> As of October 2020, Hezbollah or its military wing are considered terrorist organizations by at least 26 countries, as well as by the European Union and since 2017 by most member states of the Arab League, with the exception of Iraq and Lebanon, where Hezbollah is the most powerful political party.[374]
> The countries that have designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization include: the Gulf Cooperation Council,[375] and their members Saudi Arabia,[376] Bahrain,[377] United Arab Emirates,[376] as well as Argentina,[378] Canada,[379] Colombia,[380] Estonia,[381] Germany,[382] Honduras,[383] Israel,[384] Kosovo,[385] Lithuania,[386] Malaysia,[387] Paraguay,[388] Serbia,[381] Slovenia,[389] United Kingdom,[390] United States,[391] and Guatemala.[392]
The EU doesn’t consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization either — only its military wing. Much like people who considered the Provisional IRA to be terrorists but not Sinn Féin.
It's a shame that Hezbollah do not wear uniforms, a war crime[0]; because then it would be clear that these are military officers, and thus terrorists by that definition.
Or is your statement that the people targeted were not military? Or... what's your point with this comment?
I didn't have any point other than pointing out that your claims were incorrect.
Separately, I do think it's funny when people try to justify Israel's actions by reference to international laws or norms, as if Israel cares. They would still have done this even if they were the only country in the world that considered Hezbollah a terrorist organization.
Just like they're (practically) the only country in the world that considers the Golan Heights or East Jerusalem to be legitimately part of their territory, their occupation of the West Bank to be legal, their permanent air and sea blockade of the Gaza Strip to be legal, and so on. They don't appear to care about international norms at all.
It's harder to hold them to account when their combatants aren't held to similar standards.
It's a very solid defense to say "well, if we're being attacked by a non-military force that breaks the rules, then what choice do we have".
If they were being attacked by a military force that followed the Geneva conventions it would be easier to drum up anti-Israel support internationally for an intervention.
So, sorry to say it; but it's a fair criticism to say that one side is even more flagrant of the rules: why should Israel even bother trying to abide them?
I wasn't asking you to condemn it, I was using it as an example of my claim that Israel doesn't care about international law or norms, even in cases where you can't possibly use "but our enemy violates them too" as a justification.
It doesn't matter if they care or not truthfully, because international relations are supposed to hold them to account.
Thats why we sanction Russia and Iran.
Israel needs to be friendly with the west because it is surrounded by hostile nations. But those nations are making things harder for the rest of the world to intervene.
Pretty easy though, when Israel is clearly being held to a standard that their combatants aren't.
I'll tell you now: I'm becoming more radicalised the more I see the absolute state of discourse here; it's not only polarised: it's completely asymmetric.
It seems that it's not even possible for people to consider that the Islamic side has a part to play in what is happening, and to condemn both parties for the actions that they take, understanding that it's not equivalent in all areas.
> Pretty easy though, when Israel is clearly being held to a standard that their combatants aren't.
If you look at it binary then both sides committed atrocities, war crimes, and generally acts of terror. If you look at the magnitude though one stands out.
> the Islamic side has a part to play in what is happening
Attempts to defend either are weak, nether is defensible really. But defending the side that took it orders of magnitude further with explanations like well the other side "had a part" are absolutely gross and reminiscent of explanations for certain atrocities a certain European country committed 80 years ago because "they" knew what they did to deserve it right? "They" also had a part to play.
I agree with this sentiment, actually; it's not binary, there's no "both sides", we have to take each atrocity in the context in which it's presented and dispassionately dole out justice. Ideally based on an even field of understanding about what the rules are and without taking personal preferences into account.
But I think we disagree on a core tenet: that magnitude is a precursor to understanding who belligerents are.
If that was the case then during all history, the winning side would always have to be the bad guy, no matter who initiated hostilities or how warfare was conducted.
> Israel is clearly being held to a standard that their combatants aren't.
This statement doesn't make a lot of sense. Israel is an ally we supply with munitions and the other side is acknowledged to be a terrorist militia and therefore we support their destruction. Of course we expect Israel to adhere to a much higher standard than Hezbollah, right?
I think (hope) you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who believes Hezbollah members shouldn't be held accountable for violations of the law of armed conflict. It's just that nobody believes the problem of Hezbollah is going to be solved in a court or with diplomacy at this stage.
> the Islamic side
If you feel the need to worry about the religious angle you really ought to differentiate between Sunni and Shia when talking about Lebanon in particular, given the unique characteristics of their demography and politics. Although I don't know where you're going with that.
