> Lebanon has been shooting rockets at Israel for a while now.
Correction: Israel and Lebanon have been firing across the border for a while. More Israeli attacks on Lebanon than the other way around and more Lebanese dead too.
"Between 21 October 2023 and 20 February 2024 the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) recorded an estimated 7,948 incidents of artillery fire from the south of the Blue Line (from Israel to Lebanon) and 978 incidents of artillery fire from the north side (from Lebanon to Israel)."
The answer isn't straight forward. 1980s invasion of Lebanon by Israel and it's withdrawal in 2000 was what made Hezbollah into the force that it is today.
The answer is pretty straight forward in the sense that the current round of war was initiated (proudly) by Hezbollah, and that while if Hezbollah stops shooting Israel would have no business with Lebanon, if Israel stops shooting into Lebanon Hezbollah has no intention of stopping too. Hezbollah wants to destroy Israel (they say that, not me), while Israel has no desire to destroy Lebanon. Hinting at some kind of symmetry here seems weird.
Israel invading into Lebanon in the late 1970 was a response to an attack originating there [0].
Israel has been attacking Hezbollah non-stop in Syria for the last decade[0]. "The current round of war" is quite literally just Hezbollah firing back.
It's strange to me how Israel is able to fly sorties around the entire region and it's not considered an escalation, but the moment that we see responses it turns into the other side being the aggressor.
> while Israel has no desire to destroy Lebanon
The Israeli Dahiya doctrine[1] is literally based on the idea of destroying as much of Lebanon as possible to screw with Hezbollah's support and morale.
Even the spokesperson of Hezbollah wouldn't say that the current round of war is "literally just Hezbollah firing back". If you're joking then I'm sorry for not catching it, but if not - Hezbollah announced that it's attacking Israel in support of Hamas's attack on Israel.
As for your second point, you're pointing to an Israeli strategy of fighting Hezbollah by pressuring Lebanese citizens against it. This has nothing to do with having the demolition of Lebanon as a goal.
Edit: I also recommend you read the Hebrew version of the Dahiya doctrine wikipage. As the doctrine is Israeli and in Hebrew originally, it explains it in much greater details. The doctrine has nothing to do with destroying Lebanon.
That doctrine has worked. 2006 to 2023 is the longest period of time without conflicts on this scale since before 1970. Until 2006 there were significant showdowns at most every 5 or 6 years.
The doctrine also is targeting infrastructure for the purpose of denying it to Hezbollah, which is utilizing it to support their fighting. Otherwise, per the wikipedia link on this doctrine, the doctrine has reduction of civilian casualties baked-in:
"in the first stage targets were attacked which formed an immediate threat, and in the second stage the population was evacuated for its protection, and only after the evacuation of the population were Hezbollah targets attacked more broadly."
> The doctrine also is targeting infrastructure for the purpose of denying it to Hezbollah
It also describes the infrastructure as literally every single Shiite city. I hope for all of us that Iran or similar doesn't apply this doctrine to Israel.
Hezbollah didn't exist in 1970s. It was founded in 1982
Like the famous quote said "We make peace with our enemies, not our friends" (I can't recall the source) - what is lacking here is diplomacy.
To repeat - Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1980s was the catalyst for Hezbollah's rise. While they curbed PLO they created a more formidable adversary.
First, I forgot an 's there - I meant 1970s. Second, unfortunately for Lebanon, Hezbollah wasn't the only terrorist organization growing in it [0]. "The proximate cause of the Israeli invasion was the Coastal Road massacre that took place near Tel Aviv on 11 March 1978"
Hezbollah was founded in 1982. With benefit of hindsight we can see that while Israel's Lebanon Invasion in 1980s was successful in curbing the PLO who perpetrated the massacre, they created a more formidable adversary in form of Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is somewhat of the successor organization of the most militant wings of groups like the PLO and Fatah, so I think it is relevant to speak of Hezbollah as in some sense existing in a nascent form prior to its founding
> Hinting at some kind of symmetry here seems weird.
Both sides (Israeli state, and Hezbollah) want to destroy each other. It's a simple symmetry. Conflating the military force with the territory and civilians living on it only obfuscates this.
> Have Israel lay down their arms and focus on peaceful gardening and few Israeli Jews will survive.
That's because the entire notion of Israel as a concept is predicated on it being under constant existential threats.
If Hezbollah goes away, then nothing changes in Lebanon: Lebanese identity isn't based on armed resistance. Israeli identity, however, has nothing else going for it besides armed conflict.
If conflicts were to go away, so would Israel. Israeli Jews would just be absorbed into whatever local culture they're in, just as they were prior to the formation of Israel (and just like they are outside of Israel). The remaining ones would be the ones engaging in armed conflict -- just as the original groups like Irgun and Lehi were.
What are you even talking about? Israel is a country with a population of 9 million people. Do you think if the conflicts stop, this population would just disappear or something?
Whatever the "Jewish identity" was in 1948, Israel now has more than 70 years of existence, giving it an independent identity from just "Judaism".
Sure, what is that identity? Is there uniquely Israeli cuisine, dances, anything? What is the Israeli identity outside of an existential threat on Jews?
> The idea of the sabich sandwich was most likely created in Iraq
Yeah, it's about as Israeli as chicken schnitzel. It's just a regular Iraqi eggplant sandwich.
> Israeli folk dances were created as way of helping to create a new Israeli culture in the land of Israel
At least the developers of that folk dance appreciate the fact that there was (and still is) a distinct lack of any sort of national culture and have to _develop it_. Even still, from your source, these newly developed dances haven't reached any level of mainstream success save for the Horah which is Southern/Eastern European.
Note the original comment: "Israeli Jews would just be absorbed into whatever local culture they're in, just as they were prior to the formation of Israel."
> Yeah, it's about as Israeli as chicken schnitzel. It's just a regular Iraqi eggplant sandwich.
Ask any Iraqi if they know what a Sabich is, they'll say no. Show them a picture, they'll say they have never seen it. the "idea" was created in Iraq doesn't mean what you're trying to say it means.
> these newly developed dances haven't reached any level of mainstream success save for the Horah
That's a very funny way to read "In spite of the many changes in the values, dreams, and ways of life of the Israelis, many dances of the 1940s and 1950s remain popular. However, some of these dances are no longer danced. It is hard to specify which dances have fallen out of favour, but the Hora remains common".
But honestly - I think we're done here... It's been a pleasure giving you a taste of our culture. It's unclear to me why you think it's outrages that Israelis want to maintain a majority of Israelis in their country, while every other country does the same, and why you think it's weird that our food is inspired by our neighboring countries, even though that's true in literally every country in the world, and why you think it's a problem that we don't dance exactly like we did in the 50s anymore, even though, I sure hope you don't dance like your grandparents. But cheers! I don't know what country you come from, but I'm getting the impression that manners and respect to others isn't exactly part of the culture there.
> Show them a picture, they'll say they have never seen it
I'm going to write this off as ignorance, given that it's classical Iraqi street food. You can have at at quite literally any Iraqi falafel spot, including in the diaspora. It's the same, through to the amba. The Kuwaitis call it "Mushakal" which just means "mixed", referring to adding everything (falafel, eggplant, cauliflower). But that's just an option, you can go eggplant exclusive.
> It's been a pleasure giving you a taste of our culture
Pleasure is all mine! I've visited multiple times, would visit again just for the turkey shawarma.
> why you think it's outrages that Israelis want to maintain a majority of Israelis in their country
Because Israeli here is being used as a synonym for Jewish, and that's racist. It's not only exclusionary to the non-Jewish Israelis but also sets a clear path forward that even in absolute peace, the Israeli view involves Jewish dominance in culture, population and government.
> even though that's true in literally every country in the world
I don't think the US (or most other developed countries) seek for ethnic or religious dominance. Most horrible countries do, though.
> it's weird that our food is inspired by our neighboring countries, even though that's true in literally every country in the world
Maybe sticking with Iraq, I'd encourage you to look at Persian, Turkish or Arab (i.e Saudi) cuisine and compare it to Iraqi cuisine. It's one thing to suggest there is influence, and it's another thing to carbon copy things and make it your national dish.
> and why you think it's a problem that we don't dance exactly like we did in the 50s anymore
Well given that these dances had all of a 20 year run, I wouldn't exactly call them cultural any more than calling Crank 'Dat by Soulja Boy an American cultural dance.
> I sure hope you don't dance like your grandparents
I do! Most places in the world have cultural dances that are shared and danced with their grandparents. Not too dissimilar from the Horrah :-)
> I don't know what country you come from, but I'm getting the impression that manners and respect to others isn't exactly part of the culture there
Sorry if it comes across as disrespectful, I've tried to be civil.
What are you even talking about? Do you think a country of 9 million that's existed for 70 years doesn't have any unique identity?
There's Israeli writing, Israeli music, Israeli theatre, Israeli dance... some of these are internationally famous. There's Israeli cuisine, a lot of which is based on other cuisines imported from countries that Jews fled from or were kicked out of.
And of course, there's all flavor of Israeli technology and other innovations, from agriculture to food to, of course, software and high tech.
What do you think Israelis are doing on a daily basis, sitting around worrying about existential threats on their life?
> What are you even talking about? Do you think a country of 9 million that's existed for 70 years doesn't have any unique identity?
Yeah. It has no unique national identity. There's a lot of Jewish culture, sure, but I'm hoping we can distinguish Jewish culture from Israeli culture (i.e, Iran is a Muslim country but Iranian culture isn't a subset of Muslim culture).
> There's Israeli cuisine, a lot of which is based on other cuisines imported from countries that Jews fled from or were kicked out of
Agreed. That's the point here.
> What do you think Israelis are doing on a daily basis, sitting around worrying about existential threats on their life?
Israel as a nation, yes. You sort of reaffirmed that by adding "countries that Jews fled from or were kicked out of" in your reply. The existential threat quite literally shapes all of Israeli day-to-day culture. The agriculture, tech and everything else is based on that existential threat.
As I've mentioned elsewhere though, this lack of culture isn't unique to Israel, it's just heavily multiplied due to the population being a collection of diaspora. This might change over the next couple hundred years but it's equally wild to assume that a 70 year old country is somehow going to have anywhere near the same level of culture (and cultural resilience) as undisturbed groups.
> As I've mentioned elsewhere though, this lack of culture isn't unique to Israel, it's just heavily multiplied due to the population being a collection of diaspora. This might change over the next couple hundred years but it's equally wild to assume that a 70 year old country is somehow going to have anywhere near the same level of culture (and cultural resilience) as undisturbed groups.
This statement makes sense - of course Israeli culture, being younger than, say, US culture, is less developed.
But that's not your original claim that I disagreed with, what you originally said was this:
> If conflicts were to go away, so would Israel. Israeli Jews would just be absorbed into whatever local culture they're in, just as they were prior to the formation of Israel (and just like they are outside of Israel)
There's a big difference between saying "the culture isn't quite unique" and implying that without conflicts, Israel would somehow disappear, and Jews would be absorbed into the surrounding culture (of what, Lebanon? Jordan?).
> Yeah. It has no unique national identity. There's a lot of Jewish culture, sure, but I'm hoping we can distinguish Jewish culture from Israeli culture
First of all, 20% of Israel's population isn't Jewish.
Secondly, I think the Israeli culture, even if only focusing on Israeli Jewish culture, is different from, say, American Jewish culture or other Jewish cultures around the world.
> There's a big difference between saying "the culture isn't quite unique" and implying that without conflicts, Israel would somehow disappear, and Jews would be absorbed into the surrounding culture (of what, Lebanon? Jordan?).
I was talking about the national identity. There is frankly no point to Israel's existence, internally and externally, outside of the existential threat. It has no culture outside of the self-fulfilling prophesy of being a Jewish homeland. The culture is literally just foreign influences mixed in with the Jewish faith.
Yes, I strongly believe that without the existential threat that Israel would cease to exist. It's this existential threat that drives the agriculture and tech which is just attempts at self-sufficiency. If Jews didn't have this sentiment, the desire for a nation would fizzle out and the endless conflict with its neighbours would no longer make sense. The oppressive treatment of Palestinians would no longer have any sort of justification. Kosher slaughter and Beetroot kubbeh isn't enough.
> of what, Lebanon? Jordan?
I think you'd find that Jordan and Lebanon, at least in the developed parts, are culturally almost exactly the same. The Mizrahi influence on day-to-day Israeli culture is huge, more than some Israelis probably realize (given another commenter was convinced that Sabich would somehow be foreign to Iraqis).
> First of all, 20% of Israel's population isn't Jewish.
Israel's identity is exclusively Jewish. The extras are just there as tokens non-Jews.
> Secondly, I think the Israeli culture, even if only focusing on Israeli Jewish culture, is different from, say, American Jewish culture or other Jewish cultures around the world.
Agreed, which speaks to the lack of resilience. Compare this with, say, American Lebanese or Australian Lebanese diaspora which you can drop into Lebanon and see no difference.
There's another example of this in that region that's also visible: the existential threat on the Palestinians is what formed their national identity as well. Without that threat which shapes all of their day-to-day lives (including those in the diaspora), they would have just been absorbed into their neighbors too.
> I was talking about the national identity. There is frankly no point to Israel's existence, internally and externally, outside of the existential threat.
What is the "point" of any national identity? What is the point of a French identity? A US identity? A Ukrainian identity?
Maybe all of these places, like Israel, had no culture of their own when they were getting founded, and maybe their initial "reason for being" was some kind of existential threat, but they all developed their own culture. Like every place that has humans living in it for so long.
I really feel like you're arguing something that doesn't make any sense, at all, for any place in the world, least of all a country with a population that has a very old shared religion, traditions, etc.
> If Jews didn't have this sentiment, the desire for a nation would fizzle out and the endless conflict with its neighbours would no longer make sense.
A country that's existed for so long is pretty self sustaining at this point. Multiple generations have been born in Israel. What do you think, they'll wake up one morning and say "oh actually we don't want a country?". Even if they did, where exactly do you imagine they'd go instead?
> The oppressive treatment of Palestinians would no longer have any sort of justification.
The treatment of Palestinians is because of the security threat they pose, at least mostly. If there was no threat any more, that would presumably be because some kind of peace was reached with all neighbors, including the Palestinians. So of course in this hypothetical the interaction with Palestinians will change.
> I think you'd find that Jordan and Lebanon, at least in the developed parts, are culturally almost exactly the same. The Mizrahi influence on day-to-day Israeli culture is huge, more than some Israelis probably realize (given another commenter was convinced that Sabich would somehow be foreign to Iraqis).
I'm sure there's overlaps and similarities, but I would indeed be surprised if it's as close as you make it seem. Sure, there are Mizrachi influences in Israel, but also many other influences. In many ways the country was founded more by Ashkenazi Jews, there's a fairly influential Russian influence, etc.
I think you're letting superficial things like cuisine be the definition of a culture, which is honestly kind of silly; it's a fairly small part of culture.
> Israel's identity is exclusively Jewish. The extras are just there as tokens non-Jews.
First, I don't think referring to a group of people as "extras" or "tokens" is something anyone should do.
Yes, there is definitely an internal question in Israel to what extent it's a Jewish state, and how that fits in with its other self-conceptions, like being a democratic country. But even within the Jewish population, there's a lot of variation, from completely secular and often atheist Jews, to religious Orthodox Jews.
> Agreed, which speaks to the lack of resilience. Compare this with, say, American Lebanese or Australian Lebanese diaspora which you can drop into Lebanon and see no difference.
I don't know about Lebanese, but I don't think this is a good measure of anything. I'm fairly certain you couldn't drop Italian-Americans into Italy with no problem; do you think that means Italy has no culture?
> There's another example of this in that region that's also visible: the existential threat on the Palestinians is what formed their national identity as well. Without that threat which shapes all of their day-to-day lives (including those in the diaspora), they would have just been absorbed into their neighbors too.
I think this is a good example, though I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions.
For one thing, Palestinians could've been absorbed into surrounding countries, if they chose to do so; that's what usually happens to a population in such circumstances (as happened to 10s of millions of people since WW2). I think what makes the Palestinian case unique is partially that the surrounding countries chose not to absorb them, for the most part, and that part of the areas where they live were captured by Israel again.
That all said, I think this example exactly negates your main point - the Palestinians developed a national identity partially because of all of these influences, but that identity exists now, and I don't expect it to disappear!
An ethno-nationalist state becoming more secular and less extremist? I'm intrigued. Do you believe that the settlements would stop and that Palestinians would be given Israeli citizenship? Would the Palestinians forced out of Israel be allowed to return in this case?
Or is this secular, less extremist, conflict-free Israel predicated on Israel continuing to be majority Jewish and with a Jewish government?
Edit for your edit: no, nothing to do with Jews. South + North Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine, Singapore, the baltic countries (Estonia etc). Various Arab countries too. In Israel's case the population are made of diaspora which multiplies the effect.
So in this hypothetical scenario where everything is flowers and sunshine, the secular, peaceful Israel is still an ethnostate with a two-state outcome that keeps its ethnic cleansing-attained Jewish majority.
It’s wild to me that this is what you consider the best case scenario in a situation where Israel is experiencing complete peace. And then ending it with an unintentional “nur für Deutsche” reference. The Sweden reference is especially apt, given that’s what the Swedish Antisemitic Union also used as a slogan[0]
> but most of the places Palestinians left during the war they started on Israel 1947
I never said "only for" - you're putting words in my mouth. I said that the idea that Israel will still have a Jewish majority isn't crazy, and can be seen in pretty much any other country in the world, yet it's "wild" to you only when it's happening in Israel.
Unfortunately recent history showed that it's quite an essential need for protecting Jews from genocide. If you have a better idea for how we can be sure that our government will not try to kill us because we're Jewish, I'm sure many Jews would love to hear it.
Well I'm glad we've gone full circle here. I started off with "the entire notion of Israel as a concept is predicated on it being under constant existential threats" and you seem to also accept that now.
If conflicts were to stop, so would Israel. So Israel has a perverse incentive to keep the conflicts going -- largely explaining why Israel can't stop bombing its neighbours or trying to lobby others to bomb them. And why things like settlements won't ever stop.
That's skewed logic. The fact that Israel was originally created because Jews needed a safe haven doesn't mean that when they won't need it anymore it will disappear.
Also, from Israel's declaration of independence: "we extend our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East."
Kinda odd for someone with incentive to keep the war going to say that, not to mention to sign peace agreements with the two neighbors it is sharing the longest borders with, Egypt and Jordan.
Sorry, I can't take you seriously when you equate a clearly defined military-political organization ("Hezbollah") with a broad ethnoreligious group ("Jews"). That's totally absurd and borders on Holocaust denial.
This is the first time ever someone blames me for Holocaust denial [0], but I'll give you another example then. If someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you, you might want to kill them too, but it's a little funny to say that there's symmetry there because "both want to kill each other!".
[0] to remove any doubt, I am not. I'm not sure how you got there, but I would insane to deny an event the took the lives of many from my family.
It is straightforward. There was no conflict there for that past decade plus, Hezbollah started attacking Israel in October to join their Islamic brethren.
So given the context, why is Hezbollah not responsible for the current escalation?
Hezbollah was founded to drive Israel out of Lebanon, and Israel is no longer in Lebanon, so not sure how that context makes any difference to who started and is to blame for the current round of escalation.
You are implying that the context that matters is equal to the context where Israel hasn't done anything wrong. If you don't know you're doing that, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you're used to entertaining a much less observant audience on this topic.
It's pretty simple - tell me why you think it's justified for Lebanon to attack Israel?
You're dancing around the "context" but not actually saying why that context makes it legitimate for Lebanon to attack based on the pre Oct 7th status quo. Sure Lebanon and Israel have some territorial dispute, but it's like 20 sq km, not something you should start a war for.
Lots of neighboring countries have a bloody history, that doesn't mean starting a new war is legitimate, right? Can Poland start firing rockets at Germany because Germany invaded them in the past?
No thanks. You're obviously brainwashed by particular narratives, and have only absorbed one perspective of the facts that you were already emotionally dependent on. Not at all unusual on this topic.
I'm very open to hear different narratives, but seems like you aren't exactly willing to hear or share, so not even sure why you commented from the get go.
This is a discussion board, and in more than happy to discuss the topic, there's no need for personal attacks.
> The question is who started shooting rockets at the territory of the other.
I think you can always go back further. A good overview is this article on the history of Hezbollah-Israel conflict, with links to the various flare-ups:
Per that wikipedia entry this current conflict began with an attack on Israel. Hezbollah attacked a much more powerful enemy so a statement that stops at "they've both been doing it" does not accurately capture the casus belli:
"Israel and <strikethrough>Lebanon</strikethrough> Hezbollah have been firing across the border since an October 8th strike against Israel in 2023..." etc.
is it embarrassing when your peers are getting paid to post and you aren’t
I find that concept fascinating and wonder how genuine opinions are on these topics and how that feels to actually harbor opinions that rely on moral superiority, something that the rest of us don’t feel is a useful or relevant distinction for any sovereign in that region
Oh come on. I didn't say one side was retaliation and the other aggression. You are saying that. I said there were attacks on both sides. Whether one attack is raw aggression or defensive retaliation is very much in the eye of the beholder.
> if the pager network was compromised, thus burns the compromised network
I wouldn't necessarily call this type of attack a network compromise. All it takes is knowing the target phone numbers and sending a specific message, which is a paging network working exactly as designed. Phone detonated bombs have been a thing for a long time too.
Calling it a hardware supply chain attack seems more accurate.
it does seem like a purely escalatory move. wounding but not killing 1000+ of your deepest adversaries, slow clap... I'm sure Hezbollah will give up now that their pagers are destroyed.
Most major newspapers in Israel are saying that Netanyahu wants an invasion of Southern Lebanon:
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bje3pjv60
https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-820399
https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-general-said-pushing-for-g...