Iran wants to secure their most valuable proxy so they tie the agreement with Hezbollah. Their rhetoric is stating Lebanon ofc like they are some protectors of the Lebanese meanwhile trying to draft people to the Hezbollah for 1K US dollars a month.
Everyone knows the above.
So i find it amazing how the world can accept the new arrangement in which Iran can simply back from the agreement and/or close the straits of Hormuz whenever they see fit.
Next episode gonna be -
Israel to give Jerusalem - or the straits are closed.

its more than a little relevant here.
Israel and hezbollah agreed to their own ceasefire, parallel with this deal between the US and Iran. They both had the stated intent of ceasing hostilities.
Hezbollah violated that ceasefire and opened fire first, killing an IDF soldier, to which Israel responded with retaliatory strikes.

If Hezbollah's argument is that Israel remaining in southern lebanon at all is cause to continue fighting, than they should never have pretended to be agreeing to a ceasefire nor should anyone credit them with it, because they just kept attacking the IDF.
Al Jazeera doesn't deny that Israel was retaliating against a Hezbollah breach of the ceasefire, instead they simply omit hezbollah entirely and count any military action by israel as a violation of the ceasefire even if the ceasefire was already in abeyance.
The JPost lays out what actually happened here, not omitting any of the facts, because the facts support their claim.
NPR news simply lies about what happened and made it the fuck up with no sources needed, just invent fake news when the real news isn't what they want.

There's not going to be an Iran deal or ceasefire or any other peace deal where Hezbollah is allowed to rain rockets on the IDF and Israel isn't allowed to retaliate, which apparently is the only deal Al Jazeera would support.
And the Iran is citing "Israel violating the ceasefire" when Israel is responding to a ceasefire violation by Hezbollah, who wouldn't take a dump on a sunday morning without asking Iran for permission first.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jun 21 2026 10:24am

You can not seriously believe that Israel had any intention of abiding by a ceasefire do you? I mean,

Israel never signed the ceasefire. It said so publicly. Its troops are still in Lebanon. Its defense minister said the war continues. If a country rejects a deal, says it won't follow it, and keeps fighting—what's the debate? The U.S. negotiated with Iran, not with Israel. Hezbollah firing first or Israel firing first is not relevant. Without Israeli buy-in, there was never a real ceasefire.

I cannot think of any other way of saying it. I actually do not understand your logic point. Lets say Israel fired first. do I blame Israel? no. Lets say Hezbollah fired first, do I blame Hezbollah? No. Because the US, under Donald Trump, Chose to sign some random scribbles on a piece of paper without the consent and buy in from Israel. How is this going over your head?

two kids are fighting in school. one brings a knife to class and the other has a knife as well. A teacher takes one of the kids aside and says, dont bring a knife to school, stop fighting. The kid says "i will stop if he stops" and "can i trust you?" the adult says "Sure". The adult then leaves, after getting agreement from one of the kids. the other kid comes along and produces his knife. The stated intend as evidenced IN THIS THREAD is to destroy Hezbollah, so that it will NEVER AGAIN threaten Israel, So where is this ceasefire notion coming from? An incursion into Lebanon is not meant to MOW THE LAWN this time, its meant to cut out the rotten trees to the roots. This is what Israel said.

I mean, the adult was totally useless in this scenario.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 21 2026 10:50am

Well, I guess we will never know if the Israelis would have held up the Israel/Hezbollah ceasefire if Hezbollah hadn't broken it.

or we could just believe them when they said they were not in Lebanon to mow the lawn. should we stop believing what they say now? I thought Iran was out to obliterate Israel from the face of the earth, are we supposed to stop believing that too? who do we believe and who do we not believe ? Israel has repeatedly said they are in Lebanon for a total victory. thats the stated goal. Does Israel now agree with Hezbollah on ceasefires? like the last one ? that one broke as well.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 21 2026 11:19am

Israel agreed to a ceasefire with Hezbollah. You say that Israel had no intention of abiding by this ceasefire. And yet it was Hezbollah who violated the ceasefire and shot first. You have no basis to claim Israel was going to keep firing in violation of the ceasefire, beyond just impugning Israel's motives. We can plainly see Hezbollah had no intention of abiding by the ceasefire, because they didn't. I don't understand how this is complicated or requires any elaboration.

Lets say we have two kids fighting at a school, Alice and Bob
Alice and Bob agree not to hit each other. Bob then punches Alice. You show up and say Alice never had any intention of not hitting Bob, and therefore the agreement never mattered, it was just some random scribbles. You claim that Alice is inherently incapable of agreeing to peace and nothing she says under any circumstances can be trusted. This comes after a long history of Alice and Bob getting into fights, in which virtually all of them, Bob is the aggressor party who violates their ceasefire and attacks Bob, including raining mortars on Alice after Charlie invaded her home and raped her. Hmm these examples getting off track

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jun 21 2026 11:39am

Ben Gvir - who I consider an odious extremist by the way - surely didn't intend to abide by the ceasefire. Whether other members of the Israeli government were sincere, I don't know. Speculative. What we do know for a fact is that Hezbollah had no such intentions and broke the ceasefire first.


It's pretty easy to see what's going on here: the IRGC and their Hezbollah lapdogs think they have the upper hand right now because Trump negotiated a weak agreement (not as disastrous as his detractors make it out to be, but weak nonetheless). That's why they try to use this (perceived) leverage to shift the lines in their favor, basically betting that Trump will call the Israelis back eventually because the success of the Iran negotiations is far more important to him than whether Israel gets to keep a buffer zone in southern Lebanon or not.

On the Israeli side, the belief is that the current situation is a unique window of opportunity to drive Hezbollah out of Lebanon. An opportunity which its government, and particularly its right-wing fringe, wants to seize. Additionally, the consensus opinion across party lines is that the MOU is bad for Israeli interests, so nobody would be too sad to see it go up in smokes. Hence, Israel has no real incentive to hold back in Lebanon, just so Trump can save his midterms or his international reputation. It's almost as if a peace deal can't work when both sides have a strong incentive to break it.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 21 2026 01:05pm

Hi

im not around today, i will respond to this tomorrow, cheers
also i asked you for a debate in this or the other thread, not sure if u saw that
cheers

(Responding to your couple posts today here)


It's just a charade, the 'cease-fire' was a memorandum of understanding, not even a treaty, nearly worthless. Trump and Netanyahu are pretending to be in a situation where they are on opposite sides. Like Good cop Bad cop. I think those details of the memorandum were meant to agitate his base (300bn to Iran, toll fees for ships....).. They are just playing interference to plan a larger operation.

This post was edited by RedFromWinter on Jun 21 2026 04:22pm