedly close to the editors. If you want to downgrade your own evidence, that’s fine by me.
How could it ever be an editorial if it’s not written by an editor?