If that Al Jazeera article were on Wikipedia it'd (hopefully) get hit with Weasel Words[0] complaints, at least in the lede.
> ...a deal slammed by the Palestinians who called it a "treacherous stab in the back".
Which Palestinians? All of them?
Further down:
> Hamas condemned the deal, which it said was a "treacherous stab in the back of the Palestinian people".
Ah... Hamas. The same Hamas whose original charter calls for Israel to be destroyed, "invalidated" by Islam[1], whose officials as recently as last year told Palestinians around the world: "You have Jews everywhere and we must attack every Jew on the globe by way of slaughter and killing, if God permits"[2] (he was later forced to walk this back–"how magnanimous" to quote another comment ITT).
Shame on Al Jazeera for regarding an organization openly committed to genocide of Jews and the destruction of Israel as the voice of "the Palestinians." I suppose they think my local butcher here in Toronto (from Hebron) should kill me and my family, because "the Palestinians" are directing him to do so. I'm glad he chooses instead he gives my kids lollipops and be a standup guy and a good friend, despite him being Palestinian and me being Jewish. Thank goodness most of us don't listen to the sectarian warmongering promulgated by the likes of Hamas & Likud and amplified by Al Jazeera & Fox News.
I consider Al Jazeera treating Hamas as the de facto voice of "the Palestians" is an unfair treatment of a group (Palestinians) with diverse views. Saying Hamas represents all of them is a vicious smear against this group of people.
> a deal the Palestinians called a "treacherous stab in the back".
This direct quote they later attribute to Hamas, not multiple Palestinian groups. What do you think the purpose of framing it in this way is? It seems to me to be picking the most inflammatory statement from the most radical of the prominent Palestinian political parties, amplifying it above all other statements, and attributing it not to the political party in question but to all Palestinians. If you read this differently I'd be very interested to learn why you think this statement was put in the first sentence of the story only to be clearly attributed pages in.
I'm not sure what the purpose of referring to my post as a diatribe is. If you care to clarify I would appreciate it.
I think a "treacherous stab in the back" (i.e. betrayal by the UAE) is an accurate way to represent what's being said in these quotes:
> The Fatah movement said the UAE is "flouting its national, religious and humanitarian duties" toward the Palestinian cause.
> Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization's (PLO) executive committee, said the UAE has "come out in the open on its secret dealings" with Israel.
Also, I believe it's fair to assume "Palestinians" in the article means the parties/government that represent Palestine, not every individual Palestinian. Especially not Palestinians that don't even live in Palestine.
Isn't Hamas the main political party in Palestine? Are there Palestinians happy that annexation has been 'delayed'?
You're guilty to some extent of the same kind of weasel words, but implying that Hamas does not represent the voice of a significant number of Palestinians, for better and for worse.
Also, the declarations you were citing were made by a known hardliner in Hamas, while your comment implied they were an official Hamas statement.
Technically Palestine is split between Fatah/PLO in the West Bank, and Hamas in the Gaza strip. The two don't see eye-to-eye on a great many issues, although it's a pretty safe bet this is not one of them.
Curious if the China/Iran deal had any influence on the timing of this. Iran and UAE were recently in talks to strengthen relations [0], but Iran and Israel/USA are long time adversaries.
It very well might be related. China and Iran getting closer with Pakistan already being heavily funded by China opens a new stronger axis in the middle east power struggle.
Israel with its technological superiority and gulf states with their resources will want to have a stronger axis to combat that threat.
It will be really interesting to see what stance India takes in this bipolar US vs China world.
India has historically been a strong ally of Iran and Russia, but finds itself precariously close to war with China, and with weakening ties to both Iran and Russia.
India has also been a strong ally of Israel's and recently has improved its relations with the other middle eastern nations.
It is clear that every sign points towards the US alliance for India, but the political brass still can't completely shed the socialist and even communist cloth some of them were cut from, despite 1991 and everything that came after.
India needs to stop blindly following in the footsteps of the thinly veiled Non-Aligned Movement championed by Nehru. It is a bipolar world, neutrality might as well be a death knell.
Because Non-aligned (NAM) was more or less a lie. India was strongly oriented towards USSR, all while never committing strongly enough to actually get legitimate support. It was also naively ideological, in a "if we play nice, so will everyone else".
India allowed China to get their own UN security council seat on the idea of NAM, all while China itself blocked India's entry into the UNSC.
In 1965, India received zero support from either sides, while being pressured by the same UN to withdraw troops despite having gained massive ground in heavily settled parts of Pakistan. Even Indonesia, India's closest NAM ally and co-founder, supported Pakistan in the war.
Every time India has tried to take the moral high ground, it has come out of it in a poorer position.
India can't stay non-aligned while Chinese and Pakistani leadership keep claiming more and more land (Tawang, Junagad, etc) within Indian borders. It can't rely on tacit support from this paper tiger super power Russia or an Iran that is headed towards becoming a Chinese proxy.
For some reason, India is expected to bear the weight of being the moral compass of the world, all while the same world continuously disparages it for being a discriminatory and backward nation led by a fascist leader. (some accusations are admittedly well placed)
Being an ally doesn't mean, India has to be a proxy state. Japan, South Korea, UK or France aren't American proxy states, but are American allies. It simply means to seek relationships where interests align. To pretend that India is non-aligned is to pretend that India does not have interests.
The last "Pakistani" who cared about Junagadh was Shahnawaz Bhutto (Zulfiqar Ali's father, not the son). And for a country who is a stickler about instruments of accession I guess the rules get bent if you want to rebuild Somnath.
Pakistan updated their map last week newly claiming Junagadh as their land.
When it comes to partition itself, fair,clean and sensible are the last words I would use to describe it. I maintain that the hasty exit set India and Pakistan to be warring nations till the end of days.
That being said, the idea that any ruler of a princely state should have a right to decide a regions fate is honestly quite weak. Almost all of India's princes happily operated as proxies for British exploitation. Plebiscite would have been the right choice for Kashmir as it was Junagadh. The eruption of invading military forces (put lightly) in independent Kashmir never allowed that plebiscite to ever happen, and for all we know, it never will.
After change of demography in Jammu (which Patel and Mehrchand Mahajan went about “anjan banke” no wonder they had shame to not ask Nehru for plebiscite)
Who in particular expects India to be the moral compass of the world? That sounds like something one might hear from the editorial board of an Indian newspaper. I don't think it's particularly on anyone's mind in the US.
>>It is clear that every sign points towards the US alliance for India
This isn't the future, this is where India is already. India is firmly in the US camp. Upper income Indians(Upper middle class to rich) mostly derive their money from either US company based salaries, businesses or people who work in these businesses and spend money in restaurants, vacations, cars, clothing etc etc. Needless to say as of now the future of India is deeply intertwined with the future of US.
NAM is not realistic for India anymore. We are already in the US camp, like it or not. So far it has worked fine for upper middle class people. A self reliant India has been tried before, and it hasn't worked. Not because the idea itself is bad or people didn't try hard enough, but there's too much domestic factionalism, corruption, selfish-to-animosity levels among various communities in India. This is beyond the fact that India as a country itself is not sure what direction it wants to head towards. Till the 1980s the direction was self-reliance, green revolution, skill and education based industrialization, urbanization, social security etc. From the 1980s the politics of India is drifting towards being a theocratic religious state. Every decade there is some major religious movement. As of now the drift has largely transformed into a very powerful current. In the last decade every single move of the government has been religious policy and law consolidation. The public itself cares little for economic or other growth.
The dirty little secret of Indian political and social scene is we have wasted a record 40 years in domestic religious movements since the 1980s. In the same time, China has arrived on the world scene as a major economic, military and industrial super power. You can't afford to waste half a century(time, resources, political capital) in a highly competitive geo political ecosystem and expect to catch up with the giants(US, EU, China) overnight. Unfortunately our case isn't even as bad as our neighbors, at-least Pakistan, Afghanistan have excuses of them fighting major wars and Bangladesh was just too poor to compete. India's problems are literally our own doing. We wasted time and opportunities.
India today has no options left but to ally with US/West. But it's also a double edged sword. In case of a major war with the Chinese, we will be forced to fight a war alone will all of Eurasia, all by ourselves. This could be disastrous. There are also other problems. US as an ally itself is a difficult partner to deal with. US imposes tariffs on Canada and its European allies, and threatens to cut funding to NATO.
India is in a difficult situation given all these things.
For clarity, because the distinctions are important to a lot of people: Israel has agreed to suspend/delay the process of annexation of West Bank land, they haven't renounced the underlying claim. And there is no agreement to halt the settlement-building process there.
As israeli citizen I have to clarify: Israel never had a claim on West Bank. Some political forces have. Currently it is under military occupation. There is no internal consensus on this issue. Same goes for the settlements.
Because people consider more things when they choose a political party other than their views regarding the occupation? Most people in Israel wake up in the morning and their first thought isn't "what should we do about this occupation thing".
Because after decades of trying to make peace and seeing the situation get worse the general population of Israel no longer believes in feel good leftism without some real world solutions. It's all well and good to be anti occupation but then you see rocket production and launching capacity and Gaza and have no interest in seeing that elsewhere.
The problem with that logic is that it's not sustainable. Yes, terrible things happen in Gaza (not so much the west bank) absent a working government and/or occupying force.
At the same time, we're now going on the fourth generation of residents of these territories who are born, live and die in a no-man's land. They aren't citizens of any nation, they can vote for no government, they can't travel, they can't start a business or hold anything but the most basic property. And neither could their parents or grandparents. And neither will their kids.
The thread of rocket production is plausibly enough to justify a temporary occupation while a better government can be constructed, etc... But the six day war was more than a half century ago. At some point the excuses have to end.
Gaza has a working government run by Hamas. Both Hamas and the pa in the west bank have failed to hold their own elections and that is their fault not Israel's - they can run elections etc. Their kids are being taught in school to hate Israel and that Jews are evil funded by the United Nations. Every generation will get more extreme under this tutelage.
There is not the threat of rocket production so much as there are both rockets and rocket production already. You talk about the six day war but forget Hamas shooting hundreds of rockeslts a day into Israel much more recently than that.
It's ok to say say its unsustainable. What is your solution ? Israelis are tired of hearing that it's unsustainable without a solution. That's why the left isn't getting elected. They have no solution, not even to what is going on today.
> What is your solution ? Israelis are tired of hearing that it's unsustainable without a solution.
I assure you the rest of the world is getting tired as well. But at the end of the day, this isn't my problem to solve. It's Israel's. Eventually, the world will get tired enough to act. It has in the past.
The reason it isn't a crisis for the rest of the world now is fundamentally down to an odd quirk of the way voting demographics work a continent away in the US. And... that actually looks very stable. But eventually something will shift (hell, a Great Collapse of american influence seems not entirely unlikely at this point), and Israel will feel pressure it's been insulated from for the last 53+ years.
>assure you the rest of the world is getting tired as well. But at the end of the day, this isn't my problem to solve. It's Israel's. Eventually, the world will get tired enough to act. It has in the past.
It is literally the least important it's ever been in terms of the world's priority. What other people do you suggest will act? This deal is about Israel normalizing relations with one of the countries that has pushed and paid for the conflict for some time. This sounds like tough talk divorced from reality.
>The reason it isn't a crisis for the rest of the world
Is because it's a low intensity conflict that is expensive to deal with and nobody has a solution that makes sense to both sides.
Banking on the collapse of America to push Israel is funny but not realistic. This peace agreement is exactly because of fear of another obama style middle East policy. This is the UAE and Israel getting together to make sure they can counter whatever nonsense a democrat with Obama leanings starts to pull.
Everyone remembers the Iran deal and Obama's actions in the un at the end of his last term. I promise you people in Israel are as capable of planning as you are, and aren't relying on the fall of the us.
Declared unsustainable but still no solution from you - which is the same reason people with your opinion can't get elected in Israel. Israel is much more sustainable than Gaza but trying to go in to clean out Hamas is not sustainabkr. There are a lot more issues of sustainability than you seem to consider because you aren't considering real world geopolitics
Letting Hamas have control of Gaza created a territory controlled by Hamas that produces weapons to the detriment of its people, that aims weapons at cities anywhere near it, and who teach violent extremism in their united nations funded schools (where hamas keeps winning elections for leadership too).
Many people in Israel will not accept a similar situation for the west bank, and will vehemently reject leftists without actual solutions. The settlements are a different faction than people who might vote for leftists if they had demonstrable solutions.
But that's a justification for creating settlements anywhere Hamas is, which is all of Palestine.
"We must build settlements on contested land, because Hamas is building rockets, because we are on contested land, because we must build settlements on contested land, because Hamas is building rockets..."
Again the faction that is pro settlement is not the kind that will vote in realistic left wing governments if they appear. The issue is not just that faction exists it is that there is no solution from the left in Israel that stands basic scrutiny for centrist to think about voting them in.
If there is no long term solution in view then people will act now to put themselves in the strongest position if something changes. Land swaps in future deals etc are only made stronger, and the faction not interested in giving it away are appeased.
Also Hamas has political control of Gaza but not the west bank. There will be no future where Israel accepts Hamas control of the west bank. If you cannot integrate this into your thinking then think about the US making peace with Isis, etc because some Syrians picked them.
Israel is settling civilian population there in large amounts, this is forbidden by international law and goes against the claim of "military occupation" (which must be temporary in nature).
I don't know about international law, but it goes against one of Geneva conventions Israel signed. Also, I'm not sure, it must be temporary. Usually occupying force want to leave it establish civil administration ASAP due to costs.
Signing the Geneva conventions (I-IV) has nothing to do with their acceptance - it's a willingness to continue the conversation. The conventions themselves specify this process. There's a ratification step, which was has never occurred in Israel. The only part of the Geneva convention Israel has ratified is Protocol III, which specifically allows for the red crystal to be used instead of the red cross and crescent symbols.
Signing the convention in 1949 was a smart thing to do. Watching the world give less than a wit about it in 1949 is the same reason it hasn't been ratified in Israel.
I'm thinking that the UAE wanted to show something for this peace agreement in order not to be accused of giving in.
I'm sure everyone understands that this annexation process will resume at the first opportunity, but for the time being this allows everyone to pat themselves on the back.
The way I'm reading it both Israel and UAE just wanted an excuse for some of their internal forces. But in essence Israel never really intended to go forward with annexation and UAE never really cared about it.
I spent some time in the region in 2017 (Gaza / West Bank / Israel), and it was obvious to me that nothing would change for Palestinians until an Islamic country was able to represent their interests through diplomatic relations with Israel.
I think this is great news and I'm very excited to see where it leads.
You assume that any of the Arab countries care about Palestinians sadly outside of the scope of the Israeli Arab conflict where they can be used as pawns they don’t.
Even Jordan which 80% of its population is Palestinians doesn’t seem to care much.
The next logical step is to actually allow Palestinians to gain refugee status and removing UNRWA so the refugee camps might actually get some permanent housing, utilities and countries like Lebanon and Syria would have to grant them the same rights as any other refugee group.
Israel suspending its annexation is excellent for Palestine and very good for Ethiopia. There are ongoing negotiations with Egypt and Sudan about the Abay(Nile) River which is somewhat tense. Sometime ago Trump administration wanted to mediate, which was accepted by all parties (with some reluctance) but very quickly the mediator wanted to become an arbiter.
The Trump administration was perceived to favor the Egyptians. They tried to pressure Ethiopia into making concessions which it was not prepared to do. The end result was Ethiopia withdrawing from the US mediated effort and soured relation between the two countries.
What a lot of people here(In Ethiopia) think is, the reason Trump Admin was favoring Egypt's weak(er) negotiating position over Ethiopia and the other Nile basin countries is, he and his administration wanted to secure Egyptian support for the annexation of Palestinian territories.
If the annexation is off the table, USA will have a little less reason to use its power to pressure Ethiopia into an unfavorable agreement.
Frankly, the whole US effort was quite absurd. USA was seen very favorably but the rush to make Ethiopia the sacrificial lamb (to steal some poor people's land) is something that will have a lasting negative effect.
Officially, the annexation is not off the table, just postponed.
Practically, it doesn't look like annexation was ever realistically on the table to begin with. It's much more likely just a campaign slogan Netanyahu leaned on to woo the more hawkish parts of the right. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose by actually trying to push it through.
I would reverse that analysis: more likely the result of a calculation from the two aforementioned middle-eastern countries that giving the current president of the US a bump for re-election would be advantageous.
What kind of peace deal about the future of Palestinians and Palestinian land doesn't involve.. Palestinians? A skeptical person might think this is more about PR for Netanyahu and Trump.
Given the treatment the members of the various Abrahamic faith's have given each other over history, I'm not sure if that is an inducement, flowery euphemism for a mortal threat, or something somewhere in between.
> Given the treatment the members of the various Abrahamic faith's have given each other over history
Quite a non-realistic view of history and people's behavior. People will do bad things regardless of (and in-spite of) religion, and we have seen it (WWI/II, the massacres of the Uyghurs, the Holocaust, etc.). Humans are bloody creatures after all.
Not everything is about Israel. Israel isn't the source of the suffering of Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt or the rest of the dirt poor surrounding dictatorships. The Palestinians today mainly suffer at the hands of other Palestinians. Focusing on Israel lacks perspective.
I know Israeli and Palestinian media are both biased so I don't expect to be able to change your mind in an internet comment.
I've been working around the region for the past 10 years. Ran from Hizballah rockets, Israeli bombs, and Hamas intelligence. The governments on all sides suck donkey balls, but the Palestinian people are definitely the ones getting shafted and it would be neighborly if the Israeli people weren't such ignorant dicks about it.
As someone who lives in the region, this is fairly apt. It's missing the usual nuance, but rather true.
The reality is that Israelis firmly believed in a two state solution and offered an agreement that was signed and accepted, called Oslo. Fast forward to today. Israelis believe in a two state solution, but don't believe someone exists with whom to bargain. Isrseli Arabs have long since given up caring. Regional powers outside of Iran have stopped caring.
I really hope there's peace soon, or at least in my lifetime. But the current detente is one that could carry on forever with few people noticing.
> Israelis firmly believed in a two state solution and offered an agreement that was signed and accepted, called Oslo
They believed in the solution very much but kept (effectively) annexing more and more land. People don't mention it, but the Israelis have a huge economic incentive in keeping things exactly as they are- the idea that "there is nobody on the other side" is an excellent excuse to grab more and more land.
I understand that this might not be the openly agreed-upon motivation for the status quo; but Israel is in an incredible conflict of interest because the reality is that the conflict benefits many of its citizens immensely.
That's only partially true. Parts that already existed at Oslo's time (Maaleh Adumim) were covered by the agreement. The flip side is that land was also promised in return - a promise never kept either.
There isn't a lot of value for that land, other than it's relative proximity to central region. Israel would be better served, and it would be cheaper to simply build up in the north - very much one of the two national strategies in place.
It sucks - but the reality is that Israel doesn't have anyone to negotiate with. The West Bank had a leader until recently, and Gaza is very much not an option. Making peace elsewhere is what's left, and it'll leave the PA behind eventually.
Sorry but I don't get it. The legitimate borders of Israel were established after the 1948 war, the famous "green line". Israel doesn't need any agreement with anyone else to just withdraw inside those borders. Once it will have done it, it will be able to speak from a position of legitimacy. At the moment it's like a bag snatcher who keeps asking for "agreements" but doesn't want to give the bag back.
There are so many different issues at play here. Firstly, the original 1948 borders existing for less than 6 hours - the time after which Israel was attacked. Secondly, that Palestinian State was actually Jordan (well, Transjordan). Both King Abdullah and King Abudllah II of Jordan are on record as saying they want nothing to do with that border.
When Israel launched a counterattack against the Arab armies within its border, it then secured land from the then Transjordan borders. A similar event happened in the war with Syria.
Similarly, Israel's learned from its own history. In only one case (1976, Egypt) has peace been achieved by giving back land. This isn't a door Israel is willing to open again, having been burned (and yes, part of the burning) repeatedly.
No, there aren't. When someone has appropriated something he doesn't have a legitimate right to, the first, rightful thing to do is to give it back. It doesn't matter to whom, there is no need for agreements, and there's nothing that can be asked in return, because the fault is on the one who has misappropriated that something. Period. It is really that simple, and the reality is that Israel has no intention of giving back anything, otherwise it wouldn't have built cities on it.
This, without even going into the fact that you cannot ask for peace as a precondition for repairing the situation that is causing a large part of the conflict.
Interesting - but I don't think anyone actually believes that. Whether it's right or not, we want to believe it or not, might has always become rite. Is Texas rejoining Mexico? Was Alaska's really Russia's to sell? What about... well all of North America?
Should Jordan return to the non-Hashemites? When are all Australians leaving to their Aboriginees? When is Russia returning Siberia? How about Finland to the Nenets? Or the Samy receiving Norway, Sweden, and parts of Russia?
> Whether it's right or not, we want to believe it or not, might has always become rite
Ah, ok, if might is right then we're fine. Of course you cannot complain if someone else exercises this rule in a more local way: I might explode a bus, then I'm right to do it. I might throw rockets, then I'm right in doing so. I might get into your house and shoot you without being caught, so I'm right. I might think that my nation has the means to exterminate entire populations to establish some "vital space", then I'm right (and this was exactly H's reasoning).
Of course since a long time people have concerned themselves with devising rules that reduce as much as possible the occasions for conflict and disagreement. The law is nothing else than a system of rules designed to minimize grievances, starting from the observation that whoever has being wronged tends to seek satisfaction in every possible way, usually exercising violence.
Who ever said that was right? I merely said that's the effective standard humanity applies. Murder is always murder, whether it's sanctioned by a people, a government, or an individual.
Sure, and conflict and murder and genocide is also the standard that humanity applies. And also wars to stop all of those, sanctions, international blame, loss of moral standing, these are also standards that humanity applies.
So the standard is that Israel will keep doing what it pleases, people will still argue that it is completely wrong and needs to be stopped, and in the end if someone throws a nuclear weapon over the country we'll just shrug our shoulders and say- 'hey, might is right, that's how the world goes'. Is this the world you want?
This is at best ingenious. For the most part (emphasis most) conflict hasn't been started by Israel. Genocide is literally not something of which it can be accused. Arab citizens of Israel have democratically elected representation in government, social services, and public schools. Arabic is one of the two official languages, and citizens are entitled to 100% of their services in Arabic.
Could it be better, absolutely. Many of us are working to change that. But today one can go to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Netanya, and pretty much all the cities and see Arabs and Jews. We converse, we live together, we call each other cousins. But let's never pretend it's not equal - that's what we're striving towards, together.
Now, it can be accused of not being a peace partner. It can be accused of creating negative conditions. It can be accused of murders. But ethnic cleansing is at best untrue, and baiting at worst.
Haha. Well, for what it's worth, I wasn't even referring to Israel with those examples. I was just pushing your argument that "might is right" to its rightful conclusion, to prove its (ethical) absurdity.
> For the most part (emphasis most) conflict hasn't been started by Israel.
Well, so now you're abandoning the "might is right" thing and returning to a sane moral argument, by talking about responsibilities and faults? Excellent. So what should Israel do with those territories that has misappropriated? Don't you think that the precondition for ending a dispute about a stolen good is to return it?
It's an interesting intellectual argument. Is might is right wrong? Does the ethical validity of it depends on culture? Are there cross species ethics and moral, or are they the product of culture?
I'm neither abandoning, nor condoning the stance. I'm merely stating that this is how conflicts are resolved.
This is a common misconception and lie. The National State Law was elevated to become one of Israel's Basic Laws. It explicitly declares that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, that we have the right to self-determination in our own language Hebrew). It explicitly spells out that that language will forever be the language of the state, as it has been our language forever.
Further, it explicitly says that "Nothing in this article shall affect the status given to the
Arabic language before this law came into force.". This means that there are ZERO changes to Arabic as it applies to anything in the country. To wit, I a Jewish citizen in Israel can request services in Arabic should I choose to do so. Arabs in Israel request services in Arabic and Hebrew depending on comfort levels.
I would also like to see a lasting peace there, and I hope we will. It happened with other things in my lifetime that many did not expect to see. The fall of the USSR, peace in Northern Ireland, etc. I'm not going to hold my breath though.
The Athenians offer the Melians an ultimatum: surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or be destroyed. The Athenians do not wish to waste time arguing over the morality of the situation, because in practice might makes right—or, in their own words, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".
The Melians argue that they are a neutral city and not an enemy, so Athens has no need to conquer them. The Athenians counter that if they accept Melos' neutrality and independence, they would look weak: Their subjects would think that they left Melos alone because they were not strong enough to conquer it.
The Melians argue that an invasion will alarm the other neutral Greek states, who will become hostile to Athens for fear of being invaded themselves. The Athenians counter that the Greek states on the mainland are unlikely to act this way. It is the islands in the Aegean Sea that are more likely to take up arms against Athens.
The Melians argue that it would be shameful and cowardly of them to submit without a fight. The Athenians counter that it is only shameful to submit to an opponent whom one has a reasonable chance of defeating. There is no shame in submitting to an overwhelmingly superior opponent like Athens.
The Melians argue that though the Athenians are far stronger, there is still a chance that the Melians could win, and they will regret not trying their luck. The Athenians counter that this argument is emotional and short-sighted. If the Melians lose, which is highly likely, they will come to bitterly regret their foolhardiness.
The Melians argue that they will have the assistance of the gods because their position is morally just. The Athenians counter that the gods will not intervene because it is the natural order of things for the strong to dominate the weak.
The Melians argue that their Spartan kin will come to their defense. The Athenians counter that the Spartans don't have enough at stake in Melos to risk an intervention, noting that Athens has the stronger navy.
The Athenians express their shock at the Melians' lack of realism. They reiterate that there is no shame in submitting to a stronger enemy, especially one who is offering reasonable terms. The Melians do not change their minds and politely dismiss the envoys.
If you detain and imprison eight year old kid, grabbing him from school, it is reasonable to assume, that his father, his grandfather, his older and younger brothers will hold a grudge, so to speak.
There's literally a Wikipedia category for Israeli children that were murdered.
If you murder a child, then "it is reasonable to assume, that his father, his grandfather, his older and younger brothers will hold a grudge, so to speak."
Let me know if you see a point to this conversation, because I don't see it.
I don't know who you are and what are your reasons, but I pay for our military and security forces with my taxes. It is my right to demand from them not to murder or terrorize civilians.
That's not even an issue. There are two parties who are having a dispute; one of the two parties has appropriated something from the other. You don't need to know who gave more blows to understand who's in the wrong here. However, it happens in this case that the thief is also the person who inflicted more injuries on the other.
You're literally commenting on an article where Israel has sought and won peace with a neighbor. Whatever land was appropriated, was done so as a result of Arab aggression and Israel has repeatedly offered to give it back for peace. It has already done so repeatedly with other Arab neighbors. So yeah, you can definitely understand who is in the wrong here.
> Whatever land was appropriated, was done so as a result of Arab aggression
What part of "it's illegal to appropriate someone's land even after an aggression" you don't understand?
And it's illegal for a reason, not because the international community is evil. Also, what aggression specifically gave Israel permission to settle hundreds of thousands of people in the West Bank in the last 20 years?
> Israel has repeatedly offered to give it back for peace
Peace comes after Israel has returned what has misappropriated, not before. This seems pretty obvious to me. Even more obvious is that if Israel had any intention to give the land back in any foreseeable future, it wouldn't have built entire f.....g cities on it!
Seriously, I can't understand if you're trying to deceive only me or yourself too.
Really? Your objection to the fact that a country is not allowed to build cities on occupied territories is "are you saying Jews are not allowed to live there"?. Haha. Sorry, that is funny. Well, you know, it's not really about Jews...
Not "Jews" -- citizens of Israel. It is not allowed to transfer own population to occupied territory. It is an obligation Israel admitted by signing Geneva accords
Is this really true? I recall just 10 years ago a Jewish friend of mine commented on how offended his Israeli guide was that he had bought and wore an Arab head scarf while visiting Israel. That's from a TOUR GUIDE!
I can't imagine why the tour guide would be offended – head scarves are by no means out of place in Israel, or anywhere in the region. Many Israelis that I know are thrilled about the trend towards stronger diplomatic ties (and with that, peace) in the region. Israel has previously made big concessions for diplomacy, like giving up the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty.
Perhaps Israelis differ significantly in their perception of neighboring cultures, just like Americans differ greatly in their perception of Latin American immigrants?
You know, I may not remember all the pertinent details. It may have had something to do with going into a particular location? Would going into a synagogue or something with a head scarf be abnormal? The anecdote was mentioned though in the context of the generally tense relations and hostilities that he was arguing still plagued the region. He was a history professor with I think a relatively pro-Israel stance.
> Many Israelis that I know are thrilled about the trend towards stronger diplomatic ties (and with that, peace)
And how do they feel about returning the territories they have illegally annexed or occupied- the Golan heights, East Jerusalem and much of the West Bank?
Because otherwise "peace" just means enjoying what you stole without fear of consequences.
> If you could assure them that giving up those regions would guarantee peace, you would win an election.
Eh. Are you sure you thought this through? There are about 800 thousand Israelis living in occupied and annexed territories. That's 10% of the country. Do you think they would vote to leave their homes? That people would be happy to see house and land prices skyrocket?
Come on, let's not kid ourselves: land is monstrously valuable, Israelis are reaping enormous gains from the occupation. You're pretending it's indifferent, that Israelis just want peace. But for the meanwhile they'll just keep getting more free land, thank you very much.
This land was owned by Jordan, not the Palestinians. It was lost by them in 1967 and they lay no claim to it today. Israel has every right to make this land as prosperous as the rest of the country.
This land was Jordenian and Jordan doesn't want it. Jordan had it for 29 years and did not establish a Palestinian state. So the legal status lie needs to end. Because I like liberal democracies better than Arab trible dictatorships, I hope Israel would take as many Palestinians as possible. Without turning itself into one.
> I hope Israel would take as many Palestinians as possible. Without turning itself into one.
> We can go on creating a great country for the Israeli Arabs, Jews, Druze and Christians
So you're arguing for the one-state solution. You do realize that that means the end of the nature of Israel as a "Jewish state" (definition that was just sanctioned in the law), and that a democracy in which half of the citizens are Palestinians is going to fundamentally change the nature of the country?
The Palestinians (which do not act as a nation and never did, their loyalty is to their tribe) have autonomy, and they should be given as much autonomy as possible (without bad security implications).
No, democracies don't work well when different groups in the country hate each other. Palestinians have their own autonomy, where they would manage it by their own standards.
> Palestinians have their own autonomy, where they would manage it by their own standards
And how would this "autonomy" be different from full sovereignty? And in case it were different, to which superior body would this autonomy be subjected? And who would have democratic control of this superior body?
Because if the answers are respectively 'different', 'Israel' and '(current) Israeli citizens', then what you're talking about is proper, institutionalized apartheid.
They already have autonomy. They might would like it to be better armed, and they are free to accept the deal of the century proposal, but they won't get more.
I don't know how you define sovereignty, as distinct from autonomy. The guideline for me (and I believe this is also the way the conflict will end in real life) is the most autonomy possible, without any security risks to Israel. It's not far from the situation now.
> The guideline for me ... It's not far from the situation now.
The situation now is that vast parts of the West Bank are ultimately under Israel's control- Israel can decide to appropriate portions of land and build on it, build infrastructure for the exclusive use of settlers, and deploys the army to protect Israeli squatters from Palestinians trying to retrieve their possessions. Of course the settlers are allowed to vote for Israel's government, while the non-Israeli Palestinians living all around them have no rights and cannot vote for the government that has these powers on their land. This is de facto apartheid.
You're saying that this is "not far from" the ideal solution for you, and you'd be happy to turn it into apartheid de jure?
There are lots of Israelis living in the west bank, they aren't going anywhere nor is their presence harmful to anyone (nationalist feelings aside). Palastinians would vote to the PA, and they will decide their own taxes and laws, ext (as is the case now). The Israelis will vote to the Knesset. Besides the lack of arms to the PA, this isn't too far from where it is now. This is of course not apartheid, just a reasonable way to live side by side.
>That people would be happy to see house and land prices skyrocket?
> 70% would. Government would.
Please. Stop and think. There are countries who had their youth decimated in atrocious wars to conquer portions of new territory proportionally smaller then the one Israel is occupying almost without damage.
This cavalier attitude you're showing is part of the self deception of Israelis in regards to the occupation. They keep building cities in land that doesn't belong to them, but refuse to admit they're actually reaping any benefit. That the country is becoming substantially larger and more spacious. That there is space- or there will be some time in the future- for more industries, more fields, more suburbs, more people to come and live in Israel- the people Israeli leaders keep inviting to move from France, from the UK, from the US.
But of course this would be an admissions that Israel is reaping some unjust benefit. That it might want peace, but it also wants to keep what it gained. That peace is a negative, because it implies an end to the progression of appropriations.
I saw plenty of head scarves in Tel Aviv and no one seemed to be concerned. I could see you getting the full pat down walking into the mall or a store. Whereas my very white American looking features meant they kinda waved their arms over me like metal detectors.
My tour guide in Germany ranted for 20 minutes about how sure the Holocaust was bad but Germany said sorry a long time ago so why should they keep paying reparations?
Is it that surprising that a tour guide is just an ordinary person who may have some bad opinions?
youre naive or projecting,
go visit israel and hire palestinian guide,
go with him into any shop, mall, restaurant and tell him to speak in arabic, and look on their faces.
Sorry to pick exclusively on your comment, but why the snark? Many of the comments here are just that. Not only does that not add to the conversation, it sends the message some people (Israelis) can't say some things (a positive message towards another people in this case) without getting flak. I think we should celebrate such manifestations, and not react with irony.
I'm quite optimistic about the news. I think it has the potential to be a great first step of many.
Not historic at all... better to see annexation being suspended than continued of course, but let's not pretend this means much. The majority of the west bank has been illegally occupied for almost 60 years. Nothing in the text reverses any of that, it only appears to suspend Netanyahu's further annexation plans he drew up just last year.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs that cancelling a single recent plan to deteriorate an already illegal situation, is sufficient to be portrayed as some kind of historic peace treaty.
At this point Netanyahu can propose some other nonsense plan during his election cycle and win with the 'wartime president' bonus, then cancel them afterwards during Trump's election cycle to give him an ostensible diplomatic victory, while continuing the rest of the charade. The situation only gets worse but people are supposed to applaud it? Give me a break.
I think you're confused. The historic part isn't the postponement (not even cancellation) of the annexation plan, but the official signed peace treaty between Israel and the UAE. That's objectively historic, whether or not you think it's a good thing, and whatever your opinions are of the involved parties.
It does mean something and the demarcation line is whether the parties doing it are allies or not. In this case "the West" is the reference point as within this group there's usually a natural or if needed forced consensus on who's an ally and who's the enemy. For example Russia annexing Crimea is widely considered in the West illegal. [0]
Now whether you consider the historical claim of a state established by the UN but with no support from the Arab world, one of the two parties that actually mattered, over that party's land, and the numerous wars to expand further as being legitimate compared to Russia's is an exercise left to the reader.
Again you're using the word illegal in a way that only makes sense within an actual legal framework.
Allies have treaties, pacts, and unwritten norms. An ally cannot engage in an "illegal" act, they can only violate a treaty, pact, or norm. There is no legal framework because neither ally is sovereign over the other. In order for you to fall under a legal framework there must be some entity that is sovereign over you.
A citizen (or subject) of some sovereign does not have a "pact" or "treaty" with the sovereign.
As an American citizen I do not have a pact or treaty with my municipal, state, and federal government. They have sovereignty and therefore I am subject to their laws.
But this misses my point. I didn't mean "illegal act between allies". I mean the same act against a 3rd (independent) party will be judged as legal or illegal based on whether the 2nd party committing it is friend or foe. Friend bombs a hospital, they fight for freedom. Enemy bombs a hospital, they're a terrorist.
The occupation/annexation is a similar topic. Russia and Israel committed some of the same fouls but in the case of the latter it's a "matter of debate" that never reaches a conclusion. That's because the West doesn't actually want to set a precedent that it's OK. So it's like a never ending trial and as long as that goes on everybody's free to go about their business.
You probably noticed by now that almost no leader explicitly approves Israel's actions, they approve them implicitly by inaction. They always have vague rhetoric which gives the appearance of support for some lofty, worthwhile ideals without actually stating their support for the particular actions or methods, and without making any connection between these and the aforementioned ideals. Then it's left to you to map those words over the real life situation and interpret that your own way. But I learned long ago that what's not said speaks volumes more than what's said.
Israeli and UAE teams will meet "to sign bilateral agreements regarding investment, tourism direct flights, security, telecommunications, technology, energy, healthcare, culture, the environment, the establishment of reciprocal embassies, and other areas of mutual benefit."
This is exciting news, indeed. Israel, with its huge technology sector and UAE with its massive financial resources could together work to transform the Middle East.
The announcement alluded to future similar deals with other Arab countries. Likeliest would be Saudi Arabia, another oil-rich moderate state that already has informal back-channel relations with the Jewish state.
We shouldn't fool ourselves that this will bring peace in the region this year, but it will certainly put a kink in Iran's expansionist/destabilization efforts, and it will bolster the Trump Administration's prestige in the region, pushing other countries to "fall in line" as it were and support some kind of general framework for peace if not an outright full recognition of Israel's legitimacy.
You've been repeatedly posting flamebait and political battle comments to HN. That's not what the site is for, and if you keep doing it we will ban you. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
The implication - that Jews who were in Eastern Europe are not "real" Jews - is a wonderful example of anti-semitism. You only forgot to add on "Go back to Poland!"
Edit: Also, "the persecution complex" - as if the single greatest attempt at genocide in modern history was NOT targeted at Jews.
So you are doubling down on your conpiracy-minded and anti-semitic claim that Ashkenazi Jews are not real. I am going to link a Reddit comment I found with a very quick Google search that addresses it and call it a night. I hope you are able to remove the hate from your eyes.
Edit: One more thing. Please point me to the thriving North African and Middle Eastern Jewish communities that you describe. They do not exist because they were persecuted. Some countries less so, but to claim that there was no persecution is a complete distortion of history. Good night!
Another vantage point from the AP.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/08/israel-uae-announce-n...
And Al Jazeera for somewhat completeness.