Morch

@bristolboy / @ilostmypassword

Just "it  may be"? How about "done to death"? As for the "problem" you go on about most posters following these topics, their expressed points of view and posting style, remain constant. That you deny or feign ignorance of this is dishonest. That you assert it cannot be referenced, or that it needs to be specifically referenced is bizarre, considering the body of topic in question. It would apply, perhaps, if someone wished to make the opposite point - that a poster held a radically different point of view on previous discussions. There is no requirement to fully rehash and link past topics with each new instance of the same being discussed. Not when positions are generally unaltered. That's simply preposterous.

And to get this straight - you making things personal, is legit. You "decreeing" a point was made, is legit. You playing silly word games, is legit. You issuing insults, is legit. Others are expected to fully accept your unsubstantiated premises and point of view, complete with your personal commentary. Gotcha. Do go about "how low", though...apparently you are quite the expert on the matter.

No empty assertions were made, other than by yourself. This is how you roll. Derailing each and every topic into petty arguments about minute interpretations. Attaching meanings of your own making to other posters' words, then demands these fake constructs be defended. And before expected "objections", this was pointed out by other posters, numerous times. But again, do go on about "silly word games", "how low" and whatnot.

And what you fail to grasp, or pretend to, is that your own convictions as to what "conduces to confidence", or what cherry picked factors played a role, are not undisputed facts. That you treat your posts and such does not mean that they are or that others are obliged to do so.

@dexterm

There was no "falsehood", unless you are referring to your  own misleading presentation. Usually, when you make such accusations, it amounts to you either being misinformed or trying to force a warped interpretation on things.

There are sanctions against Hezbollah.

There are sanctions against Iran.

The recent reintroduction of US sanctions against Iran, also aims to target Iran's regional activities (such as supporting proxy organizations like Hezbollah). But in effect, the "new" sanctions discussed in the OP are essentially an expansion of previous, standing sanctions against Hezbollah. Since the sanctions against Hezbollah came into effect, they were augmented several times. Most times to include more actions, bodies or persons to which sanctions are applied. For all the bluster, the OP is not much different.

The EU's position is relevant to demonstrating that there are two sets of sanctions. The EU strongly disapproves of the US reintroduction of sanctions on Iran. But when it comes to sanctions targeting Hezbollah, there are no such objections. The fact is that the EU got its own sanctions in place, targeting Hezbollah. On top of that, there is a long standing international (as in UNSC) arms embargo targeting Hezbollah (which Syria and Iran often violate). Again, no real objections to this one either.

The point made is that the "new" sanctions on Hezbollah, aren't "new". They are simply an extension of previous, standing sanctions. That the Trump administration needs to present them as "new", rather than acknowledging that in effect, these were already in place, with some of the major legislation taking place during Obama's term.

Here are some informative links, detailing various sanctions related to Lebanon (many actually to do with Hezbollah), going way back, long before the Iran Deal was a "thing":

http://sanctionswiki.org/Lebanon

https://www.sipri.org/databases/embargoes/un_arms_embargoes/lebanon

https://www.sipri.org/databases/embargoes/eu_arms_embargoes/lebanon

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090609011205/http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/europeandtrade/strategic-export-control/sanctions-embargoes/by-country/Lebanon/index.html

https://europeansanctions.com/eu-sanctions-in-force/lebanon/

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/leb.aspx

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/13441.pdf

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/lebanon.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_International_Financing_Prevention_Act_of_2014

https://www.bscn.nl/sanctions-consulting/sanctions-list-countries

On Wednesdays and Thursdays, the Weekend Market is transformed to a nursery market. Plenty of good finds there. This would be, IMO, the easiest choice for access and selection.

Other than that, we quite often get seeds (and even whole plants) simply by talking to garden owners and caretakers. Works in various parks as well. Smiles and appreciation go a ways.

55 minutes ago, candide said:

You are right that Palestinians have no negotiating power. There is not even an economic argument as the Palestinians are financed by the international community, so their is not much cost of not heaving an agreement for Israel. So it's a total deadlock. Because of power imbalance, no fair agreement can be reached from direct negotiation between the two parties, and the USA will go on blocking any significant international pressure. The Palestininans will not accept it and Israel will go on using this opportunity to further expand settlements and make peace even more impossible.

 

From the Palestinian point of view, I think the only option is to dissolve the Palestinian authority, integrate a large Israel, and let Israel deal directly with the financial, social, and legal consequences of its past policy. Additionally, they may eventually become the largest demographic component of the extended state. However, this will also not happen because Palestinian politicians and bureaucrats will not give up the salaries and other benefits they get from the existence of a Palestinian authority.

As a general comment, negotiations and their outcomes are a product of involved parties bargaining chips, skills and leverage. Assuming that scales are balances, or that that demands are treated on equal footing is not necessarily true. To be clear, this doesn't refer to the moral value of demands, but to their realistic application. Life ain't fair.

Wouldn't know that there's a "Palestinian point of view". Currently they support two leaderships finding it hard to re-conciliate, and that's where things stand for about a decade now.

Other than peacefully "integrating with Israel", and letting go of national aspirations not being the option of choice for Palestinians, there's this small issue of it not being entirely up to them. It would have to involve Israel, one way or another.

While the comment about Palestinian leaders not keen on throwing away their positions (or lucrative concessions going to family members), there's more to keeping the PA alive. Palestinian public opinion, while negative on most issues pertaining to the PA, is also apprehensive about alternatives.

Some posters chant Palestinians got "nothing to lose", but that's not entirely true. Palestinians living in the West Bank, especially in areas of lower friction with IDF and illegal settlers, are doing better than those living in the Gaza Strip. Life isn't great, to put it mildly, but it ain't as bad. And the PA is the largest employer - dissolving it would mean a whole lot of people losing their livelihood, which is a recipe for both hardship and trouble.

Dissolving the PA could easily see things getting worse - Israel taking back the reins, Hamas ascending to a position of power, or just plain chaos. None of these carry much promise. So, I think, barring extreme developments, people will prefer the devil they know. The situation in the Gaza Strip is different, but that's another story.

Also, dissolving the PA in no way implies anything about Israel going along with the above scenario. It may either re-introduce the full version of the occupation, or even let things spiral out of control. The prospects of moderate voices being dominant under such circumstances are slim.

4 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

They are protecting their own interests, their own money, the Italian investors will no doubt take a deep patriotic breath, wish Italy all the best and avoid bankruptcy by parking their money where it is safe and investing where they can make a profit, after all we aren't communists. If the Italians wish to trust there future to an ex-clown and an ex-waiter it is their democratic right to do so but it is also the democratic right of an investor to freely be able to decide where to invest. I doubt if you would be happy if your pension fonds manager decided to leave your money that you entrusted to him in Italy at this time.

I read an interesting article which said that the Italians voted for change, 'for something else', not necessarily for a disaster.

"I read an interesting article which said that the Italians voted for change, 'for something else', not necessarily for a disaster."

This seems to apply to quite a few countries nowadays.

3 minutes ago, buick said:

 

i would suggest that the conflict has been going on so long that it is grandfathered in to the past 'norms'.  not subject to today's new standards (for lack of a better word).  suffice to say, palestine would love to conquer israel and take the territory by force, if they could.

You could suggest whatever, but most of the world doesn't see it this way. It is also not a view alien to some in Israel. But regardless, even if someone does wish to claim it is Israel's "right" to keep territories conquered, it still fails to address the issues associated with the Palestinians being part and parcel of them territories. 

So much in the same way which Palestinians would be better off being realistic, Israel's interest would be better served by letting go of some dreams.

I don't know that there's a "Palestine" holding such a unified view, or that such fantasies as ascribed to it could be realized. But anyway, as said earlier - doubt anyone seriously expects Israel to give up anything without security concerns being addressed.

56 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I am trying to adhere to the mods' demand that posters be respectful. Some appear not to have got that message.

 

I always quote your posts in their entirety so that readers can judge for themselves who is twisting and spinning.

 

Less than nothing for the Palestinian cause is when knowledge of the injustice done to them is censored, silenced, and ofuscated, which I know is the hope and deliberate aim of most Israeli apologists.

You're a paragon of restraint and virtue. And yet, you deflect once more.

My posts (and some other posters') do not approach anything resembling the vehement, extreme, one-sided views your push. Nor do they feature the wholesale refrain from addressing issues reflecting negatively on one of the sides. As for "censored, silenced and obfuscated" - playing the victim card? I don't see you having trouble posting thousands of repetitive rants and tirades. Considering you are invested in presenting a rather limited point of view, what you "know" or claim to "know" is questionable, at best.

There is no equivalence between your posts and other posters'. There's no one persistently painting an extreme, one-sided opposite view, other than in your imagination.

59 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Just give it time.

By their actions, the Israelis are sowing the wind and will in due course reap the whirlwind. They should take more notice of the words in their book.

Give it time, sure thing. Because decades of making the wrong choices aren't enough evidence that a new course ought to be set. Got to love posters pretending to support the Palestinian cause, while advocating prolonged suffering.

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

Palestinians are some of the brightest and most avid learners in the Middle East despite all the obstacles thrown in their way. If they lack resources it is the fault of the occupying power Israel, who under the Geneva Convention has a duty of care to those it has displaced.
The poster was clearly a racist using stereotypes to denigrate Palestinians..look at the tone of the rest of his post.He was not questioning the quality of education in Gazan schools due to lack of resources. And you appear shamelessly to be supporting him.

I doubt you could meaningfully substantiate your opening claim. And it would still not apply anyway - we're talking about how things stand in the Gaza Strip (and to a lesser extent, the West Bank).

As for your usual blaming of  Israel for all things whatsoever, perhaps you'd like to reflect on the fact that education, higher education and academic achievement were not (other than Israel and several isolated cases) quite the hallmarks of ME countries. That you'd like to believe things would have been otherwise does not rely on any factual basis whatsoever. Other than in Israel, major investments in education (and specifically, higher education) is a relatively new trend in the ME (even more so when referencing quality over quantity). That you postulate the Palestinians' case would have been different "if only", is not supported by anything much.

I don't care for all the poster's views, nor am I responsible for his words. The comment made was with regard to thee bit you quotes. Now go on one of them faux moralizing sessions and spin away.

1 hour ago, buick said:

what i'm suggesting is the palestinians need to admit defeat and stop the nonsense.  then, their prison doors will be opened and they can join the international community and enjoy the benefits that come with that.  not a perfect analogy but look at japan and germany after WWII.  totally destroyed, they took the 'loss', and are very successful today.  meanwhile, palestine, during the same time period, continues to suffer.

 

land that is taken is rarely 'given' back.  it has to be 'taken' back (by military action).  i'm sure there are a couple examples of 'given' in world history but the the vast majority require a 'take'.  what would israel receive if they were to give land back ?  a guaranty of peace ?  in the middle east ?  i wouldn't buy into that one.

 

 

I agree that the Palestinians' interests would have been better served by accepting reality, and adjusting demands, hopes and dreams accordingly. They would have been better of if different choices would have been picked at nearly every historical junction. This doesn't have to be framed as conceding defeat, though.  

Some of this applies to Israel (or at least parts of the Israeli right) as well. Accepting the reality of the Palestinians not going anywhere, and ruling them not being a viable proposition would better serve Israel's interests. This too would necessitate a parting from certain illusions and dreams.

As for the second part - we'll have to disagree. Conquering territories and holding on to the land, making it "your own" isn't quite the accepted norm nowadays. And like it or not, maintaining the state of things is simply not viable. I don't think anyone imagines Israel handing back territory without proper assurances and the means to address its security concerns. So not quite the case of "land for paper". 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Well, the ones in illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem should certainly have to vacate those properties and allow the rightful land owners to live there.

Yes, thanks for quoting things out of context to make an obvious point. As you should be quite aware, I do not have fundamental issues with your statement. 

The comment, however, was more related to Israelis residing within the 1967 lines.

@bristolboy / @ilostmypassword

Guess some posters have trouble formatting posts in a way conductive to discussion. Wouldn't be your first time exhibiting such behavior.

Pointing out that issues were discussed on many a previous topics, with both posters and views not altering much is not a "ploy", or a "cheap trick" but a fact. Can anybody claim this? Sure. But do you deny that when I make these claims they are not correct? We never had similar exchanges in the past?

As for being a Hezbollah fan - deflect all you like: even just taking this topic, your posts read like a defense of Hezbollah's good name, character and actions. Playing "cheap and self-indulgent" games or "ploy" would aptly describe your habit of denying the obvious and derailing topics with inane requests for "evidence" which are readily available. When these are produced, even more off tangent petty arguments are raised. So far, the "empty allegation" are made by yourself, both with regard to my posts and the topic's subject matter.

And no, asserting that IMO, you decide the outcome is questionable because you do not approve, is not "ascribing motives", but analyzing the "arguments" you presented. That's how I consider what they amount to. You don't like it? Come up with better arguments. There's no real need to spin this as some irrelevant made up construct, but see previous comment about going off tangent and derailing topics. You are the one making it about "mind reading", not me.

And "playing silly word games"? Coming from you? Seriously? This is, after all, part and parcel of your argumentative posting style. This one's no different. Nothing of substance to add, hence going on the offense with nonsense claims.

Let's try again - your rendition of things relies on focusing almost exclusively on US "pressure" and Hezbollah's involvement in  the Syrian Civil War. There is no imperative to adopt your point of view. That you misrepresent and co-opt European views doesn't make your arguments more credible or valid. That you somehow expect me to represent your own point of view as a feature of my arguments is bizarre. That you decree "obviously" doesn't make it so. And from this you jump to a the "argument" about support for Assad (or other regimes) being "terrorism" or not. I don't see that you've made your point to begin with, nor that it's going anywhere much - just your usual way of ever expanding discussions. Please, stop misrepresenting and twisting my words - we are not in agreement the way you claimed. And honestly, I don't care if you want to spin your mumbo jumbo as word games or faux moralizing.

11 hours ago, dexterm said:

Same old rude preamble.

 

para 2. Are you claiming that Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians are not interested in the return of their land stolen by Israel in return for recognition? And who says there's a statute of limitations on Israel's theft of land?
Bottom line...There is no way the international community will recognize Israel's remaining unofficial borders until it settles its disputes with its neighbors.

Israel has the most powerful army in the area and holds all the cards. Israel is the annexer and occupier, not the other way around. There is no moral equivalence, as though everyone must compromise. Syria and Lebanon want their stolen land back. The Palestinians have compromised enough already.

 

para 4 attempt at deflection. Not playing your troll game today. 

Those who live in glass houses....

The fact stands that you routinely twist words, and aim to present a misleading one-sided, extreme narrative.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Neither Lebanon, Syria or the Palestinians exhibit anything which resembles a stable central government. Meaningful permanent agreement cannot be signed with factions. Hence Israel got peace agreements with the two neighbors who were willing and able to commit. That you gloss over that, or imply that "land for recognition" is either a real construct or an acceptable one is just more of your usual misleading nonsense.

Bottom line is that all your decrees and pronouncements mean less than nothing for the Palestinian cause. That you decided what the international community will or will not do is not fact, even counterfactual if one follows the timeline.

The idea that the imperative to compromise lies with the stronger party may be applied to the schoolyard or to younger siblings. In international relations, things usually go the other way. Whether you like to acknowledge this or not, makes no difference.

As for pointing out to your constant extreme, one-sided framing of all related issues:

Quote

Not a word out of you when it comes to Egypt creating its own buffer zone and maintaining the blockade. Not a word out of you when it comes to Jordan's past annexation of the West Bank, or its bloody history with Palestinian organization. Not a word out of you when Palestinian refugees are killed in Syria. Not a word out of you on how most Arab countries treat Palestinians. And on and on and on....A torrent of totally one-sided, extreme vehemence.

This is not a deflection, but a relevant fact - unsurprisingly, inanely ignored and rejected as any fact not in line with your narrative.

11 hours ago, dexterm said:

Stereotyping Palestinians as uneducated. 

You're trolling.

In your expert opinion, Palestinians (especially in the Gaza Strip) enjoy great education? Are aptly informed about other points of view? Not repressed and taken for a ride by their leadership? The one who's trolling is  yourself - there's no obligation or requirement to adopt your standing position of ignoring any negative aspects relating to the Palestinian side.

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

>>i [sic]imagine the people are uneducated

..ignorant racist baloney. Not feeding the trolls any more today.

How is it racist?

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

Do let me know when Israel has official internationally recognized borders with the remaining 3 of its 5 neighbors, including the Gaza fence where the international protection force is most needed. Israel unilaterally keeps moving it to create buffer zones and an opportunity to murder more Palestinian farmers who stray into Israel's invisible new boundary lines.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/farmer-killed-israel-latest-gaza-strip-west-bank-hamas-protests-mass-sit-ins-benjamin-netanyahu-a8281116.html

Same old nonsense posted over and over again.

You ignore that none of Israel's three remaining neighbors is capable or interested of negotiating, signing or maintaining such agreements, and that the situation been this way for a long time. No other parties are ever accountable for anything in your bizarro world.

And while you try to sneak it as agreed upon fact - there is no general acceptance that an "international protection force is needed". That just something you made up.

Not a word out of you when it comes to Egypt creating its own buffer zone and maintaining the blockade. Not a word out of you when it comes to Jordan's past annexation of the West Bank, or its bloody history with Palestinian organization. Not a word out of you when Palestinian refugees are killed in Syria. Not a word out of you on how most Arab countries treat Palestinians. And on and on and on....A torrent of totally one-sided, extreme vehemence.

11 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I quoted your words in full. I will allow forum members to judge for themselves who is contradicting himself and mind reading. Not going to feed the troll any more.

 

Hezbollah was founded to defend the Shia populations in Lebanon against Israeli aggression, when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, and in Syria against ISIS. That does not make them a terrorist organisation. US is using that label as a pretext to warrant sanctions in defense of the usual tail that wags the US dog. 

 

The sanctions will probably affect Iran's economy... no denying that, as the Hezbollah also acknowledges in the OP. It's the label of terrorist I regard as meaningless and take with a ton of salt.

Doubt the world cares much how you regard things. That you equate your personal point of view with that of the many countries designating Hezbollah a terrorist organization doesn't amount to much.

That you choose to adopt an extreme one-sided narrative, ignoring any input bearing negatively on Hezbollah is pretty much how your roll on other topics as well. No surprises there, and not much credibility either.

Dabbling in pseudo historical revisionism is all very well, but doesn't change facts.

23 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

"The only nonsense spewed on this topic comes from you and the other Hezbollah fan.

And where have I said anything that would qualify me as a fan of Hezbollah. Stop lying.

 

"Basically, you do not approve of the outcome, hence decide it is questionable."

Ascribing motives again?. It's always been my opinion that mind readers are charlatans. 

 

My reasons for questioning the classification were clear. And once again let me explain to you why the comparison between Syria and Saudi Arabia was not a deflection. The EU changed its collective mind in the wake of Hezbollah intervention on behalf of Assad. Hezbollah turned the tide. The Europeans were angry.That was the big factor. They specifically cited Hezbollah's support for Assad's government as proof of its support of terrorism. As I pointed out,  that support does not constitute terrorism. But if it does, then US support for the Saudi campaign in Yemen should also be counted as terrorism. But in fact, neither are terrorism. The difference in judgement being that in one case a hugely powerful nation is pushing hard to get that pronouncement made, whilst in the other not. It was roughly 2400 hundred years ago that a certain historian wrote about what war does to language: "Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them." Nothing much has changed since.

 

And once again, stop making things up. No one said countries have to be as pure as snow. And since that is not the case, their pronouncement should be taken with a hefty grain of salt.

And you seem to want to have it both ways. On the one had, you wrote that it's not illegitimate for a country to pressurize others to come round to its point of view. On the other, you claim it's the view of western countries that Hezbollah is at least in part, as though this judgement was a matter of a common understanding and shared values. You want it both ways.

"Lying" how? This is hardly the first topic we've discussed Hezbollah, whether on your current handle or the previous one. Your positions are pretty constant - rejecting negative views, defending or excusing actions, no criticism. IMO, that's good enough to assert you being a Hezbollah fan. Otherwise, some might suspect you're just arguing for argument's sake.

And not "ascribing motives" - simply breaking down your "arguments" into actual meanings, and asserting that at its base, this is what they amount to.

Your "explanation", as pointed out already, rests on faulty, if not outright misleading assertions. You allege that the EU "changed its collective mind" - the truth is (as seen even in the articles you linked) that there was no unity of mind on this to begin with - some countries were supportive of designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization earlier than you claim. You disregard relevant information which doesn't fit your narrative - Hezbollah actions in Europe, the Hariri assassination investigation findings, and a rich history of involvement in other forms of misdeeds.

That you "point out" something does not constitute terrorism, isn't particularly compelling. Countries may have a different take on this, and there is no imperative to accept your personal point of view. Also, while politicians may issue statements about this or that country being "terrorist", actually designating whole countries as such isn't common. The same goes for national armies. Different rules apply - whether you like to accept it or not.

Both you and the other Hezbollah fan partly base your criticism on attacking the moral value of designating Hezbollah a terrorist organization, following supposed similar actions by these countries, or their supposed failure to equally address other supposed instances. Nothing made up about pointing this out.

Both ways how? Countries sharing  a general outlook, does not necessarily mean they fully agree on each and every instance. It is legitimate to try and convince (in your rendering "pressurize") others that "common understanding and shared values" do apply to this or that instance. Just another bogus "argument" in a long series of such. 

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

"What you fail to grasp, or perhaps "conveniently ignore" is that political pressure is not illegitimate - and is often a central part of what's known as "diplomacy". That you object to certain countries having interests, promoting interests or having enough leverage is not particularly interesting or relevant"

 

Such nonsense. I don't object to nations having interests. But I do think it vitiates the conclusions that other nations come to if they are being strongly and persistently pressurized. "Thumb on the scale"' mean anything to you? But if in fact, the conclusions of those nations that are either anti-Shia or subject to pressure are legitimate, then what of nations that have not come to that conclusion? In fact, a majority of the nations of the world have not deemed Hezbollah in total or in part to be a terrorist organization. So get back to me when they do,

 

And nowhere did I defend Hezbollah's support of Assad (although from their point of view self preservation is a pretty strong argument for their stance). I simply noted that supporting a government committing massively evil acts does not qualify as terrorism. If it did, then the military arm of United States should so qualify for its support of the brutal war Saudi Arabia has waged against Yemen. Even refusing access to let health workers and aid to battle the biggest cholera epidemic on record ever.  If the Saudis' conduct both in its indiscriminate bombing of civilians and its fostering of a cholera epidemic don't  qualify as a crime against humanity, what does? But of course, there is no heavy hand pushing other nations to come to that conclusion.

 

And you have persistently misunderstood my point about Saudi Arabia. Nowhere did I say that Saudi Arabia was a terrorist nation. What I said was that if supporting  the Syrian government's barbarity makes Hezbollah or its military wing a terrorist organization, then the US's support of Saudi's barbarity should make it in its entirety or just its military a terrorist organization, too. Seems a simple enough formulation to me.

 

 

The only nonsense spewed on this topic comes from you and the other Hezbollah fan.

Your argument is based on a false, misleading presentation. Both of the articles you linked paint a more complex picture than what your are trying to market. Some European countries were for it, some against, some partially so. Basically, you do not approve of the outcome, hence decide it is questionable. Put another way - if some of the Europeans countries advocated against designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and their refusal would have swayed or prevented other nations seeing it otherwise from taking action, you'd have no issues with this.

There was no claim that Hezbollah's designation as a terrorist organization is universal, only that it is wide. The view of Hezbollah as a terrorist organizations is prevalent among Western countries. On the other hand, among the countries overtly upholding Hezbollah legitimacy, one can find such names as North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, Syria and Venezuela. Personally, I tend to prefer the world view associated with the former group. There is no requirement for a universal majority, regardless of your nonsense. And no one needs to get back to you. 

Your inane deflections regarding Syria and Saudi Arabia are dully noted. So is your habit of derailing topics by going off on tangent whenever you can't make a decent point.

To briefly answer this nonsense, and perhaps a wider issue - an organization being designated terrorist is not an absolute construct. Other countries may see things differently. Some here seem confused as to it being an instance of "my opinion is as good as yours". It isn't. The planes of reference are different. While you and the other Hezbollah fan lamely attempt to highlight supposedly moral questions, the point actually made is of a more "practical" nature.

There is no absolute, higher authority which makes undisputed pronouncements on such things - unless one is into religion or poorly arguments as you two. Countries are not required to be pure as snow, or free from all sin in order to make such decisions. There weren't even claims that they are anything of the sort. There is no higher agency to judge everyone equally - your personal views on these matters aren't anything of the sort.

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>Countries may create laws to designate organizations as terrorist. Any country may do so. Such rules apply to that country, and quite possibly to its allies, or other countries sharing the point of view. So yes, Iran could designate this or that as terrorist - how much resonance it will create is another matter.

Which is exactly what I said a page of posts ago: "It's a very fickle and flexible process this terrorist labelling business when applied by governments. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Israel calls Iran terrorist; Iran calls Israel terrorist.

 

The US, EU, Israel's etc labelling of Hezbollah and Iran as terrorists does not resonate much with me at all, when I examine the number and nature of Hezbollah's so called terrorist acts, the string pulling and special "interests" behind that labelling and the hypocrisy of the finger pointing countries themselves who have sent weapons and forces to kill and terrorize entire populations. How many hundreds of thousands of civilians have died in recent wars being liberated by the terrorist labelling countries that you list?

 

Hezbollah and their supporters Iran are labelled as terrorists simply because it's a convenient pretext to impose sanctions. I have no doubt that the sanctions will have an impact. It's the faux justification for those sanctions that I am questioning.

No, this isn't "exactly what you said", and certainly not what was meant and posted. That you decide the process of designating organizations terrorist is "fickle and flexible" doesn't make it a fact. It would actually involve producing enough legal arguments to make it qualify. That you do not approve, does not mean anything.

What resonates with you is, oddly enough, both false and meaningless as well. You are a private person, and entitled to your own opinions. But if you were to breach relevant sanctions or laws, there could be consequences - I think that answers the "resonate" part. Hence, the wider the acceptance or agreement on such  designations, the more effective they become. So, while Iran (or yourself) could decree this or that, it would have a limited scope of effect and relevance.

That you decide Hezbollah didn't do anything meriting the designation as a terrorist organization, doesn't make it a fact. That you consider their "cause' righteous is neither universally supported, nor carries a whole lot of significance. Hence your "questioning" of the "justification", which ignores much of the facts presented is about as bogus as the pretense of not grasping countries can make such decisions.

25 minutes ago, dexterm said:

And nor is your definition relevant. It is utter nonsense. That countries can call another country terrorist because they can make up laws that allow them to. I'm sure Iran can make up laws defining other countries as terrorist. In fact Iran has. But do Iran's laws and definitions somehow not count whereas other countries' do? 

 

Only this isn't "my" definition. There was a whole list of countries designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. If you wish to claim their take is "irrelevant", good luck with that. I don't think Hezbollah sees things your way, though.

Countries may create laws to designate organizations as terrorist. Any country may do so. Such rules apply to that country, and quite possibly to its allies, or other countries sharing the point of view. So yes, Iran could designate this or that as terrorist - how much resonance it will create is another matter.

Just now, dexterm said:

You still haven't explained how some countries can legally call Hezbollah a terrorist organisation and other than simply because they can. And justify applying sanctions because of their unilateral declaration.

 

>>That you object to one set, and support another is less than meaningless in this context. The US (and the EU) are not obligated to put the interests of Iran (or Hezbollah) before their own, or even on par their own. And vice versa.
... the same could be said for your position. You are positing that USA and EU  "have interests". Well so do Hezbollah and Iran. So what? Why should Iran put US interests before its own? If you don't regard US and EU  interests as somehow more valid and object to the others why are you mentioning them as support for sanctions?

I think I have addressed it a couple of times. The trouble seems to be with you simply not accepting that countries may hold positions you don't like.

A country may decide to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization based on information, legal issues and interests. Pretty much the same as any other decision made. The "justification" isn't usually made simply on the force of "deceleration" (the "unilateral" bit is redundant). It would involve demonstrating Hezbollah qualifies, according to the legal requirements (which may vary between countries).

As for your second nonsense point:

I don't mention US and EU interests as "support" for sanctions. I'm pointing to a fact. Countries have interests and they act upon them the best they can.

I do regard US and EU interests as more valid than those of Iran and Hezbollah. Mainly because they more closely relate to my world view or how I feel about various issues. Also, warts and all, that's still what I consider to be an overall "better" choice. Others may disagree, and they are welcome to hold their misguided views. This is a matter of opinion, each to his own.

There was nothing said about Iran or Hezbollah having to put US interests first. They don't. They do need to consider the consequences of their interests clashing with those of the US. Same goes the other way. That you resent the US being mightier, is irrelevant.

As for the Hezbollah being designated a terrorist organizations, that's a matter of fact. That you try to paint it as a personal designation, a whimsical one, call it relevant isn't factual. That difference. Again.

18 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>Legal as determined by countries designating Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

..that's a ridiculous circular argument..countries can legally designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation because they are countries that designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation.

No, that's you either having comprehensions issues, or pretending to have such.

You asked "what and whose legal requirements...". Unless you expect a thorough legal review of all legalities involved in all relevant countries, you'll have to make do with the answer above. Countries may designate organizations as "terrorist" in accordance with their own prescribed legal procedures. That you apparently object to countries being able to pass such decisions is, again, not particularly interesting or even relevant (hypocritical too, considering you routinely call for such in a different context). Countries may have positions that differ from yours, and interests that do not agree with your own political views. Such is life.

11 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>What you fail to grasp, or perhaps "conveniently ignore" is that political pressure is not illegitimate - and is often a central part of what's known as "diplomacy". That you object to certain countries having interests, promoting interests or having enough leverage is not particularly interesting or relevant.
... I get it. The realpolitik is if a country has enough clout it is entitled to label another group or individual as terrorists while ignoring its own transgressions.
And the USA and EU have interests which are somehow sacrosanct and valid despite the death and mayhem they create in the world, whereas Iran and Hezbollah only have invalid interests.

No, you don't "get it", and kindly stop twisting my words.

Countries do not need to be pure as snow in order to designate organizations as "terrorist". Nor is it a requirement to first address all of their own supposed sins. That you pretend to see the world in black and white doesn't compel anyone else to do so.

The US and the EU have interests. There was nothing said about them being "sacrosanct", that's something you added. It is quite possible for to all parties mentioned to have what they consider "valid" interests. Not being into religion, I doubt the existence of a a higher authority decidedly decreeing one set to be "valid". That you object to one set, and support another is less than meaningless in this context. The US (and the EU) are not obligated to put the interests of Iran (or Hezbollah) before their own, or even on par their own. And vice versa.

Once more, it is amusing how you deride these "modern western style democracies" (especially the EU) when it suits, praising them or laying high hopes in them on other topics. Oh well...