Posted by zhengiszen 3 days ago
Maybe without a UN, we would already be having a WWIII. It is impossible to weight its influence, but I very much doubt it is having any nefarious effect.
No need to sledgehammer the world until it gets better
Israel is a satellite state of the US in all but name. You'd have a better shot at dissolving the UN entirely than suspending Israel.
What ive always wondered is why the US hasn't put Israel on the security council, considering it is a nuclear armed state.
The US is more reflexively pro-Israel than Israel is pro-US in international policy, the opposite of what you’d expect if Israel was a US vassal.
> What ive always wondered is why the US hasn't put Israel on the security council
There are lots of reasons, but one that renders all the others secondary is that the US can’t add permanent Security Council members.
> considering it is a nuclear armed state.
India, Pakistan, North Korea, and, when it was a nuclear-armed state, South Africa also are (and were) not permanent UNSC members, a set whuch hasn't expanded, though two seats have switched hands, since the UN was founded.
The whole organization needs to be uprooted and rebuilt. It's become a farce.
Just by allowing Russia to keep the permanent seat of USSR legitimizes their revanchist goals to regain the territories they controlled during the cold war
The best move UN could do is to kick Russia out of permanent seat as it was done with Republic of China, US has the mechanisms to do it but sadly they never will
To be clear, I totally expected a comment like that, but I can guarantee you 1000% that no Ukrainians will be hanging on to Russian cargo plane wheels once they are booted out.
It is very clear that the current administration is backed into a corner and trying to make the best of the situation.
FWIW: This is not a knock against the current administration.
However, Israel left Gaza in 2005 with no deal as part of US pressure (which led to the current situation). Israel offered a Palestinians a country which included east Jerusalem twice based on US pressure. Israel left Lebanon alone due to such pressure.
Israel didn't attack Lebanon for a year and tried to settle due to US pressure despite an average of 25 rockets per day towards civilian population.
Imagine a country being attacked and fired on for nearly 20 years (by Hamas) and keeping reposes "moderate". That's US pressure and influence right there. Israel delayed going into Rafah due to US pressure, it turns out Sinwar and quite a few hostages were there...
The reason it seems that US pressure isn't working is mostly because no one knows what to do exactly. Hostages are still held by Hamas. Hezbollah is still firing rockets/drones even now. I'm 100% for a hostage exchange but right now there's no deal, part of that is because of Netanyahu (who is terrible) but not all of it. The US can't fire Netanyahu (I wish they could...), and that's a problem. They want to strengthen anti-Netanyahu forces within Israel while still moderating its actions, that's a very tight rope to walk on.
Now, just to short-circuit the reply chain, you're going to say that Hamas would have just used the borders to move in weapons. Sure, that's true. In fact, they dug a bunch of tunnels under the Israeli controlled border crossings and smuggled in a bunch of weapons. Normal stuff like food and medicine though were constantly blocked or delayed.
By the way, I don't know how to solve this problem well at this point. Both sides have done enough evil shit to each other that they will want to kill each other for generations. Israel though, has never withdrawn from Gaza, and Israel has never agreed to abide by the terms of UN Resolution 242 that obligates them to withdraw from the 1967 occupied territories. What I expect to happen based on the ground reality and statements from members of the Israeli government is that the Palestinians in Gaza will either die or have their lives be made so intolerable that they leave, and then Israel will annex the land, just as they have in Jerusalem and many areas of the West Bank.
It's as if Israel gave Gaza a chance to prove itself and it immediately elected Hamas, started building war tunnels and rockets. Peace requires proof and unfortunately Hamas proved the opposite. You're assuming that if Israel would have relaxed its defenses things would have been better, Israel relaxed its defenses before October 7th.
Hamas is the organization that sent suicide bombers into the middle of Tel Aviv. It blew up busses full of civilians in order to stop the peace process and prevent the prospect of a Palestinian state. Their slogan in Arabic is "from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab", the river and the sea are the borders of Israel and its tantamount to "kill all the Jews".
Israel elected Liberals who tried to create a peace process and give back almost everything. Hamas blew that up and triggered the rise of the Israeli right-wing. I think there's only way out of this mess and its through. As long as Hamas exists in a functioning form there can be no peace. It's horrible and tragic but I don't see any other way out of this mess. Hopefully, Israel will be able to recover after that and return to its liberal/humane roots.
Israel has long prevented the import of all sorts of goods. They do not provide "everything necessary." Israel also has prevented the export of almost all goods, so that the Palestinians will have no money and be completely dependent on Israel to provide for basic needs.
I'm sure you're right that if the border were opened up that Hamas would import weapons and attack Israel, which is why Israel surrounded Gaza, as I said.
As you say, "peace requires proof", but that goes both ways, and ever since Camp David collapsed, Israel has likewise proved that it does not intend to make peace by further expanding the settlements, and generally making the lives of the Palestinians intolerable, often in capricious ways that do not enhance Israeli security.
The very obvious long-term goal of Israel is to drive the Palestinians out of the occupied territories and annex them for Israeli use.
Sure. I think the most basic proof would be to recognize Israel has a right to exist. The PLO used to perform horrific terrorist attacks, killing children, Olympic athletes, hijacking planes etc. Israel moved to peace settlements with them and offered them a country. Hamas didn't pass that very low bar.
I'm stumped at your statement here, what would you expect Israel to do differently here? They tried to negotiate with Hamas but that was pretty problematic. In fact before 2023 Israel had a "skirmish" with Islamic Jihad (an offshoot organization in Gaza) and Hamas stood aside. This led to the belief within Israel that Hamas is finally moderating and maturing. Turns out it was an intentional diversion in preparation for the October 7th attacks.
> Israel has likewise proved that it does not intend to make peace by further expanding the settlements
> The very obvious long-term goal of Israel is to drive the Palestinians out of the occupied territories and annex them for Israeli use.
Here I have a major problem. You're mixing Israel with the far right government that has taken over. Israelis wanted a Palestinian state and tried to offer that. There's a lot of anger within Israel over the settlements and that policy.
So how do these guys get elected?
There are many reasons that have to do with demographics, corruption and policy that have nothing to do with the Palestinians. But a lot of it has to do with the fact that Israelis have no faith in the Palestinians desire for peaceful co-existence. This lack of faith was born mostly through Hamas constantly keeping the flame of violence alive and a*holes like Netanyahu using that to sling mud at the Palestinian authority (who the Palestinians also hate).
Israelis are looking at this situation as "we tried our best". We offered them a state, twice. They refused. This is a subjective view of history, but it isn't completely wrong. Palestinians lack leadership that would be able to make the tough compromises required for peace and at the moment even if they had such leadership Israelis got stuck with extremist fascists at the wheel. That's a tough knot and you don't untie a knot by pulling harder.
So this "A 21-year-old woman kidnapped by Islamic State militants in Iraq a decade ago" came to Gaza thru Israel?
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/yazidi-woman-freed...
There are many variants of the slogan of course, but for some reason you're picking one of the more uncommon (and more virulent) versions. However, he "official" versions (for example from the PLO) use the phrase to call for a single democratic state for Arabs and Jews, that would replace Israel, and from which nobody will be expelled.
This is of course also in line (albeit in somewhat simplified form) with the version one sees almost uniformly on the streets these days, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", and if you ask people what they mean by that, most of them will tell you something equivalent to the PLO version.
Meanwhile since 1977 Likud has used essentially the same slogan, but in reverse, minus any aspirations of democratic equality, and with racial supremacy baked in: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
The PLO recognizes that Israel has a right to exist and has abandoned official "armed resistance" approaches. They understand that this never worked and ultimately only hurt the Palestinian people.
I'm explicitly talking about Hamas and making a clear distinction between them and the Palestinian people at large.
> use the phrase to call for a single democratic state for Arabs and Jews
That was suggested in the past and has gone back in vogue for some extreme liberals but it's probably not what any side wants. I don't think it's something that's workable. See Lebanon as a case in point where three different conflicting cultures are constantly violently clashing.
> This is of course also in line (albeit in somewhat simplified form) with the version one sees almost uniformly on the streets these days, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", and if you ask people what they mean by that, most of them will tell you something equivalent to the PLO version.
Well... What *some* people mean doesn't really mean anything. There was a Nordic Journalist who recorded pro-Palestinian demonstrations and the Arabic slogans people yelled were VERY different.
But even without that. Hamas is looking at these protests and seeing them as Israel losing support. So they keep fighting, keep holding hostages and keep sending children as carriers. Netanyahu points at these demonstrations as how the world is turning anti-semetic so Israelis MUST fight for their home. And yes, Israelis 100% hear "Palestine will be free of Jews". Trump is pointing at them as a failure of the liberals...
These protests are only helping bad people and increasing strife. If they were indeed pro-Palestinian they would carry both flags in support of a two state solution. They would also support the cause of returning the hostages. They are now for peace, they are anti-Israel protests.
> Meanwhile since 1977 Likud has used essentially the same slogan, but in reverse, minus any aspirations of democratic equality, and with racial supremacy baked in: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
That was not an official slogan but yes people on the more extreme right did sing it. People still do and also say worse things. There are several big problems with whataboutism... Palestinians are the weaker part of this situation, violence will always end up worse for them. That's why the PLO abandoned that approach (at least officially excluding lynch mobs), it doesn't help Palestinians to keep that rhetoric.
Also the Likud was the party that voted to leave Gaza. That included Netanyhau who signed that law. A PM who originated from the Likud offered a Palestinian state in 2008.
Hamas’ 2017 charter states that in principle, it “rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.” In a 2012 speech, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal said, “Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on any inch of the land.”
https://forward.com/fast-forward/568788/from-the-river-to-th...Regarding the nicer-sounding variants that "nobody wants / aren't workable": That may be, but it is significant that the variant that most folks in their camp at least pretend to believe in (as an "aspiration") is at least nominally non-genocidal. And that the genuinely genocidal variants -- just aren't on display that often.
(Might get back to the other stuff you wrote later)
من المية للمية / فلسطين عربية, "from the water to the water / Palestine is Arab"
Notice that this is nitpicking since the intention is clear to Israelis/Palestinians even in the moderate version of the slogan.
This hurts Palestinians because it discourages their leaders from compromises that might have ended this conflict (see the 2000 and 2008 statehood rejections). It also strengthens the sense within Israelis that there's no partner for peace on the other side.
It's like using the N-word. Once you said that you have that label and feeling, nothing you say will matter to any side.
I think the big problem with this approach is that actions taken now, which lead to deaths, lead to the friends & family of said people becoming more radicalised and thus to more terror attacks/wars in the future.
I read recently in the FT that 60% of current Hamas fighters have lost family to previous conflicts, suggesting that this isn't going to end.
And more generally, it's basically impossible for conventional armies to defeat guerilla fighters who have the support of the population (c.f. Irish/English conflicts, Iraq, Afghanisation (multiple times) etc).
Like, fundamentally the only way this can end is through either extermination or negotiation. Given the relative power imbalances, it'll be extermination of the Palestinians, which would be terrible (and incredibly depressing given that a lot of Israeli citizens are descended from survivors of the Holocausts and the various pogroms in European history).
If it were true that violence breeds violence then Jews would have blown up post war Germany with suicide vests. It was still filled with Nazis and their collaborators.
Hamas is a different story, there's no amount of negotiations or compromise that will placate a fanatic. They will probably keep doing these things forever just like Isis didn't fully go away. But once the leadership got cut down Isis found it much harder to pull off the same level of terror.
I agree that this needs to be a dual motion. Young frustrated people are kindle for these organizations and this won't work without a peace process that would give hope to the people. That's why I don't have any faith in the current Israeli government. I hope it can be replaced so there would be a parallel process that would help rebuild and pave a way for peace again.
Like, it's worth noting that the core of the nationalist and unionist terrorists still live in Ireland and engage in a bunch of criminality. These organizations don't disband, they just die off/become politicians.
The big problem with Israel making peace is that it appears a solid majority don't want that, which depresses the hell out of me.
There are many peace activists on both sides but also a lot of fatigue and disillusionment. Don't let that get you down too. I think once the dust settles things could change. The pendulum always swings to the other side, we just need patience and to set an environment receptive for that. If Trump wins this election things will probably get much worse before they get better. But I think that they will get better even in that worst case scenario.
On which occasions?
Did Arab countries who literally held these territories offer Palestinians a state?
Did they provide reparations for all the Jews that had to escape those countries after 1948?
Most of the Palestinians who fled in 1948 did so because of Arab armies who urged them to move so they can kill the Jews more easily. That backfired. Those who stayed are Israeli citizens and always have been. Those who fled couldn't come back because the borders were sealed due to a war their leaders chose to start.
This doesn't mean that bad things didn't happen to the Palestinians. They did. But the victim narrative is corrosive and bad for the Palestinians because it is the EXACT reason they don't have a state. They refused to compromise again and again and again. People like you who inflate this victimization narrative are part of the problem.
This does not seem clear at all. What has led you to think so?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/08/politics/joe-biden-interview-...
https://m.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-822306
It goes on and on. Escalating conflict in the ME, such as with Israel and Lebanon, regardless of who is at fault, is not in the interest of the US. The administration feels attempts to deescalate are falling on deaf ears, but is in a politically precarious situation.
That isn't the criteria for being a council member, if it were they'd need to allow India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Plus, pretty sure the US does not officially recognize Israel as a nuclear power, it's one of those open secret things
Besides that, how would the US benefit from another country being able to veto anything they want to do in the UN? Sure, they'd probably agree with far more things than Russia or China, but the US wouldn't gain anything from them being there.
In one case, Mainland China got the bomb in '64 and replaced Taiwan on the security council within a decade.
The USSR didn't test one until 1949, the UK in 1952, France in 1960, and China (as you mentioned) in 1964. The Soviet Union had an early start because of their spies in the Manhattan Project, while the UK contributed to it during the War. 15 years would pass before another permanent member caught up.
And Russia took the USSR's seat just as China did Taiwan's.
Israel provides us zero military bases, even when Arab countries provide us dozens. Despite all of the support we give them and have given them, they have repeatedly escalated conflicts when the U.S. asked them to stop. Today, we are unable to ship goods through the Red Sea because the Houthis are upset over Israel’s actions in Gaza.
In many ways Israel does the US' dirty work, like crippling Hezbollah which is responsible for numerous attacks against US (and other Western) personnel.
The Houthis are squarely to blame for the disruption of Red Sea shipping; Israel's military operation in a different country isn't a legitimate reason to attack (almost) random ships.
Many in the U.S. feel that protecting Israel is a moral cause, but it is undeniably a strategic albatross for us.
You can't know that. The Iranian Islamic revolution happened not because of Israel. Iran would have probably tried to gain influence through proxies and destabilize the Middle East regardless of Israel. It would have joined forces with Russia and China. It would have probably tried acquiring nuclear weapons and it would have hated the U.S (which it calls Big Satan to this day). In short Iran would have been a huge headache and security risk for the U.S and the West even if Israel didn't exist imo. The U.S is definitely strong enough to deal with Iran without Israel, but its helpful to have allies in a very very unstable neighborhood.
No, another is that they are proxies of Iran, which the US has problems with that go beyond attacking Israel.
Biden’s current “envoy” to Lebanon and Israel, Amos Hochstein, is a former IDF soldier born and raised in Jerusalem.
For example, it's hard to comprehend how a country like Russia is not suspended?
A country which signed the Charter, and is member of the security council, is trying to annex a country of 40 million people, claiming they and their culture don't exist.
They don't even hide the genocide intent, and yet Guterres is visiting the BRICS conference in Russia legitimizing the regime. Despicable.
Besides, ethnic cleansing and genocide are their own special kind of evil- I'm not sure Russia is guilty also of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Sov...
Both things could be bad at the same time.
Because Russia has struck more than 1.500 medical facilities, including a Maternity and a Children's Hospital.
By the way, this is also a common tactic, which was recurrently used in Chechnya.
One of these we have 0 control over (Russia). The other one (Israel) we're funding, supporting, aiding, and abetting.
Do you realize that in less than 3 years Russia has caused more than 1.000.000 casualties, Russia has kidnapped more than 25.000 Children, and made 10.000.000 people into refugees some of them filtrated in Russia?
It's like the destruction of +1,500 medical facilities, deliberately, isn't much of a big deal...
Both are horrible events but at completely different scales. We're talking about a country of 40.000.000 people who was at peace, posed no threat to anyone, and never attacked any neighboring country. There are several days of +1.000 casualties - these are human beings, I don't know why you're deliberately dehumanizing Ukrainians and Russians.
Europe hasn't seen anything like this since WW2, even after we witnessed the genocide of Chechens at the hands of Russia, another one.
Worth considering that in terms of relative size, Israel has a population of 10 million, Jews in the world number ~14 million.
Whereas the Arab world, which tends to be relatively anti-Israel, numbers ~220 million. And Muslims, which tend to be anti-Israel as well, number 1.2 billion.
So just in terms of number of voices, the natural pro-Israel voices [1] are vastly outnumbered by the natural anti-Israel voices.
Think about how this impacts what you hear, how this impacts the votes in the UN (which is not democratic but votes are by country), how this impacts economic reactions (number of consumers), etc.
[1] This is a sweeping generalization, but it is statistically true that Jews are usually pro-Israel and Arabs and Muslims are usually anti-Israel. With other religions/ethnicities it's more complicated.
Western media often aligns with Israeli perspectives due to strategic alliances, lobbying influence, and media ownership dynamics, framing Israel’s actions as defensive while sidelining broader Arab or Palestinian views.
Online, pro-Israel narratives are reinforced by organized digital campaigns and moderation practices that shape public discourse. Meanwhile, pro-Palestinian voices lack comparable resources and organization in Western spaces, limiting their visibility. This creates a media and digital environment where Western audiences are exposed to narratives that don’t fully represent the global spectrum of perspectives.
I'm not sure you're right. Isn't this a bit hard to judge without first deciding what is true and what constitutes bias? I'm fairly certain we don't agree with on either of these.
Most Israelis consider things like the BBC and the NYT to be biased against Israel. Are you sure they're wrong?
2. Even if you think it is, that's just the US media specifically. I agree that they tend to be relatively pro-Israel, especially compared to other countries, but there are other countries.
3. If we accept that this is representative, can we also consider Ta-Nehisi Coates's book itself to be representative of the attitude of "intellectuals" in the US on Israel? As he himself said, he came into the topic biased against Israel, went to the West Bank to "study" the issue for 10 days only, chose not to talk to any Israeli at all to get any other side of the issue, and wrote what is likely to be the highest-selling book this year about the topic.
Not exactly a great example of journalistic rigor, IMO.
> As he himself said, he came into the topic biased against Israel, went to the West Bank to "study" the issue for 10 days only, chose not to talk to any Israeli at all to get any other side of the issue
What is the other side of the issue? He and actually experts who study Israel call it apartheid. Is it not? If it is, is there a justification for implementing it? Or maybe I’m missing your point.
> If it is, is there a justification for implementing it? Or maybe I’m missing your point.
Well, yes. That's exactly the other side of the issue, and is exactly what a real journalist talking about the Israel/Palestine situation should ideally explore.
This is an HN comment, not exactly the place for the history of the relations between the West Bank and Israel, but the short version is - most of the measures taking place in the WB are a direct result of terror attacks committed by the Palestinians, as a means of securing Israel from future attacks. You can see that relations were much better 40 years ago, it's not like Israel set out to have some kind of apartheid regime over the WB - people from Israel used to go far more freely into the WB, Palestinians used to work far more freely in Israel.
But as more and more attacks happened, Israel implemented various measures to stop terror - including the infamous checkpoints, including various border walls, including limiting work permits for Palestinians.
Looking at a snapshot of the WB now is looking at the end result of worsening relations over many years, with many of the things that seem "cruel" being direct measures to prevent terror attacks; and to prevent things like October 7th happening on a far larger scale, as would happen if it happened from the WB.
Most Israelis believe, probably correctly, that without these security measures, tens of thousands of Israelis would be killed. That would cause almost any country to do whatever it can to secure its "border".
[1] I personally don't care much for battles over semantics; if people agree on what is actually happening in the WB, then whether to call it apartheid or not seems irrelevant to me. There are lots of differences from the situation in South Africa, and lots of similarities.
I think it's worth keeping in mind that Palestinians are not Israeli citizens, and ostensibly the leadership of the Palestinians, which has a limited government role over the WB, is aiming to become a separate state; those circumstances make it seem, to me, that wondering why Palestinians don't have the same rights as Israelis is a category error, like wondering why Mexicans don't have the same rights as Americans.
Then again, it's also worth keeping in mind that whatever the goals of the Palestinians, in some respects Israel does, in fact, have control over the people of the WB, so in practice there are real problems here.
Including the Nakba?
Apartheid is a crime against humanity, illegal under international law, and countries have an obligation to prevent apartheid policies from persisting.
Israel’s policies in the West Bank has been ruled to be an apartheid by the ICJ, and Israel has been ordered (non-binding though) to stop apartheid practices, reverse the damage and pay reparations.
The fact that you so easily think this badly of an entire country speaks a lot about your own biased views.
There are plenty of non-zionist Jews among those 10 million. A non significant number of are even anti-zionists (particularly in the USA). There is also plenty of non-jewish zionists. It wouldn’t surprise me actually if non-jewish zionists actually outnumber jewish zionists by a significant margin, maybe even an order of magnitute.
Then there is the deeply problematic aspect of assuming people’s politics based on their ethnicity. Yes there is a correlation, but correlation is not causation and offers no explaination. The 220 million Arabs and the 1.2 billion Muslims around the world probably have a similar opinion about Israel as most people around the world, I bet some of them—albeit a tiny minority—are even zionists.
Your footnote where you explained this does not offer justification. This is a misuse of statistics at best.
The simple explanation here is simply that people empathize with victims. Palestinians have been victims of colonialism for a long time, and are now victims of an ongoing genocide. The simple explanation here is that people follow the news and understand what is happening.
You think the world feels this way because of the "vast atrocities" committed by Israel.
The problem with this is that there are far, far worse atrocities all over the world, to which no one pays anywhere near this kind of attention. The Syrian civil war found 300,000 civilians killed, an order of magnitude more than in the Gaza war. Since WW2, there have been, I believe, 100 million refugees of ethnic cleansing worldwide. The Uyghurs in China being a recent example of persecution of an ethnic minority, allegedly far worse than anything Israel does.
And if apartheid is what we're talking about - worth mentioning that Palestinians have very few rights in almost every ME country that they are in.
Now let's be clear - I'm not trying to "whatboutism" here - how Palestinians are treated elsewhere, and the existence of other bad things, does not and should not absolve Israel of anything bad it is doing.
But if your belief is that the world thinks badly of Israel because of what it's doing specifically, but there are 100 things that are far worse by almost any metric happening all the time that few people pay attention to - I think you need to reevaluate the real reason here. If you think the UN putting out more resolutions against Israel than all other countries combined makes sense by the numbers - then you are just ignorant of what is happening all over the world.
People’s reactions are not based on the criminal act void of any context, they look at the past, they look at consequences, etc. Bashar al-Assad’s mass atrocities were met with international condemnation. Israel’s were met with sympathy from our world leaders, and more weapons to continue and further their crimes. People take this into account.
Peoples opinion also reflects what they see. We see in our news everyday some of the worst crimes of the century being committed against a relatively small population. Every day there is another bomb that wipes out a whole family, including children, in Gaza. Every week there is a journalist or a doctor targeted and killed by Israel. We hear no such stories from East Turkistan, or at least not on the same scale nor horror.
> If you think the UN putting out more resolutions against Israel than all other countries combined makes sense by the numbers - then you are just ignorant of what is happening all over the world.
I don’t think that, but it is worth noting the history here. In a nibling thread you wanted to go into the history to (seemingly) justify apartheid policies. I want to do the same except to justify the UN behavior here.
Palestine has explicitly been the UN problem since it was decolonized from Britain. The UN had (and still has) a policy of decolonization so this made sense. Unlike most former colonies, full decolonization was never realized for Palestine, so it is still an explicit UN problem. Here is the reason why the UN has focused so much on Israel. It is not helped by the fact that on UN security council member keeps vetoing any potential progress for furthering more decolonization efforts. Resulting in many half measures which ultimately don’t deliver any results towards Palestinian liberation.
I suspect you want to explain these things on a racial line. But I reject all such science. There exists much simpler explanations for these things which don’t require us to go on the dangerous path of racialized demographicial behavior.
Bad, terrible, anti-semitic
>Israel controls the media
Good, woke, socially conscious
It’s woke to say Israel controls the media?
The first statement is plainly anti-semitic. (Talking about a people and culture) The second is, arguably, against the Israeli state. Israel is a social and political construct. You can change your mind about being Zionist, for example. It’s not an inherent trait like skin color.
Hn is not important enough to warrant a multi year psyops, so these are probably actual humans.
The only posts labeled "flagged" here are those who are nuanced about Israel at all with the exception of one overtly anti-Semitic post.
Also - genuinely curious what made you click on this article? And then engage me in it? If you're here only for tech news that is.
Cameras are everywhere. It should be trivial to prove these claims.
Why aren't the UN troops keeping the peace? Did they let Hezbollah fire rockets into Israel unimpeded? What is the point of the troops being there?
Also, you don't get to shoot through human shields. It's still immoral to kill noncombatants, just as it's immoral to hide behind noncombatants. You don't gain moral high ground, you're just sinking to the level of the enemy.
I am not saying it’s morally correct but from a war crime standpoint, I think you actually do. As longs as it’s proportional, you can attack combatants hiding under civilians, even if you kill civilians by doing that. At least that’s my understanding.
When the human shields are serving willingly as human shields, I will say that yes, you get to shoot through them and keep your moral high ground.
Not only those UN troops have no reason to be there, but there are numerous reports that several of their members are working together and aiding Hezbolah.
It’s a messed-up calculus to have to make but I feel like there must be some middle ground.
"The Israeli military has used Palestinians as human shields in Gaza, soldier and former detainees say" [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/24/middleeast/palestinians-h...]
"Over the years, the israeli military practiced an official policy of using Palestinians as human shields" [https://www.btselem.org/topic/human_shields]
"Israel has taken human shields to a whole new criminal level" [https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/10/20/israel-has-tak...]
Saying this is, frankly, ridiculous. There is massive, extensive documentation of the vast tunnel networks and terrorist infrastructure hiding beneath and as part of civilian areas in Gaza (and in Lebanon, now). There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Hamas cynically using actions that are bound to hurt civilians.
You don't have to like Israel or how it's acting, and you disagree with the legitimacy of the war or how it is conducted, but you should at least be grounded in reality. If you're just wholesale denying the well-documented evidence of how Hamas acts, you're not really criticizing the IDF, because you're not connecting with reality. You're criticizing an imaginary IDF fighting an imaginary Hamas that acts completely differently to how it's acting, and that makes your criticisms meaningless.
(And for the record, the cases of the IDF using human shields in the manner you linked above are pretty well documented too, as far as I can say, and I personally think they should be condemned and the IDF has to answer for that. I do try to be centered in reality and see things as they really are.)
Correct, this is how guerrilla forces have always worked. Either their fighters get protection, or the colonial/occupying (from their perspective) power gets loads of bad PR.
I mean, when you look at the relative arms strength of the two forces, they'd be crazy not to do this.
Is this moral? 100% not. Is it understandable? Strategically, again 100%. yes.
If there are insurgents among civilians, they either have logistics and communication networks to conduct operations, or they're unable to operate effectively. Weapons do not materialize from nowhere, they must be smuggled into the country and distributed. Operations do not materialize from nowhere, they must be coordinated.
If they have logistics, we can leverage that against them. We saw this when Israel expected their pager attack. They've already proven that they can exercise their creativity to conduct effective attacks with great precision.
If they lack logistics and communication networks - then they can't conduct effective operations against us. There's little to fear and no reason to shoot through human shields.
This is some armchair strategy a nonexpert came up with on the spot. Consider that real military strategists and intelligence agencies are better at coming up with ways to find and kill their enemies than we are.
Do not accept that these people cannot solve these problems without bulldozing through human shields. Do not accept the notion that a powerful military and intelligence apparatus is helpless. They could prosecute this war differently. They have made a choice not to.
No, you're the one making imaginary false dichotomies. See your last paragraph:
> Do not accept that these people cannot solve these problems without bulldozing through human shields. Do not accept the notion that a powerful military and intelligence apparatus is helpless. They could prosecute this war differently. They have made a choice not to.
You're now making a false dichotomy - Israel can choose to prosecute the war differently, but it doesn't, implying that they are choosing to kill human shields on purpose.
The reality is that you're coming up on the spot with a dozen ways to defeat an insurgency, without taking into account that they are just as smart and just as motivated as you, and planned for years to make them impossible to hit without significant civilian casualties. This is incredibly well documented.
Sure, you can pretend there is always a secret third option - and there sometimes is. And there sometimes isn't. And the more you let militants using civilians as human shields deter you, the more the militants are incentivized to use human shields, so even in a best case scenario, you're kicking the can down the road.
None of this is to say that Israel's actions are perfect or even good - that's a separate argument. But imagining that Israel has a magic way to do what it wants to do and eliminate Hamas - which many people support it doing and agree it has a right to do - imagining there is some magic way this could get done without hurting civilians is, frankly, incorrect.
Well actually, to give Israel some kind of credit, they have also done that, as hostages have indeed been killed in their attacks. In general they have shown a similar disregard of human life towards their own people who have been hostages, so there's that.
Tons of Israeli military bases and weapons manufacturing his placed directly under or very close to civilian domiciles.
This is nonsense propaganda that keeps getting repeated.
Israel has some army bases in or close to civilian areas, as do most countries - e.g. the Pentagon. The reason is that some army bases are used for intelligence, software development or other administrative tasks, which usually involves older officers and many civilians, so it makes sense to have these be in cities.
But note key differences between this and what Hamas is accused of doing:
1. These are administrative buildings. These are not weapons storage facilities, combat factilities, etc. And it's especially not where missile launch sites or things of a similar nature are located.
Shooting missiles from within houses, as e.g. Hezbollah does, or from under refugee camps, as Hamas does, is a different thing entirely - because to stop the actual rockets being shot at Israel, Israel has to shoot at them, which kills civilians. That is not what Israel does with those bases.
2. Israeli bases are not built under civilian buildings. Yes, the same army HQ or intelligence etc bases that are built in cities have sections underground, for obvious reasons - but under the bases, not under people's houses!
But under? Do you have a source for that?
It's unlikely that Israel decided just now to go attack Hezbollah, and even if they did, it's not like there's been any big status quo change, so they could go to the UN first, if they think the UN is in the way
Israel and its allies would cry and whine as if a second holocaust occurred. They would pretend like they haven't done something similar thousands of times before to their enemies and that this retaliation on the Mossad HQ is some sort of uniquely evil and unprecedented event in human history.
Israelis always prefer using the most absurd victim narratives possible. Only Israel can be the biggest bully while also roleplaying as the biggest victim, but it's not surprising considering that even the mossad's motto[0] is "By way of deception you shall engage in war."
Of course Israel would “cry and whine.” I agree with you.
Obviously, Palestine also “cries and whines” — they have a narrative when their military operations are hit, too, and it’s not “fair play.”
War is an ugly, awful thing. I wouldn’t expect anybody involved to treat it so rationally. Hopefully we can view things more objectively and fairly given our distance.
I'm not eager to defend Hamas or Hezbollah, but for Gaza, is there a lot of free space?
Using human shields anyhow, does NOT mean it's the other's fault if you bomb then.
It's entirely your own decision, if you know that they're there.
Do you really think there was no other way, to deal with the problem?
Personally, for me the most absurd aspect of the situation is that you're creating an enormous amount of members for the Hamas' of the future.
However good a person is, and however quiet by nature, they wouldn't be human if a percentage of them wouldn't look for revenge, after having all their relatives killed, endured surgeries without anesthetics, and seen there was no good justification for that.
Which is what some Israeli politicians would probably like, anyhow, to give them arguments for the future elections.
Nothing will be solved. Unless you kill them all? Well, I think there would be a lot of Arabs who'd seek revenge for them, if so.
By the way, with using shields the Israeli might well just mean mean having a tunnel passing under a condo, or that an Hamas member sleeps there rather than, where? Hamas barracks? Along with your family, forever, with a target on your back?
CNN [1] today said:
> There is ample evidence for it: weapons located inside homes, tunnels dug beneath residential neighborhoods and rockets fired from those same neighborhoods in the densely packed territory.
I don't think that's what people think about, when hearing about human hostages.
Furthermore, the IDF seems to wait for the targets to be at home, just because there they're easier to target [2] .
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/24/middleeast/palestinians-h... [2] https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
This has become a very common argument, and is indeed true, but it's also hypocritically incomplete.
You're creating an enormous amount of members for the Hamas of the future and they will be right in fighting you. Exactly as the current Hamas members are right in fighting you today.
Indeed, they think more about something like this: https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/6/23/israeli...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/24/middleeast/palestinians-human...
https://www.btselem.org/topic/human_shields
Even the NYT took time away from repeating Israel's lies to report on it! https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/world/middleeast/israel-g...
To all appearances, it looks as if the US is allowing Israel to rewrite the rules of war. This is incredibly dangerous. Whether or not the US supports Israel's objectives should not be the deciding factor in supporting these kinds of justifications.
https://www.newsweek.com/israel-built-bunker-shifa-hospital-...
B) there is very credible evidence that rape did occur as part of the atrocities Hamas committed on Oct. 7th attack. https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-sexual-violence-...
Just wanted to point that out, because regardless of the moral standing of either side, I think the facts do matter if there is ever going to be a resolution. Obviously the actions committed by Hamas do not absolve Israel from following ethical rules of war, and there are plenty of issues with how Israel is waging war in the current conflict as well; for example using machine learning algorithms to track targets with what appears to be a reckless disregard for non-combatants: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
As far as I am aware, not a single Western media rag has issued an apology for this. In many of our eyes, never again will they be able to claim credibility or professionalism in their reporting.
In addition, Western rags took Israeli statements as gospel, platformed way more guests from the Israeli side, and intensively questioned all pro-Palestine guests on their position on Oct 7 (while treating Israeli guests with more respect than necessary for a media interview).
It’s better now - but that’s easy to do after a year of atrocities and 100k+ deaths. In the US at least, there still is a clear bias against inviting Palestinians on primetime slots, or allowing Palestinians to operate freely within news organizations.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/12/05/middleeast/israel-hamas-m...
Hamas had enough weapons to kill 1200 Israelis in one day so it's not some helpless entity. It was armed to its teeth. It's only after almost 800 additional dead Israeli soldiers and a very bloody war that Hamas lost most of its power.
Unfortunately, it is hard to discern legitimate interest vs. someone wanting to engage in a debate for the sake of it. And I am not interested in wasting my time figuring out which is the case.
Your comment strongly implied that you think that Israel overreacted to Oct 7. So I am curious what you think their response should have been.
> Unfortunately, it is hard to discern legitimate interest vs. someone wanting to engage in a debate for the sake of it. And I am not interested in wasting my time figuring out which is the case.
Is curiosity "legitimate interest"?
This policy is an effective deterrent against enemies, but it should be obvious that with such a policy it will never be possible to end any conflict unless absolutely all enemies and all their relatives or friends are killed.
There have been times when the relations between the parties in this conflict had improved a lot and there was some hope for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Nevertheless on both sides, but especially in Israel, there are people who benefit a lot from the existence of the conflict, so any opponents have been removed by any means possible, including assassination, until the mutual relationships have become as bad as today, when no hope for any kind of peace remains.
Most people in Israel are quite nice, but they are deeply scared by the thought that that at any time someone coming from the neighbors of Israel could come and cut their throats, so they work continuously very hard at their jobs, believing that they must provide thus their individual contributions so that Israel will maintain its military and economic dominance over their enemies, in order to ensure their safety. The workers of Israel have worked all the time since WWII pretty much as hard as those of USA during its short participation to WWII.
Workers from other countries would be very unlikely to work willingly so hard as those of Israel. This is very profitable for the upper class of Israel, for whom an end of the conflict would have caused serious losses, when the workers could not have been motivated any more by patriotic slogans.
The interesting thing is that Hamas seems to share Israel's view that Israelis are more valuable than Palestinians. Whenever there is a prisoner exchange Hamas tends to demand an order of magnitude or more Palestinians be released for each Israeli released.
For example in 2011 Hamas got over 1000 in exchange for a single Israeli.
Why do you consider this an effective strategy, when the same strategy has been used for decades yet the violence keeps getting worse?
a) adhere to international law (which we now know is a complete farce thanks UNSC veto)
b) not involve ethnic cleansing/forced displacement of Palestinians for a 3rd time in the last 75 years - the only reason it didn’t work this time is because the Egyptians strongly pushed back
c) not involve the deliberate targeting of civilians, the mass punishment of a civilian population, and the denial of access to aid to a civilian population (under occupation no less)
d) not result in the highest proportion of children fatalities and injuries of any modern war - and not involve redefining or rewriting the meaning of the word “child” to give themselves some wiggle room
e) not involve the deliberate targeting of journalists, academics, aid workers, and hospital staff - even if the Israelis claim to have “proof” of them being Hamas members (imagine immediately defunding a UN organization because the Israelis claim a few dozen employees were Hamas members)
f) adhere to Israel’s responsibilities under IHL as an occupying force
Fighting a war against guerillas in an urban context is challenging. Mass & targeted bombing of a densely populated occupied territory containing an enemy with no air force and no air defenses is not only genocidal, but also outright cowardly behavior.
How about a reaction that wouldn't lead the ICC issuing arrest warrants for the government officials leading the response for crimes against humanity ?
I'm not sure what people act so daft, pretending the Israeli response of the last year was just a totally normal and standard military operation and not a clinical live streamed genocide.
More importantly, the point is that Western media outlets - who have always proclaimed to be arbiters of truth, objectivity & journalistic integrity - neither did the absolute basic fact checking required before publishing such information, nor apologized later for doing so once the dust settled.
Indeed, this picture came out much later:
https://www.instagram.com/israelmfa/p/C7Q1v38tKql/
Shows what appears to be the famous "bloody pants" soldier sitting on the floor close to other presumably injured soldiers after some sort of combat. Isn't that the most obvious way of getting "bloody pants"? Why the leap from those to unfounded rape accusations?
> FIRST ACCOUNT PANTS PULLED DOWN
>But it turns out that what Otmazgin thought had occurred in the home at the kibbutz hadn’t happened.
> SECOND ACCOUNT: EVERYTHING WAS CHARRED
> Yossi Landau, a longtime ZAKA volunteer, was also working in Be’eri when he entered a home that would produce the second debunked story
I urge people to read the article rather than take the parents claim that it presents evidence of rape on October 7th at face value. It presents no evidence for such a claim through the entire article. It covers debunked claims of sexual violence on October 7th, it does contain a reference to one hostage who was sexually assaulted during her kidnapping who was since thankfully successfully released
“The United Nations and other organizations have presented credible evidence that Hamas militants committed sexual assault during their rampage. The prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, said Monday he had reason to believe that three key Hamas leaders bore responsibility for “rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity.”
I’m not going to dig up and post links to videos showing Hamas parading female captives with blood on their pants, or partially disrobed bodies. Videos which were filmed by Hamas members themselves I might add. Here is an article instead from BBC with testimony from survivors: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67629181.amp
I don’t want to assume that you are arguing in bad faith, but there are numerous reputable sources showing that other atrocities occurred beyond the murder of civilians. It’s bad enough that Hamas directly targeted and killed over 700 civilians.
From the UN report [1]:
>In the medicolegal assessment of available photos and videos, no tangible indications of rape could be identified.
>The mission team examined several allegations of sexual violence. It must be noted that witnesses and sources with whom the mission team engaged adopted over time an increasingly cautious and circumspect approach regarding past accounts, including in some cases retracting statements made previously. Some also stated to the mission team that they no longer felt confident in their recollections of other assertions that had appeared in the media.
>It was determined by the mission team that the crime scene had been altered by a bomb squad and the bodies moved, explaining the separation of the body of the girl from the rest of her family. Allegations of objects found inserted in female genital organs also could not be verified by the mission team due in large part to the limited availability and low quality of imagery.
How does any of this information from the report lead you to believe that the allegations of mass rape are 'very credible'?
See this interview from Pramila Patten who is the special representative that wrote this report [2]
>“May I just ask, why not put the responsibility and blame the atrocities quite simply on the perpetrators and say, ‘it was Hamas who did it?’” the host demanded.
>Patten replied that the mission of her visit to Israel was “only for the purpose of gathering and analyzing information,” not for attributing alleged crimes to any perpetrator.
>“It is pretty clear who did it, after talking to survivors who returned – it wasn’t the Belgians who did it,” chortled the host.
>“I think it’s up to your government to give access, and that was one of my first recommendations,” Patten responded.
I would suggest you stop peddling these baseless allegations as these lies are being used to justify civilian massacres to this day.
The conclusion of the report itself reads: “Overall, based on the totality of information gathered from multiple and independent sources at the different locations, there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred at several locations across the Gaza periphery, including in the form of rape and gang rape, during the 7 October 2023 attacks. Credible circumstantial information, which may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence, including genital mutilation, sexualized torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, was also gathered.”
At this point I don’t see any further point in discussing this subject. I’m only replying in case someone reads these comments, and doesn’t dig deeper into the report. I find it concerning that you glossed over those sections and the conclusion of the report, while only presenting text that supports your viewpoint. It’s bad enough that ~700-800 civilians were murdered in the first place, and it’s horrible that civilians continue to die in Gaza through the present. Please have a good day.
He's probably referring to how Iran props up these places, and Iran's main source of funding is oil.
They're basically observers when there are any other armed troops present. They have small arms, everybody else has rockets, missiles, or tanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Interim_Force_i...
The most credible reason for Israel wanting Unfil to vacate is less impartial observers.
That trick is harder to pull when the witnesses are external UN observers.
Israel's current presence might technically also be illegal under UNSC 1701, but Israel has a very strong casus belli from self-defense, having been bombarded for the past year.
Israel is being openly threatening UNIFIL, and they aren't retailating in any way. I am 100% sure the white hats have never had any capacity to do anything beside being witness. Hezbollah was ok with that, Israel is not ok with that.
They were attacked from Lebanon, they retaliate. It’s quite simple.
Let's assume they are completely useless at peacekeeping - does this justify them being attacked?
They’re outnumbered by 10:1.
Come on..!?
The argument goes like this: UNIFIL had one mission, which was to disarm and disband any military force in Lebanon south of the Litani River that was not Lebanon's army. UNIFIL has not done this. This is known and well-documented. Hezbollah regularly fires rockets and missiles into Israel. Hezbollah has built bunkers within sight of UNIFILs own posts. If true, this is not only a clear, systemic failure of their mission, but such an egregious failure that their presence is actually dangerous to civilians.
...and therefore they deserve to be shot at, maimed or killed?
>...and therefore they deserve to be shot at, maimed or killed?
You quoted the wrong part. Here, let me fix that for you.
>> If true, this is not only a clear, systemic failure of their mission, but such an egregious failure that their presence is actually dangerous to civilians.
>...and therefore they deserve to be shot at, maimed or killed?
There. That's better. Now I can properly answer.
In my opinion, no, of course not. However, in light of their failure to accomplish their mission, and actually hindering peace, Israel asked them to leave. They did not. They have chosen to remain in an active war zone. So, "deserve" doesn't really come into play.
Asked them to leave a whole other country, that is not Israel or Israeli territory. Would this be reasonable to you if it were Ethiopia asking UN troops to leave Eritrean territory for failure to keep the peace, while there are active skirmishes between the 2 countries? This is an astounding ask for any country, and an affront to any semblence of a "rules-based order"
Frankly, I think Israel's reaction is way overdue. 40 years of Hezbollah firing rockets while the "peace keepers" sit on their thumbs. Facilitate terrorism, get the stick.
Another part of the story is: where was the UN when Hezbollah launched rockets from Lebanon this week?
Unless the UN starts doing serious counter-terrorism, Israel is not going to particularly care about their presence in Lebanon.
And one more thing. I get to criticize the living fuck out of Israel because as an American I am paying for most of it's weapons.
As a fellow taxpayer, fuck no. As the initiator, Hezbollah can stop shooting the rockets at any moment, give up the Oct 2023 attackers and everyone actively involved. I don't see why that wouldn't stop Israel from going further.
This can not work for Israel, because they are responsible for bringing these fucks to justice.
I don't think Hezbollah has any of the Oct 2023 attackers. Those attackers all came from Gaza, and were in Hamas. Hezbollah just decided to join in on the side of Hamas by shooting rockets, but they weren't the ones who did the Oct 2023 attack.
You answered your own objection then.
In this reality Hezbollah started attacking Israel after Oct 7 in support of Hamas’s attack on Israel. But for that happening Israel would not be invading southern Lebanon to try and put and end to these attacks now.
There is nothing at all wrong with criticizing Israel, I am deeply annoyed with a lot they do, the right wing element and the West Bank settlers are really ruining the ability to reach a two state solution. (Palestinian leaders also share blame in not reaching this outcome too sadly.)
The problem is that people so often have double standards and expectations of Israelis they would never apply to anyone else. And they definitely never seem to have similar expectations for Hezbollah or Hamas. This isn’t constructive and gets kind of antisemitic after a while (Jews are different, hence unrealistic expectations, they should just take the rocket fire and never respond). It’s a weird lack of empathizing with Israelis as also being real humans behaving as real humans anywhere would. This really doesn’t help bring about any kind of peace.
Kids born in the West Bank or Gaza today are not helped to have a better future by this kind of thinking you’re pushing here.
Which is fine, because the parent isn't suggesting that they do anything of the sort.
Nobody on this planet would make that deal with groups who have the goal of destroying your country. If Hamas had been a peaceful group, democracy had taken hold in Gaza, it had existed peacefully with Israel, had never had the aim of destroying Israel, then yeah, you might be able to imagine a future where the two merge and live harmoniously. But that is not reality today.
It's quite cleare Hamas needs to be marginalized and taken out of the picture (along with its spiritual companions in the 37th Government) before anything can move forward, but that's a separate issue.
You seem to imply they are pointing to internal matters to Israel, not Hezbollahs aims. In which case it’s a total non sequitur comment. Or are you or they, suggesting Hezbollahs aims (given Hezbollah is what we are discussing) simply to reform internal issues within Israel and that is their reason for launching 10,000 rockets at them? I think you know that’s not the case.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/bfa9/liv...
Stop lying. You are comparing a paramilitary with an literally commiting a holocaust, with shaban Al-dalou as a clear example.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/15/shaban-al-dalou-th...
There is a staggering amount of ignorance present in the other comments here.
I was ignorant too. But I spent a good amount of time educating myself this year. I hope others do the same so they can make completely informed assessments. I worry about tribalism and politics driving too much of the thinking.
https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/how-us-has-used-its-pow...
> The U.S. has vetoed resolutions critical of Israel more than any other council member – 45 times as of December 18, 2023, according to an analysis by Blue Marble. The U.S. has vetoed 89 Security Council resolutions in total since 1945, meaning slightly over half of its vetoes have been used on resolutions critical of Israel. Of the vetoed resolutions, 33 pertained to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories or the country’s treatment of the Palestinian people.
> The first time the U.S. used its veto to support Israel was in September of 1972, when it vetoed a resolution that called on Israel to cease its aggression in Lebanon.
UNEF, the first UN peacekeeping mission, was deployed under a GA resolution passed under Uniting for Peace in an Emergency Special Session called due to British and French vetoes creating a deadlock over the Suez Crisis.
And why they keep closing blind eye on the largest terrorist army in the world violating UN’s own agreements?
Also I wonder who benefits from them intentionally not moving out of harms ways and preventing israel from doing _their_ job of eliminating terrorists?
Genuine questions, not taking any sides.
The sad truth is that Lebanon never went to disarm Hezbollah and the UN didn't care. However, UNIFIL also wants to keep Israel out of Lebanon and track their intrusions. This brought UNIFIL and Israel into conflict
Israel's presence highlights the hollow promises and lies of the UN mediated ceasefire that ended the 2006 Lebanon-Israel war.
As it stands Helping Israel is against UNIFIL rules. It can only help the Lebanese government. If the Lebanese gov asked UNIFIL to attack Hezbollah, they could. But the Lebanese gov wont do that either.
This leads to the current state. A UN force too small to do anything hiding in their bases and whining about Israel not staying on their side of the boarder.
There is a clear slant to how the majority of these stories are conveyed. There are probably some real attacks too. that's part of war, its messy.