I don’t think anyone is making the point that it’s literally the exact same thing.
But what we’re witnessing is that Israel can bomb a civilian population to rubble for months and months, and all the intensional community can stutter out is that they “have a right to defend themselves”.
Now they are bombing a foreign capital and sending in ground troops to their neighbouring country to fight off a militia that they themselves are responsible for creating by invading in the past, and we know exactly what the chorus will be. Right to defend themselves.
We will see our Lebanese friends and their families murdered, all for Israel’s right to defend themselves.
In Germany, the line was that they would stop at Poland. People make up different excuses for different atrocities.
I think a lot of people are rightfully fucking tired of excuses, and that’s the point. Not that it’s literally the same thing.
man some of these comments are so hard to understand.
You can’t fight against a militia that you created? So you can’t do war at all now? Russia can’t invade countries like Switzerland and Finland due to them having a lot of military presence?
The US can’t fight russia if they decide to invade the US since the US arguably had some influence over the death of the USSR being a superpower at the time of the coldwar.
Who cares if they in part created that millitia, it should only matter if one side wants to aggress the otherside, otherwise all bets are off. If both sides want to sit there and engage in military posturing, they’re free to do so, if one wants to aggress the other, they’re free to do so.
I see people saying that lebanon, and palestine are allowed to defend themselves, and i don’t think anybody disagrees, but it implies that you either think neither of these countries have a capable military force, or that israel is somehow not allowed to defend itself? Which either means you think israel is the aggressor in every instance here, all the way back to the founding of israel, which seems like an odd position to hold because that would be theoretically easy to fact check. Or that israel shouldn’t do anything in response to getting attacked because they have a bigger stronger military or something?
The person who first said “Germany has the right to defend themselves” was making a fairly nuanced point. That is, you can be the aggressor and still of course retain the right to defend yourself. Claiming “X has the right to defend itself!” is a deflective statement meant to justify disproportionate violence as we’ve seen in Gaza and now the West Bank.
That’s an interesting take. I think you should ideally be invited before your military march into a foreign country and start bombing in order to claim it’s not an invasion. It’s not one of those things you can assume you have permission to do until the country you’re invading starts fighting back.
Lebanon is not Hezbolla. But the bombs are falling in Lebanon, and it is Lebanese civilians that are being killed and displaced. They are invading Lebanon,.
That Lebanon hardly has a government to speak of and is doing awfully already does not mean you can just rightfully bomb it. What the fuck.
Lebanon has a government and an army that is not Hezbollah. They do not want Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon either. Which is why you do not hear the Lebanese government denouncing or opposing Israel’s actions. You don’t see them going to the UN or the US telling them to stop Israel.
Just because you don’t approve of their government and response doesn’t mean you can just dismiss it.
I don’t think anyone is making the point that it’s literally the exact same thing.
But what we’re witnessing is that Israel can bomb a civilian population to rubble for months and months, and all the intensional community can stutter out is that they “have a right to defend themselves”.
Now they are bombing a foreign capital and sending in ground troops to their neighbouring country to fight off a militia that they themselves are responsible for creating by invading in the past, and we know exactly what the chorus will be. Right to defend themselves.
We will see our Lebanese friends and their families murdered, all for Israel’s right to defend themselves.
In Germany, the line was that they would stop at Poland. People make up different excuses for different atrocities.
I think a lot of people are rightfully fucking tired of excuses, and that’s the point. Not that it’s literally the same thing.
man some of these comments are so hard to understand.
You can’t fight against a militia that you created? So you can’t do war at all now? Russia can’t invade countries like Switzerland and Finland due to them having a lot of military presence?
The US can’t fight russia if they decide to invade the US since the US arguably had some influence over the death of the USSR being a superpower at the time of the coldwar.
Who cares if they in part created that millitia, it should only matter if one side wants to aggress the otherside, otherwise all bets are off. If both sides want to sit there and engage in military posturing, they’re free to do so, if one wants to aggress the other, they’re free to do so.
I see people saying that lebanon, and palestine are allowed to defend themselves, and i don’t think anybody disagrees, but it implies that you either think neither of these countries have a capable military force, or that israel is somehow not allowed to defend itself? Which either means you think israel is the aggressor in every instance here, all the way back to the founding of israel, which seems like an odd position to hold because that would be theoretically easy to fact check. Or that israel shouldn’t do anything in response to getting attacked because they have a bigger stronger military or something?
can you fill me in on what im missing here?
Yes they are. Look at the post. They are quite literally (in the words true meaning) making that point.
The person who first said “Germany has the right to defend themselves” was making a fairly nuanced point. That is, you can be the aggressor and still of course retain the right to defend yourself. Claiming “X has the right to defend itself!” is a deflective statement meant to justify disproportionate violence as we’ve seen in Gaza and now the West Bank.
Hezbolla is not Lebanon or its government. It’s not a declaration of war if the country (its official government) isn’t objecting to the entry
Weird considering all of the buildings in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon, that Israel is destroying.
That’s an interesting take. I think you should ideally be invited before your military march into a foreign country and start bombing in order to claim it’s not an invasion. It’s not one of those things you can assume you have permission to do until the country you’re invading starts fighting back.
Lebanon is not Hezbolla. But the bombs are falling in Lebanon, and it is Lebanese civilians that are being killed and displaced. They are invading Lebanon,.
That Lebanon hardly has a government to speak of and is doing awfully already does not mean you can just rightfully bomb it. What the fuck.
Lebanon has a government and an army that is not Hezbollah. They do not want Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon either. Which is why you do not hear the Lebanese government denouncing or opposing Israel’s actions. You don’t see them going to the UN or the US telling them to stop Israel.
Just because you don’t approve of their government and response doesn’t mean you can just dismiss it.
That’s literally the entire post. Gaslight harder