Do you imagine this is a good way of addressing any addiction issues?

From that wikipedia article it does seem like neither side properly engaged with the ceasefire, although does seem to be written in quite a one-sided manner, which is interesting considering the thread we’re in.

Someone else has already mentioned the pager attacks to you, which, related to one of my earlier replies, would not seem to be a proportionate response to an imminent or actual threat. You seem very determined in your replies to paint Israel as only responding to unprovoked attacks from Hezbollah, but putting aside who ‘started it’, there has clearly been escalation on Israel’s side. I don’t think you can put everything down to Hezbollah being ‘religious fanatic terrorists’ whilst having no consideration for the fact that Israel could easily fit that same description.

Fighting back and occupying are not the same thing though. And where does self defence become aggression, as arguably Israel are not acting in a purely defensive manner. In terms of international law, there has to be an actual of imminent threat, and a response has to be proportionate, so again the argument could be made that Israel are not acting within that framework.

In terms of your point about Hezbollah promising to stop and that being an end to it, there have previously been ceasefires in place, agreed to by all sides, that immediately fall apart. So how does it work if you are occupying/annexing in self defence, but you are the one to break a ceasefire?

I mean, our entire exchange prior to this has been about annexation, so that’s quite the goalpost shift. But assuming you’re being sincere, what’s the functional difference? Who decides when it’s OK to stop ‘occupying’ and that things can just go back to how they were before? Or does if just continue indefinitely?

Annexation in international law, is the forcible acquisition and assertion of legal title over one state’s territory by another state, usually following military occupation of the territory. In current international law, it is generally held to be an illegal act.>

Granted, that is from Wikipedia, and I only did a cursory search, but I’d say as a jumping off point it doesn’t really support the idea of annexing being OK. And ethically, the concept of ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ is arguably at play here, just because someone might have wronged you, doesn’t give you free reign in terms of retaliation.

I’m not sure ‘but they hit me first’ is quite the justification for annexation you think it is.

Given the people involved, ‘all’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.