Anyway: countries act like countries, typically with a certain bias towards perceived ‘self-defense’ rather than benevolence towards their neighbours. This is just as true for Middle Eastern regimes as it is for the First World. And, as the US has demonstrated recently, stress and fear can make a country act irrationally just as it does an individual. That said, I can’t bring myself to paint either Iran or Israel as the embodiment of Evil on Earth which needs to be eradicated.

However, I do see a wider spread of views publicly expressed in Israel, particularly towards the benign side of the scale. (Iran is not, of course, the “best” counterexample here, having more open and active dissent than a lot of the neighboring Arabic countries). The political pendulum in Israel swings; the majority of the public seems to want and end to the endless hostilities and is willing to go in either direction, but the lack of quick results following movement in one direction drives a change to the other. Such is the nature of a democracy.

Iran’s elections are coming up, however, and we shall see where the tilt goes. In Iran, however, the most powerful person is not the President, but Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader; Iran’s highest authority in religious and political matters and the commander-in-chief of its armed forces. Not only does this put some limits on the ability of a progresive candidate who might win the election, it makes the election of such a candidate less likely. And, without doubt, even Khamenei is constrained by the usual murky web of politics, obligations, and favoritism which is inherent in all human affairs.

On another topic, the problem of nuclear arms is not so much with their use as an offensive weapon but as a defensive “doomsday” device. As most people realize, Israel is not going to go nuking their neighbors no matter how annoyed they get; the weapons are there just to dissuade their enemies from assembling their much greater conventionally armed militaries into a coherent and focused attack which might overwhelm Israel’s highly competent but tiny military. Thus, although a certain degree of trust could be put in the sanity of the Iranian regime to refrain from a nuclear strike, it’s not at all unlikely that possession of nuclear weapons would encourage Iran to pursue more conventional military incursions versus Israel, perhaps via Hezbollah and/or Hamas, with a determination not previously seen; being now able to say to the Israelis “What are you going to do about it? Nuke us?”

Of course, the foregoing applies to Shiite/Persian Iran’s relations with the surrounding Sunni/Arab states as well, which is why they find themselves pondering whether the time may be right for a thaw in relations with Israel; unfortunately (or maybe not coincidentally) at the same time that Israel decides that a concerted attack on Gaza is worth the loss of international goodwill it entails.

Of course, in any case, it’s always necessary to remember that inflaming xenophobic paranoia is always worth quite a few votes when an election is coming, whether in Israel, Iran, or (again, as we’ve seen) the United States, as well as numerous “progressive” European countries, and a politician’s first and overwhelming duty is to get elected.

Anyway, for anybody who read this far in the expectation that I have a solution or even a conclusion, I apologize for disappointing you.

When I said “blowing it out of proportion,” I didn’t mean you. I meant that the Main Stream Media was quick to jump the case and totally distort what Ahmadinejad had said back then.

I was referring to Esra’a's comment.

Also, even if it had been a misquote, it doesn’t mean that I was intentionally blowing something out of proportion. I agree that we have to be careful about our language, but I sometimes feel like to comment anywhere in the MENA section of GV, you need to be armed with an arsenal links to quotes and sources (or an advanced degree).

Sometimes you just want to contribute and do the best you can to express your opinion and add another perspective without devoting hours to collecting sources before you write each comment.

… Such is the nature of delicate communication in our part of the world.

~ Maya

There’s a big difference between talking about an entire country and talking about the regime governing it.

I agree that it’s a stupid thing to say in either case, but blowing what he said our of proportion is no help to anyone.

I agree with Maya – Israel has never threatened to destroy Iran. It has absolutely no intention to do that. Its only worry is regarding its nuclear program. I’d argue with you that Shihab III is a missile which should be taken seriously. Iran has been making such an effort to develop this missile (which can both carry a nuclear warhead -and- reach Tel-Aviv). True, the regime’s intentions are not published, but Iran attaining nuclear capabilities will be yet another action that will take the Middle East into further turmoil (and not only with regards to Israel, but the other regional military powers such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt).
But placing the nuclear issue aside, you write:

“Iran, despite its posturing, has not attacked or engaged in a war with any of its neighbours bar Iraq, and that was a defensive war. Israel, on the other hand, has a bloody reputation of bullying and invading its neighbours.”
–> Iran attacks Israel indirectly, through the reaches of Hizbollah and Hamas. Iran funds the militants training, their weapons along with their suicide bomb operations. Iran supports this militia which acts intently against civilians.
You write that Israel performs “…ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people, and its targeting of civilians in wars against Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories…” – this is the type of rhetoric you’d like to believe because it would justify and support your hate. But the truth is that Israeli IDF performs military operations against vicious militia forces that use civilians as human shields. There is so much literature about this. Hamas leverages the unfortunate Gazans in order to create these civilian casualties, so as to highlight their conflict and defame IDF. There is no ethnic cleansing, and there is no genocide.

And it always boils down to this, every time I have this conversation with a “foe”. Not sure why I make an effort to post here.

I also would be remiss if I didn’t say I agreed with Esra’a on this one. While the issues are different, and while Israel admittedly offers (most of) its citizens better civil and human rights than Iran affords its people, I don’t think that that point is relevant, nor do I think it needs to be raised over and over again. The fact of the matter is, the West has conditioned the world to think of Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders as somehow off their rockers, while we’re supposed to assume that all Israeli leaders (even a total extremist like Avigdor Lieberman) are sane, balanced, and fair; when really, both countries suffer from poor leadership and both countries mistreat (some of) their citizens.

The Anti Israel Faction could not Resist Propagandizing Before the Start of the Conference

“We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation.”

“The 2001 declaration prejudges key issues that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.”
Hamas makes negotiations difficult by never talking to Israel or recognizing her right to exist.

Legitimate forums have “been contaminated by sweeping statements condemning the state of Israel itself, and portraying some of the most racist and chauvinistic aspects of Zionism as representative of Jewish nationalism as a whole. However, these kinds of discriminatory resolutions have been declining in recent years.”
There has been no let-up recently in the Arab Smear Campaign.

“Furthermore, other governments that have as bad or even more racist policies than Israel have not been subjected to as much attention at such conferences.”
In fairness, Zunes might provide a list of nations that have a higher regard for human rights than Israel.