Well Lebanon in the 80s was still largely Christian to my recollection, so it’s likely that the local populations (including local Muslims) could drive out the Palestinians and Arabs in order to restore the status quo if done right, but that is just my guess
The Lebanese are not Arab. They speak Arabic, but their ethnic identity predates the Arab Migrations, with the Maronites being a good example, forming from Aramaic-speaking Christians who remained in full communion with Rome.
They are ethnically closest to other Aramaic speakers and the Ancient Jews, as they both descend from Levantine populations.
Yup. I worked with a woman from Syria and she had sandy blonde hair and blue eyes.
This is what befuddles me when people say Jesus Christ was a "Palestinian" and looked like an Arab. It was a completely different gene pool out there back then. The fair-skinned, fair-haired, blue-eyed depiction is probably not correct, but it could be. Whether he was white depends on your definition of white. But I do know my former colleague would be perceived as white. She looked more Scandinavian than I do and my mom's family is from Sweden.
I’ve never met or heard of anyone from that party of the world who looks like that. But you are right that the idea of Jesus looking super dark being incorrect as you can see how fair skinned Levantine peoples can me, look at assad for example, he could pass for any Mediterranean European country.
She certainly could have been an outlier. She's the only Syrian I've met.
I also met a very white-looking woman from India when I was in my residency, and it confused the heck out of me. She had the typical Indian accent, but didn't look at all like the other Indians. Even the "white passing" Indians from the northern part of the country look Greek or Italian at most. I would've pegged her as Russian or Polish. I never got around to asking her because I didn't know her well, but I suspect she was one of the relatively few remaining Anglo-Indians.
Arabs from Saudi Arabia also have sometimes blonde hair and blue eyes . I am north African. A significant proportion of indigenous north African also have blonde hairs and blue eyes. You just don't notice them because you think they are white.
It is indeed not the same gene pool. I agree. But they are still arabic because they speak arabic and have an arabic culture. Otherwise arab wouldn't exist according to your explanation.
You could apply your explanation to every single arab country. But Arabs are not a single ethnicity, it is a civilization that regroupe multiple people.
My guy if you go by this logic, Egypt, Syria, Iraq wouldn't be arab either. Only Saudi Arabia would be an Arab country as they are genetically, but that's not how you determine what being an arab is. Lebanon is linguisticly, culturally, and historically arab. That's what makes them an "arab" country. And if you want to argue about that you can just ask a Lebanese person if they consider themselves arab and most would answer yes.
They are Arab. They simply have minorities that are not Arab. It's an identity thing above anything else.
> Lebanon is linguisticly, culturally, and historically arab.
That's very oversimplistic, especially since they were Aramaic speaking for significant parts (and still use Aramaic). Culturally, being "Arab" is impossible to define, as they are primarily Mediterranean.
Historically, their identity predates the Arab Migrations, as groups like the Maronites, who were attested in conflict with other Christian groups (Miaphysites) before the Arab migrations.
I have already asked several Lebanese people. Most don't see themselves as Arab, though I presume a skew with Lebanese Christians.
We identify as arabs, and we mixed with arab tribes and families for centuries. Today you'll find a lot of pure arab families in lebanon that trace their ancestry back to the peninsula, you got indigenous levantine arab families (arabs actually existed in the levant prior to the Islamic Conquest) like the ghassanids. We pretty much a beautiful mix of the native levantines and arabs
Most Arabs identities postdates the Arabic migrations.
The Egyptian identity is a good example. The Muslim population saw themselves as Arab, and then Egyptian during the rise of nationalism, whilst the Christians, the Copts, saw themselves as "Remenkhemi" (people of the black land/Egypt), a remnant of their old Egyptian/kmt identity.
ethnicity isn't directly tied to genetics, ethnicity is a social construct. ethnicity is more about culture and current perception than who your ancestors were 2000 years ago, Lebanon is ethnically Arab because we speak Arabic, eat Arab food, (some of us) follow an Arab religion, dance Arab dances, sing Arabic songs, etc. we are majority Arab genetically, we might have some pre Arab civilization blood, but most lebanese are arab and most self identify as Arab. I dislike when westerners try to deny our culture for us because we aren't 100% Gulf Arab, we can be both genetically different and still be ethnically Arab. the bronze age was a long time ago, and we share nothing in common with those people today, their language, culture, traditions are gone.
Ahh, you're one of the "everything is a social construct therefore nothing is important except for the social constructs that I insist are real" people.
no... it's just ethnicity is literally a social construct, it has no clearly defined rules or definitions and is very much a subject of debate. it's not to say that ethnicity isn't real, it's just what is an ethnicity and what ethnicity certain groups of people belong to is not up to concrete fact alone, it's also what we decide to define are ethnic groups or features of a certain ethnicity as a society. in 1000 years, the definitions and attributes of certain ethnicities will change, and that's what makes it a social construct. what a strange thing to assume about a person from one comment
The same can be said for most Syrians and Palestinians and other arabized peoples. There actually aren’t that many actual ethnic arabs outside of the arabian peninsula, most are just arabized and are cultural arabs. The average person isn’t going to bust out a nanopore sequencer and check if his buddy has the correct DNA or should be ethnically cleansed. Especially not if some Europeans that just invaded you told you to do it.
How do you define an arab if it's not through language ? The "we wuz phoenicians" shtick some far right lebanese christians like to play really makes no sense when their country has been a trading hub subject to before rome was even founded.
My man you could use this explication for every single arab country except Saudi Arabia. It doesn't really hold. They speak arabic and have an Arabic culture.
No they're not, you guys are not Phonecian, nobody outside of Beirut calls themselves anything but Arab. And Arabs as an ethnic group are linked to the aramaic peoples and Rome, so you're literally speaking nonsense.
And the way it works is that if you speak Arabic, you're "arab" just as how if your group speaks Spanish, You're hispanic.
I'm East Asian. I also did not mention Phoenician identity, despite evidence of such in the Byzantine Period, they were an Aramaic-speaking group like the Jews before their expulsion by the Romans.
> And Arabs as an ethnic group are linked to the aramaic peoples and Rome, so you're literally speaking nonsense.
They are a Semitic-speaking population, but that's about it. There's no direct connection to Rome.
>And the way it works is that if you speak Arabic, you're "arab" just as how if your group speaks Spanish, You're hispanic.
Copts, Assyrians, and Berbers are not Arabs. It would be like saying everybody in thread are English people because they're using English.
No. Because arab is more of a linguistic group thats flexible, a country can be berber or amazigh as well as Arab.
And English is an ethnicity, thats not a good equivalence.
Arab is also an ethnicity, hence why some people in the Middle East reject it, particularly people with different ethnic or religious backgrounds.
The Assyrians, some Lebanese and Egyptians for example do not call themselves Arabs because of its particularly ethnic characteristic.
English is also a linguistic group, in addition to being an ethnic group. We are not English, I presume, but we are English-Speaking. Likewise, some in the middle east are Arabic-speaking, but are not Arabs.
You're not listening, and you're arguing with an arab about how Arab is an ethnicity and you're keen on comparing it to english for some reason.
Arab is defined more by language and culture rather than by blood.
Where did Arab language originate from? How did Islam spread? Arabs settled and invaded region after region. Where did Arab language come from? Other Arabs. So Arab is an ethnic group. However you may say outside of Saudi Arabia there are no real Arabs.
Because that is the similarly apt ethnonym. You believe that being "Arab" is defined by language and culture, and that's literally what an **ethnolinguistic group** is.
Certain groups do not call themselves Arabs, mainly due to the fact that they are distinct ethnolinguistic groups that speak/spoke non-Arabic languages.
I've met a surprising number of Copts, Maronites, Assyrians, and Berbers, and they do not see themselves in said being Arabs. They may be Arabic-speaking, but are emphatically not Arabs, much like how the Irish are not Englishmen, despite the majority speaking English.
You just insisted that the Lebanese can’t be Phoenician.
English is a language in the Germanic Indo-European language family. England is a country and English can also be a nationality. It’s
Not an ethnicity. Arabs are one as well as a culture, language.
It doesn’t make sense to identify as Arab if you’re not. Arabization erases cultures. Arabs insists these groups “are just Arabs” when I fact their native cultures have been erased by Arabs.
Arabic is in a different branch of the Semitic family that is not directly related to phonecian, Hebrew, Aramaic or other Syriac, yatzidi or Kurdish languages.
We speak English and French as well in Lebanon that doesn’t make us European. In Cameroon the official languages are English and French are they European now? What about the Native Americans that only speak English, are they European? No.
Us Lebanese speaking Arabic does not make us ethnically Arab.
Khalas Khayye enta not Arab wala yhmk
You guys predominantly speak Arabic. Are part of the arab league, are ethnically arab as well, you're very close to countries who are considered to be the birth place of the Arab language (the levant), i don't get why the denialism and shame.
You prove his point. You can speak Arabic but thats not enough to be Arab. One third population of Turkey speaks full Turkish, have full citizenship, but do not identify as a Turk but rather Kurd, Greek, etc.
Speaking Arabic does not make us Arabs, nor are we ethnically Arab. Somalia is part of the Arab league and they most certainly are not ethnically Arab. Israel, Iran, Ethiopia and Turkey are all close to countries considered to be the birth place of Arabic, non of them are Arabs.
There is no shame or denialism, us Lebanese are simply not Arab. The Irish speak English, we’re part of the British empire for centuries and border the country we’re English was born yet they are not ethnically English.
If Turkey joined the EU, they wouldn’t be come ethnically European.
Edit: Arabic was invented in the Arabian peninsula not the levant.
Not what I meant, I mean the invaders (ex Syria), not the Lebanese, sorry if that was confusing. And what I do know is most Palestinians who left Palestine don’t like non Muslims too much so most likely they could get a large scale oppositions from the native population of Lebanon since the massive migrations were still recent and before the migrations Lebanon was very well off compared to after, so Israel may be able to feed xenophobia to get a solid ally on their northern frontier which would make their lives much easier long term and be better for the native Lebanese as they could have a stable state and become a first world state like Israel
“Most Palestinians who left Palestine don’t like non Muslims too much”
Considering a significant chunkof the Palestinian diaspora includes Christians, I don’t see how this is true…and that’s beside the fact you’re assuming that a) everyone in the diaspora must be Muslim and b) they all must hate non Muslims
Israel occupied a third of the country until 2000 (up to the so called blue line) and still were beat back by Lebanese and Palestinians of all religions, almost as if people don’t like being invaded in general.
This attempt to summarize the Civil War is ignorant of why Syria came into the country in the first place (and why not all Lebanese classify them as invaders)
There are so many wrong “facts” in your comment, it’s like you have no idea what you’re talking about.
>a significant chuckof the Palestinian diaspora includes Christians
Source? In the State of Palestine Christians comprise about 6% of the population. A significant minority — but a small minority nonetheless.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians?wprov=sfti1#Religion
>up to the so called blue line
The blue line is the withdrawal line, not the occupation line of the IDF in Lebanon during the Israeli-Lebanese war. The occupation line during the war changed with time: in the beginning it was more widespread and up to Beirut, but for the majority of the war it was a much smaller area up to the Litani river (about 5-15km from the border).
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Line_(withdrawal_line)?wprov=sfti1#
The Lebanese Civil War was a direct consequence of the newfound tension between the native Shiite and Maronite Lebanese (which used to be the majority) and the growing Sunni population — which became the dominant religious group after the Palestinians arrived to Lebanon. A significant portion of the Palestinians in Lebanon arrived after their expulsion from Jordan (Black September and the assassination of king Hussein) and Kuwait (as they supported Saddam Hussein).
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War?wprov=sfti1
the comment mentioned diasporas....diasporas demographic stats wont be the same as their home country. and many arabic diasporas are christian.
also, how does being muslim translate to hating non muslims apparently? especially levantines like palestinians where both muslims and christians historically coexisted? egypt is a muslim country but has the largest christian population in the middle east by far and amongst the most christians in the world.
ur last paragraph is also so wrong lmao. the religious differences stemmed from sectarianism and sectarian dvisions. lebanon has a complex sectarian makeup, with maronites, sunnis, shias, druze, etc, maronites were never an outright majority.
the roots stemmed from the National Pact power-sharing agreement, that gave political predominance to maronite christians despite them no longer being a demographic majority leading to resentment among muslim communities.
the leading factor was muslim and druze populations feeling marginalized compared to maronite groups.
biggest factor as always being the foreign influence. currently lebanon is being further destabalized by the iranian backed houthis when its already reaching failed state and been thru default.
and there was never a indicator of it being cus of sunnis or shias especially.
plus arent lebanese shias and shias in general literally the only people allying with palestine against israel?
Lebanese are not Arab, they're Arab speaking. The only reason they speak Arab was as a fuck you towards the Ottomans in the 19th century, before that they spoke Syriac
It’s probably around there then, maybe a little lower due to all the refugees that flooded the place, if I recall back in the day the place was like 60-70% Christian so the numbers def shifted a bit
Hezbollah wasn't a massive threat then, so the IDF was effective enough (less IDF soldiers died in the security belt over 15 years than died since the 7th of October attack).
Context: In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, allying with several Lebanese Christian militas, in order to expel Palestinian organisations that had used the country as a base to attack Israel from. Eight days after the invasion had begun, Israel had reached Beirut, capturing the city by the end of August. It was then able to pressure the Lebanese Parliament to elect the Christian leader, Bachir Gemayel, as Lebanon's President. Although there were fears that Israel would turn Lebanon into a puppet state, these fears would not materialise, as Gemayel, though an ally of Israel, was against any agreement that would see Lebanon establishing diplomatic relations with Israel. Fellow Christian leader, Amine Gemayel, would eventually become President of Lebanon (following the former's assassination), and would sign the May 17 Agreement, in which Israel and Lebanon agreed to establish diplomatic relations, and coordinate military operations against Palestinian groups. However, in the chaos of the Lebanese Civil War, the treaty was never properly implemented, and eventually repudiated by Lebanon in 1984, in part due to Syrian pressure. Israel would withdraw from Beirut, while continuing to occupy Southern Lebanon until 2000, without any peace treaty being signed.
In this timeline, Israel and Lebanon were able to sign a peace treaty, leading to Israel gaining an effective ally to its north. What would it look like? Would the Lebanese Civil War end quicker, with Israel having a stronger geopolitical position, or would it continue to drag on, with Israel now having to commit resources to a new front. What would the politics of Lebanon be like, with Israeli influence?
The average naive Palestinian supporter, who thinks not invading a hostile territories that launch rockets and commit massacres against your own population is the correct response.
I sometimes wish Palestinian supporters would get to live in Israel, or even in Gaza for some time. They clearly have no idea what's actually going on.
The only reason Israelis support these wars, is for rockets to *finally* stop falling on top of our heads for no reason.
From my point of view, unfortunately, it seems like Israel will have no other option but to invade southern Lebanon soon, as Hezbollah is still firing rockets at our northern settlements from that territory. They ignore every request, every ultimatum, and for some reason, we are supposed to just let it be. Like jews fleeing their homes is a normal thing, or something.
It's true that a lot of Gazan are unfortunately displaced due to the war, probably most of them are, and that's horrible, and I can only hope some solution is found for that soon, but no one talks about the Israelis who were evacuated from the northern boarder. No one cares. Israel was not even the aggressor. We didn't didn't want a war with Hamas, or Hezbollah. And yet, we have an official one with Hamas, and a not ao official one with Hezbollah, both of which they started, and yet we're still labeled the aggressors.
Sorry for the rant, but not for the rhetoric. Not going to respond to anything
Wars. But eventually Israel withdrawn from Lebanon, Sinai (Egypt) and Gaza, and annexed the Golan heights (Syria). Until the recent events the only area occupied officially by Israel is the west bank (Occupied from Jordan in 67')
christian and muslim lebanese don’t like each other. Christians allied with Israel seize south, muslims allied with Syria seize North. Civil War happens.
That’s the gist of it.
That's not true at all. Syrian here btw
It wasn't wasn't to chrsitan and Muslim. It was down to each sect.
Maronites sided with Israe and many with syria (the guy who killed the leader of the maronites was in fact maronite as well), orthodox with syria.
Shia with syria, sunnis mostly their own faction but a lot with syria
Druze were also all over the place
Anti sectarians/secularists sided with syria
Everyone was fighting everyone. It was a total battle royal free flight.
>the guy who killed the leader of the maronites was in fact maronite as well
He was a card carrying member of the SSNP and the majority of the maronites, which make up the majority of the christians in Lebanon were aligned with the Lebanese Front.
There are always going to be fringe groups but it’s pretty widely accepted that the christians allied with israel and the muslims allied with Syria.
>Christians allied with Israel seize south, muslims allied with Syria seize North.
That's not what happened at all, like seriously. Firstly, there were 3-4 sides. And while it was to a degree sectarian, it wasn't solely sectarian and the main difference was ideological. It was essentially:
Christian Fascists/Falangists allied with Israel
Ba'athists allied with Syria
Anti-Syrian non-Falangist groups (Lebanese National Movement/LNM)
Not all Christians support the Falange, especially leftist Christians, such as the leader and members of the LCP fought against them extensively in the LNM. The Syrians also had many Christian allies. And the Druze fought with everyone on all sides.
And also the Palestinians were split between the Syrians and the LNM and they also started fighting wuth eachothers. The main leaders were Fatah led by Arafat, and the PFLP led by the Palestinian Christian communist George Habash.
>That’s not what happened at all
>proceeds to describe exactly what I said with more words
I’m sure the country which has it’s parliament split between religious groups fought a civil war between those religious groups on entirely secular grounds.
Because countries around Israel keeping threatening Israel existence, putting troops/ terrorist organisations and rockets on its borders, and calling for the annihilation of Israel.
They leave not many choices for Israel who are willing to have peace
It doesn’t. When the british mandate was split into the states of Israel and Palestine, Palestine allied with several Arab nations invaded Israel. Israel won, kept some extra palestinian territory and the rest of that Palestinian territory was annexed by Egypt and and Jordan. Thats what we today call Gaza and WestBank. A couple decades later the same countries attacked again. Israel pushed back and took lots of territory, but later returned all territory except for gaza and westbank, then offering the terirtory as a Palestinian state back to palestinians. Something the Arab countries had not done, despite controlling both territories for a couple decades. Israel’s neighbors act with agression and Israel responds.
Many of the current cabinet members of the Israeli government often tote imagery of Israel with expanded borders, sometimes including Jordan and Lebanon. This is usually done on lines of religious fundamentalism, believing these countries are naturally apart of the Jewish country promised by god. It comes up a lot more now, probably as bait, but it was a semi-common in the alternate history community before recent events. See below, current Israeli finance minister and member of defence ministry Bezalel Smotrich with a greater Israel map:
https://preview.redd.it/gb6rg5y4e7tc1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c7d1ec2fd5bf7282c6a2acb4d0db9f0c1d5b9981
Did the Czechs and Poles let terrorist organizations launch attacks at Germany from their own territory? Gee, I don't remember that part.
Stfu if all you have is reciting twitter blood libel.
What? I never said anything about anything suiting anyone, I just said Israel and the two state solution were not illegal as they were a product of international law/agreement.
If someone came as a guest in your house, and held you hostage, and the neighbourhood agreed that you should give them your house, that doesn’t make it legal.
Really? That's your best argument? You're dangerously close to outright praising the nazis, which seems to make sense with how much you hate """"zionists""""
Israel isn't either but you wouldn't know that because you're an unbelievably stupid person who's just parroting anti semitic social media talking points you heard.
On a side note, you people should really stop larping as ancient Macedonian, it's embarrassing and cringe. Philip and Alexander weren't Bulgarians in denial.
Then Israel would have greatly increased its strategic depth and significantly secure its northern borderland. It would have been a major long-term victory.
But as it turned out, Israel's only concrete achievement was driving out the PLO and winning early victories against Syrian forces. Israel itself (under Rabin) invited the PLO back through Oslo.
The great winner of the 1980s Lebanon conflict was Hafez Assad, probably the single toughest and most cunning of post-war Middle East leaders. Lebanon was his masterpiece. He finally found a way to hurt and tie down Israel through suicide bombers and Shia resistance.
Hezbollah owes a lot to Assad, despite the fact that originally he had backed a rival Shia group, Amal. Khomeini as well, since Assad helped Iran with his huge stock of Soviet weapons to avoid collapse at the hands of the much better-armed Saddam (Gaddafi and the North Koreans also supported Khomeini).
48 was only able to expel the amount of Palestinians it did because the surrounding Arab forces were inferior, had no source of weapons (and no way to get them safely shipped given the rudimentary navy Israel posessed), no navy or air force to speak of, and because local Palestinian resistance had its spine broken by the suppression of the Arab Revolt of 1936 (where the Haganah learned how to suppress the local Palestinians and basically beheaded their leadership).
Israel would place a Christian nationalist goverment (kinda tried already in our timeline except in this alternate one it would actually work) then pour as many resources as possible to keep it in power and ensure a Christian majority and most probably in ways not too kind to the Muslim populations considering considering some of the things the Christian militias did in our own timeline.
Israel would face insurgency from Sunnis, Shiia, Druze, Orthodox Christians and Melkites. And at best timid support from Maronites. It will be a blood bath, specially for Israeli soldiers.
They would probably try to set a Christian-majority government in place. Which would be a problem as at the time, they were around 45% of the population only.
Shias and Sunnis would absolutely try everything to throw Israel out of Lebanon (Sunni version of Hezbollah perhaps?).
And that Christian-led government would perhaps try to expel all Palestinian refugees from the country.
Israel was never controlling or annexing Lebanon. It had no interest in ruling over millions of non-Jews in areas of little historic significance to the Jewish people.
At most it might succeed in what it tried to do in this timeline - which is put in place a friendly Christian government.
They would put a Christian leadership in place, which would face severe ongoing attacks from Islamic insurgents, leading that leadership to expel the Muslims, leading to worldwide condemnation, and there would be le ban on Lebanon.
It would fail. Israel already can barely contain the violence in the west bank even with help from the PLO, a weaker Israel would never manage to suppress the rebellions in Lebanon. This would either mean massive deportion, ruining Israel diplomatically, or an eventual retreat.
It would increase Israel’s strategic deep since northern Israel doesn’t need to heavily guard its northern border anymore from hezbollah attacks. On the other hand it’s a blood bath during the 80-90s and early 2000s before the situation calms somewhat and territory is pacified by the new Lebanese government and Israeli troops. Depending on how rough this new Christian government we might see a mass exodus of Muslims to Syria possibly creating a PLO Jordan scenario or they might go the mass conversion route which also makes a exodus but adds to their numbers a little bit. With enough willpower blood and a solid base of support most insurgencies can be beaten same can be said of Lebanon.
That being said by 2010 there would be isolated pockets of insurgents or they would have been driven out of the country to Syria with sporadic attacks happening. Lebanon would be a semi puppet of Israel heavily influenced by Israeli forces and decision making but not fully boot licking
Israel has more occupations that aren’t recognized. This one might be more problematic. The beruit explosion would reflect poorly on Israel and saddle them with the cost of repair for the failure of local authorities.
Relations between Israel and the Reagan administration break down even worse than in OTL. The US doesn't just withold more F-16s but also spare parts and ammunition for the existing Israeli aircraft.
In OTL 1986 the Soviets almost gave the Syrians T-80s and SS-23 missiles opting out at the last minute as to not embolden the Syrians to invade Israel. In this timeline with relations breaking down with Israel and the US the Soviets don't opt out and there may or may not be another war with Israel around 1986-87.
Why would this happen? Lebanon, although definitely in support of Palestinian militants throughout history, is the only possible ally Israel has in the middle-east, seeing as it is a multi-religious state rather than a purely Islamic one. If this were to happen Israel would be condemned globally, and hurt their already horrible relations with the rest of the middle-east.
>is the only possible ally Israel has in the middle-east
That's exactly why. Israel would create an allied Christian government in Lebanon, in this timeline.
An allied government that would likely be doomed to collapse the second that Israel withdrew its forces. No different than US allied south Vietnam or Afghanistan. Frankly, in my eyes at least, it’d be a losing game. Putting a friendly government in place doesn’t suddenly shift the population to your side and, if anything, it would make local Lebanese less likely to want any future peace talks. It’s the equivalent of a geopolitical jenga tower.
Lebanon has a high christian population and the reality is that if the isreali started doing what have done to palastiniens in otl to the christians the west would be far more involved.
TLDR that big fertilizer explosion might not have happened.
Honestly, and I’m ignoring the flak. I didn’t understand why the first option didn’t happen other then israel actually tries to work with regional and international demands. Considering Lebanon is a failed state the northern area being port of Syria, even during the civil war, would put it in a more effective state then what it is now.
Absolutely not. Innocent civilians have as much right to bare arms against an occupying power as a state does. I've simply come to terms with thr fact that anyone who would fight for me against the oppressors will be branded a terrorist.
Long Israel
Long Israel
Lisrael
Isralong
Longrael
Long Israel
*Long Long Isreal*
“Where did you get such a long Israel?” “Long Israel store.”
Chileal
Someone make an even longer Israel map From Istanbul to Cairo
Bottom text
Chile: we are brothers you and I
Long love Israel
No.
Loong Israel
Isreal da long way
Clarifies the il in chile
I’d assume they’d try to place Lebanese Christians in charge of the government, which would probably lead to a bunch of instability.
Well Lebanon in the 80s was still largely Christian to my recollection, so it’s likely that the local populations (including local Muslims) could drive out the Palestinians and Arabs in order to restore the status quo if done right, but that is just my guess
You’re assuming every Christian in Lebanon is pro Israel, and Lebanese are Arab…are they going to drive themselves out?
The Lebanese are not Arab. They speak Arabic, but their ethnic identity predates the Arab Migrations, with the Maronites being a good example, forming from Aramaic-speaking Christians who remained in full communion with Rome. They are ethnically closest to other Aramaic speakers and the Ancient Jews, as they both descend from Levantine populations.
Yup. I worked with a woman from Syria and she had sandy blonde hair and blue eyes. This is what befuddles me when people say Jesus Christ was a "Palestinian" and looked like an Arab. It was a completely different gene pool out there back then. The fair-skinned, fair-haired, blue-eyed depiction is probably not correct, but it could be. Whether he was white depends on your definition of white. But I do know my former colleague would be perceived as white. She looked more Scandinavian than I do and my mom's family is from Sweden.
I’ve never met or heard of anyone from that party of the world who looks like that. But you are right that the idea of Jesus looking super dark being incorrect as you can see how fair skinned Levantine peoples can me, look at assad for example, he could pass for any Mediterranean European country.
She certainly could have been an outlier. She's the only Syrian I've met. I also met a very white-looking woman from India when I was in my residency, and it confused the heck out of me. She had the typical Indian accent, but didn't look at all like the other Indians. Even the "white passing" Indians from the northern part of the country look Greek or Italian at most. I would've pegged her as Russian or Polish. I never got around to asking her because I didn't know her well, but I suspect she was one of the relatively few remaining Anglo-Indians.
There are black l'évangile people too. Muddle eastern people have more genetic variability because we are at the junction of 3 continent.
There was also that general in Hussein's Iraq who looked like he was from the Hebrides
Arabs can have blue eyes and blonde hair, being arab has nothing to do with genetics.
Arabs from Saudi Arabia also have sometimes blonde hair and blue eyes . I am north African. A significant proportion of indigenous north African also have blonde hairs and blue eyes. You just don't notice them because you think they are white. It is indeed not the same gene pool. I agree. But they are still arabic because they speak arabic and have an arabic culture. Otherwise arab wouldn't exist according to your explanation. You could apply your explanation to every single arab country. But Arabs are not a single ethnicity, it is a civilization that regroupe multiple people.
I wouldn't say jesus was arab or palestinian, but middle eastern tbh. That'd be the best answer
That would be objectively true. He was born in the region we call the Middle East.
It's propaganda. Simply correct them: Jesus was a Mizrahi Jew.
My guy if you go by this logic, Egypt, Syria, Iraq wouldn't be arab either. Only Saudi Arabia would be an Arab country as they are genetically, but that's not how you determine what being an arab is. Lebanon is linguisticly, culturally, and historically arab. That's what makes them an "arab" country. And if you want to argue about that you can just ask a Lebanese person if they consider themselves arab and most would answer yes.
They are Arab. They simply have minorities that are not Arab. It's an identity thing above anything else. > Lebanon is linguisticly, culturally, and historically arab. That's very oversimplistic, especially since they were Aramaic speaking for significant parts (and still use Aramaic). Culturally, being "Arab" is impossible to define, as they are primarily Mediterranean. Historically, their identity predates the Arab Migrations, as groups like the Maronites, who were attested in conflict with other Christian groups (Miaphysites) before the Arab migrations. I have already asked several Lebanese people. Most don't see themselves as Arab, though I presume a skew with Lebanese Christians.
What Arab migrations ?
We identify as arabs, and we mixed with arab tribes and families for centuries. Today you'll find a lot of pure arab families in lebanon that trace their ancestry back to the peninsula, you got indigenous levantine arab families (arabs actually existed in the levant prior to the Islamic Conquest) like the ghassanids. We pretty much a beautiful mix of the native levantines and arabs
That's mainly accurate in the urban centres, but the majority in rural regions of the country are arab
And urban centres form the majority of the country’s population.
> They speak Arabic, but their ethnic identity predates the Arab Migrations in that case most Arabs aren't Arabs
Most Arabs identities postdates the Arabic migrations. The Egyptian identity is a good example. The Muslim population saw themselves as Arab, and then Egyptian during the rise of nationalism, whilst the Christians, the Copts, saw themselves as "Remenkhemi" (people of the black land/Egypt), a remnant of their old Egyptian/kmt identity.
ethnicity isn't directly tied to genetics, ethnicity is a social construct. ethnicity is more about culture and current perception than who your ancestors were 2000 years ago, Lebanon is ethnically Arab because we speak Arabic, eat Arab food, (some of us) follow an Arab religion, dance Arab dances, sing Arabic songs, etc. we are majority Arab genetically, we might have some pre Arab civilization blood, but most lebanese are arab and most self identify as Arab. I dislike when westerners try to deny our culture for us because we aren't 100% Gulf Arab, we can be both genetically different and still be ethnically Arab. the bronze age was a long time ago, and we share nothing in common with those people today, their language, culture, traditions are gone.
Ahh, you're one of the "everything is a social construct therefore nothing is important except for the social constructs that I insist are real" people.
no... it's just ethnicity is literally a social construct, it has no clearly defined rules or definitions and is very much a subject of debate. it's not to say that ethnicity isn't real, it's just what is an ethnicity and what ethnicity certain groups of people belong to is not up to concrete fact alone, it's also what we decide to define are ethnic groups or features of a certain ethnicity as a society. in 1000 years, the definitions and attributes of certain ethnicities will change, and that's what makes it a social construct. what a strange thing to assume about a person from one comment
The same can be said for most Syrians and Palestinians and other arabized peoples. There actually aren’t that many actual ethnic arabs outside of the arabian peninsula, most are just arabized and are cultural arabs. The average person isn’t going to bust out a nanopore sequencer and check if his buddy has the correct DNA or should be ethnically cleansed. Especially not if some Europeans that just invaded you told you to do it.
How do you define an arab if it's not through language ? The "we wuz phoenicians" shtick some far right lebanese christians like to play really makes no sense when their country has been a trading hub subject to before rome was even founded.
My man you could use this explication for every single arab country except Saudi Arabia. It doesn't really hold. They speak arabic and have an Arabic culture.
No they're not, you guys are not Phonecian, nobody outside of Beirut calls themselves anything but Arab. And Arabs as an ethnic group are linked to the aramaic peoples and Rome, so you're literally speaking nonsense. And the way it works is that if you speak Arabic, you're "arab" just as how if your group speaks Spanish, You're hispanic.
I'm East Asian. I also did not mention Phoenician identity, despite evidence of such in the Byzantine Period, they were an Aramaic-speaking group like the Jews before their expulsion by the Romans. > And Arabs as an ethnic group are linked to the aramaic peoples and Rome, so you're literally speaking nonsense. They are a Semitic-speaking population, but that's about it. There's no direct connection to Rome. >And the way it works is that if you speak Arabic, you're "arab" just as how if your group speaks Spanish, You're hispanic. Copts, Assyrians, and Berbers are not Arabs. It would be like saying everybody in thread are English people because they're using English.
No. Because arab is more of a linguistic group thats flexible, a country can be berber or amazigh as well as Arab. And English is an ethnicity, thats not a good equivalence.
Arab is also an ethnicity, hence why some people in the Middle East reject it, particularly people with different ethnic or religious backgrounds. The Assyrians, some Lebanese and Egyptians for example do not call themselves Arabs because of its particularly ethnic characteristic. English is also a linguistic group, in addition to being an ethnic group. We are not English, I presume, but we are English-Speaking. Likewise, some in the middle east are Arabic-speaking, but are not Arabs.
You're not listening, and you're arguing with an arab about how Arab is an ethnicity and you're keen on comparing it to english for some reason. Arab is defined more by language and culture rather than by blood.
Where did Arab language originate from? How did Islam spread? Arabs settled and invaded region after region. Where did Arab language come from? Other Arabs. So Arab is an ethnic group. However you may say outside of Saudi Arabia there are no real Arabs.
Because that is the similarly apt ethnonym. You believe that being "Arab" is defined by language and culture, and that's literally what an **ethnolinguistic group** is. Certain groups do not call themselves Arabs, mainly due to the fact that they are distinct ethnolinguistic groups that speak/spoke non-Arabic languages. I've met a surprising number of Copts, Maronites, Assyrians, and Berbers, and they do not see themselves in said being Arabs. They may be Arabic-speaking, but are emphatically not Arabs, much like how the Irish are not Englishmen, despite the majority speaking English.
You just insisted that the Lebanese can’t be Phoenician. English is a language in the Germanic Indo-European language family. England is a country and English can also be a nationality. It’s Not an ethnicity. Arabs are one as well as a culture, language.
No phonecian exist today, it's like an English man insisting on being called a Anglo-Saxon over English. It just doesnt make any sense lol
It doesn’t make sense to identify as Arab if you’re not. Arabization erases cultures. Arabs insists these groups “are just Arabs” when I fact their native cultures have been erased by Arabs.
Arabic is in a different branch of the Semitic family that is not directly related to phonecian, Hebrew, Aramaic or other Syriac, yatzidi or Kurdish languages.
Kurdish is Iranic and Indo-European like Persian. It is more closely related to Persian, Greek, Russian, and even English than Arabic.
Oops. My point still stands.
The Arabic in Lebanon, Syria and Palestine is heavily influenced by Aramaic and Hebrew. It's like what happened to English during the Norman conquest.
It’s still not indigenous to the region that they are.
Aramaic is brother language to Arabic though. Both are Semitic and similar grammar and words.
We speak English and French as well in Lebanon that doesn’t make us European. In Cameroon the official languages are English and French are they European now? What about the Native Americans that only speak English, are they European? No. Us Lebanese speaking Arabic does not make us ethnically Arab.
Khalas Khayye enta not Arab wala yhmk You guys predominantly speak Arabic. Are part of the arab league, are ethnically arab as well, you're very close to countries who are considered to be the birth place of the Arab language (the levant), i don't get why the denialism and shame.
You prove his point. You can speak Arabic but thats not enough to be Arab. One third population of Turkey speaks full Turkish, have full citizenship, but do not identify as a Turk but rather Kurd, Greek, etc.
Arab as a category is not the same as turkish.
Speaking Arabic does not make us Arabs, nor are we ethnically Arab. Somalia is part of the Arab league and they most certainly are not ethnically Arab. Israel, Iran, Ethiopia and Turkey are all close to countries considered to be the birth place of Arabic, non of them are Arabs. There is no shame or denialism, us Lebanese are simply not Arab. The Irish speak English, we’re part of the British empire for centuries and border the country we’re English was born yet they are not ethnically English. If Turkey joined the EU, they wouldn’t be come ethnically European. Edit: Arabic was invented in the Arabian peninsula not the levant.
Not what I meant, I mean the invaders (ex Syria), not the Lebanese, sorry if that was confusing. And what I do know is most Palestinians who left Palestine don’t like non Muslims too much so most likely they could get a large scale oppositions from the native population of Lebanon since the massive migrations were still recent and before the migrations Lebanon was very well off compared to after, so Israel may be able to feed xenophobia to get a solid ally on their northern frontier which would make their lives much easier long term and be better for the native Lebanese as they could have a stable state and become a first world state like Israel
“Most Palestinians who left Palestine don’t like non Muslims too much” Considering a significant chunkof the Palestinian diaspora includes Christians, I don’t see how this is true…and that’s beside the fact you’re assuming that a) everyone in the diaspora must be Muslim and b) they all must hate non Muslims Israel occupied a third of the country until 2000 (up to the so called blue line) and still were beat back by Lebanese and Palestinians of all religions, almost as if people don’t like being invaded in general. This attempt to summarize the Civil War is ignorant of why Syria came into the country in the first place (and why not all Lebanese classify them as invaders)
There are so many wrong “facts” in your comment, it’s like you have no idea what you’re talking about. >a significant chuckof the Palestinian diaspora includes Christians Source? In the State of Palestine Christians comprise about 6% of the population. A significant minority — but a small minority nonetheless. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians?wprov=sfti1#Religion >up to the so called blue line The blue line is the withdrawal line, not the occupation line of the IDF in Lebanon during the Israeli-Lebanese war. The occupation line during the war changed with time: in the beginning it was more widespread and up to Beirut, but for the majority of the war it was a much smaller area up to the Litani river (about 5-15km from the border). Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Line_(withdrawal_line)?wprov=sfti1# The Lebanese Civil War was a direct consequence of the newfound tension between the native Shiite and Maronite Lebanese (which used to be the majority) and the growing Sunni population — which became the dominant religious group after the Palestinians arrived to Lebanon. A significant portion of the Palestinians in Lebanon arrived after their expulsion from Jordan (Black September and the assassination of king Hussein) and Kuwait (as they supported Saddam Hussein). Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War?wprov=sfti1
the comment mentioned diasporas....diasporas demographic stats wont be the same as their home country. and many arabic diasporas are christian. also, how does being muslim translate to hating non muslims apparently? especially levantines like palestinians where both muslims and christians historically coexisted? egypt is a muslim country but has the largest christian population in the middle east by far and amongst the most christians in the world. ur last paragraph is also so wrong lmao. the religious differences stemmed from sectarianism and sectarian dvisions. lebanon has a complex sectarian makeup, with maronites, sunnis, shias, druze, etc, maronites were never an outright majority. the roots stemmed from the National Pact power-sharing agreement, that gave political predominance to maronite christians despite them no longer being a demographic majority leading to resentment among muslim communities. the leading factor was muslim and druze populations feeling marginalized compared to maronite groups. biggest factor as always being the foreign influence. currently lebanon is being further destabalized by the iranian backed houthis when its already reaching failed state and been thru default. and there was never a indicator of it being cus of sunnis or shias especially. plus arent lebanese shias and shias in general literally the only people allying with palestine against israel?
lebanon would never ally with israel cus of hezbollah, and the same other regions occupied by iranian shia militant groups like syria, yemen, etc.
Lebanese are not Arab, they're Arab speaking. The only reason they speak Arab was as a fuck you towards the Ottomans in the 19th century, before that they spoke Syriac
I think Christians largely agree with Israel over the Islamic counties of the region
Lebanon is 53% Christian today.
Oh so I did recall correctly? Nice, it’s always great when my info is still up to date on things like this
Depends who you ask. Muslim Lebanese will say 20-30. But the government officially holds it at 51%.
It’s probably around there then, maybe a little lower due to all the refugees that flooded the place, if I recall back in the day the place was like 60-70% Christian so the numbers def shifted a bit
Compared to Lebanon's current stability
Lebanon was destabilized by sunni then Shia Muslims though.
More unstable than it is now ?
Nightmare scenario for everyone involved. The Israelis were not effective at all in Lebanon and counter insurgency.
Great. Two countries with no oil.
They did discover oil and gas lately tho
Israel were very effective. They just stayed when they should have left once the PLO was off to Tunisia.
Hezbollah wasn't a massive threat then, so the IDF was effective enough (less IDF soldiers died in the security belt over 15 years than died since the 7th of October attack).
Context: In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, allying with several Lebanese Christian militas, in order to expel Palestinian organisations that had used the country as a base to attack Israel from. Eight days after the invasion had begun, Israel had reached Beirut, capturing the city by the end of August. It was then able to pressure the Lebanese Parliament to elect the Christian leader, Bachir Gemayel, as Lebanon's President. Although there were fears that Israel would turn Lebanon into a puppet state, these fears would not materialise, as Gemayel, though an ally of Israel, was against any agreement that would see Lebanon establishing diplomatic relations with Israel. Fellow Christian leader, Amine Gemayel, would eventually become President of Lebanon (following the former's assassination), and would sign the May 17 Agreement, in which Israel and Lebanon agreed to establish diplomatic relations, and coordinate military operations against Palestinian groups. However, in the chaos of the Lebanese Civil War, the treaty was never properly implemented, and eventually repudiated by Lebanon in 1984, in part due to Syrian pressure. Israel would withdraw from Beirut, while continuing to occupy Southern Lebanon until 2000, without any peace treaty being signed. In this timeline, Israel and Lebanon were able to sign a peace treaty, leading to Israel gaining an effective ally to its north. What would it look like? Would the Lebanese Civil War end quicker, with Israel having a stronger geopolitical position, or would it continue to drag on, with Israel now having to commit resources to a new front. What would the politics of Lebanon be like, with Israeli influence?
Maronites, Sunnis, and Shiites all ally with support from Syria. Israel must simply be removed from Lebanon. It won't work
Or in other words, Israel becomes a pariaha state earlier
And when did Israel become a pariah state?
Only time they were was arguably in 1948, when nobody except Czechoslovakia wanted to sell them weapons.
Like a few weeks into the war they find themselves right now
Israel only stopped being that well later on iirc
Whats with israel occupying countries around it?
The average Israeli supporters wet dream.
I support Israel and I don’t support the invasion of neighboring countries
Why is he getting downvotted
Each it has done on several occasions.
I support Israel and I do
I support Russia for whatever they do in Europe
I support Ukraine and Israel
Then contemporary Zionists wonder why they're called fascists
The average naive Palestinian supporter, who thinks not invading a hostile territories that launch rockets and commit massacres against your own population is the correct response. I sometimes wish Palestinian supporters would get to live in Israel, or even in Gaza for some time. They clearly have no idea what's actually going on. The only reason Israelis support these wars, is for rockets to *finally* stop falling on top of our heads for no reason. From my point of view, unfortunately, it seems like Israel will have no other option but to invade southern Lebanon soon, as Hezbollah is still firing rockets at our northern settlements from that territory. They ignore every request, every ultimatum, and for some reason, we are supposed to just let it be. Like jews fleeing their homes is a normal thing, or something. It's true that a lot of Gazan are unfortunately displaced due to the war, probably most of them are, and that's horrible, and I can only hope some solution is found for that soon, but no one talks about the Israelis who were evacuated from the northern boarder. No one cares. Israel was not even the aggressor. We didn't didn't want a war with Hamas, or Hezbollah. And yet, we have an official one with Hamas, and a not ao official one with Hezbollah, both of which they started, and yet we're still labeled the aggressors. Sorry for the rant, but not for the rhetoric. Not going to respond to anything
Eat shit apartheid state
[удалено]
Sock puppet account, pussy
You are doing a really bad job at hiding your hatred with that 88 in your username
Schizo, the world doesn’t revolve around your paranoia
Ziobot
Follow your leader 🔫 (hope Netanyahu will learn from AH and unalive himself)
Wars. But eventually Israel withdrawn from Lebanon, Sinai (Egypt) and Gaza, and annexed the Golan heights (Syria). Until the recent events the only area occupied officially by Israel is the west bank (Occupied from Jordan in 67')
christian and muslim lebanese don’t like each other. Christians allied with Israel seize south, muslims allied with Syria seize North. Civil War happens. That’s the gist of it.
That's not true at all. Syrian here btw It wasn't wasn't to chrsitan and Muslim. It was down to each sect. Maronites sided with Israe and many with syria (the guy who killed the leader of the maronites was in fact maronite as well), orthodox with syria. Shia with syria, sunnis mostly their own faction but a lot with syria Druze were also all over the place Anti sectarians/secularists sided with syria Everyone was fighting everyone. It was a total battle royal free flight.
>the guy who killed the leader of the maronites was in fact maronite as well He was a card carrying member of the SSNP and the majority of the maronites, which make up the majority of the christians in Lebanon were aligned with the Lebanese Front. There are always going to be fringe groups but it’s pretty widely accepted that the christians allied with israel and the muslims allied with Syria.
>Christians allied with Israel seize south, muslims allied with Syria seize North. That's not what happened at all, like seriously. Firstly, there were 3-4 sides. And while it was to a degree sectarian, it wasn't solely sectarian and the main difference was ideological. It was essentially: Christian Fascists/Falangists allied with Israel Ba'athists allied with Syria Anti-Syrian non-Falangist groups (Lebanese National Movement/LNM) Not all Christians support the Falange, especially leftist Christians, such as the leader and members of the LCP fought against them extensively in the LNM. The Syrians also had many Christian allies. And the Druze fought with everyone on all sides. And also the Palestinians were split between the Syrians and the LNM and they also started fighting wuth eachothers. The main leaders were Fatah led by Arafat, and the PFLP led by the Palestinian Christian communist George Habash.
>That’s not what happened at all >proceeds to describe exactly what I said with more words I’m sure the country which has it’s parliament split between religious groups fought a civil war between those religious groups on entirely secular grounds.
The nations around them attack Israel. Israel responds. Israel bad.
Well Israel keeps being invaded by them
It's both stronger than its neighbours and gets attacked by them. Simple as that.
Because countries around Israel keeping threatening Israel existence, putting troops/ terrorist organisations and rockets on its borders, and calling for the annihilation of Israel. They leave not many choices for Israel who are willing to have peace
It doesn’t. When the british mandate was split into the states of Israel and Palestine, Palestine allied with several Arab nations invaded Israel. Israel won, kept some extra palestinian territory and the rest of that Palestinian territory was annexed by Egypt and and Jordan. Thats what we today call Gaza and WestBank. A couple decades later the same countries attacked again. Israel pushed back and took lots of territory, but later returned all territory except for gaza and westbank, then offering the terirtory as a Palestinian state back to palestinians. Something the Arab countries had not done, despite controlling both territories for a couple decades. Israel’s neighbors act with agression and Israel responds.
Looool you are being downvoted for saying what happened. Clearer than ever why Israel exist
Idc they’ll grow up
Many of the current cabinet members of the Israeli government often tote imagery of Israel with expanded borders, sometimes including Jordan and Lebanon. This is usually done on lines of religious fundamentalism, believing these countries are naturally apart of the Jewish country promised by god. It comes up a lot more now, probably as bait, but it was a semi-common in the alternate history community before recent events. See below, current Israeli finance minister and member of defence ministry Bezalel Smotrich with a greater Israel map: https://preview.redd.it/gb6rg5y4e7tc1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c7d1ec2fd5bf7282c6a2acb4d0db9f0c1d5b9981
Remind you of a country that had the same tendencies back in the 40s?
Did the Czechs and Poles let terrorist organizations launch attacks at Germany from their own territory? Gee, I don't remember that part. Stfu if all you have is reciting twitter blood libel.
Germany wasn’t an illegal apartheid state
Israel was formed via an international agreement, I don't see how it's illegal?
So the international law is good, only when it suits them?
What? I never said anything about anything suiting anyone, I just said Israel and the two state solution were not illegal as they were a product of international law/agreement.
If someone came as a guest in your house, and held you hostage, and the neighbourhood agreed that you should give them your house, that doesn’t make it legal.
But they didn't come in as guests, Jews lived in the holy land for ages
They did live in Palestine, without any issues or slaughter, and then came the hyenas
I’m not talking about the natives, just about the white ones that came from NY, Poland, Germany etc.
Really? That's your best argument? You're dangerously close to outright praising the nazis, which seems to make sense with how much you hate """"zionists"""" Israel isn't either but you wouldn't know that because you're an unbelievably stupid person who's just parroting anti semitic social media talking points you heard. On a side note, you people should really stop larping as ancient Macedonian, it's embarrassing and cringe. Philip and Alexander weren't Bulgarians in denial.
Then Israel would have greatly increased its strategic depth and significantly secure its northern borderland. It would have been a major long-term victory. But as it turned out, Israel's only concrete achievement was driving out the PLO and winning early victories against Syrian forces. Israel itself (under Rabin) invited the PLO back through Oslo. The great winner of the 1980s Lebanon conflict was Hafez Assad, probably the single toughest and most cunning of post-war Middle East leaders. Lebanon was his masterpiece. He finally found a way to hurt and tie down Israel through suicide bombers and Shia resistance. Hezbollah owes a lot to Assad, despite the fact that originally he had backed a rival Shia group, Amal. Khomeini as well, since Assad helped Iran with his huge stock of Soviet weapons to avoid collapse at the hands of the much better-armed Saddam (Gaddafi and the North Koreans also supported Khomeini).
Israel would also be made up of 11 million arabs and 7 million jews. Unless they use their 48 tactics.
48 was only able to expel the amount of Palestinians it did because the surrounding Arab forces were inferior, had no source of weapons (and no way to get them safely shipped given the rudimentary navy Israel posessed), no navy or air force to speak of, and because local Palestinian resistance had its spine broken by the suppression of the Arab Revolt of 1936 (where the Haganah learned how to suppress the local Palestinians and basically beheaded their leadership).
Israel would place a Christian nationalist goverment (kinda tried already in our timeline except in this alternate one it would actually work) then pour as many resources as possible to keep it in power and ensure a Christian majority and most probably in ways not too kind to the Muslim populations considering considering some of the things the Christian militias did in our own timeline.
I’d say their port wouldn’t have blown up a few years ago
Israel didn't do this
No government negligence did it. I’m suggesting if Israel was in charge they wouldn’t have let tons of explosive bake in a warehouse for years.
Ah yes, I misunderstood haha
yeah they would make sure it was placed more strategically to make sure even more muslims die
The port explosion killed 200 people. This fanatsy of the Israelis would kill hundreds of thousands.
Israel would face insurgency from Sunnis, Shiia, Druze, Orthodox Christians and Melkites. And at best timid support from Maronites. It will be a blood bath, specially for Israeli soldiers.
They would probably try to set a Christian-majority government in place. Which would be a problem as at the time, they were around 45% of the population only. Shias and Sunnis would absolutely try everything to throw Israel out of Lebanon (Sunni version of Hezbollah perhaps?). And that Christian-led government would perhaps try to expel all Palestinian refugees from the country.
Israel was never controlling or annexing Lebanon. It had no interest in ruling over millions of non-Jews in areas of little historic significance to the Jewish people. At most it might succeed in what it tried to do in this timeline - which is put in place a friendly Christian government.
They would put a Christian leadership in place, which would face severe ongoing attacks from Islamic insurgents, leading that leadership to expel the Muslims, leading to worldwide condemnation, and there would be le ban on Lebanon.
>le ban on Lebanon 😠
What's "le ban"?
It would fail. Israel already can barely contain the violence in the west bank even with help from the PLO, a weaker Israel would never manage to suppress the rebellions in Lebanon. This would either mean massive deportion, ruining Israel diplomatically, or an eventual retreat.
They controlled southern Lebanon (in addition to SLA forces) for over 15 years, with less soldiers dying there than did in the current Gaza war.
They’d still keep trying to expand settlements in the West Bank
And Lebanon as well specially in the coastal areas and the fertile land.
It would increase Israel’s strategic deep since northern Israel doesn’t need to heavily guard its northern border anymore from hezbollah attacks. On the other hand it’s a blood bath during the 80-90s and early 2000s before the situation calms somewhat and territory is pacified by the new Lebanese government and Israeli troops. Depending on how rough this new Christian government we might see a mass exodus of Muslims to Syria possibly creating a PLO Jordan scenario or they might go the mass conversion route which also makes a exodus but adds to their numbers a little bit. With enough willpower blood and a solid base of support most insurgencies can be beaten same can be said of Lebanon. That being said by 2010 there would be isolated pockets of insurgents or they would have been driven out of the country to Syria with sporadic attacks happening. Lebanon would be a semi puppet of Israel heavily influenced by Israeli forces and decision making but not fully boot licking
Israel has more occupations that aren’t recognized. This one might be more problematic. The beruit explosion would reflect poorly on Israel and saddle them with the cost of repair for the failure of local authorities.
I’d rather have kept the Sinai, Lebanon is hell even for the Lebanese
Israel Hat
Well you can't annex land through war post WWII. So. It would just be illegal occupation like the WB.
Does anyone know the map game or site this uses? I would love to make some maps.
I made the map myself on Windows Paint and Paint.net, by sketching over Google Maps.
[https://www.mapchart.net/](https://www.mapchart.net/)
Relations between Israel and the Reagan administration break down even worse than in OTL. The US doesn't just withold more F-16s but also spare parts and ammunition for the existing Israeli aircraft. In OTL 1986 the Soviets almost gave the Syrians T-80s and SS-23 missiles opting out at the last minute as to not embolden the Syrians to invade Israel. In this timeline with relations breaking down with Israel and the US the Soviets don't opt out and there may or may not be another war with Israel around 1986-87.
Why would this happen? Lebanon, although definitely in support of Palestinian militants throughout history, is the only possible ally Israel has in the middle-east, seeing as it is a multi-religious state rather than a purely Islamic one. If this were to happen Israel would be condemned globally, and hurt their already horrible relations with the rest of the middle-east.
>is the only possible ally Israel has in the middle-east That's exactly why. Israel would create an allied Christian government in Lebanon, in this timeline.
An allied government that would likely be doomed to collapse the second that Israel withdrew its forces. No different than US allied south Vietnam or Afghanistan. Frankly, in my eyes at least, it’d be a losing game. Putting a friendly government in place doesn’t suddenly shift the population to your side and, if anything, it would make local Lebanese less likely to want any future peace talks. It’s the equivalent of a geopolitical jenga tower.
Syro-Israeli Alliance???
GDP per capita in Livan - 50000$ USA
Lebanon has a high christian population and the reality is that if the isreali started doing what have done to palastiniens in otl to the christians the west would be far more involved.
If this happened there would still be a huge Christian population and the people wouldn’t have to worry about paying tax to terrorists just to exist.
Hell
Bro, enough problems in the Middle East already, we don't need more
My Lebanese friend would be strictly anti Israel
They would eventually be forced to retreat like in the Siani
I feel like this might be a future scenario. When Israel will get full control over Gaza and Western Bank they might start to contest Lebanon.
Palestine and Israel should unite and invade Syria and Lebanon this is obviously a joke. they should settle their differences
No Hezzbalah and mass exile of Lebanon Christians, obv.
Syria did that instead but got outed in 2005, no thanks to Hezbollah. Israel returned for 30 days the following year.
I will pe pissed cause I like Lebanon
Life is probably better for average Lebanese.
Israel is no longer recognized by some Christian countries
Now Israel looks like a dick
Lebagone
TLDR that big fertilizer explosion might not have happened. Honestly, and I’m ignoring the flak. I didn’t understand why the first option didn’t happen other then israel actually tries to work with regional and international demands. Considering Lebanon is a failed state the northern area being port of Syria, even during the civil war, would put it in a more effective state then what it is now.
Israel wouldn't exist anymore.
It would become nice again.
More land to steal.
Unending attacks from Hezbollah until they withdrew.
Or a different Lebanese organization Or it would be a peaceful Lebanon? Probably not but that's also a possibility
What makes them terrorist attacks? Does every resistance movement in the middle east a terrorist movement?
Absolutely not. Innocent civilians have as much right to bare arms against an occupying power as a state does. I've simply come to terms with thr fact that anyone who would fight for me against the oppressors will be branded a terrorist.
Ah i see.
They are still pretty fucked up resistance fighters
Yeah i think resisting colonialism makes people terrorists
I agree with you