https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-hezbollah

What role has it played in Lebanese politics?

Hezbollah has been a fixture of the Lebanese government since 1992, when eight of its members were elected to Parliament, and the party has held cabinet positions since 2005. The party marked its integration into mainstream politics in 2009 with an updated manifesto that was less Islamist than its predecessor and called for “true democracy.” The most recent national elections, in 2022, saw Hezbollah maintain its 13 seats in Lebanon’s 128-member Parliament, though the party and its allies lost their majority.

Hezbollah essentially operates as a government in the areas under its control, and neither the military nor federal authorities can counter this, Arab Barometer analysts MaryClare Roche and Michael Robbins write for Foreign Affairs. It manages a vast network of social services that include infrastructure, health-care facilities, schools, and youth programs, all of which have been instrumental in garnering support for Hezbollah from Shiite and non-Shiite Lebanese alike. Even so, Arab Barometer polling in 2024 found that “despite Hezbollah’s significant influence in Lebanon, relatively few Lebanese support it.”

At the same time, Hezbollah maintains its military arm. Under the 1989 Taif Agreement, which was brokered by Saudi Arabia and Syria and ended Lebanon’s civil war, Hezbollah was the only militia allowed to keep its arms. Analyst and Brigadier General (Ret.) Assaf Orion, of Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, says Hezbollah possesses “a larger arsenal of artillery than most nations enjoy,” and a 2018 report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies called it “the world’s most heavily armed non-state actor.” In June 2024, experts speculated that Hezbollah has 150,000–200,000 rockets and missiles of various ranges.

Critics say Hezbollah’s existence violates UN Security Council Resolution 1559—adopted in 2004—which called for all Lebanese militias to disband and disarm. The UN Force in Lebanon (UNFIL), first deployed in 1978 to restore the central government’s authority, remains in the country and part of its mandate is to encourage Hezbollah to disarm.

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/skazq5ryje

A preliminary DNA test conducted on the body of one of the terrorists killed in Gaza suggests it is that of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, Saudi TV channel Al Hadath reported on Thursday, citing unnamed sources.

I'm supposed to provide proof for my response to your claim, yet you aren't required to source your original claim of "Because they don’t want anyone to leave"? No no :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim, especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.[2]

...

One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.[8][9]

I'm not going to be engaging with you now, or in the future. This is extraordinarily bad form, and a huge waste of time.

Wow, that was the entire conversation? Where was I getting this idea that you were claiming Israel would not let refugees leave to Egypt?

Oh, that was exactly what you said... "Because they don’t want anyone to leave."

And yes, I am. Because I read what you said.

That isn't all you said, your comments are all here on display for everyone to read. And I'm very clear on what you are saying.

I specifically asked you to quote me saying that there are no IDF troops at the border, and you failed to, and I reject you mischaracterizing my argument. You very specifically said "Because they don’t want anyone to leave." and have yet to provide evidence. Reframing your unsourced claim as "they can't cross a border due to an invading force controlling it" is disingenuous and in bad faith, and also not substantiated as it similarly implies without evidence Israel's intentions.

Thank you for posting another comment devoid of a source for your claims. The "source" you posted previously does not support your assertion of Israel's intentions. Injection of this is a strawman, followed by your unsubstantiated opinion of what it means to you personally. You have yet to prove Israel would not let refugees leave to Egypt.

I am in no way trolling.

You know what, I'll keep going :)

Quote where I said there aren't IDF troops. Because it would be a shame if you were lying about what I said. This is where evidence (not opinion) comes in.

A "fact" you just can't seem to source.

You stating it doesn't make it true, that's where evidence comes in. I can state that Egypt's actions demonstrate the same, they could just walk away. And with just as much evidence as you provided.

I understand this is your personal opinion, and that there is no evidence supporting your claims of Israel's intentions to not let refugees leave, even to Egypt. I won't be continuing this discussion with you.

Because then it's unsourced opinion/speculation. Bickering between Egypt and Israel aside, if Egypt unilaterally opened their side of the Rafah crossing, Israel has said they would not let refugees leave?

Has Israel stated they would not let refugees leave? Say Egypt unilaterally opens the Rafah crossing, Israel would stop them from leaving?

Dude, read who wrote that comment

That's another user...

Edit: and who said I was specifying the Iranian military?

Rewrote the above comment, my mistake for misinterpreting. I'm still waiting for you to quote me saying you're defending Hamas.

Deleted, I misread the comment. Source saying that Israel controls whether they stay or leave?

Please quote where I said you defended Hamas. (Hint: I didn't)

Hmm, I feel that divorcing Iran's proxies from Iran is more disingenuous (and I'm not lying about their relation). It's also not refuting the content of the posts, which again, clearly illustrate my point. Sorry, and thanks for the discussion!

The first is a middle east monitor article. And Hamas/Hezbollah=Iran. Also, entirely missing the point, my points are very clearly illustrated here.

A point no one contested, they're simply forcing them to stay there.

Only if you don't consider Hamas as a proxy of Iran. I'm objectively being honest.