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.
Details:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/27/mapping-7400-cross-...
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/bfa9/live/320f24...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv2gj544x65o
And lots more details here:
"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)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–Hezbollah_conflict_(202...
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:
The conflict has been simmering for decades
Not to mention that Israel is no longer in Lebanon and Hezbollah can just stop firing rockets and the situation will go back to relative peace.
So sure the history is complicated, but current events are fairly straightfoward, you had relatively peaceful status que until Hezbollah broke it.
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'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?
This is a discussion board, and in more than happy to discuss the topic, there's no need for personal attacks.
Israel invading into Lebanon in the late 1970 was a response to an attack originating there [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_Road_massacre#Israeli_...
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 Hezbollah lay down their arms and convert their organization to peaceful gardeners and Israel has no interest in destroying them.
Have Israel lay down their arms and focus on peaceful gardening and few Israeli Jews will survive.
Such Symmetry. Enlightened Reddit really is something else.
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.
Whatever the "Jewish identity" was in 1948, Israel now has more than 70 years of existence, giving it an independent identity from just "Judaism".
We used to do a lot of Israeli Folk Dancing when I was a teenager: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_folk_dance
What else would you like to know?
> 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."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_conflict_d...
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.
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."
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.
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.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_South_Lebanon_conflict
Just on its face, with Hezbollah launching sometimes hundreds of rockets per day, didn’t you suspect what you posted was misleading?
"Israel and <strikethrough>Lebanon</strikethrough> Hezbollah have been firing across the border since an October 8th strike against Israel in 2023..." etc.
That is a more complete & accurate description.