Sounds to me like this is just signature strikes but replacing the analysts with AI.
And to think many would cheer if it were being applied to ends they approve of (enforcing some petty domestic law with fines and bureaucrats instead of taking foreign soil with bombs and soldiers, or whatever).
>a small village less than three miles from the Israeli border which had turned into a battlefield during Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah in 2024.
Classic New York Times style writing. This sentence should say “Israel attacked this village as part of its invasion of southern Lebanon and Hezbollah defended it”
Imagine if this whitewashing were done to Russia: Karkiv, a small city 10 miles from the Russian boarder which had turned into a battlefield during Russia’s campaign against Zelenski in 2022”
Some combination of America being Beirut’s security patron, not wanting to get into a shooting match with the emerging regional hegemon and being underpowered relative to both Israel and Hezbollah.
The LAF is kitting up to disarm Hezbollah, which is now a de facto Iranian occupying force. It could then, with foreign assistance, most likely, start working toward securing its southern border. (Lebanon probably needs a new constitution first. The current one doesn’t empower anyone to negotiate with anyone.)
> the one million Lebanese citizens who just permanently lost their homes just had bad luck
No, the folks up north traded their homes and security for keeping Beirut more or less intact.
Lebanon doesn’t have a great security solution so long as it contains Hezbollah, a force that fights no longer for the Lebanese people but entirely for a foreign leader. For Tehran, keeping a low-boil conflict in southern Lebanon is useful. Same for Hezbollah. Israel and Lebanon should prefer no conflict, though Netanyahu clearly does for personal political reasons.
Israel has to rid itself of Likud. Lebanon of Hezbollah. Fortunately, the LAF has a built-in confidence-building exercise in disarming Hezbollah (initially within a green zone).
> Beirut (the parts where Hezbollah has the biggest presence, granted) is bombarded every few days
Not in the way it would be if Lebanon declared war on Israel.
> Lebanese people seem to view that differently
Lebanon is uniquely diverse. The Lebanese I know absolutely see it this way, and with justification. (To be clear, that doesn’t make them peachy towards Israel doing the same.)
> with regards to the wars, there is little the opposition would do differently
Oof, I suspect you’re right. A unilateral course, then: the LAF disarms Hezbollah and then restores the Lebanese state’s monopoly on violence within its borders. Ideally timed to a change in political winds for Tel Aviv in America. Possibly with Turkish or even Saudi support. (Not holding my breath for the EU.)
The problem I see: Even if Lebanon did that, there is still no guarantee that Israel would retreat from the areas in the south they occupied. Or even just that they'd stop with the airstrikes (they didn't stop during the previous ceasefire).
The political climate inside Israel seems to become more fundamentalist and belligerent, not less.
So there has to be an outside force that applies pressure to Israel. The only state able to do that is the US - but the US don't seem to be willing to do it.
Same with the Palestinians. Disarming Hezbollah would - very conveniently - remove one of the few remaining protective forces the Palestinians still have. So what would remain then?
> Everyone knows Israel invaded and occupied Palestine starting in 1948
The moral lines in Palestine are blurry. I don’t think that’s the case with Hezbollah in Lebanon. The former acts just as much as a foreign occupier as Israel does in its occupied territories.
The moral lines in Palestine are not even remotely "blurry", you're just a Zionist who has been spewing the most washed up and out of touch hasbara since the Genocide began. Give it a rest already, no one buys your washed up Zionist propaganda any longer.
> moral lines in Palestine are not even remotely "blurry"
Of course they are. The October 7 attacks were horrible. And the limited polling we get out of Palestine suggests they remain popular.
If you want non-blurry horrors, see e.g. Sudan or, frankly, Lebanon ex Hezbollah. Those are civilian populations being brutalized through not even any remote contribution of their own.
> you're just a Zionist
Genuinely don’t know what this means. I think nobody in current Israel or Palestine should be dying over borders and that both peoples have a right to a nation-state (or compensation they democratically agree to in exchange). If that makes me a Zionist, sure.
> Killing 70.000 as revenge for 1200 is not particularly blurry
It’s not. It’s horribly wrong. But lines are drawn from both sides.
In my opinion, there isn’t a terribly sympathetic party in that war. Just two sides that deserve to live and don’t acknowledge that right in the other, with one having overwhelming firepower to prosecute its belief.
To make an analogy, the nuking of Japan is morally blurry even if the Japanese Empire (and the use of nuclear weapons) were each, individually, clearly morally wrong.
> maybe we shouldn't go out of our way to support one of those sides
Yes. We shouldn’t be providing any financial or military aid to Israel. And we should pass into law a process, subject to judicial oversight, that bars even weapons sales to countries systematically engaging in war crimes.
There is bipartisan agreement on the first point. I think there could be on the second. The problem is both sides’ activists are so polarized on this issue that everyone in the middle must choose between being vilified by both sides (Exhibit A: the angry dude in this thread) or ignoring the issue. (Admittedly, I’ve taken the second path.)
> There is bipartisan agreement on the first point.
I don't see how this can be true. The last initiatives to stop weapon sales all died in the House (although with shrinking majorities). Meanwhile weapon sales, military and intelligence cooperation and diplomatic protection continue with no change.
By now a majority among the US population has changed their mind on Israel - but the actual decisionmakers haven't and I don't see that they will in the future either.
> And we should pass into law a process, subject to judicial oversight, that bars even weapons sales to countries systematically engaging in war crimes.
> don't see how this can be true. The last initiatives to stop weapon sales all died in the House
Sorry, I meant among likely voters. Barring Trump and Netanyahu personally falling out, MAGA can’t piss the latter off. That locks what can happen until ‘28 (‘26 if November is wild).
> a majority among the US population has changed their mind on Israel
Yes and no. Yes, in that the balance has shifted. (And markedly in the Democratic party.) No, as in this isn’t a deciding issue in almost all districts. Put another way, the polarity has shifted, but the magnitude has not, even if this is rating pretty high for a foreign policy issue.
That’s why I think cutting aid is doable. You unite the isolationists on the right with the majority of the left, thereby turning the usual weakness of foreign policy—voters’ apathy towards it—into a strength. (Gutting foreign aid is usually popular by default.)
We will not let you "both sides" a Genocide and I'm frankly tired of your Zionist gaslighting rhetoric. You really think that people are so stupid to still take this bait? I don't think so. You still stick to that selective outrage complaining about Oct 7, while the entire history of Israel is founded upon a multitude of massacres and mass-graves of Palestinians in the Nakba, Tantura and co, yet you're still trying to pretend that history started at some recent convenient date for your Zionist victim narrative. No one buys your deceptive faux-neutral rhetoric, it's ineffective and outright embarrassing.
Are you saying that Israel intentionally targets civilians? As a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, Israel is obligated to protect civilians and civilian populations from all dangers arising from military operations, and Israel is prohibited from direct attacks on civilians. The IDF must distinguish between civilian and military objectives and take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize incidental loss of civilian life. Civilians lose protected status only if they take a direct part in hostilities.
As someone who has lost family and continues to. Have you not been paying attention to what has happened in Gaza? Conservatively.. Well over 20,000 children killed in Gaza alone. What would you call that?
I also recommend looking into an Ai system developed by the Israeli's called "Where's Daddy". Admittedly used during the the Gaza campaign by IOF themselves.
>Are you saying that Israel intentionally targets civilians?
Yes.
>As a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, Israel is obligated to protect civilians and civilian populations from all dangers arising from military operations, and Israel is prohibited from direct attacks on civilians.
They dont do it.
>The IDF must distinguish between civilian and military
“His family described him as a former fighter for the militant Islamist group, but who in his older age had taken an administrative role”
…this sounds like a valid military target. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that, bewilderingly, has declared war on Israel. Whether or not Israel should be mucking around in southern Lebanon is somewhat orthogonal to the validity of an attack on such a man. (And being able to reduce civilian casualties with a phone call is a good thing.)
Given the IDF’s record, I’d assume a more-sympathetic target could be found.
Would you say the same about a 40 year old suburban USA dad who is a Walmart store manager, who served in the US army for 8 years in his twenties? Is that a "valid military target"? Can Iran drop a bomb on the Walmart that he works in?
No, that’s the point, Israel wants their civilians to not be targeted even though many/ most of them have served in the IDF, but they targeted this man.
There's certainly a good case to be made that Israel basically shaped Hezbollah into its current form as a terrorist organization. It's understandable, but not excusable. There's no excuse for a terrorist organization, on either side of the border.
There seems to be enough excuses for the US congress tho, they weren't that bothered to aid and abet the extermination of Palestinians with bunker buster bombs that wiped out entire bloodlines. Unless you mean that there is no excuse for a "terrorist" organization that is not the ally of the USA.
> There's no excuse for a terrorist organization, on either side of the border.
I disagree; consider Jewish resistance fighters during the holocaust. Should they not have fought back any way they could? Terrorism can be excused when the circumstances are sufficiently dire.
Need proof? https://archive.is/OxOqn
And to think many would cheer if it were being applied to ends they approve of (enforcing some petty domestic law with fines and bureaucrats instead of taking foreign soil with bombs and soldiers, or whatever).
Classic New York Times style writing. This sentence should say “Israel attacked this village as part of its invasion of southern Lebanon and Hezbollah defended it”
Imagine if this whitewashing were done to Russia: Karkiv, a small city 10 miles from the Russian boarder which had turned into a battlefield during Russia’s campaign against Zelenski in 2022”
Some combination of America being Beirut’s security patron, not wanting to get into a shooting match with the emerging regional hegemon and being underpowered relative to both Israel and Hezbollah.
The LAF is kitting up to disarm Hezbollah, which is now a de facto Iranian occupying force. It could then, with foreign assistance, most likely, start working toward securing its southern border. (Lebanon probably needs a new constitution first. The current one doesn’t empower anyone to negotiate with anyone.)
No, the folks up north traded their homes and security for keeping Beirut more or less intact.
Lebanon doesn’t have a great security solution so long as it contains Hezbollah, a force that fights no longer for the Lebanese people but entirely for a foreign leader. For Tehran, keeping a low-boil conflict in southern Lebanon is useful. Same for Hezbollah. Israel and Lebanon should prefer no conflict, though Netanyahu clearly does for personal political reasons.
Israel has to rid itself of Likud. Lebanon of Hezbollah. Fortunately, the LAF has a built-in confidence-building exercise in disarming Hezbollah (initially within a green zone).
Beirut (the parts where Hezbollah has the biggest presence, granted) is bombarded every few days...
> a force that fights no longer for the Lebanese people but entirely for a foreign leader.
This is the standard western/Israeli narrative in that regard. The Lebanese people seem to view that differently.
> though Netanyahu clearly does for personal political reasons.
Israel has to rid itself of Likud.
Netanyahu does lots of stuff for personal reasons, but with regards to the wars, there is little the opposition would do differently.
Not in the way it would be if Lebanon declared war on Israel.
> Lebanese people seem to view that differently
Lebanon is uniquely diverse. The Lebanese I know absolutely see it this way, and with justification. (To be clear, that doesn’t make them peachy towards Israel doing the same.)
> with regards to the wars, there is little the opposition would do differently
Oof, I suspect you’re right. A unilateral course, then: the LAF disarms Hezbollah and then restores the Lebanese state’s monopoly on violence within its borders. Ideally timed to a change in political winds for Tel Aviv in America. Possibly with Turkish or even Saudi support. (Not holding my breath for the EU.)
No, why?
The problem I see: Even if Lebanon did that, there is still no guarantee that Israel would retreat from the areas in the south they occupied. Or even just that they'd stop with the airstrikes (they didn't stop during the previous ceasefire).
The political climate inside Israel seems to become more fundamentalist and belligerent, not less.
So there has to be an outside force that applies pressure to Israel. The only state able to do that is the US - but the US don't seem to be willing to do it.
Same with the Palestinians. Disarming Hezbollah would - very conveniently - remove one of the few remaining protective forces the Palestinians still have. So what would remain then?
Sure, they just take 10% of the country.
Which is odd. Since it should be a maritime/trading power and seek to have rich, stable neighbours.
The moral lines in Palestine are blurry. I don’t think that’s the case with Hezbollah in Lebanon. The former acts just as much as a foreign occupier as Israel does in its occupied territories.
Of course they are. The October 7 attacks were horrible. And the limited polling we get out of Palestine suggests they remain popular.
If you want non-blurry horrors, see e.g. Sudan or, frankly, Lebanon ex Hezbollah. Those are civilian populations being brutalized through not even any remote contribution of their own.
> you're just a Zionist
Genuinely don’t know what this means. I think nobody in current Israel or Palestine should be dying over borders and that both peoples have a right to a nation-state (or compensation they democratically agree to in exchange). If that makes me a Zionist, sure.
It’s not. It’s horribly wrong. But lines are drawn from both sides.
In my opinion, there isn’t a terribly sympathetic party in that war. Just two sides that deserve to live and don’t acknowledge that right in the other, with one having overwhelming firepower to prosecute its belief.
To make an analogy, the nuking of Japan is morally blurry even if the Japanese Empire (and the use of nuclear weapons) were each, individually, clearly morally wrong.
Yes. We shouldn’t be providing any financial or military aid to Israel. And we should pass into law a process, subject to judicial oversight, that bars even weapons sales to countries systematically engaging in war crimes.
There is bipartisan agreement on the first point. I think there could be on the second. The problem is both sides’ activists are so polarized on this issue that everyone in the middle must choose between being vilified by both sides (Exhibit A: the angry dude in this thread) or ignoring the issue. (Admittedly, I’ve taken the second path.)
> There is bipartisan agreement on the first point.
I don't see how this can be true. The last initiatives to stop weapon sales all died in the House (although with shrinking majorities). Meanwhile weapon sales, military and intelligence cooperation and diplomatic protection continue with no change.
By now a majority among the US population has changed their mind on Israel - but the actual decisionmakers haven't and I don't see that they will in the future either.
> And we should pass into law a process, subject to judicial oversight, that bars even weapons sales to countries systematically engaging in war crimes.
This law already exists in form of the Leahy Law. Both Biden and Trump refused to apply the law to Israel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy_Law#The_Leahy_Law_and_Is...
Sorry, I meant among likely voters. Barring Trump and Netanyahu personally falling out, MAGA can’t piss the latter off. That locks what can happen until ‘28 (‘26 if November is wild).
> a majority among the US population has changed their mind on Israel
Yes and no. Yes, in that the balance has shifted. (And markedly in the Democratic party.) No, as in this isn’t a deciding issue in almost all districts. Put another way, the polarity has shifted, but the magnitude has not, even if this is rating pretty high for a foreign policy issue.
That’s why I think cutting aid is doable. You unite the isolationists on the right with the majority of the left, thereby turning the usual weakness of foreign policy—voters’ apathy towards it—into a strength. (Gutting foreign aid is usually popular by default.)
I also recommend looking into an Ai system developed by the Israeli's called "Where's Daddy". Admittedly used during the the Gaza campaign by IOF themselves.
Yes.
>As a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, Israel is obligated to protect civilians and civilian populations from all dangers arising from military operations, and Israel is prohibited from direct attacks on civilians.
They dont do it.
>The IDF must distinguish between civilian and military
They do this, then pull the trigger anyway.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
…this sounds like a valid military target. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that, bewilderingly, has declared war on Israel. Whether or not Israel should be mucking around in southern Lebanon is somewhat orthogonal to the validity of an attack on such a man. (And being able to reduce civilian casualties with a phone call is a good thing.)
Given the IDF’s record, I’d assume a more-sympathetic target could be found.
No. But if he’s still on the Army payroll, yes?
Aren’t they? Particularly if they’re still doing work for the IDF or are active reservists.
I disagree; consider Jewish resistance fighters during the holocaust. Should they not have fought back any way they could? Terrorism can be excused when the circumstances are sufficiently dire.