Hezbollah bombards Israeli positions in disputed area along border with Syria's Golan Heights
apnews.com
Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group has fired dozens of rockets and shells at three Israeli positions in a disputed area along the country’s border with Syria’s Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group fired dozens of rockets and shells on Sunday at three Israeli positions in a disputed area along the country’s border with Syria’s Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

Hezbollah said in a statement that the attack using “large numbers of rockets and shells” was in solidarity with the “Palestinian resistance.” It said the Israeli positions were directly hit.

Israel’s military fired back at the Lebanese areas, but there was no immediate word on casualties.

  • BrokebackHampton
    2•1 year ago

    Surely you understand the meaning of consensual.

    I don’t see how the military hegemony you openly spouse could lead to any sort of consensual agreement. Hegemony, by definition, is directly opposed to consensus.

    Next thing you’ll tell me the settler colonialism and de facto apartheid state Israel is directly enabling are absolutely necessary, for geopolitical reasons obviously.

    Besides all that, if the point you’re trying to make is that Israel needs the military spending to maintain its territorial integrity, I seriously question they would need 38bn USD in foreign aid just for that.
    And that would be ignoring the fact Israel has been increasingly extending its territorial integrity over palestinian land for the duration of the conflict, and will continue to do so. Not a lot of “two-state solution” in that.

    • KalashEnglish
      1•1 year ago

      Is it “consensual” if one party in a war surrenders to the terms of the victor after a military defeat? I’m not sure this is the right concept to apply here.

      What I’m saying is that Israel has had military hegemony for quite some time and has made several attempts to negotiate a peace (of course on their terms). A two-state solution was at least on the table.

      I just can’t see this happening in a scenario if the power was reversed. The charters of the Palestinian militant groups makes it very clear that their goal is total military victory.

      So yes, if you want the prospect of a two-state solution, you have to support Israel.

      And that would be ignoring the fact Israel has been increasingly extending its territorial integrity over palestinian land for the duration of the conflict, and will continue to do so. Not a lot of “two-state solution” in that.

      I mean, of course. After negotiate fail and fighting resums, your objective is to get into a more favourable position for the next round of negotiate. That’s how this works.

      But at this point I agree that Israel has also given up on a two-state solutuion. That’s why they switched to slow annexation by settlemts in the west bank. And we’ll see what happens to gaza, soon.