To be clear, I am just turning the sand flea contingents argument back on them. They have previously claimed that Hezbollah is lawfully entitled to defend South Lebanon, rather than just being an illegal militia.Where the hell do you get that from? Hezbollah is a non-state militia that has been banned by the UN.
That still doesn't change Lebanon being responsible for the sovereignty of the state and allowing Hezbollah to act as a non-state army means Lebanon has to take the blame.
But if they are indeed a lawful extension of state power, as the nimwits have periodically argued, then the Lebanese State is fully answerable for Hezbollah's periodic incursions into Israel and other attacks.
I am happy to hear either arguments that they are an illegal terrorist organization and must be disarmed per UN resolution and Lebanese law, or alternately, that they are lawfully empowered by the State in which case the State itself bears responsibility for their actions.
The sand fleas just can't have it both ways.