Suddenly, Iran is aflame with protest

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Thedimon, Nov 19, 2019.

Tags:
  1. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    23,117
    Likes Received:
    6,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Since you don't want to answer my questions, I'll be more direct. Most Arabs aren't interested in seeing Iran expand its influence in Arab countries. Iran's rightful place in the region is pretty much at its limit now.
    Exactly.
    And you think Iran is going to have a "rightful place" that includes influence in Arab states?
    You can seem to stop making up positions for me.
     
  2. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    23,117
    Likes Received:
    6,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What makes you think Iran is going to have influence in the region beyond what you have now?
    So, why is Iran trying to expand its influence in the region? Arabs don't seem interested.
     
  3. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    23,117
    Likes Received:
    6,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You completely ignored my point about Saudi Arabia seeing Shia as a potential threat.
     
  4. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,881
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What part of your 'point' you want me to address. I don't disagree with you on what you mentioned; just didn't think your comment accurately reflected the more fundamental divisions in the region. I posted the maps I did for a reason: to show that much of the sectarian division fault lines between Shia-Sunni aren't all that different than the lines between regions ruled by Iran even before Islam and those afterwards.

    The correct narrative in the region isn't told with any single dimension, to be sure. But the overriding divisions in the region have long roots in history and the religious covering is itself a cover for many of the underlying cultural, political and regional rivalries.

    The story I need to narrate for you is too involved to fit into any single message here. But hopefully I will find a way to build it into the responses I give to the different messages here.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  5. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,651
    Likes Received:
    13,762
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Shia in KSA are loyal... They are big in the oil fields and in the merchant class. There is a minority within the Shia minority who are unhappy.
     
  6. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    23,117
    Likes Received:
    6,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You've been wrong so far. My concern is that you might not be wrong in the future.
    There has never been a time American politics where Zionism has gone unchallenged.
    What would you do with/to Israel? Some 70% of Israeli Jews were born in Israel and millions of Israeli Jews have no right to live in another country. Beyond that, Israel has nuclear weapons and gives every impression they would use them to protect the Jewish state.
     
  7. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    23,117
    Likes Received:
    6,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What's your point? With the possible exception of Iraq, where in the Middle East would you expect Iran to have dominant ir even significant influence?
     
  8. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,881
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree! While those nukes are now pointed at Iran, and they had a test of a nuclear missile the other day which was a message to Iran, many others will have reason to be worried where they nukes would be pointing at down the road. In the meantime, many are trying to 'appease' the Israelis in various ways, feeding their tantrums and whatever else they want, ultimately because they recognize how loose a cannon it really is. But Netanyahu and the pro Israel crowd are right, even if they are trying to hide the true appeasement taking place and pointing the accusation in a very wrong target: appeasement doesn't work. It will make things much worse down the line.

    In my view, what's done cannot be undone. I certainly don't have any desire to drive the "Jews into the sea" or anywhere else. I do want pseudo Jewish immigration to Israel, most recently and in rather large numbers from Russia, to somehow be curtailed. But most importantly, I want to see Israel (and its partisans) stop being the vehicle for corrupting politics in America. And the excuse for outside meddling in the Middle East.

    None of what I want will happen anytime soon. It will require fundamental changes in the balance of power in the region. Changes which will not happen without Iran becoming much stronger than it is now. When that happens, and Iran does become as strong as I want Iran to become, then the rest of what I want will have greater relevance.
     
  9. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,881
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't want Iran to have any more influence than it would have naturally, without outside interference and barriers. Wherever that influence may or may not be. For now, the most democratically elected governments in the region, namely those in Lebanon and Iraq, along with the regime which (despite its official ideology) is Iran's closest ally in the region, and is one which (despite the false narratives and propaganda) enjoys the support of its own people, namely the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria, are the ones being painted as somehow "under Iranian influence".
     
  10. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    23,117
    Likes Received:
    6,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    An unhappy minority near oil facilities isn't what Saudis want. As we know, there are also unhappy Sunnis.
     
  11. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    23,117
    Likes Received:
    6,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Who should be worried other than Iran? Iraq? Syria? Jordan and Egypt have longstanding peace agreements with Israel.
    Who is appeasing Israel?
    Do you support a two-state solution where a Palestinian state is created in the West Bank?
    Pseudo Jewish immigration? What does that mean?
    Even if Iran becomes a nuclear power, Israel will still have enough nuclear weapons to dissuade Iran from attacking.
     
  12. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,881
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't want to appear like I am engaging in fear mongering, but rest assured that I had others in mind. Even those who not only played key roles in helping establish the state of Israel, but helped Israel develop its nuclear arsenal.
    Every major power in the world and every other country that doesn't oppose Israel is appeasing it.
    I have long maintained that the 'two-state solution' is and was a fraud. A mirage to further the fraud. Not only you can't 'cut this baby in half' (or in any other fractions) that would make both sides happy, the happiness of one of the sides isn't even an issue while the other side isn't much into sharing anyway.

    There are two drastically different solutions to the issue of Palestine/Israel or, alternatively, Judea as part of Greater Syria that I would find appropriate, neither of which is relevant at this time until there is a drastic change in the balance of power in the region. One of them presupposes that Israel remains in the Western camp, in which case I would support a Palestinian-Israeli confederation composed of a Jewish state in Israel proper (minus Jerusalem), an autonomous capital city in Jerusalem, along with non-denominational, democratic, states in the West Bank and Gaza.

    The other sees Judea back to being what it was historically, before the advent of modern Zionist ideology and before the intervention of the Roman empire in its affairs, as part of the "East" and in alliance with IRAN, in which case it would there would be a Judean kingdom led by a Rabbinical philosopher king overseeing the affairs of a state otherwise protecting the rights of all of its citizens and residents, as part of Greater Syria.

    On this issue, perhaps the following articles will give you a hint of what I mean as it relates to the real historical character of being a Jewish state.
    The Effects of Romano-Persian Interaction on the Cultures of the Syrian limes of the Roman Empire
    [If you read the article, you will see one of the cultures studied was the culture of a Jewish town, Dara, based on the archaeological evidence from that time].

    Further giving you historical insight on what I mean, you can read the following which doesn't relate as much to Judea but to the larger meaning of being part of the traditional "East" as well as to further appreciate why the Abbasid caliphate that emerged following the overthrow of the Arab Omayyad caliphate was more an "Eastern" empire reflecting the actual Eastern concepts (which merged or fused Iranian with Semitic traditions in giving this Eastern definition). I also recommend you read this article in full because it will give you further insight into some of the other issues we have been discussing, even if the author of the article actually stresses too much a contrary narrative than the one which I find supported by the weight of historical evidence.
    http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abbasid-caliphate
    ABBASID CALIPHATE
    See also from Jewish history (and its "Christian" conceptions):
    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9328-kingdom-of-god
    KINGDOM OF GOD ("Malkuta de-Adonai":
    I have to cover a lot of history and other material to give my real answer to this question (which I intend to do at the appropriate time), but for now, rest assured there are plenty of 'orthodox Jews' in Israel who know what that means. And who aren't as willing as the neo-Nazi secular leaders of Israel and the Zionist project to invite all sorts of people into the so-called "Jewish homeland" just to fill up its ranks and add to its population to further its agenda as a western colonial outpost.
    Why would IRAN want to use nukes against Israel? The whole idea is ridiculous even if Iran ever developed nukes. Unlike Israel, the only reason Iran would ever need nukes, would be to deter any nuclear aggression against it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  13. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    23,117
    Likes Received:
    6,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't see how the two sides can live together under one government.
    Israel won't allow the West Bank to become part of Jordan or Syria. Israel is barely more than ten miles wide opposite the West Bank.
    It sounds like a two- or three-state solution with an unworkable governing structure. Anyway, Israel will never agree to a loss of sovereignty.

    Israel is reaching a moment of truth on the two-state solution. If Israel doesn't limit the creation of new West Bank settlements, it will be almost impossible to establish a Palestinian state.
    Egads--more BS about an ancient past. There were only a few thousand Jews in Palestine for centuries and only 25,000 less than 140 years ago.

    Why would any of this matter?

    There are literally millions of Israeli Jews and millions of Palestinians living in Israel who individually know no other home and have nowhere else to go. They don't get along for many reasons. It's either two states or apartheid, stark choices more compelling than historical questions.
    :rolleyes:
    I wonder if you know where the fault lines are in Israeli society. Secular Israelis are often unhappy with the politics of recent immigrants and many view the West Bank settlers as a pain in the neck.
    Israel and Iran want nuclear weapons for the same reason--protection.
     
  14. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,881
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't see a solution to the issue of "Israel" (with its current definition), or their conflict with Palestinian, without a fundamental change in the balance of power in the region. And the ideological paradigms which have defined debates on the issue. What you are insisting on is keeping the paradigms and power structures now existing intact, but claiming you favor a "just solution" where the Palestinians at least get a state. That is a fraud. And a fraud lays the ground work for more frauds down the line. Otherwise, I had already mentioned that the solutions I favor wouldn't be realistic for now. It won't be realistic until there is a shift in the balance of power and a concomitant shift in the relevant paradigms, all of which involve a long term project not a short term one.
    Why would any of what you said about the population counted as Jews over the past centuries have much to do with what I said?

    I am tempted not to bore you with more history and philosophy, particularly since you don't seem to read much of it anyway despite your academic background. But let me just give you the relevant highlights as it relates to the history of the "Jews" from my perspective (invite those who have something to correct my understanding for me to correct it), and see if you follow what I am trying to tell you.

    1- Jewish identity and new Judaism is the product of the Persian period and the fusion of Iranian ideology with ancient Semitic beliefs and practices. Before the Persian empire, and the emissaries it sent to the region (Ezra, Nehemiah and others), the people you call "Jews" based on Biblical mythology did not call themselves "Jews" and no one else called them Jews. They were instead Semitic tribes (called Palestinian Syrians by Herodotus) who weren't monotheists, did not have a written scripture which was later collected as the Torah (their religious beliefs were mostly passed through the oral tradition), but believed in various deities and were polytheists. Their mythology and history wasn't all that distinguishable from the other Semitic tribes in their surroundings, except as follows: (1) they practiced circumcision and didn't eat pork; (2) they were subdivided into 2 groups, one of whom had built a temple in Jerusalem and a polity around that city and another which had established an Israelite kingdom for a short time couple of centuries before the rise of the Persian empire; (3) the elite from the "Judean" community that had built the temple in Jerusalem had been exiled into Babylon by the Babylonians; (4) the ancient Egyptians and other empires in the region had tried to paint them as descendants of lepers from ancient Egypt to undermine their status and any political challenge they could represent.

    2- The Jewish identity and new Judaism developed as a means to allow the Persian empire to better administer and rule over the region. Some of the "Judean" exiles from Babylonia (freed by the Persian empire) were sent back to Palestine. To settle debates about who had the proper authority to rule over the region, a "new Judaism" developed. In this new Judaism, Cyrus stood above even "Jewish prophets" and became the "Lord Anointed". The claim of the claimants from the Semitic "Israelite" community in Palestine to rule was set aside by this new Judaism in favor of the Babylonian exiles, who had in the meantime developed a monotheistic theology influenced by Zoroastrian doctrines, who also enforced the practice that a "real Jew" was someone whose mother was Jewish (Giving Jewish identity and ethnic component). And the area, with its relatively small population, was now administered under a Rabbinical Kingdom under the suzerainty of the Persian empire. From all of this, the "Jews" were born as an ethno-religious group in the region.

    3- In this context, the Jews were part of the East in the cultural divide between East and West which arose from the Greco-Persian wars and continued during the wars between Rome and IRAN. And like the rest of the East, they too had their periods in history, and people within their community, who were influenced by the Hellenic world (hence, both Hellenic and anti-Hellenic phases) following the conquest of the Persian empire by Alexander and his immediate successors. But in their core, the Jews were actually one of the repositories of ancient Eastern culture representing a fusion of Iranian and Semitic influences and politically they would often side with IRAN in its battles with Rome. (Iran, under the Parthians, even had a project to develop a Judean kingdom in Mesopotamia in light of the fact that Jerusalem had fallen into the hands of the West/Rome, but I digress...)

    4- Regardless of what Westernized Jews would like you to believe, Ashkenazi Jews were themselves a group of Jews from IRAN (which included at the time the regions now in Eastern Anatolia) who were settled there and mixed with other Iranian-speaking tribes, namely the Scythian tribes. (They took their wives from the Scythian people). Their name "Ashke-Naz" is a Persian name. The historical meaning of Ashkenaz in non-Iranian sources, including the Bible, was "Scythian". Their language, Yiddish, has Iranian influences. And while disputed by some of the western chauvinist Israelis, recent genetic studies (including by Israeli scholars) point to the Askhenazi Jews having the lineage I am referring to as well.

    5- These "Jews" were one of the dominant castes among the Semitic people in the regions outside of IRAN. They were similar somewhat to say what the "Shia" represent today in Arab countries (viewed as potential fifth columnists). While not all of these Jews were "pro IRAN" in its wars against Rome, they were actually a significant community with significant sentiments in favor IRAN. And hated by Rome and the West as representing the East, both culturally and politically.

    6- The number of people who self-identified as "Jews" dwindled significantly during the Roman period, most of them converting to other religions and assuming different labels and identities. (After Rome became "Christian", most of these former Jews became Christian Palestinians and then, after the Islamization of the area, most became Muslim Palestinians now speaking Arabic (a language easy for Semetic tribes to pick up as Arabic is also a Semitic language).

    7- Two groups of "Jews" immigrated to Europe. One were a small group of elite from the Roman region of Palestine. The Palestinian Jews who were part of the story of the Jewish 'diaspora' were actually not a large number and these "exiles" were no more the Jews expelled by Rome than any supposed exiles as part of the mythology of the Exodus in the Bible.

    8- The main "Jewish" group in Europe were represented by the Ashkenazim - a different group linguistically with a different maternal background genetically from the Palestinian Jews. Where did they come from and what did they represent? The "Westernized" Ashkenazim who are adherents of Westernized Zionist ideology, want to emphasize their links to the Near Eastern Jews (Palestinian Jews). And they do have such links. Westernized Ashkenazim who are adherents of secular Western ideologies and who prefer to be part of the West altogether, who aren't religious, almost want to pretend that the Ashkenazim are another group of Germans! In truth, their connections to the Germans is the same as the connection of the Scythian tribes to the Germans, with the additional difference that living among Germanic tribes, Yiddish certainly had specific Germanic influences as well. Otherwise, they are actually the descendants of the land of Ashkenaz which I have described (which is situated in eastern areas of modern day Turkey, but long before there was any Turkey or Turkish people in this region when it was part of IRAN).

    9- The Jews were of course historically persecuted in Christendom (it was almost legal to kill a Jew under the common law in England and the history of pogroms and other atrocities committed against the Jews is no secret). They tried "Westernization" and "secularization" to escape hatred of the West, but that didn't work for them with the rise of pseudo-Aryan theories of racial superiority of "Aryans" (a totally misguided misappropriation of the name used by Iranians, by various people such as Gobineau and others to mean "Nordics", when the original Iranians as with the Iranians now clearly aren't Nordics. However, a genuine understanding of what motivated Gobineau in his theories is still relevant (and which I will address down the line), even if the neo-Nazi ideology today is predominately (not completely) allied with the Zionists.

    10- After all that happened to the "Jews", and all they have gone through, you would think they would prefer to lend their power and influence (which is substantial within the West) for helping the East against the West. Instead, they have become collaborators and even leading advocates of the West in defeating the East. Instead of looking surprised at Iranian Jews who chose to remain in Iran despite cash offers for them to immigrate to Israel, those among them who are real Jews should look in the mirror at themselves and with disgust! They are collaborators with those who committed all the real atrocities committed against them. And they are committing those atrocities against people who are actually the closest descendants to the Palestinian Jews, namely the Palestinians people (especially those who are Christian, as the Muslim Palestinians include a significant Bedouin or real Arab segment as well).
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
  15. Gilos

    Gilos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Messages:
    13,716
    Likes Received:
    584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As an Israeli I have to say that your "peaceful" solution sounds very very hostile and bloody, what you are educated on is that Israel is an Evil force created by traitors to serve as a tool of destruction on you, and that's the base, that's your "hello" to me,

    Now tell me - since we don't have any hate books in Israel on Iranians and we are not sworn to destroy you from childhood - how the hell can I NOT take all that **** you believe in as a serious threat to my life should you ever get the opportunity to destroy us ? there is nothing that we can do to you that wont be regarded as self defense just by your fundamental believes, and you have the audacity to call us aggressors for that....how does a lawyer like you settle this contradiction ?
     
  16. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,881
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't favor any bloody solutions. On the other hand, the bloody nature of the solutions found by others speaks for itself. What I favor is Iran being strong enough, and subsequently reformed from within properly, to represent its traditions (and how they should evolve) on its own. And to tell its own story of history as it arises from the best scholarship available, combined from its own perspective and historic traditions, on those issues where the best scholarship is lost to propaganda narratives. Narratives born out of centuries and millennia of warfare and competition, starting with the Greco-Persian wars, then seven hundred years of warfare and rivalry during the Roman-Persian wars (more accurately, Roman wars with IRAN as that was the name of the Sasanian empire the Romans and Westerners called the Persian empire), then the battles within the "Islamic world" for its definition and against the West as represented in the battles between "Islam" and "Christendom" up to the present time with the advent of Western imperialism and neo-imperialism.
    My 'education' on Israel is based on my own reading of both the history of the Jews (as presented mostly by Western scholars as well as Jewish ones) and the history of IRAN (as presented from all available sources, including but certainly not limited to, Western sources). While I do find Israel, as presently constituted, to be Evil, I find the remedy to what makes Israel Evil not advanced by force (except as required for self-defense) but proper education informed by a dispassionate and unbiased search or quest for the truth. As part of the 'cosmic' battle against Lies/falsehood.
    While Israel has been obsessed for the past 2 decades to bring such destruction on IRAN, I don't see it in quite the same way you have attributed to me.
    I have never read a 'hate" book on Israel nor would be interested in such things. On the other hand, whether in books or more prolific in media accounts, what you are exposed to is actually themes meant to promote hatred of Iran on a daily basis. Of course, not everyone in Israel takes it as far as Netanyahu, but that guy even wanted to promote hatred of the ancient Persians and equate modern day Iranians with Haman in the story of Purim.
    https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/P...ws-in-days-of-Haman-wont-succeed-today-483907
    PM: Persians didn't succeed in killing Jews in days of Haman, won't succeed today
    Netanyahu has often channeled the Purim story when discussing the Iranian threat.

    This then led to a twitter reply and counter reply between Iran's foreign minister and Netanyahu on the actual role played by the Persians in Jewish history. A role that, frankly, isn't well understood even by Iran's foreign minister, who is basically simply recounting the Biblical accounts (without delving deeper into the actual history) as well as more modern accounts referring to the "Persian Schindler" who saved many Jews during the Nazi occupation of France..
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/irani...m-spiel-says-persians-saved-the-jews-3-times/
    Iranian FM chides Netanyahu over Purim spiel, says Persians saved the Jews 3 times

    But, of course, Netanyahu didn't want any of that type of narrative and responded with the usual falsehoods.
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/netan...-over-accusation-of-distorting-purim-history/
    Netanyahu hits back at Iran FM over accusation of ‘distorting’ Purim history
    Even Iran's official, political, position on Israel isn't remotely what you want to present. Not even as narrated by Iran's 'most hardline' political leader on the Israel issue, namely Iran's Supreme Leader. But I can't say the same about Israel's position, a country who has ministers taking pride as being the only ones "killing Iranians" and whose leaders have made promoting phobia and hatred of Iran a national past time!
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-minister-were-the-only-country-killing-iranians/
    Israeli minister: We’re the ‘only country killing Iranians’

    p.s.
    Although many people pretend to know the history of the Jews without knowing much about the history of IRAN, and even though there are those who pretend to understand the anti-Semitic theories of Gobineau (who was the 'father' of so-called 'scientific anti-Semitic" ideology that took root within various circles in Europe in the 19th and 20th century without knowing the history of Iran, the fact is that neither is possible. Which means if you really want to know either the history of the Jews, or even the ideology that led to anti-Semitic ideology finding a pseudo-scientific basis, you need to start with a better understanding of Iranian history. Much better than what anyone is exposed to in the West, although all the facts you need to know are actually found within the more scholarly accounts about Iran even in scholarship by Western historians.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
  17. Gilos

    Gilos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Messages:
    13,716
    Likes Received:
    584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To summarize the above : "you do it too but we're right"
    That's not what I asked, I asked if you see Israel as something evil to be destroyed than how can Israel be the aggressive when it wants you destroyed as result ?
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
  18. Gilos

    Gilos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Messages:
    13,716
    Likes Received:
    584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do you suppose the shift of power that you suggested be carried by "information and quest for truth" ?
    What I understood from you is you basically want to reduce Israel to the level of a Palestinian refugee camp, than there would be justice and then there could be some sort of a refugee coalition,
    Rather than a more constructive way to bring equality - enforce the Palestinians, make Gaza economy strong, educate the Palestinians with modern professions such as Hi-Tech and make them truly indipendant , than by economy alone the borders and hate would disappear.
     
  19. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,881
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I said I favor a shift in the balance of power, with Iran becoming much stronger and more capable of resisting outside efforts to encroach on its economy, ideology, politics and policies. From that process, if Iran succeeds in becoming strong enough to resist such pressures without allowing itself to be too corrupted by them, my view is that all the rest will work out. Iran doesn't need to invade any other country or take its message to them (a message which I believe should be reformed in certain respects) by force. It doesn't need to use force to exercise the influence it wields now, much less if and when its experiment is as successful as I would like to see it become.
    Where did you get that idea?? That is ridiculous and not at all in line with what I have in mind. What I have mentioned is two separate ideas. One if there is an Israeli that remains committed to being a "Western oriented" and allied society, in which case the correct solution for me is a confederate solution composed of Israel largely as it exists today minus Jerusalem, an autonomous capital city in Jerusalem shared equally by all faiths and its inhabitants (protecting each group equally, under a form of an "equal protection clause" as exists in the US constitution) with a democratically elected city council and mayor representing all the residents of Jerusalem; along with non-denominational states in Gaza and the West Bank, with democratically elected governments. The relationship between these states to be akin to the relationship between say members of the EU.

    The other idea is a bit more far-fetched currently, but envisages the people of Israel/Palestine deciding they want to play a role in an Eastern renaissance instead of Israel being a Western oriented country with Western alliances. In that case, I wouldn't even mind if all these territories came under the rule of a Judean kingdom. A form of Greater Israel, but one that would be a part of the East and fulfilling a valuable function in helping the East rise and find its historic place viz a viz what is now (and has been for a few centuries) an ascendant West. But the contours of what I have in mind on this are too remote in light of present day realities for me to want to expand on right now.
    Instead of slogans to deceive, I actually want the entire region (including the Palestinians and others in the region) to find their status -- materially, educationally, economically, culturally, politically and ultimately spiritually -- to be uplifted. Which is why I like to see an "Eastern renaissance" with the ideology I have outlined previously here a guiding principle in that renaissance.
     
  20. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    23,117
    Likes Received:
    6,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    More of the same? There is no sign Israeli Jews will give up their Jewish state, or that anyone or anything will put them out of business.
    Oh, please--I'm not insisting on anything. Israel has a choice: Palestine or apartheid. I think they're going to choose a demilitarized Palestinian state.
    The "fraud" is your claim I'm "insisting on is keeping the paradigms and power structures now existing intact."
    Yeah, I've heard it before from Palestinians. They're willing to wait a thousand years. I don't think they even have a century.
    There were hardly any Jews in Palestine for centuries. Zionists also considered creating a homeland in Uganda and Argentina. Why is ancient history relevant?
    Jewish identity also includes surviving the Holocaust and establishing a homeland for Jews.
    They call themselves "Jews" now, so what? Are you trying to delegitimize them?
    Uh huh, but why does this make any difference now?
    The West supported their Zionist ambitions; Zionism was promoted by Western Jews. Why would Zionists be interested in helping the East against the West? It's no mistake Israel was created with a government modelled on the British parliamentary system.
    The West is trying to defeat the East in what way? Militarily? Economically? Socially? They're trying to stop Eastern nation states from developing as parliamentary democracies? They're opposing the East if it develops as theocracies?
    Who cares if Israel made cash offers to Iranian Jews to immigrate to Israel? Besides, more Iranian Jews went to the U.S. than to Israel.
    There's plenty of barbarism to go around between Israelis and Palestinians.
     
  21. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    23,117
    Likes Received:
    6,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    His ambition of having Judea and Samaria incorporated into a Greater Syria is undoubtedly a complete nonstarter with Israelis. I wonder about how in touch he might be with the situation in Israel.
     
  22. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    23,117
    Likes Received:
    6,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As long as the Palestinians are stuck on the "Three No's," there's not going to be peace.
     
  23. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,881
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have already mentioned this: I am not talking about Jews giving up a "Jewish state". I am not talking about anything that they would or wouldn't find acceptable under the current ideology, which reflects in part the current balance of power in the region. Nor would Israel need to be "put out of business" for what I am suggesting to take place overtime. What is needed, instead, is the change in the balance of power arising from those who are opposed to the current Zionist regime and all that it entails, gaining a lot more power economically, militarily and otherwise. If and when that where to happen, the ideas that would emerge (including what would appear acceptable or not) would change.

    You are entitled to (a) reject my view that a change in the balance of power would cause a shift in the ideas of what is or isn't acceptable or preferable, and/or (b) to reject my view that such a change in the balance of power is at all possible. But you are not entitled to continue mis-stating what I am saying as it relates to the conditions for any of this to take place.
    Correct me if I am wrong; you actually support a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine issue. You are also not fond of the Zionist ideology that underpins the creation of the State of Israel. And you are even more clearly not in favor of any "Greater Israel" based on any Zionist ideology or otherwise. Instead, you believe that the options before Israel are: (a) having an apartheid state as the demographics become even less tenable for Israel remaining both democratic and Jewish; or, alternatively, (b) accept a "two-state" solution?

    If I am correct in my summary of your views, then you are saying what secularist, democratic, critics of Israel have been saying for a long time, both within Israel and among those in the US and Europe have been saying for many decades, particularly after the 1967 war until more recently, when the prospects of a 'two-state solution' are now basically seen as not all that favorable. With many of those voices no longer pushing their 'peace' agendas that strenuously anymore.

    The above summary of your views, if accurate (and correct if it isn't), is the 'paradigm" (juxtaposed against the say Zionist/ultra-Zionist one) that I am saying you are insisting on. And my critique of that paradigm is that it is a fraud because it proceeds on a premise (convincing Israel to agree to a state-solution which is at all acceptable to the Palestinians) whose advocates realize (or should realize) is unlikely to happen now or in the future as long as the balance of power favors Israel.

    As long as those who supposedly favor this approach also are either silent or work feverishly to appease Israel and allow the balance of power within Israel to favor rejection of any compromise, this "two-state" solution won't happen anyway. And the most likely outcome of working to prevent a balance of power emerging in the region (including through the efforts by the so-called 'international community' to keep IRAN isolated and weakened, whether under Trump and Israel's "maximum pressure" formula or even under the formula of the JCPOA + added pressures for Iran to further compromise on various issues, such as its missile program, as advanced by the Europeans), is to create dynamics for a continuation of what we have actually seen take place (and not what you claim you favor). Namely, further 'ethnic cleansing' of additional areas in historic Palestine in a 'slow-motion' process for the most part, taking a script from how the State of Israel was even created in the first place. After all, as you have mentioned yourself (and I agree), when the Zionist project was first conceived, the Jews were a small minority even in the areas of Palestine which the UN Partition plan wanted to cede to them in 1948. Overtime, between when the Zionist project started in the late 19th century and 1948 (and continuing since), the demographics changed in that area. And that is what you will most likely see happen again as it relates to the "West Bank" (if not more, since the limits of Greater Israel in some conceptions take it up to the borders of IRAN).
    Despite the fact that I have a strong inkling based on your other arguments that you actually realize that it is Israel (and not the Palestinians) who isn't truly favorably disposed to any realistic 'two-state solution', this statement of yours somehow pretends that it is up to the Palestinians to change their view of things.

    Let me be blunt about this: the Palestinians never had and are not likely to have much of a "vote" in any of this. Their fate will be decided, as always, by the larger historical battles in the region.
    We both agree, but I am still not clear why you think that somehow negates anything I have said. If anything, it should open your eyes to the fact that the 'ultra-Zionists' don't see their options the ones you are presenting, namely an 'apartheid state' or having a 'two-state" solution. What worked for a part of Palestine, in their mind, can work for it all and more. And what worked was 'ethnic cleansing', which can take place more rapidly or in slow motion.
    I respect why you wouldn't find 'ancient history' all that relevant. But those who are on the other side of the divide, namely the 'neocons', the 'ultra-Zionists', the "Christian evangelical Zionists", and the whole panoply of forces working towards giving Israel its carte blanche to act as it pleases in the region, 'ancient history' is actually one of the supposed 'justifications' for their quest and their aspirations. And countering their narrative an important element in exposing their 'ideology' for what it is: a blatant power grab proceeding on the same type of 'logic' and 'reasoning' as used by the folks who perpetuated what became know as the "Holocaust".
    True. The lessons that are taught from that experience becomes critically important. If the lesson is "never again" for the Jews (and the Jews have some special rights to make sure 'never again') then we get to where we are now. (And many western democracies will themselves become corrupted by this, as they have been). If the lesson is "never again" for anyone, which is what liberal humanistic democratic ideologies in the West generally favor, the problem they encounter is failing to appreciate the nexus between material power (balance of power in geopolitics, power of vested special interest groups within their own domestic politics, etc) and the persuasiveness of the lesson they want to teach. (A lesson whose teachings are best focused on the ultra Zionists today).
     
  24. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,881
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When your paradigm fails, of course you can blame it on the "Palestinians"! In the spirit of the true 'scientific method' (guided by an objective assessment of the facts), what you need instead is a paradigm shift and not an 'excuse' as to why the theory was falsified. The two-state solution didn't succeed, not because of the Palestinians (regardless of the narratives people will offer to justify this argument and I am familiar with all of them), but because it was flawed in its conception from the get go.
     
  25. Gilos

    Gilos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Messages:
    13,716
    Likes Received:
    584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well.....to annex Judea and Samaria to Syria would mean Jordan also be annexed and the Northern part of Israel, assuming Gaza joins this party - that would leave a city and a half to the Jews, yeah.....I think we'll take the Nuke option...it leaves us a bit more space....
     

Share This Page