[ingliz]

@JohnRawls

Have you considered that Lebanon and Israel would choose not to escalate? We all agree that the main blast was an accident. If Israel was responsible for the initial fire in the warehouse next door - The immediate suspicion was that Israel had staged an air strike against a consignment of weaponry destined for the Iran-backed Hezbollah and it's not like they don't have previous form for blowing up warehouses they believe are arms caches (Syria) - the result could be a war with Hezbollah and Hezbollah’s patron Iran that could even embroil the United States and other nations in a vast Middle East conflagration.

[JohnRawls]

@JohnRawls

Have you considered that Lebanon and Israel would choose not to escalate? We all agree that the main blast was an accident. If Israel was responsible for the initial fire in the warehouse next door - The immediate suspicion was that Israel had staged an air strike against a consignment of weaponry destined for the Iran-backed Hezbollah and it's not like they don't have previous form for blowing up warehouses they believe are arms caches (Syria) - the result could be a war with Hezbollah and Hezbollah’s patron Iran that could even embroil the United States and other nations in a vast Middle East conflagration.

Interesting conspiracy theories.

Now here is the reality though. Lebanons regime has been on the brink of collapse and change even last year. With this happening it only highlighted the problems within the Lebanese society: incompetence, corruption, and abuse of business by structures like tribes or hezbollah etc.

As an example, you can see Macrons visit and people flowing to him. This shows that the French mandate is being remembered kindly nowadays compared to the current independent rule.

The better question is why did Lebanon not use Israel as a scapegoat anyways. As i said before, it is a very easy scapegoat. I think that the protests last year had a lot to do with it. The protests were basically stopped by the pandemic and not change as i understand and the ISrael card was used a lot. Now though, using it again probably will be detrimental and might become a typing point if they don't acknowledge the corruption and incompetence with such a large tragedy.

As for your conspiracy theory. Even if they blame Israel for political reasons then Hezbollah is just going to have some minor skirmishes at best. Or fire some rockets. There is no realistic way that Iran or Lebanon can face Israel in a war. Israel will probably win since Lebanon has a border with Israel while Iran does not. Otherwise, if even some miracle happens, US will just step in. All sides realise this so no war is going to happen. Lebanon and Iran do not have a way to fight Israel in the open field so at best they can use guerilla like tactics. May be Iran can if Israel directly invades Iranian territory but Israel doesn't have a border nor is it even interested in directly invading Iran itself.

[ckaihatsu]

@ingliz

Yeah and that just an outcome of anti-israel and anti-semitic beliefs. In case of Lebanon, i can understand it at least because there are conflicts between Lebanon and Israel. In your case or in skinsters case that i can't understand. Also if you haven't noticed but the officials in Lebanon are not blaming Israel nor have they at any point that i am aware of. Considering Israel is a easy scapegoat and they are not doing it then it is not Israel. I can't believe that i need to spell this out to you.

Interesting conspiracy theories.

Now here is the reality though. Lebanons regime has been on the brink of collapse and change even last year. With this happening it only highlighted the problems within the Lebanese society: incompetence, corruption, and abuse of business by structures like tribes or hezbollah etc.

As an example, you can see Macrons visit and people flowing to him. This shows that the French mandate is being remembered kindly nowadays compared to the current independent rule.

The better question is why did Lebanon not use Israel as a scapegoat anyways. As i said before, it is a very easy scapegoat. I think that the protests last year had a lot to do with it. The protests were basically stopped by the pandemic and not change as i understand and the ISrael card was used a lot. Now though, using it again probably will be detrimental and might become a typing point if they don't acknowledge the corruption and incompetence with such a large tragedy.

As for your conspiracy theory. Even if they blame Israel for political reasons then Hezbollah is just going to have some minor skirmishes at best. Or fire some rockets. There is no realistic way that Iran or Lebanon can face Israel in a war. Israel will probably win since Lebanon has a border with Israel while Iran does not. Otherwise, if even some miracle happens, US will just step in. All sides realise this so no war is going to happen. Lebanon and Iran do not have a way to fight Israel in the open field so at best they can use guerilla like tactics. May be Iran can if Israel directly invades Iranian territory but Israel doesn't have a border nor is it even interested in directly invading Iran itself.

'Scapegoat' really isn't the correct term to refer to Israel:

Israelis and Palestinians Killed

September 29, 2000 - Present



1,270 Israelis and at least 10,001 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information)

https://ifamericansknew.org/

[JohnRawls]

'Scapegoat' really isn't the correct term to refer to Israel:

What does it have to do with explosions in a Port in Lebanon? How does it automatically make Israel guilty of it?

[wat0n]

@JohnRawls

Have you considered that Lebanon and Israel would choose not to escalate? We all agree that the main blast was an accident. If Israel was responsible for the initial fire in the warehouse next door - The immediate suspicion was that Israel had staged an air strike against a consignment of weaponry destined for the Iran-backed Hezbollah and it's not like they don't have previous form for blowing up warehouses they believe are arms caches (Syria) - the result could be a war with Hezbollah and Hezbollah’s patron Iran that could even embroil the United States and other nations in a vast Middle East conflagration.

Is that why there are plenty of videos of people who were hanging out in restaurants and the like while filming the fire? I would expect most people would take cover following a missile explosion

[Patrickov]

As an example, you can see Macrons visit and people flowing to him. This shows that the French mandate is being remembered kindly nowadays compared to the current independent rule.

Seriously, I don't expect this happening to someone other than a British, and from a group of people actually harmed by the West (including France no less) for such a degree and such a long time.

[ckaihatsu]

What does it have to do with explosions in a Port in Lebanon? How does it automatically make Israel guilty of it?

Don't use the term 'scapegoat' to describe Israel, because that country has a lot of blood on its hands. 'Scapegoat' implies *innocence*, and Israel is a *perpetrator* of Zionist, colonialist, adventurist *violence* against the people of Palestine.

[Patrickov]

Don't use the term 'scapegoat' to describe Israel, because that country has a lot of blood on its hands. 'Scapegoat' implies *innocence*, and Israel is a *perpetrator* of Zionist, colonialist, adventurist *violence* against the people of Palestine.

Innocence (and thus scapegoat) here is strictly about the event itself.

Only if you can prove Israel's involvement in Lebanon is directly responsible for the blast that Israel can be said as "not innocent".

[Patrickov]

The better question is why did Lebanon not use Israel as a scapegoat anyways. As i said before, it is a very easy scapegoat.

Two possibilities:
1. No one has enough evidence to blame Israel, or
2. They know what Israel are capable of if they expose the involvement.

[ckaihatsu]

Innocence (and thus scapegoat) here is strictly about the event itself.

Only if you can prove Israel's involvement in Lebanon is directly responsible for the blast that Israel can be said as "not innocent".

As I said, the state of Israel has blood on its hands -- this is irrespective of the Lebanon explosion.

My point stands that Israel is not a 'scapegoat' -- it's a *perpetrator*.

Israel and the apartheid analogy is criticism of Israel charging that Israel has practiced a system akin to apartheid against Arabs and Palestinians in its occupation of the West Bank.[1] Some commentators extend the analogy to include treatment of Arab citizens of Israel, describing their citizenship status as second-class.[9] The analogy has been asserted by critics of Israel including scholars, United Nations investigators,[10] the African National Congress (ANC),[11] human rights groups critical of Israeli policy[12][13] and by several Israeli former politicians.[14] Proponents of the analogy say that "a system of control" in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including the ID system; Israeli settlements; separate roads for Israeli and Palestinian citizens around many of these settlements; Israeli military checkpoints; marriage law; the West Bank barrier; use of Palestinians as cheaper labour; Palestinian West Bank exclaves; and inequities in infrastructure, legal rights (e.g. "Enclave law"), and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories, resemble some aspects of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, contrary to international law.[15]

Criminal law

In 2007, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination reported that Palestinians and Israeli settlers in the occupied territories are subject to different criminal laws, leading to longer detention and harsher punishments for Palestinians than for Israelis for the same offenses.[136] Amnesty International has reported that in the West Bank, Israeli settlers and soldiers who engage in abuses against Palestinians, including unlawful killings, enjoy "impunity" from punishment and are rarely prosecuted. However Palestinians detained by Israeli security forces may be imprisoned for prolonged periods of time, and reports of their torture and other ill-treatment are not credibly investigated.[137][138][139]

John Dugard has compared Israeli imprisonment of Palestinians to policies of Apartheid-era South Africa, saying "Apartheid's security police practiced torture on a large scale. So do the Israeli security forces. There were many political prisoners on Robben Island but there are more Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails."[135]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_an ... id_analogy

[Patrickov]

As I said, the state of Israel has blood on its hands -- this is irrespective of the Lebanon explosion.

I only see Member JohnRawl's usage of "scapegoat" was with respect to the explosion, nothing else.

I don't understand why you think his usage of that word can be interpreted otherwise.

Before you can explain your interpretation, I think "how Israel is a perpetrator to the Lebanese people" is not related to this incident in particular, and therefore does not undermine Member JohnRawl's use of the word "scapegoat".

[Oxymoron]

Why are you so *insistent* on this point? Are you a Zionist?

Why aren't you calling for Lebanese *self-determination* on this, and all other issues that are pertinent to Lebanon?

And, what about *this* overarching reality:

I am insistent that Russia, Iran and Iraq are terrible at these type of operations.... and yes I am a Zionist.
Lebanon can do what ever the hell they want, I am just pointing out the obvious.

skinster wrote:

Lebanon and Israel are still at war. The latter threatened the former for the thousandth time just hours before this explosion took place. Israel has bombed Lebanon recently and has been attacking it constantly for years and threatening it with a new war every other day. Members of the Knesset have been publicly celebrating what took place in Lebanon this week. Of course the Lebanese don't want anything to do with Israel, not to mention, who trusts a racist and violent state that's daily oppressing millions in the land it controls; if they were serious about humanitarianism they could start with applying it at home.

Like I mentioned Lebanon oppresses its Palestinian population so they would be hypocrites on this point. In regards to threats, the threats are mutual Hezbollah which is the true power in Lebanon has called for destruction of Israel, runs tunnels into Israel. the Situation is mutually antagonistic. Now this is an opportunity to change that relationship, one small step is a beginning of a journey. But I suppose there are not enough big people to accept assistance, they rather look good politically.

[ckaihatsu]

I only see Member JohnRawl's usage of "scapegoat" was with respect to the explosion, nothing else.

I don't understand why you think his usage of that word can be interpreted otherwise.

Before you can explain your interpretation, I think "how Israel is a perpetrator to the Lebanese people" is not related to this incident in particular, and therefore does not undermine Member JohnRawl's use of the word "scapegoat".

JR used the term 'scapegoat' in regard to Israel in the *negative* sense, so he wasn't even terming Israel *as* a scapegoat -- he was noting that Lebanon *could have* easily scapegoated Israel for the Lebanon explosion, but didn't.

I addressed the use of the term 'scapegoat' in relation to Israel, in *general*, and outside of the context of the Lebanon explosion. My previous point stands.

Also if you haven't noticed but the officials in Lebanon are not blaming Israel nor have they at any point that i am aware of.

The better question is why did Lebanon not use Israel as a scapegoat anyways.

---

I am insistent that Russia, Iran and Iraq are terrible at these type of operations.... and yes I am a Zionist.
Lebanon can do what ever the hell they want, I am just pointing out the obvious.

[Patrickov]

JR used the term 'scapegoat' in regard to Israel in the *negative* sense, so he wasn't even terming Israel *as* a scapegoat -- he was noting that Lebanon *could have* easily scapegoated Israel for the Lebanon explosion, but didn't.

I addressed the use of the term 'scapegoat' in relation to Israel, in *general*, and outside of the context of the Lebanon explosion. My previous point stands.

Maybe I should rephrase.

Rawl's usage of "scapegoat" is based on the point "the explosion is irrelevant to whatever aggression and perpetration Israel has done to Lebanese".

In other words, Rawls' usage of that word is (relatively) confined to the context of the Lebanon explosion. You attempt to dispute his usage by extending the context beyond what is covered by his post is off-topic.

[ckaihatsu]

Maybe I should rephrase.

Rawl's usage of "scapegoat" is based on the point "the explosion is irrelevant to whatever aggression and perpetration Israel has done to Lebanese".

In other words, Rawls' usage of that word is (relatively) confined to the context of the Lebanon explosion. You attempt to dispute his usage by extending the context beyond what is covered by his post is off-topic.

Like I said, I was addressing the potential application of the term 'scapegoat', to Israel, in the *general* sense:

I addressed the use of the term 'scapegoat' in relation to Israel, in *general*, and outside of the context of the Lebanon explosion. My previous point stands.

As I said, the state of Israel has blood on its hands -- this is irrespective of the Lebanon explosion.

My point stands that Israel is not a 'scapegoat' -- it's a *perpetrator*.

[Patrickov]

Like I said, I was addressing the potential application of the term 'scapegoat', to Israel, in the *general* sense:

What I said is exactly that "addressing the potential application of the term 'scapegoat', to Israel, in the *general* sense" is off-topic, because Rawls simply did NOT intend to "apply the term 'scapegoat', to Israel, in the *general* sense".

[ckaihatsu]

What I said is exactly that "addressing the potential application of the term 'scapegoat', to Israel, in the *general* sense" is off-topic, because Rawls simply did NOT intend to "apply the term 'scapegoat', to Israel, in the *general* sense".

I didn't say or imply that JR was applying the term 'scapegoat' to Israel in the general sense.

I *myself* was addressing the general sense of applying the term 'scapegoat' to Israel, and I stand by the characterization that Israel is an apartheid state.

[Patrickov]

I didn't say or imply that JR was applying the term 'scapegoat' to Israel in the general sense.

I *myself* was addressing the general sense of applying the term 'scapegoat' to Israel, and I stand by the characterization that Israel is an apartheid state.

Which, unfortunately, does not undermine my dispute of the following claim:

'Scapegoat' really isn't the correct term to refer to Israel

My response is, it is as far as I concern here in this topic.

[ckaihatsu]

Which, unfortunately, does not undermine my dispute of the following claim:


My response is, it is as far as I concern here in this topic.

Okay, now you're getting nit-picky and argumentative -- you're intelligent enough to *parse* my posts appropriately, and we've already covered where I was coming from with my prior posts.

Anything else you want to discuss?

[Patrickov]

Okay, now you're getting nit-picky and argumentative -- you're intelligent enough to *parse* my posts appropriately, and we've already covered where I was coming from with my prior posts.

You are right that I have been a bit nit-picky. I think I wouldn't have stepped in had that post of yours not been of similar purpose.

Anything else you want to discuss?

As said in another post, I was confused why the French President went there and was welcomed by locals.