lol my point was that if you understand the shia grievamce within the current/historical Lebanese context, you'd understand that it needs a political settlement rather than a war (hence why the civil war went on so long, and achieved so little for basically every party)

aaaah i see.

ok you should probably go and read the history of lebanese shia first.

if you don't understand the i ternal political conflicts, you'll never be able to seriously consider solutions.

might stop prison....not sure i like hegseth's impeachment-survival odds though.

yes.

do you agree that Hezbollah is just the latest iteration of lebanese shia groups seeking to address historic injustices they feel they faced at the hands of the Lebanese state/christian elite/foreign backers?

weird tangent.

the thing that we have to start seriously grappling with is that Israel's tenuous security picture is largely caused by Israeli maximalism in dealing with the wider region.

crazy to hope Israel will just push Lebanon in to another civil war, and then face the blowback...again.

the 24 agreement isn't worth doing because he israelis have shown that they'll do whatever they want irrespective...

trying to disarm HB without a broader political settlement isn't worth doing, because it probably leads to a return to civil war (likely broader than just state vs HB(

lol the israelis agreed to stop firing and totally ignored that....the idea states breaching agreements is the end of the world seems naive.

with HB, given the history, they can replenish fighters pretty easily....esp. when the idf is coming....hence why the israelis have struggled for 40 years

im not sure that is a choice; does anyone seriously think the Lebanese military can disarm HB without disintegrating itself?

doubt the israelis will try re entering Lebanon given the humiliation inflicted on them before their departure last time...

I haven't said Israeli breaches ere good or bad...clearly they were breaches; and they were breaching since waaay before the Lebanese govt acknowledged they may miss the disarmament deadline.

right, and presumably the reason you were so hesitant to acknowledge this was because plunging your country in to civil war in the hope you may be able prevent one of the parties from being able to threaten another civil war in the future is quite a niche position

in terms of non state groups in Lebanon Able to threaten civil war; we agree that's problematic.

taif represents everybody agreeing that it's less problematic than actual war itself.

as far as I can tell, ur position is contrary to the consensus; you think risking civil war is preferable? fair?

ok so I think we are kinda losing focus slightly here.

I won't address the abstract monopoly of violence Q, because we all know the Lebanese state hasn't had a monopoly on violence for at least 50 years (if it ever had), so romanticizing about that seems futile...

not civil war.

do you think it's worth it for Lebanon to plunge itself in to civil war to uphold a ceasefire agreement with Israel that israel has breached countless times?

cmon, u should be able to answer a simple question on your third attempt.

not sure the mountbattons are gonna agree to the summary execution part though. could get messy. again.

reasonable points.

but is it worth watching a civil war reignite, (esp. given that last time it rocked out for 30 years)?

approx 0.001g of gold

even if it pushes them in to civil war?

pretty often authors do if you just dm them...