4 ms·

This line jumped out at me too. Because this is the perspective of someone for whom the war really is far removed. But it's emphatically not most Israeli's per

by edanm 2y ago

This line jumped out at me too. Because this is the perspective of someone for whom the war really is far removed. But it's emphatically not most Israeli's perspective. Israelis are very much in the front lines of this - around 80k Israelis have literally had to abandon their homes are internally displaced, because the North of Israel is under rocket attacks from Hezbollah every day for the last 11 months. Cities have been partially destroyed, and fires have raged across the North. And if a wider war with Hezbollah happens, most likely all of Israel will be under immediate fire. So this perspective of "trust" that the author talks about does not, at all, exist between Israel and Hezbollah. Which is why Hezbollah are designated a terrorist organization among so many countries. > The reason we don’t see exploding battery attacks more often is not because it’s technically hard, it’s because the erosion of public trust in everyday things isn’t worth it. For the US that is maybe, maybe, true. But for Israel that is absolutely not true. The reason Hezbollah doesn't do this kind of thing is because they can't. But they have been doing things they can do, like shooting rockets, and they have also tried to cause terror attacks inside of Israel.

TazeTSchnitzel 2y ago
Can most Israelis remember true peacetime? The Israelis have chosen to maintain a continuous military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for almost six decades, rather than integrating them or letting them be independent, which locks the region in permanent conflict of varying levels of intensity.
- edanm 2y ago
  First, no - most Israelis have never lived under true peacetime. I do think there's a difference between the relatively peaceful times though, and the current situation, for all parties. > The Israelis have chosen to maintain a continuous military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for almost six decades, rather than integrating them or letting them be independent, which locks the region in permanent conflict of varying levels of intensity. You seem to imply that all the blame for the region having conflict is the occupation, which is... not quite true. Israel was founded and immediately attacked, and was attacked several more times before the military occupation; one major reason the occupation even happened in the first place was because Israel feared further attacks from neighboring countries, and wanted more of a buffer. Look, I'm no fan of the occupation, to put it mildly (very mildly). But it's not the whole reason for the conflict. And more importantly, it's not just Israel "choosing" a military occupation instead of "letting them be independent". There were very serious attempts to try and reach a settlement with the Palestinians that would give them an independent state, and indeed that was the birth of the current Palestinian government/state in the form of the PA, with what independence they do have. But the Palestinians refused and walked away from getting a state. And Israel did leave Gaza, to at least some extent - they then elected Hamas and started firing rockets at Israel two years later. I'm obviously a bit biased towards the more pro-Israel narrative, though I try to see things from the Palestinian perspective as well. But I don't think you can completely lay the blame on one side, as you seemed to do (and sorry if I misunderstood you).
  - TazeTSchnitzel 2y ago
    Israel can't choose its neighbours, for sure, and it's true that in the first half of its existence it was regularly threatened by them. But that world no longer exists. Lebanon and Syria are now very weak, and Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan. I don't know what can be done about Hezbollah, but it may be worth considering that Hezbollah only exists in the first place because of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and it would probably be significantly weaker if Israel would actually resolved the Palestinian question. From what I have heard, the idea the Palestinians were ever actually offered a state may be a myth, but I think the more important thing there is that Rabin was assassinated and that torpedoed the process. Netanyahu has never really seemed interested in peace, his political career depends on it not happening.
    - edanm 2y ago
      Hezbollah exists as an Iranian proxy, and Iran has repeatedly stated that their goal is to wipe out Israel. But yes, alliances with neighbors is definitely something Israel should pursue, as is working towards peace with the Palestinians. That might not work to dissuade Iran from wanting to destroy Israel, but it will certainly help - and is the morally right thing to do anyways. > From what I have head, the idea the Palestinians were ever actually offered a state may be a myth [...] It absolutely isn't a myth. It was widely known and accepted by most people that the Palestinians walked away from very good deals, probably the best Israel can do. I'm not sure why there's a modern movement to change that knowledge, when reading the accounts of most people surrounding the negotiations gives a pretty clear picture. Specifically, Barak offered a decent deal in 2000, the Clinton parameters of around 2001 were an even better proposal that seemed to give the Palestinians almost everything they wanted, and Olmert made a proposal that was really, really good. The Palestinians walked away from these deals without any alternative offer, without saying what would work for them. Don't trust Israel's word for it - trust Clinton's! Or trust numerous other US negotiators. > [...] Rabing was assassinated and that torpedoed the process. This is wrong, he was assassinated in 1995, all the offers I talked about happened afterwards, from 2000 to 2008. Israelis voted multiple times for people who vowed to pursue a peace process, and even Sharon, who was a very hawkish PM, ended up doing the Gaza withdrawal. What really torpedoed the peace process was that Israeli steps towards peace, including the Oslo process that founded the PA and gave them semi-control over the land, was met with the second intifada's terror attacks. Israelis saw steps towards peace being met with more violence, not less. The same happened again with the Gaza withdrawal - the hawkish Israelis warned that withdrawing the army and giving Palestinians full control of Gaza would end with them using it as a terror base, and that's exactly what happened. Again, to Israelis - a step towards giving Palestinians more control ended with far, far more violence. > Netanyahu has never really seemed interested in peace [...] This is absolutely true, and the major correct criticism of Israel is in its actions under Netanyahu over the last 15ish years. Israel has not only not continued to pursue peace because of the destruction of the Israeli left, but under Netanyahu, actively thwarted peace in many ways, weakening the PA at the expense of Hamas to keep the conflict going. As the stronger party, I think Israel has a moral duty to pursue peace, and to help foster leaders that can bring peace.

by edanm 2y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 2y ago

Can most Israelis remember true peacetime? The Israelis have chosen to maintain a continuous military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for almost six decades, rather than integrating them or letting them be independent, which locks the region in permanent conflict of varying levels of intensity.

edanm 2y ago
First, no - most Israelis have never lived under true peacetime. I do think there's a difference between the relatively peaceful times though, and the current situation, for all parties. > The Israelis have chosen to maintain a continuous military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for almost six decades, rather than integrating them or letting them be independent, which locks the region in permanent conflict of varying levels of intensity. You seem to imply that all the blame for the region having conflict is the occupation, which is... not quite true. Israel was founded and immediately attacked, and was attacked several more times before the military occupation; one major reason the occupation even happened in the first place was because Israel feared further attacks from neighboring countries, and wanted more of a buffer. Look, I'm no fan of the occupation, to put it mildly (very mildly). But it's not the whole reason for the conflict. And more importantly, it's not just Israel "choosing" a military occupation instead of "letting them be independent". There were very serious attempts to try and reach a settlement with the Palestinians that would give them an independent state, and indeed that was the birth of the current Palestinian government/state in the form of the PA, with what independence they do have. But the Palestinians refused and walked away from getting a state. And Israel did leave Gaza, to at least some extent - they then elected Hamas and started firing rockets at Israel two years later. I'm obviously a bit biased towards the more pro-Israel narrative, though I try to see things from the Palestinian perspective as well. But I don't think you can completely lay the blame on one side, as you seemed to do (and sorry if I misunderstood you).
- TazeTSchnitzel 2y ago
  Israel can't choose its neighbours, for sure, and it's true that in the first half of its existence it was regularly threatened by them. But that world no longer exists. Lebanon and Syria are now very weak, and Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan. I don't know what can be done about Hezbollah, but it may be worth considering that Hezbollah only exists in the first place because of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and it would probably be significantly weaker if Israel would actually resolved the Palestinian question. From what I have heard, the idea the Palestinians were ever actually offered a state may be a myth, but I think the more important thing there is that Rabin was assassinated and that torpedoed the process. Netanyahu has never really seemed interested in peace, his political career depends on it not happening.
  - edanm 2y ago
    Hezbollah exists as an Iranian proxy, and Iran has repeatedly stated that their goal is to wipe out Israel. But yes, alliances with neighbors is definitely something Israel should pursue, as is working towards peace with the Palestinians. That might not work to dissuade Iran from wanting to destroy Israel, but it will certainly help - and is the morally right thing to do anyways. > From what I have head, the idea the Palestinians were ever actually offered a state may be a myth [...] It absolutely isn't a myth. It was widely known and accepted by most people that the Palestinians walked away from very good deals, probably the best Israel can do. I'm not sure why there's a modern movement to change that knowledge, when reading the accounts of most people surrounding the negotiations gives a pretty clear picture. Specifically, Barak offered a decent deal in 2000, the Clinton parameters of around 2001 were an even better proposal that seemed to give the Palestinians almost everything they wanted, and Olmert made a proposal that was really, really good. The Palestinians walked away from these deals without any alternative offer, without saying what would work for them. Don't trust Israel's word for it - trust Clinton's! Or trust numerous other US negotiators. > [...] Rabing was assassinated and that torpedoed the process. This is wrong, he was assassinated in 1995, all the offers I talked about happened afterwards, from 2000 to 2008. Israelis voted multiple times for people who vowed to pursue a peace process, and even Sharon, who was a very hawkish PM, ended up doing the Gaza withdrawal. What really torpedoed the peace process was that Israeli steps towards peace, including the Oslo process that founded the PA and gave them semi-control over the land, was met with the second intifada's terror attacks. Israelis saw steps towards peace being met with more violence, not less. The same happened again with the Gaza withdrawal - the hawkish Israelis warned that withdrawing the army and giving Palestinians full control of Gaza would end with them using it as a terror base, and that's exactly what happened. Again, to Israelis - a step towards giving Palestinians more control ended with far, far more violence. > Netanyahu has never really seemed interested in peace [...] This is absolutely true, and the major correct criticism of Israel is in its actions under Netanyahu over the last 15ish years. Israel has not only not continued to pursue peace because of the destruction of the Israeli left, but under Netanyahu, actively thwarted peace in many ways, weakening the PA at the expense of Hamas to keep the conflict going. As the stronger party, I think Israel has a moral duty to pursue peace, and to help foster leaders that can bring peace.