Meanwhile in the Middle East: "Arab Spring can turn into radical Islamist Winter"

[kochman]

If you mean the Arab League, then please refer to the first link I posted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative



Turkey's had a very close relationship with Israel except for the recent little drama. Trade is still booming between them, and all Turkey apparently wants is an apology.

Iran would probably stay hostile, but then they don't have a history of launching offensive wars let alone wars that might lead to nuclear exchanges, and their attempts have so far been more or less limited to supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. Whatever the case, should Iran or its proxies try something, it's better to have the rest of the neighborhood on your side.

I doubt if the rest of the Muslim world gives a toss what happens.

Wow... still denying it...
OK...
I guess you are forgetting Iran... Saudi Arabia... Kuwait... etc, etc, etc... (I think even Indonesia chimed in!)
It would be even more if US$ didn't buy sentiment.

 

[Ajidica]

Just pointing out, but when properly translater, most of Iran's statements refer to Zionism or the ending of Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem (which according to the partition, Jerusalem was an international city) and the Palestinian Territories.
Iran certiantly won't be friendly with Israel, but rarely does their rhetoric climb beyond fairly generic condemnations.

 

[asbestos]

I think it fair to say they do, actually, to the extent that they want the situation settled, and they want it done at least with what they might consider a semblance of justice. Can't skimp too much on the last bit.

Just pointing out, but when properly translater, most of Iran's statements refer to Zionism or the ending of Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem (which according to the partition, Jerusalem was an international city) and the Palestinian Territories.
Iran certiantly won't be friendly with Israel, but rarely does their rhetoric climb beyond fairly generic condemnations.

Fair enough.

Wow... still denying it...
OK...
I guess you are forgetting Iran... Saudi Arabia... Kuwait... etc, etc, etc... (I think even Indonesia chimed in!)
It would be even more if US$ didn't buy sentiment.

Can you show me examples of what I'm I denying? Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are both members of the Arab league.

Qatar is currently holding negotiations to supply Israel with gas, and it seems rather natural to me for any of these countries to want access to Israeli markets.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Just pointing out, but when properly translater, most of Iran's statements refer to Zionism or the ending of Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem (which according to the partition, Jerusalem was an international city) and the Palestinian Territories.
Iran certiantly won't be friendly with Israel, but rarely does their rhetoric climb beyond fairly generic condemnations.

Ahmadinejad was clearly misquoted:

"Wiped Off The Map" - The Rumor of the Century

And now, his job may be eliminated merely because some of his staff have shown "discord" regarding the wishes of Ayatollah Khamenei and the other clerics.

Ahmadinejad’s job may be scrapped

 

[kochman]

I love how we can always count on people to deny things... the fact that Formy can go so far as to defend that wacko in Iran... wow.
Here on this board, we deny that many Muslim leaders want Israel GONE, forever... sometimes they not so clever try to say they want Zionism gone (show me Zion on the map?).
Many of those leaders, they deny the Holocaust...
I'm seeing a trend.

Google gave me the following in a matter of seconds...
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts...lah_wants_to_wipe_israel_and_iran_off_the_map

Georges Malbrunot in Le Figaro (translation by Google with my help, h/t to David Kenner in Foreign Policy):

The Saudi monarch, who met with Barack Obama in the White House Tuesday, did not mince words during the recent visit to Jeddah of Hervé Morin, [French] Minister of Defense. “There are two countries in the world that do not deserve to exist: Iran and Israel,” said King Abdullah on June 5.

The so-called "Arab Peace Initiative", which you keep espousing, would effectively destroy Israel, as it would become an Arab state... so, every Arab leader who supports that... wants Israel gone.

I'm not going to continue with this, because if one really denies that there is a strong force within the Muslim world that wants Israel gone, one is beyond the pale.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Also lots of Zionists in Iran I guess.

 

[Verbose]

I'm not going to continue with this, because if one really denies that there is a strong force within the Muslim world that wants Israel gone, one is beyond the pale.

You mean they would have preferred a world with no Israel? Undoubtedly.

Since when is it a requirement that places in conflict with each other must somehow approve and like each other as well?

To all the Arab nations Israel is a constant reminder of their collective powerlessness and subjection to the west, Europe first, then then US, in the 19th and 20th century. To them, Israel's presence is a ongoing remainder of their historic denigration, which they do not like. Why should they? It certainly doesn't help Israel, but that's just the vagaries of history. In the end however, all that matters is if they end up being reasonably OK with the shape of the world. Nothing really precludes Israel being part of it. Except you seem to want them to like Israel, actively and immediately? Or it's just a red herring so you don't need to actually take the Arab nations seriously?

And as for making conditions for how you would like to engage with people in debating this: Good luck. You are going to need it.

 

[kochman]

You mean they would have preferred a world with no Israel? Undoubtedly.

Since when is it a requirement that places in conflict with each other must somehow approve and like each other as well?

To all the Arab nations Israel is a constant reminder of their collective powerlessness and subjection to the west, Europe first, then then US, in the 19th and 20th century. To them, Israel's presence is a ongoing remainder of their historic denigration, which they do not like. Why should they? It certainly doesn't help Israel, but that's just the vagaries of history. In the end however, all that matters is if they end up being reasonably OK with the shape of the world. Nothing really precludes Israel being part of it. Except you seem to want them to like Israel, actively and immediately? Or it's just a red herring so you don't need to actually take the Arab nations seriously?

And as for making conditions for how you would like to engage with people in debating this: Good luck. You are going to need it.

I agree with you. I don't expect them to embrace Israel... but calling for the utter destruction of Israel... and the apologetics we see on this website... it's anti-Jewish (because anti-semitic means all semites) racism if you ask me. What other group of people endured and continues to endure such blatant hatred from such a large group of people it is closely situation next to? We haven't seen such a thing since France and Germany buried the hatchet after WW2.

Moderator Action: If you have a problem with the posts of other users, report them. Labelling them racist is just trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ajidica]

Are you calling me racist?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

and the apologetics we see on this website... it's anti-Jewish racism if you ask me.

Since no one is asking you ...

 

[kochman]

Since no one is asking you ...

That's why I said "if", hahahahahaa

 

[Tee Kay]

I'm trying a new experiment: how many of kochman's posts I can read in one sitting before I need to use the toilet.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Not going anywhere productive at the moment. I'll reopen it tomorrow.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Reopened. Play nice please.

 

[Silurian]

This tread should not be about Israel but about the Arab Spring

 

[Loppan Torkel]

or the Islamist winter. ..which of course would affect Israel. ..but I agree. The whole who is the worst offender in the Middle East has been done to death.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I love how we can always count on people to deny things... the fact that Formy can go so far as to defend that wacko in Iran... wow.
Here on this board, we deny that many Muslim leaders want Israel GONE, forever... sometimes they not so clever try to say they want Zionism gone (show me Zion on the map?).
Many of those leaders, they deny the Holocaust...
I'm seeing a trend.

I'm not denying anything. Ahmadinejad was clearly misquoted in this regard. It is a main talking point of those who think that Muslims are solely to blame for all this, and that Iran "should be wiped off the face of the earth". It turns out that "wacko" isn't really as wacko as some conservatives wish us all to believe.

Things Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not do: 1) deny the Holocaust; 2) say that Israel should be wiped off the map; 3) develop a nuclear weapons program

With the Iranian election results disputed (a dispute that the incumbent will likely win), I think it’s important to revisit the American conventional wisdom about the Iran and its president. Suspicious sources and a lazy media echo-chamber have instilled many misconceptions into the American public’s mind about Iran. This is worrisome because such misconceptions leave the American public vulnerable for the type of hawkish manipulations that led us into the Iraq war, and so for that reason US attitudes towards Iran need reexamining.

Since he was elected in 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has received much criticism on his comments regarding Israel. The most famous of these was given in a speech called “A World Without Zionism” in which he quoted a line from Ayatollah Khomeini.

An improper English translation painted him as calling for Israel to be “wiped from the map.” When word got out there was an international uproar. As it happens, in Persian there is no such idiom. More accurate translations read “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] the page of time.”

The focus of the speech was a hopeful vision of a world free from Western oppression of Muslims, and, in context, it is clear that this is not policy—much less a military threat. In fact, Iran has never made a military threat against Israel. Israel has against Iran, though—many, many times.

In the speech, he actually mentioned that what he wanted was a secular government consisting of Jews, Muslims, and Christians from that region which would allow everybody to live in peace and harmony. I can hardly characterize that as being "evil", much less "antisemitic".

Furthermore, it turns out that Ahmadinejad has been seriously misquoted on Holocaust denial as well.

Ahmadinejad has also met sharp international criticism over his comments on the Holocaust. The widespread and misleading allegation is that he denies that the Holocaust ever occurred.

It is undoubtedly true that Ahmadinejad has raised some uncomfortable questions about the Holocaust. Indeed, in December 2006, he even convened a conference to explore historical evidence for the Holocaust, and he also occasionally referred to people making “a myth” of the Holocaust.

However, as Iran Specialist Professor Shiraz Dossa states, while Ahmadinejad’s “rhetoric has been excessive and provocative,” he“has not denied the Holocaust or proposed Israel’s liquidation. What Ahmadinejad has questioned is the mythologizing, the sacralization, of the Holocaust.”

Ahmadinejad’s inflammatory statements are all in the context of the Palestinian struggle. The questions are put in terms of skepticism towards the Holocaust’s use in justifying Zionist colonialism in Palestine. The intellectual exploration, undoubtedly born of a deep, sometimes justified, mistrust for the West, has never crossed the line into outright denial of the Holocaust.

When such statements have been conflated with anti-Semitism, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly clarified his position with statements like “creating an objection against the Zionists doesn’t mean that there are objections against the Jewish.”

Conclusion

Undoubtedly, the recent election dispute in Iran leaves one questioning the democratic scruples of the country’s leadership. Ahmadinejad’s Iran is far from the idyllic liberal democracy. But, however great the fervor for Ahmadinejad’s opponent, one need be careful not to lose sight of how unfairly Western caricatures of Iran have influenced attitudes toward the incumbent worldwide—a habit long in the making and likely slow to change.

There has been an incessant propaganda campaign waged against Iran ever since they overthrew our puppet dictator. One must be very careful when considering the validity of much of the what is reported in the media about their country and their rulers. While I think most Westerners would agree that a secular government is better than a theocracy, Iran is hardly an "axis of evil". Furthermore, Israel claims to be a secular government but it has a distinct tendency of being a theocracy as well in its unequal treatment of Orthodox Jews compared to Muslims, Christians, and even non-Orthodox Jews.

Google gave me the following in a matter of seconds...
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts...lah_wants_to_wipe_israel_and_iran_off_the_map

The so-called "Arab Peace Initiative", which you keep espousing, would effectively destroy Israel, as it would become an Arab state... so, every Arab leader who supports that... wants Israel gone.

I'm not going to continue with this, because if one really denies that there is a strong force within the Muslim world that wants Israel gone, one is beyond the pale.

Ironically, King Abdullah included both Israel and Iran in that pronouncement:

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah probably refrained from expressing at least half this sentiment in his meeting today with President Obama: On June 5, he reportedly told French Defense Minister Hervé Morin that "There are two countries in the world that do not deserve to exist: Iran and Israel."

That is hardly surprising given that he is Sunni instead of Shia.

Not to mention the headline doesn't appear to accurately reflect what was actually stated. "Doesn't deserve to exist" is hardly "wiped off the face of the map". It is also worth noting that many Americans and Israelis think that Iran "should be wiped off the face of the map" in exactly the same way.

And I really don't see how bringing freedom, liberty and democracy to a number of repressive authoritarian Arab states "would effectively destroy Israel, as it would become an Arab state". Could you elaborate why this must be?

But I do agree this seems to be the premise for those who find so much fault in what is occurring in Northern Africa and the Middle East. "Arab Spring" could turn into "radical Islamist winter" in places like Libya by backing the wrong militant groups, as the US did in Afghanistan.

This tread should not be about Israel but about the Arab Spring

As Lopan mentioned, it is the "radical Islamist winter" aspect that really includes Iran and Israel in this discussion.