Hamas Attacks Against Israel

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

 

 

In any large unorganized movement, there are going to be idiots, and there are going to people that are in it for the attention and don't care much about whether what they are doing makes any sense. 

 

That doesn't make anyone actually an anarchist and certainly not the whole movement, or the whole movement idiots.  Why go to anarchist?

 

Saudis warn of "very serious repercussions of storming and targeting" Rafah.

 

https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-02-11-24/index.html

 

This might get interesting.

Edited February 11 by PeterMP

[TradeTheBeal!]

22 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

In any large unorganized movement, there are going to be idiots, and there are going to people that are in it for the attention and don't care much about whether what they are doing makes any sense. 

 

 

Dont forget apologists and enablers.  They’re an important part of the idiotic nonsense too!

[Larry]

32 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

In any large unorganized movement, there are going to be idiots, and there are going to people that are in it for the attention and don't care much about whether what they are doing makes any sense. 

 

And I'm pretty sure that there's a group of people who just show up at protests and things, just so they can **** things up. Probably don't care about the cause at all. To them, it's just cover. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

 

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

This is extremely misleading in that the implication is that Israel's enemies haven't changed.

 

Trans-Jordan isn't even a country any more.  Egypt is no longer attacking Israel.  The idea that the more recent conflict is equivalent to every other conflict is false.   Being forced to agree to a cease fire with Egypt has not resulted in Egypt continuing to attack Israel.

 

The other thing that has happened historically to prevent wars is the winning side has changed what they do after the war.  After WWII, we looked at what we did after WWI and said that didn't work.  Let's try something else (giving the people that we had beaten lots of money and land of their own to call a country and helped them rebuild their country).  So maybe the issue isn't there are cease fires.  Maybe the issue is what happens after the cease fire.

 

I think in the context of this current conflict Israel could help avoid calls for a cease fire by trying to precisely describe what victory looks like and what it is going to take to achieve it.  Our objective in WWII was not to kill every member of the Nazi party, or anybody that have sworn allegiance to the Emperor.  We've seen the issue with defeating organizations like the Taliban.  We weren't willing to kill everybody in Afghanistan and invade Pakistan to defeat the Taliban.  Are going to occupy Jordan, Lebanon, Qatar, etc. to destroy Hamas if that's what is actually necessary?  Kill/displace everybody that lives in Gaza?

 

Even what does it mean to destroy Hamas?  Does this mean killing the Hamas leadership?  Or if they say we surrender is that sufficient?

Edited February 12 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

12 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

This is extremely misleading in that the implication is that Israel's enemies haven't changed.

 

Trans-Jordan isn't even a country any more.  Egypt is no longer attacking Israel.  The idea that the more recent conflict is equivalent to every other conflict is false.   Being forced to agree to a cease fire with Egypt has not resulted in Egypt continuing to attack Israel.

 

 

 

No. They aren’t equivalent. Who said that? But the mistake remains the same.

 

12 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

The other thing that has happened historically to prevent wars is the winning side has changed what they do after the war.  After WWII, we looked at what we did after WWI and said that didn't work.

 

What we did is completely destroy the enemy, both in ww1 and ww2. The only difference is that we helped rebuild the countries economies after the enemy was defeated in ww2 (vs exploiting and punishing them in ww1). We didn’t forgive the nazis. We executed them.

 

 

12 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

?  Does this mean killing the Hamas leadership?  Or if they say we surrender is that sufficient?

 

Is Hamas saying they surrender? The last time I checked they were not willing to release hostages or demilitarize themselves. What are you talking about?

[PeterMP]

37 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

No. They aren’t equivalent. Who said that? But the mistake remains the same.

 

 

What we did is completely destroy the enemy, both in ww1 and ww2. The only difference is that we helped rebuild the countries economies after the enemy was defeated in ww2 (vs exploiting and punishing them in ww1). We didn’t forgive the nazis. We executed them.

 

 

 

Is Hamas saying they surrender? The last time I checked they were not willing to release hostages or demilitarize themselves. What are you talking about?

 

The mistake isn't the same.  If the mistake were the same, the results would be the same. And they aren't.  Egypt is not invading Israel.  It is hard to imagine that Israel invading Egypt to force an Egyptian surrender would have worked out better for Israel.  The only way the argument in your tweet makes much sense is if it is the same countries that keep invading them.  Cease fires can result in different out comes.  We see that all over the world, including with respect to Israel.  

 

Israel occupied Gaza for years (even decades).  If they wanted to work rebuilding Gaza, they could have.  They didn't.  What they did do is make Jewish settlements.  Which they finally decided that they couldn't protect and so abandoned.  Israel has had time and access to resources to help rebuild a Palestinian country and to support the world in doing so.  And hasn't.  Maybe the issue is that and not that they've agreed to cease fires.

 

We didn't execute every Nazi.  A very small number of Nazis were executed.  Many were imprisoned for a short period of time and released as "rehabilitated" and people that weren't overly involved were essentially ignored.  24 people were tried at Nuremberg and only 12 of them were killed (Hitler obviously killed himself).  There were millions of people in the Nazi party.

 

In Japan, we even left the Emperor figuratively in power and didn't execute any high ranking Japanese after the war.  What happened in Japan today would be recognized as a negotiated cease fire.  And after what was realistically a cease fire, we helped them rebuild.

 

No Hamas has not said they would surrender.  I'm saying I think it might be good for global support of Israel if Israel would describe what destroying Hamas means in the context of the Hamas leadership.  If destroying Hamas means the physical surrender of the Hamas leadership for trial in Israel, then I don't think they will ever surrender.  If Israel will except the "destruction of Hamas" being the Hamas leadership saying we surrender and are disbanding while they go on living their lives in the countries they live in now pretty much in the manner they do now, then surrender (and the "destruction" of Hamas) becomes more likely.  If surrender is more likely, people around the world are more likely to accept Israel's continue offensive in trying to "destroy" Hamas.  If destroying Hamas means the leaders have to physically surrender to Israel, then I think that being less likely the world is less likely to support Israel's continued offensive.  That is more likely to result in a war without an end where only people stuck in places like Gaza are actually being punished.

Edited February 12 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

The mistake isn't the same.  If the mistake were the same, the results would be the same.

 

How so?. Same mistake different enemy. The same mistake can me made multiple time and different results will happen each time. This is kind of a dumb statement. 

 

 

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

 

We didn't execute every Nazi.  A very small number of Nazis were executed.  Many were imprisoned for a short period of time and released as "rehabilitated" and people that weren't overly involved were essentially ignored.  24 people were tried at Nuremberg and only 12 of them were killed (Hitler obviously killed himself).  There were millions of people in the Nazi party.

 

In Japan, we even left the Emperor figuratively in power and didn't execute any high ranking Japanese after the was.  What happened in Japan today would be recognized as a negotiated cease fire.

 

 

you are missing the forest for the trees. The entire military capability of Germany and Japan was neutralized as part of the military operation against them. btw, we accepted some civilians would be killed as a result. A lot of them.

 

 

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

No Hamas has not said they would surrender.  I'm saying I think it might be good for global support of Israel if Israel would describe what destroying Hamas means in the context of the Hamas leadership.  If destroying Hamas means the physical surrender of the Hamas leadership for trial in Israel, then I don't think they will ever surrender.  If Israel will except the "destruction of Hamas" being the Hamas leadership saying we surrender and are disbanding while they go on living their lives in the countries they live in now pretty much in the manner they do now, then surrender (and the "destruction" of Hamas) becomes more likely.  If surrender is more likely, people around the world are more likely to accept Israel's continue offensive in trying to "destroy" Hamas.  If destroying Hamas means the leaders have to physically surrender to Israel, then I think that being less likely the world is less likely to support Israel's continued offensive.  That is more likely to result in a war without an end where only people stuck in places like Gaza are actually being punished.

destruction of Hamas means getting rid of the leadership and destruction of all the tunnels and weaponry in Gaza.

[Destino]

Destruction of Hamas means Hamas members they can locate are all dead or detained. That’s essentially what the US and allies did with ISIS and Al Qaeda that the US was able to find during military action in the region. They didn’t just go after leaders, they went after all of them everywhere until they were scattered in the winds or located somewhere else in the world entirely. 
 

A Hamas surrender would need to be unconditional. They’d be detained and almost certainly removed from Gaza, which would then be occupied for an unknown period of time. Not an unheard of result following a war.

 

people just don’t want to accept this is a war. They want this to be a proportional response and Israel from the start has said this is a war. 

[PeterMP]

35 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

How so?. Same mistake different enemy. The same mistake can me made multiple time and different results will happen each time. This is kind of a dumb statement. 

 

 

 

 

you are missing the forest for the trees. The entire military capability of Germany and Japan was neutralized as part of the military operation against them. btw, we accepted some civilians would be killed as a result. A lot of them.

 

 

destruction of Hamas means getting rid of the leadership and destruction of all the tunnels and weaponry in Gaza.

 

I'm saying that in 1973 we forced Israel to not destroy the Egyptian military and do whatever they would have done after doing so.  And that's actually worked out for Israel, Egypt hasn't attacked them again, and in 1978 you have the Camp David Accords.  Explain to me what you think happens in 1973 if Israel continues their attack on Egypt, does manage to destroy their military, and does whatever they do with the resulting Egypt.  How does that work out better for Israel?  If continuing to come to cease fires is a mistake because they keep getting attacked.  Then you should be able to lay out a reasonable better out come for Israel than what they've had from those cease fires.

 

If the Egyptian military is destroyed and forced to surrender in 1978, do think there aren't militant Arab/Muslim groups that are interested in attacking Israel today?  Do you believe that?  What is your historical narrative by which Israel is better off today after an Egyptian surrender?

 

We did not destroy the Japanese military.  It just isn't true.  We didn't invade Japan partly because they still had vigorous means to defend the home islands the result would have been the death of many Americans and Japanese.  Japan no longer had the ability to really project power (but Hamas never really has had the ability to project power), but they still readily had the ability to defend their home islands.  We agreed to what was essentially a cease fire leaving the whole Japanese hierarchy alive and at least symbolically in place because we decided it wasn't worth the cost in lives.

 

Which isn't really much different from where Israel finds itself with respect to Hamas today.

 

What do you mean by getting rid of their leadership?  Their leadership isn't in Gaza?  Does that mean invading the countries where their leadership is?

Edited February 12 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

32 minutes ago, Destino said:

people just don’t want to accept this is a war. They want this to be a proportional response and Israel from the start has said this is a war. 

 

I respectfully disagree with this notion entirely.

 

People know what time it is in regards to whether it's a war or not at this point.

 

Yes, we hunted al qaeda to ends of the earth, killing their leaders until they didn't have any and nobody wanted to be one.

 

But we didn't do all that entirely within the confines of one of the most densly populated urban areas on earth.

 

Folks aren't asking for a proportional response, more discretionary one in that context.

 

Israel is trying to send a message that folks need to stop trying to translate.

Edited February 12 by Renegade7

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

Japan no longer had the ability to really project power (but Hamas never really has had the ability to project power), but they still readily had the ability to defend their home islands.  We agreed to what was essentially a cease fire leaving the whole Japanese hierarchy alive and at least symbolically in place because we decided it wasn't worth the cost in lives.

 

Which isn't really much different from where Israel finds itself with respect to Hamas today.

 

 

project power is relative. Each day Hamas launches a rocket into Israel is a day it is projecting power. So, if you want to compare Japan to Hamas, then we can start there. 
 

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

 

 

 

What do you mean by getting rid of their leadership?  Their leadership isn't in Gaza?  Does that mean invading the countries where their leadership is?

Targeted assignations elsewhere if those leaders continue to work against Israel. But getting rid of their leadership in Gaza is a step in the right direction.

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

But we didn't do all that entirely within the confines of one of the most densly populated urban areas on earth.

 

that is where Hamas hides. If al qaeda were hiding in a dense population you can bet we’d be in there sorting the rat **** from the pepper.

 

 

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Destino said:

Destruction of Hamas means Hamas members they can locate are all dead or detained. That’s essentially what the US and allies did with ISIS and Al Qaeda that the US was able to find during military action in the region. They didn’t just go after leaders, they went after all of them everywhere until they were scattered in the winds or located somewhere else in the world entirely. 
 

A Hamas surrender would need to be unconditional. They’d be detained and almost certainly removed from Gaza, which would then be occupied for an unknown period of time. Not an unheard of result following a war.

 

people just don’t want to accept this is a war. They want this to be a proportional response and Israel from the start has said this is a war. 

 

I just want to point that isn't actually really true.  A good bit of the al Qeada leadership simply moved to Pakistan.  And we knew it.  And early on we decided to not chase them.  We decided invading Pakistan, including only the tribal regions, wasn't worth it.  And we know and always believed that's where bin Laden was.

 

In 2006, we had a good idea where al-Zawahiri pretty precisely (and was right next door in Pakistan) and used a missile attack to try to kill him (and failed).  The Pakistanis also claim to have almost captured him (in Pakistan once).  Unless you consider hanging out in Pakistan right next to Afghanistan "scattered in the winds" or located "somewhere else in the world entirely." this isn't really true.

 

 

Edited February 13 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

18 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

project power is relative. Each day Hamas launches a rocket into Israel is a day it is projecting power. So, if you want to compare Japan to Hamas, then we can start there. 
 

 

Targeted assignations elsewhere if those leaders continue to work against Israel. But getting rid of their leadership in Gaza is a step in the right direction.

that is where Hamas hides. If al qaeda were hiding in a dense population you can bet we’d be in there sorting the rat **** from the pepper.

 

 

 

Can we go back to the original tweet?  In 1973, Israel doesn't destroy the Egyptian army, doesn't force a surrender (because of pressure from us), agrees to something else less then a complete surrender that eventually leads to the Camp David Accords.  How was that mistake?  In what way his Israel better off if in 1973 they destroy the Egyptian army and force a complete surrender.  You defended that tweet over multiple posts.  Please take 1973 and what happened with respect to Egypt and explain how that was mistake.

 

Move the goal posts much?  There is essentially no evidence that attacking Gaza is going to eliminate Hamas' ability to fire rockets at Israel.  Many of them are coming from Lebanon.  Are you advocating that Israel invade and occupy Lebanon next?  I've said that I don't think Israel has the ability to destroy Hamas.  I've got not problem saying that at the level of firing rockets that they don't have the ability to prevent Hamas from attacking Israel.  The situation is not directly comparable to Japan.  But your statements about Japan and Germany have just mostly been wrong and so I've pointed that out.

 

Do you know where bin Laden was hiding?  al-Zawahiri?  Do you want to tell me what we did in those cases?  Not what Israel is doing, and there was a reason for that.  (The reason was that it wouldn't be beneficial to our long term security).

[Renegade7]

28 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

 

that is where Hamas hides. If al qaeda were hiding in a dense population you can bet we’d be in there sorting the rat **** from the pepper.

 

 

 

In the same manner that threatens to get us taken to international court for war crimes?

 

Not when we warning them not to.

 

I again bring up our lessons learned in urban fighting the last 20 years, we learned a lot of things the hard way so by now no, I don't agree wed go about it same way Israel is now.

[Destino]

54 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I just want to point that isn't actually really true.  A good bit of the al Qeada leadership simply moved to Pakistan.  And we knew it.  And early on we decided to not chase them.  We decided invading Pakistan, including only the tribal regions, wasn't worth it.  And we know and always believed that's where bin Laden was.

 

In 2006, we had a good idea where al-Zawahiri pretty precisely (and was right next door in Pakistan) and used a missile attack to try to kill him (and failed).  The Pakistanis also claim to have almost captured him (in Pakistan once).  Unless you consider hanging out in Pakistan right next to Afghanistan "scattered in the winds" or located "somewhere else in the world entirely." this isn't really true.

 

 

yup some few fled into a neighboring nuclear power. Hamas is welcome to do the same. None can stay. They don’t get to survive merely by hiding in tunnels under downtown and waiting it out like rats. They don’t get to enjoy the power of leadership but shrug off the responsibility that comes with it, 
 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Targeted assignations elsewhere if those leaders continue to work against Israel. But getting rid of their leadership in Gaza is a step in the right direction.

 

Just speculating on why you want targeted assassinations in other countries, but you're fine with (note, this is an analogy) carpet bombing Palestine.  

 

I can think of two possible reasons  neither of them good.  

 

1)  You're cool with Palestinian civilian casualties.  Just not other countries'.  

 

2)  It's because other countries have the ability to harm Israel, but the Palestinians don't.  

[PeterMP]

42 minutes ago, Destino said:

yup some few fled into a neighboring nuclear power. Hamas is welcome to do the same. None can stay. They don’t get to survive merely by hiding in tunnels under downtown and waiting it out like rats. They don’t get to enjoy the power of leadership but shrug off the responsibility that comes with it, 
 

 

The vast majority of upper level of Hamas leaders weren't living in Gaza before the Oct. attacks.  They live in places that are nicer already (and still have leadership roles in Hamas).  Saying they have to leave Gaza isn't really a big deal to them.

 

Killing people in Gaza is as likely to cause the Hamas leadership to surrender as killing people in Afghanistan resulted in bin Laden and al-Zawarihi to surrender.

 

(So none.)

Edited February 13 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

57 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Just speculating on why you want targeted assassinations in other countries, but you're fine with (note, this is an analogy) carpet bombing Palestine.  
 

 

 

where did I say that. Minimize civilian casualties.

 

57 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

 

2)  It's because other countries have the ability to harm Israel, but the Palestinians don't.  

when you say Palestinians I’m assuming you mean Hamas?  But yes, Israel wouldn’t openly attack Iran for obvious reasons.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Can we go back to the original tweet?  In 1973, Israel doesn't destroy the Egyptian army, doesn't force a surrender (because of pressure from us), agrees to something else less then a complete surrender that eventually leads to the Camp David Accords.  How was that mistake?  In what way his Israel better off if in 1973 they destroy the Egyptian army and force a complete surrender.  You defended that tweet over multiple posts.  Please take 1973 and what happened with respect to Egypt and explain how that was mistake.

 

Effective deference means making people pay asymmetrically, unfortunately.

 

 

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Move the goal posts much?  There is essentially no evidence that attacking Gaza is going to eliminate Hamas' ability to fire rockets at Israel.  Many of them are coming from Lebanon. 

 

 

We were talking about Hamas ability to project power in Gaza. So that would mean eliminating their ability to launch rockets from Gaza at a minimum. But now that you mention it…

 

 

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Are you advocating that Israel invade and occupy Lebanon next?  I've said that I don't think Israel has the ability to destroy Hamas.  I've got not problem saying that at the level of firing rockets that they don't have the ability to prevent Hamas from attacking Israel. 

 

Have you been paying attention? Israel has clearly said unless Hezbolah retreats they will be attacking Lebanon. 

 

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

The situation is not directly comparable to Japan.  But your statements about Japan and Germany have just mostly been wrong and so I've pointed that out.

 

No, my statements haven’t been wrong. We completely destroyed their military apparatus. You can yea but if you want, but facts are facts. Germany and Japan were demilitarized after the war.

 

Where do you get your history from?

 

 

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/united-states-occupying-germany-and-japan

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Ds

Edited February 13 by CousinsCowgirl84

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

In the same manner that threatens to get us taken to international court for war crimes?

You’re aware there are western people that legit think we should be charged with war crimes, right?

 

 

You’re also aware we refuse to sign on to the ICC right?

 

”might get charged with war crimes” is quite clearly something the United States doesn’t care about (when it chooses not to care)

[Destino]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

The vast majority of upper level of Hamas leaders weren't living in Gaza before the Oct. attacks.  They live in places that are nicer already (and still have leadership roles in Hamas).  Saying they have to leave Gaza isn't really a big deal to them.

 

Killing people in Gaza is as likely to cause the Hamas leadership to surrender as killing people in Afghanistan resulted in bin Laden and al-Zawarihi to surrender.

 

(So none.)

again, it’s not just about leadership. Hamas in Gaza needs to surrender or leave. Not one guy, not three guys, not a committee at the top. All of them. If they live on in exile in whatever country, then they become that host nation’s problem. That shelter will no doubt come with conditions, one of which is surely not to draw their hosts into a shooting war with an Israel.
 

If anything the importance of getting leaders is overstated. Removing their army of followers and state from which to operate is at least as significant. 

[Renegade7]

25 minutes ago, tshile said:

You’re aware there are western people that legit think we should be charged with war crimes, right?

 

 

You’re also aware we refuse to sign on to the ICC right?

 

”might get charged with war crimes” is quite clearly something the United States doesn’t care about (when it chooses not to care)

 

I do and open to us facing the music to keep the conversation honest.  Have been for a while, our history is not as pretty as our public schools try to betray and even what they tell us at that level is frankly ugly at certain points (like "relocating" Native Americans).

 

I do not agree we don't care about committing war crimes now. We took too long on our own the need for internal investigation on our choice of targets for drones.  But we did it quite recently.

 

The record shows we used to be worse on this issue, but to put our current administration on par with what Assad did, Putin is doing, or Israel is being accused of is disingenuous whataboutism.  To say wed do the same thing right now that Israel is doing is wrong, we tried to talk them out of it.

 

[PokerPacker]

Getting rid of people who support Hamas won't do much when Israel goes back to status quo of settlements, displacement, and murder, breeding a new generation of Palestinians who hate Israel and don't have much to lose turning to terrorism.  None of this will end until Israel completes its ethnic cleanse of Palestine or somebody bigger comes in and forces the two parties to come to the table and make a real agreement.  One that can allow them both to prosper, not one that ends with one side with their foot on the neck of the other.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Effective deference means making people pay asymmetrically, unfortunately.

 

 

 

 

We were talking about Hamas ability to project power in Gaza. So that would mean eliminating their ability to launch rockets from Gaza at a minimum. But now that you mention it…

 

 

 

Have you been paying attention? Israel has clearly said unless Hezbolah retreats they will be attacking Lebanon. 

 

 

No, my statements haven’t been wrong. We completely destroyed their military apparatus. You can yea but if you want, but facts are facts. Germany and Japan were demilitarized after the war.

 

Where do you get your history from?

 

 

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/united-states-occupying-germany-and-japan

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Ds

 

That doesn't explain how forcing Egypt to surrender would make things better for Israel today.  What is the result of destroying the Egyptian army and forcing Egypt to surrender?  Be specific.  Do you believe that if Israel had destroyed the Egyptian army that in 1973 there wouldn't be militant Islamic/Arab people trying to destroy Israel?

 

Please tell me what I have wrong.  Be specific.  Quote what I said you were wrong about and explain why it was right.  Japan demilitarized as part of the peace agreement that allowed the in the upper level of their government to survive.  That would like if Israel and Hamas come to a peace agreement this week that included Hamas demilitarizing.  That is not the same as what you are pushing here.  (Denazification did not include the execution of a large number of Nazis.).  If Israel wants to require demilitarization of Hamas as part of a peace agreement, that's reasonable.  But that's different than saying Hamas has to be destroyed.

 

Yes, I'm aware of what Israel has been saying with respect Lebanon.  Is that something you'd advocate? (which I've already asked you)

 

(I will point out this is something we don't think would be a good idea.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/01/07/israel-hezbollah-lebanon-blinken/

 

Partly at least because don't think they can.)

Edited February 13 by PeterMP