Reports: Hezbollah remains open to US diplomatic efforts

Hezbollah has rebuffed U.S. mediator Amos Hochstein’s ideas for ending the border skirmishes with Israel but remains open to U.S. diplomatic efforts to avoid a ruinous war, a media report said, quoting Lebanese officials.
"Hezbollah is ready to listen," a senior Lebanese official familiar with the group's thinking said, while emphasizing that the group saw the ideas presented by veteran negotiator Hochstein on a visit to Beirut last week as unrealistic.
One suggestion floated last week was that border hostilities be scaled back in tandem with Israeli moves towards lower intensity operations in Gaza, the reports quoted three Lebanese sources and a U.S. official as saying.

One can discern a palpable hesitancy on the part of Hezbollah in engaging Israel militarily, with the apparent motivation stemming primarily from the expectations of their Shia support base. The reluctance seems rooted in an acknowledgment within the leadership that the conflict with Israel serves as a means to fulfill the expectations of their Shia constituency rather than a genuine pursuit of military confrontation.
Interestingly, a deeper analysis suggests a complex interdependence between Israel and Hezbollah. While seemingly at odds, both entities find a certain symbiosis in their coexistence. The leadership of Hezbollah appears cognizant of the fact that the perpetual tension with Israel serves as a foundational element to legitimize their actions and justify the continued occupation of Palestine and Lebanon.

In this intricate dynamic, the existence of each party becomes intertwined with the other, creating a situation where both entities derive a degree of validation and raison d'être from the ongoing conflict.
This interdependence implies that, beneath the surface of hostilities, there exists a shared understanding between Israel and Hezbollah regarding the perpetuation of the status quo. The leadership of Hezbollah, while responsive to the expectations of their Shia base, recognizes the strategic utility of the conflict with Israel in sustaining their political narrative and justifying their actions in Lebanon. Simultaneously, Israel may also derive strategic advantages or domestic support from the ongoing confrontation, contributing to the perpetuation of a delicate and paradoxical equilibrium.

You seem generally reasonable but when Hezbollah is mentioned, you go off the map. Article 24 of the Lebanese Constitution gives half of parliamentary seats to Christians. That resembles Israel's system. The alarming thing here is that Hezbollah does not speak about this. It probably judges that if it launched a civil campaign for majority/equal rights, the dwindling global racist cabal would go crazy on its head.

The challenges in Lebanon's political system are multifaceted and require careful consideration of the interests and concerns of ALL communities to foster a more inclusive and effective governance structure. Hezbollah's armed presence undermines the authority of the Lebanese state, and its influence in politics is hindering the development of a secular political system. And yes, Article 24 of the Lebanese Constitution is outdated, it doesn't accurately reflect the demographic changes in our country. You can thank France for this mess.

To your point ...
08:37-18 January 2024 AD ـ 06 Rajab 1445 AH
Iraq Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein criticized Iran’s attack on Erbil:
“It seems there are understood rules of engagement between Israelis and Iranians,” highlighted Hussein.
“Iran claims to fight Israelis, suggesting there are rules of engagement, but for domestic reasons, Iranians targeted the militarily weaker link, Iraq, their friend, rather than confronting their enemy directly,” noted Hussein.
Source: https://english.aawsat.com/interviews/4797371-iraqi-fm-iran-cant-strike-israel-yet-targets-friendly-ally

The US has demanded that Israel receive US clearance before killing any baby less than fourteen inches in length. An exception would be made for bayonetting.

I graduated from law school once, after studying natural and social sciences. My interest is in how law starts. This applies both to my conscience and to social developments. I find, in trying to decide if something is a legal issue: informed by some principle: I must let the issue sink in to me. If I try to short-circuit this process by imposing some "form of words" (Holmes), I lose the issue and steer myself wrong. Racism is such short-circuiting.
A racist constitution means a territory has no law. Inhabitants are justified in forming self-help communities.