Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group fired dozens of rockets and shells on Sunday at three Israeli positions in a disputed area along the country’s border with Syria’s Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
Hezbollah said in a statement that the attack using “large numbers of rockets and shells” was in solidarity with the “Palestinian resistance.” It said the Israeli positions were directly hit.
Israel’s military fired back at the Lebanese areas, but there was no immediate word on casualties.
deleted by creator
This horrible situation will forever continue to rear it’s ugly head until the west are willing to back a two state solution.
The west has been supporting a two state solution since at least 1993.
Technically the west has supported a two state solution since 1937.
That’s why Israel is getting 38 billion dollars (!) in a ten year period from the US, everyone knows you need an absurd amount of military equipment to reach a consensual two state solution.
It kind of is, yes.
If Israel didn’t have military hegemony in the region, there certainly wouldn’t be any two-state solution that would include an Israel or any form of jewish nation.
Surely you understand the meaning of consensual.
I don’t see how the military hegemony you openly spouse could lead to any sort of consensual agreement. Hegemony, by definition, is directly opposed to consensus.
Next thing you’ll tell me the settler colonialism and de facto apartheid state Israel is directly enabling are absolutely necessary, for geopolitical reasons obviously.
Besides all that, if the point you’re trying to make is that Israel needs the military spending to maintain its territorial integrity, I seriously question they would need 38bn USD in foreign aid just for that.
And that would be ignoring the fact Israel has been increasingly extending its territorial integrity over palestinian land for the duration of the conflict, and will continue to do so. Not a lot of “two-state solution” in that.Is it “consensual” if one party in a war surrenders to the terms of the victor after a military defeat? I’m not sure this is the right concept to apply here.
What I’m saying is that Israel has had military hegemony for quite some time and has made several attempts to negotiate a peace (of course on their terms). A two-state solution was at least on the table.
I just can’t see this happening in a scenario if the power was reversed. The charters of the Palestinian militant groups makes it very clear that their goal is total military victory.
So yes, if you want the prospect of a two-state solution, you have to support Israel.
And that would be ignoring the fact Israel has been increasingly extending its territorial integrity over palestinian land for the duration of the conflict, and will continue to do so. Not a lot of “two-state solution” in that.
I mean, of course. After negotiate fail and fighting resums, your objective is to get into a more favourable position for the next round of negotiate. That’s how this works.
But at this point I agree that Israel has also given up on a two-state solutuion. That’s why they switched to slow annexation by settlemts in the west bank. And we’ll see what happens to gaza, soon.
I don’t think western influence will be enough, this will keep going so long as both sides are chasing revenge. Israel escalated by attacking Palestinians in a mosque on a holy day, Palestine escalated by attacking a synagogue on a holy day but more intensely, Israel will then escalate by invading.
The USA alone provides Israel with $3.8bn of military aid per year. Western influence might not be all that is needed, but I can’t see how it wouldn’t have a substantial effect.
We were able to recognise that Nelson Mandela wasn’t only not a terrorist, but a hero. Now it’s time for us to take an intellectually honest look at what the government of Israel’s policies are doing to the Palestinian people.
The west should not only stop direct support of Israel, but cut all ties.
Us aid should be made contigent on abiding by a new set of accords
Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, and also a hero.
Being a terrorist, objectively with no emotional connotations connected, is about tactics. Plenty of freedom fighters use terroristic tactics. Plenty of groups that aren’t labelled terrorists use terrorist tactics. A key strategy in warfare is to inspire fear in your enemies. The underdog always has these tactics in his back pocket, and often it’s his most powerful weapon. Sometimes he’s a brute and a wannabe dictator or aspiring genocide committer, sometimes he’s a freedom fighter, often enough he’s both.
At the end of the day, all warfare involves killing people for strategic reasons. It’s brutal. Hurling mud with the word “terrorist” does nobody any good in understanding the situation. It is very useful though in propagandizing a population and bypassing their critical thinking capability for an emotional reaction. Sanitizing war though as if there’s a good boy type behavior and a bad boy type behavior is senseless. In war, the worst things that can happen to people happen to people, always and forever. People engaging in war do what they need to do. Whether its right or wrong depends on whether you buy their narrative about their motivations, and whether you have unwavering universally applied principles of right and wrong.
The region needs UN peacekeeping forces
I dunno, the two peoples really need to be separated somehow. At this point, the only way to prevent conflict is to keep them apart, with both moved away from the holy site they both claim and fight over.
It’s literally only Palestine that doesn’t back a two state solution.
Israel accepted the two state solution originally that gave Palestine all the territory they currently claim, and made Jerusalem an internationally controlled territory not owned by either state.
Palestine rejected it and started murdering civilians.
