Israel pushes for war on Iran

by Charles B. Thu Dec 13, 2007 20:43

Whilst the content of your piece is troubling, and has been a threat for some time, your 'good news' seems to advocate the use of force against others i.e. the success of the new rockets, therefore rendering this item as propaganda of a sort too, ipso facto, you too are a propagandist like those you criticise.
So you can't say that it is an anti war piece can you? More anti a particular war, and pro another, sort of.
Not that I think the rockets success is a bad thing, mind.

by Joe Thu Dec 13, 2007 21:14

I support the right of the Palestinian people to resist the illegal occupation of their country. I would expect all right minded people to do likewise. Illegal invasions and attacks on civilians are another matter. If Israel is foolish enough to launch an attack on Iranian cities then it would be fairly justified to expect retaliation. Just as Israel can fairly expect retaliation against it's cities as long as it illegally occupies the stolen territories of Palestine and persecutes it's occupied people.

Intifada!

by Edward Horgan Fri Dec 14, 2007 00:22

I agree with Charles B's comments above. Making peace by making war is a contradiction and has almost always proved counterproductive. There are peaceful ways to make peace, as Northern Ireland has shown, and these ways are far more lasting.
By advocating violence in particular circumstances, we may end up opposing everyone else's wars except our own.

by pat c Fri Dec 14, 2007 14:56

There is a difference between the violence of the oppressor and the reactive violence of the oppressed. Palestinians have a right to defend themselves against Israeli attacks and they have a right to drive the colonists out of the Occupied Territories.

I dont support suicide bombings against civilian targets but I find it ironic that those who rage the most against such acts are those who cheer on the IDF pilots and tank commanders who massacre Palestinians civilians.

by auntiewar Fri Dec 14, 2007 16:48

Looks like the US is pursuing other avenues for starting a fight with Iran since that report sank their case for a direct attack. Coming to Israel's aid after Israel picks a fight with Iran might be plan B

by PaddyK Fri Dec 14, 2007 18:51

The apparently strange thing about it all is that Israel stands to gain nothing on paper from an attack on Iran.

From the alleged threats to wipe Israel off the map, to the alleged nuclear bomb around the corner. when taken at true face value , i.e. Iran doesnt have a policy to wipe Israel off the map and Iran doesnt have a nuke and doesnt seem to have any program to get one, it's really difficult to see what Israel could gain from an attack on Iran. This is problematic, because people will take this simple equation and say, well in that case Israel must really have a legitimate fear if it is so willing to risk such massive regional instability for ... nothing. Automatic victimhood acts as justification for anything.

So what is the actual reason for Israel craving this seemingly suicidal scenario?

As always it's the simplest answer that is most likely true. Israel simply wants the instability. The instability justifies it's paranoia and it's people's obsession with the military. Israel exists best in a continual crisis. It cant afford to run out of crises as people both inside and outside might then expect it to start to act rationally and start to consider to treat its neighbours with a modicum of civility. Hell, if Israel has to start acting normally how will it justify any of it's traits , belligerence, violence, arrogance all the things we have come to expect.

Yep, like a manic depressive Israel needs a crisis to get through the day. In the background it's ethnic cleansing of Palestine , it's inherent racist policies against it's own citizens are merely quirky traits that will never be cured. The obsessive compulsive patient of the Middle east is entitled to beat it's own children in the middle of an earthquake. And we arent entitled to expect any better.

Fact is, if Israel doesnt attack Iran, it's going to do something else equally manic. This prognosis is substantiated by every fact on the ground and every war that Israel has started since 1948.

In fact here's the respected Journalist Jonothan Cook substantiating this point of view :

"Both [US and Israel] believe in “endless war”. And both believe that by creating chaos and instability around them they can manipulate and control their enemies. "

"War is great for Israel’s massive defence industry."

by Michael Martin Fri Dec 14, 2007 22:04

A lot of people seem to have a very short memory or feel ideologically bound to ignore the truth, so it seems. May I kindly remind you that it was the President of Iran, who in recent months repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the earth. With such threats made against a country which never did any harm to Iran, does it really comes as a surprise that some people in Israel seriously consider a pre-emptive strike to ensure the safety of their fellow citizens?

by PaddyK Fri Dec 14, 2007 22:31

Fair enough Michael, if you were right, but if you were to learn that the Iranian President never called for Israel to be wiped off the map, would it make a blind bit of difference to your rhetoric? You claim to be citing the truth when you make the allegation so if it is in fact the truth that this never happened then what will you say?

Because the truth is that this never happened. So do you actually care about the truth?

by Curious - None Sat Dec 15, 2007 19:24

Just to satisfy my curiosity about the claim that the Iranian president called for Israel to be wiped of the map. Is there somewhere I can see this? Is there actual footage of it? And not a clip from any pro U.S policy newspapers. What I want is to see these words come from the mans lips.

by PaddyK Sun Dec 16, 2007 15:31

This, apparenlty is the exact phrase he used.

" Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

My Farsi isnt up to much so here is an excerpt from an explanation by Arash Norouzi. Arash Norouzi is an artist and co-founder of The Mossadegh Project.

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

by Check this out Curious Sun Dec 16, 2007 18:06

Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth
By VIRGINIA TILLEY

Johannesburg, South Africa

In this frightening mess in the Middle East, let's get one thing straight. Iran is not threatening Israel with destruction. Iran's president has not threatened any action against Israel. Over and over, we hear that Iran is clearly "committed to annihilating Israel" because the "mad" or "reckless" or "hard-line" President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel But every supposed quote, every supposed instance of his doing so, is wrong.

The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map", is the most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."