3 ms·

Ah, quite right, I mean the EU, apologies. > As of October 2020, Hezbollah or its military wing are considered terrorist organizations by at least 26 countries

by dijit 2y ago

Ah, quite right, I mean the EU, apologies. > As of October 2020, Hezbollah or its military wing are considered terrorist organizations by at least 26 countries, as well as by the European Union and since 2017 by most member states of the Arab League, with the exception of Iraq and Lebanon, where Hezbollah is the most powerful political party.[374] > The countries that have designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization include: the Gulf Cooperation Council,[375] and their members Saudi Arabia,[376] Bahrain,[377] United Arab Emirates,[376] as well as Argentina,[378] Canada,[379] Colombia,[380] Estonia,[381] Germany,[382] Honduras,[383] Israel,[384] Kosovo,[385] Lithuania,[386] Malaysia,[387] Paraguay,[388] Serbia,[381] Slovenia,[389] United Kingdom,[390] United States,[391] and Guatemala.[392]

School-Cotton 2y ago
The EU doesn’t consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization either — only its military wing. Much like people who considered the Provisional IRA to be terrorists but not Sinn Féin.
- dijit 2y ago
  It's a shame that Hezbollah do not wear uniforms, a war crime[0]; because then it would be clear that these are military officers, and thus terrorists by that definition. Or is your statement that the people targeted were not military? Or... what's your point with this comment? [0]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - c0nducktr 2y ago
    Pretty bold to cry about war crimes while defending the actions of Israel.
    - dijit 2y ago
      Pretty easy though, when Israel is clearly being held to a standard that their combatants aren't. I'll tell you now: I'm becoming more radicalised the more I see the absolute state of discourse here; it's not only polarised: it's completely asymmetric. It seems that it's not even possible for people to consider that the Islamic side has a part to play in what is happening, and to condemn both parties for the actions that they take, understanding that it's not equivalent in all areas.
      - c0nducktr 2y ago
        Sure bud.
        dijit 2y ago
        Truly a scathing intellectual response. I will never recover.
      - close04 2y ago
        > Pretty easy though, when Israel is clearly being held to a standard that their combatants aren't. If you look at it binary then both sides committed atrocities, war crimes, and generally acts of terror. If you look at the magnitude though one stands out. > the Islamic side has a part to play in what is happening Attempts to defend either are weak, nether is defensible really. But defending the side that took it orders of magnitude further with explanations like well the other side "had a part" are absolutely gross and reminiscent of explanations for certain atrocities a certain European country committed 80 years ago because "they" knew what they did to deserve it right? "They" also had a part to play.
        dijit 2y ago
        I agree with this sentiment, actually; it's not binary, there's no "both sides", we have to take each atrocity in the context in which it's presented and dispassionately dole out justice. Ideally based on an even field of understanding about what the rules are and without taking personal preferences into account. But I think we disagree on a core tenet: that magnitude is a precursor to understanding who belligerents are. If that was the case then during all history, the winning side would always have to be the bad guy, no matter who initiated hostilities or how warfare was conducted.
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    I didn't have any point other than pointing out that your claims were incorrect. Separately, I do think it's funny when people try to justify Israel's actions by reference to international laws or norms, as if Israel cares. They would still have done this even if they were the only country in the world that considered Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Just like they're (practically) the only country in the world that considers the Golan Heights or East Jerusalem to be legitimately part of their territory, their occupation of the West Bank to be legal, their permanent air and sea blockade of the Gaza Strip to be legal, and so on. They don't appear to care about international norms at all.
    - dijit 2y ago
      It's harder to hold them to account when their combatants aren't held to similar standards. It's a very solid defense to say "well, if we're being attacked by a non-military force that breaks the rules, then what choice do we have". If they were being attacked by a military force that followed the Geneva conventions it would be easier to drum up anti-Israel support internationally for an intervention. So, sorry to say it; but it's a fair criticism to say that one side is even more flagrant of the rules: why should Israel even bother trying to abide them?
      - School-Cotton 2y ago
        Remind me, what actions by their enemy combatants force Israel to allow civilian Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank?
        dijit 2y ago
        None, that's an easy condemn act. Here I am to condemn it, I have even written to my MEP regarding that topic.
        School-Cotton 2y ago
        I wasn't asking you to condemn it, I was using it as an example of my claim that Israel doesn't care about international law or norms, even in cases where you can't possibly use "but our enemy violates them too" as a justification.

by dijit 2y ago

School-Cotton 2y ago

The EU doesn’t consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization either — only its military wing. Much like people who considered the Provisional IRA to be terrorists but not Sinn Féin.

dijit 2y ago
It's a shame that Hezbollah do not wear uniforms, a war crime[0]; because then it would be clear that these are military officers, and thus terrorists by that definition. Or is your statement that the people targeted were not military? Or... what's your point with this comment? [0]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- c0nducktr 2y ago
  Pretty bold to cry about war crimes while defending the actions of Israel.
  - dijit 2y ago
    Pretty easy though, when Israel is clearly being held to a standard that their combatants aren't. I'll tell you now: I'm becoming more radicalised the more I see the absolute state of discourse here; it's not only polarised: it's completely asymmetric. It seems that it's not even possible for people to consider that the Islamic side has a part to play in what is happening, and to condemn both parties for the actions that they take, understanding that it's not equivalent in all areas.
    - c0nducktr 2y ago
      Sure bud.
      - dijit 2y ago
        Truly a scathing intellectual response. I will never recover.
    - close04 2y ago
      > Pretty easy though, when Israel is clearly being held to a standard that their combatants aren't. If you look at it binary then both sides committed atrocities, war crimes, and generally acts of terror. If you look at the magnitude though one stands out. > the Islamic side has a part to play in what is happening Attempts to defend either are weak, nether is defensible really. But defending the side that took it orders of magnitude further with explanations like well the other side "had a part" are absolutely gross and reminiscent of explanations for certain atrocities a certain European country committed 80 years ago because "they" knew what they did to deserve it right? "They" also had a part to play.
      - dijit 2y ago
        I agree with this sentiment, actually; it's not binary, there's no "both sides", we have to take each atrocity in the context in which it's presented and dispassionately dole out justice. Ideally based on an even field of understanding about what the rules are and without taking personal preferences into account. But I think we disagree on a core tenet: that magnitude is a precursor to understanding who belligerents are. If that was the case then during all history, the winning side would always have to be the bad guy, no matter who initiated hostilities or how warfare was conducted.
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  I didn't have any point other than pointing out that your claims were incorrect. Separately, I do think it's funny when people try to justify Israel's actions by reference to international laws or norms, as if Israel cares. They would still have done this even if they were the only country in the world that considered Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Just like they're (practically) the only country in the world that considers the Golan Heights or East Jerusalem to be legitimately part of their territory, their occupation of the West Bank to be legal, their permanent air and sea blockade of the Gaza Strip to be legal, and so on. They don't appear to care about international norms at all.
  - dijit 2y ago
    It's harder to hold them to account when their combatants aren't held to similar standards. It's a very solid defense to say "well, if we're being attacked by a non-military force that breaks the rules, then what choice do we have". If they were being attacked by a military force that followed the Geneva conventions it would be easier to drum up anti-Israel support internationally for an intervention. So, sorry to say it; but it's a fair criticism to say that one side is even more flagrant of the rules: why should Israel even bother trying to abide them?
    - School-Cotton 2y ago
      Remind me, what actions by their enemy combatants force Israel to allow civilian Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank?
      - dijit 2y ago
        None, that's an easy condemn act. Here I am to condemn it, I have even written to my MEP regarding that topic.
        School-Cotton 2y ago
        I wasn't asking you to condemn it, I was using it as an example of my claim that Israel doesn't care about international law or norms, even in cases where you can't possibly use "but our enemy violates them too" as a justification.