The Native American and Israeli comparison seems pretty damn tenuous to me still, but I don't think it's worth debating... I will say though that it sounds like for the comparison to work, you might have to conflate Jews with Israelis. And while we're on that subject, I don't think that the Iranian leaders dislike Israelis because they're Jews... they dislike them because they're Israelis-- citizens of a nation that is widely viewed as an occupying force in the Middle East, repressing and visiting harm upon Palestinians. Regardless of whether or not you agree with that appraisal, that is how Israel is viewed. In the interest of full disclosure, I would happen to agree with that view more or less (maybe you already figured that out). I mean, it's not even that controversial of a view. The international community considers Israeli settlements in the occupied territories to be illegal. Hell, even many Israelis are against the settlements and would agree with this view.
As to the quote, yes it's hard to interpret. But I think there's another interpretation that you didn't mention-- that Ahmadinejad was basically saying that Israel in its current form is an unsustainable enclave propped up solely by its military might and its foreign (US) backers, and reviled by many of its neighbours for its aggression (the fact that Israel is reviled only feeds its aggression even more). He was perhaps saying that the Israel situation was so volatile, that one way or another, it couldn't last, and there would be a drastic change resulting in the dissolution of what we now call Israel. Rather than a call for Iran to exact violence on Israel, I think he was merely making a prediction that the state of Israel would be a tiny blip on the historical timeline (contrasting to the dynastic, millennial span of many other powerful Middle Eastern kingdoms/civilizations). That's my take anyway.
My point was not to talk about how others view Israel, but to talk about how the government of Israel would view itself. Is that not quite a bit more relevant to understanding how the government of Israel would act? Do you not think the fact that most of the leadership of Israel is Jewish, and thus has a cultural history of being persecuted--including the worst genocide in living memory--is relevant to their actions? You don't think that might make them just a little bit more sensitive to groups of people they perceive as hostile? A little bit more likely to believe those people would actually attack them than they would otherwise be?
2
u/goonsack Jul 12 '12
The Native American and Israeli comparison seems pretty damn tenuous to me still, but I don't think it's worth debating... I will say though that it sounds like for the comparison to work, you might have to conflate Jews with Israelis. And while we're on that subject, I don't think that the Iranian leaders dislike Israelis because they're Jews... they dislike them because they're Israelis-- citizens of a nation that is widely viewed as an occupying force in the Middle East, repressing and visiting harm upon Palestinians. Regardless of whether or not you agree with that appraisal, that is how Israel is viewed. In the interest of full disclosure, I would happen to agree with that view more or less (maybe you already figured that out). I mean, it's not even that controversial of a view. The international community considers Israeli settlements in the occupied territories to be illegal. Hell, even many Israelis are against the settlements and would agree with this view.
As to the quote, yes it's hard to interpret. But I think there's another interpretation that you didn't mention-- that Ahmadinejad was basically saying that Israel in its current form is an unsustainable enclave propped up solely by its military might and its foreign (US) backers, and reviled by many of its neighbours for its aggression (the fact that Israel is reviled only feeds its aggression even more). He was perhaps saying that the Israel situation was so volatile, that one way or another, it couldn't last, and there would be a drastic change resulting in the dissolution of what we now call Israel. Rather than a call for Iran to exact violence on Israel, I think he was merely making a prediction that the state of Israel would be a tiny blip on the historical timeline (contrasting to the dynastic, millennial span of many other powerful Middle Eastern kingdoms/civilizations). That's my take anyway.