Lebanon-Israel War | 2023-present

[Persian Gulf]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[_Arabia_]

You've brought many themes here not necessarily on this topic, but it is good you brought them up, because we must be clear about some things.

I agree with some of the points you've made, no doubt about it.

Things I agree with:

a) Yes, Israel cannot annihilate Iran the same way it can with regions it shares borders with.

b) Lebanon's impotence is due to design - that is absolutely correct. Anyone that has read up on Lebanon's history knows it was carved out of Syria by the French, and knows how carving out this region and calling it Lebanon, and building the divisions into that society is playing out today.


But the things you fail to mention:

a) The non-Palestinian Arabs (especially Jordan, Egypt; and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia and the rest of the GCC countries) have not fought for the Palestinian cause post 1967 and 1973. In fact, Jordan and Egypt signed treaties and security arrangements with the Israeli state.

Now I personally agree that a TRUE 2-state solution is the way to resolve this Israel-Palestine conflict. I don't think Israel can be removed from this earth, so any effort to try to target that, as a result of which inflicting more suffering on the Palestinians is counterproductive. I agree with that. But it is still resistance (does not de-legitimitize them), even if it results in worse outcomes for the Palestinians.

The thing with Iran and Hezbollah is, at least they are trying to do something about the conditions of the Palestinians. Look at what the non-Palestinian Arabs have done post 1967 and 1973: they have let Israel annex the West Bank with settlements, converting that land into swiss cheese.

The 2 state solutions proposed in the Oslo accord were the West Bank becoming Swiss cheese. The Taba accord and Olmert proposals were better than the Oslo accords, but relied on land swaps in the West Bank that would ensure the biggest settlements remained in the West Bank (like Ariel), and Israel retained control over important parts of Jerusalem. The West Bank would still not have territorial integrity, it would not be contiguous territory able to control its resources, economy. Furthermore, the state would be demilitarized, similar to the PA administration with the Israeli state. So while the Taba accord and Olmert proposals were better than the Oslo accords, it would still result in Palestinian occupation and subjugation. The Arabs never really took that on post 1973.

b) About Hezbollah, the only reason why Israel started a ground operation there, and wants to create a buffer zone there and keep it occupied is because they stepped in the Gaza-Israel war (when no one else did). If they had kept themselves out of it, maybe some Lebanese would have been happy, but all people with morals would detest the killings in Gaza.

c) Again about Hezbollah, we can say many things about the Syria conflict. But you can see what Sharaa thinks about the Palestinians through his actions. There isn't much more that needs to be said about him.

I appreciate your reply even though we will naturally not agree on all points. I will try to reply to you.

A) This was just a side comment for the trolls here who are comparing apples and oranges in a very dishonest way. Probably to somehow "troll Arabs" whom they seem obsessed about, yet they are totally obsessed about events in the Arab World.

B) Exactly. Good that we agree with this central point that prevents Lebanon from flourishing. I could, once again, as I mentioned many months ago, also mention the sectarian established system (a similar exists in Iraq - also imposed by the West on them) that is inherently dividing for a country.

What was there to fight about post 1973 when there has been no major wars? The region also changed completely post-1973. You are forgetting that the Zionist grip on the US and West has increased multifold since 1973. You are forgetting that after 1973, Israel became a nuclear power. You are forgetting that Arab political nationalism was at its end after Egyptian loses, removal of Nasser etc. and other political events.

You also forget that the region moved towards Islamism after the Iranian revolution in 1979. KSA, as a counter, became much more conservative in 1979 as a reaction (Grand Mosque Seizure happened shortly after the Iranian revolution - not a coincidence) and it birthed the Sahwa movement. At the same time you still had secular, Arab nationalistic Ba'ath regime in Iraq and Syria who were completely at odds with this development. Same in Algeria where the same ideology ruled.

At the same time you had record oil prices and an enormous development across the region. Then you had numerous wars in the region hampering any unified action against Israel.

I have never said that I am in favor of a two-state solution. In an ideal world, we would have just 1 state solution (Palestine) but realistically speaking either a two-state solution or a one-state solution with equal rights, should be established, but I do not see that happening anytime soon.

I wrote that I have no problem with Hezbollah if they are occupied with the intent of their creation - namely the armed resistance against Israeli incursions into South Lebanon. I am not sure what is so unique about a local people resisting a foreign occupation/aggressor. Can you name a single instance in the history of the Arab World or West Asia where foreign aggressors were NOT resisted?

Look hindsight is always great. If we look at history this way, the Palestinians and Arabs who went to war against Israel in 1948, should have just agreed to the UN proposal in 1948, even though back in 1948, it seemed like a huge loss for the native Palestinians.

It is not just Arabs, the entire Muslim world failed as well stopping those settlements. As did the international community.

We need to define what this conflict is about. Is it a nationalistic conflict (Palestinians vs Jews/Israelis) about land or is there also a religious aspect? Or is it a combination? And what about international law, human rights etc. that are visible broken by Israel all the time? If it is all 3, which I agree with personally, then you cannot solely blame Arabs.

However I agree that the Arabs, due to leadership disunity, instability, internal wars, outside invasions, coups and what not, have failed in this endeavor and many others. There is no denying that. However the Palestinian leadership has also failed. Whether Hamas or PLO. None of them have found a solution or even unified approaches. They are still at odds with each other. Hard to believe, when you are facing such a demonic occupier like the Israelis.

No, I believe that you are wrong here. Even if Hezbollah did not lunch those token missiles at North Israel (let us be honest here - they do not make much of a difference at all), the Israelis under this administration, would have used the excuse of "terrorism" (another good argument why Hezbollah should be disbanded and joined with the official Lebanese army - a truly inclusive army in an ideal world compromising all communities of Lebanon - which would give them legitimacy and prevent Israel from using the terrorism card that they have done so successfully to dehumanize their opponents in the West), Israel would have sought to invade and annex more land. As they did in the small parts of Syria that they now control.

This is happening because Israel is a tiny country with a high birth rate and fundamentalist Jews in Israel have a belief in a imaginary "Greater Israel" so they are constantly looking to annex more land, if they can.

They do not care about the sect, religion etc. of their opponents, they will manufacture an agenda depending on who it is. Hence the constant stupid talk about some imaginary Sunni Axis composed of KSA, Pakistan, Turkiye etc. lately

It is just a way to prepare to weaken possible adversaries in the region. This has always been their playbook. Whether Arab nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, Islamism etc.

Al-Sharaa runs a devastated (that unfortunately Hezbollah contributed to) Syria after 15 years of incredibly bloody civil war. He is not in any position to start any wars with anybody - let alone Israel which is far superior militarily and fully backed by the usual suspects.

On the other hand you forgot to mention that Al-Sharaa has denied, despite pressure from the US and elsewhere, to attack Hezbollah. You should give him credit for that when he fought them in his own country (Syria) - a place that they should not have been in to begin with.

 

[_Arabia_]

Anyway it looks like Israel and their current regime is hell-bent on keeping this war alive and to potentially restart the greater conflict in the region.

Hezbollah, despite some heroics lately, is in a bad place and Israel is likely looking to finish them off (unlikely to happen, when they failed with Hamas so far in tiny landlocked open air prison in Gaza) or at least to weaken them further. I am not sure if anyone is able to prevent them from following this pathway.

Hezbollah being one of the few somewhat influential allies of Iran in the region, now has the ball in their court. Will they abandon Hezbollah for the sake of peace with the US/Israel or will this cause a possible peace deal to collapse?

Very difficult times ahead for South Lebanon.

However I have to say, and I have stated this before, and I know that Lebanese brothers and sisters will be angry with me (the ones I know in person I always troll them with them being Syrians in denial), but at some point in time, it becomes pointless to keep a dead horse alive (Lebanon) that is completely defenseless against Israel and in a perpetually failed and divided state.

Israel thrives with fragmentation in the region. The Arab World being divided into 20 + nation states (could further be divided easily by 2-3 times the number of states) was a deliberate way to weaken any kind of unity. It becomes more and more clear but unfortunately many Arabs are far too attached to their national states (all states are artificial when you look at it) to see the full picture.

Not sure what prevents Syria and Lebanon from unifying. The leadership in both countries. Especially with a rabid Israel next door. Make a federation with some kind of autonomy to both that reflect the demographics and culture of each state and gives the Lebanese the needed representation in such a state in order for them not to be left out by the much larger Syrian population that is booming and one of the fastest growing in the world.

Israel will have a serious problem in the future if Syria rises up.

 

[unconventional]

I appreciate your reply even though we will naturally not agree on all points. I will try to reply to you.

A) This was just a side comment for the trolls here who are comparing apples and oranges in a very dishonest way. Probably to somehow "troll Arabs" whom they seem obsessed about, yet they are totally obsessed about events in the Arab World.

B) Exactly. Good that we agree with this central point that prevents Lebanon from flourishing. I could, once again, as I mentioned many months ago, also mention the sectarian established system (a similar exists in Iraq - also imposed by the West on them) that is inherently dividing for a country.

What was there to fight about post 1973 when there has been no major wars? The region also changed completely post-1973. You are forgetting that the Zionist grip on the US and West has increased multifold since 1973. You are forgetting that after 1973, Israel became a nuclear power. You are forgetting that Arab political nationalism was at its end after Egyptian loses, removal of Nasser etc. and other political events.

You also forget that the region moved towards Islamism after the Iranian revolution in 1979. KSA, as a counter, became much more conservative in 1979 as a reaction (Grand Mosque Seizure happened shortly after the Iranian revolution - not a coincidence) and it birthed the Sahwa movement. At the same time you still had secular, Arab nationalistic Ba'ath regime in Iraq and Syria who were completely at odds with this development. Same in Algeria where the same ideology ruled.

At the same time you had record oil prices and an enormous development across the region. Then you had numerous wars in the region hampering any unified action against Israel.

I have never said that I am in favor of a two-state solution. In an ideal world, we would have just 1 state solution (Palestine) but realistically speaking either a two-state solution or a one-state solution with equal rights, should be established, but I do not see that happening anytime soon.

I wrote that I have no problem with Hezbollah if they are occupied with the intent of their creation - namely the armed resistance against Israeli incursions into South Lebanon. I am not sure what is so unique about a local people resisting a foreign occupation/aggressor. Can you name a single instance in the history of the Arab World or West Asia where foreign aggressors were NOT resisted?

Look hindsight is always great. If we look at history this way, the Palestinians and Arabs who went to war against Israel in 1948, should have just agreed to the UN proposal in 1948, even though back in 1948, it seemed like a huge loss for the native Palestinians.

It is not just Arabs, the entire Muslim world failed as well stopping those settlements. As did the international community.

We need to define what this conflict is about. Is it a nationalistic conflict (Palestinians vs Jews/Israelis) about land or is there also a religious aspect? Or is it a combination? And what about international law, human rights etc. that are visible broken by Israel all the time? If it is all 3, which I agree with personally, then you cannot solely blame Arabs.

However I agree that the Arabs, due to leadership disunity, instability, internal wars, outside invasions, coups and what not, have failed in this endeavor and many others. There is no denying that. However the Palestinian leadership has also failed. Whether Hamas or PLO. None of them have found a solution or even unified approaches. They are still at odds with each other. Hard to believe, when you are facing such a demonic occupier like the Israelis.

No, I believe that you are wrong here. Even if Hezbollah did not lunch those token missiles at North Israel (let us be honest here - they do not make much of a difference at all), the Israelis under this administration, would have used the excuse of "terrorism" (another good argument why Hezbollah should be disbanded and joined with the official Lebanese army - a truly inclusive army in an ideal world compromising all communities of Lebanon - which would give them legitimacy and prevent Israel from using the terrorism card that they have done so successfully to dehumanize their opponents in the West), Israel would have sought to invade and annex more land. As they did in the small parts of Syria that they now control.

This is happening because Israel is a tiny country with a high birth rate and fundamentalist Jews in Israel have a belief in a imaginary "Greater Israel" so they are constantly looking to annex more land, if they can.

They do not care about the sect, religion etc. of their opponents, they will manufacture an agenda depending on who it is. Hence the constant stupid talk about some imaginary Sunni Axis composed of KSA, Pakistan, Turkiye etc. lately

It is just a way to prepare to weaken possible adversaries in the region. This has always been their playbook. Whether Arab nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, Islamism etc.

Al-Sharaa runs a devastated (that unfortunately Hezbollah contributed to) Syria after 15 years of incredibly bloody civil war. He is not in any position to start any wars with anybody - let alone Israel which is far superior militarily and fully backed by the usual suspects.

On the other hand you forgot to mention that Al-Sharaa has denied, despite pressure from the US and elsewhere, to attack Hezbollah. You should give him credit for that when he fought them in his own country (Syria) - a place that they should not have been in to begin with.

My point wasn’t that Arabs should have fought Israel after 1973. My point was simply that they prioritized their security arrangements with Israel and completely abandoned the Palestinians, even diplomatically.

For me, the best Palestinian is Salam Fayyad, and the whole Arab world needed people like him to advocate for Palestinians post 1973. That didn’t happen though, and people resorted to armed struggle, which caused the Palestinians further pain and suffering. I don’t think there are any circumstances that justify the Arab world advocating for a Palestinian state diplomatically and earnestly. But we have to admit that they abandoned the cause, and there is no justification for that.

If Hezbollah had not entered the Israel-Gaza conflict, and they completely accept Israel’s actions in Gaza, maybe Netanyahu would have still gone ahead with the land invasion. But it would not have been popular, because they would not have been firing rockets into northern Israel or displacing the residents there. The major reason why Israel did the land incursion into southern Lebanon was because constant Hezbollah rocket fires into northern Israel had at one point displaced 80,000 Israelis of northern Israel from their homes. So it is not accurate to just call these token strikes. Israel’s economy was under huge stress because the government had to support the 80,000 displaced Israelis. So this was the main reason for Israel to launch a ground operation there.

 

[unconventional]

Anyway it looks like Israel and their current regime is hell-bent on keeping this war alive and to potentially restart the greater conflict in the region.

Hezbollah, despite some heroics lately, is in a bad place and Israel is likely looking to finish them off (unlikely to happen, when they failed with Hamas so far in tiny landlocked open air prison in Gaza) or at least to weaken them further. I am not sure if anyone is able to prevent them from following this pathway.

Hezbollah being one of the few somewhat influential allies of Iran in the region, now has the ball in their court. Will they abandon Hezbollah for the sake of peace with the US/Israel or will this cause a possible peace deal to collapse?

Very difficult times ahead for South Lebanon.

However I have to say, and I have stated this before, and I know that Lebanese brothers and sisters will be angry with me (the ones I know in person I always troll them with them being Syrians in denial), but at some point in time, it becomes pointless to keep a dead horse alive (Lebanon) that is completely defenseless against Israel and in a perpetually failed and divided state.

Israel thrives with fragmentation in the region. The Arab World being divided into 20 + nation states (could further be divided easily by 2-3 times the number of states) was a deliberate way to weaken any kind of unity. It becomes more and more clear but unfortunately many Arabs are far too attached to their national states (all states are artificial when you look at it) to see the full picture.

Not sure what prevents Syria and Lebanon from unifying. The leadership in both countries. Especially with a rabid Israel next door. Make a federation with some kind of autonomy to both that reflect the demographics and culture of each state and gives the Lebanese the needed representation in such a state in order for them not to be left out by the much larger Syrian population that is booming and one of the fastest growing in the world.

Israel will have a serious problem in the future if Syria rises up.

Syria unfortunately has more chances of fragmentation than rising. Aleppo and northern regions Turkey is very interested in. Israel literally captured large parts of south western Syria without even a fight from the Syrians under Sharaa, and they are very close to Damascus and eastern Lebanon.

One would at least expect them to put up a fight against Israeli occupation, but they didn’t even do that.

If they want to rise, they need to re-establish their territorial integrity.

 

[unconventional]

I think the Palestinian conflict is simple: it is about the ethnic indigenous population being ethnically cleansed in huge numbers to accommodate the settlement of outsiders to form their ethno-supremacist, apartheid state. So it does not have anything to do with religion.

Religious tensions increased because of the actions of the ethno-supremacist state occupying Jerusalem.

But that was never the main driver of the conflict.

Jewish minorities and Muslims lived peacefully in the Holy Land peacefully for centuries prior to the Zionist project.

 

[_Arabia_]

My point wasn’t that Arabs should have fought Israel after 1973. My point was simply that they prioritized their security arrangements with Israel and completely abandoned the Palestinians, even diplomatically.

For me, the best Palestinian is Salam Fayyad, and the whole Arab world needed people like him to advocate for Palestinians post 1973. That didn’t happen though, and people resorted to armed struggle, which caused the Palestinians further pain and suffering. I don’t think there are any circumstances that justify the Arab world advocating for a Palestinian state diplomatically and earnestly. But we have to admit that they abandoned the cause, and there is no justification for that.

If Hezbollah had not entered the Israel-Gaza conflict, and they completely accept Israel’s actions in Gaza, maybe Netanyahu would have still gone ahead with the land invasion. But it would not have been popular, because they would not have been firing rockets into northern Israel or displacing the residents there. The major reason why Israel did the land incursion into southern Lebanon was because constant Hezbollah rocket fires into northern Israel had at one point displaced 80,000 Israelis of northern Israel from their homes. So it is not accurate to just call these token strikes. Israel’s economy was under huge stress because the government had to support the 80,000 displaced Israelis. So this was the main reason for Israel to launch a ground operation there.

I disagree with your first claim. What security arrangements did Arabs have in 1973 and onwards until Egypt was the first Arab country in history to not only recognize Israel but normalize with them? We all know why that normalization occurred in the first place. Not out of love. Camp David Accords in 1978.

Egypt–Israel peace treaty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That was for Egypt to get Sinai back. I will not be harsh against Egypt here because they were the ones (historically speaking since 1948) that fought the most with Israel and had the most sacrifices.

At the same time they were the most populous and strongest (militarily) Arab power back then as well as being next door to Israel.

But when the strongest Arab state (Egypt), back then, signs a peace deal with Israel (later to be boycotted by much of the Arab World as a consequence - look it up - Egypt was banned from the Arab League) it kind of weakens a unified Arab stance.

They abandoned the cause militarily because there was no military solution and in particular after Egypt signed a peace deal with Israel in 1978.

The diplomatic, economic and even military support to PLO, later Islamist factions never ended. Not by the governments (until recently Qatar was the greatest economic supporters of Hamas and hosted their leadership - still the case today - PLO was hosted by numerous Arab nations from Tunisia to Algeria and elsewhere - Fatah nowadays have very close ties to KSA - in particular Marwan Barghouti who has great popularity in the West Bank)

Client Challenge

Until very recently, most of the Arab World had donations to armed Palestinian groups openly. It was first after a post 9/11/ISIS world where international pressure forced nations like KSA to do something about it - even though some individuals in power and within the government look the other way to this day and money and funds still reach Hamas and other groups - money donated by average Arabs. However it is much less than previously. Governments have become paranoid with any militant support after ISIS/post 9/11, as this often tends to backfire one way or another if you look at it historically.

Of course it had an impact on Israeli towns and villages in Northern Israel (ironically many of them are inhabited by Israeli Arabs = Palestinians who did not leave their ancestral land after 1948 during the Nakba).

The point here was though that those rocket attacks are not stopping Israeli incursions into South Lebanon or Israeli carpet bombing of Lebanon. Nor will those attacks defeat Israel militarily. They are a destabilizer economically and partially militarily though.

 

[_Arabia_]

Syria unfortunately has more chances of fragmentation than rising. Aleppo and northern regions Turkey is very interested in. Israel literally captured large parts of south western Syria without even a fight from the Syrians under Sharaa, and they are very close to Damascus and eastern Lebanon.

One would at least expect them to put up a fight against Israeli occupation, but they didn’t even do that.

If they want to rise, they need to re-establish their territorial integrity.

Turkiye will not annex any Syrian territory, never did that to this day. Syrians will not accept it and it has little benefit for Turkiye. It would also only increase the Arab population in Turkiye which is already the 3rd largest ethnic group in Turkiye and it would threaten internal Turkish dynamics. Many nationalistic Turks are against the large Arab population within Turkiye because they know that Arabs don't assimilate but preserve their culture whenever they are.

Not large parts, those are very small parts next to the Golan Heights that Israel already conquered/annexed in 1973 during the Al-Assad regime days.

Also, unfortunately that territory is mostly inhabited by Druze - a portion of them (Al-Hijri and other gangs) which are clearly pro-Israel and interested in dividing Syria by creating a Druze state (that also encompasses parts of Lebanon) so they can rule it as their fiefdom with Israeli protection. Read up about it.

Syrian government prevented further fragmentation in Suwayda which they deserve credit for as well.

They did well in regaining 95% of the territory occupied by the SDF gangs, so they deserve huge credit for that.

Sure, but we cannot have too many expectations towards them after 15 years of devastating civil war.

I will first judge them in say 5-10 years. If there will be no further progress - it means that the current leadership failed badly. It is for the Syrians to decide their future one way or another.

 

[Jango007]

Another baby killer goes to hell…..

IDF reserve soldier killed, 7 wounded by Hezbollah explosive in southern Lebanon

Master Sgt. Alexander Filin, 29, immigrated alone aged 12, later foiled an attack and got presidential award; senior officers among injured in blast during patrol along Litani River

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[unconventional]

I disagree with your first claim. What security arrangements did Arabs have in 1973 and onwards until Egypt was the first Arab country in history to not only recognize Israel but normalize with them? We all know why that normalization occurred in the first place. Not out of love. Camp David Accords in 1978.

Egypt–Israel peace treaty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That was for Egypt to get Sinai back. I will not be harsh against Egypt here because they were the ones (historically speaking since 1948) that fought the most with Israel and had the most sacrifices.

At the same time they were the most populous and strongest (militarily) Arab power back then as well as being next door to Israel.

But when the strongest Arab state (Egypt), back then, signs a peace deal with Israel (later to be boycotted by much of the Arab World as a consequence - look it up - Egypt was banned from the Arab League) it kind of weakens a unified Arab stance.

They abandoned the cause militarily because there was no military solution and in particular after Egypt signed a peace deal with Israel in 1978.

The diplomatic, economic and even military support to PLO, later Islamist factions never ended. Not by the governments (until recently Qatar was the greatest economic supporters of Hamas and hosted their leadership - still the case today - PLO was hosted by numerous Arab nations from Tunisia to Algeria and elsewhere - Fatah nowadays have very close ties to KSA - in particular Marwan Barghouti who has great popularity in the West Bank)

Client Challenge

Until very recently, most of the Arab World had donations to armed Palestinian groups openly. It was first after a post 9/11/ISIS world where international pressure forced nations like KSA to do something about it - even though some individuals in power and within the government look the other way to this day and money and funds still reach Hamas and other groups - money donated by average Arabs. However it is much less than previously. Governments have become paranoid with any militant support after ISIS/post 9/11, as this often tends to backfire one way or another if you look at it historically.

Of course it had an impact on Israeli towns and villages in Northern Israel (ironically many of them are inhabited by Israeli Arabs = Palestinians who did not leave their ancestral land after 1948 during the Nakba).

The point here was though that those rocket attacks are not stopping Israeli incursions into South Lebanon or Israeli carpet bombing of Lebanon. Nor will those attacks defeat Israel militarily. They are a destabilizer economically and partially militarily though.

I think we may be talking past each other slightly.

I am not arguing that Arab governments abandoned Palestinians in the sense that they stopped funding them, hosting them, speaking about them, or supporting Palestinian organizations. You are correct that many Arab states continued to do those things for decades.

My argument is different.

My argument is that after 1973, and especially after Camp David, Palestinian statehood ceased to be a central strategic objective of the Arab state system. That is not the same thing as abandoning Palestinians rhetorically or financially.

A state can host Palestinian leaders, fund Palestinian organizations, and publicly support Palestine while simultaneously deciding that its own security, regime stability, economic development, and bilateral relationships take precedence over actively pursuing Palestinian sovereignty.

That is what I mean by abandonment.

In fact, I would argue that some of the examples you cite actually reinforce my point. The Arab world invested enormous resources into Palestinian factions, resistance movements, and political organizations. Yet after more than fifty years, there is still no Palestinian state, settlements have continued to expand, and the territorial viability of a future Palestinian state has become progressively weaker.

The question I would ask is this:

Where was the sustained Arab-led diplomatic, political, and state-building project aimed at creating a viable Palestinian state?

That is why I mentioned Salam Fayyad.

The Arab world did not need another military confrontation with Israel. It needed more leaders focused on institution-building, governance, economic development, diplomatic strategy, and preparing the foundations of a future Palestinian state.

Instead, the Palestinian issue became increasingly managed rather than resolved.

I also agree with you that there was no realistic military solution after Egypt signed peace with Israel. That is precisely why I find the failure of the diplomatic track so significant. If military victory was no longer possible, then achieving Palestinian statehood through political, diplomatic, economic, and international pressure should have become the central objective. Yet that never happened in any sustained or coordinated way.

On Hezbollah, I think we largely agree more than disagree.

I am not arguing that Hezbollah's rocket attacks could defeat Israel, stop Israeli airstrikes, or prevent an Israeli incursion into southern Lebanon. I agree that they could not.

My point is narrower.

The displacement of roughly 80,000 residents from northern Israel created a major security, political, and economic issue for the Israeli government. Whether Netanyahu would have invaded southern Lebanon anyway is impossible to know. You may ultimately be correct that he would have.

However, I think it is difficult to deny that the rocket attacks made a military response significantly easier to justify both domestically and internationally than it would have been had Hezbollah remained completely outside the conflict.

So my criticism is not that Hezbollah failed to defeat Israel. I think we both agree on that.

My criticism is that their intervention imposed severe costs on Lebanon while simultaneously providing Israel with a much stronger rationale for escalation.

Ultimately, I think the tragedy is that both of us agree there was no realistic military solution after 1973. Where we differ is that I believe the Arab world failed to replace that military strategy with a serious, long-term political strategy capable of producing a viable Palestinian state.

 

[Musings]

@unconventional @_Arabia_

Guys lets stick to the topic. I dont want to delete posts but from this post onwards if you veer off topic - i will delete and thats just a waste of time and effort for all.

 

[_Arabia_]

I think the Palestinian conflict is simple: it is about the ethnic indigenous population being ethnically cleansed in huge numbers to accommodate the settlement of outsiders to form their ethno-supremacist, apartheid state. So it does not have anything to do with religion.

Religious tensions increased because of the actions of the ethno-supremacist state occupying Jerusalem.

But that was never the main driver of the conflict.

Jewish minorities and Muslims lived peacefully in the Holy Land peacefully for centuries prior to the Zionist project.

While you are right about the core of the conflict (land ownership, displacement, denial of the inherent rights of the native population to their land), the conflict also gained a religious angle. Either by Palestinian leadership, Arab leadership and Muslim leadership. That is due to the partial occupation of Al-Quds and the holy sights whose access is monitored by the occupier (Israel). It is impossible for a conflict between two different religious groups (Jews vs largely Muslims with a minority of Christians) not to have a religious element. In particular as the most effective resistance group in Palestine is Islamist in nature (Hamas).

In many ways it is kind o similar to the Pakistan-India conflict which is also religious (whether intended or not) in nature.

I agree that otherwise Arabs and Jews and Muslims overall, but primarily Arabs and Jews (because most Jews lived in the Arab World historically) had mostly somewhat cordial ties - at least there was not much conflict for most of the Islamic era, and I have also repeatedly pointed out that you could argue that much of Israel (most in fact) is ethnically Arab (20-25% Arab Israelis already while 2/3 of all Israeli Jews are Arab Jews or partial Arab Jews).

However those Arab Jews (Israelis today) with parents, grandparents etc. from Yemen, Iraq, Morocco and practically every Arab country out there, do (for the most part) no longer view themselves as anything but Israeli Jews. In fact they were discriminated against by the Ashkenazi (European Jews) so they had to be even more Zionist and more anti-Palestinian to gain the favor of the European Jews who were mostly the ones with the political power and economic power. Since many Arab Jews left everything they had when they came to Israel.

It is somewhat of an unknown topic in the Arab World and almost taboo because the official narrative has always been that some European Jews came to Palestine and occupied it but the reality is a bit more complex. In fact most of the Israeli Jews that came to Israel were Arab Jews from the region. Not natives (albeit they claim so - not going to argue about the validity of this claim as I have seen various claims) but nevertheless people of the region. In any case for the Palestinians, other than resembling them in appearance, there is no difference - both are viewed as occupiers.

Anyway it is interesting, because a somewhat growing number of Israeli Arab Jews are now, in particular those against current Israeli policies, are now seeing themselves in the Palestinians and relating to the Arabs of the region and wanting peace and cooperation.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[unconventional]

Ok, I think I’ve debated enough.

Appreciate the discourse @_Arabia_