[QUOTE=RedFury]
Let’s cut through the chase. Israel is here to stay. That said, there will be a Palestinian state; full rights, full stop.
[/QUOTE]
There probably will be, assuming the Palestinians are ever able to get their nutball element under control and under their thumb. Sadly at this late date (times a few more years down the road before they DO manage that little task, with the big assumption being that they will be able to do that little trick), it will be less than half a loaf…but better than nothing I guess.
You seem to be talking about different things in the post, going from Palestine and (I think?) back to Iran. Israel is certainly not committed to, or resigned to I should say, Iran getting nuclear weapons. They aren’t as blithe as you and some others in this thread seem to be about the prospect of a country that has repeatedly directed hostile remarks (not to mention hostile terrorist groups) towards them getting weapons that could potentially wipe them off the map, or at a minimum kill millions of their citizens. Yeah yeah, Red et al…YOU don’t think that’s a likely outcome, blah blah blah. Israel, however, doesn’t feel the same about it…to them Iran getting nukes is a direct and existential threat to them, and they will do what they think they need to do to prevent Iran from getting the things. If that means war, then it means war. Obviously, based on the European sanctions (since we can obviously discount the US reaction, considering the opinion of most of the ‘let Iran just have the things, what’s the harm??’ crowd in this thread towards the US), Israel isn’t exactly alone in their concern. Several ME nations are ALSO quite concerned by the prospect of Iran getting the things..
So, to answer the OP in the simplest terms, yeah…I’d say Israel IS prepared to attack Iran…they are probably waiting to see if the US, UN, other neighboring nations, the Europeans, etc. can derail or set back Irans nuclear program first without having to resort to direct Israeli military intervention. If Israel thinks that Iran is actually going to be able to do it, that sanctions just aren’t going to work, then I’d say the chances are pretty high that Israel WILL pull the trigger on surgical strikes.
Apologies in advance to Kobal2, as I’m both tired from another long trip AND I think much of this is not really relevant to the thread.
[QUOTE=Kobal2]
They do, and I’m not disputing this. Honestly, maintaining current stockpiles could be argued either way, and I don’t think any signatory party expected the nuclear nations to just throw the things away overnight.
However, these nations don’t do just that - they also continue to produce weapon-grade materials from their nuclear plants and build new warheads, as well as exciting new way of delivering their existing ones. Not only does that, in my opinion, is absolutely in contradiction with the very concept of nonproliferation, but it seems like a pretty clear case of hypocrisy and double standards here. If Iran cannot produce even a gram of plutonium or build a single new nuke, then we cannot either, yes ? We did sign the same treaty, did we not ?
As for further non-compliance, the wiki cite I pasted earlier quotes the International Court of Justice (which I think we can agree is not Joe’s Shack of Shooting the Shit when it comes to interpreting treaties and international law) as unanimously agreeing that implicit to the treaty was an effort at effectively reducing stockpiles under the strict supervision of international commission. AFAIK, no such commission exists, nor is planned to exist at any point, because nuclear nations have enough clout at the U.N. to nip the very thought in the bud.
[/QUOTE]
So, I’m going to take that we aren’t violating either the letter or spirit of the treaty, and that our non-violation does not constitute grounds for Iran to wiggle out of their own treaty obligations.
This is getting pretty far afield, but nothing in your cite indicates that we are building new nuclear weapons systems that I can see. The Trident II is a nuclear delivery system, and the warheads are off the shelf MIRVs from what I recall…warheads we have in plenty. Lastly, 1990 was 2 decades ago, so we aren’t talking about brand spanking new there at any rate. Regardless, to me it’s moot…I’ve seen nothing that indicates that our treaty obligations forbids us from building new nuclear weapons. Two things here…one, if WE are in violation due to this then so is most of the other original signatories, including China, who is building more new nuclear weapons than ANYONE else…in fact, at a guess, more than all the rest of the world combined. Two, if this was a valid reason to get countries who have signed the NNPT off the hook and allow them to build new nukes then this dodge would have been used by someone in the past. AFAIK, and again, if you have a cite to the contrary, feel free, no one (even Iran right now) has used this dodge to get out of compliance with the treaty. That, alone, should tell you something right there.
Exactly. It’s a non-issue because we aren’t violating anything. It IS an issue for Iran, thus the inspectors.
Assuming that Israel does have the things, they have yet to even CONFIRM that they do…so I’d say your existential threat to Iran falls a bit short. I mean, it hasn’t even risen to the level of a THREAT to use nukes against Iran, despite the obvious danger Israel thinks they are in from a nuclear Iran.
As to Saudi, they are about as different from Israel as you could get, but more importantly, they aren’t trying to procure or develop nuclear weapons, so it’s a non-issue…as it would be if Iran wasn’t trying to do those things. Iran would still be an asshole neighbor, both feared and distrusted by many of it’s neighbors, but no one would be talking about military strikes against them (despite Der Trihs fantasies of an imminent US attack) if THEY SIMPLY WEREN’T TRYING TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
No, you didn’t call the US a rogue state, you simply dismissed the term and then tried to draw and equivalency between the US’s past actions and those of Iran.
It was your claim, thus up to you to prove…or not, as you choose. I’d say that just based on the fact that no one has ever attempted to use this as a means to get out of their NNPT obligations pretty much is all the proof I need on my side to say that it’s not a credible claim, and it’s on you to provide references to why this intuitive look is wrong.
Or, as I said, not. Personally, I wouldn’t bother if I were you…the real world workings of the treaty alone pretty much speak volumes for the fact that the US and other nuclear armed nations aren’t violating the treaty, and Iran is.
Nope, assuming they COULD get out of their treaty obligations, I’d say that repudiating it would free them from it’s obligations and allow them to pursue militarized nuclear weapons programs. Of course, there is nothing to stop the US or Israel or even the Europeans (or some combination of the above, possibly even including some of Iran’s neighbors in the region, who also aren’t exactly jumping for joy over the prospect of a nuclear Iran) from bombing the crap out of their nuclear facilities the next day, so it’s kind of a moot point.
I can see where you are coming from, but I think it’s in the worlds best interest to keep the nuclear genie as bottled up as possible. Yeah, it sucks that the folks who got the things up front have a monopoly on them now, though in reality not every country signed the NNPT either. Every country that has nukes increases the probability that someone, sometime will use them…and if/when that happens millions will pay the price. YOU might think that Iran is ‘safe’, and it’s no worry about them getting the things, but even if that’s true today, there is nothing saying that the current Iranian government will survive the next 10 years or so. They have been able to brutally put down their own ‘Arab spring’ (despite the fact that they aren’t an Arab nation, which is quite a trick :p), but the unrest is growing there, and eventually it’s going to explode, and then no one knows what might happen. For instance, let’s say it goes the way of Libya. In that case, any number of rebel groups COULD get their hands on the nasty things and do gods know what with them.
So, I don’t think it’s bullshit. I don’t even think it’s all that unfair, since I don’t think that any nation like Iran NEEDS nukes to act as anti-tiger repellants. The only reason Iran wants nukes is the prestige it will give them in the region…that, and what they think would be a free hand to do as they please without anyone having any recourse.
Can you actually provide a link to this official English translation? What is the actual text that they use for that phrase?
As for Bronner's piece where does he establish that "map" is a good translation for what Ahmedinejad? His piece says that some early translators used "map" for Khomeini's statement but it clearly means something much more metaphorical like "stages of time". The Steele piece confirms this:
Secondly nowhere does he says that “occupying regime” is not a correct translation:
He is talking about the implications of the term “occupying regime” not whether it is a good translation or not. He doesn’t say that Israel would be a better translation.
So yeah at the end Bronner says that it “seems” as if he said Israel should be wiped off the map but the article makes clear that neither “Israel” nor “map” is a good translation of what he actually said.
Again, this is not Opposite Day.
The article makes clear that “Israel” is the correct interpretation, as the phrase “occupying regime” is used in place of “Israel” since Ahmadinejad won’t even use the country’s actual name and “map” is also a proper translation as it’s the standard interpretation of the metaphor that’s been used for a long time now. Claiming that he really meant “Israel must be eliminated from the pages of history” is hardly an improvement. You’ve already had these facts quoted for you, and simply claiming that they’re wrong is hardly an effective strategy.
The article makes clear that Ahmadinejad was talking about wiping away the nation of Israel. Pretty cut and dry. Instead of your false to facts apologia, you could simply point out that Ahmadinejad doesn’t set international policy for Iran. But this song and dance just makes any argument you might put forward, suspect and tainted.
OK I don’t know the context of that 1982 quote and you don’t provide a reference. It’s possible that in the early stages of the revolution Iran had a more radical position. Perhaps it had something to do with the 1982 war.Do you have a more recent quote threatening Israel from someone like Khameini who has explicitly denied threatening any other state?
Anyway it is possible for a particular regime or state to disappear without much bloodshed as happened with the Soviet Union. In the long run it’s possible to imagine Israel moving away from being a Jewish state without bloodshed. I don’t think expressing a wish for a single Palestinian state constitutes a threat of physical destruction .
If Ahmadinejad doesn't use the word Israel then he doesn't use the word Israel. You may "interpret" him as meaning Israel that but you can't claim that Israel is an accurate translation.
And the article doesn’t say that map is a standard translation. It says that the translation was used in the early years of the revolution but it’s clearly not a good translation. Steele’s piece confirms this in the quote I put up.
The willful denial of that stance is too blatant to take it seriously. Israel, the nation set up to be the Jewish State, whose entire reason for being is to serve as the Jewish State, will simply decide that it’s not such a good idea anyways and just up and change. And that’ll all happen without any bloodshed. Yep.
Assuming that someone had baseline level cognizance about the issue and understood that Israel won’t dissolve itself and allow the entire area to become “Greater Palestine” and that it would take a war to accomplish that, then of course it constitutes a threat of physical destruction. If someone lacked that baseline, then perhaps.
Your argument seems more than a little disingenuous. Someone who expressed a wish that “Palestine should be wiped from the map/pages of time/book of nations/skibbly bibbly bobop” would be supporting ethnic cleansing, not fondly wishing that all the Palestinians would, en mass, just pick up camp and go trundle off somewhere else. Moreover, it would raise quite a few eyebrows if an apologist steadfastly insisted that it was a dream for peaceable and voluntary relocation since after all, the Soviet Union fragmented without war. :dubious:
You do realize that these denials simply make it clear that your argument is a rationalization that cannot stand the actual facts? Yes, languages have idioms. Yes, the semantic value of a statement doesn’t always follow from the literal translation of a word. When Ahmadinejad says “occupying regime” he means Israel. That your argument is reduced to claiming otherwise shows its utter and complete poverty,
First, it does not say that it’s “clearly not a good translation”, you’re making that it. In fact it points out that it’s a good translation as it’s the closest approximation of the metaphor and the phrase has found echo in specific utterances of modern day hardliners who are more explicit.
Second you are again misrepresenting another article. The Steele piece confirms no such thing, and offering another interpretation for the metaphor which keeps the semantic value intact is hardly a refutation. “It’s not map, it’s pages of history! It’s not pages of history, it’s book of nations! It’s not book of nations, it’s countries which exist!” Your apologia is threadbare, and it shows.
The Soviet Union was a heavily militarized totalitarian state which sought explicitly to foment a global revolution. If that state could disappear peacefully, any state can. Over a long period of time, people, demographics and ideologies can change. That is a simple fact of history.
In other news, the Soviet Union is not fungible with every other state on the planet. New findings also indicate that while rocks and diamonds are both hard things, giving your girlfriend a chunk of rock may not go over well.
Except, apologists’ nonsense aside, when Ahmadinejad says “the occupying regime” he’s talking about Israel itself, as a nation. He doesn’t mean “hey, if they elect a new political party, it’ll be great!”
Which, of course, doesn’t even begin to address the startling ignorance of history and current events if people think that the Israelis will just shrug their shoulders and give up their state. Arguing that they just might do that because the Soviet Union switched forms of government is just about the height of transparent nonsense.
What’s the point of all these mental gyrations to try every way possible to ‘prove’ that this emnity is all a translation error? I don’t get it. Does anyone think that Israel really doesnt believe that a nuclear Iran is a threat??? Even if it IS a translation error (something that is pretty silly, IMHO), what possible difference does it make? If Israel thinks there is a threat then they are going to act in a way they feel best mitigates the threat. And if Iran and the folks making these speeches see that their purported innocuous speeches are being mis-translated and skewed, it seems their best options would be to attempt to alleviate the mis-conceptions. Oh, and maybe try not to give the impression that they continue to pursue nuclear weapons. Seems logical to me anyway…
So a state can change its name, system of government, its borders and it still survives according to you? Do you think the Roman empire still exists?
Finn,
Here is what Steele says:
It could hardly be more clear. He doesn’t think “map” is a good translation.
The issue with “occupying regime” and Israel is even more clear-cut.Every serious translation I have seen says “occupying regime” or something similar. It becomes even more clear-cut in context because just before he talks about the Shah of Iran, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein, all of which of course are regimes which have disappeared without the destruction of the country.
Do you think that many people are confused by that bit of obfuscation? For serious? Even if “book of nations” (or what have you) is a better translation of the metaphor than “map”, the semantic value remains the same. It is a wish that the nation of Israel be wiped from existence. Not, as you’ve tried to spin it, some passive wish that Israel will simply up and change. The verb was active and transitive.
Your quibble over whether the metaphor means “map” or “book of nations” or “pages of history”, or whatever, just lays bare the fact that you’re offering up an utterly absurd apologia in defense of some Quixotic point. You could simply admit the truth and also state that Ahmadinejad doesn’t set policy. Instead you are making it clear that you will craft obviously bogus apologias in support of a risibly transparent shell game.
Your apologia is even more obviously rationalized, here. The man is so disgusted with the very existence of Israel that he refuses to use its name, and instead calls it “the occupying regime”. You’re not fooling anybody, at all, when you pretend that “the occupying regime” doesn’t mean Israel, or that he’d be perfectly happy if Israel just elected a different political party. Let alone the nonsense that, well, maybe all the Israelis will suddenly be happy if Israel was dissolved and they were all citizens of an Islamic state of Palestine.
Your argument is pretzeled in order to avoid accepting a very simple, non-controversial fact which has very little bearing on the actual discussion. If it’ll pretzel itself up so thoroughly over something that doesn’t matter, why should anybody have any faith in your arguments if you’re using them to support a point which actually does matter?
But that’s exactly what they did. The Iranian FM denied that Iran wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Khameini said that Iran did not threaten any country. He has also issued a fatwa saying nuclear weapons cannot be produced, stockpiled or used under Islam.
To the extent that we rely on statements coming from Iranian leaders, I think those two by Khameini carry a lot more weight than anything by Ahmadinejad. Personally I prefer to rely on a country’s actions and its incentives to determine its future actions and nothing leads me to believe that Iran is some kind of crazy country which will commit national suicide by launching nukes at Israel.
This whole discussion of “official translations” is ridiculous. Achmedinajad was speaking Farsi, not some obscure language; there are some 200,000 Persian Jews in Israel, and several hundred thousand more Iranians in the U.S. Farsi is as normal a language to us as Russian of French. You don’t see anyone asking for “official translations” of statements by Nikolas Sarkosy or Vladmir Putin, do you? But when *brown *people speak, suddenly they’re all “obscure” and “hard to understand”. I guess if Achmedinajad were white, he’d be perfectly comprehensible, right?
Fine. So, according to the Iranians, what sort of changes does Israel’s “regime” have to undergo to be palatable to them? Be specific. Are you capable of being specific, or are you just blowing smoke up our ass?
…while the official translations said otherwise.
And this naw apologia is raising the bar for nonsense. You are actually claiming that Iran’s attempt to “attempt to alleviate the mis-conceptions” wasn’t to stop funding, training, arming and sheltering genocidal groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, wasn’t to offer peace to Israel, wasn’t to do anything to actually get rid of misconceptions… but it was to say “Yah, we didn’t mean to say that you should be wiped from the map, just wiped from the pages of time itself. So, you see, no worries, eh?”
Again, instead of this obvious rationalization, why not just admit that Ahmadinejad is an incendiary nutbar but also admit that it doesn’t matter, since he doesn’t make the decisions? Instead you’re attempting to defend the indefensible and making it clear that your arguments cannot be trusted as you’re working backwards from a conclusion and trying to find facts to fit it.
Well, what luck! That means… hey… wait a minute… Iranian fatwa approves use of nuclear weapons. But luckily, if we have a secure enough barometer as what clerics view the correct interpretation of their religion to be, there’s no way it could possibly change.
So… Iran arming, funding, training and sheltering not one but two genocidal organizations dedicated to Israel’s extermination… where exactly does that enter into your calculations?
OK this is the nub of the matter. What do Iranians mean by occupying regime? I think they mean the existence of a Jewish state not the physical land of Israel. It's perfectly possible for Israel to stop existing as a Jewish state without its physical destruction. In fact I don't think it's at all likely that Israel will ever be destroyed militarily. However it's possible that settlements make a two-state solution impossible, Palestinians switch their demand to a one-state solution, demographic changes make their position stronger every generation, Israel becomes more and more internationally isolated and ultimately ceases to be a Jewish state.
