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.
