news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

less than two weeks after the lebanese communications equipment explosion, israel once again shocked the world by killing hezbollah leader nasrallah.

u.s. president biden claimed at a press conference that nasrallah’s death was a “demonstration of justice” and “fully supports israel’s efforts to protect itself from hezbollah, hamas, the houthis in yemen, and any other iranian allies.” right".

however, the reality is that since the beginning of october last year, the lebanese-israeli conflict has caused 10,000 casualties in lebanon. after israel launched large-scale air strikes on september 23, the number of officially registered refugees in lebanon has exceeded 100,000. it is estimated that the actual number of displaced persons has reached one million.

during this period, china once stated this: "we are highly concerned about the recent explosion of communication equipment in lebanon and firmly oppose indiscriminate attacks on civilians...israel has carried out large-scale air strikes on lebanon...we are very concerned about the behavior that violates the basic norms of international relations." strongly condemned.”

after the attack on nasrallah, china immediately "urged the parties involved, especially israel, to take immediate measures to cool down the situation and prevent the conflict from further expanding or even getting out of control."

but it is not easy to push israel to "cool down". many people think that asisraelas the largest supporter and arms supplier, the united states' support and connivance for israel is an important reason for the disaster in the middle east. so what does the white house think of this issue? do you think israel has the so-called "right of self-defense" that is superior to others?

after the explosion of communication equipment in lebanon, observer.com asked the following six questions in the message board of the white house:

1. although israel has not claimed responsibility for the attack (communication equipment explosion), international public opinion generally believes that israel is the culprit. does the white house also hold the same judgment?

2. on the surface, the attack was aimed at holders of civilian communication equipment, including pagers, but the attackers could not ensure that there were no unarmed persons among these people. the attack also created an atmosphere of terror among ordinary people. the "peace and justice project" founded by former british labor party leader corbyn called the attack "state terrorism". what is the white house's comment on this?

3. u.s. national security communications advisor john kirby stated at a press conference that the united states was not involved in the attack (communication equipment explosion). but given the massive amount of u.s. military aid to israel, does the white house believe it has a responsibility to hold israel accountable for its actions? will the united states reassess its military aid to israel?

4. the united states has repeatedly stated that israel has the right to defend itself. does biden believe that launching a pager attack that caused a large number of civilian casualties exceeded the limit of "self-defense" when there was only a small-scale border conflict between lebanon and israel? how does the white house view the “right of self-defense” of palestinians and lebanese?

5. the large-scale weaponization of civilian equipment has set a very dangerous precedent. does the united states believe that this is a reasonable and legal method of "self-defense"? does it violate international law?

6. the attack created a "crisis of confidence" in the global supply chain and was a new blow to globalization. when the united states condoned israel, was it aware of the broad and far-reaching negative impact of this attack? will the united states follow israel's lead? can chinese consumers still trust american products?

but as of today, the white house has not given a reply.

but to some extent, history has provided part of the answer.

seeing the indiscriminate attacks on civilians, the white house is unwilling to take any substantive action to restrain israel and continues to provide a steady stream of military aid. it also categorically denies the "right of self-defense" of palestinians and lebanese people, while unconditionally supporting israel's so-called "right of self-defense." as a result, israel has made a mockery of the ceasefire agreement led by the united states and france, and the popularity of the united states in the middle east, north africa, and europe has also plummeted due to its "stubborn support for israel."

this article is an exclusive manuscript of observer.com and may not be reproduced without authorization.