Comment by bhouston

Comment by bhouston 3 days ago

66 replies

View on Hacker News

> Lebanon has been shooting rockets at Israel for a while now.

Correction: Israel and Lebanon have been firing across the border for a while. More Israeli attacks on Lebanon than the other way around and more Lebanese dead too.

Details:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/27/mapping-7400-cross-...

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/bfa9/live/320f24...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv2gj544x65o

And lots more details here:

"Between 21 October 2023 and 20 February 2024 the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) recorded an estimated 7,948 incidents of artillery fire from the south of the Blue Line (from Israel to Lebanon) and 978 incidents of artillery fire from the north side (from Lebanon to Israel)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–Hezbollah_conflict_(202...

cubefox 3 days ago

The question is who started shooting rockets at the territory of the other. I would be surprised if it was Israel.

Reply View 52 replies
  • einszwei 3 days ago

    The answer isn't straight forward. 1980s invasion of Lebanon by Israel and it's withdrawal in 2000 was what made Hezbollah into the force that it is today.

    The conflict has been simmering for decades

    Reply View 46 replies
    • yoavm 3 days ago

      The answer is pretty straight forward in the sense that the current round of war was initiated (proudly) by Hezbollah, and that while if Hezbollah stops shooting Israel would have no business with Lebanon, if Israel stops shooting into Lebanon Hezbollah has no intention of stopping too. Hezbollah wants to destroy Israel (they say that, not me), while Israel has no desire to destroy Lebanon. Hinting at some kind of symmetry here seems weird.

      Israel invading into Lebanon in the late 1970 was a response to an attack originating there [0].

      [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_Road_massacre#Israeli_...

      Reply View 36 replies
      • someotherperson 3 days ago

        > the current round of war

        Israel has been attacking Hezbollah non-stop in Syria for the last decade[0]. "The current round of war" is quite literally just Hezbollah firing back.

        It's strange to me how Israel is able to fly sorties around the entire region and it's not considered an escalation, but the moment that we see responses it turns into the other side being the aggressor.

        > while Israel has no desire to destroy Lebanon

        The Israeli Dahiya doctrine[1] is literally based on the idea of destroying as much of Lebanon as possible to screw with Hezbollah's support and morale.

        [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_conflict_d...

        [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine

        Reply View 4 replies
      • einszwei 3 days ago

        Hezbollah didn't exist in 1970s. It was founded in 1982

        Like the famous quote said "We make peace with our enemies, not our friends" (I can't recall the source) - what is lacking here is diplomacy.

        To repeat - Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1980s was the catalyst for Hezbollah's rise. While they curbed PLO they created a more formidable adversary.

        Reply View 4 replies
      • pphysch 3 days ago

        > Hinting at some kind of symmetry here seems weird.

        Both sides (Israeli state, and Hezbollah) want to destroy each other. It's a simple symmetry. Conflating the military force with the territory and civilians living on it only obfuscates this.

        Reply View 25 replies
    • grumple 3 days ago

      It is straightforward. There was no conflict there for that past decade plus, Hezbollah started attacking Israel in October to join their Islamic brethren.

      Reply View 0 replies
    • mupuff1234 3 days ago

      I think the answer is fairly straightforward if you limit it to the current round in the conflict

      Not to mention that Israel is no longer in Lebanon and Hezbollah can just stop firing rockets and the situation will go back to relative peace.

      So sure the history is complicated, but current events are fairly straightfoward, you had relatively peaceful status que until Hezbollah broke it.

      Reply View 7 replies
      • nick_ 3 days ago

        I mean... yes... if you limit any context by excluding important elements of the context the takeaways will be different.

        Reply View 5 replies
  • bhouston 3 days ago

    > The question is who started shooting rockets at the territory of the other.

    I think you can always go back further. A good overview is this article on the history of Hezbollah-Israel conflict, with links to the various flare-ups:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah–Israel_conflict

    Reply View 2 replies
    • tptacek 3 days ago

      What makes sense is going back to the last durable cessation of hostilities, not tracing every event back to the Battle of Jericho.

      Reply View 0 replies
  • g8oz 3 days ago

    The question is why did the rocket fire start. The ICJ ruling should tell you why.

    Reply View 0 replies
  • t0lo 15 hours ago

    Yeah let's redirect the conversation again before we can blame israel!

    Reply View 0 replies
ineedasername 3 days ago

Per that wikipedia entry this current conflict began with an attack on Israel. Hezbollah attacked a much more powerful enemy so a statement that stops at "they've both been doing it" does not accurately capture the casus belli:

"Israel and <strikethrough>Lebanon</strikethrough> Hezbollah have been firing across the border since an October 8th strike against Israel in 2023..." etc.

That is a more complete & accurate description.

Reply View 0 replies
grumple 3 days ago

Artillery != rockets. And importantly artillery from Israel is much more targeted and predictable than unguided rockets. Hezbollah has launched about 14k rockets as of late June: https://www.newsweek.com/chart-shows-increae-hezbollah-rocke...

Just on its face, with Hezbollah launching sometimes hundreds of rockets per day, didn’t you suspect what you posted was misleading?

Reply View 0 replies
bufferoverflow 3 days ago

[flagged]

Reply View 9 replies
  • bhouston 3 days ago

    > Citing openly anti-israeli sources like BBC and Al-Jazeera is not a way to prove your point.

    Are you saying that their numbers are incorrect? If so share another link you trust more.

    Reply View 3 replies
    • bufferoverflow 3 days ago

      Attacks or responses to attacks?

      You seem to conflate them.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • yieldcrv 3 days ago

        is it embarrassing when your peers are getting paid to post and you aren’t

        I find that concept fascinating and wonder how genuine opinions are on these topics and how that feels to actually harbor opinions that rely on moral superiority, something that the rest of us don’t feel is a useful or relevant distinction for any sovereign in that region

        Reply View 0 replies
      • bhouston 3 days ago

        > Attacks or responses to attacks?

        Oh come on. I didn't say one side was retaliation and the other aggression. You are saying that. I said there were attacks on both sides. Whether one attack is raw aggression or defensive retaliation is very much in the eye of the beholder.

        Reply View 0 replies
  • smokracek 3 days ago

    If the BBC is an anti-Israeli source, it sounds like you'll only accept very pro-Israel sources as true.

    Reply View 4 replies