No one is trying to win anything, you can't reason with people who want to kill you and your people and who are brainwashed from their birth to hate (you being the perfect example). Believe me, his majesty is not the point, )however it was the French and the Brits who gave Jordan, Syria, Iraq their own country). My point is that Jews were there and will alwasy be there, regardless of what you and your fellow Muslim friends may want to believe or not. If I had to bet on one people's or nations survival, I would bet on the one that has been on this earth from the start. Good luck proving me wrong
And now I see IM has trotted out the Zionism=racism screed from the UN. I'm sure he knows that the UN has withdrawn it - but doubt he's told anyone here. Wonder why........
When UN will condemn one suicide bomber or I don't know let's see any action committed against Israel (e.g. Lebanon and Hezbollah constant shelling of Israel's borders) then I will realize that UN is STILL the biggest waste of oxygen on this planet. You can hide behind this World organization, but you can't hide the fact that they despise Israel for no other reason but that it's Israel
For those talking to IM, you will not be able to get an intelligent unbiased post from him. It won't happen. He thinks that Israel should go away and that all Jews should live under Muslim rule. How f'ing pathetic is that? How about all Arab Nations, and Iran give up their Muslim based Govt's and be forced to allow all religions equal representation, women be considered equal to men in evey regard, be allowed to vote, be allowed to hold office, have their own sports teams. In fact how about a complete seperation of church and state.
I don't want to "bet" on the survival of any nation or group either way, be they Jewish or Moslem, Arab or Israeli. But if that was the criteria, I would not want to bet on a people who have been mostly "stateless" through history being the ones to prevail! The notion that most of the world has been "brainwashed" is ridiculous. I doubt the "Arab propaganda machine" has that much influence! Indeed, even the European countries that the US can pull to occasionally vote its way on issues relating to Israel are often very critical of Israel.
You mean Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, when were they a state? ... good one there Well, then with you criteria, "Palestinians" would cease to exist immediately. Hey, it's your criteria, genius
Because your characterization is false. The resolution was never "withdrawn" or "repealed". It is still recognized by most states. Here is what happened, to quote your favorite source
I feel bad that you don't know any history, but that is not my problem. I have done my best to educate you. Your scriptures talk about the "Persians and the Medes". Those were two the principal Iranian tribes of the time. As I have said, the idea of Iran is as old as history. Initially, the idea was not political per se; it was ethnic as well as geographic (Iran meaning Land of Aryans). Hence Darius' famous inscription which refers to both components of his identity, Persian and Iranian: The founder of the Achaemenid dynasty, Cyrus the Great, is incidentally quite nicelly regarded in Jewish sources for freeing the Jews from captivity and allowing them to return to Jerusulem to rebuild their temple. By the time of the Parthians (contempories of Rome), the idea of Iran became political as well as ethno-geographic. The Parthian kings, who ruled for around four hundred years until around the middle of the 2nd century AD, called themselves Shahanshah of Iran-Shahr. (King of Kings of Iran-Shahr or Iran). Later, the Sasanids adopted the same title for themselves and their realm. They were King of Kings of Iran and, occasionally when they were being boastful, of also non-Iran. From then on, all the kings of Iran assumed the title of Shahanshah of Iran (King of kings of Iran). That was, hence, the title assumed by Parthian kings, Sasanid kings, Safavid kings (1501-1726), Nadir Shah (mid 1700s), Qajar Kings (1796-1925), and Pahlavi Kings (1925-1979). The last one to hold that title was the late Shah, whose official title was: Shahanshah Aryamehr, King of Kings, Light of the Aryans. The offiical name of the country, as on my old passport before the revolution, was The Empire of Iran. The same as it had been known for ages to Iranians. Iran has been known by that name to Iranians throughout history, even as the West called Iran "Persia" (referring to one of Iran's regions or provinces) until 1935 -- when Reza Shah specifically asked that the country be referred to by its indigineous name Iran. That "name change" in the West made many outsiders, out of ignorance, imagine that Iran must be one of the many "new" states that had been formed in the Middle East after WWI.
Resolution 4686 specifically repealed 3379, 111 to 25. That the great powers influenced both resolutions is very relevant, but you can not argue that it wasn't repealed without being totally dishonest. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/46/a46r086.htm
In that case, I stand corrected. My understanding was that it was no longer included in resolutions pertaining to racism. I was not aware that it was repealed. BTW, I went and double checked the source I had cited, and it has the link to to the repeal of the resolution. Yet, it mentions what I quoted earlier on how most states still abide by it.
Given that the resolution still reflects the views of the majority of states in the world, I was wondering why it would be revoked. Especially in 1991? Here is the answer, which shows that the revocation has little to do with a change of sentiment per se: So basically the member states were confronted with Israel refusing to sit down for peace negotiations, or doing something they did not believe in. The does ot negate the fact that most countries view political Zionism as something that promotes dehumanization and racism. As for "great powers" influencing the earlier resolution, I was not aware that countries like Iran (under the Shah), Turkey, Mexico, India, or even China, were influenced by the Soviet Union in 1975.
OK, enough of your irrelevant chat, I did not ask you to give me history on Iran/Persia or your understanding of UN resolutions. This is the point, whether you like it or not, Israel is present and will ALWAYS be there, regardless of UN or hostile Arab neighbors. Hence, all your rhetoric on what's right and wrong is unnecessary and pointless. Either you learn to live with it or you will die hating Israel, either way Israel will live on.
Israel's problem is not me. I could easily "live with Israel" and while I hate the tactics used to support Israel, I do not hate Israel per se. The problem with Israel is its supporters, who imagine that by silencing people like me, they silence the core problem with Izrael. As long as that problem remains, the region will not know real, lasting, peace. And that problem, more fundamental than any borders, is the ideological basis for Israel. Let me put it this way: Because the Arabs have lost the wars they have lost, they will not be that hard pressed to accept Israel's existence when it is explained in light of the holocaust. As something that, yes trampeled on Arab rights, but was necessary for the Jews given what had happened. Now that the Israelis have esablished the state, the Arabs should accept it. I am sure that message, even if grudgingly, could be accepted by many Arabs. But to accept that political Zionism is a legitimate ideology has far greater implications. That is not going to be acceptable. And as long that is the case, Israel will be a "problem state". And the region with be left with wars and foreign intrusions to paper over the source of that problem.
Of course the Soviets were very influential and actively pushed for 3379, but obviously that did not determine every vote. A bigger problem for Israel, of course, is that there are far more Moslems than Jews (roughly 100 times as many). 3379 was primarily a Communist + Moslem vote (+ their allies).
Ah yes, the problem with Israel is its supporters. So it's not the country, it's just the Jews themselves. The bottom line is that until Israel's neighbors accept political Zionism, and accept Israel as a legitimate state, there will be no peace. For all of IM's talk of pretending to be reasonable and moderate, he is still fighting the battle that the Arabs and their racist supporters have been fighting for decades. And that battle concerns their attempted extermination of Jews, make no doubt about it. And of course, IM claims that Israel's supporters are trying to "silence him." For IM, to be "silenced" is to be in a forum where his claim that the "neocon Likudniks" run everythig is not accepted verbatim, and he is actually challenged on his positions. It's not called censorship, it's called "counterspeech." Perhaps IM, coming from Iran, is not familiar with the latter term.
In any event, for someone claimed to be "silenced," he sure does to seem to post a lot. I am evil neocon Anthony, and you're not.
If political Zionism is legitimate, then I guess the extremists who think Israel has a right to whatever it wants are legitimate. If "Jews" have a right to claim any land based on the bible, and not instead based on the sentiments of those occupying it, then by all means: Judea and Sumaria belong to Israel too. Indeed, why stop there? All the way to the Euphrates. I have mentioned it already: Israel can find ex post facto justifications for its existence that can fit legitimate juridical and socio-political traditions, including under current international law. But when you bring political Zionism in the equation, you bring what is exactly unacceptable about Israel. Callings someon a "racist", an "anti-semite", and intentionally misrepresenting everything they say; diverting every comment they have to the "Protocal", and going into medieval stereotypes about Jews, this form of speech is meant to silence the messenger. Not counter the message that I have offered. And for the record, I have never taken the position that "neocon Likudniks run everything". I have only said that they have risen in prominence in the Bush administration, and in the organs surrounding it, and have played a key role in laying down the ideological foundations of Bush's foreign policy. I have supported that assertion with plenty of source. And I have never expected or demanded that my view be accepted "verbatim". I have only said that holding this view does not make one an "anti-semite".
They have not silenced me here, but as someone whose practice dealt with many clients, attorneys and judges who were Jewish, I doubt I would be wiling to go through all this if it was not on the internet. And if I was still planning to live and practice here in the US. Most people don't have the time to know someone's political ideology. A label will do. This tactic works in America, and to some extent in the corridors where American power and influence is very strong. But when it comes to this issue, and increasingly, a lot more, it creates an impossible divide between on the one side the US, Israel and its supporters, and the other side everyone else in the world. Of course, for neocons (including non Jewish ones such as yourself) that is not bad. It makes it easier to justify the project for an American imperium. It makes it easier to rally prejudice against the "UN", the "Europeans", the "French", the "Arabs", "Moslems", the whole world practically. And to say that America need not bother with their views. It should instead try to go and rule the world. Indeed, something of the sort is one of the reasons for the unholy alliance that has developed between many formerly left wing Jews and a bunch of right wing Republicans. They have found a message that serves both their interests.
Now that my fellow evil Chirstian neocons and the Mossad seem to have finally silenced IM (what took you guys so long -- you are really slipping), let's go over the war. Causes of Israel's initial defeat Overconfidence -- the front lines had far too few troops needed to defend against the Arab assault Intelligence failures -- intelligence showing the Egyptian and Syrian build ups was either misread or deliberately ignored by the government. Desire not to annoy US -- concerns that mobilization even for defensive purposes would anger the Nixon administration Israeli tactical doctrine -- lack of artillery and air defense capability, overreliance on air power Lack of air superiority -- in the face of Arab air defenses, the IAF was unable to achieve the supremecy they had in 1967. Reasons for inital Arab successes Surprise Excellent tactical plan Denial of air supremecy to IAF Reasons for Israel's eventual success Incredible resistance but up on Northern Front buying time for mobilization Arab's armies failure to follow up initial sucesses Flexible tactical doctrine Gaining control of air space around the Canal Massive US resupply effort
they were not then and are not now crazy enough to use them. that's the problem with nuclear weapons.