There are precious few countries left that the West needs to fear in the Middle East. Iran is practically alone, and will be after Syria falls.

China has already moved to distance themselves from Iran, they're diversifying their trade partnerships to other developing nations, and they're extorting the Iranians for oil at the cheapest price.

The Russian political elite is beseiged by their own domestic unrest, and Putin is looking decidedly mortal. Russia cannot enforce itself on an international level, their arm is so short that only the former USSR bloc need fear overt Russian aggression.

It is, all things considered, counter-productive to American aims for Iran to possess or acquire a nuclear weapon. We do not need to restrain Israel, our mutual enemies are almost all dead. Does anyone really believe that the Gulf States are going to threaten their joint interests? Or that Iraq, even a pro-Iranian Iraq, can act without Iran there to support them?

The United States has systemically purged its enemies from the region. Iran is the last to go, we've got them surrounded, allies to the north, occupied lands to the East and allies and bases to the West. Leaving Iraq prematurely is regrettable, but the contain on Iran is very near complete.

If we needed, for our own security, to accept a status quo coexistence with Iran, we might resign ourselves to it, as foul tasting as that would be. But we don't have to, we can do better, and we almost certainly will.
GG.

Have you thought this through, or no?

How can a Jewish state exist if it allows a larger population of Palestinians to return home and exercise full political rights?

I make no case for the morality of Israel, but they cannot, for the survival of their nation, compromise their domestic security by allowing the Israeli government to be anything but Israeli.

Of course I have.
Zionism is fundamentally immoral and flawed because it seeks a Jewish state on land that has a large, if not majority, none Jewish population. Let us say it is 50%/50%.
There is nothing moral in 50% imposing the Jewishness of the state on the remaining 50%.
So indeed, there is a problem with the Jewishness of the state, and Israeli should not survive as a Jewish state because this is racist against none Jews who live in the area and have been living for a long time.

This is the solution proposed by Ahmadinejad on how the Israeli goverment will vanish from the pages of time, not exactly annhilation.
"The solution is democracy. We have said allow Palestinian people to participate in a free and fair referendum to express their views. What we are saying only serves the cause of durable peace. We want durable peace in that part of the world. A durable peace will only come about with once the views of the people are met.

So we said that allow the people of Palestine to participate in a referendum to choose their desired government, and of course, for the war to come an end as well. Why are they refusing to allow this to go ahead?
We believe that this problem has to be dealt with fundamentally. I believe that the American government is blindly supporting this government of occupation. It should lift its support, allow the people to participate in free and fair elections. Whatever happens let it be. We will accept and go along. The result will be as you said earlier, sir."

You're asking for the Israeli people to collectively commit suicide. This is why leftists in America will never see their goals realized in the Middle East, you cannot achieve peace by making unrealistic demands on a group that has only survived through the rampant use of military force.

amatsukami - And you don't see the inherent contradiction in Iran demanding other nations adhere to democratic principles? This is double-speak by Ahmadinejad, the same as any politician, he is representing himself differently to two separate audiences. His conclialotry dialogue is exactly what leftists in the West want to hear, and is shit, all of it.

Zionism seeks Jewish state - Yes.
Did we just drop out from the sky and decided we need to settle in Israel from no reason ? never.
Jews always were and always will be in Israel.
There wasn't any Palestinian state that we invade too, trow this image away. The first waves of Jewish immigration came and saw an unsettle land. The people who were here were Arabic clans that didn't even knew that they are Palestinians.
The goal was always co-exist with them - never to drive them away.
The rest is just history lesson about the Israel - Palestinian conflict.

bogie160 -
You do know that Iran is a republic and Ahmadinejad isn't a dictator whom possess absolute power over his country.. Whatever his personal beliefs may be about how their country ought to be run, he does not have the power to simply enforce it and if he wants to do any change whatsoever he must make gradual changes, not become a radical(in their sense).



This post was edited by amatsukami on Mar 12 2012 04:18am

Did I claim, at all, that Ahmadinejad was a dictator with absolute power? Did I even assert that he was the most powerful man in Iran?

No and no, but Iran does not adhere to democratic principles, they do not engage in what would be seen as fair and democratic elections, and their political system has powerful theocratic elements in place.

They are a repressive theocracy, they are not in any position to demand that Israel offer the democratic hand to all Palestinians.

It was the solution which Ahmadinejad proposed, and Ahmadinejad is also striving to reduce the power of the ruling clerics of his country, this was a response to you saying that it was a double-speak by Ahmadinejad but the fact is that your claim is vague and inadequate.

Jews that were in Israel prior to immigration are a very tiny fraction. The rest came from other Arabic countries, Europe, Russia... etc.
So they are indeed outside settlers no matter the imaged continuity Zionist ideology feeds it's followers.
Nevertheless, personally, I don't have problem with Jewish settlement.



Call them Arabic clans, Palestinians, or whatever else you want, it doesn't matter. The point is that there was a human population in that area that were and still are being denied their rights.
It was never at any point an unsettled land.



Co-exist on what terms? Does that include granting them political rights?
Or by co-exist you mean as second class citizens to provide cheap labor?