67 replies to this topic

[Wyvernkeeper]

Q24, on 05 February 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

Right, that’s why the U.S. and Israel must not be allowed to launch another unnecessary war.



I don’t know what you are talking about, I didn’t say Israel threatened nuclear war…Though the continual threats and “all options are on the table” could be read that way.

Q24, on 03 February 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

So the world has to stop the Iranian nuclear program to prevent Israel starting a war and nuking other countries.  Here’s a better idea… how about the world condemn the continuous Israeli war threats?  Zionists interested in self-preservation should join in too.  The only Middle East country wanting to start a war in the first place is Israel.

I don't think Israel is nuking anybody anytime soon, if as the reports suggest they have had nukes for 40+ years then I think we can rest assured that they are not going to be trigger happy with them...  Some reports say they had them in the six day war, and no bombs were used then either and that was very nearly an existential crisis.  Perhaps you see why the other Arab countries are more worried about a possible Iranian bomb than an Israeli one?

[Q24]

Wyvernkeeper, on 06 February 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

I don't think Israel is nuking anybody anytime soon, if as the reports suggest they have had nukes for 40+ years then I think we can rest assured that they are not going to be trigger happy with them...  Some reports say they had them in the six day war, and no bombs were used then either and that was very nearly an existential crisis.  Perhaps you see why the other Arab countries are more worried about a possible Iranian bomb than an Israeli one?

In the second quote you bolded I was repeating back and then’s argument which I was responding to.

I should have put a question mark to be clearer: -

So the world has to stop the Iranian nuclear program to prevent Israel starting a war and nuking other countries?

You need to talk to and then about it.

He seems convinced Israel are going to trigger a nuclear war if we don’t stop the Iranian nuclear program.

And I said, let’s just stop Israel triggering a war.

[Wyvernkeeper]

Q24, on 06 February 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

In the second quote you bolded I was repeating back and then’s argument which I was responding to.

I should have put a question mark to be clearer: -

So the world has to stop the Iranian nuclear program to prevent Israel starting a war and nuking other countries?

You need to talk to and then about it.

He seems convinced Israel are going to trigger a nuclear war if we don’t stop the Iranian nuclear program.

And I said, let’s just stop Israel triggering a war.

By 'triggering a war,' what exactly do you mean... Do you mean actively launching a missile/air strike....

Because that's already been going on for a while, likewise Iran has been funding groups against Israel for several decades now, murdering Jews worldwide unrepentently and making regular brash statements threatening the Israeli population.

The war is already here, it has been fought for several decades now... The question is how and when it morphs into 'total war,' but one thing is sure.. At this stage it is far more complex than simply waiting for it to be triggered by Israel

[Q24]

Wyvernkeeper, on 06 February 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

By 'triggering a war,' what exactly do you mean... Do you mean actively launching a missile/air strike....

Because that's already been going on for a while, likewise Iran has been funding groups against Israel for several decades now, murdering Jews worldwide unrepentently and making regular brash statements threatening the Israeli population.

The war is already here, it has been fought for several decades now... The question is how and when it morphs into 'total war,' but one thing is sure.. At this stage it is far more complex than simply waiting for it to be triggered by Israel

You know exactly what I mean - there is currently no war between Iran and Israel.

You only complicate the situation to justify a pre-emptive Israeli strike.

Because it’s never Israel’s fault; Israel never start anything… ever.

No, if Israel launches an air strike it’ll be everyone else’s fault.

Do you think Israel should attack Iran, Wyvernkeeper?

[Wyvernkeeper]

Q24, on 06 February 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

You know exactly what I mean - there is currently no war between Iran and Israel.

You only complicate the situation to justify a pre-emptive Israeli strike.

Because it’s never Israel’s fault; Israel never start anything… ever.

No, if Israel launches an air strike it’ll be everyone else’s fault.

Do you think Israel should attack Iran, Wyvernkeeper?

Of course not, I have said before on these boards that I think it would be one of the worst courses of action...

However, it still is a possibility -  and to pretend that if Israel were to strike it would be 'the first strike' is disingenuous.  I am not saying that Israel can be excused of blame, however you need to accept that there are elements, many in Iran that do not care for Israel's existence, regardless of its policies.  If Israel gave back half its land to the Arabs tomorrow, Islamists and Pan-Arab nationals would still find a reason to hate Israel.  The hatred was there before the politics, it will be there afterwards too.

Q, I have said time and time again that I accept Israel must take some responsibility for the state of the middle East, however you seem to take this so far as to excuse the actions of other countries.

[Q24]

Wyvernkeeper, on 06 February 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

Of course not, I have said before on these boards that I think it would be one of the worst courses of action...

However, it still is a possibility -  and to pretend that if Israel were to strike it would be 'the first strike' is disingenuous.

We agree that Israel are threatening one of the worst courses of action possible.  There are all sorts of possibilities but that does not mean we should sit back and accept them.

To pretend an Israeli strike on Iran would not be ‘the first strike’ is disingenuous – the countries are not currently at war anymore than the U.S. and Russia during the Cold War period.  I’m glad neither of those carried out a strike on the other because ‘they were at war already’.

Hamas and Hezbollah would exist in some form in opposition to Israeli aggression whether there were Iranian backing or not.  If not them it would still be the PLO or some other resistance.  You dragging them into it is beside the point of a potential Israeli strike on Iran.

Wyvernkeeper, on 06 February 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

I am not saying that Israel can be excused of blame, however you need to accept that there are elements, many in Iran that do not care for Israel's existence, regardless of its policies.  If Israel gave back half its land to the Arabs tomorrow, Islamists and Pan-Arab nationals would still find a reason to hate Israel.  The hatred was there before the politics, it will be there afterwards too.

I do not accept it is a central Iranian position to hate Israel “regardless of its policies”.  You try to create the impression of irrational hatred to justify Israeli actions, but when we follow events there is more often than not a quite rational trigger found.  If the Iranian hatred of Israel always existed, tell me how many troops did Iran contribute to the 1948 war?

No, Iranian opposition began later, after the United States and Israel began to meddle in their internal politics.  The West and Israel have been subverting Iran for decades (long before Hamas or Hezbollah ever existed), and have continued to do so right up to the present day.  The reaction of the Iranian leadership (including backing of Israeli opposition groups) since throwing off the Western shackles in 1979 has been entirely rational.

I’m also saying this of cold logic, not of hatred.

Wyvernkeeper, on 06 February 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

Q, I have said time and time again that I accept Israel must take some responsibility for the state of the middle East, however you seem to take this so far as to excuse the actions of other countries.

Not at all – the United States, Britain and France must also be held responsible.

We don’t have to be across there triggering the wars at all.

[Wyvernkeeper]

Q24, on 06 February 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

We agree that Israel are threatening one of the worst courses of action possible.  There are all sorts of possibilities but that does not mean we should sit back and accept them.

To pretend an Israeli strike on Iran would not be ‘the first strike’ is disingenuous – the countries are not currently at war anymore than the U.S. and Russia during the Cold War period.  I’m glad neither of those carried out a strike on the other because ‘they were at war already’.

Hamas and Hezbollah would exist in some form in opposition to Israeli aggression whether there were Iranian backing or not.  If not them it would still be the PLO or some other resistance.  You dragging them into it is beside the point of a potential Israeli strike on Iran.



I do not accept it is a central Iranian position to hate Israel “regardless of its policies”.  You try to create the impression of irrational hatred to justify Israeli actions, but when we follow events there is more often than not a quite rational trigger found.  If the Iranian hatred of Israel always existed, tell me how many troops did Iran contribute to the 1948 war?

No, Iranian opposition began later, after the United States and Israel began to meddle in their internal politics.  The West and Israel have been subverting Iran for decades (long before Hamas or Hezbollah ever existed), and have continued to do so right up to the present day.  The reaction of the Iranian leadership (including backing of Israeli opposition groups) since throwing off the Western shackles in 1979 has been entirely rational.

Perhaps the politics statement was a little exaggerated but it stands that since at least the Islamic Revolution in Iran, anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish sentiment has been a core feature of the ideology...  The idea of Israel 'meddling' basically boils down to Israel doing something that Iran might not like, and that is a tit for tat relationship which both parties are guilty of...

But yeah, sanctioning the bombing of a Jewish centre in Argentina hardly reeks of political grievance, more like irrational hatred to me... Unless you care to rationalise it for me?

I am not 'dragging' groups like Hamas etc 'into it.'  They are already 'in it,' and it precisely their aggression that Israel perceives as an extention of Iranian foreign policy.  This is precisely why the Lebanon war was not conducted against the 'Lebanese State,' but against Hizbullah (which coincidently has apparently received $400 million from Iran according to a 2010 report.)  It is possible that in 1948 Iran and Israel may have been closer, but that was a very long time ago.  They have had a revolution since then, and since Khomeini has been Supreme Leader, the rhetoric against Isreal has been consistent and grounded in ideology as much as politics.  Those $400 million are donated from Iran to a group that (from wiki)  ''listed its four main goals as "Israel's final departure from Lebanon as a prelude to its final obliteration."'

I don't hear the Ayatollah condemming Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Lebanon for the treatment of their own Palestinian populations yet with regard to Israel it is a banner he can hold up high and use to stir up resentment against Israel.

So please explain to me how when Iran spends decades funding a proxy army dedicated to the destruction of Israel, whilst maintains an entirely hypocritical attitude with regard to it's 'cause celebre' of the Palestinian people, you can either excuse it on the pretext of imagined Israeli expansionism or simply ignore it and then claim that an Israeli strike would be the trigger for war?

I am not ignoring Israeli culpability in all this, I recognise that it takes two to tango...  But I wonder if you can accept that the Iranian regime's problems might be more down to their own internal problems than the rhetoric they constantly spout about western and Zionist 'meddling.'  You blame Israel, France, the UK and the US but don't seem to perceive the problems of the Iranian attitude itself.

Edited by Wyvernkeeper, 06 February 2012 - 02:26 PM.

[Q24]

Wyvernkeeper, on 06 February 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

But I wonder if you can accept that the Iranian regime's problems might be more down to their own internal problems than the rhetoric they constantly spout about western and Zionist 'meddling.'  You blame Israel, France, the UK and the US but don't seem to perceive the problems of the Iranian attitude itself.

The only real problem Iran has is Israel and the West’s constant interference in regional affairs.
You don’t seem aware of the reasons that Iran ‘spouts rhetoric’ at the West and Israel.
Or the reasons Iran backs Hamas and Hezbollah (I agree it is not of compassion for the Palestinains).
Go back to the point the relationship dramatically changed - 1953 (as always due to oil).
You identify 1979 as the change point in attitude, but why did the Iranian revolution occur?
The United States, Britain and Israel directly interfering in Iranian politics for the previous quarter century plus.
And it has continued for the quarter century plus since!
What else should the Iranian attitude to this be, other than to support those who oppose Israel and the West?

[Wyvernkeeper]

Q24, on 06 February 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

The only real problem Iran has is Israel and the West’s constant interference in regional affairs.
You don’t seem aware of the reasons that Iran ‘spouts rhetoric’ at the West and Israel.
Or the reasons Iran backs Hamas and Hezbollah (I agree it is not of compassion for the Palestinains).
Go back to the point the relationship dramatically changed - 1953 (as always due to oil).
You identify 1979 as the change point in attitude, but why did the Iranian revolution occur?
The United States, Britain and Israel directly interfering in Iranian politics for the previous quarter century plus.
And it has continued for the quarter century plus since!
What else should the Iranian attitude to this be, other than to support those who oppose Israel and the West?

I agree, interference has caused problems in the past in Iran, but Iran fans the flames of conflict not just because of history but as a strategic play on the future.  Perhaps the Iranian attitude should be more akin to what Chavez did in Venezuala, ie - nationalise the foreign corporations, stop exploitation of the poorest, increase provision of health/schooling etc.. But instead Iran chooses to ignore the growing divide in its own society, threaten shipping routes and regularly spout warlike rhetoric against Israel.  Unlike Israel however, the 'war talk,' speaks of assured destruction unlike specific targetting of particular locations or facilities.

Why do you insist on dwelling on what was done and use it to excuse the dangers of an uncertain future.  We can argue about right and wrong all the way back to the garden of Eden but it doesn't change facts in the present day.  I have been criticised on these boards previously for attempting to explain the role of the Holocaust upon Israeli psychology, yet the same people who accused me of dwelling in the past then, now argue that Irans current attitude is a result of the Iranian revolution, which was a result of US/Brit/Israeli imperialism and therefore Israel is to blame for the modern Iranians attitudes towards them.  Sounds an awful lot like picking and choosing your reality to me.

Does interference in Iran justify Iran's murder of 85, mostly Jewish - non Israelis?  They were not killed for their politics, but for their faith...  The Islamists across Iran and the rest of the region mask their hatred of Jews with the flag of Palestine...  It is amazing that intelligent people continue to buy into their propoganda.

Like you say, Israel and Iran once enjoyed better relations.  In fact until 1979 Iran recognised Israel as a sovereign state.  It was the Islamic revolution that led to the regressive tactic of withdrawing recognition of Israel as a state.  Relations could have continued well but Iran decided to deny Israel's legitimacy whilst simultaneously sanctioning religious persecution of Jews, ultimately leading to mass emigration of Irans jewish population.  Iran does not recognise Israel anymore, (the geo-political eqivalent of an ostrich burying its head in the sand - pointless and ignoring reality.)

Israel does little to enhance the security of the region, but it is disproportionately blamed for the region's problems.  Like it or hate it, 1948 happened and Israel exists.  It is not going anywhere.  It's been over 60 years, the Arab world need to accept this at some point.  Many Arab countries to this day still do not recognise Israel's existence - at some point they need to accept reality.

Edited by Wyvernkeeper, 06 February 2012 - 03:51 PM.

[Q24]

Wyvernkeeper, on 06 February 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

I agree, interference has caused problems in the past in Iran, but Iran fans the flames of conflict not just because of history but as a strategic play on the future.  Perhaps the Iranian attitude should be more akin to what Chavez did in Venezuala, ie - nationalise the foreign corporations, stop exploitation of the poorest, increase provision of health/schooling etc.. But instead Iran chooses to ignore the growing divide in its own society, threaten shipping routes and regularly spout warlike rhetoric against Israel.  Unlike Israel however, the 'war talk,' speaks of assured destruction unlike specific targetting of particular locations or facilities.

Why do you insist on dwelling on what was done and use it to excuse the dangers of an uncertain future.  We can argue about right and wrong all the way back to the garden of Eden but it doesn't change facts in the present day.  I have been criticised on these boards previously for attempting to explain the role of the Holocaust upon Israeli psychology, yet the same people who accused me of dwelling in the past then, now argue that Irans current attitude is a result of the Iranian revolution, which was a result of US/Brit/Israeli imperialism and therefore Israel is to blame for the modern Iranians attitudes towards them.  Sounds an awful lot like picking and choosing your reality to me.

Does interference in Iran justify Iran's murder of 85, mostly Jewish - non Israelis?  They were not killed for their politics, but for their faith...  The Islamists across Iran and the rest of the region mask their hatred of Jews with the flag of Palestine...  It is amazing that intelligent people continue to buy into their propoganda.

Like you say, Israel and Iran once enjoyed better relations.  In fact until 1979 Iran recognised Israel as a sovereign state.  It was the Islamic revolution that led to the regressive tactic of withdrawing recognition of Israel as a state.  Relations could have continued well but Iran decided to deny Israel's legitimacy whilst simultaneously sanctioning religious persecution of Jews, ultimately leading to mass emigration of Irans jewish population.  Iran does not recognise Israel anymore, (the geo-political eqivalent of an ostrich burying its head in the sand - pointless and ignoring reality.)

Israel does little to enhance the security of the region, but it is disproportionately blamed for the region's problems.  Like it or hate it, 1948 happened and Israel exists.  It is not going anywhere.  It's been over 60 years, the Arab world need to accept this at some point.  Many Arab countries to this day still do not recognise Israel's existence - at some point they need to accept reality.

What are you even talking about?

I suggested Israel should be discouraged from triggering a war.

Predictably you try to disguise the fact that it would be entirely Israel’s fault if Israel launched a strike - you claim it would be in part Iran’s fault too because “regardless of its policies” the Iranians just “hate Israel”.  I pointed out that in understanding Israeli, U.S. and British interference in Iran from 1953 onwards, there is no doubt reaction of the Iranian leadership has been entirely rational (i.e. not of irrational hatred as you claim).  The Iranians have been backed into a corner of Western doing.

Now you are talking about Venezuela, Iranian society (which is their own business), the holocaust and Arabs.  You seem to be confused between the problem Israel created with the Arabs and the later problem Israel created with Iran.

In 1948, Iran recognized Israel, right along with the U.S. and the rest.

I’ve shown exactly where it went wrong (nothing to do with the garden of Eden): -

Operation Ajax
Iran - SAVAK

Iran’s actions are a logical result of 50+ years of unwarranted Western and Israeli subversion.

If Israel now trigger a war with Iran, that will be entirely Israel’s fault.

Edited by Q24, 06 February 2012 - 04:26 PM.

[Wyvernkeeper]

Q24, on 06 February 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

What are you even talking about?

I suggested Israel should be discouraged from triggering a war.

Predictably you try to disguise the fact that it would be entirely Israel’s fault if Israel launched a strike - you claim it would be in part Iran’s fault too because “regardless of its policies” the Iranians just “hate Israel”.  I pointed out that in understanding Israeli, U.S. and British interference in Iran from 1953 onwards, there is no doubt reaction of the Iranian leadership has been entirely rational (i.e. not of irrational hatred as you claim).  The Iranians have been backed into a corner of Western doing.

Now you are talking about Venezuela, Iranian society (which is their own business), the holocaust and Arabs.  You seem to be confused between the problem Israel created with the Arabs and the later problem Israel created with Iran.

In 1948, Iran recognized Israel, right along with the U.S. and the rest.

I’ve shown exactly where it went wrong (nothing to do with the garden of Eden): -

Operation Ajax
Iran - SAVAK

Iran’s actions are a logical result of 50+ years of unwarranted Western and Israeli subversion.

If Israel now trigger a war with Iran, that will be entirely Israel’s fault.

You have entirely misread what I have said, either that or you understand and choose to miss the point.

I mentioned Venezuela as you asked how Iran could have become a sucessful postcolonial society free from interference.  Venezuela seemed like a relevent comparison.

I referred to Iranian society, the Holocaust, Greater Arab society etc as they are all relevent.  To pretend that this issue between Iran and Israel exists in some kind of political vaccuum is foolish, there are so many other issues that link in to the situation.  But I suppose if everything is already black and white to you and you have made up your mind about Israel's ultimate responsibility for every problem in the middle East then the subtlety adn complexity of this may escape you.

But I love it how everything is 'entirely Israel's fault.'  Despite the fact that I have accepted that Israel is partially responsible for some actions, you can still turn it around and argue that Israel is to blame for striking out in a war which Iran has been pouring money into for decades.  I could argue that all Israel's problems are due to the Arabs.. Or that all Mexicos problems are due to America or that all Scotlands problems are due to England, but arguing it doesn't make it true, neither does it offer any form of constructive solution for improving the prospects of the populations in the middle East.... It is just a simple technique used by those in power to scapegoat the 'other.'

Why can you not accept that Israel is anything less that 'entirely' to blame?

or address the issue of Iranian attacks on Jews (not Israelis, hope you understand the difference,) worldwide.. How does that fit into a 'political' grievance?

Edited by Wyvernkeeper, 06 February 2012 - 04:51 PM.

[Q24]

Wyvernkeeper, on 06 February 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

You have entirely misread what I have said, either that or you understand and choose to miss the point.

I understand the failed point you are trying to make.

Wyvernkeeper, on 06 February 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

I mentioned Venezuela as you asked how Iran could have become a sucessful postcolonial society free from interference.  Venezuela seemed like a relevent comparison.

When Venezuela nationalized their oil were the democratically elected government covertly overthrown and replaced with a Western puppet regime?  Did the Israeli Mossad then assist in training a secret Venezuelan police service to enforce that regime?  When Venezuela finally cast off that regime did the U.S. set them up for a decade long war with their neighbour?  Did the United States and Israel then continue to militarily threaten Venezuela?

If you are answering “no”, it is not a good comparison - all of the above apply to Iran.

Wyvernkeeper, on 06 February 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

I referred to Iranian society, the Holocaust, Greater Arab society etc as they are all relevent.  To pretend that this issue between Iran and Israel exists in some kind of political vaccuum is foolish, there are so many other issues that link in to the situation.  But I suppose if everything is already black and white to you and you have made up your mind about Israel's ultimate responsibility for every problem in the middle East then the subtlety adn complexity of this may escape you.

The issue between Israel and Iran exists for different reason to the issue between Israel and the Arab countries.  Of course now Iran and the Palestinian/Arab groups find common cause due to Israeli actions against their respective peoples.  The Jewish leadership really do have a penchant for upsetting everyone around them – I guess that is what happens when a group identifies themselves as ‘more special’ than the rest (ask and then about it - God is on the Jews’ side).

Wyvernkeeper, on 06 February 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

Why can you not accept that Israel is anything less that 'entirely' to blame?

Because I don’t see anything less in the historical and present day facts.

If you had no allegiance I dare say you’d see it.

If Israel trigger an unnecessary war by launching air strikes who else is to blame?

There is no justification for it.

All the talk about the Iranian nuclear program, it’s nothing but a pretext to gain control of the Gulf region.  The same as ‘terrorism’ or ‘WMDs’ were used to advance U.S. and Israeli hegemony in the region through regime change.  It’s the same strategy that has been played out since the end of WW2.

Wyvernkeeper, on 06 February 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

or address the issue of Iranian attacks on Jews (not Israelis, hope you understand the difference,) worldwide.. How does that fit into a 'political' grievance?

I have seen no evidence this is policy of the Iranian leadership.

I doubt there would be tens of thousands of Jews living in Iran if it were.

I don’t see any of this is relevant – if Israel do not pull the trigger there will not be a war.

It’s that simple.

The lesser proxy conflict that is ongoing initiated because Israel pulled the trigger in the first place.

[Yamato]

The plague of contemporary thinking on this subject from people who can't differentiate Jewish from Israel would readily make the mistake that Iran hates Jews and not the Israeli government.  Because we all use the names of countries at times when referring to those country's governments, this conversational convention is an easy rhetorical out to make all manner of mistranslation and war-mongering possible even amongst ourselves.

Judaism is not Zionism and "the Jews" are not Israel.

Anyone who thinks they can contain "the Jews" or Judaism and all that is Jewish into an Israel-shaped box doesn't respect these people nearly enough.  Israel is a nation.  Jews are human beings who practice a 3000 year old religion and share a common ethnicity.  Trying to equate Israel to Jews is like equating a piece of paper to a library.  The Zionist regime vs. Judaism is a gang of nationalistic bureaucrats and their policies vs. the basis of the world's monotheistic religious belief throughout history.  Zionists dare boil Jews down to Israel and then tell me what I am for disagreeing?  Please.

[The Silver Thong]

Erix, on 03 February 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

So your going against a country that wants another country to stop nuclear ambitions, which that country belives Islam is greater than Christian by not allowing rights to women?

  So a modern religious war with nukes over Israel.   Forget that, let them nuke it out as Israel is stock piling nukes and telling know one.  Expose Israel now and let the chips fall where they may.   It`s time Israel grows up and doesn`t depend on anyone but itself.

[and then]

Yamato, on 07 February 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

The plague of contemporary thinking on this subject from people who can't differentiate Jewish from Israel would readily make the mistake that Iran hates Jews and not the Israeli government.  Because we all use the names of countries at times when referring to those country's governments, this conversational convention is an easy rhetorical out to make all manner of mistranslation and war-mongering possible even amongst ourselves.

Judaism is not Zionism and "the Jews" are not Israel.

Anyone who thinks they can contain "the Jews" or Judaism and all that is Jewish into an Israel-shaped box doesn't respect these people nearly enough.  Israel is a nation.  Jews are human beings who practice a 3000 year old religion and share a common ethnicity.  Trying to equate Israel to Jews is like equating a piece of paper to a library.  The Zionist regime vs. Judaism is a gang of nationalistic bureaucrats and their policies vs. the basis of the world's monotheistic religious belief throughout history.  Zionists dare boil Jews down to Israel and then tell me what I am for disagreeing?  Please.

Yeah, Jews live all over the world unless/until they make aliyah.  Israel is a Jewish State with non Jewish citizenry..got it.  Zionism separate and distinct from Jewishness.
But Yam are you really saying that the Shia Islamic Iranian State do not hate Jews?  The people who INVENTED the eschatology of the Mahdi with the sole intent of destroying said Jews?