Slice of Jewish Life in Iran

There is a difference between fighting for your country and fighting for one guy in your country , Iranians are united when it comes to defending the homeland from enemies , Jews fought alongside Muslims in the Iran-Iraq war and they will do the same when and if countries like Israel attack Iran. Arabs too had a hard time imagining Arabs fighting against them in Iran-Iraq war , Saddam heavily relied on Iranian Arab support when his troops entered Iran but what he got was a fierce resistance by Iranian Arabs and all Iranian alike.

 

How are they a lost cause? They consider Iran their homeland not Israel , so why would defending your country be a lost cause? that’s like Americans letting the Russians attack the US homeland and do nothing about it because they are Christians. Israel is not the center of attention for all Jews and it doesn’t represent all Jews , so fighting against Israel in case of war is not a matter of your enemies religion , it’s the matter of saving your own nationality and country.

 

Israel IS the center of all Jews. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but if there was a war between Iran and Israel, and if Israel was at a grave danger of being destroyed, I bet Iranian Jews would not have their hands in this...

 

Did Jews fight along side Muslims? Were the Jews allowed to fight for their country?

 

Iranians in general, and including Iranian Jews, are not a monolith. To the extent that you can generalize among Iranian Jews in Iran, most are praying that there will not be a direct, open, conflict or war with Israel. The same attitude applies to most Iranians Jews living outside, although a vocal and influential minority of Iranian Jewish emigres are working alongside Israel these days.

In case of a war with Israel, Iranian Jews are required to show the same loyalty to their country as other Iranians. To the extent they don't, they will be treated the same way other traitors are treated in other countries.

I don't expect Iran to do what the US did to Japanese Americans during WWII in case of such a war, and that might itself indicate that not too many Iranian Jews will be expected to side with Israel. Some might, most will want to see no such conflict and will probably try to find ways to take no part of it, while others will be among those in the forefront of the fight against the Zionist entity.

 

Israel doesn’t represent Jews and Jews don’t represent Israel , you never meet a Iranian Jew , you wouldn’t know anything about them , why would you bet on something you don’t know about? When it comes to war , all people unite , their faith is not a factor . The same is true on Israel’s side , if there was bombing the shitt out of Iranian cities and killing innocent people like they did in Lebanon , would Israel differentiate between Jews and Muslims? They would kill anyone no matter what their religion is . There has been wars where brothers fought against brothers , the US civil war is a good example , in a time of war nothing is more important then defeating the enemy .

 

Getting back to the topic on hand, as someone about as unbiased as you can get (Australian, christian, no middle eastern or jewish background) who has travelled from Egypt through to India - including Isreal and Iran - this article shows the truth about Iran that the west tries it's best to ignore. Of all the countries I have been too in that area Iran was easily the most tollerant, whether in terms of race or religion. The Iranian people were always at pains to say that they had nothing against Israeli or American people, only their government and, especially, their foreign policy, and I'd have to say I (along with most people I know) would agree with them. This is not to say that Isreali people are much different, but, like elsewere in the west, there is far more propoganda directed against the people of Iran as well as the government, and even what is said about the government is more likely to be blown way out of proportion (When I travelled there, in 1999, the figures showed that woman in Iran on average earned about 70% of a male - not that bad compared to even western countries, especially with how sexist Iran is meant to be ).

To Jersey boy and scarecrow (amongst a few others), every time there is a thread about Iran or Palestine or terrorism, or anything else that fits your agenda you hijack it and revert to insults and circular arguments without contributing anything intelligent to the argument (who cares about paragraphs and why is it important to this debate?). Your comments about immigration are extremely amusing as there are millions of current and former Isreali's (ie from the land of Isreal) that would much rather be somewere that they are treated better - you call them Palestinians. This is what you don't seem to understand when you say Isreal and Jew are interchangeable, Jews include all those that worship via the Jewish faith, but don't live in Isreal or even support it's action (yes they exist - even in Australia for example), and Isreal as a country must include ALL those within it's borders - including non jews.

 

Unfortunately when it comes to war, it's not up to people, but rather to dumbass governments like Ahmadinejad and his ayatollah friends, and the real people suffer. So it's nice to know that Iranians are not putting Jews into gas chambers, but that's all irrelevant if it comes to war.

 

But you're also forgetting to mention the governments of Isreal, the USA (and yes my own Australia and its "puppy dog to US policy" prime minister) and their dumbass foriegn policy that is causing a lot of the problems in the first place. How many UN resolutions have their been against Isreal? How many have the US vetoed? Of course Abu Ghraib didn't help. "Convert to our democracy see how good it is, we treat people right" . Especially Rumsfeldts obvious complicity, but not even an investigation into him.

 

The US is not perfect. Israel is not perfect. Democracy is not perfect.

But to hold out situations like Abu Ghraib as an example of what the US or Democracy is about is just silly.

Do you disagree that democracy is better, although not perfect, than any of the goverments in arab or persian countries?

In 1947, the same UN you are talking about partitioned the land in the middle east. The Jews accepted the partition, however, tenuous the borders left its security situation. The arabs attacked and rejected any proposal that would give Jews ANY land.

Everything that has happened since then is a result of that.

 

Which foreign policy of Israel are you not happy about? You mean the one where 90% of the muslim world will not deal with them, even in the sports arena? Or giving land for peace and getting war instead one?

 

I realize that you are incapable of reading all the posts or realizing that until valerie and the other liars started posting in this thread, this thread was quite respectful. Just to show that you have obviously not read through this thread I will post the link to my first post in this thread.

https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9712629&postcount=3

 

Good post ,
As I stated Iranian are tolerant in many ways , and since you been to Iran you know what your talking about ,unlike other members on this forum who always rely on personal attacks and use their bias ways to talk about something they don’t know anything about .

 

Pot meet kettle.
coward

 

Again you miss the point. The US failed to find any WMD's in Iraq and has had to fall back on human rights for it's justification (which was the only justification in the first place, although never originally used, as there was never any proof of WMD's anyway). The US then commits human rights abuses in Abu Ghraib (If you can't see the contradiction in that then I must truly give up on your case for intelligence). What makes it worse is summed up by Geoffry Robertson Q.C. in his book "Crimes Against Humanity (2006 ed)

"... the red cross has estimated that between 75 and 90 percent of the detainees had no connection with the insurgency and no useful information to offer in any event. Yet every Iraqi subjected to ill-treatment (bordering on torture) had a dozen or so relatives - sisters, brothers, parents, wives and children - who became in consequence committed to a blood feud against 'the invaders'. "

Thus Abu Ghraib - being the Iraqi experience of American "human rights" is held up by them as an example.

Of course, being from and in Australia, I wouldn't want anything else. But Iraqi's in Iraq wouldn't exactly be getting the same view of democracy at the moment. As for Iran, they had a revolution that set up a FULLY DEMOCRATIC government to overthrow the Shah (shah = Saddam of Iran, ie despotic tyrant) the US though, supported the Shah in returning to power (great move for democracy ) after the execution of a few of the democratic leaders the Islamic revolution occured leaving Iran how it is now. Why would the people of Iran trust the US foreign policy (its not like this was an isolated case worldwide either)

Firstly the UN in 1947 was even more in the control of the major powers than it is today, the people of the middle east didn't have any say in that descision at all. The Arab states also only had violence to use as a protest, the US has it's Veto - the veto power given to the five nations that have it is the biggest corruption stain of the UN.

Secondly, the Jews had land before 1947, as part of Palestine, they had lived there in peace since the crusades (when it was christians killing them) until the zionist movement began, bringing waves of immigration and "jewish terrorism". When the UN partitioned palestine they could have given the Jews 30% (in line with the population figures at the time) and in the areas that the Jews actually lived in, but instead the UN gave them 55% of the land, and the better parts at that. Can you realy blame the palestinians for fighting, can you imagine if the UN said that African Americans deserve their own homeland in North America in 1947, "they have 15% of the population but we'll give them 30% of the land" .

The war was always considerred inevitable by the US and UK, but they didn't care since, as Israel (or the Zionists) at that stage had a larger, better trained and much better equipped army, the result was also a forgone conclusion. Israel then conquered more land (78%) and proceeded to rename everything in Hebrew and remove any evidence of Palestinian culture. (ethnic cleansing anyone?). To quote Gola Meir's attitude towards the Palestinian people "There is no such thing as a palestinian".

The Arabs have since wanted to return to the UN 1947 borders and the UN has agreed, only for the US to impose it's Veto or Isreal to ignore UN resolutions.

 

Point taken Scarecrow, I had read the whole lot but by the time I got to the end it had been a long time since the beginning, thus I had forgotten this . Sorry

I still contend that the point were the thread went downhill (and many others on this type of topic) was when replies to the Iranian posters are made with circular arguments, and grammatical corrections, I've seen Iranian posters come back with very good replies to questions posed to them (whether you agree or not with the answers) and then the follow up is still "you didn't even answer me" because of a technicality. Also as soon as one criticises Isreal it seems they can be regarded as racist and attacking Jews, which the whole point of this thread seems to be proving that wrong.

 

Just like I thought, totally unbiased Thanks for playing.
What is a palestinian by the way, unless you mean, those who lived there like Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians and other Arabs who all have a country of their own...

 

We all know only the Pro-Israeli , anti-Muslim members like yourself and bunch of others are the most unbiased members on the history of Big Soccer

 

I NEVER CLAIMED I WAS UNBIASED! Did I? I just love when some people claim their unbiased, but after few posts, their real side is all too apparent, that's all.

 

I'm an Iranian and I love Jews and Israel equally. I don't share IM's views of the "zionist entity". As far as I'm concerned that's Islamic republic's propaganda. I think Israel is not only a legitimate state, but also necessary and essential. Necessary in that after all the crap jews have had to put up with throughout their history from all other races, they deserve their own homeland. Why should it be in the Middle East? Because 1. as bad as they've been treated, they should at least have a choice of where they want to be 2. They certainly don't wanna live anywhere near a big Christian population like in Europe or North America. After all the Christian villains were always and still are the ones who for the most part abuse the Jewish nation. China and India have their own population crisis so that leaves the empty deserts to the south of Lebanon as the the only rational place for the Jews to move into.
Israel is also essential because it keeps the arabs in check. Heck if it wasn't for Israel who could have predicted how far the forces of pan-arabism could have damaged Iran and the rest of neighboring states. Those Iranians ignorant of their regional history should know that it wasn't Nasser who started this bloody movement, and no it wasn't because of Israel. Arab nationalism started as a movement against the Ottoman Empire. The fact that non-palestinians arabs even cared about existence of Israel when it had just came to being is the proof that arab-nationalism was in full force way before the Jews even thought of occupying the empty spaces that the nomadic palestinians occasionally crossed when searching for whatever they were searching for (I was gonna make a lizard joke here but thought better or it). So that's that.

 

This is a good post. Thanks.
As has been stated around here before, Israel and Iran were fairly good allies prior to the 79 revolution. There is no love lost between Arabs and Iran so far as I have found and been told. What I have wondered is why does the iranian govt. make Israel the scapegoat so often? It would seem far more advantageous for Israel and Iran, not to mention the US, if Iran and Israel had better ties.

 

I won't allow you to put out misinformation.

What you write is an absolute joke.

The Jews came in the late 1800's and found a deserted wasteland as described by Mark Twain. They chose to make something out of nothing. They worked their butts off. The number of people living in the area at the time was a tiny percentage of the numbers that live there now. So all arguments that Jews displaced palestinians is just pure bunk.

There was room for both, but the arabs wouldn't have it. They did not want Jews on what they perceived as their land.

Reality: The Jews had a substantial majority of the population in those areas partitioned to it. Again, the arabs didn't and many still don't want Jews on what they perceive as their land.

Also, the reality is that the Arabs received the better land and the Jews through ingenuity and hard work were able to make a paradise out of a swamp land. They are still doing it today as they come up with ways to make a paradise out of the Negev.

Yes. They chose violence over negotiation because they were sure that when the arab countries came together they would surely destroy the Jews. They were very wrong, once, twice, three times, etc.

Again a silly comment. a) African Americans don't have a 2000+ year claim to the US and b) Jews were allocated areas in which they were a majority.

This is false and blatantly so.

a) Yes, when you start a war and lose, you lose land. And your point is...?
b) Please look up the definition of ethnic cleansing. It has to do with the extermination of people.
c) Golda was right. Palestinians are merely Jordanians that re-branded themselves. Even so, I am in favor of a two state solution. The two comments are not inconsistent.

Sorry. The Arabs showed their hand. Israel knew that '47 borders were indefensible but still took the deal anyway. When the Arabs attacked repeatedly at those insecure borders, Israel logically refused to go back to the borders that could help the Arabs eliminate the Jewish state.

You see..you don't get to forgo negotiations, start a war, lose, start a war, lose, start a war, lose and then say ok, I'll take the original deal. It doesn't work that way, nor should it.