Military intervention meaning invade a nuclear power?
This sort of mentality will perpetuate conflict and atrocities.
Not really, there are security measures connected to citizenship and vehicle registration, not "Jewish only" roads. Jews are not allowed in Area A, though.
> Is Israel not attacking several different countries in the region?
Not really, it responded to several attacks against it. Do you expect Israel to tolerate attacks with no response? States that gave up on trying to destroy Israel, like Egypt and Jordan, have not been attacked by Israel since.
> Do Jewish Israelis not use "From the river to the sea" as well?
"Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty" is not nearly as problematic as "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab".
Which in practice means there are Jewish-only roads.
> Jews are not allowed in Area A, though.
It's the Israeli government that bans Israelis from entering Area A. The Palestinians don't ban Jews from entering. I personally know Jewish people who have visited Area A.
> Not really, it responded to several attacks against it.
Israel has launched unprovoked attacks on Iran, Syria and most recently Qatar. Qatar has no intentions at all of destroying Israel, and Syria barely even has a government.
> "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty" is not nearly as problematic as "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab".
Leaving aside the fact that you distorted the Palestinian chant (which ends, "Palestine will be free"), the Israeli version is much more problematic, because Israel is actually implementing it. The Palestinians have a vague hope that all of historic Palestine will be free one day. The Israelis actually control all of historic Palestine, subject millions of people there to permanent military rule with no rights, have murdered over 60,000 Palestinians in the last two years, and are systematically stealing land in the West Bank. There's no comparison at all.
I am flagging your comment as it was written in bad-faith. Please reread the guidelines for discussion here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I think most Americans would rather support dissolving the Houthi regime and forcing them to pay reparations to the Jews they ethnically cleansed and whose property they stole.
But it's OK, because they are the wrong people. It's fine to punish/displace the wrong people for what they happen to be born into.
'Your grandparents were pushed out of their homes and Israel was the only nation that would take them in? To bad so sad boo hoo. You are a monster for being born, no one cares what happens to you, you are evil for being born' -- You probably
I'm imagining someone telling my friend whose grandparents came to the US undocumented that my friend has to leave and who cares what happens to my friend, what happens to them is their grandparents fault. Fuck that.
You are asking them to accept extinction. If that were forced on them they would take the Sampson option.
And don't say "go home". The majority are descended from those expelled from Arab lands, there's no home to go to.
Do the Palestinians promise genocide of the Jews in Israel? Yes.
Well, if Syria and Lebanon didn't want to lose territories, maybe they should not have started wars to ethnically cleans Jews from the place?
I mean, when you start a war with your neighbour with the goal of extermination, you don't get to complain when you lose.
In fact, you should be happy that even though you tried to exterminate them, they didn't try to exterminate you when they won.
The whole thing about ethnic cleansing is really turning history on its head. The reason why Israel is hated by its neighbors is because Israel was founded by European settlers who conquered and ethnically cleansed the land.
In May–June 1967, in preparation for conflict, the Israeli government planned to confine the confrontation to the Egyptian front, whilst taking into account the possibility of some fighting on the Syrian front. Syrian front 5–8 June
Syria largely stayed out of the conflict for the first four days.
False Egyptian reports of a crushing victory against the Israeli army and forecasts that Egyptian forces would soon be attacking Tel Aviv influenced Syria's decision to enter the war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#Golan_Heights
Two thirds of the area was depopulated and occupied by Israel following the 1967 Six-Day War and then effectively annexed in 1981
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights
In the months prior to the outbreak of the Six-Day War in June 1967, tensions again became dangerously heightened: Israel reiterated its post-1956 position that another Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping would be a definite casus belli. In May 1967, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser announced that the Straits of Tiran would again be closed to Israeli vessels. He subsequently mobilized the Egyptian military into defensive lines along the border with Israel and ordered the immediate withdrawal of all UNEF personnel.
On 5 June 1967, as the UNEF was in the process of leaving the zone, Israel launched a series of airstrikes against Egyptian airfields and other facilities in what is known as Operation Focus. Egyptian forces were caught by surprise, and nearly all of Egypt's military aerial assets were destroyed, giving Israel air supremacy. Simultaneously, the Israeli military launched a ground offensive into Egypt's Sinai Peninsula as well as the Egyptian-occupied Gaza Strip. After some initial resistance, Nasser ordered an evacuation of the Sinai Peninsula; by the sixth day of the conflict, Israel had occupied the entire Sinai Peninsula. Jordan, which had entered into a defense pact with Egypt just a week before the war began, did not take on an all-out offensive role against Israel, but launched attacks against Israeli forces to slow Israel's advance. On the fifth day, Syria joined the war by shelling Israeli positions in the north.
Sure, Israel struck Egypt first, but Syria is not Egypt. And calling it a preemptive strike should be pretty uncontroversial considering Egypt's naval blockade, expulsion of peacekeepers, deployment of ~100k troops near Israel's border, and Nasser being pretty explicit about his intentions.
> And calling it a preemptive strike should be pretty uncontroversial
It's actually highly controversial, given that:
1. Egypt had no intention of attacking Israel (as we now know for certain).
2. The Israeli leadership was extremely confident in its own military dominance over Egypt, and that it would win any war quickly.
3. The Israeli leadership of the time had ambitions of territorial expansion.
Where are you getting this idea from? A leader with no intention of attacking Israel would not have made statements like
"We will not accept any possibility of co-existence with Israel. [...] The war with Israel is in effect since 1948." (Nasser, May 28, 1967)
and then proceeded to amass ~100k troops near the border, or in Nasser's words: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ..."
As far as preemptive strikes go, it really doesn't get any clearer than this.
Not to mention the naval blockade which was in itself an act of war, making the question of who started the war rather moot.
The Israelis had been planning their own attack on Egypt for years. Ben Gurion had aggressive, expansionist foreign policy views, which the crisis with Egypt allowed him to implement.
The Israeli public was afraid of Egypt, but the leadership was extremely confident that Israel had massive military superiority over the Egyptians and would rapidly win any war. That's also what American intelligence thought, and what they told the Israelis.
As for Egyptian public statements about Israel, remember the political context: Israel had been founded 19 years earlier through the mass theft of Palestinian land and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Israel had carried out terrorist bombings in Cairo in the early 1950s in order to try to politically destabilize the country, and had invaded Egypt in 1956, as part of a conspiracy with Britain and France to take over the Suez Canal. The Egyptians had good reasons to view the Israelis as enemies and loudly complain, but we now know they had no intention of attacking.
Even if Nasser planned to wait and induce Israel to fire the first shot, how would Israel know when Egypt's actions, as well as many of their statements, were perfectly consistent with a military preparing to immanently invade?
Taking this to the extreme, if Russia launched a silo of ICBMs targeting DC, and it turned out that they were all convincing decoys with no payload, would you say the US "initiated the war" for responding with real munitions?
Realistically, pre-emptive strikes don't get any clearer than this. If one objects to this pre-emptive, one would pretty much have reject the notion of pre-emptive strikes categorically. There can be a legal argument that pre-emptive strikes never technically fall under then narrow language of Article 51, but that's more of a strict textualist argument and not a pragmatist one.
> Taking this to the extreme, if Russia launched a silo of ICBMs targeting DC
Your analogy has already gone off the rails, because Israel held massive military superiority over Egypt. The Americans and the Israelis both knew that Israel would rapidly win any war with Egypt.
The military escalation that preceded the 1967 war was triggered by Israel's own attack on Egypt in November 1966. Israel was pursuing an extremely aggressive foreign policy. It took actions that caused a massive increase in tensions, but then claimed those actions gave it the right to launch a preemptive war (though actually, when the war broke out, the Israeli government just chose to lie and claim that Egypt had attacked Israel first).
I don't think that's accurate, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion anyway. The point was just that the instigator of a war isn't necessarily the side that technically fires the first munition.
> Israel's own attack on Egypt in November 1966
What do you mean? There was no Israeli attack on Egypt at that time.
> then claimed those actions gave it the right to launch a preemptive war
Not sure what you mean. Israel's justification was the naval blockade and Egypt's apparent preparations for an invasion, nothing else.
It is accurate. There are many declassified documents from the time that discuss Israeli vs. Arab military capabilities. They come to the conclusion that the Israelis enjoyed massive superiority. Here's one [0]:
“The judgment of the intelligence community is that Israeli ground forces 'can maintain internal security, defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts, launch limited attacks simultaneously on all fronts, or hold on any three fronts while mounting successfully a major offensive on the fourth.'”
Here's another [1]:
“They would try to destroy the Egyptian airforce first and thus gain ability for a tank strike to take Sinai and the Straits. Secretary McNamara said the Israelis think they can win in 3–4 days; but he thinks it would be longer—7 to 10 days.”
> What do you mean? There was no Israeli attack on Egypt at that time.
I mistyped. Israel attacked Jordan in November 1966.
> Israel's justification was the naval blockade and Egypt's apparent preparations for an invasion, nothing else.
Israel actually cycled through a number of different justifications. Their initial justification was just a pure lie: they claimed that Egypt had attacked first.
0. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19...
1. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19...
If you want a more colloquial version of the US assessment, this is what Lyndon Johnson told the Israelis before the war (paraphrased in the official US diplomatic records):
“The US assessment does not agree with that of the Israelis: our best judgment is that no military attack on Israel is imminent, and, moreover, if Israel is attacked, our judgment is that the Israelis would lick them.”
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19...
Invaded what state? Mandatory Palestine? It sounds like you're just referring to (mostly legal) Jewish immigration. Would you apply the same label to Arab immigrants such as Arafat, or is it only an invasion when Jews immigrate?
- The nakba happened in 1947.
- Arab armies invaded the Jewish state in 1947.
- Jews did not invade any Arab state in 1947.
- The Arab armies invaded the Jewish state in 1947. > It was literally Palestinian land.
> European Zionists invaded and encouraged Arab Jewish mass immigration.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerus...
Jewish migration only became illegal in the Holy Land in 1936, when the Brits specifically made Jewish immigration illegal in response to the big Arab riot that year. Do you remember all the fuss a few years ago when Trump suggested that Muslims should not migrate to the United States? Would not a similar response be warranted for targeting Jewish migration?
> The founding texts of Zionism, the Balfour Declaration and Nakba are all very well documented.
And yet here we are, with a fundamentalist Islamic population in Gaza, which elected a genocidal party into power, claiming they are now this new invented group of pepole. And to be clear - they are explicitly genocidal, with intent spelled out clearly in the Hamas charters.
Don't see how either justifies what you are pushing? That millions of people are guilty because of where/who they were born to, and that it doesn't matter what we chose to let happen to them/the nation they were born into, lived their entire lives.
But thank you for being honest about the end goal. So many people on this topic aren't willing to be honest and just want to pressure it into being without having to confront what they want to pressure into being is.
How is me equating Israel with the actions of Imperial Japan in WW2 deflection? Come on. You switched to the WW2 equivalencing, not me.
I'm highlighting that you are OK with a huge group of people inheriting guilt because 'zionism'. Nagasaki and Hiroshima is what your position leads to/justifies.
People whose families were kicked out of their middle eastern home countries because they had the wrong religion/race, irredeemable in your eyes. Evil settler babies/children? Irredeemable/not even a consideration because... zionism.
You are OK with just displacing 10 million people (many whose family were forced out of other middle eastern countries because they had the wrong religion) with zero plan and zero care on your part, simply because there are zionists involved somewhere along the way.
You keep saying 'Zionism makes inheriting guilt ok' and 'zionism makes not caring and having zero plan for what happens to 10 million people OK'. We don't need to argue what 'zionism' is. No matter what it is, heck I'll give you every horrible think you imagine it to be, I think your position is horrible and evil.
That you have zero self reflection or self censorship to the point you do not give a fuck what happens to 10 million people because they are 'evil' is wild and not normal. But I'm really glad you are stating what so many here believe but aren't quite yet ready to say out loud.
Some of the worst atrocities have been committed by people who knew they were in the right, or people that were passing judgement on others on a mass scale. That you have zero reflection on it and just jump to 'zionism' is scary af, not gonna lie. I've lost a shit ton of karma hoping you would get any kind of self awareness. But you are all in on 'fuck 10 million people'. But like I said, at least you are honest that you are fine with whatever happens to millions of people, as long as they are people you judge unworthy of caring. Most pro-palestinians don't have the nerve to clearly state their intentions and are just downvoting me.
Go look at who authored this report. It is not "Top Legal Investigators" as the title states. And just read the report itself.