UNESCO/Palestine/Australia

[MaddMoose]

Welcome to propoganda 101.

Here's the actual quote.Makes no mention of Zionism. The propaganda is on your part. Even then, it still is him wanting to exterminate a group of people based on their political views. Definitely better...

Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world

There are a few translation variations, mostly differencing over the context of whether he was referring the current Israeli regime, or the entire country.

His comments were denouced by pretty much everyone, including the Palestinians. Who they even interpreted what he said as wanting to wipe out the state of Israel.

[Kremmen]

Welcome to propoganda 101.

Here's the actual quote.Makes no mention of Zionism. The propaganda is on your part. Even then, it still is him wanting to exterminate a group of people based on their political views. Definitely better...

Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world

There are a few translation variations, mostly differencing over the context of whether he was referring the current Israeli regime, or the entire country.

His comments were denouced by pretty much everyone, including the Palestinians. Who they even interpreted what he said as wanting to wipe out the state of Israel.

maybe you should have read a little further down the page

Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement by Ahmadinejad that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9]

Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website.[10]

The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[11] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ah ... .22_speech

You also failed to read that 20,000 Jews happily live in Iran.

[MaddMoose]

So the statement published by the official newsagency of Iran deliberaly misquoted the Iranian President in order to make him look bad.

Even if we accept that he didn't say wiped out, then there is still everything else he said. Which really is no better.

[Nekosan]

So the statement published by the official newsagency of Iran deliberaly misquoted the Iranian President in order to make him look bad.

Even if we accept that he didn't say wiped out, then there is still everything else he said. Which really is no better.

Does that somehow justify their actions towards other countries?

[MaddMoose]

Does that somehow justify their actions towards other countries?

I'm assuming you mean Israels actions. Yeah it kinda does, you tend to not be real friendly to the people that hate you.

[Kremmen]

So the statement published by the official newsagency of Iran deliberaly misquoted the Iranian President in order to make him look bad.

Even if we accept that he didn't say wiped out, then there is still everything else he said. Which really is no better.

do we really want to play the game of google what the leader says?

because there is a whole list of anti Palestine and anti Iran speaches and quotes given by leaders of Israel in the last 40+ years.

even now Netanyahu is drumming up support to attack Iran, not defend against or negotiate with, but attack.

The palestinians are a thorn in the side because they support Iran, currently Turkey is sending another aid boat to Gazza, wonder if all the flotilla will survive this time?

[MaddMoose]

Strategic strikes against nuclear sites vs genocide

Definitely comparable.

[MuscularTeeth]

What quickly seems to happen here and everywhere else, is repeating what happened when and by whom. who has the longest list of grievances.
im of part greek descent.
It annoys the hell out of me when i hear of greeks talking about turkish oppression when it was the ottoman empire. who murdered who or starved which village... yes terrible things happened, but lets move ON. the current turks arent the same ones who killed those ancient greeks... it was hundreds of years ago.
im sure we all had a descendant who was massacred by the hordes of ghenis khan, but lets not hate them too. or a relative who died on one side or the other of the great war. hell my own uncle died at 'nam, i shouldnt hate the vietnamese at all.

what we need is a summary of what is the situation now, and how best that situation can come to some sort of mediated and binding agreement by both parties. both sides are clearly wronged by the other. that wont help.

lets not perpetuate the hate by reliving the past. lets grow together.

/inserts violins, and a choral choir with uplifting tones. and a rainbow and some bunnies on a green pasture with a unicorn prancing prancingly.

[Kremmen]

Strategic strikes against nuclear sites vs genocide

Definitely comparable.

a nuclear sight is a bit different than a nuclear weapon, Iran is a member of the NNPT, what about Israel?

Genocide? what would you call putting up a wall, preventing aid ships from entering a small strip of land?


Iran has no intention of genocide, when was the last time they attacked another country?

I will add here, I have nothing against Jewish people, I have nothing against Persians and I have nothing against Arabs.
I may dislike the politics of countries, but that does not mean I dont like the people.

[Nekosan]

what we need is a summary of what is the situation now, and how best that situation can come to some sort of mediated and binding agreement by both parties. both sides are clearly wronged by the other. that wont help.

lets not perpetuate the hate by reliving the past. lets grow together.

/inserts violins, and a choral choir with uplifting tones. and a rainbow and some bunnies on a green pasture with a unicorn prancing prancingly.

Exactly, the mistakes of the past are no excuse for the mistakes of today.

[HandsomeSandwich]

Pretty rich champ. You entire posts is nothing but false info. Granted, ending your post with saying it's ludicrous that anyone should have to acknowledge Israels exists just sums it up nicely.

They don't but you don't understand simple principles of statehood as usual so its no surprise you think this way.

A war which Israel started

Pre-emtive and decisive attack when the enemy was massing at their borders. I would have done the same and they got blown back to the stone age … wait.

Except that Israel and the US knew there would be no attack - on the historical record. So there is no pre-emptive justification.

most civies don't get the concept of preemptive strike...

all they understand is who hit first which makes good and simple headlines to digest for them.

you show them a disposition map of whole damn battalions massing on the border with supplies far in excess of defensive posture and they won't get it. Apparently, entire army mobilized and massing on border is normal occurrence, so they are just having a picnic on the border EN MASSE...

Except being enrolled in the military has nothing to do with understanding a concept.

Ezer Weitzman and Menahem Begin were quite open about it - Egypt weren't going to attack it was themselves who wanted a war - just like every post '48 war Israel has been engaged in - it was voluntary.

[HandsomeSandwich]

What quickly seems to happen here and everywhere else, is repeating what happened when and by whom. who has the longest list of grievances.
im of part greek descent.
It annoys the hell out of me when i hear of greeks talking about turkish oppression when it was the ottoman empire. who murdered who or starved which village... yes terrible things happened, but lets move ON. the current turks arent the same ones who killed those ancient greeks... it was hundreds of years ago.
im sure we all had a descendant who was massacred by the hordes of ghenis khan, but lets not hate them too. or a relative who died on one side or the other of the great war. hell my own uncle died at 'nam, i shouldnt hate the vietnamese at all.

what we need is a summary of what is the situation now, and how best that situation can come to some sort of mediated and binding agreement by both parties. both sides are clearly wronged by the other. that wont help.

lets not perpetuate the hate by reliving the past. lets grow together.

/inserts violins, and a choral choir with uplifting tones. and a rainbow and some bunnies on a green pasture with a unicorn prancing prancingly.

The conflict is 60 years old not several hundred and the point is that Israel have the political and cultural capital to re-write modern historical events so it bares shining light on them.

The solution is simple - the US need to stop blocking a two or one state settlement - which they've been doing since rougly the '70s.

Camp David was a joke as were the last ten years. Offer Israel security and Palestinians the full right of return, the '67 border with East Jeruslum and they could all move on. The overwhelming majority of the world support this idea - just not the powerful states.

[Bronze_D]

Except that Israel and the US knew there would be no attack - on the historical record. So there is no pre-emptive justification.
-------------
Except being enrolled in the military has nothing to do with understanding a concept.

Ezer Weitzman and Menahem Begin were quite open about it - Egypt weren't going to attack it was themselves who wanted a war - just like every post '48 war Israel has been engaged in - it was voluntary.

May i ask what leads you to that conclusion? since everything i know of seems to indicate otherwise with buildup along the border and supply that are sufficient for extended thrust... if Egypt and the rest of it's allies prior to the conflict were bluffing, then they are making ONE hell of an expensive and flashy bluff.

It's also somewhat difficult to believe considering the very statements from Nasser preceding the conflict.

Granted the soviet was also to blame for it... but i cannot think of a different outcome when you see the neighbor putting such an obvious show on the border.

I understand it perfectly well, that war was entirely justified in my opinion, what isn't justified is moving your fence an inch every week until your neighbour has no house.

Wasn't directed at you, but rather how public opinion tend to be swayed.

[HandsomeSandwich]

Except that Israel and the US knew there would be no attack - on the historical record. So there is no pre-emptive justification.
-------------
Except being enrolled in the military has nothing to do with understanding a concept.

Ezer Weitzman and Menahem Begin were quite open about it - Egypt weren't going to attack it was themselves who wanted a war - just like every post '48 war Israel has been engaged in - it was voluntary.

May i ask what leads you to that conclusion? since everything i know of seems to indicate otherwise with buildup along the border and supply that are sufficient for extended thrust...

Sure,

“in 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army’s concentrations in the Sinai desert didn’t prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” - Menachem Begin

“I don’t think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai wouldn’t have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.” - Yitzhak Rabin

Egypt weren't going anywhere and everybody knew it, Israel, Britain, US and the Soviets.

This along with the other defense stories are just that - complete fables. Israel hasn't faced a legitimate threat since '48 (unless you count its current self-harming policies) and every war it has engaged in is one of choice, not necessity.

[Bronze_D]

I do not want to jump to conclusion here, but the information i have seems to contradict that..

prior to the conflict, 30-35 thousand troops were already stationed in the peninsula by Egypt and 30 thousand more were added along with 200 tanks in the first wave of buildup alone, and they were continuously building up there.

a similar buildup was also noted on Syrian and troops movement from Iraq across towards the soon to become conflict zone.

Given the situation prior to the war (repeated skirmish, and artillery duels across) it was almost given that war was about to break out, the only question was when.

The final piece that made me seriously doubt that statement was the situation during that period..

At that time the US were busy with vietnam war, the soviet were being very generous with their material support (which Nasser interpreted as soviet support iirc), and on paper at least the Egypt and Syrian forces alone should be sufficient to mount an offensive thrust into Israel.

If there were ever going to be a good time to strike at Israel, right then is as good as ever...

Soviet seems to be backing Nasser, the US is not gonna be able to really interfere, and they had superior numerical force along with the roused arab states that sees Nasser defying the UN pressure... in fact the UN seemed to back down so easily from the Egypt request and withdrew UNEF by U thant decision that he made without the UN assembly. To the arab states, that can only appear as though the UN was completely powerless in the face of Nasser and would only convince them further to support him.

If anyone was in Nasser seat, they would take that chance, it would be the golden time to wipe Israel for good... it would be far more surprising if he did not take it. And from what i can gather, Egypt was already in process of full war mobilization or as the Cairo radio message put it:

All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel

Opportunity like that, don't appear often at all in history... and given Nasser have made it perfectly clear prior to it that he does not intend to tolerate the presence of Israel, i have to question the likelihood of him withholding an attack on Israel.