Well the unfortunate truth is that prior to revolution the government's position and Iranian population's attitude on the issue of Israel were probably different. You should know that the six-day-war in 67 was a hugely embarrassing event not only for Arabs but also for the entire muslim community. Iranian population at the time still was largly uneducated and ignorant. Not only a united arab coalition was defeated handily in a matter of few days, they were also pushed back further than where they started. I think people often underestimate the roll of Mulllahs in Iran prior to the revolution. Except for major cities majority of the people learned reading and writing from the Mullahs in Quran classes. People were ignorant enough to believe the nonsense that the mullahs preached. Now the mullahs themselves aren't really this clever group of people who are individually capable of delivering a message that they think will benefit their population as a whole. However, they did have a unified pro-arab message because the place where they are mostly concentrated in, and study theology at, is extremely arab oriented. I'm talking about the city of Qom. Now, Mullahs themselves don't regard Qom as highly as Najaf which is the most prominent place where Shia clerics study muslim teachings. This is like the Vatican of muslims, and Qom would be place like an affiliate college. So, wouldn't it be natural for the Mullahs in Qom to be so pro-arab even if they aren't arab by birth, when they believe the masters of their Shi'tism are mostly Iraqi arabs or Iranian mullahs who live in the Arab ruled and dominated Najaf?Well of course. The reason I'm stating all this is so that people can understand why I say mullahs naturally have tendency to be arabized. Other than that they study arab history and the arabic language, religiously(literally duhh), which makes them horny for arabs. Of course all of this has changed, after the revolution, the Iran-Iraq war, and the Iranian invention of the concept of supreme leadership which is another topic for another day. But still I would argue Mullahs for the most part can relate to arabs and arab causes. So going back to your original question, as to why the iranian government is against Israel. As i said earlier, the war was an embarrassing event for the arabs and mullahs equally. And the anti-semetic sentiments(material that muslims borrowed from Christians) had been building up since 1948 but that was probably the tipping point. To relate this to soccer, when Iran and Israel played in a football game a year after that war, it was a huge deal that Iran beat Israel, largly because many ignorant people thought it represented some kind of a bigger victory. It was the first time, and probably the start of this tradition that we have of pouring onto streets after a big football victory. Israel was an important issue for Khumaini. Of course he would often take the opposite position of whatever Shah's postition was. And as far as Israel were concerned he claimed that Shah was too friendly to them. And the funny thing about that is that Shah never actually recognized Israel as a state, and I would argue the relationship between Iran and Israel was neither friendly nor hostile. It was simply neutral mainly because Shah couldn't afford to take any other position. But khumaini capitalized on the anger and the shame that people felt towards Israel. Indeed the mullahs had people crying for the "poor arabs" for a while and khumaini used the opportunity to make the issue Israel one of his biggest gripes against Shah's regime. So once you have that as one of your primary "causes" for which the "Iranian people revolted against shah" you really can't change your position. You can secretly buy arms from Israel but you will keep shouting "down with Israel" and you can probably find a couple of thousands of idiots in any country who would shout alongside you. That's part of the reason the Iranian goverment would always prefer if the two-state solution is never implemented or embraced. They love conflict. And you know some people would argue that going by the same logic Islamic Republic actually likes Israel. But they need to differentiate between liking Israel and liking CONFLICT in or around Israel.
How would you feel if the UN gave a portion of Iran to the European Jews ? Would you still say they deserve it because of how EUROPEANS treated them? The Europeans caused this problem and they should of solved it themselves , unlike you , my opinion is not affected by our hatred towards Arabs , I chose to look at the Arab-Jew conflict as a unbiased human being . I find it disturbing to see a fellow Iranian making such biased views because of our historical hatred towards Arabs , you say that Palestine was the right place for the Jews to settle because it was “empty desert “? if that’s the case then there are a lot of empty land across Europe and Arizona and Texas have a lot of “empty deserts” which would of made much more sense , instead of having people in a part of the world which they are not welcomed . And don’t give me that crap about Israel keeping Arabs in check , we don’t need Jews to keep Arabs in check , we can do it ourselves . We don’t need a tiny country which was built by foreign powers to keep the Arabs in check , that would be a disgrace to the Persian people . The only way to keep Arabs in check is by building diplomatic relationships and if a war does happen with a Arab country then we are well capable of defending our homeland . Although its creation was mistake , Israel is now part of the ME , and we need to accept that fact and live with them ( like we did prior to the revolution ) , but Iran shouldn’t pick allies in the ME , they should have normal relationships with all countries in the ME and not take sides ,by building normal relationships with all countries in the ME we can let the Jews and Arabs fight amongst themselves , its not our problem , in fact this could benefit Iran in many ways.
Are you that brainwashed or are just clueless? You cant have a official embassy of a state in your country when you don’t recognize their country and the last time i checked Israel had a pretty big embassy in Tehran. The shah recognized Israel on many different levels , he might of kept it quit because of public opinion . Lets look at the facts , who helped shah come back to Iran after Mosadagh became the leader of Iran? Its was the CIA , Mosad , and the British , so the shah had a lot of personal reasons for having relationships with Israel . Back then Iran was buying Israeli arms by spending 500 m dollars a year and the Israelis in return were getting cheap oil from Iran . There were Israeli military jets landing in Mehrabad airport on a daisy basis . As much as I hate Khomanini , I wont deny the fact that Iran-Israel had GREAT relationships in the ME , far greater then any other country in the region , so in that sense Khaomani was right .
I don't wanna embarrass you because you're an Iranian, and you obviously have some kind of inforiority complex that makes you constantly try to save face. But you do certainly sound like a fool. Suffice it to say that Iran was an established territory and as a civilization she endured hunderds of invasions throughout history, you asking how I would "feel" if jews moved to Iran is simply ridiculous. There are huge differences between palestine before 1948 and Iran, so let's not even go there because the comparison is stupid. Furthermore, would you please make up your mind? The contradiction in your post as highlighted is hilarious.
Your not embarrassing anyone but yourself with your pointless comments , back to the topic . It don’t matter, I asked you as a human being , how would you feel? Since your one of those biased pro-Monarch Iranians , I want you to get the sense of what the Palestinians felt and still fell till this day . As far as the highlighted text. I stated that we are capable of defending ourselves and our rights against the Arabs when we are in a conflict with them , and for that reason I stated that we don’t need the Jews to keep the Arabs in check because we are well capable of keeping who ever we want in check . And I also stated that the Arab-Jews conflict is good for Iran and it will benefit Iran , the Israelis are not keeping the Arabs in check ( if that’s what you are thinking ) , the war in Lebanon was a great example, no one is keeping anyone one in check in the Arab- Jews conflict , you might think otherwise but that’s the reality and in my opinion that’s great for Iran .
valerie is the main reason along with IM that when an Iranian posts here it is met with rude insulting remarks, from myself among others. I think you are more in line with what the average Iranian feels and I enjoy your posts. valerie is opposed to anything that gives Israel a positive reflection. I would bet that if the people of Iran had their way the hate towards the US and Israel would not be the forefront of Iranian foreign policy.
Its good to know that I still have my usual stalkers , I guess ignoring them wont stop them from stalking me , mentioning my username daily and giving me neg reps , rating my thread , replying to my posts . They are just bunch of sad , old people who have nothing better to do .
p0rn0frea, You still didn’t respond to my post . How could the shah not officially recognize Israel when Israel had a embassy in Tehran? And when Iran was Israel greatest trade partner in the ME ?
Actually, Iran officially recognized Israel on July 23, 1960. But in 1979, Mehdi Bazargan's interim revolutionary government closed the Israeli Embassy in Tehran, and formally withdrew the recognition of Israel. http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567300_10/Iran.html
Thank you for proving my point , why should anyone listen to this pro-monarch Iranian when he cant even accept the fact that the shah officially recognized Israel .
Israel had a mission office in Iran not an embassy, and as far as I'm aware they never displayed an Israeli flag to idetify itself. They changed it to PLO office after the revolution. Shah's position on Israel was very dynamic and any suggestion that Iran and Israel were close allies is false.
We all know that you are an anti-semite racist and again you have shown it here. You think that the shah was wrong for realizing that Israel has a right to exist and you even stated that khomeni, the thankfully dead loser, was right in making Israel into an enemy of Iran. What a fool you are.
If you have me on ignore then you wouldn't see any of this. Keep on with your usual rants of anti-semitism and everything you mentioned above is what you do on a daily basis. I guess you just don't like it when you get treated in the same fashion that you treat others. Baby. Coward. Why don't you tell us all again why you left iran?
Israel had a embassy in Tehran , NOT A MISSION OFFICE , stop making up crap . They didn’t have the Israeli flag outside of the embassy ( like most embassies in Tehran ). They changed into a PLO mission office after retarded Arafat came to Tehran with his hands empty while asking the mullahs for money and support . The building is now the Palestinian Embassy , Mani provided a source. You claim that shah never officially recognized Israel , what is your definition of officially recognizing Israel ? p.s. some members here have a habit of making up facts ( you cant blame them when they are clueless) . I never said shah made a mistake for recognizing Israel , and I never said Khoamini made the right judgment concerning Israel .
some people don't even read their own posts https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9753834&postcount=128 So right there you say that by him breaking ties with Israel he was right. Your own words. Liar. Busted
You call him a philosopher ? Shame on you !! This guy just talks out of his a$$ , I stated a fact , Khoamini said Iran and Israel had great relationship when Shah was the leader of Iran . He was right , Iran and Israel were great allies , did I say he made the right judgment against Israel ? NO Why would you call someone a philosopher when he puts words into people mouths and makes up lies in 99.9999999 % of his posts
So you are now saying that you didn't say what I quoted in your post? Do you even know what you type?
Geopolitically, the creation and existance of the state of Israel presents Iran with 3 sets of issues, some working in opposite directions. At one level, the fact that Israel was established under ethos that were alien to the region and lacking the factors that would lend a nation any legitimacy in the Middle East, meant that its creation eventually became a vehicle to divide the region. To divide it between those who opposed it vigorously, as opposed to those who either opposed it less vigorously or even tolerated it. The latter groups or states the ones that the US sponsors and supports, almost invariably against the wishes of their own populace. In this way, Israel basically becomes a vehicle to exhert foreign influence in the region, since a government without a true domestic base of support (such as those in the region that tolerate Israel against the wishes of their own populace) would ultimately be more likely to rely on foreign protection and influence to prop it up. From a geopolitical standpoint, this means that so long as Iran has any aspirations to play a prominent and independent role in the Middle East, Israel serves as a check on its ambitions. It checks Iran's ambitions given the window it opens for US meddling to influence the political map of the region, due to Israel's own different ambitions, as well as due to Israel role as a foreign military base of sorts within the region. Until Iran and the US reach a modus vivendi of sorts with regard to their agendas and ambitions in the region, this geopolitical dynamic is the one that would make Israel a difficult country for Iran to tolerate. This would be true regardless of the ideological underpinnings of the Iran. The fact that Iran maintained cooperative relations with Israel during the time of the Shah merely reflected the fact that at that time Iran itself was well within the affiliated 'western camp' of nations led by the US. Secondly, and relatedly, the creation of Israel did at the same time allow the "Arab world" to be kept more divided in the camps noted above while at the same time making them preoccupied with (and much of their resources commited to) the Arab-Israel conflict. That division and preoccupation certainly has its geopolitical advantages for Iran in checking any threat these Arab states might have presented to Iran in the alternative. Due to this geopoliticaly dynamic, as well as some other issues, the current regime in Iran has always been mistrustful of any US sponsored peace agreements between the Arabs and the Israelis. The worst scenario for Iran is to see the Arabs and Israeli settle their differences on American terms and under US auspices while Iran remains in hostile relations with the US. That would basically mean Iran would face potential threats from all quarters: from the Arab world, the Israeli as well as the US, with Iran's means to counter those threats reduced. The last geopolitical dynamic presented by Israel relates to conditions where Iran has passed the point where Iran's integrity and independence can be effectively challenged. In that event, the influence Israel has built up in the US as well as its own power and position, creates various possibilities for helping forge a new Middle East that would at the same time ensure Iran's sphere is protected. The reason Israel would play an important role in that dynamic is because it would help check Arab ambitions while induce US policy makers to find the needed modus vivendi with Iran. We could reach that point in the near future (next 5-10 years) as long as plans to make sure Iran implodes or explodes in chaos and is consequentely weakened and torn apart don't succeed.
A few questions for any of the Jewish or Israeli posters who were angry about the idea that Iranian Jews would take up arms against Israel? Certainly Iranian Jews are not likely to attack Israel, but if Israel attacked Iran, why would they not defend it? Is it so hard to imagine Jews fighting each other? I understand given that Israel itself is facing a huge terrorist threat from a bunch of people who want nothing more than to spill blood rather than help their own people (Hamas) this is not likely to be a common occurance. Obviously you want to keep the barbarians at the gate away first and there is no risk of an Israeli civil war. But competing visions of what it meant to be Jewish have led to deaths. Yigal Amir's version of judaism was his motivation for murdering Yitzhak Rabin. The Haganah did not think twice about murdering in cold blood Jacob Israel De Haan in 1924, simply because he was anti-zionist. Yona Avurshmi's right wing Jewish nationalism led him to throw a grenade which would end peace now activist Emil Grunzweig's life. The Iran-Israel ground war is not going to happen, so this is just hypothetical. But how can you call an Iranian Jew a bad Jew if a state with which he shares no linguistic or deep cultural ties (Israel is an Ashkenazi ascendancy in many ways and last I checked there were not many Ashekanazim in Iran) invaded his country and he had to defend his home. That reminds me of the narrow minded thinkers at jihadwatch.org message boards who lambased Albanian Catholics in Kosovo from supporting the KLA against the Serbian Army and Paramilitaries. I realize it is not a direct comparison (in this case eastern orthodox and versus catholic/muslim) but ethnicity can trump religion. It does for the majority of Albanian Catholics in Kosovo who want no part of Belgrade. I understand the unique case of Israel and admire the country, but don't ask every single Jew to call Israel their homeland. Saul Bellow put it best when he said ""In Israel, I was often and sometimes impatiently asked what sort of Jew I was and how I defined myself and explained my existence. I said that I was an American, a Jew, a writer by trade. I was not insensitive to the Jewish question, I was painfully conscious of the Holocaust, I longed for peace and security in the Jewish State. I added, however, that I had lived in America all my life, that American English was my language, and that (in an oddly universalist way) I was attached to my country and the civilization of which it was a part. "
You make great points and the only reason why any Jew would be angry at an idea of a Jew fighting another Jew is the idea itself. In this example, it would be terrible to see a Jew killing a Jew for a country whose leader threatens the existence of a Jewish state and her people.