getting the settlers back to the North seems like a big enough political win. and breaking the solidarity of the resistance isolating Hamas would be huge.

more info here

https://www.motherjones.com/politics...thony-blinken/

Hundreds of rockets launched at civilians isn't "restrained" by any objective standard other than one of sheer apathy and numbness.

Yes Hizbollah could have done more but Israel is the only country asked to take that **** lying down.

And to the extent Hizbollah chose to not do more it's because Israel kicked its ass before and Hizbollah did not want to repeat that experience.

It's Israel's prerogative to restore deterrence and the entire international community needs to do some soul searching on the incentive structure it has put in place for the terrorists in the region.

In response to Bubbles post, It really is clownish how liberals just normalize and euphemize extreme violence as long as it is coded "resistance."

There is nothing restrained about having a giant foreign funded private army sitting on the border of another nation (in violation of a UN treaty they signed less than 20 years ago), threatening that nation repeatedly over decades, and then firing thousands of drones and rockets into said nation

That is a declaration of war. And if the world order wasn't a giant epistemological wasteland and moral failure the entire world would be aiding Israel unconditionally to get rid of Hezbollah.

Holocaust scholar Omer Bartov explains why it's genocide.

yes it would definitely be easier to murder and steal land if the occupants didnt shoot back.

Pretty funny how someone who struggled recently with people intentionally not reading the word “relatively” in their post is doing the same now when it suits them.

As far as I’m aware, Hezbollah has focused on military targets since Oct 8. Yes, of course the restraint is because they fear retribution. The point is that that makes them a somewhat rational player, more so than Hamas.

No serious critics are saying the bolded. They’re rightly pointing out Israel’s hypocrisy and refusal to acknowledge its own part in the creation of this situation.

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Israel lives in peace next to the country of Palestine, a fully self controlled, self governed entity (much like it does with Egypt and Jordan).
4) Should it choose to attack Israel again, the country of Palestine would then be fair game to completely destroy in a completely legitimate war, and then lose tremendous amounts of land and resources, as this is what happens after any war between 2 independent countries.
5) #4 is why Hamas does not want an independent country. It is why they want to destroy Israel, instead. Hamas would never stop attacking Israel, even if they ruled an independent country.

Now answer my original question.

I haven’t mentioned nor do I buy the arguments of resistance from the left so don’t put words in my mouth. You as usual have trouble reading. I said relatively restrained. As in, they’re not a completely suicidal death cult. They’re making calculations for their survival. Meaning they can potentially be reasoned with. This has nothing to do with morality.

Do you guys just read nothing but straight far-right news? My opinions on this subject are basically straight out of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The Economist, etc. It’s hardly some lefty Islamist apologia to notice that Hezbollah and Iran have been relatively (there’s that word again) hesitant and calculating in their actions since Oct. 7.

The vast majority of their rockets having no aiming mechanism, and the casualty ratio of civilians to soldiers they have killed is 1:1.

How in the world can you claim a group that has fired thousands of rockets with no aiming mechanism to be "focusing on military targets."

It is actually interesting seeing all the Hezbollah rockets fired at Israeli coastal communities landing in the ocean (Iron Dome calculates they pose no harm to civilians and doesn't shoot them down) and realize just how much work Iron Dome is doing keeping the people of Israel safe from Hezbollah's random rocket fire.

Your position is moot. Israel has finished absorbing the West Bank and stated openly that it will not allow a Palestinian state.

The only moral position remaining is that Palestinians of the WB and Gaza should have the right to vote, with full civil rights in a non-apartheid state.

Since the Arabs would then be the majority, the proper conclusion would be a democratic, binational Palestine.

No, Israel does not have the right to exist as an apartheid state.

Their (IRI and basically Hezbollah, which functions as an Iranian proxy) literal goal, which they dont hide at all, is complete destruction of Israel. They just calculate what you call "restraint" is the best way to get there.

If a serial killer only kills one person a year to lessen their chances of being caught, do you think it a good idea to praise them for their "restraint." I dont.

Nasrallah practically alone at the top.