92
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group fired dozens of rockets and shells on Sunday at three Israeli positions in a disputed area along the country’s border with Syria’s Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

Hezbollah said in a statement that the attack using “large numbers of rockets and shells” was in solidarity with the “Palestinian resistance.” It said the Israeli positions were directly hit.

Israel’s military fired back at the Lebanese areas, but there was no immediate word on casualties.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] theKalash@feddit.ch 30 points 1 year ago

The west has been supporting a two state solution since at least 1993.

[-] gnutrino@programming.dev 21 points 1 year ago

Technically the west has supported a two state solution since 1937.

[-] BrokebackHampton@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's why Israel is getting 38 billion dollars (!) in a ten year period from the US, everyone knows you need an absurd amount of military equipment to reach a consensual two state solution.

[-] theKalash@feddit.ch 5 points 1 year ago

It kind of is, yes.

If Israel didn't have military hegemony in the region, there certainly wouldn't be any two-state solution that would include an Israel or any form of jewish nation.

[-] BrokebackHampton@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Surely you understand the meaning of consensual.

I don't see how the military hegemony you openly spouse could lead to any sort of consensual agreement. Hegemony, by definition, is directly opposed to consensus.

Next thing you'll tell me the settler colonialism and de facto apartheid state Israel is directly enabling are absolutely necessary, for geopolitical reasons obviously.

Besides all that, if the point you're trying to make is that Israel needs the military spending to maintain its territorial integrity, I seriously question they would need 38bn USD in foreign aid just for that.
And that would be ignoring the fact Israel has been increasingly extending its territorial integrity over palestinian land for the duration of the conflict, and will continue to do so. Not a lot of “two-state solution” in that.

[-] theKalash@feddit.ch 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Is it "consensual" if one party in a war surrenders to the terms of the victor after a military defeat? I'm not sure this is the right concept to apply here.

What I'm saying is that Israel has had military hegemony for quite some time and has made several attempts to negotiate a peace (of course on their terms). A two-state solution was at least on the table.

I just can't see this happening in a scenario if the power was reversed. The charters of the Palestinian militant groups makes it very clear that their goal is total military victory.

So yes, if you want the prospect of a two-state solution, you have to support Israel.

And that would be ignoring the fact Israel has been increasingly extending its territorial integrity over palestinian land for the duration of the conflict, and will continue to do so. Not a lot of “two-state solution” in that.

I mean, of course. After negotiate fail and fighting resums, your objective is to get into a more favourable position for the next round of negotiate. That's how this works.

But at this point I agree that Israel has also given up on a two-state solutuion. That's why they switched to slow annexation by settlemts in the west bank. And we'll see what happens to gaza, soon.

this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
92 points (98.9% liked)

World News

38978 readers
1538 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS