Iran - Israel's Relations (War is not inevitable):

[GHook93]

The ironic thing is the the Persians have been better to the Jews than another people during the Jews History. It really didn't get bad until Alamdouchebag (Ahmadinejad) took power. I personally believe that he has brought down the country and they Iranian people will react by voting his racist butt out of office. I digress here is a previous history of the Israelis and Persians/Iranian prosperous history.

(1) Cyrus the Great - Helped the Jews
Helped the Jews regain the land of Israel and Judea from the Assyrians and Babloyians. Also let them built the 2nd temple.

(2) Byzantine Empire
Allied with the Jews in a revolt against the Byzantines, to which the Jews maintained brief automny, until it is controversial over who betrayed who. But the Byzantines too over briefly again (while the Jews were able to remain in Palestine/Israel), until the Arab Crusader took over.

(3) After 1948 Declaration of Independence-
Iran and Israel has friendly relationship. In the 1950s Iran was one of the first nations to internationally recognize Israel, and was considered one of Israel's closest and few Muslim friends. Israel had an "unofficial" embassy in Iran. Obviously this was the time of the Shah, so it must be taken with a grain of salt.

Aftermath of the Six Day War and the closing of the Suez Canal, Israel transferred large amounts of oil from Iran to European markets via the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline. In addition, Israel purchased a significant portion of its oil needs from Iran. Apparently, the two nations had numerous business transactions, although the extent of these dealings was never officially quantified. Also, Israeli construction firms and engineers were active in Iran. Iranian-Israeli military links were top-secret, but they are believed to have been wide-ranging.

(4) The Islamic Revolution:
Obviously the relationship turned South:
Ayatollah Khomeini declared Israel as an "enemy of Islam."
Iran withdrew its recognition of the state of Israel and cut off all official relations.

However, there were still secret ties. And Israel was instrument in helping Iran fight against Iraq.

Declassified reports exist which show Israel supplying Iran with weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. [3]. Iran is said to have purchased weapons valued at $2.5 billion from Israel through third party intermediaries during the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s and 1990s

Project "Flower" Tzur, a joint collaboration between Iran and Israel, aimed to develop a "state-of-the-art sea-to-sea missile, an advanced version of the U.S. Harpoon missile, with a range of 200 kilometers." (See: Ronen Bergman, "5 billion Reasons to Talk to Iran," Haaretz (Tel Aviv), 19 March 1999; in "Israel's Outstanding Debt to Iran Viewed," FBIS Document FTS19990319001273, 19 March 1999. Israeli Defense Minister General Ezer Weizmann and Iranian Vice Minister of War General Hasan Toufanian discussed the co-production of Israel's Jericho-2 missile, code named Project Flower.

And there were no direct threats or even the coming close to war until 2001.

n 2001 Khamenei famously remarked that "this cancerous tumor of a state [Israel] should be removed from the region."

Ali Khamenei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But Khamenei did taken a softer (although far less creditable) stance on war with Israel. Trying to create the presumption that he is highly critical over the situation, but is against military intervention.

In November 2005 Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, rejecting any attack on Israel, called for a referendum in Palestine: We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government

Under Khatami, is seemed like it could get better:

Under reformist Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, elected in 1997, some believed Iran and Israel would work to improve relations. While at first Khatami's election did not seem to change anything—he called Israel an "illegal state" and a "parasite," [8] signs of small moderation did appear. For example, Khatami has said that Jews should be "safe in Iran" and that all religious minorities should be protected.[9]. In January 2004, he spoke to an Israeli reporter who asked him on what grounds Iran would recognize Israel. This was believed to be the first time he had spoken publicly with an Israeli [10]. At the funeral of Pope John Paul II in April 2005, Khatami was seated close to Israeli President Moshe Katsav. Katsav said that he shook Khatami's hand and the two had a brief conversation about Iran (Katsav was born in the same province as Khatami). However, Khatami denied this [11]. Other reports indicate that Iran did try to initiate a rapprochement with Israel, recognizing its existence in a proposal to the United States. The report claims that Iran's peace proposal with Israel was not accepted by the United States

Khamenei is also not a brain-death Holocaust denier.

Moreover Khamenei`s main advisor in foreign policy, Ali Akbar Velayati, refused to take part in Holocaust conference. In contrast to Ahmadinejad`s remarks, Velayati said that Holocaust was a genocide and a historical reality

4) AND THEN CAME ALMADOUCHEBAG!!!

He took the relationship to a critical point and now close to war! However, not only with Israel, but with the West and the US. By his call to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, to Calling the Holocaust a myth, continued military support of Hamas and Hezbollah, his continued threats against Israel (which is really Wagging to the Dog to turn attentions away from the shity Iranian economy under his reign and towards hostilities against Israel) and his illogical persuit of atomic weapons, has inflamed the situation.

HOWEVER, I don't see a war as inevitable and possible a sign of tuning in the other direction. Alamdouchebag was elected in 2005, I believe Iranian Presidents serve for 4 years. Hopefully, in 2009 the Iranians will vote in another direction, just like what will more than likely happen in America (A Democrat is more than likely to get voted in over a Republican).

Correct me if I am wrong, but Khatami, a reformer and moderate, served 2 consecutive terms as President and I Iranian Presidents can only serve 2 terms (I am not too sure on this). That means for a while the Iranians perferred the moderate. If they get another moderate in office, then maybe things can change.

[jose]

you know they are gonna kick israels butt if they keep pushing.
distruction may come from the air ,but land is taken and held by boots on the ground

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: GHook93 The ironic thing is the the Persians have been better to the Jews than another people during the Jews History. .

I take it you exclude the fact they were also Nazis with Germany trying to exterminate them?
http://www.iranian.com/Pictory/2004/...mages/nazi.jpg

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: jose you know they are gonna kick israels butt if they keep pushing. distruction may come from the air ,but land is taken and held by boots on the ground

Remember Gulf War 1?

[GHook93]

Quote by: jose you know they are gonna kick israels butt if they keep pushing. distruction may come from the air ,but land is taken and held by boots on the ground

Please! You bases this on what? '48, '67, or '73? Yes Iran was in none of those conflicts, but that facts still remain Israel won against over-welming numbers.

Say Iran did attack Israel, then America would use it as an excuse (the excuse many are waiting for) to do the old school WW II attack on Iran.

But you missed the point (which is not that usual), that regardless of Alamadouchebag, I don't see open conflict as inevitable. Relations were moving in the right direction when Khatami was in office Hopefully no nukes will be created and Iranian will vote back a moderate in 2009!

[GHook93]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica I take it you exclude the fact they were also Nazis with Germany trying to exterminate them? http://www.iranian.com/Pictory/2004/...mages/nazi.jpg

Germany and Iran had strong commercial and diplomatic ties back then. You can fault that them for that, but credit them for this:

During WW II, Iranian consular office in France was instrumental in saving Iranian and non-Iranian Jews from prosecutions by Nazi Germany. In the context of Iran's good diplomatic relations with Germany, Iran could save the lives of Iranian Jews and no Iranian Jews were killed by Nazi Germany.

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

Hence why there was much larger amount of Jews that survived the Holocaust in Iran than in other places:

At the time of the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, there were approximately 140,000–150,000 Jews living in Iran. Up until the '79 Islamic Revolution there were 80,000 Jews in Iran

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


Yes the Persian/Irans did treat the Jews as 2nd class citizens, but still better than most place in the world, especially better than Europe and Russia.

[Ibn_Sina]

Please....

US government throws words like "moderate" and "radical" when it suits them. Same with you. I bet you think Saudi King is moderate.

Iran does not hate any country in the world. We are not a hateful nation. In fact, historically, we (Persians) are the first nation that believed in Human Rights (Cyrus The Great issued a document on Human Rights) in ancient time, while GodBlessAmerica and his barbarian ancestors were learning to make fire.

Well, instead of blaming Iran for everything, you should also look where Israel has gone wrong, in terms of International Relations.

[rmnunez]

We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government.

Although Khamenei seems to be offering something quite fair, if voters voted along religious lines (all Jews in Israel to create a Jewish state there), and all Palestinians of Muslim faith (regardless of citizenship or exiled refugee status) to create a "Palestinian" state, you know what results Khamenei is reasonably forecasting.

What would a righteously vengeful Islamic government in Palestine do with the (to them) tresspassing infidels in their midst?

[Ibn_Sina]

Quote by: rmnunez What would a righteously vengeful Islamic government in Palestine do with the (to them) tresspassing infidels in their midst?

Treat them with respect, since that is what true Islam is about.

[rmnunez]

Respect with tolerance? The sort we see for other faiths in different Muslim countries?

[Ibn_Sina]

Yes, exactly.

[rmnunez]

Ibn, do you think the level of tolerance and respect for other faiths evident in the average Muslim jurisdiction is acceptable to non-Muslims? I know there is historical reference to famous Jewish and other communities which existed under different Muslim regimes in the past, but this isn't at all the contemporary practice. There were Jews living in Iran in biblical times and all sorts of prosperous communities of them in various Mediterranean enclaves at one time or another, but nowadays where can any Muslim point to a successful community of infidels tolerated in their midst?

[Ibn_Sina]

It is not as simple as "Muslims just being intolerant worldwide because they feel its the right thing to do", although, the Western media would want you to believe that.

Yes, in ancient times, many Islamic societies treated non-Muslims fairly and equally.

However, it is not happening nowdays and you are asking why that is the case?

Two reasons that I know are:


1. Almost all the Muslim countries have been colonized and the colonists were non-Muslims. Now, colonists had not only oppressed but also tried to impose their religion (Christianity) on the native populations. Colonists perceived forceful conversion as their God-given duty, which would "civilize" the natives. Even though, colonnialism ended, it still affects many societies culturally, economically and politically. Thus, in a sense, some Muslims do not trust non-Muslims.

2. Islam is always being discriminated by non-Muslim and you cannot deny it. Whether its the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him), or Israeli women drawing a pig reading the Quran or the German man who printed Quranic verses on toilet rolls. Religion is an emotional thing for people and playing with someone's emotions can lead to consequences.

3. The media is always alienating Muslims. George Bush would say: Iraq war is a "crusade" against terrorists and God had ordered me to do so. Muslims all over the world would hear it. You expect them to feel good?

Religious discrimination cannot be justified. However, one-sided criticism of Muslims, without taking relevant factors into account, is simply putting forth a racist argument (fallacy actually)...

[rmnunez]

By your own admission, some Muslim countries have not been colonized, these should offer us nice examples of more tolerant Muslims, but they don't. Colonists in Muslim countries didn't always seek to convert the natives to Christianity. Colonists sent missionaries, but this was mostly to non Muslim places like Latin America, enclaves in South East Asia and Pacific Islands, not much of this sort of thing went on in North Africa, the Middle East or Persian Gulf.

No Christian colonists perceived of any need for forceful conversion of Muslims, nor was such ever undertaken. In India the the British respected local practices, the Spanish colonists who were Catholic and hence Christians, did forcibly convert natives, but these weren't Muslims, and that was about 300 hundred years earlier (when that sort of thing was okay).

You just have to look at the dates of colonization and consider the relationship of Church and State in the colonizing power. The British have a sui generis situation with the monarch as Pope for Anglicans, but its not like the crown has ever placed any importance in religious pursuits, certainly not in its colonizing which was strictly mercantilistic. The French disengaged the Church with Richellieu, they weren't out on any missions either. The Portuguese may have been like the Spanish when they got to Brazil, but by the time they got to Angola or Mozambique it was a different story, and again, those aren't Muslims.

There is no evidence to sustain a claim of forcible conversion of Muslims by Christian colonialists since the Crusades.

[Ibn_Sina]

My point 2 and 3 still remains...

As for 1, well, even if forceful conversions do not appear in history books (in which numerous accounts have been written by European as well as Christian historians), that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Even if you do not take conversions into account, Muslim natives were physically tortured by non-Muslim colonists.

In fact, not so long ago, Catholic dictionary / encyclopaedia insulted Prophet Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him) in every way possible. You can still find it on the net today.

Also, show me a Western nation that has been good towards Muslim minorities.

[rmnunez]

Your argument is shot to shreds if you want to justify terrorism ascribing to Muslims some victimhood at western hands.

Muslims are a a great variety and had different relations with outsiders at various times. Western colonialism was much more repressive, pervasive and predatory in other places which don't generate terrorists even though the colonizer still manipulates, exploits, offends and never apologized. If colonial experience with artificious boundaries, foreign occupation with discrimination, repression and exploitation 'naturally' induced terrorism Spain would be overrun with Aztecan terrorists. Where are all those black terrorists after the woes British, French, Portuguese, Germans, Italians and Spaniards visited upon Subsaharan Africans?

There are a number of western countries that have been quite good to Muslims. Citizens from former colonies are legally favoured by most former colonists, given immigration preference, easier naturalization, offered financial support and provided with social benefits. In western countries religious discrimination is not allowed so we've cetainly not got any de jure (while the opposite is the case throughout the Muslim world). Western governments do not impede the practice of any religion and have allowed the construction of mosques (its rare if not forbidden to find a heathen temple in any Muslim country). Christian missionaries don't abound in Muslim countries because they are not allowed, bibles and religious artifacts are forbidden in many of them. No public display of religious faith is allowed on buildings in many Muslim countries, and in some these are even forbidden on the person.

The only explanation I can find for this Islamic fundamentalist terrorism (and the lack of any significant and unified Muslim denunciation or oppsition thereto) is intolerance and vengefulness. This may even be a cultural identity feature common to Muslims, nonetheless its incompatible in the extreme with survival of the human species. To the degree it is claimed the terrorism the US leads the way in fighting, is 'natural', it is argued Muslims everywhere need to be exterminated for their insurmountable intolerance.

[GHook93]

Yes Iran has made threats, supports terrorist regimes like Hamas and Hezbollah and could possibly be constructing nukes. However, it is extremely unlikely that Iran would every initiate a preemptive strike on Israel, even a preemptive nuclear strike.
Reason:
(1) History - Iran has a history of rhetoric against Israel following '79, but has never came close to acting on it.
(2) Iran has missiles, but not the air-force or navy to delivery an effective attack.
(3) A nuclear strike would against Israel would definitely lead to a 10 fold nuclear retaliation from Israel, the US and possibly France and Britain.
(4) A war with the US and Israel would hurt the Islamic regime and could lead to its collapse. Case in sample, look at how quickly the Sadam and Taliban regime collapsed (yes the replace are weak and there is still a void, but both regime lost power and grip on the country shortly after war).
(5) Iran is barking, but its not suicidal! Nuclear war could destroy the republic and the Persian people have many enemies close by other than Israel.
(6) Alwanjhadi is the one barking. The use of the army and navy comes for the Ayatollahs. The Ayatollahs have been against Israel from the being, yet have never attacked on it.
(7) Reformers taking over. Much in the way that the Democrats are going to take over the government (they have the house, soon to have the senate and Presidency and eventually the supreme court) because of Bush, the reformers have taken the Parliament and probably will take the Presidency. Relations btw the 2 countries were much better when Khatami was in charge, there was even a proposal for better relations btw the 2 countries coming from Iran when Khatami was President.


Bottom line war would be unnecessary and I hope the Israelis, Americans and Iranians don't make any rash and ill-advised decisions.

[grandpa]

Quote by: GHook93 Yes Iran has made threats, supports terrorist regimes like Hamas and Hezbollah and could possibly be constructing nukes. However, it is extremely unlikely that Iran would every initiate a preemptive strike on Israel, even a preemptive nuclear strike.

John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., noted that Iran's "extensive
program to achieve a ballistic missile program of longer and longer
range and greater accuracy constitutes a classic threat." That's true, but similar things could be said of many other countries, including his own. And Iran is still far enough away from constructing nukes.

So, as Robert Parry suggested, "to make the case with the American people, the neoconservatives
first need to secure a more frightening assessment of Iran’s nuclear
weapons potential from Negroponte and the U.S. intelligence community."
Consortiumnews.com

Linda Heard suggests Americans and Israelis "are simply causing the
Iranian leadership to dig its heels in further and assert its right
under the NPT to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Even if this is a
coordinated bluff, it could so easily reach the point of no return when
to maintain strategic credibility, the players will have to make good on
their threats."
War drums becoming deafening

Grandpa h.

[kharvel]

Can we all agree that this situation would never had occurred if the U.S. had never overthrown the democratically elected Iranian regime in 1950s?

[GHook93]

Quote by: kharvel Can we all agree that this situation would never had occurred if the U.S. had never overthrown the democratically elected Iranian regime in 1950s?

I personally don't know enough about it, but probably a good assessment. The truth is America should have reengaged Iran a long time ago. That would have made everything better today also.