3 ms·

Why did the Lebanese army not defend it then?

by xg15 6mo ago

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
[flagged]
- xg15 6mo ago
  And I guess the one million Lebanese citizens who just permanently lost their homes just had bad luck...
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - xg15 6mo ago
      > No, the folks up north traded their homes and security for keeping Beirut more or less intact. 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.
      - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > 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.)
        xg15 6mo ago
        > A unilateral course, then 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?
        l23k4 6mo ago
        >Not in the way it would be if Lebanon declared war on Israel. What would declaring a second war even imply? Lebanon and Israel are, and have been in an official state of war since 1948.
citrin_ru 6mo ago
Hezbollah at least recently was much stronger than Lebanese army and even nowadays Lebanese army afraid to challenge Hezbollah. Concept of a powerful non state actor is something many people in the west refuse to acknowledge.
thisislife2 6mo ago
It's a country with two power centres and two national armies. Thus, "divide and rule" politics works exceptionally well there and no one should be surprised their lack of political unity is working against them. While the Lebanese army has no love for the Israelis they are acting under US pressure and advise to not get involved as Hezbollah is taking the brunt of the attack, which the US and some Lebanese political actors hope will hope weakens it enough and eventually lead to its merger / absorption. It's an idiotic way to think of, ofcourse, because there is no guarantee that the US and / or Israel are likely to stop the war (or their ethnic cleansing / genocide), or stop making political demands on Lebanon once the Hezbollah is gone. The loss of Hezbollah fighters will mean Lebanon's military actually becomes weaker.
petre 5mo ago
Mainly because Lebanon is a failed state with arguably non state actors (Hezbollah being an Iranian proxy) doing the "defending". Which is not real defending but pestering Israel with attacks and drawing more punitive action.

Why did the Lebanese army not defend it then?

by xg15 6mo ago

Why did the Lebanese army not defend it then?

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago

[flagged]

xg15 6mo ago
And I guess the one million Lebanese citizens who just permanently lost their homes just had bad luck...
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - xg15 6mo ago
    > No, the folks up north traded their homes and security for keeping Beirut more or less intact. 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.
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > 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.)
      - xg15 6mo ago
        > A unilateral course, then 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?
      - l23k4 6mo ago
        >Not in the way it would be if Lebanon declared war on Israel. What would declaring a second war even imply? Lebanon and Israel are, and have been in an official state of war since 1948.

citrin_ru 6mo ago

Hezbollah at least recently was much stronger than Lebanese army and even nowadays Lebanese army afraid to challenge Hezbollah. Concept of a powerful non state actor is something many people in the west refuse to acknowledge.

thisislife2 6mo ago

It's a country with two power centres and two national armies. Thus, "divide and rule" politics works exceptionally well there and no one should be surprised their lack of political unity is working against them. While the Lebanese army has no love for the Israelis they are acting under US pressure and advise to not get involved as Hezbollah is taking the brunt of the attack, which the US and some Lebanese political actors hope will hope weakens it enough and eventually lead to its merger / absorption. It's an idiotic way to think of, ofcourse, because there is no guarantee that the US and / or Israel are likely to stop the war (or their ethnic cleansing / genocide), or stop making political demands on Lebanon once the Hezbollah is gone. The loss of Hezbollah fighters will mean Lebanon's military actually becomes weaker.

petre 5mo ago

Mainly because Lebanon is a failed state with arguably non state actors (Hezbollah being an Iranian proxy) doing the "defending". Which is not real defending but pestering Israel with attacks and drawing more punitive action.