Ok Iran fans, defend this...I know you will...

[spelunking_lVVl]

How did this topic manage to go from a former Iranian prez (often derided as being pro-West) bleating anti-semitic rhetoric, which seems to have become a national pastime there, to comparing Israelis to Nazis? Ah, I see, Earth As One is carrying on the in the spirit and style of Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad. Would you kindly contain your Israel-vilification to threads that deal with Israel, seeing as not every thread about the Middle-East is also about Israel? Thanks in advance.

He was comparing the false dichotomy of the OP of "either you agree with Islamic Fundamentalism or you agree with American Imperialism". I happen to disagree with both of them, I am pretty sure Earth_as_one does as well. There is no implied moral equivalence there; just the implication that two views are both morally bankrupt.

Wonderful. Look, we all agree. But who brought up this false dichotomy in the first place? Was it the OP, thomaska, or was it the friendly forum rabble-rouser and somewhat Holocaust-denying Earth As One, who inexplicably turned this thread into a choice "between Islamic fundamentalism and American imperialism"?

Rafsanjani noted that Jews caused problems for European governments because they “had a lot of property” and “controlled an empire of propaganda.” He also said that the Nazis were successful in saving Europe from the evil of Zionism.

Hey, remember when owning property and being a constructive member of society was considered to be a good thing? :roll:

 

[gopher]

``anti-semitic rhetoric``

You need to see some of the earlier threads on this forum to learn of all the Islamophobic posts this forum has had.

 

[spelunking_lVVl]

``anti-semitic rhetoric``

You need to see some of the earlier threads on this forum to learn of all the Islamophobic posts this forum has had.

How are these two concepts related? Are you suggesting these alleged 'Islamophobic' posts justify anti-semitic posts? Or are you alleging that 'Islamophobia' is equivalent to anti-semitism?

 

[earth_as_one]

How did this topic manage to go from a former Iranian prez (often derided as being pro-West) bleating anti-semitic rhetoric, which seems to have become a national pastime there, to comparing Israelis to Nazis? Ah, I see, Earth As One is carrying on the in the spirit and style of Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad. Would you kindly contain your Israel-vilification to threads that deal with Israel, seeing as not every thread about the Middle-East is also about Israel? Thanks in advance.



Wonderful. Look, we all agree. But who brought up this false dichotomy in the first place? Was it the OP, thomaska, or was it the friendly forum rabble-rouser and somewhat Holocaust-denying Earth As One, who inexplicably turned this thread into a choice "between Islamic fundamentalism and American imperialism"?


Hey, remember when owning property and being a constructive member of society was considered to be a good thing? :roll:

"bleating anti-semetic rhetoric"???
My rhetoric is bleating anti-Zionist, not bleating anti-Semitic. Do you know the difference?

Is this anti-Semitic?

New Palestine Party Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Beginâs political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Beginâs behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.

The public avowals of Beginâs party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

Attack on Arab Village

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants÷240 men, women, and children÷and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.

The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.

During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.

The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.

Discrepancies Seen

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Beginâs efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.

The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.

Or perhaps you believe this is anti-semitic:

...our proposal to the Palestinian plight is a humanitarian and democratic proposal. What we say is that to solve this 60-year problem, we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself.
This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum.

Whatever they choose as a nation, everybody should accept and respect. Nobody should interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian nation. Nobody should sow the seeds of discord. Nobody should spend tens of billions of dollars equipping and arming one group there.

We say allow the Palestinian nation to decide its own future, to have the right to self-determination for itself...

 

[spelunking_lVVl]

"bleating anti-semetic rhetoric"???
My rhetoric is bleating anti-Zionist, not bleating anti-Semitic. Do you know the difference?

Hm, yes, I do believe I know the difference. I spelt "semitic" correctly while you spelt in incorrectly and then apparently confused your incorrect spelling for my correct spelling an attempted to correct me by helpful use of red font colour.

It seems to me that you are relying on and quoting from a website that relies on the assertion that Einstein was also 'anti-Zionist', therefore, one might claim, anti-Zionism is not anti-semitic, because Einstein himself was Jewish. One might further point out that, if such a genius as Einstein was against Israel, then there is some considerable intellectual merit to anti-Zionism.

Unfortunately (for your claim), Einstein was not anti-Zionist. He was a close friend of Chaim Weizmann who was the director of the World Zionist Organization and became the first prez of Israel. Einstein campaigned and raised money for a Hebrew university in Jerusalem and said it gave him the greatest joy of all public events in his life. He was in fact a longtime supporter of Israel and it is shameful that anti-Zionists would use his name and twist his quotes, misrepresenting him in order to claim some academic and intellectual merit for their notions.

Back on topic!

 

[Niflmir]

You are new here, spelunking, so I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have to show better faith in the people that you choose to debate with.

Wonderful. Look, we all agree. But who brought up this false dichotomy in the first place? Was it the OP, thomaska, or was it the friendly forum rabble-rouser and somewhat Holocaust-denying Earth As One, who inexplicably turned this thread into a choice "between Islamic fundamentalism and American imperialism"?

My original statement should be sufficient to answer your question, the opening article is a cleverly written piece of rhetoric meant to set up a false dichotomy. Also, arguing for a specific analogy on a tangent from the topic of a thread is quite different from a false dichotomy.

Hm, yes, I do believe I know the difference. I spelt "semitic" correctly while you spelt in incorrectly and then apparently confused your incorrect spelling for my correct spelling an attempted to correct me by helpful use of red font colour.

Attacking an argument based on a spelling mistake? That doesn't show a lot of respect for the person you are debating with.

The point is that Iran has a terrible reactionary government and all democratic movements which would balance rights are blocked by the ayatollah, most people who are opposed to oppression are opposed to this situation. On the other hand you have the UN violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by demanding that Iran suspend enrichment of its Uranium when the International Atomic Energy Agency has verified the non-diversion of declared fissile materials from the civilian energy program, again people who are opposed to oppression will find this incredibly offensive. The false dichotomy is that if you think that the Iranian government is illegitimate you should somehow think the US and UN sanctions and demand of enrichment suspension are legitimate, but it does not follow.

 

[Zzarchov]

To be fair, earth as one makes some pretty ludicrous twists of words, and as spelunking has just pointed out, posts lies (perhaps not intentionally, In fact I doubt he intentionally posts lies), but it does show that he isn't interested in having a serious debate if he can't do basic fact checking.

If you just believe lock stock and barrel anything anti-israel without fact checking and post it, it means your not interested in a serial debate. Check for at least minimal levels of accuracy before you post some crap you read on the internet on ANY topic if you want a serious debate.

About this
"The false dichotomy is that if you think that the Iranian government is illegitimate you should somehow think the US and UN sanctions and demand of enrichment suspension are legitimate, but it does not follow."

That is a 100% accurate statement. While the Iranian government is illegitimate, from a legal perspective it is under no obligation to suspend enrichment. In fact the only agreement it has against openly building nuclear weapons says that the USA should be helping it if it requests the assistance. All 5 nuclear powers have failed in their end of the bargain to slowly disarm, all 5 infact have more weapons.

Legally, its a breached contract with no weight.

Realistically, its a couple of superpowers saying "You wanna try and build a nuke? Ask yourself punk..do ya feel lucky?"

 

[Niflmir]

Yeah, agreed on all the points you make. I in no way want my previous posts to be taken as an endorsement of another person's views in this thread. I just wanted to tone down the rhetoric a little, especially after I was quoted and my words used in a bizarre defamatory fashion.

 

[earth_as_one]

Nearly all of my references I use to support my viewpoint on the Israeli Palestinan conflict are Jews. I quote them not to twist their viewpoints but to support mine.

Einstein clearly did not support violent acts like the Deir Yassin massacre or the people responsible. One of the terrorists involved in the Deir Yassin massacre later became an Israeli Prime Minister too. I doubt Einstein or the other prominent Jews who wrote that letter would have voted to elect Menachem Begin as Prime Minister. Who is distorting the facts now?

Sure Einstein supported Zionism and Israel, but he was also a pacifist. I seriously doubt Einstein supported using violence to remove non-Jews from Palestine.

Starting at about the same time Einstein and other prominent Jews wrote that letter, Zionism became a violent movement. Today it is why millions of people suffer oppression, injustice and violence. Einstein the pacifist, would likely have a problem with that too. But maybe I am wrong. Perhaps you can post a quote where Einstein makes a statement in favor of using force to cleanse an area of non-Jews.

I am against Zionism... in its current violent form. Previously I posted this statement:

Zionist activities became violent over time. Zionists started out by raising money and buying land. Zionists bought land and compensated the inhabitants fairly. If Zionism had stuck with legal real estate transactions, there wouldn't be a problem. But Zionists got impatient, became well armed and organized and switched tactics to removing the locals by force and seizing the land without compensation. In hindsite it would have been far cheaper just to be patient and buy land. The current system of seizing and holding land by military force costs American taxpayers about $4-6 Billion annually.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/international-politics/68707-new-middle-east-9.html#post900127

If Zionism was peaceful and had the support of the local population, then even I would be willing to donate to the cause. But as a pacifist, I am against the current violent version of Zionism which is used to oppress millions of non-Jews.

Regarding the holocaust:
The holocaust happened, but it wasn't just a Jewish tragedy. The majority of holocaust victims were Jewish, but it also included millions of other victims. References to the holocaust always reference the Jewish victims, but seldom mention other victims. As a result, most people have an impression that the holocaust involved only Jews. I believe that isn't an accident but a result of the holocaust being used as a pro-Israel propaganda tool.

The holocaust isn't the only or the biggest example of wholesale slaughter of innocent people in the 20th century. Bigger atrocities occurred in the USSR and China, yet people know far less about those events. Why?

I noticed that during the summer of 2006, the holocaust was in the news almost as much as Israel's bombing campaign against innocent Lebanese civilians. Why?

I also noticed that everytime Israel's leaders commit atrocities too big to ignore, our news usually includes a story about the holocaust. Why?

For a week now, the Star has been covering holocaust memorial week with pages of stories. Yet the ongoing seige of Gaza and the millions of people cut off water, electricity and slowly starving, barely made the news. I think it got a paragraph in the other world events column. Why?

The conclusion I've come to is that the suffering of millions back then is now used to provide cover for the suffering of millions today. The point of the remembering holocaust is to ensure atrocities like that don't happen again, not provide cover for ongoing atrocities.

Now back on topic. The second statement I referenced above was made by Ahmadinejad. While I don't support that statement entirely, I think it has the seed of an idea which has the potential to lead to peace. But reasonable statements made by Ahmadinejad don't make the mainstream news. Instead, our propagandists dissect every statement made by an Iranian leader looking for ways to portray them as violently anti-Semitic.

For example, when Ahmadinejad called for an end to the Zionist state of Israel, our news twisted his statement to make it sound like he intended to bomb Israel. Ahmadinejad statement was like a call to end the Apartheid State of South Africa. It was a statement about ending the oppression and injustice suffered by millions of Palestinians. Other statements by Ahmadinejad which questioned the accuracy of historical records regarding the holocaust, were twisted to make it sound like he supported the holocaust.

The statement referenced at the beginning of this string implies that to people who support dialogue with Iran's leadership to avoid war through diplomacy, support Iran's leadership and are anti-Semitic.

My viewpoint is that when Iran's leaders make statements like the one which started this thread, our leaders should challenge them to a public debate. But that won't happen because it would give them the opportunity to expose our propaganda as being about as accurate as their propaganda. Some statements by our leaders are just as ignorant and outrageous.

 

[earth_as_one]

1.) They aren't foreigners if they were born there.

2.) By Arabs own historians, they are foreigners in Palestine if you discount place of birth.

3.) In the article you link to it very clearly describes how in Arab circles Palestinian Jews are not considered Palestinians.

4.) You did bring up the point, so It is sticking to the debate. Don't bring up losing points if you don't want to defend them.

5.) Saying Iran has the second highest number of Jews in the middle east isn't saying much. Its like saying Greenland has the second highest number of tropical fish in the arctic circle.

How about comparing some numbers of Jewish populations Pre-1948 in the middle east and currently. See if you notice a trend.

Z, I'm not ignoring you. You make good points and I haven't had time to give them the serious consideration they deserve. I will come back to your posts, just give me time.

 

[spelunking_lVVl]

You are new here, spelunking, so I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have to show better faith in the people that you choose to debate with. My original statement should be sufficient to answer your question, the opening article is a cleverly written piece of rhetoric meant to set up a false dichotomy.

You urge me "to show better faith in the people" I debate with, yet I am the one who is giving the OP the benefit of the doubt and not reading into his post things he didn't write. You say, "My original statement should be sufficient to answer your question," and in good faith I read it over, but it was just the same assertion, only, with a quotation to support it (you quoted: "either you agree with Islamic Fundamentalism or you agree with American Imperialism") albeit the quotation is made up, so I don't see how you figure that it's enough to answer my question by proving your claims.

Perhaps you could point out how "the opening article is a cleverly written piece of rhetoric meant to set up a false dichotomy" because I am afraid that I remain just as unconvinced as I was before (plain reassertion just isn't convincing — 'well I wasn't convinced the first time, but since you insist, I'm convinced!' ?) When you accuse someone you are debating with of posting in bad faith (as you are of the OP thomaska), you ought to have some basis for it rather than just assertion and reassertion that he is. You know, you should take your advice "to show better faith in the people that you choose to debate with" because it's good advice. So don't give it away and keep none for yourself.

Attacking an argument based on a spelling mistake? That doesn't show a lot of respect for the person you are debating with.

I agree, which is why I quickly quashed his apparent attempt to correct my spelling as a means of addressing me. The quote was mine ("anti-semitic rhetoric") but when he quoted it, he inserted a misspelling ("anti-semetic rhetoric") and then apparently proceeded to correct the mistake he attributed to me by using red font ("anti-Semitic")! Does it "show a lot of respect for the person you are debating with" to insert spelling mistakes into what they said when you quote them and then proceed to smugly 'correct' them? Oh but silly me, 'two wrongs don't make a right' and I was clearly in the wrong (at least according to you) to point out how his apparent cheap debate tactic fell flat!

On the other hand you have the UN violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by demanding that Iran suspend enrichment of its Uranium when the International Atomic Energy Agency has verified the non-diversion of declared fissile materials from the civilian energy program, again people who are opposed to oppression will find this incredibly offensive.

Eh? How do you figure?

But as I said there was a myth repeated by the media, most of the media, I should say. That this is "out of the box", which is absolutely bonkers. I have been for, at least, a year, publicly calling on Iran to go for double time-out which is double suspension. In every meeting I do with them I ask them privately, urge them to go into suspension as a way towards confidence-building. I don´t have a magic wand. If the Security Council is not able to get them to suspend, after a year, do not expect me to be able to do that. I´d love to do that. Again, this is an issue directly between the Security Council and Iran. [...] Iran has not implemented the suspension. So Iran went, if you like, 50%. The Security Council could have adopted sanctions right now. I mean, this is a judgement for the Security Council. — Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General, IAEA [reference]​

Here, the Director General of the IAEA is saying that the issue of suspension is properly one between the UN (SC) and Iran, not a concern of the IAEA. He is also saying that he fully supports the demands that Iran suspend its program — he said he would love it if they did — and even supports sanctions being adopted against Iran. The UN is not acting against the IAEA's findings and wishes.

The false dichotomy is that if you think that the Iranian government is illegitimate you should somehow think the US and UN sanctions and demand of enrichment suspension are legitimate, but it does not follow.

I have not seen that 'dichotomy' asserted in this thread until you posted it just now. Come now, isn't it true that the only "false dichotomy" here is the one you're trying to manufacture between the UN and the IAEA?

 

[Niflmir]

"Ok Iran fans, defend this... I know you will..." is the title of this thread and it sets up a false dichotomy that you cannot possibly be aware of unless you are a sock puppet. It implies that individuals in this forum who have previously voiced opposition to UN and US sanctions against Iran are "Iran fans" and then asserts that they will defend the bigoted comments of a certain Iranian official. You said "We all agree." which I implied as your agreement on that being a dichotomy, then you asked where the dichotomy started. My original post clearly shows that I believe the answer to be: the opening post and title. When you say we all agree I will never feel like I have to justify my statements it would seem like bragging, if you wanted me to explain what I thought was a false dichotomy here, you should have asked that instead of asking where the false dichotomy came from, which I have now stated three times and now justified.

The title is an assertion that the author knows that Iran fans will defend the bigoted comments in the opening post, the fact that it is posted on this forum is an implication that the author believes there to be some Iran fans here, whether that implication was the intent of posting it or not is debatable but it certainly carries that connotation.

You urge me "to show better faith in the people" I debate with, yet I am the one who is giving the OP the benefit of the doubt and not reading into his post things he didn't write. You say, "My original statement should be sufficient to answer your question," and in good faith I read it over, but it was just the same assertion, only, with a quotation to support it (you quoted: "either you agree with Islamic Fundamentalism or you agree with American Imperialism") albeit the quotation is made up, so I don't see how you figure that it's enough to answer my question by proving your claims.

Perhaps you could point out how "the opening article is a cleverly written piece of rhetoric meant to set up a false dichotomy" because I am afraid that I remain just as unconvinced as I was before (plain reassertion just isn't convincing — 'well I wasn't convinced the first time, but since you insist, I'm convinced!' ?) When you accuse someone you are debating with of posting in bad faith (as you are of the OP thomaska), you ought to have some basis for it rather than just assertion and reassertion that he is. You know, you should take your advice "to show better faith in the people that you choose to debate with" because it's good advice. So don't give it away and keep none for yourself.

I agree, which is why I quickly quashed his apparent attempt to correct my spelling as a means of addressing me. The quote was mine ("anti-semitic rhetoric") but when he quoted it, he inserted a misspelling ("anti-semetic rhetoric") and then apparently proceeded to correct the mistake he attributed to me by using red font ("anti-Semitic")! Does it "show a lot of respect for the person you are debating with" to insert spelling mistakes into what they said when you quote them and then proceed to smugly 'correct' them? Oh but silly me, 'two wrongs don't make a right' and I was clearly in the wrong (at least according to you) to point out how his apparent cheap debate tactic fell flat!

Eh? How do you figure?

But as I said there was a myth repeated by the media, most of the media, I should say. That this is "out of the box", which is absolutely bonkers. I have been for, at least, a year, publicly calling on Iran to go for double time-out which is double suspension. In every meeting I do with them I ask them privately, urge them to go into suspension as a way towards confidence-building. I don´t have a magic wand. If the Security Council is not able to get them to suspend, after a year, do not expect me to be able to do that. I´d love to do that. Again, this is an issue directly between the Security Council and Iran. [...] Iran has not implemented the suspension. So Iran went, if you like, 50%. The Security Council could have adopted sanctions right now. I mean, this is a judgement for the Security Council. — Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General, IAEA [reference]​

Here, the Director General of the IAEA is saying that the issue of suspension is properly one between the UN (SC) and Iran, not a concern of the IAEA. He is also saying that he fully supports the demands that Iran suspend its program — he said he would love it if they did — and even supports sanctions being adopted against Iran. The UN is not acting against the IAEA's findings and wishes.

I have not seen that 'dichotomy' asserted in this thread until you posted it just now. Come now, isn't it true that the only "false dichotomy" here is the one you're trying to manufacture between the UN and the IAEA?

You seem to be confused on what I have said. What I said is that 1) the IAEA has verified the non diversion of fissile materials and 2) the UN demand to suspend enrichment is in contravention to the contents of the non-proliferation treaty given 1. How you managed to interpret me as saying that the IAEA said the suspension was illegitimate is a mystery to me. What I said is that the IAEA has proved that the suspension is illegitimate from the point of view of the non-proliferation treaty. It could certainly still be legitimate (I have not yet denied that), but that legitimacy is far from being a given or proven.

 

[spelunking_lVVl]

"Ok Iran fans, defend this... I know you will..." is the title of this thread and it sets up a false dichotomy that you cannot possibly be aware of unless you are a sock puppet. It implies that individuals in this forum who have previously voiced opposition to UN and US sanctions against Iran are "Iran fans" and then asserts that they will defend the bigoted comments of a certain Iranian official.

I am afraid that you are mistaken. It does not imply "that individuals in the forum who have previously voiced oppposition to the UN and US sanctions against Iran are "Iran fans"". YOU are the one who is interpreting it like that. There is nothing there to back up this assumption of yours.

Check out the continuation of the title "because it of course does not represent Islam". This suggests to me that, rather than defining "Iran fans" as those who just oppose sanctions against Iran, he defines them as those who claim that Ahmadinejad's statements and actions as not representative of Islam (and probably accompany that with a claim that most Iranians don't feel the same way.) Do you disagree?

You seem to have dropped your scolding of me for my 'disrespectful' response to Earth's failed attempt to correct my (his) spelling. Does this mean your condemnation still stands? Please, I would like to know if regs here frown upon defending oneself against baseless attacks. I only want to leave a good impression!

You seem to be confused on what I have said. What I said is that 1) the IAEA has verified the non diversion of fissile materials and 2) the UN demand to suspend enrichment is in contravention to the contents of the non-proliferation treaty given 1. How you managed to interpret me as saying that the IAEA said the suspension was illegitimate is a mystery to me. What I said is that the IAEA has proved that the suspension is illegitimate from the point of view of the non-proliferation treaty.

The IAEA has verified nothing. In that interview, the Director General comments on how Iran has not provided them with the facts and forms they need. They've only gone half-way ("50%"). That is why the IAEA has misgivings and feels distrust towards Iran and approves of the UN's demands that Iran suspend its program. Surely that the Director General of the IAEA has serious misgivings and criticism for Iran and dearly wishes for it to suspend its nuclear program is enough to demonstrate to you that you're wrong to think that "the IAEA has proved that the suspension is illegitimate from the point of view of the non-proliferation treaty" which guarantees Iran "the right to peacefully use nuclear technology".

 

[EagleSmack]

I think he wanted them "evacuated".

 

[earth_as_one]

1.) They aren't foreigners if they were born there.

I agree. But in 1948, most of the people involved in displacing the locals from their homes were foreigners. Today, the majority of Israelis are now locals.

2.) By Arabs own historians, they are foreigners in Palestine if you discount place of birth.

You can't play this both ways. If they are born somewhere, you belong there. By the way, many people Zionists ethnically cleansed share common ancestors with the Zionists. Some of these people can probably trace their ancestry in the area to before Judaism.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm

3.) In the article you link to it very clearly describes how in Arab circles Palestinian Jews are not considered Palestinians.

I must have missed that. Could you please quote it? My opinion for what it's worth... the Yishuv are Palestinians Second generation Israelis have a right to live in the holylands. Palestinians also share the same right. Israel agreed to that condition when they were recognized by the UN.

4.) You did bring up the point, so It is sticking to the debate. Don't bring up losing points if you don't want to defend them.
?
5.) Saying Iran has the second highest number of Jews in the middle east isn't saying much. Its like saying Greenland has the second highest number of tropical fish in the arctic circle.

My point is that Iranian Jews were not forced to leave. They chose to leave. Those that stayed were treated about the same or better as other minorities. Mind you it sucks to be a minority in Iran...

How about comparing some numbers of Jewish populations Pre-1948 in the middle east and currently. See if you notice a trend.

Sure I am aware that during the 1950's hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews immigrated to Israel. I am also aware Arab Jews faced increasing official and unofficial harassment and discrimination. At the same time, they were offered sanctuary in Israel. Both forces were factors in the Jewish exodus to Israel during that time. Even though some of them lost everything when they fled to Israel, the majority were able to sell their belongings and move. That's not ethnic cleansing. That's called moving.

About as bad as it got was the experience of Iraqi Jews. I believe the events described in this article are accurate:
http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~ajds/mendes_refugees.htm

How about comparing the way Arab Jews were treated before 1947 and after Zionists Jews ethnically cleansed Palestine of most Palestinians in 1948? I don't think that its a coincidence that Arab Jews faced increased hostility after thousands of Palestinians were slaughtered by Zionist Jews and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from Palestine. Sending people and money to help the Zionist commit their atrocities probably contributed to rising anti-Semitism.

The experience of Arab Jews during the 1950's, while unpleasant, didn't involve armed thugs torturing, killing and raping unarmed civilians and then parading a few of the survivors though town in cages. The majority of Palestinians driven out of their homes by terrorists with what they could carry and most of their belongings were stolen before they reached safety.

http://www.deiryassin.org/mas.html

Don't interpret this "bleating rhetoric" as a defense of the way Arabs treated their Jewish neighbors. Far from it. I would describe their treatment as criminal. But I would describe the Deir Yassin massacre and similar atrocities committed against Palestinians during 1947-48 and the forcible removal of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians as a crime against humanity.

 

[earth_as_one]

...While the Iranian government is illegitimate (I'd like to know how?), from a legal perspective it is under no obligation to suspend enrichment. In fact the only agreement it has against openly building nuclear weapons says that the USA should be helping it if it requests the assistance. All 5 nuclear powers have failed in their end of the bargain to slowly disarm, all 5 infact have more weapons.

Legally, its a breached contract with no weight.

Realistically, its a couple of superpowers saying "You wanna try and build a nuke? Ask yourself punk..do ya feel lucky?"

I agree with Z's points. The NPT is a breached contract. The original nuclear powers were supposed to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsensals. In exchange for not seeking nuclear weapons, the IAEA is supposed to help non-nuke nations acquire peaceful nuclear technology safely.

I don't see how a nuclear Iran is any more of a threat than a nuclear Israel. In fact a nuclear Iran might have a stabilizing effect on the middle east.

If Iraq had nukes and the ability to drop them on American cities, I doubt the US would have invaded and occupied it. A nuclear Iraq could have prevented hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and American deaths.

The problem isn't a nation like Iran getting their hands on nukes, but militant groups. Nations can be counter attacked. Mutual Assured Destruction keeps the peace.

A far greater threat is black market nukes. For example:

Ukraine's missing missiles

Since March, Ukraine's defence minister, Yevhen Marchuk, has been searching for missing missiles and other weapons that could have fallen into terrorist hands or been sold to rogue states...
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid040617_1_n.shtml

Consider also that Pakistan probable has about 100 nukes and could fall into civil war...

Iran's marginal ability to refine reactor grade uranium hardly seems like a real threat in comparison.

 

[earth_as_one]

...The IAEA has verified nothing. In that interview, the Director General comments on how Iran has not provided them with the facts and forms they need. They've only gone half-way ("50%"). That is why the IAEA has misgivings and feels distrust towards Iran and approves of the UN's demands that Iran suspend its program. Surely that the Director General of the IAEA has serious misgivings and criticism for Iran and dearly wishes for it to suspend its nuclear program is enough to demonstrate to you that you're wrong to think that "the IAEA has proved that the suspension is illegitimate from the point of view of the non-proliferation treaty" which guarantees Iran "the right to peacefully use nuclear technology".

The IAEA can only verify what they know. What they know is that Iran's nuclear appears to be peaceful. They cannot verify the unknown.

According to Iran, they are in full compliance with the IAEA.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=28561&sectionid=351020101

The IAEA has no mandate to demand any country halt legal nuclear activities. The director general of the IAEA is guilty of caving in to pressure by the US to halt Iran's legal nuclear program. The US can be suspicious all it wants, but until someone has prove all they have is unproven allegations. Remember Iraq?

By the terms of the NPT, all nations including Iran have a right to peaceful nuclear technology. The nuclear reactor Iran is trying to build and fuel is legal. Mining uranium ore and refining it to the point where it can be used as fuel is legal. Whether Iran complies with the voluntary protocols of the NPT is voluntary. Not complying with voluntary safeguards is not a violation of the NPT, despite anti-Iranian propaganda which portrays it that way.

By the way, the IAEA has said that as far as they can tell Iran is in compliance with those voluntary safeguards as well as the mandatory ones.

The Secretariat concluded that, for 2006, declared nuclear material in Iran remained in peaceful activities. However, the Secretariat was unable to make progress in resolving the outstanding issues related to the completeness of Iran´s declarations. Verification of the correctness and completeness of Iran´s declarations remained ongoing. In February 2006, the Board of Governors requested the Director General to report to the United Nations Security Council all Agency reports and resolutions, as adopted, relevant to the implementation of Iran´s safeguards agreement.
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Safeguards/es2006.html

The IAEA has no mandate to demand a nation halt its legal nuclear enrichment actvities, yet that is exactly what they did. Iran voluntarily complied with the request, on condition that verification problems be worked out within a reasonable time. The IAEA was unable to do that because they were pressured by outside interference (the US) to demand Iran prove the unprovable.

Iran cannot prove their nuclear program only peaceful nor is it required to do this. That's because proving the non-existance of a nuclear weapons program is a logical impossibility. It was also impossible for Iraq to prove the non-existance of hidden WMD stockpiles. Proving the non-existance of anything is a logical impossibility. Don't think Pink Elephants exist? Prove it. Not finding one just proves you haven't found one yet. Maybe you have to look harder.

While absence of proof is not proof of absense, it isn't proof of existance either. Yet US propaganda was able to convince many gullible people of just that regarding Iraq and now Iran. Using the same illogic, Iran can't prove they aren't hiding the Loch Ness monster in a giant secret underground aquarium either.

That illogic is how the US was able to make Iraq look like a threat when it wasn't. Do Americans really want to start another war over an unproven threat, which will likely turn out to be false?

Let the IAEA do their job without outside interference.

 

[Niflmir]

I am afraid that you are mistaken. It does not imply "that individuals in the forum who have previously voiced oppposition to the UN and US sanctions against Iran are "Iran fans"". YOU are the one who is interpreting it like that. There is nothing there to back up this assumption of yours.

Check out the continuation of the title "because it of course does not represent Islam". This suggests to me that, rather than defining "Iran fans" as those who just oppose sanctions against Iran, he defines them as those who claim that Ahmadinejad's statements and actions as not representative of Islam (and probably accompany that with a claim that most Iranians don't feel the same way.) Do you disagree?

OK, you are no longer talking about whether or not there is a false dichotomy implied in the title, can I take that to mean that you see it now? As I said, Thomaska may or may not have meant his title to have the interpretation that I suggested was possible. I don't want to continue on that line because it has nothing to do with what I have said, wanted to say or want to say and feel like I would merely be insulting Thomaska in some way.

You seem to have dropped your scolding of me for my 'disrespectful' response to Earth's failed attempt to correct my (his) spelling. Does this mean your condemnation still stands? Please, I would like to know if regs here frown upon defending oneself against baseless attacks. I only want to leave a good impression!

I sincerely hope we are starting off on the wrong foot. I hope we will soon see that we are both reasonable folk.

The IAEA has verified nothing. In that interview, the Director General comments on how Iran has not provided them with the facts and forms they need. They've only gone half-way ("50%"). That is why the IAEA has misgivings and feels distrust towards Iran and approves of the UN's demands that Iran suspend its program. Surely that the Director General of the IAEA has serious misgivings and criticism for Iran and dearly wishes for it to suspend its nuclear program is enough to demonstrate to you that you're wrong to think that "the IAEA has proved that the suspension is illegitimate from the point of view of the non-proliferation treaty" which guarantees Iran "the right to peacefully use nuclear technology".

Here is the document on which I base my claim(see also quote below): the IAEA has verified the non-diversion of declared fissile materials. There is always the possibility that Iran possesses undeclared fissile materials and undeclared research facilities, but no one is aware of them and the onus is not on Iran to prove that. The Director General of the IAEA wants Iran to suspend enrichment to show faith to the international community, not because of missing materials or because the non-proliferation treaty demands it; the non-proliferation treaty clearly states that the right to peaceful nuclear energy is inalienable.

As of October 29 the official statement is:

First, the Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has continued to provide the access and reporting needed to enable Agency verification in this regard.


Second, Iran has provided the Agency with additional information and access needed to resolve a number of long outstanding issues, such as the scope and nature of past plutonium experiments.


Third, contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, calling on Iran to take certain confidence building measures, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, and is continuing with its construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak. This is regrettable.


Fourth, while the Agency so far has been unable to verify certain important aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, Iran and the Secretariat agreed in August on a work plan for resolving all outstanding verification issues. These verification issues have been at the core of the lack of confidence about the nature of Iran´s programme. Iran´s agreement on such a work plan, with a defined timeline - in response to repeated requests by the Security Council and the Board of Governors - is therefore an important step in the right direction. Naturally, Iran´s active cooperation and transparency are key in this regard. If the Agency were able to provide credible assurance about the peaceful nature of Iran´s past and current nuclear programme, this would go a long way towards building confidence, and could create the conditions for a comprehensive and durable solution. Such a solution would assure the international community about the peaceful nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, while enabling Iran to make full use of nuclear technology for economic and social development.

 

[Zzarchov]

"You can't play this both ways. If they are born somewhere, you belong there. By the way, many people Zionists ethnically cleansed share common ancestors with the Zionists. Some of these people can probably trace their ancestry in the area to before Judaism."

Im sorry if I gave the impression I thought it should work both ways, I believe only place of birth matters, I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy in claiming its lineage, when your lineage is from someplace else by your own records.

"My point is that Iranian Jews were not forced to leave. They chose to leave. Those that stayed were treated about the same or better as other minorities. Mind you it sucks to be a minority in Iran..."

This one bothers me a bit, saying they weren't forced to leave is fine, technically they weren't. But you can't have it both ways and claim that Iranian Jews weren't forced to leave, but Israeli and Palestinian Muslim refugees were forced to leave. If you believe it was a choice in one matter, you have to be willing to accept it was a choice in the other.

I can't find the link, but I've read statements by Muslim extremists who say their goal isn't cleanse Palestine of Jews. Their goal is to end to Zionism and force all Jews except the Yishuv (Jewish Palestinians) to leave.

I want you to think carefully about this statement. Where do you think they are going to make the non-yishuv Israelis go?

They aren't citizens of other countries, you can't "send them back where they came from" because most of them are mixed heritage. Where do you send someone who's 1/4th Persian, 1/4th Moroccan, 1/4th Ethiopian, 1/4th Russian if you trace back their ancestors nationality.

If they can't go anywhere, and they can't stay there, where do you anticipate they will be forced too by a group who believes killing children is an acceptable path to victory and their desire for "going back to the way things were"

Tell me where these millions of non-yishuv are going to go when they are "Forced to leave". If you can give me a plausible solution that doesn't involve a mass grave I'll give you a greenie.

I know this isn't something you agree with anyways, Im merely pointing out you need to do more critical thinking about statements from anti-zionists and what they mean. That statement is in effect, the same thing as stating they are out to cleanse palestine.

(side note; Someone on this thread gave me a red rep with a smiley face for a comment, if thats a sarcastic smiley, send me another red with abit more detailed message, If I actually have peeved you off, a little constructive criticism would be nice)

 

[earth_as_one]

Z,
If you are unable to think of a way to force hundreds of people out of their homes without creating mass graves, then you aren't thinking very hard. How did Zionists manage do it back in 1947-48? How have they managed to keep doing it ever since?

What I think these people are proposing is giving some of what they've been getting.

In my opinion, ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. I do not advocate committing a crime against humanity as a solution to problems caused by a crime against humanity. Forcing millions of Jews into refugee camps would not lead to peace. That would be just another crime against humanity.

A reasonable solution might be to end this failed Zionist experiment. Jews living in Zionist Israel are not safe. Their existance is continually threatened by war, death and destruction. Jews living in Toronto, New York, London, Tokyo... are far safer than they are in Haifa and Tel Aviv.

The only longterm solution would be for the nations which helped create this problem to take responsibility for their actions and allow millions of people (Jews and non-Jews) to emigrate.

By the way, you never gave me an opinion about this website:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/about/mission.cfm