Or is it? If it is, is it just a tool to deflect criticisms of the regime? I know it is couched in terms of defending Islam, but the cynic in me doesn’t buy that as the real motivation.
Thanks,
Rob
I don’t think there’s a GQ answer to this one. It’s probably more GD material.
But I think the answer is “Yes, both.” There’s no one single reason. I would say that religious, cultural and political factors all coincide.
Muslims can trace animosity with the Jews back to the very beginning… in fact, they’d trace it back to Abraham and his sons, more than 1000 years before there was a prophet Muhammad. At the very least, there’s a deep disagreement between Jews and Muslims about Jerusalem and the Temple of the Rock, built on the site of the original Jewish Temple.
It’s also politically expedient both in terms of foreign policy and internal politics. It wouldn’t be effective politically if the animosity didn’t already exist, but the animosity is reinforced by using it for political purposes.
It’s not but a common enemy takes your mind off the real issue. Israel and Egypt live in peace (OK a cold peace) for 30 years. This proves you don’t have to love each other not to shoot at each other
The one line answer is that Iran’s foreign policy is almost entirely defined by anti-Westernism and Israel is by far the biggest issue on which the west and the Islamic world disagree.
A lot of governments in the region would love to have closer relations with the west, but the Israel issue is the major stumbling block-- by keeping the issue of anti-zionism prominent, Iran hopes to prevent other countries in the region from aligning with the west.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
And, I think, both apply.
Israel had relatively close relations with the Shah prior to the Islamic Revolution, with the result that the Ayotollah made vilification of Israel a recurring theme in his statements.
So pretty much the same reason that Iran hates the UK and US. They’re the “bad guys” in Iran’s founding myth.
Israel is a fairly new country.
Basically, at the end of WWII, no one wanted the Jews so they “Helped them re-establish” their homeland.
While there have always been Jews in Israel, most of the ones there now can trace their ancestry back through European families.
To the muslim world this was a backstabbing bloodless crusade. Up until that point the land had been a British Protectorate(like much of the world in the early half of the 20th century) with many cultures living together in peace. Prior to that it have been Muslim Kingdoms since the crusades failed. The last time Israel had been a Jewish nation was over a thousand years earlier.
So the arab world was a bit irked when the British announced that they were granting the area independance as a Jewish Nation.
They’ve been fighting over it for years. Now, 60 years later, time is healing some wounds, but its still a generation or two before the “insult” will be no longer remembered by those who lived through it.
The fact that the area is Holy Land to the Muslims means that it may never be forgotten by the fervently religious.
At least the Pope isn’t interested in reclaiming the area anymore.
on the original subject of Zionism.
Zionism specifically refers to the resettlement of Israel by the Jews. (Returning to their holy land). The moment gained steam in the last days of the 19th century when the land was under British Rule.
I think there’s a historical theme in the relationship of Iran/Persia to the Arab world similar to that of early 20th century Japan with respect to Asia – A tendency for Iran to consider itself culturally/ethnically/intellectually superior to its neighbors, and the appropriate people to rule, or at least lead, the region. That attitude has, naturally, been resented by those neighbors.
Israel gives Iran an issue with which to downplay the cultural divisions between itself and the Arab world, and for that matter the religious divisions between Shia Islam and the more regionally prevalent Sunni faith, and to demonstrate leadership in a way palatable to the neighbors. More broadly, as Greasy Jack and Simplicio point out above, Anti-American/Western-ism is a banner used by many to unify groups and empower those taking a leading role. For such demagogues, Israel makes a usefully striking “Exhibit A” of outside agression against the Arab/Moslem world.
Having known some Iranians … one must never forget the cultural background here: Iranians have a long, long history of hatred for, and feelings of cultural superiority over, the Arabs - who they consider mostly as barbarians who conquored 'em and forced them to change religion (the fact that they are also in many cases famously very religious with the religion imposed by these barbarous conquorers of course adds an element of complexity!). This feeds into and exacerbates the Sunni/Sh’ia divide. Persians never forgot they are Persians … which makes their asperations of regional leadership in the ME problematic.
An external enemy that is deeply and commonly hated by Arabs and Persians alike and is also, conveniently enough, actually quite far away (thus unlikely to result in a direct confrontation) is thus very handy.
Again, the average Persian’s feelings on the topic are … complex. In actual fact, Persians tend to get along comparatively well with Jews (as dhimmis of course), and many of their sterotypical traits are similar. There is none of the instinctive dislike that Persians seem to feel for Arabs, and in fact the sight of Arabs being defeated brings on mixed feelings - on the one hand fellow Muslims are being humiliated which is of course bad; on the other hand, Arabs are being defeated …
Is this wholly true?
It is almost entirely untrue. Not the “no-one wanting” part; the “helped establish” part.
This is at least somewhat misleading. If you asked any Iranian anti-Zionist what was the source of his feelings, the answer would always be the creation of the modern state of Israel.
No…its only part of the story.
The factoid is true in itself, wholy.
But the jewish refugees started pouring into other countries when the Nazi’s took over. (a decade or so before WWII) The other countries didn’t want them and shipped them off to Jerusalem.
(Prior to 1922 the Jews made up like 10% of the population of Palestine, but after WWII they made up more like 30%)
The Jews took over (and it wasn’t totally bloodless as I said earlier) then carried on the tradition and displaced muslims, creating a wave of Palestinian Refugees.
By helped, I mean didn’t stop. To some, this is the same thing.
No it wasn’t, it was ruled by the Turks.
Zionism has always been part of Jewish belief. It isn’t a new belief. The Jewish religion is deeply connected to the Land of Israel.
However, modern Zionism came about in the late 19th century as part of the nationalism movements that came about. From Irish to the Poles and down to the Yugoslavs, people were beginning to reclaim their old heritage and redefined themselves as nations. Some of this new Zionism came about from cultural renewal. Some of it came about as part of an emerging wave of anti-Semitism gained ground in Europe.
While this was going on, the Arabs also started gaining feelings of nationalism. Some of this was due to anti-European resentment, but many Arab intellectuals were being educated in Europe about the same time nationalism was spreading there. They brought this new Arab nationalism back home with them.
So, but the end of the 19th century, you had two groups of people who felt new nationalist vigor trying to claim the same piece of land. Hilarity ensued.
Most Middle eastern muslims feel that (for short) Israel was an easy way out for European guilt after WWII sort of “they should have solved it in Europe, instead of stealing lands that didn’t belong to them in the first place” idea. Whether this is of political/religous/power origin or real popular discontent may be difficult to ascertain. Both the fact that Palestine has been “occupied” for about ever by those that had the force to do so, and the fact that before 1947 Jews were quite well implanted in many muslim countries (not all) let us wonder about “real feelings”.
Persian Iran, though less handicapped than certain other countries by the “warlord” structure, seems to be governed by powers that manipulate public emotion with great ease, often with little relationship to actual governement action, all tainted with the power play between “civil” and religious administrations.
Just my point of view of course
Ottomans, if we’re being picky.