Israeli Textbook Admits Jewish State a Tragedy for Palestinians

[GHook93]

FOXNews.com - Israeli Textbook Admits Jewish State a Tragedy for Palestinians - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

— Israel's Education Ministry announced it was offering a new textbook for Arab third-graders acknowledging for the first time that the creation of the Jewish state was a tragedy for Palestinians. The statement remains explosive six decades after the country was founded. The textbooks for the upcoming school year give the Jewish narrative of the events of 1948 and 1949 when Israel's creation drew an invasion by Arab armies in a conflict that displaced some 700,000 Palestinians. They point out Jews' historical connection to the Holy Land and their need for a state because of persecution in Europe, said Dalia Fenig, an Education Ministry inspector. But for the first time, the book also explains why the war was a tragedy from the Palestinian perspective, referring to the Arab defeat as "al-Naqba," Arabic for catastrophe and the common Arab term for the war. "The new approach says, why should you hide anything? That won't make it disappear and ... the issues can be debated," Fenig said. Other Israelis hailed the new textbook. "There are those who think that recognizing the suffering and loss of the other side subtracts from their own suffering and loss," said Amnon Beeri-Sulitzeanu, executive director of the Abraham Fund, a nonprofit group that works for coexistence among Israel's Arabs and Jews. "I think this is a small step in the direction of a shared society and a shared future," he said. Official Israeli histories of the country's establishment, especially those written for schoolchildren, have typically focused on the heroism of Israeli forces and glossed over the Palestinian flight, attributing the mass exile to voluntary escape if mentioning it at all. The Arabs who remained inside Israel now make up about 20 percent of the country's population. While they are Israeli citizens, they generally see themselves as part of the Palestinian people. Ali Harish, an Israeli Arab teacher, said the absence of the Arab perspective in textbooks until now did not mean it was absent from the classroom. "When I teach history, of course I use this term, to give them a fair picture," Harish told Army Radio. "I'm so surprised by the uproar over this."

Israel is teaching the other side that the Palestinians are humans and have suffered. Yet just across the border they teach that the Jews are Demons and they must all be killed.

[Ibn_Sina]

Quote by: GHook93 Israel is teaching the other side that the Palestinians are humans and have suffered. Yet just across the border they teach that the Jews are Demons and they must all be killed.

I can't believe any rational person should applaud this. Admitting the fact that it was a tragedy for the Palestinians is not going to solve any problem. Ehud Barak once said, if he was a Palestinian, he would resist Israel too. Its natural to fight for your land... Ben Gurion said similar things.

HOWEVER, saying or acknowledging something like this does not make any difference for Palestinians. Actions are far better than euphemistic phrases on history books.

[Matt W]

Not bad, only took them 60 years,,,,

[arielmessenger]

being foreign invaders stealing Palestinian land and lives and either move out or learn how to cooperate with other peoples..

[Mia]

It said for Arab strudents. Do they go to different schools? Or are Arab children given different books than non-arab Israelis?

GHook, I think it's quite a stretch what you were implying - that Israel is so tempered and fair and Arabs are not. This is one step, and I am glad for the step, but it doesn't denote that all of a sudden they are better people.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Ibn_Sina I can't believe any rational person should applaud this. Admitting the fact that it was a tragedy for the Palestinians is not going to solve any problem. Ehud Barak once said, if he was a Palestinian, he would resist Israel too. Its natural to fight for your land... Ben Gurion said similar things. HOWEVER, saying or acknowledging something like this does not make any difference for Palestinians. Actions are far better than euphemistic phrases on history books.

So the only solution is for both of them to fight a bloody war of attrition, in which the whole Middle East woul be engulfed, including your beloved Iran.

Or there must be some type of peace brokered deal for a 2 state solution, in which the Palestinians either get the right to remain as citizens of the countries they are in (Jordanian, Lebanese etc.) or have the right to return to Palestine, which would encompass all of the pre-'67 area. Both countries would share Jerusalem as a capital. The Arab Israelis would also been give the option to go to Palestine or remain in Israel.

You an many others might have a dream of Israel's destruction, but Israel is not a weak Country. They might be small in number, but they are extremely battle tested, would be fighting a war for there very existence (alia the 6 day war, '73 and the '48 war of independence) vs is the 2nd Lebanese War, which was a border scrimmage. A man fighting for one's existence, fights harder than 1,000 soldiers. Don't also forget Israel is a nuclear power. You don't think they have missile pointed at Damascus, Beriut, Tehran, Bagdad, etc.

Israel's downfall would me a lot of dead Muslims. A 2 state solution is the only way!

[GHook93]

Quote by: Matt W Not bad, only took them 60 years,,,,

How long did it take the British to recognize their persecution of the Irish, Scotts, French, Indians, AMERICANS? Probably a hell of a longer, if at all. Obviously I don't know I didn't go to a British school.

How long did it take the Americans? It took a long long long time for us to admit the persecution of the Blacks, Chinese and Native Americans.

How long did it take the Arabs? Oh wait they haven't done that yet.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Mia It said for Arab strudents. Do they go to different schools? Or are Arab children given different books than non-arab Israelis? GHook, I think it's quite a stretch what you were implying - that Israel is so tempered and fair and Arabs are not. This is one step, and I am glad for the step, but it doesn't denote that all of a sudden they are better people.

Arabs in Israel are treated a hell of a lot better than Jews and Christians in Arabs states that is foresure!

[arielmessenger]

Quote by: GHook93 Arabs in Israel are treated a hell of a lot better than Jews and Christians in Arabs states that is foresure!

and only the tame Arabs are left. And I think most of us know that Jews and Christians were treated comparatively very well in Arab states before they got their sovereignty slammed in their faces by Western powers forcing the establishment of Israel for European Ashkenazi Jews primarily.

Btw, here's a piece showing that Israelis are no strangers to teaching racial hatred of Arabs.

Israeli children taught hatred of Arabs

One often hears the Jewish complaint that Arabs teach their children to hate Jews. Few know that Israelis themselves teach hatred of Arabs.

"Why we have a New Testament: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." --Blaise Pascal, Pensees, 1670

Moses may not have known about natural selection, but he transmitted his god's explicit commandment to kill and steal from out-group members as a recurrent major theme. Two distinct policies were put into effect. First, all members of nations located in the land that was to become Israel were to be killed outright. Subsequently, people in surrounding nations were to be killed unless they agreed to become subservient to Israel. Both policies are given in one passage of Deuteronomy (20:10-18; RSV), with instructions regarding people outside of Israel given first:
"When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and every- thing else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. "But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded; that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their Gods, and so to sin against the LORD your God."
For prior occupants of the promised land, there can be no doubt that this meant genocide according to the word's modern definition (RSV): "They should be utterly destroyed, and should receive no mercy but be exterminated, as the LORD commanded Moses" (Joshua 11:20) . . . Utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling" (I Samuel 15:3). And, as if they had a sense of Hamilton's (1964) inclusive fitness: "You will make them as a blazing oven when you appear. The LORD will swallow them up in his wrath; and fire will consume them. You will destroy their offspring from the earth, and their children from among the sons of men" (Psalms 21:9-10).

There can be no doubt that this commandment was mandatory, as Maimonides explained (Judges 5:4, italics not added; cf Elba 1995, Lior 1994): "It is a positive commandment to destroy the seven nations, as it is said: Thou shalt utterly destroy them. If one does not put to death any of them that falls into one's power, one transgresses a negative commandment, as it is said: Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth."

The Israelites' campaign to carry out their god's commandment to commit genocide against the native inhabitants of Canaan-cum-Palestine took several generations. It began with Joshua's massacre at Jericho. Contrary to the Christian song "Joshua Fought the Battle of Jericho," according to scripture there was no battle at all. It was a siege, at the end of which all of the city's inhabitants were killed except Rahab the prostitute (she and her family were spared in exchange for helping Joshua plan his strategy, Joshua 6:16-17, 19, 21, 24, RSV): Joshua said to the people, "Shout; for the LORD has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction . . . But all silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD; they shall go into the treasury of the LORD." . . . Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword . . . And they burned the city with fire, and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD. The half-life and penetrance of such cultural legacies are often under-appreciated.

Some 3,000 years after the fall of Jericho, Israeli psychologist George Tamarin (1966, 1973) measured the strength of residual in-group morality. He presented Joshua 6:20-21 to 1,066 school children, ages 8-14, in order to test "the effect of uncritical teaching of the Bible on the propensity for forming prejudices (particularly the notion of the 'chosen people,' the superiority of the monotheistic religion, and the study of acts of genocide by biblical heroes)." The children's answers to the question "Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted rightly or not?," were categorized as follows: "'A' means total approval, 'B' means partial approval or disapproval, and 'C' means total disapproval."

Across a broad spectrum of Israeli social and economic classes, 66% of responses were "A," 8% "B," and 26% "C." The "A" answers tended to be as straightforward as they were numerous (Tamarin, 1966): In my opinion Joshua and the Sons of Israel acted well, and here are the reasons: God promised them this land, and gave them permission to conquer. If they would not have acted in this manner or killed anyone, then there would be the danger that the Sons of Israel would have assimilated among the "Goyim." In my opinion Joshua was right when he did it, one reason being that God commanded him to exterminate the people so that the tribes of Israel will not be able to assimilate amongst them and learn their bad ways. Joshua did good because the people who inhabited the land were of a different religion, and when Joshua killed them he wiped their religion from the earth. Tamarin (1973) noted that: "C" classification [total disapproval] was accorded to all answers formally rejecting genocide, either on ethical or utilitarian grounds. This does not mean that all "C" responses reveal non-discriminatory attitudes. For example, one girl criticized Joshua's act, stating that "the Sons of Israel learned many bad things from the Goyim." . . . Another extremely racist response is that of a 10 year old girl disapproving the act, stating, "I think it is not good, since the Arabs are impure and if one enters an impure land one will also become impure and share their curse." Other misgivings included (1966): I think Joshua did not act well, as they could have spared the animals for themselves. I think Joshua did not act well, as he should have left the property of Jericho; if he had not destroyed the property it would have belonged to the Israelites.

In contrast to the established difference between boys and girls in propensity toward violence and approval of violence in general, with regard to biblically commanded genocide Tamarin found that "Contrary to our expectation, there was no difference, concerning this most cruel form of prejudice, between male and female examinees" (1973). Less surprising, but more alarming, nearly half of the children who gave "total approval" to Joshua's behavior also gave "A" responses to the hypothetical question: "Suppose that the Israeli Army conquers an Arab village in battle. Do you think it would be good or bad to act towards the inhabitants as Joshua did towards the people of Jericho?" Tamarin (1966) received such responses as these: In my opinion this behavior was necessary, as the Arabs are our enemies always, and the Jews did not have a country, and it was necessary to behave like that towards the Arabs. It would have been good to treat the Arabs as Joshua and his soldiers did, as they are Arabs; they hate and retaliate against us all the time, and if we exterminate them as Joshua did, they won't be able to show themselves as greater heroes than we. I think it was good because we want our enemies to be conquered, and to widen our frontiers, and we should kill the Arabs as Joshua and the Israelites did. Some respondents disapproved of Joshua's campaign (answer "C"), but approved of similar acts if committed by Israeli soldiers. One girl disapproved of Joshua "because it is written in the Bible, 'don't kill'," but she approved of the conjectured Israeli Army action, stating "I think it would be good, as we want our enemies to fall into our hands, enlarge our frontiers, and kill the Arabs as Joshua did."

As a control group, Tamarin tested 168 children who were read Joshua 6:20-21 with "General Lin" substituted for Joshua and a "Chinese Kingdom 3000 years ago" substituted for Israel. General Lin got a 7% approval rating, with 18% giving partial approval or disapproval, and 75% disapproving totally."
© John Hartung Ph.D.

[Alive]

And yet, Israel isn't committing genocide against anyone (the Palestinean population is growing). Great how people can separate religion from real life, isn't it?

[Ibn_Sina]

Quote by: GHook93 Or there must be some type of peace brokered deal for a 2 state solution, in which the Palestinians either get the right to remain as citizens of the countries they are in (Jordanian, Lebanese etc.) or have the right to return to Palestine, which would encompass all of the pre-'67 area. Both countries would share Jerusalem as a capital. The Arab Israelis would also been give the option to go to Palestine or remain in Israel. You an many others might have a dream of Israel's destruction, but Israel is not a weak Country. They might be small in number, but they are extremely battle tested, would be fighting a war for there very existence (alia the 6 day war, '73 and the '48 war of independence) vs is the 2nd Lebanese War, which was a border scrimmage. A man fighting for one's existence, fights harder than 1,000 soldiers. Don't also forget Israel is a nuclear power. You don't think they have missile pointed at Damascus, Beriut, Tehran, Bagdad, etc. Israel's downfall would me a lot of dead Muslims. A 2 state solution is the only way!

Honestly, I don't know of a solution... I just don't see it. Two state solution is dubious.

However, your war talk is something to laugh about . Obviously, with US and British support, German submarines (compensation for Holocaust), Israel is by far the most equipped country in terms of ammunitions. However, although I can't speak for other countries, pointing missile at Tehran is more suicidal than Hitler sending his troops to Russia during WWII. Israelis fighting for their existence? LOL I guess there is a first time for everything... Because this time Cyrus The Great won't show mercy.

[arielmessenger]

because Israelis are surrounded by Palestinians who will continue to outnumber them even in Israel by the end of the century. Judaism is a dying religion and Israelis are running out of "Jews" to import into Israel.

I used to think the Canaan Peace Plan, Canaan Peace Plan, was a cooperative Israeli-Palestinian single-state solution but now I understand it to be an Israeli survival plan in a Palestinian majority nation.

[Yarn]

Honestly, I don't know of a solution... I just don't see it. Two state solution is dubious.

However, your war talk is something to laugh about . Obviously, with US and British support, German submarines (compensation for Holocaust), Israel is by far the most equipped country in terms of ammunitions. However, although I can't speak for other countries, pointing missile at Tehran is more suicidal than Hitler sending his troops to Russia during WWII. Israelis fighting for their existence? LOL I guess there is a first time for everything... Because this time Cyrus The Great won't show mercy.

Israel has nukes ("Estimates for Israel's nuclear weapons stockpile range from 70 to 400 warheads. The actual number is probably closer to the lower estimate. Additional weapons could probably be built from inventories of fissile materials.")


You can't get rid of Israel without it killing millions of Arab and/or Persians civillians first, assuming it carries ammorality in preserving itself when under true threat, which I think it does.
"It is widely reported that Israel had two bombs in 1967, and that Prime Minister Eshkol ordered them armed in Israel's first nuclear alert during the Six-Day War. It is also reported that, fearing defeat in the October 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Israelis assembled 13 twenty-kiloton atomic bombs."
Nuclear Weapons - Israel

I don't think getting rid of Israel is worth the destruction of a bunch of major Arab Cities and capitals, and all the people who live in them. Do you?

I don't even think we will ever get to the point wherein regardless of what they are willing to sacrifice, the Muslim nations which oppose Israel's existence, will ever get the capability of getting rid of Israel, as long Israel remains supported by the US.

To speak of Iran specifically.

Iran has no way of even reaching it with ground forces, without them being destroyed by the Israeli airforce enroute, Iran has missles, but Israel has an AMS system designed to counter those missles, which it claims to be confident of, certainly said missles, if they hit their marks, could hurt Israel, but they couldn't destroy it without nukes. Nuke use would mean nuclear response, and destruction of all major Iranian cities.
Israel Stresses Anti-Missile Test Message To Iran

If Iran attacked first it would face an International response which might cripple its economy, and in any circumstance, Iran has no away of denying Israel air superiority over its land, would consequently be helplessly bombarded.

I will agree with that given the mass impoverishment it has created, the lives it has taken directly, and the animosity it has created between much of the Middle East and the West, Israel should never have been created in Palestine, and should not be there today. However, you get the best possible world by pursueing the best possible world, not the best world. To pursue the best world is to be impractical, and enact an reality which is inferior to what it could be.

The US in my opinion should force Israel to take its settlements out of the west bank and try to reduce the bad humanitarian impacts of its military operations.

Israel isn't going away, and a two state solution is the only way Palestine will be a nation again.

Israel may not have destroyed Hezbollah in 06, but regardless, the Lebonese people suffered greatly. It didn't destroy Hamas in 06, but the Palestinian people suffered greatly. Attacking Israel only invokes it to harm people. Why do it?

Iran should come to grips with reality on this issue,

[arielmessenger]

Israeli supporters assume that America will always back Israel against Palestinians but what if that changed? How long do you think Israel would exist without unconditional support from America?

Americans won't always be deceived about Israel and once a president with guts to stand up to the Israeli lobby takes office and cuts armaments and money to shore up Israel's rotten economy, then that's all she wrote--once Israel is forced to play fair with Palestinians then Israel loses the ballgame. Israel can only exist as a racist state but look at South Africa to see the future of racist states in the 21st century.

The best way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to get secular scholars to unite to prove that the whole basis for the Zionist claim to Israel is fiction as is Muhammad's claims to the god of Abraham.

Why aren't you atheists and secular humanists organizing yourselves against these Abrahamic madmen with guns? Where is the Moral Outrage at Abrahamic religious warfare?

[Ibn_Sina]

Quote by: Yarn Honestly, I don't know of a solution... I just don't see it. Two state solution is dubious. However, your war talk is something to laugh about . Obviously, with US and British support, German submarines (compensation for Holocaust), Israel is by far the most equipped country in terms of ammunitions. However, although I can't speak for other countries, pointing missile at Tehran is more suicidal than Hitler sending his troops to Russia during WWII. Israelis fighting for their existence? LOL I guess there is a first time for everything... Because this time Cyrus The Great won't show mercy. Israel has nukes ("Estimates for Israel's nuclear weapons stockpile range from 70 to 400 warheads. The actual number is probably closer to the lower estimate. Additional weapons could probably be built from inventories of fissile materials.") You can't get rid of Israel without it killing millions of Arab and/or Persians civillians first, assuming it carries ammorality in preserving itself when under true threat, which I think it does. "It is widely reported that Israel had two bombs in 1967, and that Prime Minister Eshkol ordered them armed in Israel's first nuclear alert during the Six-Day War. It is also reported that, fearing defeat in the October 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Israelis assembled 13 twenty-kiloton atomic bombs." Nuclear Weapons - Israel I don't think getting rid of Israel is worth the destruction of a bunch of major Arab Cities and capitals, and all the people who live in them. Do you? I don't even think we will ever get to the point wherein regardless of what they are willing to sacrifice, the Muslim nations which oppose Israel's existence, will ever get the capability of getting rid of Israel, as long Israel remains supported by the US. To speak of Iran specifically. Iran has no way of even reaching it with ground forces, without them being destroyed by the Israeli airforce enroute, Iran has missles, but Israel has an AMS system designed to counter those missles, which it claims to be confident of, certainly said missles, if they hit their marks, could hurt Israel, but they couldn't destroy it without nukes. Nuke use would mean nuclear response, and destruction of all major Iranian cities. Israel Stresses Anti-Missile Test Message To Iran If Iran attacked first it would face an International response which might cripple its economy, and in any circumstance, Iran has no away of denying Israel air superiority over its land, would consequently be helplessly bombarded. I will agree with that given the mass impoverishment it has created, the lives it has taken directly, and the animosity it has created between much of the Middle East and the West, Israel should never have been created in Palestine, and should not be there today. However, you get the best possible world by pursueing the best possible world, not the best world. To pursue the best world is to be impractical, and enact an reality which is inferior to what it could be. The US in my opinion should force Israel to take its settlements out of the west bank and try to reduce the bad humanitarian impacts of its military operations. Israel isn't going away, and a two state solution is the only way Palestine will be a nation again. Israel may not have destroyed Hezbollah in 06, but regardless, the Lebonese people suffered greatly. It didn't destroy Hamas in 06, but the Palestinian people suffered greatly. Attacking Israel only invokes it to harm people. Why do it? Iran should come to grips with reality on this issue,

I see your point of view. I agree with parts of it and also disagree with some parts...

You see, Israel will never nuke Iran. Iran provides oil to other nuclear states such as Russia and China. In addition, we both know that the use of nukes by multiple states will destroy the entire world. So, nukes are out of the equation. Don't even dream on that.

Without nukes, Israel doesn't look as strong as you say. If you are talking about airstrikes, well, Iran also have fighter jets, may be not as good as Israeli ones. Iranian missiles can reach Israel too. Also, Iran purchased missile-defence system from Russia and our own military industry recently unveiled newer military equipments.

Now let's go to military. Well, Hezbollah uses second-hand guns supplied by Iranian and old Soviet states that were made in 1940s. Now, after the so-called superior Israeli troops actually entered Lebanon and began fighting, 15 of them died in the first hour. THEN, all over sudden, peace was established. I doubt in a battle between armies, Israeli forces can stand up to Revoltionary Guards..

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Ibn_Sina I see your point of view. I agree with parts of it and also disagree with some parts... You see, Israel will never nuke Iran. Iran provides oil to other nuclear states such as Russia and China. In addition, we both know that the use of nukes by multiple states will destroy the entire world. So, nukes are out of the equation. Don't even dream on that. Without nukes, Israel doesn't look as strong as you say. If you are talking about airstrikes, well, Iran also have fighter jets, may be not as good as Israeli ones. Iranian missiles can reach Israel too. Also, Iran purchased missile-defence system from Russia and our own military industry recently unveiled newer military equipments. Now let's go to military. Well, Hezbollah uses second-hand guns supplied by Iranian and old Soviet states that were made in 1940s. Now, after the so-called superior Israeli troops actually entered Lebanon and began fighting, 15 of them died in the first hour. THEN, all over sudden, peace was established. I doubt in a battle between armies, Israeli forces can stand up to Revoltionary Guards..

You are completely ignorant of military tactics if you think you can compare a skirmish of conventional vs. non-conventional forces to a battle of conventional vs. conventional.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Yarn Israel has nukes ("Estimates for Israel's nuclear weapons stockpile range from 70 to 400 warheads. The actual number is probably closer to the lower estimate. Additional weapons could probably be built from inventories of fissile materials.")

That is exactly why Israel can't be taken out without a huge lose of Arab and Persian (not too mention Israeli) lives. The Arabs and Persians need to face the fact that Israel is there and they have to work towards a solution instead of continuing the problem.

You can't get rid of Israel without it killing millions of Arab and/or Persians civillians first, assuming it carries ammorality in preserving itself when under true threat, which I think it does. "It is widely reported that Israel had two bombs in 1967, and that Prime Minister Eshkol ordered them armed in Israel's first nuclear alert during the Six-Day War. It is also reported that, fearing defeat in the October 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Israelis assembled 13 twenty-kiloton atomic bombs." Nuclear Weapons - Israel I don't think getting rid of Israel is worth the destruction of a bunch of major Arab Cities and capitals, and all the people who live in them. Do you? I don't even think we will ever get to the point wherein regardless of what they are willing to sacrifice, the Muslim nations which oppose Israel's existence, will ever get the capability of getting rid of Israel, as long Israel remains supported by the US. To speak of Iran specifically. Iran has no way of even reaching it with ground forces, without them being destroyed by the Israeli airforce enroute, Iran has missles, but Israel has an AMS system designed to counter those missles, which it claims to be confident of, certainly said missles, if they hit their marks, could hurt Israel, but they couldn't destroy it without nukes. Nuke use would mean nuclear response, and destruction of all major Iranian cities. Israel Stresses Anti-Missile Test Message To Iran If Iran attacked first it would face an International response which might cripple its economy, and in any circumstance, Iran has no away of denying Israel air superiority over its land, would consequently be helplessly bombarded.

Great assessment of what another war could lead to.

I will agree with that given the mass impoverishment it has created, the lives it has taken directly, and the animosity it has created between much of the Middle East and the West, Israel should never have been created in Palestine, and should not be there today. However, you get the best possible world by pursueing the best possible world, not the best world. To pursue the best world is to be impractical, and enact an reality which is inferior to what it could be.

Maybe the Arabs should have taken the land from the Jews when they were on the Arab crusade!

The US in my opinion should force Israel to take its settlements out of the west bank and try to reduce the bad humanitarian impacts of its military operations.

The US should no do anything until the other side (Arabs and Palestines) show a willingness to move toward peace.

Israel isn't going away, and a two state solution is the only way Palestine will be a nation again.

:)

Israel may not have destroyed Hezbollah in 06, but regardless, the Lebonese people suffered greatly. It didn't destroy Hamas in 06, but the Palestinian people suffered greatly. Attacking Israel only invokes it to harm people. Why do it?

The reason the Lebanese people suffered is because the Hezbollah terrorist cowards hide within the civilians and use them as shield to increase collar damage. The Lebanese only have Hezbollah to blame.

Iran should come to grips with reality on this issue

Just like the American people are coming to grip with Iraq. I think the Iranian people are coming to grip with this issue also. But like Bush, Alma-douchebag only chooses what he believes to see.

It is funny, historically the Persian have been the best to the Jews of any people. They freed the Jews from the Assyrians and Babloyians and let them built the 2nd temple. Then they help the Jews fight the Byzantine Empire and regain very temporary automony (although the is controversy on who betrayed who) before the Arab Crusaders took over.

In fact they had diplomatic relations until the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Even after that Israel supplied arms during the Iran-Iraqi war. And before Alam-douchebag - Khatami was much less hostile. Maybe after Alam-douchebag, Israel and Iran can forge at least non-hostile relations.

[GHook93]

It can easy to get in a pissing match if you want!

Quote by: Ibn_Sina I see your point of view. I agree with parts of it and also disagree with some parts... You see, Israel will never nuke Iran. Iran provides oil to other nuclear states such as Russia and China. In addition, we both know that the use of nukes by multiple states will destroy the entire world. So, nukes are out of the equation. Don't even dream on that.

The whole reason Israel didn't use nukes in '67 or '73 (granted they had them back then) is because they where back into a Mazada like corner. In a hypothetical in which they were, then all hell would break loose, meaning nukes getting fired at the enemy invaders.

Without nukes, Israel doesn't look as strong as you say.

What nukes were used in '48, '67 or '73? They look strong even without nukes. But nukes do make them look a hell of a lot stronger.

If you are talking about airstrikes, well, Iran also have fighter jets, may be not as good as Israeli ones. Iranian missiles can reach Israel too. Also, Iran purchased missile-defence system from Russia and our own military industry recently unveiled newer military equipments.

Come on I know you have hometown pride, but the air threat is definitely in Israel's advantage.

Now let's go to military. Well, Hezbollah uses second-hand guns supplied by Iranian and old Soviet states that were made in 1940s.

No Hezbollah's advantage was their lack of care of the Lebanese civilians. Every Lebanese civilian that was killed was a victory for Hezbollah. This was a PR war watched by the whole world.

Now, after the so-called superior Israeli troops actually entered Lebanon and began fighting, 15 of them died in the first hour. THEN, all over sudden, peace was established. I doubt in a battle between armies, Israeli forces can stand up to Revoltionary Guards

Let's see 70 million to 7 million! Of course the Iranian ground force will be superior!

[Yarn]

You see, Israel will never nuke Iran. Iran provides oil to other nuclear states such as Russia and China. In addition, we both know that the use of nukes by multiple states will destroy the entire world. So, nukes are out of the equation. Don't even dream on that.

Israel would use nukes if its existence were under true threat. That Russia and/or China would use nukes on Iran's behalf is questionable, though possible, and even if true, would be irrelevant if I. As a general rule, you don't back nuclear armed countries into a corner, or they will become desperate enough to use their nukes. Israel has shown itself willing to impoverish millions to get rid of Hezbollah, which attacked once in the past 6 years, and was willing to have peace again immediatly after that strike.

This information is 5 years old, but I can complement it with another source:

Without nukes, Israel doesn't look as strong as you say. If you are talking about airstrikes, well, Iran also have fighter jets, may be not as good as Israeli ones. Iranian missiles can reach Israel too. Also, Iran purchased missile-defence system from Russia and our own military industry recently unveiled newer military equipments.

At one time Iran's air force was one of the most highly capable in the developing world. The Shah's appetite for US fighters was such that before his ouster he considered chipping in to help pay for development of the F/A-18.

Today, Iran has only about 150 aging US-built aircraft left. These include 66 F-4D/Es and 25 F-14-A/Bs, which are about 60 percent serviceable, according to a net assessment drawn up by Cordesman. Iran has long tried to evade the US embargo on parts for these airplanes by purchasing through third parties.

The backbones of the Iranian air force today are 24 Su-24 Fencers and 30 MiG-29 Fulcrums. These Soviet-era aircraft are about 80 percent serviceable, claims Cordesman. If Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, the Fencers could be used as an interim delivery capability, pending perfection of an adequate ballistic missile.

Iranian units also include 14 RF-4E and five P-3F reconnaissance aircraft. The air force has a limited aerial refueling capability. Air defense relies mainly on 100 Hawk missiles from the Shah's era, with a scattering of newer, shorter-range Soviet- and Chinese-made models.The Iran Problem

More recent developments, not completely up to date though:
An unknown number of "new" Su-25s were delivered to the Iranian Revolution Guards Corps Air Force (IRGCAF) in 2003. Where these Frogfoots originate from is unclear.

In July 2003 Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Corporation (CAIC) unveiled the new ‘Super-7’ or Chao Qi fighter plane to the public. The new Super-7 is “an all-purpose light fighter, required to have all-weather operation capabilities, be capable of performing the dual tasks of dogfight and air-to-ground attack, and have the ability to launch medium-range missiles. Mass production of the fighter will not begin until two and a half years of research are completed. The plane is being produced to be sold abroad to developing nations. China already has received orders from Iran and some African countries.

There have been reports of some 10 F-8Ms "Finback", 7 Tu-22Ms, 19 MIG-27s, and several MIG-31s (Russia's most modern fighter aircraft, US$40 million) being present in Iran, but these are not confirmed.
The Iran Problem

All told, the IRIAF flies as many as 300 fighters. All are older designs, but have been maintained and, in many cases, upgraded by the indigenous aerospace industry, which has become proficient in reverse-engineering weapons and spare parts -- and perhaps even engines. And the IRIAF has aerial tankers too -- a force multiplier only the most advanced air forces maintain
Defense Tech: Taking on Iran's air force

I am not enitirely sure what to make of all this.

Given its