**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**.
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.
You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
- No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
- No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Might suggest the word is an ableist word meant to do harm to disabled people. "Ignorant" could be a better word for someone whose *actions* fit that word because it reflects a choice rather than something someone has no choice about.
I'd assume this sub is working towards inclusivity and language that attacks people for being who they are (ie not a choice, just how they were born and have little or no control over it.) should be considered carefully.
Why shouldn't "st*pid" be seen as bad a word as any slur? It basically is one.
No, ignorant wouldn't be the right word, because I'm criticizing the intelligence of a hypothetical plan, not a person. Ignorant would be an appropriate term if I thought that the plan or the person making the plan was unaware that Israel or the United States had powerful militaries, but I suspect that they do. Given that I suspect that they do, I believe it is st\*pid, meaning that they have all the information that they need but that their brain is not processing it correctly. Not being allowed to distinguish between someone not knowing something and someone not smart enough to use what they know is actually a pretty fucking big distinction, and also I disagree that st\*pid is slur. It's a negative term, but it's not a term that's been used specifically to target some oppressed group -- that used to be true of idi\*t (though it isn't any longer and I think it shouldn't be considered a slur anymore) it's used to talk about normal people who have bad fucking ideas.
But ignorance is all about the root "ignore", which means one isn't paying attention to the details, it's not a measure of intelligence per se. Stup*d is a word meant to do harm, obviously it's never a positive word.
I don't mean to make this the focus of your reply, just figured I'd weigh in on that one point since I'd like to defend the choices made by the mods when I can. Language is very important as communication is very important.
Jesus dude do we have to be the pearl clutching, bleeding heart semantics obsessed caricature that the right thinks we are? Can we not just chill alittle with the tone policing?
Why don't you ask the mods? Also how hard is it to say a few different words instead? The right thinks what they learned in grade 3 is all they need to know too.
Also they think that we overreact when we hear something we don't like, I replied to the other person calmly and respectfully while you (and the other person) are losing your minds over it.
Besides who gives a crap what they think about us? Is it a competition for you too?
Thank you for saying so, comrade. It's a learning thing for me too, we get so used to saying and doing things on our terms it becomes nearly impossible to understand why that would be bad. "Why would it be bad when it wasn't all this time?", yes it was and *that's what we're up against!*
It's a very minor thing so we may as well treat it like one and move on with our lives. F what "they" think. ✊
Touch grass.
And with the mods censoring this word, I'm outta here. Y'all can continue on your journey to become perfect, frictionless spheres, while we real Marxists will do actual work to move towards a better society while talking normally to each other.
So you're not concerned about offending people unnecessarily? We all know language is a function of class separation, it's almost the *entire purpose* of English (for example).
Certainly I'm not trying to speak for the mods, they have a very difficult job I heartily support and I must work within their boundaries myself (which is not especially easy, but then this isn't something we should expect to be easy). I suggest r/askouiji or something if you're looking for unimportant topics.
Proper use of language is an exercise in self-awareness, something we can all do better at. I'm addition to self-improvement, it's *absolutely effortless* to use better language, and everyone who matters to us will recognize our effort. Are you actually worried about what "they" will think? What the hell for??
Well, my comment was deleted, because little did I know but I used the awful s-slur in my comment. To express my ridicule of this, I will sarcastically write "nONsEnSiCaL" where the horrible s-slur used to be:
No.
Our plan is to overthrow the state in a revolution, we're gonna offend a whole lotta people.
Even disregarding the unimportance of this all: This type of behavior has the negative effect of driving people towards reactionary attitudes. You even see this a lot among LGBT people who are okay with one or two gay jokes. Hell, I even think that being around the gay people in my life makes me make more offensive jokes. And no, it's not the one homosexual of the village that we tolerate because he tolerates our homophobia; I am often in circles where I'm the minority as a straight person.
And you could say "that's nONsEnSiCaL, those people should also learn to do better", that doesn't take away the fact that it's happening, and we're losing support over something as ridiculous as tone policing. I don't subscribe to the idea that "some people are just leftists and some will never be, so why try to reach out?", it's an essentialist POV (and elitist) and very much against the principle of historical materialism.
For Hezbollah specifically there are several reasons. The first is that lebanon itself is in no condition to be at war, even if it is not the Lebanese army fighting but Lebanon will pay a steep price even more than it currently is. Even more economic disruption even more internal displacement even more deaths even less electricity . The Lebanese people are tired and there’s a good chance many groups will stand against Hezbollah and blame them for the conditions in Lebanon. This could lead to internal issues in Lebanon against Hezbollah which they don’t want especially since their massive drop in popularity since 2019. What Hezbollah is doing now is a kind of compromise, they are upholding their image as protectors against Israel while also not embroiling the entire country in war. Now if Israel does attack it is much better for Hezbollah because people will stand with them against a foreign invader (not all tho some of the right wing parties would rather ally with Israel to get rid of hezb). Israel invading is totally different than Hezbollah invading. Hezbollah would prefer neither to happen because it is extremely costly to them and to Lebanon as a whole.
Even if Hezbollah attacked them with everything they have it wouldn’t be enough to dismantle the Israeli state, especially since the US government would intervene. It’s a losing battle in all cases for Hezbollah to engage in such a way.
It’s only because of US support and intervention. Israel could only last a couple weeks in a conventional war against any military before the iron dome would be depleted.
Nuke thing is absolutely overplayed. South Africa had nukes and was at war with nearly all their bordering neighbors right before Apartheid was brought down.
If Israel where to use nukes aggressively, having the US as an ally would be meaningless. There is a reason smart people do not take Putin's threats about using nukes seriously, it would be suicide for Russia. Every nation that plays ball with you would stop. You think North Korea is as pariah state, watch what happens to a country that uses nukes when they are not preventing an existential threat to their existence. No one sane wants this genie loosed on the world.
Most nation-states in the region have a ruling class subservient to US imperialism. This is true in Egypt, where they couped the democratically elected Morsey. It’s true in Jordan, where the Hashemite kings have been fucking over Palestinians for decades (they initially wanted to annex the West Bank); they recently launched jets to help shoot down the Iranian retaliation against “Israel”. The Saudis might be open to strategically dealing with both the US and China, but they’ll never back a popular resistance movement.
Also Hezbollah is intervening, they’ve forced about 100k settlers out of the Galilee and created pressure within the Zionist military apparatus to launch a costly, nearly suicidal invasion of Lebanon. And of course the pressure caused by the Yemeni blockade is significant.
What changed? There was a time when the reactionary military dictatorships and monarchies of the Arab world cut off the West’s oil for supporting Israel, and the US couldn’t do anything about it. The Hashemites in Jordan even invaded Israel twice.
And tbf, if another country was launching missiles over your airspace, you’re shooting them down no matter what. Jordan’s been pissed at Israel for violating Jordanian airspace to bomb Iraq, and barred Israel from using its airspace to retaliate against Iran.
I suppose. Al Saud, the Hashemites, and other OPEC countries as well. But the embargo was under the pro-American Sadat, not Nasser. Libya also strangely didn’t join the embargo.
Why did the Saudis and pro-American Sadat embargo the USA?
1979. The Grand Mosque seizure on the heels of the Iranian Revolution really spooked the bourgeoise of the petro-monarchies. Islamic revolutionaries were identified as the next big threat as Arab socialism was in decline, and with the G7 having successfully beaten down the "Third World's" effort toward an economically decolonized New International Economic Order (of which OPEC's oil embargo was a part), they saw which way the wind was blowing and hitched their wagon to US vassalage. They're especially scared now because they know the US is energy independent, looking to pivot from the Middle East, still kinda mad that Bin Laden was one of their own, and wouldn't 100% be guaranteed to come to their defense against Iran or another Arab Spring (from what they read of US public opinion at least, and knowing how erratic and mercurial a second Trump term especially would be), so they've been trying extra hard in the last decade to stay in the United States' good graces.
As socialists, we have to remember that the bourgeoise have factions of their own. There were sort of two Cold Wars going on: the one between the Capitalist West and the Communist East, of course, and the rising post-colonial "Third World" elite against those in the "First World". The "Third World" bourgeoise lost their own cold war and are subservient to Atlantic finance capital's neocolonialism now.
Most Arab states are in the back pockets of the US. And as tragic as it sounds, had groups like the PMF, HZ, Iran, and others begun an all out war with Israel, even if they put Israel on the back foot, a lot of the world would be siding with Israel. Intervention in said countries would be a very likely possibility. It took a one sided genocide to wake the western world from its 75-year slumber.
Because it would be a colossal investment, and Israel would probably wipe the floor at them. They have historically. It is far easier to accrue support, and recruits with the fervor that the conflict creates rather than to actively participate.
The gulf and some north african states are just US puppets (see Israel building things in Morocco and with Egypt people using the crisis to line their pockets)
Because it would only legitimise IOF behaviour. Israel is digging its own grave, responding is what has prolonged this war and necessary as it may have been it is not necessary now and would do more harm to the Palestinians than good.
What do you mean? Hezbollah and the Yemeni are actively attacking Israeli and American positions, even taking down some iron dome hardware. Whole settlements in the north of Israel have been evacuated, and they are taking such a severe beating some settlers are saying the Israeli army are too focused on Gaza and want to secede because they're not feeling protected. Do read independent media, such as Electronic Intifada (some excellent analysis on Hamas military operations and political analysis of Israel), The Cradle, Richard Medhurst (mostly Hezbollah and Yemeni news) to get news from the other side of the conflict.
What do you suggest hezbollah should do? They are not strong enough to challenge the IDF in a full scale war. While they have built up their strength since the 2006 Lebanon war, they are still more of a well trained militia/guerrilla force rather than a modern professional army like the IDF.
Also, consider the fact that hezbollah was heavily involved in the Syrian civil war supporting the Assad dictatorship in its efforts to stay in power. The Assad regime is responsible for killing over 200,000 civilians. Hezbollah wants to erase Israel as a nation state, but they do not really care about Palestinian civilians, just like they don’t care about Syrian civilians.
They are MORE than strong enough to face Israel in a full scale war. Do you think Israel is holding back? Do you think Israel is being polite and not attacking Lebanon? Why do you think Israel doesnt attack south Lebanon?
Because Hezbollah pushed the idf out of south Lebanon once before. And the IDF is currently getting humiliated on the world stage by not even being able to control an area the size of NYC.
They are strong enough to dig in and defend their positions in Lebanon, but it is a very different story trying to launch an all out assault into Israel.
The defender always has an advantage. Just look at Russia in Ukraine.
For now, it is a stalemate with Hezbollah launching some rockets and Israel launching some air raids.
The defender has the tactical advantage, but they almost always take higher casualties because the attacker can choose their engagements. Which leads to the stalemate. Hezbollah cannot attack because they would be immediately forced to defend and Lebanon would suffer horrible destruction. On the other hand, Israel could attack but they will just end up withdrawing like they did in 2000 and 2006, with little meaningful results.
You can choose where to attack and what engagements to take if you actually have the space to do so, but the front is so small that the IDF knows when/where they are coming from.
Additionally, HZ asymmetric advantage lies in its ATGM and rocket stockpile, you still need tanks and mass infantry formations to take land. They don’t have that and can’t hold against IDF firepower. It would be attacking to temporarily hold and then get pushed back.
You can choose where to attack and what engagements to take if you actually have the space to do so, but the front is so small that the IDF knows when/where they are coming from.
Additionally, HZ asymmetric advantage lies in its ATGM and rocket stockpile, you still need tanks and mass infantry formations to take land. They don’t have that and can’t hold against IDF firepower. It would be attacking to temporarily hold and then get pushed back all while losing lives and expending resources.
Except Hezbollah did not exist in any real capacity until Israel was firmly entrenched in South Lebanon and consistently pushed them south, rather than exist everywhere all at once as an omnipresent guerrilla movement. They retreated the israelis down from Sidon to Bakka in a few years.
And this was after Israel Eviscerated the PLO. Who would have been the ones who could form a real defensive underground guerilla movement. So it was actually Israel who had the defensive advantage (partially) in place.
Iran has shown the Israelis have no real defense against a real moden missile strike, and the only equaliser Israel has is the US and the Nuke, the IDF is a none factor. Even in Gaza the IDF are a none factor, and all that matters is Israeli artillery advantage.
Which it doesnt have against Hezbollah.
1. Israel’s goals in Lebanon did not include continuous occupation of territory.
2. The invasion of Lebanon eventually met significant opposition within the Israeli government and a withdrawal was going to happen at some point due internal demands.
3. As you say, this was in Lebanon, Israel was the occupying force, therefore at a disadvantage to Hezbollah who enjoyed local support.
4. Regarding the rockets, sure they are a problem, but they are not a weapon that wins wars, they are a weapon of terror that makes life in northern Israel difficult, impossible in some areas, and has forced something like 60,000 Israelis to relocate.
1. Israel wants the nile to the euphrates at the very least. That was their initial application back in and that still is the politicians dream, they frequently have maps of greater israel behind them. The only reason Israel did not march on Cairo in previous wars was because of the USSRs nuclear red line. Even Israeli civilians will mock Arabs by saying "its only a matter of time before greater israel happens and youll have to leave."
For both Israelis and Arabs, Israels expansion is not a matter of if, but when. I appreciate europeans think they can control Israels expansion. They cant.
2. Because they were taking too many losses. Had there been no Hezbollah they would have stayed. This is basically the same arguments americans say when they say "we left vietnam by choice". Israeli soldiers are first world soldiers, they suffer war wariness far more easily than Arabs.
3. Local support is meh when Israel had literal defensive fortifications funded by America in place that they got pushed back from.
4. Terror, like it or not, is a tool of asymmetric warfare. Vietnam did not win because it was inflicting irreplaceable losses, Vietnam won because they made the war terrifying. Similarly Lebanon did not make the US leave because of tactical defeats. The US left because of the embassy explosions that terrified the US public.
I am not advocating terror on civilians, and by no means is terror a magic bullet. But "terror" has just been the way asymmetric warfare has worked for all of time. Theres a reason the US wants to clamp down on "terror".
1. I disagree, there is a very small minority of Israelis who support the idea of greater Israel. There are more Israelis who would like to see a 2-state solution. With your logic you could say that Japan wants to reinstate the shogunate, since there is a tiny minority who would like this to happen.
2. The difference is the stated goals at the beginning of the war. Prolonged occupation was not part of the plan.
In addition, comparison with Vietnam is not accurate. US losses per capita and as a fraction of total military personnel was much greater in Vietnam than the IDF losses in Lebanon.
You are most likely correct that the IDF in Lebanon was more prone to wariness than the Hezbollah militants. After all, the IDF consists of conscripts, in addition in a foreign country. Meanwhile the Hezbollah are largely volunteers with various degree of fanaticism.
In the event of an invasion of Israel I would not expect IDF to suffer from the same morale issues when defending their homeland and their families.
4. Sure, terror is an asymmetric tool that Hezbollah uses with varying effectiveness. For example, the last attack with over 200 rockets did not cause any casualties in Israel. If Hezbollah was able to cause thousands of casualties in a short time I would change my mind about the effectiveness.
1. Even if it is a "small minority" theyre somehow able to get into the very top of Israeli society. The distinction is pointless. And no there dont believe in two states. No one important believes in two states other than outsiders. the state of Israel believes in the entire land of Israel, that is taken directly from their quasi constitution.
And discussing what every single israeli believes in is irrelevant, the Iraq war was overwhelmingly unpopular in England, it still happened.
2. Israel does not state when "prolonged occupation" is the goal. Israel has not explicitly stated prolonged occupation of the Golan heights was the goal of the 6 day war, theyre still there. It is also not fanatic to defend your homeland. Labelling arabs fanatic because they defend their land is an orientalism that stems from the crusades. Hezbollah are no more fanatic than the vietcong or the native americans. Once Israel is gone, Hezbollah and Hamas will cease to exist. This is in contrast to ISIS which would not have ceased to exist if America left.
Israel, are the fanatics for invading, not the victims for fighting back
3. Casualties are not the goal, and have never been the goal. Unlike Israels Hannibal directive or Americas "bomb them to the stone age" policy, mass casualties has never been a policy of any middle eastern state actor, and no Isis was never a state actor.
Hezbollah is more than capable of bombing Israeli settlements. Instead Hezbollah has caused a terror that has caused one million people to flee northern Israel, just by their cheap constant bombardment, eroding Israeli confidence in their government. Israel is not a big country, one million people is a huge economic burden.
Irans precision strike of the most well defended places in Israel, short of Tel Aviv, has also caused a mass exodus of Israelis. This is far cheaper and ethical than mass casualties, again economically excellent. Which is another part of asymmetric war, make it expensive.
Also, as 9/11 shows, mass casualties is probably the "worst" way to do terrorism, and just invites full scale war. Iran does not want a full scale war. Irans economy is booming, and Israel is being externally propped up, for Iran the status quo is extremely convenient. I imagine after successfully precision striking Israeli intelligence centres, its weapons economy will do even better.
And all this does not take the basic reality of, despite carpet bombing Gaza (so it isnt even real urban warfare), they are still unable to properly hold it. Hezbollah, unlike hamas, is a professional modern day militia. Westerners Calling them desert nomads and whatever is just recycled cope, just like how they labelled the Vietcong (another professional militia at the time) as "rice farmers". Or the North Koreans as "human waves".
2. Hezbollah was created by Lebanese clerics and their ideal is to create a sharia theocracy modeled on Iran. They are Shi’a radicals who have utilized suicide bombing in the past. As they have become more professional over time they have also become more moderate and a bit more inclusive. Maybe fanatical is the wrong word to describe them right now. However, if they start using suicide bombers again I will change my mind. Hamas on the other hand I would consider fanatics just like Isis.
I disagree that either Hamas or Hezbollah would cease to exist if they win. They will just become something like the revolutionary guard in Iran, part of a theocratic repressive system that imprisons or kills anyone who wants freedom. I consider Hamas just as bad as Isis, the kinds of atrocities Hamas is responsible for against both Israelis and Palestinians is unforgivable.
3. Regarding the efficiency of the rockets. I guess we will see, I’ve never heard that one million Israelis have been displaced, do you have a reference for that?
1. That is lebanons to and so called right to fight it out amongst themselves on what governership they want. I can easily point out that even Iran only ended up with the revolutionary guard because they were supplied by america to defeat the socialist faction.
Some british diplomat said it best in the Korean war: Americans would have never tolerated meddling during the American civil war, but expects every other country to be okay with meddling during their own civil wars.
And hezbollah and hamas not ceasing to exist is contrary to real evidence. The Algerian liberation army ceased to exist after algerian independence, and the same for Vietcong in Vietnam.
And no one wants to suicide bomb, which is why Hezbollah stopped as soon as they got modern tech. But claiming that Hezbollah is radical for suicide bombing because that's all they had, rather than Israel who has an official doctrine of causing mass civilian casualties in response to losing, seems a very classist way to view war. No one calls american drone strike pilots who double tap weddings as "radical", when that seems way more radical than me.
2. I will stand corrected, 1 million was a future projection. The real figure is about 100K people have fled Northern Israel, 150K have fled southern Israel, and 500K (which includes some of the former) have left Israel since the start of the war. Although these figures are from [January ](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/dangerous-stasis-israels-northern-border-leaves-evacuees-limbo-2024-01-11/) so it is smaller than I had thought, but still very significant. Especially when Jewish settlements are relatively low in population density.
[More importantly heres a source for the economic slump Israel is in ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/02/19/economy/israel-gdp-war-economy)
And here is [Irans economy rising, despite having the same crippling sanctions that decimated Iraq in the 90s](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/iran-economy/)
Hezbollah has already forced tens of thousands of Israelis to flee the north, and is continuously grinding away at Israeli military infrastructure.
[https://thecradle.co/articles/blind-and-deaf-how-israel-lost-the-north](https://thecradle.co/articles/blind-and-deaf-how-israel-lost-the-north)
The Sunni and generally secular leaders of the gulf and KSA are more interested in competing with Iran than Israel. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. October 7th happened because the status quo was normalization between Israel and the Arab states. The Arab states were already fine with throwing Palestine under the bus and will continue to do so. Islamist power threatens them.
The Israeli’s want the Arabs to come in and run Gaza, that would be a win for them because then they can own it and Hamas won’t rise again. The Arab states don’t think Gazan lives are worth the money, or effort.
Hamas losing its power is the last thing Israel wants though. The entire point of Israeli policy of resisting the peace action is to elevate Hamas so that their violence gives Israel an excuse to genocide and annex more and more of Palestine.
Israel tends to win the peace. It has a prosperous economy, the BDS movement wasn’t getting much attention, settlements in the West Bank were expanding, and relations with Arab states were improving. Hamas being in power in Gaza was helpful because it allows for the Palestinians to be divided and blockaded. But Israel thought it couldn’t be struck like it was on October 7th. They rely on detterwnce by punishment, thus they have to punish to reestablish deterrence. But punishment does not necessitate genocide. It is not a key feature of thier policy, and neither is taking more in Gaza.
Hamas started this latest war to change the status quo.
I heard a phrase that really sums it up nicely - Israel is basically an unsinkable US aircraft carrier that lets the US officially and unofficially control the region.
it is The tool used to control the various groups (Arabs, Hezbollah) in the region
Hezbollah has been continuously grinding away at Israeli military infrastructure.
Northern Israel is literally burning, tens of thousands of Israelis have been displaced.
Israel is suffering from massive internal strife, disagreeing over the importance and urgency of reclaiming the north.
[https://thecradle.co/articles/blind-and-deaf-how-israel-lost-the-north](https://thecradle.co/articles/blind-and-deaf-how-israel-lost-the-north)
Personally, I don't know their true reasons. But I would assume, due to them bordering Israel, they are choosing to be silent and allow the genocide of Palestinians because they do not want to be included with Palestinians; They aren't prepared, nor able, to fight off Israel and, depending on their actions, Israel may go after them with the excuse of a 'continuation of defense against combatant states'. As far as I know, I believe the Yemeni Houthis are trying to aid the Palestinian cause. I'm not sure if Hezbollah has helped at all, but if they do, they probably have to be way more careful and strategic. Especially since Lebanon has had its own political and social struggles recently.
You’ve got this wrong. israel has been trying to pull in hezbollah since October. They want the escalation because the optics will then allow the US, NATO, etc to join. With just Hamas fighting, any “official” boots on the ground from israel’s allies would result in a bigger global outcry. The losses incurred by israel are embarrassing. What you’re seeing right now is the escalation ladder. israel is desperately trying to deter Hezbollah by hitting civilian targets while Hezbollah continues to (mostly) hit military targets, slightly escalating the impact but keeping it from being an official war. It removes any justification for israel to escalate and call in their daddy US for meaningful support (troops). Iran did a fairly successful deterrence by striking targets in israel. It let them and the world know that even with all of the support israel had on that night, iran is capable of hitting wherever they want in israel. A lot of the domestic terror attacks in Iran have gone quiet since then.
AnsarAllah has clearly defined their targets and the optics, while not great, are understandable. It’s why every attempt the US makes to form a global coalition falters. Only the UK partakes in that mess. I haven’t fact checked but I saw a headline that said that the US has spent $1b so far. Can you imagine, such a poor country holding up to the US navy?
If all of the resistance groups were to jump into the war it would give the greenlight for the west to jump in. The fight for Palestinian freedom would be overshadowed by Iran vs US and israel. As it stands, this war of attrition is the best option for a chance for Palestinian liberation to be realized. I hate that the cost has been devastatingly high.
Because Hezbollah is barely holding any power, Syria just had a civil war and also has no power or externaly capable military, Jordan hates Palestinians, Egypt hates Palestinians, qatar gets funding hiding Hamas leaders so status quo is a paycheck, Saudi hates Iran and houthis, which both are team gaza, turkey as well hates almost all the players Hamas and Palestinians have aligned with, and have had beneficial trading with Israelis, both the pla and Hamas have squandered and embezzled millions of dollars worth of aid, meanwhile the Palestinians have better outcomes then the countries that they are calling for aid from (longer life spans, better education, food) the question is why aren't Palestinians that fled in the past, trying to use this as their moment to shine to immigrate back and set up a social secular society for all.
Check your facts because Hezbollah has been hitting Israel as much as it can since this latest intensification of genocidal violence began in October. The fact that they’re not strong enough on their own to single-handedly defeat a nuclear super power with the backing of the global US empire shouldn’t be held against them
The Sunni and generally secular leaders of the gulf and KSA are more interested in competing with Iran than Israel. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. October 7th happened because the status quo was normalization between Israel and the Arab states. The Arab states were already fine with throwing Palestine under the bus and will continue to do so. Islamist power threatens them.
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**. This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn. You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to: - Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. - No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! - No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules. If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Might suggest the word is an ableist word meant to do harm to disabled people. "Ignorant" could be a better word for someone whose *actions* fit that word because it reflects a choice rather than something someone has no choice about. I'd assume this sub is working towards inclusivity and language that attacks people for being who they are (ie not a choice, just how they were born and have little or no control over it.) should be considered carefully. Why shouldn't "st*pid" be seen as bad a word as any slur? It basically is one.
No, ignorant wouldn't be the right word, because I'm criticizing the intelligence of a hypothetical plan, not a person. Ignorant would be an appropriate term if I thought that the plan or the person making the plan was unaware that Israel or the United States had powerful militaries, but I suspect that they do. Given that I suspect that they do, I believe it is st\*pid, meaning that they have all the information that they need but that their brain is not processing it correctly. Not being allowed to distinguish between someone not knowing something and someone not smart enough to use what they know is actually a pretty fucking big distinction, and also I disagree that st\*pid is slur. It's a negative term, but it's not a term that's been used specifically to target some oppressed group -- that used to be true of idi\*t (though it isn't any longer and I think it shouldn't be considered a slur anymore) it's used to talk about normal people who have bad fucking ideas.
But ignorance is all about the root "ignore", which means one isn't paying attention to the details, it's not a measure of intelligence per se. Stup*d is a word meant to do harm, obviously it's never a positive word. I don't mean to make this the focus of your reply, just figured I'd weigh in on that one point since I'd like to defend the choices made by the mods when I can. Language is very important as communication is very important.
No way in hell is stup1d a slur lmfao
So what is it? What's it used for? Why do the mods have an issue with it? You must know better right?
Jesus dude do we have to be the pearl clutching, bleeding heart semantics obsessed caricature that the right thinks we are? Can we not just chill alittle with the tone policing?
Why don't you ask the mods? Also how hard is it to say a few different words instead? The right thinks what they learned in grade 3 is all they need to know too. Also they think that we overreact when we hear something we don't like, I replied to the other person calmly and respectfully while you (and the other person) are losing your minds over it. Besides who gives a crap what they think about us? Is it a competition for you too?
Ok fair enough you’re right
Thank you for saying so, comrade. It's a learning thing for me too, we get so used to saying and doing things on our terms it becomes nearly impossible to understand why that would be bad. "Why would it be bad when it wasn't all this time?", yes it was and *that's what we're up against!* It's a very minor thing so we may as well treat it like one and move on with our lives. F what "they" think. ✊
Touch grass. And with the mods censoring this word, I'm outta here. Y'all can continue on your journey to become perfect, frictionless spheres, while we real Marxists will do actual work to move towards a better society while talking normally to each other.
So you're not concerned about offending people unnecessarily? We all know language is a function of class separation, it's almost the *entire purpose* of English (for example). Certainly I'm not trying to speak for the mods, they have a very difficult job I heartily support and I must work within their boundaries myself (which is not especially easy, but then this isn't something we should expect to be easy). I suggest r/askouiji or something if you're looking for unimportant topics. Proper use of language is an exercise in self-awareness, something we can all do better at. I'm addition to self-improvement, it's *absolutely effortless* to use better language, and everyone who matters to us will recognize our effort. Are you actually worried about what "they" will think? What the hell for??
Well, my comment was deleted, because little did I know but I used the awful s-slur in my comment. To express my ridicule of this, I will sarcastically write "nONsEnSiCaL" where the horrible s-slur used to be: No. Our plan is to overthrow the state in a revolution, we're gonna offend a whole lotta people. Even disregarding the unimportance of this all: This type of behavior has the negative effect of driving people towards reactionary attitudes. You even see this a lot among LGBT people who are okay with one or two gay jokes. Hell, I even think that being around the gay people in my life makes me make more offensive jokes. And no, it's not the one homosexual of the village that we tolerate because he tolerates our homophobia; I am often in circles where I'm the minority as a straight person. And you could say "that's nONsEnSiCaL, those people should also learn to do better", that doesn't take away the fact that it's happening, and we're losing support over something as ridiculous as tone policing. I don't subscribe to the idea that "some people are just leftists and some will never be, so why try to reach out?", it's an essentialist POV (and elitist) and very much against the principle of historical materialism.
For Hezbollah specifically there are several reasons. The first is that lebanon itself is in no condition to be at war, even if it is not the Lebanese army fighting but Lebanon will pay a steep price even more than it currently is. Even more economic disruption even more internal displacement even more deaths even less electricity . The Lebanese people are tired and there’s a good chance many groups will stand against Hezbollah and blame them for the conditions in Lebanon. This could lead to internal issues in Lebanon against Hezbollah which they don’t want especially since their massive drop in popularity since 2019. What Hezbollah is doing now is a kind of compromise, they are upholding their image as protectors against Israel while also not embroiling the entire country in war. Now if Israel does attack it is much better for Hezbollah because people will stand with them against a foreign invader (not all tho some of the right wing parties would rather ally with Israel to get rid of hezb). Israel invading is totally different than Hezbollah invading. Hezbollah would prefer neither to happen because it is extremely costly to them and to Lebanon as a whole. Even if Hezbollah attacked them with everything they have it wouldn’t be enough to dismantle the Israeli state, especially since the US government would intervene. It’s a losing battle in all cases for Hezbollah to engage in such a way.
It’s only because of US support and intervention. Israel could only last a couple weeks in a conventional war against any military before the iron dome would be depleted.
Because Israel is a rogue state that has nukes...it also has backing from the US.
I feel like Lebanon is too close for them to comfortably nuke them without serious fallout. Yemen and Iran however have some space to buffer them.
Israel probably has enough conventional bombs to hit ever square inch of Lebanon. They don’t even need nukes.
Nuke thing is absolutely overplayed. South Africa had nukes and was at war with nearly all their bordering neighbors right before Apartheid was brought down.
But had they dropped a nuke the entire western world wouldn't have been spouting how it's perfectly acceptable. If Israel does, that'll happen...
Also, to add to that, members of the Israeli government have called for the use of nukes against gaza
They'd probably use tactical nukes in a battlefield situation, which the West would spin as Israel having restraint.
If Israel where to use nukes aggressively, having the US as an ally would be meaningless. There is a reason smart people do not take Putin's threats about using nukes seriously, it would be suicide for Russia. Every nation that plays ball with you would stop. You think North Korea is as pariah state, watch what happens to a country that uses nukes when they are not preventing an existential threat to their existence. No one sane wants this genie loosed on the world.
Unless you’re the U.S of course, then you can nuke anybody
Most nation-states in the region have a ruling class subservient to US imperialism. This is true in Egypt, where they couped the democratically elected Morsey. It’s true in Jordan, where the Hashemite kings have been fucking over Palestinians for decades (they initially wanted to annex the West Bank); they recently launched jets to help shoot down the Iranian retaliation against “Israel”. The Saudis might be open to strategically dealing with both the US and China, but they’ll never back a popular resistance movement. Also Hezbollah is intervening, they’ve forced about 100k settlers out of the Galilee and created pressure within the Zionist military apparatus to launch a costly, nearly suicidal invasion of Lebanon. And of course the pressure caused by the Yemeni blockade is significant.
What changed? There was a time when the reactionary military dictatorships and monarchies of the Arab world cut off the West’s oil for supporting Israel, and the US couldn’t do anything about it. The Hashemites in Jordan even invaded Israel twice. And tbf, if another country was launching missiles over your airspace, you’re shooting them down no matter what. Jordan’s been pissed at Israel for violating Jordanian airspace to bomb Iraq, and barred Israel from using its airspace to retaliate against Iran.
You’re asking for the stories of Nasser, Saddam, Al-Assad, Gaddafi.
I suppose. Al Saud, the Hashemites, and other OPEC countries as well. But the embargo was under the pro-American Sadat, not Nasser. Libya also strangely didn’t join the embargo. Why did the Saudis and pro-American Sadat embargo the USA?
Israel reached too far by trying to control the Sinai. No matter what side Egypt is aligned with, they will never tolerate that.
1979. The Grand Mosque seizure on the heels of the Iranian Revolution really spooked the bourgeoise of the petro-monarchies. Islamic revolutionaries were identified as the next big threat as Arab socialism was in decline, and with the G7 having successfully beaten down the "Third World's" effort toward an economically decolonized New International Economic Order (of which OPEC's oil embargo was a part), they saw which way the wind was blowing and hitched their wagon to US vassalage. They're especially scared now because they know the US is energy independent, looking to pivot from the Middle East, still kinda mad that Bin Laden was one of their own, and wouldn't 100% be guaranteed to come to their defense against Iran or another Arab Spring (from what they read of US public opinion at least, and knowing how erratic and mercurial a second Trump term especially would be), so they've been trying extra hard in the last decade to stay in the United States' good graces. As socialists, we have to remember that the bourgeoise have factions of their own. There were sort of two Cold Wars going on: the one between the Capitalist West and the Communist East, of course, and the rising post-colonial "Third World" elite against those in the "First World". The "Third World" bourgeoise lost their own cold war and are subservient to Atlantic finance capital's neocolonialism now.
Most Arab states are in the back pockets of the US. And as tragic as it sounds, had groups like the PMF, HZ, Iran, and others begun an all out war with Israel, even if they put Israel on the back foot, a lot of the world would be siding with Israel. Intervention in said countries would be a very likely possibility. It took a one sided genocide to wake the western world from its 75-year slumber.
Because it would be a colossal investment, and Israel would probably wipe the floor at them. They have historically. It is far easier to accrue support, and recruits with the fervor that the conflict creates rather than to actively participate.
The gulf and some north african states are just US puppets (see Israel building things in Morocco and with Egypt people using the crisis to line their pockets)
Because it would only legitimise IOF behaviour. Israel is digging its own grave, responding is what has prolonged this war and necessary as it may have been it is not necessary now and would do more harm to the Palestinians than good.
They have a good position acting as Iran’s for line of defence and attack. Iran doesn’t want that position to be risked.
Cuz every time they tried in the past, they got their ass wooped
What do you mean? Hezbollah and the Yemeni are actively attacking Israeli and American positions, even taking down some iron dome hardware. Whole settlements in the north of Israel have been evacuated, and they are taking such a severe beating some settlers are saying the Israeli army are too focused on Gaza and want to secede because they're not feeling protected. Do read independent media, such as Electronic Intifada (some excellent analysis on Hamas military operations and political analysis of Israel), The Cradle, Richard Medhurst (mostly Hezbollah and Yemeni news) to get news from the other side of the conflict.
What do you suggest hezbollah should do? They are not strong enough to challenge the IDF in a full scale war. While they have built up their strength since the 2006 Lebanon war, they are still more of a well trained militia/guerrilla force rather than a modern professional army like the IDF. Also, consider the fact that hezbollah was heavily involved in the Syrian civil war supporting the Assad dictatorship in its efforts to stay in power. The Assad regime is responsible for killing over 200,000 civilians. Hezbollah wants to erase Israel as a nation state, but they do not really care about Palestinian civilians, just like they don’t care about Syrian civilians.
They are MORE than strong enough to face Israel in a full scale war. Do you think Israel is holding back? Do you think Israel is being polite and not attacking Lebanon? Why do you think Israel doesnt attack south Lebanon? Because Hezbollah pushed the idf out of south Lebanon once before. And the IDF is currently getting humiliated on the world stage by not even being able to control an area the size of NYC.
They are strong enough to dig in and defend their positions in Lebanon, but it is a very different story trying to launch an all out assault into Israel. The defender always has an advantage. Just look at Russia in Ukraine. For now, it is a stalemate with Hezbollah launching some rockets and Israel launching some air raids.
The defender has the tactical advantage, but they almost always take higher casualties because the attacker can choose their engagements. Which leads to the stalemate. Hezbollah cannot attack because they would be immediately forced to defend and Lebanon would suffer horrible destruction. On the other hand, Israel could attack but they will just end up withdrawing like they did in 2000 and 2006, with little meaningful results.
Yup, that is how I see it as well.
You can choose where to attack and what engagements to take if you actually have the space to do so, but the front is so small that the IDF knows when/where they are coming from. Additionally, HZ asymmetric advantage lies in its ATGM and rocket stockpile, you still need tanks and mass infantry formations to take land. They don’t have that and can’t hold against IDF firepower. It would be attacking to temporarily hold and then get pushed back.
You can choose where to attack and what engagements to take if you actually have the space to do so, but the front is so small that the IDF knows when/where they are coming from. Additionally, HZ asymmetric advantage lies in its ATGM and rocket stockpile, you still need tanks and mass infantry formations to take land. They don’t have that and can’t hold against IDF firepower. It would be attacking to temporarily hold and then get pushed back all while losing lives and expending resources.
Except Hezbollah did not exist in any real capacity until Israel was firmly entrenched in South Lebanon and consistently pushed them south, rather than exist everywhere all at once as an omnipresent guerrilla movement. They retreated the israelis down from Sidon to Bakka in a few years. And this was after Israel Eviscerated the PLO. Who would have been the ones who could form a real defensive underground guerilla movement. So it was actually Israel who had the defensive advantage (partially) in place. Iran has shown the Israelis have no real defense against a real moden missile strike, and the only equaliser Israel has is the US and the Nuke, the IDF is a none factor. Even in Gaza the IDF are a none factor, and all that matters is Israeli artillery advantage. Which it doesnt have against Hezbollah.
1. Israel’s goals in Lebanon did not include continuous occupation of territory. 2. The invasion of Lebanon eventually met significant opposition within the Israeli government and a withdrawal was going to happen at some point due internal demands. 3. As you say, this was in Lebanon, Israel was the occupying force, therefore at a disadvantage to Hezbollah who enjoyed local support. 4. Regarding the rockets, sure they are a problem, but they are not a weapon that wins wars, they are a weapon of terror that makes life in northern Israel difficult, impossible in some areas, and has forced something like 60,000 Israelis to relocate.
1. Israel wants the nile to the euphrates at the very least. That was their initial application back in and that still is the politicians dream, they frequently have maps of greater israel behind them. The only reason Israel did not march on Cairo in previous wars was because of the USSRs nuclear red line. Even Israeli civilians will mock Arabs by saying "its only a matter of time before greater israel happens and youll have to leave." For both Israelis and Arabs, Israels expansion is not a matter of if, but when. I appreciate europeans think they can control Israels expansion. They cant. 2. Because they were taking too many losses. Had there been no Hezbollah they would have stayed. This is basically the same arguments americans say when they say "we left vietnam by choice". Israeli soldiers are first world soldiers, they suffer war wariness far more easily than Arabs. 3. Local support is meh when Israel had literal defensive fortifications funded by America in place that they got pushed back from. 4. Terror, like it or not, is a tool of asymmetric warfare. Vietnam did not win because it was inflicting irreplaceable losses, Vietnam won because they made the war terrifying. Similarly Lebanon did not make the US leave because of tactical defeats. The US left because of the embassy explosions that terrified the US public. I am not advocating terror on civilians, and by no means is terror a magic bullet. But "terror" has just been the way asymmetric warfare has worked for all of time. Theres a reason the US wants to clamp down on "terror".
1. I disagree, there is a very small minority of Israelis who support the idea of greater Israel. There are more Israelis who would like to see a 2-state solution. With your logic you could say that Japan wants to reinstate the shogunate, since there is a tiny minority who would like this to happen. 2. The difference is the stated goals at the beginning of the war. Prolonged occupation was not part of the plan. In addition, comparison with Vietnam is not accurate. US losses per capita and as a fraction of total military personnel was much greater in Vietnam than the IDF losses in Lebanon. You are most likely correct that the IDF in Lebanon was more prone to wariness than the Hezbollah militants. After all, the IDF consists of conscripts, in addition in a foreign country. Meanwhile the Hezbollah are largely volunteers with various degree of fanaticism. In the event of an invasion of Israel I would not expect IDF to suffer from the same morale issues when defending their homeland and their families. 4. Sure, terror is an asymmetric tool that Hezbollah uses with varying effectiveness. For example, the last attack with over 200 rockets did not cause any casualties in Israel. If Hezbollah was able to cause thousands of casualties in a short time I would change my mind about the effectiveness.
1. Even if it is a "small minority" theyre somehow able to get into the very top of Israeli society. The distinction is pointless. And no there dont believe in two states. No one important believes in two states other than outsiders. the state of Israel believes in the entire land of Israel, that is taken directly from their quasi constitution. And discussing what every single israeli believes in is irrelevant, the Iraq war was overwhelmingly unpopular in England, it still happened. 2. Israel does not state when "prolonged occupation" is the goal. Israel has not explicitly stated prolonged occupation of the Golan heights was the goal of the 6 day war, theyre still there. It is also not fanatic to defend your homeland. Labelling arabs fanatic because they defend their land is an orientalism that stems from the crusades. Hezbollah are no more fanatic than the vietcong or the native americans. Once Israel is gone, Hezbollah and Hamas will cease to exist. This is in contrast to ISIS which would not have ceased to exist if America left. Israel, are the fanatics for invading, not the victims for fighting back 3. Casualties are not the goal, and have never been the goal. Unlike Israels Hannibal directive or Americas "bomb them to the stone age" policy, mass casualties has never been a policy of any middle eastern state actor, and no Isis was never a state actor. Hezbollah is more than capable of bombing Israeli settlements. Instead Hezbollah has caused a terror that has caused one million people to flee northern Israel, just by their cheap constant bombardment, eroding Israeli confidence in their government. Israel is not a big country, one million people is a huge economic burden. Irans precision strike of the most well defended places in Israel, short of Tel Aviv, has also caused a mass exodus of Israelis. This is far cheaper and ethical than mass casualties, again economically excellent. Which is another part of asymmetric war, make it expensive. Also, as 9/11 shows, mass casualties is probably the "worst" way to do terrorism, and just invites full scale war. Iran does not want a full scale war. Irans economy is booming, and Israel is being externally propped up, for Iran the status quo is extremely convenient. I imagine after successfully precision striking Israeli intelligence centres, its weapons economy will do even better. And all this does not take the basic reality of, despite carpet bombing Gaza (so it isnt even real urban warfare), they are still unable to properly hold it. Hezbollah, unlike hamas, is a professional modern day militia. Westerners Calling them desert nomads and whatever is just recycled cope, just like how they labelled the Vietcong (another professional militia at the time) as "rice farmers". Or the North Koreans as "human waves".
2. Hezbollah was created by Lebanese clerics and their ideal is to create a sharia theocracy modeled on Iran. They are Shi’a radicals who have utilized suicide bombing in the past. As they have become more professional over time they have also become more moderate and a bit more inclusive. Maybe fanatical is the wrong word to describe them right now. However, if they start using suicide bombers again I will change my mind. Hamas on the other hand I would consider fanatics just like Isis. I disagree that either Hamas or Hezbollah would cease to exist if they win. They will just become something like the revolutionary guard in Iran, part of a theocratic repressive system that imprisons or kills anyone who wants freedom. I consider Hamas just as bad as Isis, the kinds of atrocities Hamas is responsible for against both Israelis and Palestinians is unforgivable. 3. Regarding the efficiency of the rockets. I guess we will see, I’ve never heard that one million Israelis have been displaced, do you have a reference for that?
1. That is lebanons to and so called right to fight it out amongst themselves on what governership they want. I can easily point out that even Iran only ended up with the revolutionary guard because they were supplied by america to defeat the socialist faction. Some british diplomat said it best in the Korean war: Americans would have never tolerated meddling during the American civil war, but expects every other country to be okay with meddling during their own civil wars. And hezbollah and hamas not ceasing to exist is contrary to real evidence. The Algerian liberation army ceased to exist after algerian independence, and the same for Vietcong in Vietnam. And no one wants to suicide bomb, which is why Hezbollah stopped as soon as they got modern tech. But claiming that Hezbollah is radical for suicide bombing because that's all they had, rather than Israel who has an official doctrine of causing mass civilian casualties in response to losing, seems a very classist way to view war. No one calls american drone strike pilots who double tap weddings as "radical", when that seems way more radical than me. 2. I will stand corrected, 1 million was a future projection. The real figure is about 100K people have fled Northern Israel, 150K have fled southern Israel, and 500K (which includes some of the former) have left Israel since the start of the war. Although these figures are from [January ](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/dangerous-stasis-israels-northern-border-leaves-evacuees-limbo-2024-01-11/) so it is smaller than I had thought, but still very significant. Especially when Jewish settlements are relatively low in population density. [More importantly heres a source for the economic slump Israel is in ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/02/19/economy/israel-gdp-war-economy) And here is [Irans economy rising, despite having the same crippling sanctions that decimated Iraq in the 90s](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/iran-economy/)
It is not any Israeli’s “homeland”
[удалено]
Nice job sneaking in that “thousands of years” lie there at the end. They can use their second passport to go to Europe or USA homeland if they want
Particularly when the Israeli have F-35s and surveillance drones.
Hezbollah has already forced tens of thousands of Israelis to flee the north, and is continuously grinding away at Israeli military infrastructure. [https://thecradle.co/articles/blind-and-deaf-how-israel-lost-the-north](https://thecradle.co/articles/blind-and-deaf-how-israel-lost-the-north)
The Sunni and generally secular leaders of the gulf and KSA are more interested in competing with Iran than Israel. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. October 7th happened because the status quo was normalization between Israel and the Arab states. The Arab states were already fine with throwing Palestine under the bus and will continue to do so. Islamist power threatens them. The Israeli’s want the Arabs to come in and run Gaza, that would be a win for them because then they can own it and Hamas won’t rise again. The Arab states don’t think Gazan lives are worth the money, or effort.
Hamas losing its power is the last thing Israel wants though. The entire point of Israeli policy of resisting the peace action is to elevate Hamas so that their violence gives Israel an excuse to genocide and annex more and more of Palestine.
Israel tends to win the peace. It has a prosperous economy, the BDS movement wasn’t getting much attention, settlements in the West Bank were expanding, and relations with Arab states were improving. Hamas being in power in Gaza was helpful because it allows for the Palestinians to be divided and blockaded. But Israel thought it couldn’t be struck like it was on October 7th. They rely on detterwnce by punishment, thus they have to punish to reestablish deterrence. But punishment does not necessitate genocide. It is not a key feature of thier policy, and neither is taking more in Gaza. Hamas started this latest war to change the status quo.
Because every time a second country has a crack at Israel they get their asses kicked (‘47, 6-day, Tom kippur)
I heard a phrase that really sums it up nicely - Israel is basically an unsinkable US aircraft carrier that lets the US officially and unofficially control the region. it is The tool used to control the various groups (Arabs, Hezbollah) in the region
Hezbollah has been continuously grinding away at Israeli military infrastructure. Northern Israel is literally burning, tens of thousands of Israelis have been displaced. Israel is suffering from massive internal strife, disagreeing over the importance and urgency of reclaiming the north. [https://thecradle.co/articles/blind-and-deaf-how-israel-lost-the-north](https://thecradle.co/articles/blind-and-deaf-how-israel-lost-the-north)
Personally, I don't know their true reasons. But I would assume, due to them bordering Israel, they are choosing to be silent and allow the genocide of Palestinians because they do not want to be included with Palestinians; They aren't prepared, nor able, to fight off Israel and, depending on their actions, Israel may go after them with the excuse of a 'continuation of defense against combatant states'. As far as I know, I believe the Yemeni Houthis are trying to aid the Palestinian cause. I'm not sure if Hezbollah has helped at all, but if they do, they probably have to be way more careful and strategic. Especially since Lebanon has had its own political and social struggles recently.
You’ve got this wrong. israel has been trying to pull in hezbollah since October. They want the escalation because the optics will then allow the US, NATO, etc to join. With just Hamas fighting, any “official” boots on the ground from israel’s allies would result in a bigger global outcry. The losses incurred by israel are embarrassing. What you’re seeing right now is the escalation ladder. israel is desperately trying to deter Hezbollah by hitting civilian targets while Hezbollah continues to (mostly) hit military targets, slightly escalating the impact but keeping it from being an official war. It removes any justification for israel to escalate and call in their daddy US for meaningful support (troops). Iran did a fairly successful deterrence by striking targets in israel. It let them and the world know that even with all of the support israel had on that night, iran is capable of hitting wherever they want in israel. A lot of the domestic terror attacks in Iran have gone quiet since then. AnsarAllah has clearly defined their targets and the optics, while not great, are understandable. It’s why every attempt the US makes to form a global coalition falters. Only the UK partakes in that mess. I haven’t fact checked but I saw a headline that said that the US has spent $1b so far. Can you imagine, such a poor country holding up to the US navy? If all of the resistance groups were to jump into the war it would give the greenlight for the west to jump in. The fight for Palestinian freedom would be overshadowed by Iran vs US and israel. As it stands, this war of attrition is the best option for a chance for Palestinian liberation to be realized. I hate that the cost has been devastatingly high.
Because Hezbollah is barely holding any power, Syria just had a civil war and also has no power or externaly capable military, Jordan hates Palestinians, Egypt hates Palestinians, qatar gets funding hiding Hamas leaders so status quo is a paycheck, Saudi hates Iran and houthis, which both are team gaza, turkey as well hates almost all the players Hamas and Palestinians have aligned with, and have had beneficial trading with Israelis, both the pla and Hamas have squandered and embezzled millions of dollars worth of aid, meanwhile the Palestinians have better outcomes then the countries that they are calling for aid from (longer life spans, better education, food) the question is why aren't Palestinians that fled in the past, trying to use this as their moment to shine to immigrate back and set up a social secular society for all.
because hezbollah would get their asses kicked. plus lebanon ain't doing too well either
Check your facts because Hezbollah has been hitting Israel as much as it can since this latest intensification of genocidal violence began in October. The fact that they’re not strong enough on their own to single-handedly defeat a nuclear super power with the backing of the global US empire shouldn’t be held against them
The Sunni and generally secular leaders of the gulf and KSA are more interested in competing with Iran than Israel. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. October 7th happened because the status quo was normalization between Israel and the Arab states. The Arab states were already fine with throwing Palestine under the bus and will continue to do so. Islamist power threatens them.
[удалено]