this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2026
765 points (98.4% liked)
Political Memes
11449 readers
2653 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fighting back and occupying are not the same thing though. And where does self defence become aggression, as arguably Israel are not acting in a purely defensive manner. In terms of international law, there has to be an actual of imminent threat, and a response has to be proportionate, so again the argument could be made that Israel are not acting within that framework.
In terms of your point about Hezbollah promising to stop and that being an end to it, there have previously been ceasefires in place, agreed to by all sides, that immediately fall apart. So how does it work if you are occupying/annexing in self defence, but you are the one to break a ceasefire?
The solution here is incredibly simple. Hezbollah stops attacking Israel. That is what Israel wants - Israel has no interests in using money and lives on occupying Lebanon.
There is the nation-state equivalent of personal responsibility here. Lebanon can credibly commit to make sure Israel is not attacked from Lebanese territory, if Lebanon doesn't like Israel having to actively defend itself there. The overall moral outline is so clear it almost seems too obvious - but as far as I can tell, the overall picture just is that one-sided.
Well - because Hezbollah are the ones who want war with Israel. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1701 , which Hezbollah broke.
What do you imagine that Israel gains, by occupying Lebanon? There is no gain for Israel, except to stop Hezbollah shooting rockets into Israel. Whereas the goal of Hezbollah is to destroy Israel, because they are religious fanatic terrorists. If this is not as black-and-white as it looks to me, then please explain what the motivations really are?
From that wikipedia article it does seem like neither side properly engaged with the ceasefire, although does seem to be written in quite a one-sided manner, which is interesting considering the thread we're in.
Someone else has already mentioned the pager attacks to you, which, related to one of my earlier replies, would not seem to be a proportionate response to an imminent or actual threat. You seem very determined in your replies to paint Israel as only responding to unprovoked attacks from Hezbollah, but putting aside who 'started it', there has clearly been escalation on Israel's side. I don't think you can put everything down to Hezbollah being 'religious fanatic terrorists' whilst having no consideration for the fact that Israel could easily fit that same description.