17 ms·

Perhaps they should try and broker a peace with Israel like Jordania and Egypt have done. Access to the power sharing agreement could be an interesting bargaini

• sgt 6y ago
  Yes, I think people need to just accept that Israel is a part of the middle east and is not going anywhere. It's in everyone's best interest to become friendly with Israel, and that will help the neighboring countries prosper.
  • solosoyokaze 6y ago
    Israel commits massive human rights violations and is aggressively and illegally expanding its borders (which were a colonization project from the start). No one should support or work with them and the US should stop funding Israel.
    • falcor84 6y ago
      I don't want to get into the rest of your argument, but just wanted to say that based on my reading of history, pretty much all of the borders on Earth "were a colonization project from the start".
      • solosoyokaze 6y ago
        Important to remember but not quite the same as colonizing a region in the 20th century. This isn’t the distant past, it’s actively happening.
        • bzbarsky 6y ago
          Which is why Poland and Germany constantly fight over the border that was imposed post-WWII (20th century, yes) and the population displacement that took place at that time, right? It's really easy to declare things as black and white. It's seldom accurate. (Important note: a large fraction, a majority depending on how you count it, of Israel's population are descendants of Jews who were ejected from other Middle Eastern countries after the establishment of Israel? Are they to be considered "colonizers" in your framing?)
          • solosoyokaze 6y ago
            > a large fraction, a majority depending on how you count it, of Israel's population are descendants of Jews who were ejected from other Middle Eastern countries after the establishment of Israel This is not modern history. Yes they are colonizers. By your logic, anyone could just invade Africa and start a country there since all humanity's ancestors descended from the region. > It's really easy to declare things as black and white. Colonization and genocide are actually pretty black and white. Israel is violating international law and committing human rights violations.
            • bzbarsky 6y ago
              > This is not modern history. Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing: we're talking about the mass ejections of Jews from various Middle Eastern and North African countries in the 50s, 60s, and 70s of the 20th century, right? And if that's not modern history, then how is the establishment of Israel at the same time modern history? > Yes they are colonizers. They were refugees, more precisely. But just to be specific, what is your concrete proposal for where they should have gone? > By your logic, anyone could just invade Africa and start a country there since all humanity's ancestors descended from the region. No, I don't see how that's an analogous situation at all. My question about Israel is a pretty specific one: I challenge its presentation as a "European" or "Western" colonial project. Though maybe that was not your intent? > Colonization and genocide are actually pretty black and white We'd have to clearly define "colonization", since I suspect we disagree on whether specific actions constitute it. Genocide is pretty black and white, I agree. I am opposed to genocide. We may disagree on whether there is genocide, or attempted genocide going on in various situations, unfortunately. Concretely: Do you feel that Israel is attempting a genocide campaign against the Palestinians? Do you feel that the Israeli electorate supports such a campaign? Do you feel that the Palestinians are attempting a genocide campaign against Jews? Do you feel that their electorate (using that term loosely, due to lack of elections) supports such a campaign? Fundamentally, I disagree with both the "from the river to the sea" narrative and the "all of Judea and Samaria" narrative... (And I do note that neither of those is necessarily genocidal, though both can be nice jumps onto slippery slopes towards there.) > Israel is violating international law and committing human rights violations. Yes, I agree. But just to make sure we're on the same page, so are the Palestinians, every single country Israel has a border with (on the human rights violation parts of the ledger for sure), and quite a number of other entities. Including, I am 99% sure, the country you live in. There are questions of scope and degree, of course. Please don't mention the words "false equivalence", because I am not claiming that anything here is "equivalent" to anything else, and if I were we'd likely disagree on what equivalences are "true" vs "false". More practically, what specific actions do you think would be required for Israel to stop committing what you perceive as human rights violations and international law violations? And if your answer is "dissolve itself as an entity and have all the Jews go somewhere else", then I can see how that's a consistent moral position, but that does not match either international law nor morality as I perceive it. If that's not your position, then were back to trying to figure out various shades of grey, as far as I can tell, which we're probably not going to manage to work out in this sort of discussion.
      • someperson 6y ago
        I think the point was fair. We try to have a world where force is not used to reshape borders. Eg, we rightfully call out Russia's annexation of Crimea and sanction them. If we are to call out China's genocide of the Uighers, we should also call out the Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States when they commit human rights abuse. It's about applying human rights and international law as impartially as possible, and using economic might to sanction any country which breaks the rules.
        • smachiz 6y ago
          I mean... economic might is a version of human rights abuses. Ask the Cubans. The are no simple applications of pithy thoughts. The world is messy, subjective and everyone has an inherent bias to their world view. And most importantly, it isn't fair or just. We just hopefully try to do better than yesterday.
          • solosoyokaze 6y ago
            There are officially recognized war crimes and crimes against humanity. There's national sovereignty. These aren't "pithy thoughts", they're well regarded basics that Israel regularly violates with the support of the US.
            • smachiz 6y ago
              Officially by whom? Go look at the UN Council on Human Rights, which is historically a literal who's who of human rights abusers. The UN Security Council is actually the only UN group that can officially declare Human Rights Abuses... but of course a single veto prevents that. The ICC has its own host of issues around bias. I guess my point is most issues are not as clear cut in the moment as they are in retrospect. Some are clearer than others, of course. But life is messy, and the victors have always written the narrative that past events are judged. It's a relatively recent artifact where we can argue about this stuff in real time.
      • watoc 6y ago
        You're right but that doesn't mean we should accept it. Why we didn't accept it when Saddam invaded Koweit or when Russia annexed Crimea? Colonization of Palestine has very negative direct and indirect consequences on our world.
        • smachiz 6y ago
          Sorry - has something changed with Crimea? Begrudging acceptance seems to be exactly where we're at....
          • watoc 6y ago
            AFAIK very few countries have recognized Crimea as part of Russia. So my comment is still valid, most countries did not accept the annexion.
            • smachiz 6y ago
              but also haven't really done much about it right? We threw some sanctions on them... that appear to be fairly toothless.
            • slavak 6y ago
              No countries recognize Israeli claims to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and even the comparatively tame annexation of the Golan Heights is recognized by very few. That means, formally, Israeli actions in the OPT are even less accepted than Russia's annexation of Crimea. Practically, begrudging acceptance seems to be a very apt description, arguably of the latter even more so than the former.
              • watoc 6y ago
                Didn't the Trump administration declare that the settlements were not illegal? Palestine is not even fully recognized as an independent state. Besides the comparaison with Crimea, the point was that borders throughout history have been shaped by colonizations and invasions but that cannot be used to justify colonization itself.
    • detritus 6y ago
      Much the same could be said about America, Australia or New Zealand - or in older days the expansion of the First Calpihate - but time and humanity blithely blunders on regardless of critics' mores.
  • Daho0n 6y ago
    Is this a viewpoint special for Israel or does it also cover other countries with, let's say, complicated politics? Without comparing Russia, China, North Korea, Syria comes to mind.
    • grumple 6y ago
      No, it's not special for Israel. It makes sense for nations to learn to live peacefully with their neighbors, especially when those neighbors are vastly more powerful than them. But there's also a bit of a false equivalence here: Israel is a true democracy, which ranks significantly higher on lists of economic and individual freedoms than the nations you just named. Israel also soundly beat Lebanon in several wars, and Lebanon's conflict with Israel is rooted in religious hatred - it's not like Lebanon is taking a moral stand here. Hezbollah, which has run Lebanon for years, is an Iran-supported extremist / religious / terrorist group.
      • maybelsyrup 6y ago
        > Israel is a true democracy For whom? What does this even mean?
        • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
          It contrasts with countries like China or Russia, where voting does exist, but major government leaders can ensure that they’re always re-elected and their policies are always enacted.
        • deleted 6y ago
          [deleted]
        • ethbr0 6y ago
          True, yes. Functional, eh? What # election are they on? Four in the last 2 years?
          • grumple 6y ago
            Seems better to have more elections than be stuck with someone for 4 years without any chance of recall. How is more elections worse than fewer?
  • bjourne 6y ago
    Unfortunately, that is not the attitude that ended apartheid in South Africa and it is not the attitude that will end the Israeli apartheid system.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • nailer 6y ago
      What do you mean? Literally every characteristic of South African apartheid would be illegal under the Israeli constitution.
      • throwaway210222 6y ago
        Well, except for the bit about deliberately not conscripting Arab citizens. Apartheid South Africa also didn't give rifles to the conscripted black Africans either and ask them to patrol white cities. For the same reasons.
        • marshmallow_12 6y ago
          Are the Arab Israelis clamoring to get themselves blown up by human-shield toting, radical extremists in Gaza? I think not. Also, simply not true; https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rJVoNmyCP https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rJVoNmyCP
          • throwaway210222 6y ago
            Volunteers aren't conscripts. Surely you know this. Non-apartheid-type governments by definition do not have laws that discriminate by race. Both Apartheid South Africa and contemporary Israel had and have laws explicitly preventing an emormous fraction of their society from every getting near military hardware. Again, for the same reason. I personally couldn't care, but the OP was falsely stating that Israel had no race defined laws in common with Apartheid South Africa. [They have a few more in common, but this was one example I chose].
  • jariel 6y ago
    "in everyone's best interest to become friendly with Israel" Said the Arabs in the West Bank? We can't use the argument that 'Israel has a right to exist' (ok) to dismiss the illegality of the occupied territories (not ok). Hezbollah exists for this historical reason. (Edit: people flinching at this comment, I meant to imply 'partly for this reason', i.e. in the context the overall conflict and brought them up because the article is about Lebanon. Of course Hezbollah is not primarily about Palestenians) So yes 'let's make peace' but that would involve something like a two state solution or whatever. I have a funny feeling that Israel is maybe paying for most of this cable, and that Greece is getting the added benefit of 'it's side' of Cypress getting a big win. Israel has a lot to gain from a geostrategic perspective from this whereas Cypress is too small and Greece doesn't have enough money for this to be a top line item.
    • mariksolo 6y ago
      Hezbollah isn't the PLO, they were formed out of Shia militia groups from Lebanon's previous civil wars, not to help the Palestinians. Lebanon absolutely does not have the Palestinians rights in mind. They have "refugee camps" with tens of thousands of people in them that they have been kept there since the 1950's and 1960's, and haven't given them citizenship. How come you're so concerned about other countries making peace with Israel, but not concerned with countries making peace with Lebanon?
      • jariel 6y ago
        "How come you're so concerned about other countries making peace with Israel, " I'm not concerned with any nation making peace with the next because mostly they have a pragmatic peace. The 'concern' is the ongoing incursion into the occupied territories, against all international condemnation and the duplicity of US actions i.e. technically declaring the occupation illegal while literally at the same time moving embassies etc.. The legitimacy of the Jews right to a homeland and their problems derived from nearby enemies is constantly used as cover for their other actions. Zionism is not supposed to be Apartheid, but in pragmatic reality, it is. That there are not sanctions against Israel is a testament to it's far reaching influence.
    • 6y ago
  • Robotbeat 6y ago
    I think this is true, but I wonder why this olive branch of “right to exist” doesn’t also extend to the Palestinian government? Maybe the Palestinians need a stronger military force to establish their right to exist?
    • js2 6y ago
      > I wonder why this olive branch of “right to exist” doesn’t also extend to the Palestinian government? The right of a homeland for the Palestinians has been recognized since before Israel was even granted statehood by the U.N as part of the two-state solution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution The PA has been recognized since the Oslo accords in 1995. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Authority Hamas in the Gaza strip is not recognized by Israel and its allies, but Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant
    • whearyou 6y ago
      They spent a decade blowing up Israelis in schoolyards and cafes. I don't think more violence is their path to freedom.
      • Robotbeat 6y ago
        I’ve always thought that hitting soft targets was a sign of weakness and desperation. So your point doesn’t seem to contradict mine.
        • whearyou 6y ago
          No, not really. You're suggesting more capability for violence will secure their freedom. I'm noting the observation of facts at hand suggest the opposite.
          • Robotbeat 6y ago
            Does that mean reducing the Israeli military would also help? The goal is for both the Israeli and Palestinian states to exist and for there to be peace. An Israeli hegemony over the Palestinian state, with settlers and all, certainly doesn’t help that, and it may be a rational goal of the Palestinian state to become too much of a nuisance to be ignored. If peace means subjugation, I think many Palestinians probably wouldn’t be okay with that. The Palestinians are seeing a lot of “might makes right” arguments right now about why they should just accept subjugation.
• ocschwar 6y ago
  Lebanon's diversity is the problem. It only takes a veto from ONE faction.
  • hnISmongoguy 6y ago
    OMG! You can't just say bad things about diversity. Diversity is axiomatically good because it helps prevents unions and saves big corporations
• Synaesthesia 6y ago
  Israel also needs to make peace with Lebanon, a country they have invaded 5 times.
  • WJW 6y ago
    As a (former) military officer I will refrain from commenting on current foreign politics. I just observe that both countries could gain a lot from the cessation of their current conflict. Which country actually initiates negotiations is not very interesting, if you can even accurately determine the "start" of any negotiation in this time of digital communications and backchannel diplomacy.
    • eli_gottlieb 6y ago
      > As a (former) military officer I will refrain from commenting on current foreign politics. I just observe that both countries could gain a lot from the cessation of their current conflict. It would also be nice if Lebanon accepted the international community's ruling that yes, the 2000 Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon really happened, and there is in fact no remaining occupation of Lebanese land.
      • bjourne 6y ago
        Why should Lebanon accept rulings from the international community when Israel has ignored almost every single one since 1948?! The core of the issue is the 30 square kilometers Shebaa Farms area which Israel occupied in 1967. Syria and Lebanon claims that it is Lebanese territory and Lebanon wants it back. Israel claims that it was Syrian territory that it occupied and subsequently annexed in 1980. Regardless of whether the Shebaa Farms area is Syrian or Lebanese territory, it clearly isn't Israeli territory. https://pij.org/articles/9/understanding-the-shebaa-farms-dispute-roots-of-he-anomaly-and-prospects-for-resolution https://pij.org/articles/9/understanding-the-shebaa-farms-di...
        • eli_gottlieb 6y ago
          That sounds like rather much of a diversion from the simple factual question of whether any under international law Lebanese land remains occupied by Israel, to which the answer is a simple no.
• citrusybread 6y ago
  Lebanon tried to make peace before the civil war. I think anyone with Lebanese family can see how Lebanon pre-civil war and Israel had more in common than Lebanon had with the greater arab world, or even with Palestine. But Israel basically wanted the leadership to bend over further than they'd be willing to do, and the deal was cancelled. Today with a more diverse Lebanon it's still possible. There would need to be a shift away from Syrian and Iranian interest but it is definitely possible.
• hpcjoe 6y ago
  Many things would need to fall in place for this to happen. Since Hezb is a puppet of Iran, it is unlikely to allow this to happen. If anything, I would suspect they (Hezb/Iran) are planning on attacks against the infrastructure.
• dang 6y ago
  'They' = Lebanon. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26385835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26385835.