I have seen that, it is despicable even if he later seems to not be as idiotic about it. I'm just wondering if there is any actual data on it akin to something from PEW or World Values Survey. I'd love to see it & use it if there is.
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
I have seen that, it is despicable even if he later seems to not be as idiotic about it. I'm just wondering if there is any actual data on it akin to something from PEW or World Values Survey. I'd love to see it & use it if there is.
Not sure there are actual polls on this. However, Palestinian textbooks and offoicial TV do their best to make sure younger generations remain ignorant.
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=650
A group of Israeli settlers attack and beat 12 year old Mahmoud Al-Btreekh brutally and violently in West Bank on Monday. Iyad Abu Haweleh
Violations on Palestinian children by Israeli settlers are not uncommon in the region, taking place in the form of multiple hit and run attacks, kidnapping attempts, torture and even burning.
Israeli forces shot and injured at least 30 children across the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem since the beginning of this year, and nearly 100 Palestinian children are currently being detained in Israeli jails.
Audhubillah, this is what happens on a daily basis, and the world needs to wake up. How anyone can do this to a child is beyond me. But then again, they did kill 300+ children in the summer just gone.
The problem is that in this part of the world memories are long. Very long.
About 70-75 years ago Germans, French and British were at total war, but they are at peace today and indeed are very close allies. About 150 years ago (to the day) Americans were killing each other in our Civil War, Massachusetts is at peace with Georgia. Catholics murdered Jews over centuries, yet Catholics and Jews are at peace with each. The troubles in Ireland didn't happen that long ago, yet Ireland seems to be at peace.
Crimes committee 50, 100, 400 and even 1000 years ago are still not forgotten and are very much part of daily reality for Muslims and Jews. For many Muslims, scores must still be settled.
About 70-75 years ago Germans, French and British were at total war, but they are at peace today and indeed are very close allies. About 150 years ago (to the day) Americans were killing each other in our Civil War, Massachusetts is at peace with Georgia. Catholics murdered Jews over centuries, yet Catholics and Jews are at peace with each. The troubles in Ireland didn't happen that long ago, yet Ireland seems to be at peace.
Crimes committee 50, 100, 400 and even 1000 years ago are still not forgotten and are very much part of daily reality for Muslims and Jews. For many Muslims, scores must still be settled.
I disagree - especially the last paragraph. The average Muslim has no problem with the average Jew. Jews and Christians are held in very high esteem in Islam. The problems lie with Zionism, and the Zionist regime. The Islamic world is vehemently against this regime and the continuous oppression and occupation of the Palestinian people, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Sabian or whatever.
Also, equating the current conflict with WW1, WW2, etc is a gross misrepresentation of what's happening in Palestine. The aforementioned wars were done between countries on relatively equal footing, in terms of resources, weapons, economies etc. This is in stark contrast to what the occupied Palestinians have. Their food is regulated, their water is regulated, electricity is rationed. They are living in a ghetto prison, and it is appalling that this is allowed to continue.
In fact, posts like yours annoy me that much more because there is a much wider ignorance of what life is like for them over there. Tbf, I've noticed on this board people are a lot more informed about it, but the general public have no clue of what's going on. And the thought that this is a war between two equal sides is totally wrong.
(Not a personal attack on you, just using your post as an example of what most people think.)
I hope the word "many" was not lost on your first read. I would never say "most" and certainly not "all" Muslims. Of the 1 billion or so Muslims around the world, I presume the vast majority have no quarrel with Jews. But it does seem to be more than a tiny number of cranks who wish death to the Jews, death to Israel. "Jews" and "Israel" are not the same thing, yet they are often equated in the eyes of those who seek their death.
As for the plight of the Palestinians, I should advise you that I have personally been to Gaza and the Golan Heights and have seen with my own eyes the horrific conditions Palestinians have lived under for decades. I don't live there and it's fair to say that unless you live there you can't really know how bad it is, but unless you live there yourself you're in position to lecture to me.
The Jews in the late 1940s were in as wretched a condition as one could possibly imagine, emigres of concentration camps that are still hard to comprehend ever having been erected for the sole purpose of the extermination of an entire "race" of people. With the aid of the international community led by the US, the Jews made something out of their existence that wasn't possible in Europe. Meanwhile, rather than working with the Jews to create a peaceful coexistence, the Arab world spent decades trying to destroy Israel while at the same time doing absolutely nothing to improve the condition of the Palestinians.
The Jews and the Palestinians are of course NOT on an equal footing today, but that's entirely because the Arab world uses the Palestinians as pawns in their own power game of international politics, not because there is anything inherently wrong with the Palestinians or because the Israelis have made it impossible for Palestinians to succeed.
Today, as there has been for decades, there is deep distrust between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. But surely you must concede that as long as Palestinians argue that Israel has no right to exist, that distrust will continue.
What the Arab world argues, in effect but in significantly varying degrees, is that there is no room whatsoever in the Middle East for an Jewish state. The Middle East must be entirely Muslim-run regimes. Some, like the Palestine Authority or Iran, seek the destruction of Israel. Others quietly acquiesce in the fiction that the destruction of Israel will someday come to pass.
Unless the Palestinian people can point to historical evidence of the genocide of 6 million of its people, it stands on thin ice were they to suggest that they have it worse than the Jews.
The only way forward is to seek peace, accepting Israel's right to exist while Israel withdraws many of the settlements it has settled in recent years. Do that and international aid will come to build civic infrastructure such as schools, water supply and treatment facilities. But peace is hard in a world where scores going back centuries must be settled.
Here is a definition of many: "the majority of people", "a large number of" (Source). I've highlighted parts of your paragraph which contravenes your usage of the word. It's not very clear what you mean. Again, you'll find Muslims have no problems with Jews, but are 100% against the Zionist regime. I agree with your latter sentiment that many people often conflate Jews with Zionism, when they should be separated.
I wasn't aware I was lecturing you. But, yes, it's good you've seen the ghetto prison they're being kept in. Which makes it even more boggling that you could support such a regime.
The plight of the Jews under the Nazis is a tragedy, but it has no relevance when talking about Palestine.
The Arab world is trying to liberate Palestine. Furthermore, the bolded bit is just not true. The Israelis have systematically encroached on land, building illegal settlements, and rationing basic things such as food, water and electricity for the Palestinians. How you can say they aren't making it impossible for Palestine to succeed is just bullshit. This is not mentioning the bombing the shit out of the people now and then. Friends of mine out there are beginning to highlight the issues surrounding al Aqsa mosque now, and the right of worship for the Muslims there. The Zionist Israeli regime has pulverised the Palestinians.
From another thread:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...r-said-israel-must-be-wiped-off-the-map/?_r=1
You'll find that all Muslims/Arab countries are opposed to a Zionist regime.
Again, the fact that the holocaust occurred is a tragedy in its own right, but, I don't see why this gives Israel permission to bomb the shit out of Palestinians, take their land, build illegal settlements, and let them live under occupation. I don't see how bringing the Jews under Nazi Germany has any relevance, unless you're saying the Palestinians deserve this because the Jews at that time had to go through it? I'm failing to see the link.
The only way forward is to end occupation, something Bibi is unwilling to do. It's actually pathetic that Israel are denying them civic infrastructure such as what I've bolded. Gaza is an absolute hole that's been mostly razed to the ground following what happened last summer with no help to rebuild for the prisoners still living there. I still don't know what you mean about old score settling - what Muslim has a gripe with a Jew prior to Palestine/Israel? Your argument seems to be based on Jews suffering under Hitler and now the Palestinians have to suffer because the Jews did.
Uzz, I don't know how to do the multiquote thing, so I'll do it this clumsy way:
Uzz wrote:
Here is a definition of many: "the majority of people", "a large number of" (Source). I've highlighted parts of your paragraph which contravenes your usage of the word. It's not very clear what you mean. Again, you'll find Muslims have no problems with Jews, but are 100% against the Zionist regime. I agree with your latter sentiment that many people often conflate Jews with Zionism, when they should be separated.
It's hard to see how my original post could have been misconstrued. The word "many" is not at all the same thing as "most" or even "the majority". Out of say 1.6 billion Muslims (acc to wiki) it's probably not a stretch to suggest that 50 million Muslims seek death to the Jews and to Israel. Iran itself has a total population of 77.5 (wiki) but let's assume that not at all of them seek death to the Jews and to Israel. 50m seems a lowball, conservative estimate. 50m people is indeed "many" people, but hardly "the majority" of people in a total universe of 1.6 billion people.
If you're right that 100% of Muslims are against the Zionist regime, an assertion which I dispute (there are 205m Muslims in Indonesia alone, but I suspect a very tiny fraction of them -- maybe 5%-- seek the destruction of Israel), then what you're arguing is that all 1.6 billion Muslims around the world support the destruction of Israel. That's absurd.
I'll have to read the rest of your post to address this point, but what you appear to be suggesting is that the destruction of Israel would be proper and just. But before I pin that on you I'll have to go back and forth to read the entirety of your post.
My view is simple: a two state solution is the only solution that is fair for the Jewish Israelis and the Palestinian people. There will be no mass deportation of the Jews from the region, nor will there be a mass deportation of the Palestinians from region. For the record, I would strongly oppose either. But let's see where you're going with your train of thought before we go into that. For the moment, you're hung up on the meaning of the word "many", a problem I've never heard of anyone else ever having before.
But what I do reject as a completely false statement is that "100% of Muslims are against the Zionist regime". My guess is that it's closer to 20% -- 320 million Muslims total around the world -- and even that might be absurdly high.
Uzz wrote:
Here is a definition of many: "the majority of people", "a large number of" (Source). I've highlighted parts of your paragraph which contravenes your usage of the word. It's not very clear what you mean. Again, you'll find Muslims have no problems with Jews, but are 100% against the Zionist regime. I agree with your latter sentiment that many people often conflate Jews with Zionism, when they should be separated.
It's hard to see how my original post could have been misconstrued. The word "many" is not at all the same thing as "most" or even "the majority". Out of say 1.6 billion Muslims (acc to wiki) it's probably not a stretch to suggest that 50 million Muslims seek death to the Jews and to Israel. Iran itself has a total population of 77.5 (wiki) but let's assume that not at all of them seek death to the Jews and to Israel. 50m seems a lowball, conservative estimate. 50m people is indeed "many" people, but hardly "the majority" of people in a total universe of 1.6 billion people.
If you're right that 100% of Muslims are against the Zionist regime, an assertion which I dispute (there are 205m Muslims in Indonesia alone, but I suspect a very tiny fraction of them -- maybe 5%-- seek the destruction of Israel), then what you're arguing is that all 1.6 billion Muslims around the world support the destruction of Israel. That's absurd.
I'll have to read the rest of your post to address this point, but what you appear to be suggesting is that the destruction of Israel would be proper and just. But before I pin that on you I'll have to go back and forth to read the entirety of your post.
My view is simple: a two state solution is the only solution that is fair for the Jewish Israelis and the Palestinian people. There will be no mass deportation of the Jews from the region, nor will there be a mass deportation of the Palestinians from region. For the record, I would strongly oppose either. But let's see where you're going with your train of thought before we go into that. For the moment, you're hung up on the meaning of the word "many", a problem I've never heard of anyone else ever having before.
But what I do reject as a completely false statement is that "100% of Muslims are against the Zionist regime". My guess is that it's closer to 20% -- 320 million Muslims total around the world -- and even that might be absurdly high.
Uzz wrote:
I wasn't aware I was lecturing you. But, yes, it's good you've seen the ghetto prison they're being kept in. Which makes it even more boggling that you could support such a regime.
Yeah, you were lecturing me -- and lecturing me again in this post. But let's not dwell on that.
Conditions in Gaza in particular, not so much in the Golan Heights, were (and are) horrifying. But my point in mentioning that is not to suggest life was wonderful in Gaza, but to point to the fact I'm aware that life of Gaza is terrible. But in truth everyone knows that and one need not step foot in Gaza to know this.
Yet at the same time we can't forget how we got to this point, not if we're going to cast judgment on the Jews. It's not as if the Jews decided they needed someone to oppress and they chose the Palestinians.
Short story is this. The Holocaust in Europe, desperate Jews with nowhere to call home, the international community recognized the problem and created Israel, Arab neighbors not pleased and repeatedly attacked "Israel", terror campaigns for decades by both Jews and Palestinian Arabs, the partition as we know it today.
Massive amounts of key details fill in a very complicated story -- no time or space for that here. Were there bad actors among the Jewish Israelis? Absolutely. Were there bad actors among the Palestinian Arabs? Of course.
The hard thing is to get past settling old scores and instead to settle for peace. There is no question that there are hardliners in Israel who see Palestinians are scum, but I'm sure you will agree with me that there are Palestinians who see Jewish Israelis as scum.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Suffice it to say that the Jews had a rough go of things in the 1940s in Europe (to put it mildly) and did not have an easy time founding Israel. Palestinians have had a rough go if it for many decades. This mutual madness needs to end. But the beginning of the end has to be Palestinians recognizing the right of Israel to exist. Do that and you bring Israel to the table on a two state solution of some kind that allows the Palestinians to govern themselves and develop the kinds of physical and social infrastructure that makes prosperity and security possible.
I wasn't aware I was lecturing you. But, yes, it's good you've seen the ghetto prison they're being kept in. Which makes it even more boggling that you could support such a regime.
Yeah, you were lecturing me -- and lecturing me again in this post. But let's not dwell on that.
Conditions in Gaza in particular, not so much in the Golan Heights, were (and are) horrifying. But my point in mentioning that is not to suggest life was wonderful in Gaza, but to point to the fact I'm aware that life of Gaza is terrible. But in truth everyone knows that and one need not step foot in Gaza to know this.
Yet at the same time we can't forget how we got to this point, not if we're going to cast judgment on the Jews. It's not as if the Jews decided they needed someone to oppress and they chose the Palestinians.
Short story is this. The Holocaust in Europe, desperate Jews with nowhere to call home, the international community recognized the problem and created Israel, Arab neighbors not pleased and repeatedly attacked "Israel", terror campaigns for decades by both Jews and Palestinian Arabs, the partition as we know it today.
Massive amounts of key details fill in a very complicated story -- no time or space for that here. Were there bad actors among the Jewish Israelis? Absolutely. Were there bad actors among the Palestinian Arabs? Of course.
The hard thing is to get past settling old scores and instead to settle for peace. There is no question that there are hardliners in Israel who see Palestinians are scum, but I'm sure you will agree with me that there are Palestinians who see Jewish Israelis as scum.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Suffice it to say that the Jews had a rough go of things in the 1940s in Europe (to put it mildly) and did not have an easy time founding Israel. Palestinians have had a rough go if it for many decades. This mutual madness needs to end. But the beginning of the end has to be Palestinians recognizing the right of Israel to exist. Do that and you bring Israel to the table on a two state solution of some kind that allows the Palestinians to govern themselves and develop the kinds of physical and social infrastructure that makes prosperity and security possible.
@Gannicus use [ quote ] <speech that you want to quote> [/ quote ] with no spaces to multiquote. It's a lot easier from the laptop then phone. But I'll get back to your points later.
Uzz wrote:
From another thread:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...r-said-israel-must-be-wiped-off-the-map/?_r=1
You'll find that all Muslims/Arab countries are opposed to a Zionist regime.
Official policy and what all 1.6 billion Muslims really want are two very different things.
I don't know where you get facts from, but I can assure you that Jordan, a Muslim, does not seek the destruction of Israel either as a matter of official policy or unspoken desire. Nor does Egypt.
Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty in 1994, known as Treaty of Peace Between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the outline of which can be easily found online (maybe even the text itself for those who read Hebrew or Arabic). To state the obvious, Jordan recognizes the right of Israel to exist.
Thus, it is not a true statement to assert that "all Muslims/Arab countries are opposed to a Zionist regime". Jordan is, by any plausible definition, a Muslim country.
But you would be quite correct if you stated that some Muslim countries seek the destruction of Israel. That much is obvious.
From another thread:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...r-said-israel-must-be-wiped-off-the-map/?_r=1
You'll find that all Muslims/Arab countries are opposed to a Zionist regime.
Official policy and what all 1.6 billion Muslims really want are two very different things.
I don't know where you get facts from, but I can assure you that Jordan, a Muslim, does not seek the destruction of Israel either as a matter of official policy or unspoken desire. Nor does Egypt.
Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty in 1994, known as Treaty of Peace Between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the outline of which can be easily found online (maybe even the text itself for those who read Hebrew or Arabic). To state the obvious, Jordan recognizes the right of Israel to exist.
Thus, it is not a true statement to assert that "all Muslims/Arab countries are opposed to a Zionist regime". Jordan is, by any plausible definition, a Muslim country.
But you would be quite correct if you stated that some Muslim countries seek the destruction of Israel. That much is obvious.
The Holocaust did not give the Jews the right to bomb the shit out of Palestinians, but Arabs throughout the region somehow discerned that they had the right to bomb the shit out of Jewish Israelis, starting on Day One. Did the Arabs have the "right" to attack Israel?
The relevance of the Holocaust is not that violence should begat violence, but that the Jews in Europe were in a unique (to put it mildly) situation at the end of WWII. They needed a home so that the crimes against them could not be committed again. In truth, the Jews' ancestral claims to parts of "Israel" are very strong, no less strong that the ancestral claims of Palestinian Arabs. As best we can tell from reputable historical sources, Hebrews/Jews have lived in the region for least 2500 years.
Last edited:
"Occupation" is, of course, is a loaded term.
According to Palestinian dogma, the entire State of Israel is an "occupation". So what does one exactly mean by "occupation" if not the destruction of the State of Israel?
The Jews never blamed the Palestinians for the Holocaust. They blamed the Germans, but Jews and Germans reconciled. Considering the nature of the horror the Germans in the 1930s and 1940s imposed on the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe that reconciliation is actually pretty impressive. To the best of my knowledge Jews today do not wish to bring violence to Germans.
Jewish Israelis made peace with Egypt and with Jordan. They're at a functional peace with Saudi Arabia, or at least I am not aware of any real desire of the Saudi royals to destroy Israel. Indonesia has no formal diplomatic relationship with Israel, the two nations conduct trade with each other and citizens of each country freely travel to the other.
This is all to say that Israel is capable of peace, if it has a willing partner. The Palestinian political leadership has shown little interest in a peaceful coexistence with Israel. Thus, attacks on Israel continue to this day and Israel retaliations with attacks of its own.
Drop the demand to destroy Israel and Israel will go right to the bargaining table. The international community would never allow Israel to get away with walking away from that table.
Or maybe when it has a not-powerless partner?
EDIT: I'm aware of the 6 days war, etc.
Just that a large hostile region with a huge population and powerful backers(USSR) would be really tough to handle compared to the mosquitoes they crush nowadays.
Tbh, this is just semantics, and the term many, is subjective anyway. I don't really want to get into a debate on the use of the word 'many'.
Let's not conflate 'Zionist regime' with 'destruction of Israel'. The two are very different. The Zionist regime is a nationalistic and political movement. The 'destruction of Israel' is something else entirely.
Ok - and what of the illegal settlements? The land encroachment since '47? The occupation? These exist under a Zionist regime. A non Zionist government will need to be in place to achieve what you set out in your post.
Be my guesst. But, I stand by what I said.
To the bolded bit: Well..., yes, that's exactly what happened. They oppressed the people who were residing in the land and continue to do so. Again, knowing the history of this doesn't excuse the Israelis of committing the crimes they have committed.
And on your second point: The Zionist movement began before WW2 (Balfour Declaration, Rothschild, the Zionist movement from the USA, Palestine Mandate). Now, 'desperate Jews with nowhere to call home'? Even though what happened during WW2 was a tragedy, this doesn't give anyone the right to illegally build settlements in a land that isn't theirs, continuously terrorise the inhabitants of that land, victimise and marginalise a group of people in their own home and perpetually bomb the shit out of them. All I'm hearing is that WW2 means that Israel should be created. That is no argument.
I think they'd see Israeli Zionists as scum. Any Jewish Israeli championing the cause for equality of the Palestinians is a hero in my eyes, and most likely in theirs.
Again, I still don't see why you bring 1940s into this conflict. The fact that they had a rough time of it doesn't mean they can implement a colonialist, racist, and exceptionalist government onto the indigenous people of a land that isn't theirs to have. It is a crime. You can dress is up any which way you want.
"At present, a total of 32 United Nations member states do not recognise the State of Israel: 18 of the 22 members of the Arab League: Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen; a further 11 members of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Chad, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mali, Niger, and Pakistan. Other countries which do not recognise Israel include Bhutan, Cuba, and North Korea."
Again, don't conflate 'the destruction of Israel' with 'Zionist regime'. The two are different.
We could have added Egypt to that list if Mursi had remained in power.
Part 2 to follow.
The Arabs fought as Zionist militias began bombing places in Jerusalem, as well as killing and displacing thousands upon thousands of Palestinian people. Furthermore, if my home was being invaded, I'd fight back. I'm a war-averse person, but a basic human right is to defend your home, your livelihood, your family etc.
This argument doesn't add up. Because they used to live there many years ago, doesn't mean they can flatten the indigenous people now or kick them out.
There is nothing loaded about it. They literally live in ghetto prisons, and under occupation.
The Zionist government needs to go. The encroached land needs to be returned. The illegal settlements need to be torn down/given over. The Palestinian people should be free to come and go as they please. The money should be distributed evenly. Al Aqsa should be under Muslim control. Muslims should have equal footing. The Apartheid nature of Israel should be abolished. Basic human rights (food, water, electricity), shouldn't be rationed for the Palestinian's.
The International Community don't give a feck about what Israel does wrt to the Palestinian people.
1948/49 - Israel kills 13,000 Palestinians and drives 750,000 from their towns and villages in the Nakba (Catastrophe), occupying 78% of historic Palestine. Descendants from this catastrophe still live in refugee camps. Generation after generation in a refugee camp.
UN Resolution 194 calls on Israel to allow the return of refugees, the resolution is ignored. 400 Palestinian villages are subsequently razed to the ground.
1967 - Israel occupies the West Bank, E. Jerusalem, and Gaza (the Occupied Territories) during the 6 day war. This brings all of Palestine under Israeli rule.
UN Resolution 242 calls on Israel to withdraw from the territories. It doesn't, and initiates a system of brutal military control over the territories.
1987 - Israeli settlement of Occupied Territories increased, violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
1995 - Illegal Israeli settlements doube in Occupied Territories during the supposed peace process.
2002 - The Arab league declare they are prepared to recognise Israel within the pre 1967 borders (a response to the 2nd Intifada where thousands of Palestinians are killed, and refugee camps invaded and shelled by tanks and F16s). Israel ignores this and violently invades EVERY single Palestinian city, bar Jericho, and builds a separation wall.
I could go on and on and on.
What's clear is that Israel has broken many, many UN resolutions, and the wider world doesn't care.
The Palestinian leadership is not "powerless" to come to bargaining table with the goal of reaching a lasting peace.
Or are you suggesting that the sole strategic objective of Palestine IS the destruction of Israel, rightly so? If that is what you're suggesting, it's not hard to understand why Israel might have concerns with this strategic imperative.
After all, most nations -- and most of us as individuals -- resist the idea of their own destruction.
Both Israelis and Palestinians could go on and on and be quite correct in listing the litany of crimes committed by the other side. One could mention, for example, the assassination of the Israeli athletes in 1972, which was well beyond the pale of daily atrocities each side commits.
But a resolution to this hostility has to begin with Palestine recognizing Israel's right to exist. Until this happens, rockets will be lobbed back and forth and innocent people will continue to die and the living shall continue to suffer.
One could not expect Israel to welcome to the bargaining table a regime which has not already renounced the provision of its covenant, which we can think of for this purpose as its constitution, that demands the destruction of Israel. It would be like, say, asking Mexico to negotiate with the United States while the US Constitution demanded the destruction of Mexico. One would never expect, let alone demand, the Mexican people to agree to sitting down with the Americans while such a provision remained in the American Constitution.
If you agree that Israel has no right to exist, we understand each other. But if you agree that Israel has a right to exist, then it would be absurd to expect to expect the Israelis to participate in a process that would ensure its own destruction. Loathesome as Israelis may be in the eyes of some, they are certainly not fools.
I missed that earlier. With that declaration, there really is much to discuss, is there?
One might as well state "Death to America", which wouldn't accomplish much. America would not agree to its own death any more than Israel would.
But let's think this through. Let's say we all agreed that Israel must be wiped off the map, as the Iranian regime so elegantly puts it. What exactly shall be done with the roughly 6m Jews currently living in Israel? Shall they be deported to countries all over the world? Or simply exterminated in the name of expediency and, perhaps, religious decree?
Israel and the US want the Islamic Republic to be wiped off the map as well. In fact, the US has already done it once to an Iranian regime.
If you mean ISIS, then yes, it's a true statement that the US wants to see ISIS expunged from existence.
But is it really accurate to state that ISIS is on the map? I know of no nation that formally or even informally recognizes ISIS as a sovereign nation. To the best of my knowledge ISIS has no seat at the UN.
And if you don't mean ISIS I'm not sure what is meant by "Islamic Republic". Wiki says this:
Islamic republic is the name given to several states in countries ruled by Islamic laws, including the Islamic Republics of Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, and Mauritania. Pakistan first adopted the title under the constitution of 1956. Mauritania adopted it on 28 November 1958. Iran adopted it after the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Pahlavi dynasty. Afghanistan adopted it after the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban. Despite the similar name the countries differ greatly in their governments and laws.
I know of no who wishes to wipe Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Mauritania off the map. Western democracies have concerns to varying degrees with what they perceive as the behavior of some of these nations, but wiping them off the map is not a strategic goal I have ever heard of the US or the UK ever stating.
Iran is officially known as the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Ahmedinejad only said that he wanted the regime of Israel to be wiped from the map, not the country itself. And he's not even even in power any more, let alone an influence on the ruling clerics. Here's a translation of what was said (minus the poetic licence):
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?ex=1161230400&en=26f07fc5b7543417&ei=5070
Israel and the US want the current Iranian regime wiped from the map as well. In fact, Israeli politicians have gone as far as to openly discuss wiping the actual country of Iran off the map, not just its regime.
After 9/11, the US threatened to bomb Pakistan 'back to the stone age' if they didn't cooperate with the Afghan invasion.
Islamic Republic of Iran. That clears that up!
I have never heard of anyone, not even right-wing Republicans, proposing that we wipe Iran off the map.
It is true that many Americans -- including most Iranian-Americans -- would like to see the current Iranian regime be more "moderate", such as refusing to sponsor terrorist groups, murdering and torturing its own people and the like. But that's a very different thing than proposing that the regime be replaced with a western style democracy that values individual liberties and respect for human rights. It's true that we in the US and UK would like to see that come to pass, but no one seriously suggests undertaking initiatives to see the current clerical regime replaced with a secular regime -- is, overthrowing the Iranian government. The most we can hope for is a gradual moderation of human rights abuses, such as the execution of political dissidents and homosexuals. This is achievable, but we will have to be patient. Only the Iranian people themselves can impose real change. And from everything I have read, the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people beg for freedom.
According to Human Rights Watch, Iran executes its own people who are accused of armed robbery, sodomy, apostasy and much more. These executions are, allegedly, held in public in order to ensure that the people see and know what they face should they choose to defy the wishes of the clerical oligarchy. Iranian also law allows for the execution of children, which is not uncommon. Women do not enjoy equal, or even remotely equal, rights as men.
Do you still argue that Israel and the US would like to see Iran wiped off the map? I would hope not. The most you can say is that Israel and the US objects to what it considers rampant abuses of human rights. And if one wishes to the turn the table on the Israel and the US, which would be fair play, the extent of human rights abuses in those two countries (the killing of innocent blacks by the police in places like Ferguson, Missouri) reaches nowhere near the level of human rights abuses in Iran, allegedly.
I'm sure the US objects to the human rights abuses and limited woman's rights in Saudi Arabia too yes?
Huh?
I'm sure the US objects to the human rights abuses and limited woman's rights in Saudi Arabia too yes?
Yes and no. We don't like it, but we don't object to it. The difference is, however, twofold. One, Saudi Arabia is not hellbent on destabilizing the Middle East and the destruction of Israel. Two, as bad as Saudi Arabia is with respect to human rights, and we know it's bad there, it's child's play in Saudi Arabia compared to Iran.
Saudi Arabia is, in effect, the lesser of two evils.
Is it?
thirdly and probably most importantly - saudi pumps out a lot more oil
Yes and no. We don't like it, but we don't object to it. The difference is, however, twofold. One, Saudi Arabia is not hellbent on destabilizing the Middle East and the destruction of Israel. Two, as bad as Saudi Arabia is with respect to human rights, and we know it's bad there, it's child's play in Saudi Arabia compared to Iran.
Saudi Arabia is, in effect, the lesser of two evils.
Yes and no. We don't like it, but we don't object to it. The difference is, however, twofold. One, Saudi Arabia is not hellbent on destabilizing the Middle East and the destruction of Israel. Two, as bad as Saudi Arabia is with respect to human rights, and we know it's bad there, it's child's play in Saudi Arabia compared to Iran.
Saudi Arabia is, in effect, the lesser of two evils.
1. Saudi Arabia is just as responsible mate.
2. I think others would disagree
3. Maybe we should take this to Iran thread.
Sorry, I didn't mean to divert the thread. Just answering a question.
Let's get back to Israel and Palestine.
Thanks!
There is that, but Iran has energy supplies of its own.
But it goes back to how intolerable of a regime can western nations tolerate? But rather than go into all that in a thread whose topic is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, suffice it to say here Iran has made it official policy that the Israeli regime must be changed. Iran declares Israel to be the enemy of Islam, Iran has openly questioned whether the Holocaust actually happened, and declares the United States to be The Great Satan.
As it happens, Israel SUPPORTED with military supplies Iran during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s, but the ayatollahs returned the favor by casting Israel as the cancer in the region that must be removed. The capper was Ahmadinejad (sp?) declaring that "Israel must be wiped off the map".
Unlike the Palestinians, who are poor and desperate, Iran is a robust regime which can inflict damage on other nations. Their nuclear weapons program is well documented. The have ample energy resources and have a fairly well educated workforce and extraordinarily rich cultural heritage. There is no reason why Iran couldn't have its cake and eat it too, so to speak, by relaxing its tight grip on its people, renouncing nukes, renouncing any support for terrorist groups such as Hamas and reaching some kind of peaceful accommodation with non-Shia Muslims, ultimately leading to the end of such fanatical groups as ISIS. Do that and sanctions will end and prosperity will return to the people of Iran. I have to believe Allah and the prophet Mohammad would endorse this strategic decision to ultimately restore peace and prosperity 77m people who deserve it. A liberated and liberal Iran could be an instrumental force to bring the Palestinians to the table, while the US would likewise pressure an embittered Israeli political leadership the table and work out a lasting peace agreement.
Do that, and everyone is a winner. Even the mullahs in Tehran in the end will be winners, if only they could imagine peace and friendship.
Is it?
Good question sham.
Thank you sir
Love the nick, "shamwow"!
(Worried about another thread derailment...)
It is.
Iran instigates violence outside its borders. Saudi Arabia does not.
As for human rights, both are very bad actors -- at least with respect to human rights, individual liberties and the like, stuff we take for granted.
Both regimes are brutal. It's hard to have a perfectly clear picture of the full extent of abuses committed in the name of Allah in both regimes. It may be pure western propaganda, but the picture that emerges out of Iran is generally somewhat worse than the picture that emerges out of Iran. But unless you live there and see the atrocities for yourself, it's impossible to know with absolute certainty which is worse. All we can go by are the fragments of anecdotes that we in the western democracies hear and read about.
It's bad enough a regime oppresses its own people -- I'm not aware of any allegation that Saudi Arabia executes its children, whereas the execution of children in Iran is not uncommon -- but when that oppression is exported a serious problem arises. We might in the name of sovereignty as well as futility conclude that nothing can be done about a regime like Saudi Arabia, but when a regime like Iran dedicates itself to the destruction of Israel, funds terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and is working on developing a nuclear weapon, it becomes a regime which one must take note of in a way that Saudi Arabia does not.
(Worried about another thread derailment...)
It is.
Iran instigates violence outside its borders. Saudi Arabia does not.
As for human rights, both are very bad actors -- at least with respect to human rights, individual liberties and the like, stuff we take for granted.
Both regimes are brutal. It's hard to have a perfectly clear picture of the full extent of abuses committed in the name of Allah in both regimes. It may be pure western propaganda, but the picture that emerges out of Iran is generally somewhat worse than the picture that emerges out of Iran. But unless you live there and see the atrocities for yourself, it's impossible to know with absolute certainty which is worse. All we can go by are the fragments of anecdotes that we in the western democracies hear and read about.
It's bad enough a regime oppresses its own people -- I'm not aware of any allegation that Saudi Arabia executes its children, whereas the execution of children in Iran is not uncommon -- but when that oppression is exported a serious problem arises. We might in the name of sovereignty as well as futility conclude that nothing can be done about a regime like Saudi Arabia, but when a regime like Iran dedicates itself to the destruction of Israel, funds terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and is working on developing a nuclear weapon, it becomes a regime which one must take note of in a way that Saudi Arabia does not.
It doesn't?
wow
Remember that time 15 guys from Iran led by another guy from Iran with connections to the Iranian royal family and funding from the Iranian government flew commercial airliners into buildings and killed thousands of innocent people?
When did this thread turn into an SMS exchange ?
(Answering the question, again, that's really not that germane to this thread...)
Nope.
There is of course internal discord in Saudi Arabia, understandably so. Some think it's too repressive, others think it's too lenient. I happen to have a problem the law of the land that orders executions, public or private, but that's just silly me.
There's absolutely a hardline constituency in Saudi Arabia which wants to see Shariah law strictly enforced. Salafi intolerance continues. The likes of Osama bin Laden come from Saudi Arabia, but the last thing the Saudi royal family itself wants is to stoke violence and regime change around the world. All they want to do is to sell oil, very expensive oil and get richer and richer -- eating at banquet while the people toil (the Saudis do a half-decent job of providing for the people, so I can't use the word "starve" in that sentence). They are happy to have Israel nearby and the western democracies as allies (and customers) and and are wary of regimes like Iran, which of course does export violence.
At any rate, this is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict thread and we should end this here, lest we all get banned!