Benjamin Netanyahu's appeal came as Israel expanded its ground invasion against Hezbollah.

cross-posted from: https://quokk.au/post/590118

During a video address directed at the people of Lebanon, Netanyahu said: "You have an opportunity to save Lebanon before it falls into the abyss of a long war that will lead to destruction and suffering like we see in Gaza.

    • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      4 hours ago

      I don’t know how you think these things work but bombing half the Levant isn’t going to make Israel any safer. It just means Hamas and Hezbollah (or whatever group replaces them) will be even more extreme and capable of recruiting militants. You can’t bomb your way to peace.

      • nonailsleft@lemm.eeEnglish
        25·
        3 hours ago

        Lots of countries that bombed/killed their way to peace would disagree

        Allowing them to rebuild their forces to get a mere 100 hostages back will just lead to more death in the future

        • Saleh@feddit.orgEnglish
          2·
          2 hours ago

          The last time “bombing to peace” worked was in WW2, when the US killed 200.000 Japanese civillians with two nukes. The threat was clear. Surrender or face total annihilation.

          There is a term for that. It is called genocide. But in the case of Israel they would first need to genocide all of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Jordan. So some 50-60 Million people. Then all the other Muslims will feel threatened and fight back, like the West and UDSSR did against Nazis Germany. So in the second round, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Yemen and Oman will have to be genocided to achieve “peace”. That is some 200 million people. But then the rest of the world, except for Israels enablers in the US, Germany, UK and other few allies will feel threatened. So then the genocide needs to kill some 7 billion people.

          That is the logic of the escalator “seeking peace” through killing everyone opposing him. When the US fought Japan, it was also liberating the countries around it. When Israel is fighting everyone around it, it is always clear that it will step it up to attack the next country and the next after that.

          • nonailsleft@lemm.eeEnglish
            11·
            1 hour ago

            If you don’t know of any conflict being ended with violence after WW2, you might want to sign up to some history podcast or something

        • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 hours ago

          Israel isn’t fighting a country. It’s, at least ostensibly, fighting terrorism and every civilian killed radicalizes someone. Israel will be less secure in the future because of how Netanyahu has conducted the war in Gaza, not to mention how he’s given settlers — who are terrorists themselves — free rein to steal land and attack West Bank Palestinians. (I say “ostensibly” because Gaza looks a lot more like a genocide than any sort of limited mission to crush Hamas and rescue hostages.)

          Unfortunately, I don’t see Netanyahu’s strategy making Israel more secure in the long term.

          • nonailsleft@lemm.eeEnglish
            11·
            41 minutes ago

            They’re fighting Arab-islamic nationalists who won’t ever give up their fight over Palestine.

            Morocco crushed the resistance in Western Sahara and took their territory. Now there’s peace.

            Azerbaijan crushed the resistance in Nagorno-Kharabach and took their territory. Now there’s peace.

            It’s not pretty, but sometimes it’s ‘better’ overall than letting an armed conflict drag on for eternity.

            edit: Also:

            An opinion poll published in mid-September by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR), a think tank based in Ramallah and funded by Western donors, showed for the first time the majority of Gazans opposed the decision to attack. The poll, conducted in early September, found that 57% of people surveyed in the Gaza Strip said the decision to launch the offensive was incorrect, while just 39% said it was correct – down sharply from the previous poll in June.

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      7 hours ago

      Let me explain how we can prove you’re 100% full of bullshit.

      If this had anything to do with security, bibi would resign, hand over reins to someone who didn’t fuck up and let the hostages be taken in the first place, and Israel could come up with plans slightly more nuanced and thought through than ‘Wauuugghh!!!’

      He’s desperate to keep power because hes Bibi, he’d use Iran getting nukes under his watch as an excuse for why he had to keep power, every failure from incompetence is just another argument for why he can’t possibly be replaced.

      You have a dictator, and it would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic.

      • nonailsleft@lemm.eeEnglish
        17·
        7 hours ago

        Your post makes me wonder which country you’re from, and how you’re so sure your neighbours can’t barge in with a few thousand soldiers and capture 250 hostages

        If you’re suggesting that pre-Al Aqsa Flood-Bibi was too weak on Gaza, then well… Yeah

        • InverseParallax@lemmy.worldEnglish
          31·
          6 hours ago

          America, we had a similar surprise once.

          Our reaction did not give us the assurance we desired.

          Bibi is a corrupt tool, he incited the assassination of Rabin and he’s basically a far smarter Trump.

          Israel is doomed because of him, because for such an ideologue security is fuel and he won’t let you stop until greater Israel or it’s complete destruction, there is no middle ground.