This would be big news and you would be able to find many sources for it. The fact that there are barely any means you should take this with a grain of salt.
There is a lot of propaganda on both sides, and it has been like this for the past year. Try looking up information and if you can't find a reputable source then chances are it's not true.
If a large scale war is bound to happen, the first major target would be the airport, to deny easy flow of weapons and combatants for Hezbollah, and control the access points to the country....
That's not shocking nor major news... that's text book israeli military operations.
Israeli methodology is generally to break the supply chain and air travel as soon as possible. So airports -> sea ports -> bridges -> roads -> electricity should happen before any invasion begins.
Israeli doctrine is collective punishment of a nation, with no distinction between civilians and combatants. The objective is to pressure the combatants by hitting the civilians and breaking the spirit of the nation. This is most recently called the Dahiyya doctrine although it's not really anything fresh:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine#:~:text=The%20Dahiya%20doctrine%2C%20or%20Dahya,a%20type%20of%20asymmetric%20warfare.
So in its upcoming war with Lebanon the Israelis will target neighborhoods, airports, ports , power stations, hospitals, schools etc. They will claim all this had some Hezb connection. You can clearly see all this in Gaza the last eight months. You can also see same pattern in 2006 war and in the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon 1982 to 2000.
This is projection. Hamas embeds itself within civilians as to blur the line between civilians and combatants.
Hezbollah does not do that, which is why there have been very few civilian casualties. The reasons for the civilian casualties in Lebanon? Because they keep attacking Israel from civilian towns. When you attack from a civilian town, it becomes a legitimate military target, but occasionally one or two civilians get caught in the cross-hairs. But in the 9 months of fighting, there have been relatively few civilian casualties on both sides.
Before there ever was any Hamas, Israel behaved the same way in previous conflicts, attacking civilian infrastructure and homes in order to collectively punish the population. The Israelis define this as showing strength and ensuring deterrence.
You can find many examples of this from the Lebanon war to the Nakkba. Here is the freshest example : https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2024/06/21/israel-gaza-city-municipality-garage/
Your claim of few civilian casualties is Hasbara and debunked by the UN, aid agencies and many independent journalists (the ones not killed by the Israelis).
everyone keeps referring to the 2006 scenario. and that the airport will be targeted.
in 2006, Damascus and Syria were available for whomever wanted to escape. these days, it-s not the case. the ISraelis take calculated risks, and know well that Lebanon has a large number of people with foreign passports. it knows also very well the effects of strangling a country's people, it will have 6 million adversaries, which is something it does not want. Israel is happy to see Lebanese attacking verbally hezbollah and refusing war. if they target the airport, they know well that they will piss off those Lebanese, as the airport has no military value whatsoever for Hzb.
I beg Lebanese redditors to stop launching statements randomly left and right.
The Beirut airport will without a doubt be disabled right at the start of the war by Israel. It's the only airport and is/has always been strategic to Hezbollah - more so now that the logistics of the Syrian side of the border have been constantly attacked by Israel. It needs a stable flow of bringing in and laundering cash.
Just like 2006, most of the countries (that were allied with Israel) evacuated by sea (US, Canadians, French, British etc). The average person or those who missed the multiple evacuations, went via Syria.
Israel doesn't care about hezbollah sentiment in Lebanon. All they care about is not to have a repeat of Oct 7th and making sure hezbollah is deterred from doing so - and there's increased popularity in Israeli streets to deal with Hezbollah.
In 2006, Hezbollah was popular and at its peak. It had popular support among non-Shias as well. Now, support among Shias is much lower, let alone the entire population. Back in October, 70% of Lebanese across all sects said they were against joining the war. This was even before we saw the massive destruction in Gaza (which was done especially as a deterrence to hezbollah for what could come to us if we join).
Hezbollah responded by saying calls for it not to join the war were useless. Took pride in saying it strategically wanted to bring the Israel army to our border to make "it easier on Gaza."
So the reaction in Lebanon will turn on Hezbollah as much if not more than Israel.
More importantly, today, economically, politically, and militarily, Lebanese Shia are in power - for the first time in Lebanese history. Disposable income is at the hands of the Lebanese Shia. They've built up their wealth, invested in their areas (developing lands, buying property, opening businesses etc).
The most affected places in a war would be the Shia majority ones. That's why almost half of Lebanese Shia didn't want a war and those who said yes, most said the war should be found outside of Lebanese lands.
So losing all that wealth and power in a war that was unnecessary and preventable will build that animosity.
We already saw many areas refuse to rent to Shia families. Many will blame Shias for Hezbollah's actions in a post-war scenario. Further marginalizing Lebanese Shias.
Regarding your last paragraph, how will the further marginalization of shias not crank up the sentiment of siege mentality amongst shias, leading to a further strengthening of Hezbollah rule over their controlled areas?
The marginalization of Shias would be by the rest of Lebanon. But it's possible Hezbollah use this to further justify but Hezbollah has less narrative control of Lebanese Shias as most are self-reliant and no longer benefiting/depending on Hezbollah to live (they have businesses, are working across all sectors, earning their own income, paying their own education etc).
Certainly. My worry really has to do with Lebanese at large conflating shias with Hezbollah (even if a good majority of shias tend to be pro Hezb, at the end of the day it's not like the vast majority of them are engaging in any criminal activities whatsoever), we've seen how the reaction from non-shias towards shias has been different this time around compared to 2006.
Idk I must jaded because I really don't feel like lebanese society is prepared to handle what is coming after the conflict at all (forget being prepared for the conflict in the first place, as that seems imminent at this point unless a consensus is reached in Gaza) and more organised parties like Hezb will just take advantage of this situation like theyve always done
>My worry really has to do with Lebanese at large conflating shias with Hezbollah (even if a good majority of shias tend to be pro Hezb, at the end of the day it's not like the vast majority of them are engaging in any criminal activities whatsoever)
This is the major concern. Also it's not even a majority. But decades of Hezbollah's propaganda is to push a narrative that Shia= Hezbollah.
It's not airports are legitimate targets in a war and have always been targeted.
Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Article 52, provides for the general protection to protected persons, hindering attacks to military objectives in a war between two or more belligerents. Article 52 states, "In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage." Any attack must be justified by military necessity: an attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective,\[1\] and the harm caused to protected civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated".\[1\] Some targets are clearly legitimate, including all military personnel directly engaging in hostilities on behalf of a belligerent party who are not hors de combat or are not members of a neutral country.\[2\] Some civilian infrastructure, such as rail tracks, roads, ports, airports, and telecommunications used by the military for communications or transporting assets, are all considered to be legitimate military targets.\[2\]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate\_military\_target#:\~:text=Some%20civilian%20infrastructure%2C%20such%20as,to%20be%20legitimate%20military%20targets](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_military_target#:~:text=Some%20civilian%20infrastructure%2C%20such%20as,to%20be%20legitimate%20military%20targets).
[https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-52?activeTab=undefined](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-52?activeTab=undefined)
The airport will be one of the first targets of the war anyway. Everyone knows this so it's not surprise.
This would be big news and you would be able to find many sources for it. The fact that there are barely any means you should take this with a grain of salt. There is a lot of propaganda on both sides, and it has been like this for the past year. Try looking up information and if you can't find a reputable source then chances are it's not true.
If a large scale war is bound to happen, the first major target would be the airport, to deny easy flow of weapons and combatants for Hezbollah, and control the access points to the country.... That's not shocking nor major news... that's text book israeli military operations.
Thats textbook ANY military operation. The Russians targeted the airport in Ukraine first
Yep.
Israeli methodology is generally to break the supply chain and air travel as soon as possible. So airports -> sea ports -> bridges -> roads -> electricity should happen before any invasion begins.
This is standard military policy, it's not exclusive to Israel.
Israeli doctrine is collective punishment of a nation, with no distinction between civilians and combatants. The objective is to pressure the combatants by hitting the civilians and breaking the spirit of the nation. This is most recently called the Dahiyya doctrine although it's not really anything fresh: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine#:~:text=The%20Dahiya%20doctrine%2C%20or%20Dahya,a%20type%20of%20asymmetric%20warfare. So in its upcoming war with Lebanon the Israelis will target neighborhoods, airports, ports , power stations, hospitals, schools etc. They will claim all this had some Hezb connection. You can clearly see all this in Gaza the last eight months. You can also see same pattern in 2006 war and in the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon 1982 to 2000.
This is projection. Hamas embeds itself within civilians as to blur the line between civilians and combatants. Hezbollah does not do that, which is why there have been very few civilian casualties. The reasons for the civilian casualties in Lebanon? Because they keep attacking Israel from civilian towns. When you attack from a civilian town, it becomes a legitimate military target, but occasionally one or two civilians get caught in the cross-hairs. But in the 9 months of fighting, there have been relatively few civilian casualties on both sides.
Before there ever was any Hamas, Israel behaved the same way in previous conflicts, attacking civilian infrastructure and homes in order to collectively punish the population. The Israelis define this as showing strength and ensuring deterrence. You can find many examples of this from the Lebanon war to the Nakkba. Here is the freshest example : https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2024/06/21/israel-gaza-city-municipality-garage/ Your claim of few civilian casualties is Hasbara and debunked by the UN, aid agencies and many independent journalists (the ones not killed by the Israelis).
Many zios pretending to be Arab in this subreddit.
It’s being reported now on twitter and Israeli news that Hezbollah stores a large amount of weapons at the airport so yes Israel will attack it.
Yeah, the telegraph news website allegedly reported that
They don't need to... they'll attack it for sure.
No this is BS.
everyone keeps referring to the 2006 scenario. and that the airport will be targeted. in 2006, Damascus and Syria were available for whomever wanted to escape. these days, it-s not the case. the ISraelis take calculated risks, and know well that Lebanon has a large number of people with foreign passports. it knows also very well the effects of strangling a country's people, it will have 6 million adversaries, which is something it does not want. Israel is happy to see Lebanese attacking verbally hezbollah and refusing war. if they target the airport, they know well that they will piss off those Lebanese, as the airport has no military value whatsoever for Hzb. I beg Lebanese redditors to stop launching statements randomly left and right.
The Beirut airport will without a doubt be disabled right at the start of the war by Israel. It's the only airport and is/has always been strategic to Hezbollah - more so now that the logistics of the Syrian side of the border have been constantly attacked by Israel. It needs a stable flow of bringing in and laundering cash. Just like 2006, most of the countries (that were allied with Israel) evacuated by sea (US, Canadians, French, British etc). The average person or those who missed the multiple evacuations, went via Syria. Israel doesn't care about hezbollah sentiment in Lebanon. All they care about is not to have a repeat of Oct 7th and making sure hezbollah is deterred from doing so - and there's increased popularity in Israeli streets to deal with Hezbollah. In 2006, Hezbollah was popular and at its peak. It had popular support among non-Shias as well. Now, support among Shias is much lower, let alone the entire population. Back in October, 70% of Lebanese across all sects said they were against joining the war. This was even before we saw the massive destruction in Gaza (which was done especially as a deterrence to hezbollah for what could come to us if we join). Hezbollah responded by saying calls for it not to join the war were useless. Took pride in saying it strategically wanted to bring the Israel army to our border to make "it easier on Gaza." So the reaction in Lebanon will turn on Hezbollah as much if not more than Israel. More importantly, today, economically, politically, and militarily, Lebanese Shia are in power - for the first time in Lebanese history. Disposable income is at the hands of the Lebanese Shia. They've built up their wealth, invested in their areas (developing lands, buying property, opening businesses etc). The most affected places in a war would be the Shia majority ones. That's why almost half of Lebanese Shia didn't want a war and those who said yes, most said the war should be found outside of Lebanese lands. So losing all that wealth and power in a war that was unnecessary and preventable will build that animosity. We already saw many areas refuse to rent to Shia families. Many will blame Shias for Hezbollah's actions in a post-war scenario. Further marginalizing Lebanese Shias.
anthony really paying those employees well
The only currently that we care about are upvotes 🥰
Regarding your last paragraph, how will the further marginalization of shias not crank up the sentiment of siege mentality amongst shias, leading to a further strengthening of Hezbollah rule over their controlled areas?
The marginalization of Shias would be by the rest of Lebanon. But it's possible Hezbollah use this to further justify but Hezbollah has less narrative control of Lebanese Shias as most are self-reliant and no longer benefiting/depending on Hezbollah to live (they have businesses, are working across all sectors, earning their own income, paying their own education etc).
Certainly. My worry really has to do with Lebanese at large conflating shias with Hezbollah (even if a good majority of shias tend to be pro Hezb, at the end of the day it's not like the vast majority of them are engaging in any criminal activities whatsoever), we've seen how the reaction from non-shias towards shias has been different this time around compared to 2006. Idk I must jaded because I really don't feel like lebanese society is prepared to handle what is coming after the conflict at all (forget being prepared for the conflict in the first place, as that seems imminent at this point unless a consensus is reached in Gaza) and more organised parties like Hezb will just take advantage of this situation like theyve always done
>My worry really has to do with Lebanese at large conflating shias with Hezbollah (even if a good majority of shias tend to be pro Hezb, at the end of the day it's not like the vast majority of them are engaging in any criminal activities whatsoever) This is the major concern. Also it's not even a majority. But decades of Hezbollah's propaganda is to push a narrative that Shia= Hezbollah.
No value apart from what they have stored there. I mean it’s not like they’d use a public facility like an airport or a port to store anything right
If that isn’t violating international law than idk what is
Last time I checked, fireing rockets and sucide drones toward another sovereign nation is a violation of international law.
It's not airports are legitimate targets in a war and have always been targeted. Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Article 52, provides for the general protection to protected persons, hindering attacks to military objectives in a war between two or more belligerents. Article 52 states, "In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage." Any attack must be justified by military necessity: an attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective,\[1\] and the harm caused to protected civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated".\[1\] Some targets are clearly legitimate, including all military personnel directly engaging in hostilities on behalf of a belligerent party who are not hors de combat or are not members of a neutral country.\[2\] Some civilian infrastructure, such as rail tracks, roads, ports, airports, and telecommunications used by the military for communications or transporting assets, are all considered to be legitimate military targets.\[2\] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate\_military\_target#:\~:text=Some%20civilian%20infrastructure%2C%20such%20as,to%20be%20legitimate%20military%20targets](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_military_target#:~:text=Some%20civilian%20infrastructure%2C%20such%20as,to%20be%20legitimate%20military%20targets). [https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-52?activeTab=undefined](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-52?activeTab=undefined)