It's been the case in all the previous wars fought in Lebanon.

The question is why do people keep falling for the arguments against Israel when clearly Israel was attacked from Lebanon, is not attacking any neighbor that does not attack it, and is responding just like any other normal country would when it is attacked.

▲

ahhhhnoooo 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I think you might be the one falling for propaganda, my friend. Hamas is evil. Hezbollah is evil. Their behavior is indefensible.

Responding by leveling the homes of millions of civilians, holding people in an open air prison. Limiting food, water, and medicine, killing journalists, building an apartheid state, systematically using rape as a means of controlling prisoners, deploying white phosphorus on civilian populations.... these are not just or reasonable responses.

Israel's actions are truly horrifying in scale. The violence aimed at civilians, the systemic abuse of people just trying to survive on subsistence.

I'm not falling for any arguments. I'm simply observing what Israel is doing and saying, "this is truly awful. The scale of misery they are deploying against their enemies is unconscionable."

▲

oa335 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Israel … is not attacking any neighbor that does not attack it

Incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_attack_on_Doha

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_airstrike_on_the_Irani...

	▲	YZF 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Israel went after Hamas in Doha and not after Qatar as a country. Does this really prove your point? EDIT: exploring the legality of this with AI: The "Unwilling or Unable" Doctrine: A major debate in international law is whether a state can use force in self-defense against a non-state actor located in another sovereign state. Some nations (like the US and Israel) argue for the "unwilling or unable" standard. This doctrine suggests that if a host state (e.g., Qatar) is unwilling or unable to stop a non-state actor (e.g., Hamas) from using its territory to direct or launch attacks, the victim state (Israel) has the right to use force within the host state's borders to defend itself. Violations of Sovereignty: Conversely, many states and legal experts reject the "unwilling or unable" doctrine. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter strictly prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of another state. From this viewpoint, executing a strike in Qatar without Qatari consent or a UN Security Council mandate would be viewed as an illegal act of aggression and a violation of Qatar's sovereignty. I think my overall point still stands though that in the absences of aggression towards Israel Israel would not be attacking. The exact threshold though is obviously something we debate- e.g. whether simply hosting the leadership of Hamas is enough of a reason to take military action. But it's a reason (i.e. Israel had some self-defense justification).