Iran, Israel and the Worlds Response.

mike65

So then Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has turned out to be exactly what many feared - an antisemtic terrorist funding nut-job.

While addressing a conference with the breezy title "The World without Zionism" he said

There is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world... As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

And

"Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury. Anybody who recognizes the Zionist regime is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world,"

Now you could be a generous fool and say he was playing to the home crowd
but its clear enough that the Clerics have got want they wanted, both the President and the parliament in thier pocket.

Iran gots the money and its got the ambition, will it get the chance?

Mike.

whiskeyman

Can't believe no one commented thus far.
Not since WW2 has a country leader made such a statement.
Scary stuff!

hojozesc

I have a dream:)

Captain Trips

mike65 wrote:

So then Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has turned out to be exactly what many feared - an antisemtic terrorist funding nut-job.

Antisemitic? He has said nothing against Jordanians. The Israeli's do not have exclusive rights to the Semite phrase. He is anti Israel and anti Zionist. This has zero to do with being anti Jewish or anti Semite.

For reference, I point you to Jews against Zionism http://www.nkusa.org/ (NETUREI KARTA) who also call for the abolition of ISrael. Yes, a JEWISH organisation opposes ISRAEL and ZIONISM.. If you had a deeper understanding of international politics, and I don't claim to be an oracle of knowledge, but clearly Iran's leader said nothing anti Jewish or anti Semite - he said what Orthodox Jews are also campaigning for.

Terrorist Funding? Where's your evidence - or is it simply enough to suppose things like this? He called for Israel's destruction so obviously he funds terrorists. Which terrorists are these? The IRA? ETA? The Michigan Militia? Chechen rebels in Moscow? Or does he - OMG - fund all] the terrorists.

That sort of incitement to hatred is a crime, you know.

Nut-job? So just resort to slagging him off? You are also a nut job. It's fun, isn't it. ANd solves nothing.



To reiterate - to be against Zionism and against Israel is neither anti Jewish nor anti Semite. Judaism against Zionism: http://www.nkusa.org.

Capt'n Midnight

If the west stopped buying Iranian oil then they wouldn't have money to spend on stuff like that. Golden rule and all that.

Mike - do you have a link to that because it sounds like he was quoting an iman rather than his own words.

The Brits invaded during WWII to keep hold of the oil
The US overthrew a this guy in the 50's
http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Mohammed_Mossadegh "named as Time Magazine's 1951 Man of the Year."
Had they not done so then Iran maybe could have been as secular as Iraq or Turkey and without a grudge against the west.

fly_agaric

whiskeyman wrote:

Can't believe no one commented thus far.
Not since WW2 has a country leader made such a statement.
Scary stuff!

When they get their nukes the south of Europe will be in range. Wonderful.

whiskeyman wrote:

If the west stopped buying Iranian oil then they wouldn't have money to spend on stuff like that. Golden rule and all that.

No, not anymore. Not buying it would probably hurt Europe more than Iran. China would just buy it instead anyway. The Iranians have been under US sanctions for years anyway, and if the EU brought in sanctions too, the Chinese and Russians will be only too glad to sell them whatever they want. There is absolutely nothing the "West" can do about Iran so their president can rattle his sabre as much as he likes.

netwhizkid

Israel has invaded and stolen other countries land and too and will probably be nuked in some future war. America is receding as the world power, China will be the dominant force in another few years anyway, Without the USA, Israel would be nothing, I can see the Arabs blowing them out of it to get easy accsess to the med to export their oil in a future of $200 a barrel petroleum. Israel are the whole cause of Islamic extremism anyways. If they were gone we would probably have less to fear, however we'd miss their advanced hi tech computer parts and telecoms products. Will dubya invade iran to save the Israeli Jews is the question though, he has the troops next door and well he will be remembered as the worst president ever so why not go out with a bang in tehran!

bonkey

whiskeyman wrote:

Not since WW2 has a country leader made such a statement.

I'm pretty sure Arrafat made comments to the same tune, as well as several others in the earlier days of Israel's existence.

Having said that...

I'm undecided as to the extent that this is a testing of the waters. Its almost certainly a mix of :

a) Iran is seeing how far it can push things,
b) Iran is trying to get the established powers to "force" it to stop dealing with the likes of the IAEA by inciting them to issue sanctions against it.
c) Other brinksmanship I haven't fully thought through yet.

One of the most unlikely scenarios in my mind is that this is some mindless religiously-or-racially-inspired incitement to incite naked aggression.

jc

what bonkey said plus possibly wanting the "west" to do it's worst thereby enhancing a nice little anti west hatrid in the new more liberal Iran.

BBC's newsnight the other night had a special report from there and its a country gone very liberal and western in nature.
Something the likes of which this crackpot president would like to clamp down on.

bus77

Isnt zionism a general buzz word in that part of the world for captilism and western domination .ect
Personally I see it a differ'nt version of the stuff that was coming out of the US and others regarding the spread of communism.

It's when the people feel the leadership are toothless and/or impotent in the face of invisible monsters that you get the real cloak and dagger stuff.

So in that light I see it as being quite healthy to ''shake the fist'' so to speak.

Somebody has to do it.

fly_agaric

bonkey wrote:

I'm pretty sure Arrafat made comments to the same tune, as well as several others in the earlier days of Israel's existence.

I wonder if Arafat ever said anything as strong as that out in the open after he became leader of the PA though?

mike65

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Mike - do you have a link to that because it sounds like he was quoting an iman rather than his own words.

You are rightish, the words were actually by Ayatollah Khomeini. my bad editing.

Captian Trips the terrorists I had in mind are Hizballah/Hezbollah, Al-Jihad, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Mahdi Army (who are sometimes busy in Basra area).

Mike.

RagShagBill

Israel are the whole cause of Islamic extremism anyways.

Israel being there, are Israeli human rights abuses? There is a difference, a very important difference. However, either way, your statement is false. Israel may be what radical Muslims claim to be the claim of their extremism, but in reality, ithey are driven by a desire to restore the caliphate of the 6th and 7th centuries, in which Sharia law expanded across North Africa and into Spain. Make no qualms about it, radical Muslims are as - and probably more - imperialistic than the United States and Israel. So, that is actually the root source of extremism, that's its ideological basis.

However, with this for an ideology, it would never be likely that the extremist thinkers could get people to join up to their little mission. Instead, they blame Israel and America for anything that is bad in their lives. In doing so, an enemy of the people is created. To fight against such a tyrannical enemy must be honourable. Not only honourable though. Extremists teach people from an early age that to fight - more specifically, to sacrifice themselves - in the name of Jihad will allow them to ascend to heaven, to be greeted by X number of heavenly virgins.

To deny that Israeli Human Rights abuses have anything to do with Islamic extremism would be naive because - whether directly or indirectly - they simply do. But to think that they - or even Israel itself - is the "whole cause" of extremism is equally naive.

Sponge Bob

RagShagBill wrote:

Israel being there, are Israeli human rights abuses? There is a difference, a very important difference. However, either way, your statement is false. Israel may be what radical Muslims claim to be the claim of their extremism, but in reality, ithey are driven by a desire to restore the caliphate of the 6th and 7th centuries, in which Sharia law expanded across North Africa and into Spain. Make no qualms about it, radical Muslims are as - and probably more - imperialistic than the United States and Israel. So, that is actually the root source of extremism, that's its ideological basis.

Ahhhh Go On, Iran is Shia, the Caliphate was Sunni !

However, with this for an ideology, it would never be likely that the extremist thinkers could get people to join up to their little mission. Instead, they blame Israel and America for anything that is bad in their lives.

Some of them people are quite right too . Most are not of course.

Extremists teach people from an early age that to fight - more specifically, to sacrifice themselves - in the name of Jihad will allow them to ascend to heaven, to be greeted by X number of heavenly virgins.

This line of extremist thought is of recent vintage....perhaps no earlier than 1980 and may be seen as a failure of politics in Islamic states. The only Islamic states with which the US (and Israel) have good relations since 1980 , continously, are dictatorships like Egypt or Turkey (until recently) or Saudi . Into that void stepped the suicide extremists ....initially Shia not Sunni IIRC .

To deny that Israeli Human Rights abuses have anything to do with Islamic extremism would be naive because - whether directly or indirectly - they simply do. But to think that they - or even Israel itself - is the "whole cause" of extremism is equally naive.

Twaddle , Sabra and Chatila death camps were extreme and predated suicide bombing cults .

The University of Jihad was a concentration camp called Khiam run by Israel in the 1980s and 1990s in occupied south Lebanon.

THAT was where the initially Shia suicide bombing ideologies went pan Islamic .

RagShagBill

Ahhhh Go On, Iran is Shia, the Caliphate was Sunni !

I know it's a thread about Iran and whatnot, but not once did I mention Iran. I'm merely refuting the claim made that: "Israel is the whole cause of Islamic extremism." Which, I think you'll acknowledge, is far too naive and over simplified to be true. Maybe you won't though.

TomF

netwhizkid wrote:

America is receding as the world power, China will be the dominant force in another few years anyway...

This may be true, and certainly tends to focus the mind wonderfully. I wonder what will the world be like with America tending to its own garden exclusively, maybe becoming a larger Switzerland, and letting China and India work-out international policy for the rest of us? I really don't see the EU being very influential, with its population taking the dive, and its economic influence waning.

unkel

bonkey wrote:

a) Iran is seeing how far it can push things

It's playing a dangerous game. Iraq was at least several years away from being able to produce nuclear weapons back in '81 when Israel bombed it's reactor

Nuttzz

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1200672,00.html

My words are the exact words of the Iranian People

I couldn't see the US/UK directly attacking Iran. If the US struck at the Iranian nuclear plants what are the chances of the Iranians rolling over the border into Iraq?

What power does the president have as opposed to the Ayatollah? I thought the Ayatollah was the top dog there?

bus77

unkel wrote:

It's playing a dangerous game. Iraq was at least several years away from being able to produce nuclear weapons back in '81 when Israel bombed it's reactor

Israel recently requested membership of the UN's security council, so hopfully that will serve to prevent strikes like that. God help us if it dos'nt.

bonkey

unkel wrote:

It's playing a dangerous game. Iraq was at least several years away from being able to produce nuclear weapons back in '81 when Israel bombed it's reactor

So, 24 years ago, Iran was several years from having a bomb.

Is "several" larger or smaller in value than 24?

jc

mike65

Nuttzz wrote:

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1200672,00.html

What power does the president have as opposed to the Ayatollah? I thought the Ayatollah was the top dog there?

The Supreme Leader of Iran and his inner circle of 12 are the ones with the real power. The President is a bit of a figurehead he can't declare war or appoint/dismiss judges etc.

Mike.

bonkey

bus77 wrote:

Israel recently requested membership of the UN's security council, so hopfully that will serve to prevent strikes like that.

Yeah, cause no members of the UN Security council get involved in pre-emptive / preventative attacks of any kind

unkel

bonkey wrote:

So, 24 years ago, Iran was several years from having a bomb.

That was Iraq, not Iran

bonkey wrote:

Is "several" larger or smaller in value than 24?

Interesting point. I suppose it is the potential perception of Israel that they are about to be attacked by a nuclear weapon from a country that openly states it should be wiped off the map. How long away Iran actually is from having nuclear weapons isn't relevant

I don't doubt for a moment that Israel would strike again

AARRRGH

"Wiped off the map" could mean removed from the map in a "Israel should not really exist" kind of way.

I doesn't necessarily mean lets nuke them. I don't think he would be dumb enough to say something like that.

RagShagBill

I doesn't necessarily mean lets nuke them. I don't think he would be dumb enough to say something like that.

Quite true. It's extremely likely that the comments didn't mean anything, that it was blind rhetoric being used, as someone else said, to see how much he could get away with. That does not excuse the comments though, they still need to be taken very seriously.

I'd keep an eye on these Persian blogs, all of which provide articluate coverage of Iranian goings-on.

http://secularcaniranik.blogs.com/scaniranic/
http://hoder.com/weblog/
http://www.iraniantruth.com/

Plankmonkey

God forbide anybody say anything bad about the Israelis, poor buggers sure look at what happened to them in the Holocaust for gods sake. Israel needs to be put in its place imo. Call me anti-sematic or whatever you like but I'm not. Just because I don't like Israel and their policies and the way they are allowed to do whatever they like just because the holocaust happened does not make me anti-sematic. They came over from Europe and literally took over Palestine and oblitered a nation because God told them they could in the bible. It makes me sick to see what they get away with and although the Iranian president could have been more tactful I can see his point. Israel needs to be taken down a notch or 2.

RagShagBill

Just because I don't like Israel and their policies and the way they are allowed to do whatever they like just because the holocaust happened does not make me anti-sematic.

I think you'll find that Israel is not allowed to do "whatever it likes". The UN consistently call it on its human rights abuses, its new wall and whatever other actions the UN finds inhumane. The fact that nothing gets done about it isn't because Israel has some sort of immunity against repurcussions, but that the UN is a weak, impotent and inefficient institution. Also, I think you'll find that a few Hamas suicide bombers claim to bomb Israel because of its actions. Surely that's not doing whatever it likes. Again though, I concede it does get away with a lot of abuses, but this is down to the impotence of the UN, not international immunity.

As far as the Holocaust is concerned - they may have won their right to a state because of the Holocaust, but to claim that they have international immunity because of it is invalid. If this so-thought immunity exists - which I don't entirely believe does - it is because the soi-disant opposing side does to Israel - suicide bombings, etc - are such an unfair, inhumane tactic, that it's hard for many in the international community to see any other way for Israel to protect itself.

oblitered a nation

In 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded or destroyed to make way for the establishment of Israel. From biblical times, when this territory was the state of the Jews, to its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, Palestine had never existed as a distinct political entity but was rather part of one empire after another, from the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Ottomans.

Israel needs to be put in its place imo

Where, might I ask, do you suggest they are to be put?

unkel

RagShagBill wrote:

In 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded or destroyed to make way for the establishment of Israel

Indeed. In fact the UN approved a plan to create two sovereign states: Palestine and Israel. Straight after the approval, Palestine was invaded by Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi troops and the Israelis started defending themselves

Sponge Bob

RagShagBill wrote:

From biblical times, when this territory was the state of the Jews, to its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, Palestine had never existed as a distinct political entity but was rather part of one empire after another, from the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Ottomans.
?

FFS , there were virtually no jews in Palestine between about 500AD and 1920AD , the owners were Palestinian! The jews had pissed off and left the place.

RagShagBill

The presence of the Jews has nothing to do with what I was saying. I was stating that from the time of the Jews all the way up to British occupation, there was no Palestinian state. Thus, debunking PlankMonkey's claim that the Jews obilterated a nation.

Sponge Bob

There was palestinian property ownership of palestinian property until the pogroms against them in 1948 . Those pogroms were conducted by the tooth fairy according to some interesting fox news reports

and there were no suicide bombers ANYWHERE before Israel invaded Lebanon in 1979/1980

RagShagBill

Sponge Bob wrote:

and there were no suicide bombers ANYWHERE before Israel invaded Lebanon in 1979/1980

That's hardly the point. I already said it would be naive to suggest that Israel's existence and actions have nothing to do with Islamic extremism, but to suggest that they are the whole cause - which my comments were in regards to origanally - is equally naive. For example, extremist Islamic suicide bombings in Bali, that has nothing to do with - in practice, not in rhetoric - with Israeli actions.

Sponge Bob

RagShagBill wrote:

That's hardly the point. I already said it would be naive to suggest that Israel's existence and actions have nothing to do with Islamic extremism, but to suggest that they are the whole cause - which my comments were in regards to origanally - is equally naive. For example, extremist Islamic suicide bombings in Bali, that has nothing to do with - in practice, not in rhetoric - with Israeli actions.

#


Well you have actually argued Israel out of existence with that load of ****e.

How much will it cost to build that huge barge and tow it to the south Atlantic ????

Capt'n Midnight

RagShagBill wrote:

I think you'll find that Israel is not allowed to do "whatever it likes". The UN consistently call it on its human rights abuses, its new wall and whatever other actions the UN finds inhumane. The fact that nothing gets done about it isn't because Israel has some sort of immunity against repurcussions, but that the UN is a weak, impotent and inefficient institution.

they more or less ignore the UN http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/special-edition/terrorism50/unresolu.htm
Roughly 1 in 10 UN resolutions against Isreal that more than most of the 160 odd other countries put together. And judging by the number they have complied with you could nearly forgive Iran and Iraq for thinking that they could get away with the same % of comliance. Oddly enough the truism about democracies not waging war on each other is more accurate if you don't include UK, US, Isreal and India.

From biblical times, when this territory was the state of the Jews, to its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, Palestine had never existed as a distinct political entity..

<cough> we're still Irish despite 800 years of foreign occupation and massive emigration <cough>
This argument only works for the people (Arab/Jew/Gentile/Druze/etc) who lived in the country , it can't really be applied be those whose ancestors left there before America was discovered. Also try telling that to the Kurds.

Where, might I ask, do you suggest they are to be put?

Uganda ?

fly_agaric

RagShagBill wrote:

The fact that nothing gets done about it isn't because Israel has some sort of immunity against repurcussions, but that the UN is a weak, impotent and inefficient institution. Also, I think you'll find that a few Hamas suicide bombers claim to bomb Israel because of its actions. Surely that's not doing whatever it likes. Again though, I concede it does get away with a lot of abuses, but this is down to the impotence of the UN, not international immunity.

The reason nothing gets done about it is because a certain powerful country acts as Israel's guardian angel at the UN and intervenes whenever the Israelis are about to get a knuckle rap.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

edit: I also note several European countries' (esp. the UK) failure to grow any balls and actually vote for some of these resolutions instead of merely abstaining so as not to píss the US off.

mr_angry

I have to say, I think this statement has a surreal nature to it - what kind of 'politician' would actually come out with a statement such as this? It demonstrates a complete lack of any diplomatic or political skill by the man. In fact, he wont even bother to clarify whether he meant Israel should be 'wiped off the map' on an idealogical level, or through the use of force. However, the context of his statement ("a new wave of Palastinian fighters" etc.) would suggest the use of force.

Lets face it, in practical terms, any attempt by Iran to attack Israel would almost certainly result in their own complete and utter destruction. If you ask me, the Iranian president is trying to goad Israel into a pre-emptive strike which will act as a catalyst in bringing other Arab nations into a jihadic war. Unfortunately for him, its a pìss-poor attempt from a pìss-poor politician, and its very unlikely to work, thank God.

Suff

Plankmonkey wrote:

Israel needs to be taken down a notch or 2.

CORRECT! My way would be just.....Taken Down!

When the US & the UK start playing games on how Iraq, and now Syria are not complying with the UN on some elements of ONE resolution
how could the world forget about the ENDLESS list of resolutions aginst Isreal?? Isreal IGNORED EACH ONE! did anyone condem? no but when Arabs say the "NO" they get called Anti Semetic! now that's Bull****.

here's the LIST

Snickers Man

Iran getting nuclear weapons would probably be the biggest guarantee of a peaceful Middle East.

After all, America never invaded the Soviet Union or China because it knew they had nuclear weapons.

It did invade Iraq and Afghanistan because it knew they didn't. Whatever about the rhetoric.

You don't nuke a nuke power. They'll only nuke you back. Iran ain't going to throw nukes at Israel for exactly the same reason. I mean, they might be medieval but they;re not stupid.

Zombrex

whiskeyman wrote:

Can't believe no one commented thus far.
Not since WW2 has a country leader made such a statement.
Scary stuff!

Actually the leaders of Iran make these kinda comments all the time, which are largely ignored by the Iranian people.

This is hardly a declarartion of war by Iran .. it was simply an act to appeal to hard liners in Iran and the wider Arab worlds. In the west it would be similar to Gerry Adams saying "They haven't gone away you know", or Ann Colter saying "We should kill there leaders and convert them all to Christianity"

I don't know why people think the Iran government would employ the same "spin" and political correctness style PR as a government like Bush or Blairs. For a start, they really don't need to, they know the US or the UK aren't going to take a statement like this that seriously so they can mouth off all they like. As an act of defience against the real pressure being put on Iran by the west it is a bit like a child shouting "I wish you were dead" at their parents.

Zebra3

RagShagBill wrote:

The presence of the Jews has nothing to do with what I was saying. I was stating that from the time of the Jews all the way up to British occupation, there was no Palestinian state. Thus, debunking PlankMonkey's claim that the Jews obilterated a nation.

RSB,

'State' and 'nation' are two different things.

lazydaisy

[QUOTE=Capt'n Midnight
<cough> we're still Irish despite 800 years of foreign occupation and massive emigration <cough>

Actually a lot of Irish and her descendants have become American, Canadian, Australian and British due to the massive emmigration and 800 years of foreign occupation.

Snickers man - that's an excellent point. However remember that Cuba had missiles aimed at the US knowing full well that American had at the least an equitable arsenal at its disposal.

Suff

RagShagBill wrote:

The presence of the Jews has nothing to do with what I was saying. I was stating that from the time of the Jews all the way up to British occupation, there was no Palestinian state.

False!

Palastine was the name of the country, there were no state but the people and their land were called Palastine. these people are the right owners of that land, there are palastinian jews, christians and muslims.

Isreal is a modern colony based on Zionism.

PLEASE read history books before you make any statments, here's a book that might help you URL="http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0006383475/qid=1130859591/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-4384967-9183819"]GET THIS BOOK[/URL

RagShagBill wrote:

Thus, debunking PlankMonkey's claim that the Jews obilterated a nation.

Really???? Stealing and convescating lands, demolition of homes, Millions sent into exile and the Mass Murders...... are not obliterating a nation/people ???

What a silly statment to make :mad:

Suff

RagShagBill wrote:

In 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded or destroyed to make way for the establishment of Israel. From biblical times, when this territory was the state of the Jews, to its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, Palestine had never existed as a distinct political entity but was rather part of one empire after another, from the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Ottomans.

When England Invided Ireland where there any distinct political entity ??? NO!
but the fact still remains that they have invaded a land that doesn not belong to them.
they belonged at that time to the Ottman Empire and during the war the British Invaded that land, established a mandate and then gave it to some Zionst party to establish a home for the jews.
But those Jews came from within Europe! so that's their home.

IMO... Europe didn't want them there so they ship them to the Middle East!

Remember one thing....the Middle East at that time was all Jewish they converted into Christianity then to Islam. one people!

Jews are not a race, I am so sick of this,....it's a religion not a Race!
it's like stating that christians or Muslims are a Race!

sceptre

Suff wrote:

Palastine was the name of the country, there were no state but the people and their land were called Palastine.

The formal application of the name "Palestine" to the entire region dates from about 140AD, though it had limited use by a number of Greek geographers around three hundred years before, followed by some of their Arab colleagues. Even then, finding a definite descendant of the original Philistines, after which the smaller region of Philistia was thitherto named after they first arrived around 1200BC, would have been rather difficult as they were pretty much wiped out by the Assyrians around 700BC. Now, keeping in mind that the Celts arrived into Ireland around then, I rather hope you've got some Irish blood that pre-dates their arrival if you'd like to lay claim to be part of this country using your own logic.

The term "Palestine" for the region became pretty much cemented in modern times with the establishment of the British Mandate of Palestine, encompassing modern-day Jordan and all the territory west of the Jordan river in 1917. And of course the term "Palestinian", which prior to 1948 had generally meant anyone living in the entire region regardless of religion ("Philistine" had been used to describe the Arab inhabitants from around the mid-nineteenth century) was generally applied to Arab inhabitants only from that date and pretty much formally applied to the same group fter the passing of the Palestinian National Covenant by the PLO in 1968, though the latter included any Jewish people in the region who were in place prior to the Zionist immigrations and their descendants. Now, given the origin of many of the current-day Palestinians and the origin of the modern-day Jews in the region, it's rather myopic of anyone to pull on the cloak of "we were here first, sod off". Of course outside the area where fewer people have a specific and useful idea of the actual origin of people in the area, that mantra has become more common, which is rather unfortunate as more than a little learning would mean that we'd all be able to have a more coherent discussion.

Now, to move on to one of your smaller point, the British didn't give anything in the region to anyone, Zionist or otherwise. The declaration of the state of Israel was made unilaterally. For someone who pleads with people to educate themselves on the topic, you've either got a pretty piss-poor awareness of some of the finer points or you're ignoring historical accuracy for the sake of drama, ironically doing what you're criticising people for, opresumably to add some ballast to whatever side of the big wail that you're on.

To say what I really wanted to say: playing the "this land is their land, from dirty desert to salty ocean... because they were there first DAMMIT" record on behalf of either side of the disagreement isn't worth a fiddler's fanny as there's been enough outside breeding, house moving, emigration, immigration, religion-changing, locals being swallowed up nito other countries and surrendering that for the most part there's a slightly tenuous ethnic link for a large whack of the population to early Canaanite history in any case so what should be more important is that two groups of neighbours settled in the same area at some point over time, currently live there and really should get on better. Because they've both been bad neighbours and they can both waste their time pointing the finger till the cows die of neglect. Hey, like somewhere else we know.


edit: Now, slightly aside, if anyone's got any comments on Iran and their president and what he likes to say when he knows people are watching, there's still loads of room.