Whenever you get an occupation there will always be a resistance.
Whether it was Hezbollah or a third party - Israels response would be the same.
The aggressor, the genocider and its actions are diluted and a secondary issue?
I dont understand what "Lebanese IMPOTENCE" has to do with anything?
I am not a Hezbollah fan but if Arabs had pulled their finger out and defended their cousins - then they wouldnt even exist.
I suggest bringing and using Pakistan and India into this is to say the least - off topic.
1) The main point was that the occupation is a consequence of the weakness of the Lebanese state and its divisions - something Hezbollah itself has contributed to negatively. I suggest you do some readings about this topic (Lebanese social, political, sectarian etc. cohesion - Lebanese civil war is a good start) or ask various Lebanese people. Depending on who you ask (Sunnis, Shias, Druze, Christians etc.) you will get a completely different answer most of the time.
2) Which is exactly what I wrote but Hezbollah has not exactly helped itself by dragging Lebanon into conflicts that does not directly impact them whether it is Gaza or Iran. Do you think that the average Lebanese who was minding his own business but was targeted by Israeli bombardments of entire building complexes, just to kill 1 or 2 Hezbollah operatives, would support this or support dragging Lebanon further to the ground - a country that has already collapsed economically and is struggling a lot? Lebanon itself, Hezbollah included, cannot do anything to defeat Israel/USA anyway or prevent genocidal Israeli policies in Gaza either as we all unfortunately saw. Hence the need for another approach.
3) Who claimed that? The main obstacle problem are and remain the Zionists and their occupation in Palestine and now elsewhere as well. That is self-evident. However saying, rightly in my eyes, that a new more effective approach needs to be taken, is hardly approval for said occupation?
4) How can you not understand the the internal weakness of the Lebanese state and the failure of Lebanon to develop a cohesive, representative army, is not a problem? Baffling, really.
5) I am not against Hezbollah if they are focused on combating Zionist aggression in South Lebanon (how they came about). I am not a fan of them being used (no longer the case) as Iranian regime pawns to oppress and kill fellow Arabs and Muslims in Syria next door in order to prop up a pro-Iranian regime (Al-Assad regime). This is the only reason why most Arab Muslims have turned against Hezbollah or at least their opinions have turned more negative. That is besides Hezbollah's drug trade ("very Islamic"), corruption, nepotism and trying to unsurp Lebanese state institutions. Or how they killed an elected Lebanese Prime Minister (Hariri) back in 2005.
Arabs cannot defeat a nuclear armed Israel supported fully by the US (foremost superpower), all of the West and even Russia. Much of Russia is ruled by powerful and wealthy Russian Jewish oligarchs. Many are based in the UK as you might know already.
Well in theory we could, but we would likely be nuked in return. So there is no military solution most likely. At least not now.
Also due to geography, Palestine and Israel are both tiny entities are next door to each other, any large scale attack (if nukes are exchanged) and the prospect of any Palestinian state for the foreseeable future goes out of the window. Not to mention that almost 25% of the Israeli population is made up of Palestinians. Those that stayed and were not kicked out after 1948. So as you can see and probably already know, it is a bit complicated.
6) It was a direct comparison to a non-state actor (Hezbollah) being stronger than the official army. I am sure that you would not like if a non-state actor was stronger than the Pakistani army - in particular if that non-state actor was heavily propped up by a foreign entity (Iran). This precisely is a good example of the many failures of Lebanon as a nation state.
