Israel in Major Crisis:

The official Iranian position is that the "Zionist entity" should be wiped off the map. So how does that reconcile?

 

This is a plan Iran would accept, although not one that Iran would agree to without negotiations resolving a host of other outstanding issues with the US. All those other issues could be resolved between Iran and the US on mutually beneficial terms as well.

Under this plan, incidentally, countries like Iran would establish diplomatic relations with the 'Palestinian Confederation', not per se directly with Israel which would be constituent state within this confederation. There is a huge difference between the former and the latter.

Incidentally, something similar to this plan was proposed by Mohsen Rezaie during Iran's last presidential elections. Rezaie, a former commander of Iran's revolutionary guards, is the vice chairman of Iran's Expediency Council - a powerful organ that charts the policies of the state and arbitrates disputes between different governmental organs especially the parliament and the Guardians Council.

When it comes to positions regarding Palestine/Israel, I should note, no Iranian politician can completely freelance either. In other words, there is a range of acceptable positions with regard to Palestine/Israel within Iran's governing structure, and only those are the ones that can be offered by candidates without risking quick rebuke. I should also add that Rezaie was among the 3 candidates from the 'fundamentalist' camp in the last elections, although he withdrew his name right before the elections because he was doing poorly in the polls for other reasons.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-09-iran-interview_x.htm

 

I prefer the deals American reaches with Israel

 

It is funny that he persists with this crazy idea. However, it justifies attempts by others to redraw the map of Iran. I am convinced that is the only solution to the current problem.

 

Tell me about it. Look how much response this thread got.

 

TBH its your own fault for marketing the thread incorrectly. I mean, where's the tenuous link to Eyeran or Israel? And whats with including long unknown words like Sleater-Kinney? Next time you create a do-gooding thread like that try substituting Sleater-Kinney for Ahmedinejad in the thread title. You might also want to say "Hamas" or "Hezbollah" instead of the IRA. You're bound to get someones goat that way

 

Bugger, I must of missed that one!! Usually I don't miss anything with the IRA on it!!!

 

What Iran wants for Israel/Palestine is fairly irrelevent. Iranians are not the ethnic or cultural kin of either Palestinians or Israelis. Iran can use the anti-Israeli stick all it wants, but it would be wiser to look at its economy and stifling political culture and ask why so many of the finest Iranian minds live abroad.

This Palestinian Confederation idea would mean turning over a prosperous country and making it a sub-autonomous region of larger state in which Israel would have to let non-democrats govern them. Please tell me when Fatah or Hamas or the PFLP have embraced the norms of civil society or been able to run a government which did not include such lovely things as stifling of free speech, summary execution of dissidents, and massive corruption.

Has there ever been a Palestinian Authority that pumped any amout of time and effort into thinking about the economy? This Palestinian Confederation would be a nightmare because you would have one part of the country where the norms of rule of law were in place and another part where they were not. The Palestinian Authority of Arafat of the past and of Hamas of the present have not shown they believe in any genuine form of democracy. There is no federal devolved governments mentioned in the Quran, so Hamas won't touch this idea. If I set aside the issue of Israel's right to exist a Jewish and democratic state for a moment, from a practical standpoint, this would be economic and political suicide for them which would take them to the depths of the third world in both living and human rights standards.

 

This news may lead to further political unease in Israel (p.s. no charges have yet been brought):

"Israeli police believe there is enough evidence to charge President Moshe Katsav with rape and wire-tapping, a statement has said".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6053688.stm

What powers does the president have, and how will this affect the workings of state?

 

None, just like the Queen of England - it's just a political representative with no powers to do anything.

 

That raises a fundamental issue, the contours of which don't fit the intellectual box you are accustomed to fitting various issues into. To address the issue in proper depth would require a full analysis of several points of history, stretching from the division between the (Middle) East versus the "West" starting with the Greco-Persian wars, to Roman-Byzantine wars against Iran, to "Christiandom" versus the Islamic world, to the present, including divisions within the Middle East, the rise of Westernization, issues relating to attempts to impose a Pax Americana, factors that create legitimacy in the region, as well as Iran's role and place in all of this. Once such an analysis is made, we can then examine why proposals by outside groups and powers such as the Zionists before they re-settled in Palestine, the British (e.g. the Balfour Declaration), the UN (1948 partition plan), or the US (various so-called 'peace plans') are 'relevant' from your perspective (and largely irrelevant from other perspectives), while Iran's positions might not be 'relevant' in your eyes while quite relevant to others. (In the meantime, Iran not Bound by a Limited Geography is a title and link to an article from today that expresses a limited response by the Iranian foreign ministry to notions that Iran must confine its views and influence to its own borders).

Now, to discuss the issue in parts that do fit your intellectual box: there is no denying that one of the issues that separates Iran from the West, and fuels the problems between the two sides (especially between Iran and the US/Israel) relates to Iran's posture and position viz a viz Israel. Additionally, Iran is widely regarded as the leader of the 'rejectionist camp' (i.e., those who not only reject Israel's right to exist, but also reject American attempts to establish suzeraignty over the Middle East), composed of Syria, Hezbollah as well as Hamas. The latter, elected by the Palestinians to represent them. As such, Iran's position and posture on the issue is certainly relevant.

That would make for an interesting topic, including the parts that are based on misconceptions as well as those that are factually based, and I will participate in the discussion if you start an appropriate thread on the issue. This is not the thread for that discussion.

None of what your wrote relates at alll to the proposal I have outlined. Israel would remain as it is right now, under its current form of government, minus Jerusalem. The Confederate authority would have far more limited powers than the EU government, which itself is impotent. Rather, the proposal is meant to create a mechanism that avoids some vexing issues involved in trying to 'divide the baby' into 2 halfs, while also forging a mostly symbolic entity that is not defined by racial/religious affiliations alien to the notions of legitimacy in the region, allowing others in the region to establish relations with that authority instead of doing so directly with a "Jewish state" created in the Middle East by force and fiat and population transfers.

The confederate charter alluded to in the proposal, in the meantime, would guarantee a democratic form of government for the Palestinian territories. With the corrupting issues of war and peace, and the dangers and interferences involved, reduced or removed, the Palestinians would be able to establish normal government under rule of law.

Let me note in closing that I am not trying to win adherents here for the proposal I have made. Instead, I have listed the kind of deal that can be negotiated with Iran regarding Israel. Whether that kind of deal is deficient or not, that kind of deal (as opposed to what we have now) is essentially one of the main points that separate Iran from the US.

 

And Russian will bring the tsar back to form a new form of government...
What you proposed is more than non-semse, it's based on a madman's idea that is so beyong realism that it's laughable. How about Iran stay out of their business and pay attention to their own economy - now that's more realistic.

 

What do expect from Amir Haw-Haw?

 

Iranian Monitor-

Iran's position on Israel is not the major factor dividing it from the west, even if it an individually a big issue. Furthermore this only applies to the current Iranian regime, as we know the previous regime recognized Israel. Iran has not offered anything constructive to the debate on Israel. On one hand the Persian state looks down on Arabs, and at the next moment they stand with non-Shi'ite Arab Palestinians, it is extremely hypocritical. The historical events which led to Israel's existence cannot be reversed. Mind you neither can the historical events which led to the brutal expulsion of Jews from the Arab lands (as if the Sephardim had anything to do with Israel's creation, the state was Ashkenazi in charachter). If Iran was interested in being a peace maker, then their opinion would come with a degree of weight. But as it stands right now that is not the case. Iran and the west have a long way to go, and certainly both sides could budge on certain issues. But Israel is not one of those issues.