overview for nonailsleft

The reality (sadly) is that because of all the violence a majority of Israelis has given up on a two-state solution. Settlement of the West-Bank has lost internal opposition.

That's a reality that's hard to swallow for normal people, but it's a reality that politicians have to aknowlegde. Outside pressure can slow it down or accelerate it (eg. Trump), but those 500k settlers are never going to move out, not even when the US stops all weapon shipments today. Now, when you've accepted that reality the question goes back to do you think the world is better with Israel existing or with Iran winning (and very likely putting a genocide on Israel's population)?

Saying Israel can't strike back at Hezbollah like this because "you can't accept the horrors" is just going make the world worse, as you don't have a solution for the other side "doing whatever they please" (as in attacking Israel in perpetuity)

Doctors Describe the Horror of Israel’s Pager Attack in Lebanon in c/news@lemmy.world

[+] nonailsleft@lemm.ee -6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

They asked why the West was letting Israel get away with so much. Then listed various examples of things that are causing widespread harm to civilians.

They didn't really list anything but some superficial simplifications. 'The West' let Israel get away with 'Palestine'. They let them get away with 'terrorist tactics' and 'Lebanon'. Are these vague accusations 'causing widespread harm to civilians'? I think they deserve more discussion than to just say they did 'a Lebanon' and call it an open and shut case Johnson...

So the West is not letting Hezbollah get away with it.

Meanwhile the West continues to provide weapons to Israel, who is using those weapons to cause significant harm to civilian populations.

Hezbollah (and Hamas) are being armed and supported by Iran. Now everyone knows that the zionists will not see the paradise they crave in the afterlife, but if you're working towards a better world you can't ignore the fact that Iran and the conservative extremist movement they are part of are even worse. 'The West' can ignore that and let the people of Israel get genocided by even worse people, or they can hope for a stalemate (which means they have to support Israel) or a win for Israel (which means they have to support Israel). In any case, not supporting Israel will result in the faction vying for things like legalised child rape (amongst other horrific shit) will win. That will result in a worse world by any measure.

That’s the question. Why is the West letting Israel attack civilians without repercussion? There’s no reason in good faith to ask someone who asks this question about how they feel about Hezbollah attacking civilians. Because, ostensibly, they are opposed to violence against civilians. As, clearly, is the West when it’s not Israel (or, indeed, the West) perpetrating the violence.

When fighting extremists that blend into a civilian population, it's impossible to be effective without causing civilian deaths. In cases like Mosul or Raqqa, you reach a point where you have to turn the dial past the marker because you just can't destroy them without hurting any civilians. When 'the West' fought the nazi's, they broadly went over that line because not doing so would have just resulted in more suffering for more people.