starcraft said:
Paragraph one: I don't assume for a moment that a dictatorship will never do anything in opposition to the will of it's people. Indeed, to frame that argument as a rebuttal is extraordinarily narrow. Because, just as dictatorships, be definition, do not act with the will of the people, they equally crave legitimacy, as can be seen in ANY currently existing dictatorship or non-democratic theocracy. Iran constantly vilifying Israel and making much of their nuclear program, a process that INCREASED after the illegitimate elections. Burma holding ridiculously fake elections but not allowing the key opposition figure to run, and North Korea building a cult around it's successive leaders. Having spent DECADES vilifying Israel to it's people, to turn around and appear to 'submit' to peace on anything other than paper is simply not something that will be done.
Paragraph 2: I will give you that Israel shouldn't necessarily be guarenteed Jewish statehood. At the same time, people who are third and fourth generation (and in my opinion, even second generation) simply are not refugees, and are not entitled to land that was never theirs. Just as Israeli's today are (in the vast majority at least) entirely disconnected from the actions that brought about their country's existence. Telling them to give back land that has been theirs their entire lives would be like asking me, a tenth generation white Australian, to give my home to an Aborigine who's great-great grandfather was wronged by white people sixty years back.
Paragraph 3: Whilst at SOME points in the past Syria has certainly been less friendly than Iran, I would LOVE for you to point me to where Iran said that it would accept Israel and it's people if Israel withdrew to pre-1967 borders without any other conditions. Just a year or so back the Iranian Foreign Minister was censured by Parliament for saying that Iran's beef was only with the Israeli Government and not it's people. |
The regime in Iran came into being after the overthrow of the muderous Western backed Shah and after that the elimination and marginalisation of political opponents that were not Shia Islamic Revolutionaries. Israel didn't come into play until fairly recently once Iraq had been conquered and Iran became the main boogey man. The elections in Iran were almost certainly flawed. For one in every election since the revolution the candidates are vetted and this usually results in many being barred from standing. This is nothing new. There has yet to be a detailed study on the letimacy of the 2009 election results. What is certain is there were significant foreign involvement in trying to destabilise the country via covert means. As for Iran's nuclear program that's again something the US has blown out of all proportions, it's not Iran that keeps bringing it to the worlds attention. And Ahmadenijad is not Iran. He may bring Israel up from time to time but the main powerhouse in Iran is the Supreme Leader Ayatollah.
The fact is the Arab peace initiative was and still is on the table. There is no point having hypothetical debates about whether the population will accept it or not, it's not like they have a say in most matters anyway. There are many US bases dotted around the Gulf, I'm sure if they had a say they woukd like them to leave. The Egyptian and Jordian population (with it's large Palestinian refugees) didn't revolt after peace with Isreal. Israel simply rejected the Arab Peace Initiative with crucial US support. As it has rejected most peace overtures since it's foundation because peace means giving up occupied land it doesn't want to give up.
Oh and Iran DEFINATELY offered to normalise relations with the US and Israel back in 2003. Google it. Just as Egypt did in 1971-72 (which was rejected and led to the 1973 war). And Ahmadenijad reiterated Iran's position in that it will support whatever the Palestinians want.
