Gaza and Lebanon were not part of the cease fire agreement. Besides, After the first round of hostilities the ceasefire agreement reached between Israel and Lebanon included the disarmament of Hezbullah, and sending the Lebanese army to take the south under control. None of which was done, so Israel had to do it by itself
> With the greatest humility, I am pleased to announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, along with their allies, have agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
PM of Pakistan announced without a doubt after the agreement that Lebanon "and elsewhere" were included.
"Western" media seemed to gloss over this "small detail".
Israel hadn't agreed to anything yet though. There was apparently some confusion in the Pakistani mediation. Vance called it a "legitimate misunderstanding".
> Vance said the cease fire doesn't include Lebanon, in his own voice
CBS has reported that the US originally agreed that the ceasefire included Lebanon but changed its position following a phone call between Trump and Netanyahu. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lebanon-israel-ceasefire-talks-... The New York Times has reported that the US had already seen and signed off on the text in Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif's statement regarding the ceasefire prior to him posting it. https://archive.ph/dH97R
If the best analysis you're able to come up with is "Al-Jazeera said one thing and Vance said another, so clearly Vance's statement must be accurate" and not doing any further investigation yourself, I honestly feel bad for you.
Who would you consider reliable news sources for this war? Honest question.
AFAIK The USA governement has proven unreliable, even more so than Iran. USA news sources are owned by the same oligarchs owning the governement. Other western sources follow the USA train of thought, with more or less doubt thrown in. Mint from India and Al Jazeera from Qatar (not happy with Iran right now) seem closest to neutral of the pack, even if not that great. I am not aware of a reliable Israeli news source.
The ACOUP article was one of the best analysis of this war I've seen, which is pretty damning for the real news sources if you think about it.
> I am not aware of a reliable Israeli news source.
If you consider Al Jazeera a reliable source, then we'll probably disagree on this. But I would say Ynet, Times of Israel, and Jerusalem Post and reliable, just to name some of the big ones with lots of English content online. Or Haaretz for a more anti-government-leaning (but still broadly reliable) publication.
I've never seen Israel respect a ceasefire, but this isn't my point: the Trump administration has been caught lying literally thousands of times, you genuinely believe they're more trustworthy than Al Jazeera?
Because if you genuinely do, your brain is straight up broken
Like you I do not have a direct line with the diplomats of the involved countries, but every major news outlet was including Lebanon in the agreement.
What Israel is doing by itself is occupying more land and vilifying the concept of humanity, not "taking the south under control". Let me remind you that Hezbollah has founded as a direct reply to the '82 invasion of Lebanon by Israel.
The whole source of pain, misery and instability in the region is the colony of Israel, that was place there by the brits.
> every major news outlet was including Lebanon in the agreement
Israel never said anything about having accepted an agreement, and in fact stated the opposite. The Pakistani mediator can't just declare Israel part of an agreement without its, well, agreement.
> Hezbollah has founded as a direct reply to the '82 invasion of Lebanon by Israel
Which was a rather necessary response to the PLO attacking Israel from Lebanon. Or what would you have expected Israel to do instead?
Why would anyone in their right mind next to Israel disarm ? So they can have their land occupied by ultra orthodox jew nazis ?
And on the contrary, the major news outlets are infested by israeli propaganda.
Letting israel exist ? Does israel leave Gaza exist ? Or the west bank ? Or Syria, or Lebanon ? Or any of those people that have been living there for thousands of years, not just 80 ?
> If all parties decide to lay down their weapons there would be peace tomorrow.
Which is why there will never be peace - tomorrow or any other day - because Israel wants everyone else to disarm, excluding themselves. How else are they going to keep expanding their settlements and keep the Palestinians in increasingly fragmented and shrinking bantustans?
There's nothing Israelis want more than give up their military. but when countries like Iran vow to "wipe israel off the map" and Hamas states in its covenant to annhilate all jews, what sane country would give up its army?
Second, Israel does not expand. On the contrary - Israel returned the Sinai Desert which is a territory x3 times its size back to Egypt for peace.
Going to the gym every day doesn't mean lifting weights every day , at least not at first. Once you have advanced enough you can certainly lift everyday, focusing on different muscle groups.
The principle is to be active - treadmill, rowing machine, elliptical, etc on days you're not lifting weights are perfectly reasonable expectation after a few months of adaptation period.
You don't have to go to the gym of course, you can do all those activities at home with some very cheap and easy to obtain equipment like rubber bands and/or TRX, but the point I think OP was trying to make is to create opportunities for social interactions.
On days I miss workouts I feel much more groggy and tired, so working out over the years became a necessity which I don't really need to find motivation to do. If you feel bored and tired, try to couple workouts with audiobooks or podcasts, that helps to make the experience more enjoyable and even productive at times.
(I'm nearing 42, working out most of my life 5 days a week at least)
Microsoft working with Israel is a good enough reason for me to stay with Github.
I don't let lies and misinformation (e.g. "Apartheid") guide me in professional settings
Authoritarian regimes don’t act aggressively because they’re provoked; they act aggressively because projecting power and testing limits is part of how they survive internally. History is full of cases where no meaningful provocation existed at all.
Nazi Germany didn’t need Allied ships near its coast to invade Poland. Saddam Hussein didn’t need US aircraft nearby to invade Kuwait. Argentina didn’t need British naval pressure to seize the Falklands. Russia didn’t need NATO forces near Kyiv to annex Crimea in 2014 or launch a full invasion in 2022.
Tyrannies tend to frame any foreign presence as “provocation” after the fact, because it’s politically useful at home. Liberal democracies publish their movements precisely because they operate under scrutiny; authoritarian states act first and justify later.
Proximity makes for a convenient narrative, not a causal explanation.
When I think of liberal democracies, I am thinking of places like Estonia, I am not including the current US, UK, and Germany in liberal democracies, Considering the current state in every single one and the recent cases for spying on their own citizens illegally I sincerely doubt they are publishing openly.
What am i missing here? physics hackers, please explain.
does their claim of reaching 8 km/s in earth's atomsphere make sense? how is it possible without an insane amount of energy?
Besides, how are you going to deliver this energy in such a short time without frying the entire system, we're talking probably 1000A+ currents flowing in insane voltages.
You'd rather use TNT or some high explosive, that's what is usually done with artillery, and even then you don't get close to 8 km/s as far as i know.
It's really hard to tell from the press release, but it sounds as if they're talking about a railgun kinda thing. Which has been discussed before, and it keeps not working out. The strains on the object are too great.
I wonder where the Hamas members speaking out on killings of Israelis on Oct 7th ... It's always one sided.
Not saying Israeli soldiers have perfect values and obey all international laws, but every time I see a story in the Guardian , it's so one sided, one has to question their motives and objectives.
Saying 'Israeli soldiers' also leaves the readers to wonder - how many are there? 'soldiers' can also be 2-3 soldiers.
Is there something about Israeli soldiers or society in general that is different than other soldiers of conflicting nations?
reply