Not really, Israeli-Saudi relations are only the way they are due to their hostility to Iran.
If Lebanon became allied to Israel, Iran would soon follow due to the massive presence of the Lebanese tribes in the Iranian economy and their connection to the Iranian tribes.
Likewise, the US would be far less hostile.
An alliance with Israel will only benefit Israel.
I have, quite alot actually.
And Israelis do, in general, prefer peace with Lebanon.
On their terms. Israelis want everything on their terms.
Zionist Nationalist, before you spoke, hated Lebanon and didn't want to be allied with anyone.
He is specifically fine with destroying other Arab countries and thinks it's necessary for Israel's security.
The Palestinians have already displayed their full hostility to the Lebanese people, and the Palestinians in Jordan hate Lebanese people.
I've never met a Palestinian who hated Lebanese.
In which case, you shouldn't be making assumptions because you don't know for a fact that all Palestinians hate Lebanese.
If we managed to secure a deal with the Israelis on the expense of the Palestinians, then we'll gladly throw them under the buss.
I know for a fact that your opinion (specifically at the expense of Palestinians) is not popular with most Lebanese.
All peace deal ideas that Lebanese have talked about with me all include giving Palestinians the right to return and Israel withdrawing from the West Bank as well as peace with Palestine.
Neither will truely win, both sides of the conflict will be too weak to stand on its own, and either become fully subservient to the funder, or simply be killed off once the purpose of the support is achieved.
ISIS is a good example.
That's not sustainable at all.
Iran is a clear victor in the conflict, it consolidated power in two countries, economic and political interests.
Oh no, it's because I'm going to tear all their work down.
I just responded to this quickly because I couldn't resist.
Lebanon's influence is mainly cultural, its interests however is what it shares with Israel.
Lebanese and Israeli interests are very similar and are interwind.
What do you think Israel's interests are?
I'm not agreeing with what you said, what you said is far short of reality.
The distinction lies not on the class, but on the extent of the uprisings. Protests get crushed easily.
Revolutions are, in effect, civil wars.
If uprisings are limited to the lower class, then they'll be crushed easily. For uprisings to grow into a fully-fledged revolution, the middle and working classes must join in.
Like I said this isn't the distinction nor how the definition works.
And no, there never were any "successful" revolutions without the middle class joining in.
The Russian and Chinese Revolution don't exist? The Zanj Rebellion doesn't exist.
European middle class came to be after the black death centuries earlier.
And the government cracked down on the protests. The only reason it turned into a revolution is because part of the army split off and joined in.
How hard is it to understand this?
It was called the FSA, read about it, you clearly didn't follow the war as it went along.
The army spliting off and joining the protesters isn't a coup.
And I know what the FSA is.
1- The comparison is idiotic.
It's correct though. Culture is akin to a force of nature.
2- You can, there is an entire field of study regarding it in fact.
What field of study?
No, it wasn't.
It's a simple balance of power that needs to be maintained. Culture and modernization are 2 entirely separate subjects.[/quote[
They are intertwined.
Revolution that got hijacked by Islamists*
In our current society it does but it doesn't have to be this way.
The fact that you think Europe has a middle class because of the Black Death is the hilarious part.
If you own the means of production you manage it. That's what owning is. It gives the power to manage it.
You've clearly misunderstood all the leftist theory you're reading.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... al_strikes
There were no upper classes in general strikes.
I didn't bring it up and it's irrelevant. You've completeky misunderstood what I meant by public discord.
You think it is to the workers who work in poor conditions?
I didn't bring it up.
Not with that attitude!
The communists were already active before the Vietnam war and fought against Japanese occupation beforehand.
Abolishing serfdom doesn't mean that their position changed. After slavery was abolished slaves went back to their plantation owners for work.
Don't get off track. The point is that people only have revolutions when things are bad.
Thus only the working or lower classes have any incentive to start a revolution. The middle class is content.
The rest I didn't read because I can't respond to it right now.