Whew! That just means they want to destroy the nation of Israel, and not use anti-matter to physically eliminate all the soil down to the Earth’s core. What a relief.
So… are you blowing smoke, or do you have a single poll that shows a significant portion of Israelis want to end their nation? You don’t, do you? Just blowing smoke, aren’t you? The idea that they’d accept being part of a nation with the PLO’s charter or Hamas’ charter as the guiding documents, even if demographics turn against them, is so mindblowingly absurd that I’m not even sure what to say to it. But I guess I’ll ask if you’re blowing smoke on the whole “Greater Palestine” thing or if you have a poll showing that a significant portion of Israelis are willing to live in an Islamic state? You don’t, do you?
And that’s why it’s such a good thing that Khameini achieved immortality and became a lich, so as to lead his people in perpetuity. Otherwise some other cleric might come up with a different interpretation of the Divine Unchanging Opinion of God.
Including its own army, and sole control of its own side of its borders with Jordan and Egypt and Israel, and no IDF troops within its territory even to protect Jewish Israeli settlers?
So public opinion can't change over a long period of time? In any event the opinions of Israeli Jews are not the only ones that are going to matter. If a two-state solution doesn't happen in the next few decades, the world will increasingly view Israel and the occupied territories as a single unit in which Israeli Jews are an ever smaller minority. Given that some ultra-orthodox Jews aren't Zionist, Zionist Jews will be an even smaller minority. So I wouldn't be too optimistic about the long-term survival of a Jewish state in this scenario.
The reference is a document which was produced by Iran’s foreign office.
Anything is possible. So what?
This is from just a couple days ago:
In common parlance, nobody says that the Soviet Union was “destroyed.” But since you brought it up, let’s suppose that the year is 1955 and Eisenhower has a big rally where he says that the USSR “must be destroyed”; and that “the Communist Regime of Eastern Europe is a cancerous tumour and it will be removed.” Let’s suppose that the crowd at the rally starts chanting “Death to the USSR!!” Let’s suppose that there are regularly rallies in the United States where the people chant “Death to the USSR” and burn the USSR flag. Let’s suppose that the US is a totalitarian country where the government sponsors and consents to such rallies. Do you think that under such circumstances, it would be reasonable for the USSR to be very concerned about American development of nuclear weapons?
Again, I’m not sure what you mean by “physical destruction” since states do not have any physical existence.
Why won’t you answer my questions? They are reasonable and would help me to understand your position:
(1) Let’s assume that “destroy” does not mean physical destuction of land and let me ask you this: If a state is “destroyed” involuntarily, can we agree that it’s normally a process which involves a lot of pain and bloodshed for the citizenry of that state?
(2) Can we agree that if State X wants to “destroy” State Y, it’s reasonable for State Y to object to State X obtaining nuclear weapons?
If you rely on a countries actions, how does that jibe with Iran’s support of terrorist groups that specifically target Israel? How should Israel interpret those actions wrt hostility and enmity towards them from such a nation, especially wrt that same nation secretly attempting to develop nuclear weapons, despite how internationally unpopular that is, and the fact that it goes against treaties they signed?
So… no polls, at all. But at some unspecified time in the future, a supermajority of Israelis will simply decide that they’re done being Israelis, they no longer want to have a Jewish State, and now it’s time for them to be citizens of an Islamic Palestine. Sounds perfectly plausible.
As for your idea that the rest of the world will view Israel as being part of Palestine, yah, good luck on that. You planning on invading in order to force them to dissolve their nationhood? No? Yah… good luck on that.
Oh, and:
Do you want to talk about Iran’s actions, or not?
Based on the speed with which you changed the subject, one might suspect that your argument is a tad disingenuous.
Look I am not claiming that Iranians are making some kind of demands which would be acceptable to you. They want a single multi-ethnic state which is not a Jewish state. Obviously this is not acceptable to you and most Israelis. However my point is that expressing this wish does not constitue a threat to militarily destroy Israel.
And for the record, in case it’s not clear, I support a two-state solution with a Jewish and Arab state.
Previously you claimed that it’s Iran’s actions, not its rhetoric which concerns you. How, then, do you deal with the fact that Iran supports, arms, trains and shelters not just one genocidal organization bent on destroying Israel through force of arms, but two such organizations?
Sure, Israel should look on Iran as a hostile country. However Iran is not an “existential threat” even if it acquires nuclear weapons and in all likelihood it will be fairly easily contained.
Brazil,
I think it is possible to imagine Israel ceasing to exist as a Jewish state in hte long run without much bloodshed. Basically without a two-state solution, Israel will be increasingly be viewed internationally as something akin to apartheid South Africa where a small ethnic minority rules an unwilling majority. Like with South Africa, it’s quite possible for such a state to rule by force for some time and then basically give up and transfer power peacefully.
So what? Why do you evade my questions? It’s not like I wrote them in Farsi or anything:
(1) If a state is “destroyed” involuntarily, can we agree that it’s normally a process which involves a lot of pain and bloodshed for the citizenry of that state?
(2) Can we agree that if State X wants to “destroy” State Y, it’s reasonable for State Y to object to State X obtaining nuclear weapons?
(3) Let’s suppose that the year is 1955 and Eisenhower has a big rally where he says that the USSR “must be destroyed”; and that “the Communist Regime of Eastern Europe is a cancerous tumour and it will be removed!” Let’s suppose that the crowd at the rally starts chanting “Death to the USSR!!” Let’s suppose that there are regularly rallies in the United States where the people chant “Death to the USSR” and burn the USSR flag. Let’s suppose that the US is a totalitarian country where the government sponsors and consents to such rallies. Do you think that under such circumstances, it would be reasonable for the USSR to be very concerned about American development of nuclear weapons?
These are simple, reasonable, yes or no questions.
Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah to extend their influence in the ME, to help their fellow Shias achieve power in Lebanon and to acquire chips to deter potential US attacks. I don’t think even the most deluded officer in the Revolutionary Guard believes that Hamas and Hezbollah constitute a serious military threat to Israel’s survival.
But what do you base this assertion on, and why do you think it matters in any case. Because YOU don’t think Iran is a risk, that doesn’t mean Israel agrees with you. Because YOU think Iran is ‘safe’, and the likelihood they will use them is low, and that they will be contained means nothing. It’s what Israel and the Israeli people think that counts, and it’s pretty clear that you guys aren’t on the same page, calculation wise.
Oh, and what becomes of those settlers? Do you envision them moving to Israel; or staying and becoming Palestinian citizens? Their continuance as enclaves of the State of Israel within Palestinian territory obviously could not be an option, if Palestine is to be fully independent and sovereign.
Someone less charitable than I am might note that you deliberately sidestepped the fact that Iran sponsors, arms, trains, supports and shelters two separate organizations bent on the genocide of the Israelis and you’ve tried to handwave that way when your point for quite a bit was that Iran’s rhetoric doesn’t matter, only their actions do. One less charitable than I might also note that now evidently neither Iran’s rhetoric nor its actions matter.
As for the threat that Hamas and Hezbollah provide? Equip them with chemical weapons and thousands of rockets, and have them start firing. If it’s not an “existential” threat, it’s still a pretty darn “serious” threat.
It is not impossible that Iranian leadership could sit safe and comfy in a bunker and let their populace be nuked in response to a bomb going off in Tel Aviv. These are the same folks who used children as human mine-flails, after all.
Nor is it as all hard to imagine how Iran would use Hamas and Hezbollah if it had a nuclear deterrent.
Do you really not grok the fallacy of false equivalency? Israel is not the USSR, it is not South Africa, and you have absolutely no data, at all, that any Israelis support being absorbed into an Islamic state. That, however, evidently does not give you pause.
Brazil,
Sure Israel has a right to object to Iran acquiring nukes. However I don’t think Iran has the slightest intentions of launching a nuclear attack on Israel and I don’t think think Iran is an existential threat to Israel. And I don’t believe that Israel has a legitimate reason to attack Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities. I don’t think such an attack would actually stop or even seriously delay Iran from acquiring nukes and it will likely cause massive chaos in the ME and in the world economy.
Well you are just stating the obvious. Obviously any state can take actions accordings to its world-view and assessments. What I can do is to critique those actions and assessments and that is what I am doing here. An Israeli attack on Iran would have massive consequences for the rest of the world so obviously it’s not just their views which count. I think it’s worth pointing out that there are smart people in Israel whose assessment of the Iranian threat is not that different from mine.
I would have to believe that they would be willing to accept certain nuclear retaliation and the destruction of much of their country. Nothing in their statements or actions suggests that this is even remotely true.