Your first part is spot on. However it is easy for us outsiders to demand that when we are not the ones who are getting carpet bombed by the Zionists just across the border from Israel itself. Israeli attacks on South Lebanon (or Gaza for that matter) are completely incomparable with the largely token Israeli attacks on Iran far away. They are far, far more destructive in scale, size and intensity. Not to mention that Israel actually is able to commit boots on the ground which neither the Israelis or Americans ever did in Iran.
Sorry to say it but Hezbollah's behavior has only given Israel the excuse to once again occupy and most likely annex Lebanese territory.
It is a difficult place to be in for Hezbollah and South Lebanon because Israel would likely have attacked them regardless.
In any case Lebanese impotence is all due by design (since Lebanon as an entity was carved out by Syria - I covered this extensively in this thread many months ago) and due to the inherent divisions within Lebanon - which again is by design.
For starters it is a joke that a non-state actor like Hezbollah (even though they have embedded themselves in the Lebanese state institutions for decades) is stronger (much more in fact) than the official military/army of Lebanon.
Imagine if Pakistan, if attacked by India, was defended by some non-state actor (Baloch insurgents, whatever armed groups/terrorists or what you want to call it) rather than the official military.
It is a complete and utter mess.
To make it short, the only solution is for all parties in Lebanon to unite in this endeavor and work for the great good of Lebanon itself and its people, regardless of sectarian and political affiliations, but that is unlikely to occur. It has never really occurred since Lebanon was carved out by Syria by the French so not sure why, in a much more weakened state, with a totally failed economy, and now no Al-Assad regime next door in Syria, they will do it.
You've brought many themes here not necessarily on this topic, but it is good you brought them up, because we must be clear about some things.
I agree with some of the points you've made, no doubt about it.
Things I agree with:
a) Yes, Israel cannot annihilate Iran the same way it can with regions it shares borders with.
b) Lebanon's impotence is due to design - that is absolutely correct. Anyone that has read up on Lebanon's history knows it was carved out of Syria by the French, and knows how carving out this region and calling it Lebanon, and building the divisions into that society is playing out today.
But the things you fail to mention:
a) The non-Palestinian Arabs (especially Jordan, Egypt; and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia and the rest of the GCC countries) have not fought for the Palestinian cause post 1967 and 1973. In fact, Jordan and Egypt signed treaties and security arrangements with the Israeli state.
Now I personally agree that a TRUE 2-state solution is the way to resolve this Israel-Palestine conflict. I don't think Israel can be removed from this earth, so any effort to try to target that, as a result of which inflicting more suffering on the Palestinians is counterproductive. I agree with that. But it is still resistance (does not de-legitimitize them), even if it results in worse outcomes for the Palestinians.
The thing with Iran and Hezbollah is, at least they are trying to do something about the conditions of the Palestinians. Look at what the non-Palestinian Arabs have done post 1967 and 1973: they have let Israel annex the West Bank with settlements, converting that land into swiss cheese.
The 2 state solutions proposed in the Oslo accord were the West Bank becoming Swiss cheese. The Taba accord and Olmert proposals were better than the Oslo accords, but relied on land swaps in the West Bank that would ensure the biggest settlements remained in the West Bank (like Ariel), and Israel retained control over important parts of Jerusalem. The West Bank would still not have territorial integrity, it would not be contiguous territory able to control its resources, economy. Furthermore, the state would be demilitarized, similar to the PA administration with the Israeli state. So while the Taba accord and Olmert proposals were better than the Oslo accords, it would still result in Palestinian occupation and subjugation. The Arabs never really took that on post 1973.
b) About Hezbollah, the only reason why Israel started a ground operation there, and wants to create a buffer zone there and keep it occupied is because they stepped in the Gaza-Israel war (when no one else did). If they had kept themselves out of it, maybe some Lebanese would have been happy, but all people with morals would detest the killings in Gaza.
c) Again about Hezbollah, we can say many things about the Syria conflict. But you can see what Sharaa thinks about the Palestinians through his actions. There isn't much more that needs to be said about him.
