Why is Iran so anti isreal?

[Wright]

I am not too sure if the word "terrorist" fits with the label "Palestinian". Let us look at a hypothetical - A cult of Rastafaraians declare that their scripture states that land of Zion was promised to them by Ja. It so happens that Zion as identified by Ja is modern day Canada.

Hordes of Rasta descend on Canada and with help of China which is the foremost power on earth take over, subjugate and evict the Canadian's. As a result most Canadian's become refugees living in neighbouring countries including USA. Rest of the Canadians are squeezed into tiny Nova Scotia. A new state of Rastas comes into existance called Rastaland.

Question for you. What would most Canadians do?

1. Fight back with everything to get their land back.
2. Accept Rastaland and just become friends with the Rasta settlers whilst living in the US as refugees.
3. Neither of the above.

It has already been done. The natives no longer control this land. Now should they fight the might of the US and Canadian governments to "get their land back". And thus endanger the lives of their children and women for decades in a useless perpetual conflict that will get them nowhere. Or should they integrate into North American society to enjoy fist world living standards, and become productive citizens?

And what will Arabs do with the land? It has no oil, what will they do? Can they produce an Economy and infastructure like Isreal?
Or will it be another Yemen? One thing is certain. Arabs will suffer. Either at hands of their dictators, terrorist organizations, or other more powerful nations.

 

[Takaavar]

HUH ?! WTF are you talking about ?

Oh it seems your eyes have some issues, I put a link in that post, here it is:
USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In case your fingers have disabilities too, tell me to come there and help you to click on the link

 

[Indus Pakistan]

*
@ Wright

There are three points your making here and I will address these separately.

1. Conquest through force can be excused and forgiven by the losing side. That the loser is obliged to follow the winners rules. If you accept this than you are rewarding and accepting that conquest of other people's land is aceptable as long as you employ or able to employ overwhelming force.This is nothing less than a recipe to reward the invader/oppressor.

2. That the underdog will endanger the lives of it's people if it tries to fight the oppressor. If you accept this than any challange of any invader is wrong. In fact nobody should fight in any circumstances because in any war inevitably civilians will be at risk. Result: China to Canada: We are going to invade Canada in 7 days time. Canada: No you won't, Canada shall reserve the right to defend it's territory.China: No you don't, you would be putting at risk your civilian population to our bombing. Canada: Oh Jeez we surrender please knock at the front door and walk in.We don't want to risk our women and kids. We are gonna leave the door unlocked so that there is no trouble when you come. Thank you.

3. The absolute right of doing what I want with my own land. It is my land. If I piss on it. If I let it grow weeds on it it. It is my right. Without doubt the Jews have done a better job of managing the land then the Palestinians. If this principle of "better economic productivity" is used then we better let China take over all of Africa, most of Central America and parts of Europe because darn it the Chinese would be more productive. Is that acceptable morally or otherwise?

*
The fact is UN Conventions recognize right of subjugated people to fight back. If your home was taken off you, would you not fight to get it back? Only the subjugated people can decide when it is time to throw in the towel. Or else when the Germans took over most of Europe the occupied French etc should have just accepted German rule and drank Champagne instead joining the Free French Resistance. Note the Resistance not Terrorists.

The Catholic Irish of Northern Ireland were subjugated almost 500 years ago by the British but the IRA continued its war against the British Army until 1998 when a peace deal acceptable to the Provisional IRA was signed. Only since than has peace returned in Ulster. I recall in 1990s we used to have London, Manchester etc being bombed by IRA and British Army patrols ambushed regularly in Belfast.

Much of the money and weapons for the IRA came from North America in particular from Irish Catholic sympathizers in USA. So please do consider before you follow the Fox News line.

***
By the way you have given a charter to every evil despot to try to conquer other people's land with the qualifier that they use absolute force to subjugate and than make sure they use the land more productively than the original inhabitants. If these conditions are met it is open season.

 

[KingMamba]

It has already been done. The natives no longer control this land. Now should they fight the might of the US and Canadian governments to "get their land back". And thus endanger the lives of their children and women for decades in a useless perpetual conflict that will get them nowhere. Or should they integrate into North American society to enjoy fist world living standards, and become productive citizens?

And what will Arabs do with the land? It has no oil, what will they do? Can they produce an Economy and infastructure like Isreal?
Or will it be another Yemen? One thing is certain. Arabs will suffer. Either at hands of their dictators, terrorist organizations, or other more powerful nations.

What they do with their land is irrelevant. It is THEIR land. I guess it is a good thing for your family that they haven't lost their land to oppressors if they have you to defend them. You would just roll over for the people that take what belongs to you.

 

[Wright]

@Atanz.

Point 1: That is the way humans have lived for 99% of our history. We like all mammals compete with one another for resources, etc. There is no recipe, it is just the way it is. The best we have been able to do is funnel that primitive energy towards business and sports. Nontheless the "Invader/Occupier", i.e. the one who outcompetes and captures the resources of another in business, sports, or in the olden days warfare was/is always rewarded. To the victor go the spoils.

Point 2: Major difference between a perpetual and regular conflict. At a certain point it is futile to continue to go on. The cost simply outweighs the benefit. There are many factors, resources, manpower, morale, etc. Over time the various factors tend to decline, making further efforts statistically futile. Where are the Tamil Tigers now? The Germans and Japanese could have continued to fight to the very last man, woman or child. But it was pointless. They were occupied and they made the best use of the situation. Life will not always go your way. Sometimes it is best to move with the wind, as structural engineers have recently found out.

Again if the objective of the conflict is to eventually have the ability to live a decent life, and the military route has thus far not worked. A smart person tries other options. Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly in the same manner and expecting a different result.


Point 3: Sure I agree. But in the end when the ecosystems, and biodiversity are destroyed as they have been done in Haiti. It is a loss to all humanity. And in the case of Haiti, it is creating a real burden on the Dominican Republic, due to poaching and illegal cutting of trees by the Haitians; fuelled by their own resource depletion.

I think we can safely say, because Pakistan has nukes India will nver occupy it. Israel hass nukes as well. That is the game changer. Arabs are effectively checkmated.

Furthermore your initial post pointing out how they are not terrorists, is simply wrong.
They target civilians to cause terror among the public. They do not target military personell or infastructure as the Frech resistance did in WW2.

 

[Arian]

Point 1: That is the way humans have lived for 99% of our history. We like all mammals compete with one another for resources, etc. There is no recipe, it is just the way it is. The best we have been able to do is funnel that primitive energy towards business and sports. Nontheless the "Invader/Occupier", i.e. the one who outcompetes and captures the resources of another in business, sports, or in the olden days warfare was/is always rewarded. To the victor go the spoils.

I would like to say few words on what you said.
Not like all mammals, All living things with no exception compete with each other for resources, even bacteria, and there's no exception at all. But that's the biological point of view, when you consider human beings, you need to consider social norms and community laws as well. Humans, as a community of mammals able to establish communication with each other in its most advanced form through creating sounds that could be modified to create new meanings and also with very sophisticated mental capabilities like problem solving and systematic language, have defined morals for themselves. That's why we have spiritualists and religions who emphasize on this aspect of human's nature. Just because we compete with each other for resources doesn't justify greedy wars or ideological wars based on that perspective. Hence your first argument is totally flawed if we don't ignore other aspects of human nature.

 

[Meengla]

IMO -

All the current dispute between Iran and Israel is flamed by Iran. The Iranian desire for nuclear weapons is provoking Israel. While as a common man ethic we can say that Iran has the right to have nuclear weapons but in in real world politics it is not like this. Every country looks at its potentional enemy's capability and intentions both. Now Iran does not has any direct dispute with Israel, still Iran continuelly denounces Israel and its right to exist. These are pretty serious and strong words coming out the mouth of a president of a prominent state. Iran has no justification on its own for these provocation except that it sympathies with Palastinians. Almost all of the Muslims states and many non-Muslims states sympathize with the Palestinians in order to solve the problem there but they do not get themselves in to the conflict. This provocation is obviously not a step to solution palastinian dispute but makes even more complex to solve.

Iranian govt's desire to seek nuclear weapons is obviously aimed at Israel and project itself a regional power dominating Sunni arabs and to bully the West, and the same time Iranian leadership keeps its intentions towards Israel no secret. In such a situation, for Israel there is a country calling for its destruction while trying to posses nuclear weapons, which should do more than just raising some eyebrows in Israel. Every country that develops nuclear weapons or a military might has any of two or both of these objectives :-
....

Firstly, A'Jad never called for the destruction of Jews. He did say that the Israeli regime would vanish like the Soviets did. The Russians are still living but the Soviet system is gone. An intentionally mis-translation to advance Israel's political cause. What Israel basically wants is to NOT necessarily expand; if they wanted that then Sinai is very big but they gave it back. What the Israelis want is a fulfillment of their ancient dream of return. To that and any corrolary questions, I think @Atanz post #45 is a very good response: If you allow people to come back based on 2000 year claim then all hell will break loose. Also, as Atanz says correctly, it was the problem of the Jews with the Europeans over many centuries. But the Palestinians have paid the price for that. That is not fair!

 

[Indus Pakistan]

*
@Wright.

Point 1. Indeed that is true. That means that Iran and others only follow the natural order of things when they try to acquire Nuclear weapons etc. The only caveat would be to make sure you are able to come out the winner. Saddam had a shot at Kuwait which is only being human but the only wrong he did was he failed to hold it.

Point 2. That point between perpetual and regular conflict based on cost and benefit analysis is very subjective. That would be asking when does something become too sweet or at what point does mercury rise to be called warm/cold. Was there a point in the 100 years war [England v France 1337-1453] when there was no point in going on? Should the Irish Catholics have chucked in the towel in 16th, 17th,18th, 19th , 20th or 21st Centuries?

By definition the winner is going to be inclined to draw a line of it's choosing and the loser on the other hand would disagree. The fact of the matter is that the only people who can decide when to wave the white flag is the Palestinians. Of course the Isreali's wil try to employ every means possible to hasten that process.

Point 3. I think the principle could be titled " better economic productivity". I would than warn Canada to make sure that large tracts of almost empty regions could be claimed by Chinese as they potentially might make the said land more productive. Ditto for Africa, even parts of Eastern Europe.

Yes, because Isreal has the nukes it has checkmated [ I would suggest having USA as a sponsor amounted to almost a checkmate ] the Arabs. However the gross effect is this will spur every other country in ME including Iran to develop nukes.

Finally somehow I end up defending the Palestinians [on moral grounds] when my intention behind this thread was to impress on the Iranian's [Pakistani's as well] that they would be better off concentrating building up their own countries then fighting other peoples wars. However by some twist here I have ended up in appearing to do the opposite and sanctioning the anti Isreali rhetoric.

I guess whilst I recognize the moral right of Palestinians to fight for their just rights against a settler-oppresor I do think the Iran and Pakistan would be better off in adopting a Machiavellian approach towards Isreal. Let the wider Arab world shoulder that problem.

 

[Meengla]

It has already been done. The natives no longer control this land. Now should they fight the might of the US and Canadian governments to "get their land back". And thus endanger the lives of their children and women for decades in a useless perpetual conflict that will get them nowhere. Or should they integrate into North American society to enjoy fist world living standards, and become productive citizens?.

In your, sorry to say, Fascist thinking, you fail to mention that at least the American Indians tried to resist the European invaders for many decades. The A.I were called the same kind of names: Terrorists, Backward, and most probably some racist things as well. We are talking about decades, if not 200--400 years of these.

For Palestinians to assimilate? Oh, well, they can either be boot-polishers, the manual labors of Israelis, or they can have a viable State of their own. Looks like Israelis--mindful that it is not the 19th century America-- are offering them a choice in-between the two: Get a Bantustan instead.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

*
About your comment about the "terrorism being wrong". First any event is relayed by the media and is open to being distorted. Second how do you decide a target is civilian?

Was lobbing a nuclear device on hiroshima that killed 90,000+ people almost all civilian an act of terrorism?

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the conventional bombing of a city centre of Dresden, Germany a cultural city of note with not much in way military or industries allied to war effort leading to death of 25,000 civilians in a firestorm not a gross act of terrorism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

 

[Wright]

*
About your comment about the "terrorism being wrong". First any event is relayed by the media and is open to being distorted. Second how do you decide a target is civilian?

Was lobbing a nuclear device on hiroshima that killed 90,000+ people almost all civilian an act of terorism?

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the conventional bombing of a city centre of Dresden, Germany a cultural city of note with not much in way military or industries allied to war effort leading to death of 25,000 civilians in a firestorm not a gross act of terorism?

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both nations were given a chance to surrender or face devastation. They had long ago chosen total war. They armed their children and sent them to fight.

Not that I support the bombings. But the Germans and Japanese were not exactly innocent. They chose to fight a total war. That is what they got.

In your, sorry to say, Fascist thinking, you fail to mention that at least the American Indians tried to resist the European invaders for many decades. The A.I were called the same kind of names: Terrorists, Backward, and most probably some racist things as well. We are talking about decades, if not 200--400 years of these.

For Palestinians to assimilate? Oh, well, they can either be boot-polishers, the manual labors of Israelis, or they can have a viable State of their own. Looks like Israelis--mindful that it is not the 19th century America-- are offering them a choice in-between the two: Get a Bantustan instead.

Im just going to say Jews have been living in the middle east for a very long time. They are themselves a semitic people. Many Jews which came to Israel lived in the Arab nations. A large chunk if Israel is populated by Middle eastern Jews. They have just as much right to the land as Arabs have.

 

[Meengla]

Im just going to say Jews have been living in the middle east for a very long time. They are themselves a semitic people. Many Jews which came to Israel lived in the Arab nations. A large chunk if Israel is populated by Middle eastern Jews. They have just as much right to the land as Arabs have.

I am not going to deny that: They DID live in that land a long time ago. And my reading of the Old Testament tells me that not only they were not the 'original' ones but also they took over the land in rather violent way.

There are no 'original' people in this world. If we want to start that then may be the Rift Valley in eastern Africa is a starting point.

But you, by now, should know that citing the eventual subservience of the American Indians was a very bad example.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

*
@ Wright

"

But it was pointless. They were occupied and they made the best use of the situation. Life will not always go your way. Sometimes it is best to move with the wind, as structural engineers have recently found out".

I think you draw an entirely wrong analogy there. The Germans and Japanese fought a war. They lost. The allies never intended to settle their lands and displace their people.

I assure you had the allies displaced most of Germany or Japan and then settled their own people on their land you would have had dozens of millions refugee Germans or Japanese littered all over causing trouble.

I have not a shred of doubt that such a action would have still reverberated today in the world. You really think today millions of dispaced Japanese or Germans would have just accepted the status quo? Not a hell chance of that.

What happened was very soon the allies gave control of occupied [note not settled] lands back to Germans and Japs., and within few years of end of WW2 both countries were in control of their own destiny.

In fact lessons had been drawn by the victorious allies in WW2 from the WW1 when at the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 the allies had inflicted on the loser, the Germans some very harsh conditions.Some historians argue that these harsh conditions failed to conciliate or pacify the Germans and that resentment gave fuel to the rise of Nazis to avenge the percieved wrongs done to Germany and would lead to WW2.

At the end of WW2 a differant apprroach. Instead of punishment massive help in the form of Marshall Plan helped to put Germany back on its feet. I just wonder had half of Germany been emptied and settled with Bantu Negroes would Europe be in peace in 2012?

I doubt it !!!

 

[Desert Fox]

*
@ Wright

"

I think you draw an entirely wrong analogy there. The Germans and Japanese fought a war. They lost. The allies never intened to settle their lands and displace their people.

I assure you had the allies displaced most of Germany or Japan and then settled their own people on their land you would have had dozens of millions refugee Germans or Japanese littered all over causing trouble.

I have not a shred of doubt that such a action would have still reverberated today in the world. You really think today millions of dispaced Japanese or Germans would have just accepted the status quo? Not a hell chance of that.

What happened was very soon the allies gave control of occupied [note not settled] lands back to Germans and Japs., and within few years of end of WW2 both countries were in control of their own destiny.

In fact lessons had been drawn by the victorious allies in WW2 from the WW1 when at the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 the allies had inflicted on the loser, the Germans some very harsh conditions.Some historians argue that these harsh conditions failed to conciliate or pacify the Germans and that resentment gave fuel to the rise of Nazis to avenge the percieved wrongs done to Germany and would lead to WW2.

At the end of WW2 a differant apprroach. Instead of punishment massive help in the form of Marshall Plan helped to put Germany back on its feet. I just wonder had half of Germany been emptied and settled with Bantu Negroes would Europe be in peace in 2012?

I doubt it !!!

You're wrong about the Germans not being displaced. Millions of Germans were displaced and became homeless as a result of Germany's loss in WW2. These are documented facts and a famous American General by the name of George S. Patton recorded this in his personal letters to Wife and fellow comrades after he visited German cities and towns, millions of Germans were displaced and literally starved to death as they were being kicked out of their homes.

But of course you wouldn't know that since the victors wouldn't want to you know that, you would have to do some digging up on your own to read about these events.

Both nations were given a chance to surrender or face devastation. They had long ago chosen total war. They armed their children and sent them to fight.

Not that I support the bombings. But the Germans and Japanese were not exactly innocent. They chose to fight a total war. That is what they got.

Germany never wanted a war, war was forced on Germany. Did you know that Zionists powers declared war on Germany the same year Hitler came to power? And this was before Hitler's invasion of Poland, the main purpose of which was to take back the Danzig corridor which had been a part of Germany before it was given to Poland after WW1 and had a 97% German population.

 

[Wright]

*
@ Wright

"

I think you draw an entirely wrong analogy there. The Germans and Japanese fought a war. They lost. The allies never intened to settle their lands and displace their people.

I assure you had the allies displaced most of Germany or Japan and then settled their own people on their land you would have had dozens of millions refugee Germans or Japanese littered all over causing trouble.

I have not a shred of doubt that such a action would have still reverberated today in the world. You really think today millions of dispaced Japanese or Germans would have just accepted the status quo? Not a hell chance of that.

What happened was very soon the allies gave control of occupied [note not settled] lands back to Germans and Japs., and within few years of end of WW2 both countries were in control of their own destiny.

In fact lessons had been drawn by the victorious allies in WW2 from the WW1 when at the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 the allies had inflicted on the loser, the Germans some very harsh conditions.Some historians argue that these harsh conditions failed to conciliate or pacify the Germans and that resentment gave fuel to the rise of Nazis to avenge the percieved wrongs done to Germany and would lead to WW2.

At the end of WW2 a differant apprroach. Instead of punishment massive help in the form of Marshall Plan helped to put Germany back on its feet. I just wonder had half of Germany been emptied and settled with Bantu Negroes would Europe be in peace in 2012?

I doubt it !!!

Well now you start a circular sort of argument. Who came first the Arabs or the Jews? Who displaced who first? We do know Arabs were expansionistic, they displaced and Arabized many people. We also do know the Jews were one of the people displaced from their holy sites an cities.
The majority of Jews are of middle eastern extraction. They are not foreign as Bantu's are to Japanese. Jews are genetically close the the Jordanians and Palestinians. So it's more like the Han Chinese displacing the Uyghur's, if you want to use an Asian analogy.