"The deal of the century for Iran" while the rest of us lose -- Netanyahu

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Brilliant, if you had read more than 2 paragraphs you'd have realized that article says Iran's president was misquoted.

Here's the 2nd and 3rd paragraph, in context:

The first sign was not a promising one. Iranian state media interviewed Rouhani, whom they quoted as saying, "Israel is a wound on the body of the world of Islam that must be destroyed." While such rhetoric is common among Iran's hard-liners, such as the departing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, it seemed a dramatic departure for Rouhani – and a dispiriting early indication that, despite hopes of peace, his rule may not be so different than his predecessors'.

But, within a few hours, a state TV video of the encounter emerged that appeared to show Rouhani saying something significantly different. According to a translation byAl-Monitor's Arash Karami, who broke the story, Rouhani had actually said this:

Quds day, which is in memorial of Imam [Khomeini], is a day that people present the unity of Islam against any type of oppression or aggression. And in any case, in our region, it is an old wound that has been sitting on the body of the Islamic world, in the shadow of the occupation of the holy land of Palestine and the dear Quds. And this day, in fact, is a remembrance that Muslim people will not forget this historical right and will always stand against oppression and aggression.
​

If Israel is not the wound that he's talking about, what is?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

First if all, that "embassies are US soil" belief is a myth. Embassies simply fall under the jurisdiction of the sending nation.
Secondly, yes, that's exactly what Iran did. It closed the embassy... After the US failed to leave, as directed. Following Pearl Harbor the US expelled all Japanese diplomats and closed the embassy. What do you think would happen if they said "no?"
More recently (2011, 2012), Canada and the UK expelled ALL of the Iranian diplomats in their countries.

But if you want the international law justification, Article 9 concerning diplomatic missions allows for the host country to expel any member of a receiving nation, without providing justification.

So it's in one's best interests to scadattle when the host nation says GTFO... Lest you end up a hostage, or lose your presidency to an actor from California.

I'm pretty sure we'd have taken a bunch of people hostage for a year?

Umm....but wait, with FDR as president and knowing they rounded up Japanese citizens into concentration camps, that may not have been so far fetched.

 

[88GT]

Well, info coming in from Geneva says some sort of deal has been reached. More details will be available soon enough, I guess. No matter what they've decided Israel will be against it.

Diplomats strike deal in Iran talks - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

You say that like Israel should love it. Or that they don't have any justification for opposing it.

So, using what passes for logic in Jerchap world, we should not be negotiating with [STRIKE]anyone[/STRIKE] nation that has proven itself to be a liar and fails to keep its promises. That's rational.

This is a more accurate representation of his intent, I believe. And it certainly is a more accurate representation of reality. It is rational. You don't make promises you intend to keep in exchange for promises the other side doesn't intend to keep. Would you continue to do business with a merchant that cheated you at every transaction? Same thing.

This is a preliminary agreement between Iran and the negotiating nations and, as far as I can see, there are no serious drawbacks to this deal, as it stands now. The inspectors will be allowed in and the one plant they have that could be capable of producing plutonium will no be allowed online. I guess in Jerchap world we should just start a war? Maybe not do the adult thing and talk it over till we reach a mutually agreeable solution to a perceived problem? No wonder no-one wants to deal with Americans on the right.

We? No. Israel? I think they have an obligation to assess the threat and take the appropriate action. I think your position that there is a morality regarding the use of force across international boundaries is without merit. It certainly stands in opposition to normal human behavior. War is the reality of heterogenous populations. The libertarian extension of opposition to the initiation of force from the individual level to the international level is a perfect example of policy formation based on what one wants the world to be like rather than what the world really is like. There is no law and justice to reign in the behavior of a rogue nation who doesn't play by the same rules. No courts or police officers to punish with pre-determined consequences. I think the concept of letting the other guy strike first to be inherently risky and colossally stupid. I don't believe Israel should make war. But I would not begrudge them the opportunity to do it. That said, all actions have consequences. Israel, or any other nation acting in its interest, must realize this and factor those potential consequences into the equation when making the decision.

Israel doesn't have much to lose by striking first and has a whole lot to gain by doing so. On the other hand, it doesn't have much to gain and has a whole lot to use if it waits for an Iranian strike. The only way Israel comes out ahead by waiting is if Iran chooses not to strike. If I'm the leader of an entire nation of peoples, can I bet their blood on the promises of a nation that has made clear its intent to annihilate me?

 

[Jludo]

If Israel is not the wound that he's talking about, what is?

Where he misquoted was in saying that it must be destroyed.
The Iranian president has never vowed to destroy Israel, as a matter of fact ahmadinejad never said such thing either.
Its like people thinking Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house, it gets said often enough and people start to believe it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You say that like Israel should love it. Or that they don't have any justification for opposing it.




This is a more accurate representation of his intent, I believe. And it certainly is a more accurate representation of reality. It is rational. You don't make promises you intend to keep in exchange for promises the other side doesn't intend to keep. Would you continue to do business with a merchant that cheated you at every transaction? Same thing.


We? No. Israel? I think they have an obligation to assess the threat and take the appropriate action. I think your position that there is a morality regarding the use of force across international boundaries is without merit. It certainly stands in opposition to normal human behavior. War is the reality of heterogenous populations. The libertarian extension of opposition to the initiation of force from the individual level to the international level is a perfect example of policy formation based on what one wants the world to be like rather than what the world really is like. There is no law and justice to reign in the behavior of a rogue nation who doesn't play by the same rules. No courts or police officers to punish with pre-determined consequences. I think the concept of letting the other guy strike first to be inherently risky and colossally stupid. I don't believe Israel should make war. But I would not begrudge them the opportunity to do it. That said, all actions have consequences. Israel, or any other nation acting in its interest, must realize this and factor those potential consequences into the equation when making the decision.

Israel doesn't have much to lose by striking first and has a whole lot to gain by doing so. On the other hand, it doesn't have much to gain and has a whole lot to use if it waits for an Iranian strike. The only way Israel comes out ahead by waiting is if Iran chooses not to strike. If I'm the leader of an entire nation of peoples, can I bet their blood on the promises of a nation that has made clear its intent to annihilate me?

It seems to be fashionable these days to not only call out Israel out when they appear to take heavy-handed actions, but to actually view them as a source of evil and their Arab/Muslim neighbors as some innocent, oppressed, and helpless bunch of victims.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Where he misquoted was in saying that it must be destroyed.
The Iranian president has never vowed to destroy Israel, as a matter of fact ahmadinejad said never such thing either.
Its like people thinking Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house, it gets said often enough and people start to believe it.

So when he says the people of Islam must stand against oppression and aggression in reference to Israel and that Israel is an open wound, he is actually saying we ought to buy them cookies and invite them over for Ramadan dinner?

I can't speak Arabic or Farsi or whatever language they speak but to assert those leaders never called for he destruction of Israel doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

[88GT]

It seems to be fashionable these days to not only call out Israel out when they appear to take heavy-handed actions, but to actually view them as a source of evil and their Arab/Muslim neighbors as some innocent, oppressed, and helpless bunch of victims.

I don't under the ire against Israel. I really don't.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't under the ire against Israel. I really don't.

Me neither. But there are several of them on INGO, so maybe some of them will enlighten us.

 

[88GT]

Where he misquoted was in saying that it must be destroyed.
The Iranian president has never vowed to destroy Israel, as a matter of fact ahmadinejad never said such thing either.
Its like people thinking Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house, it gets said often enough and people start to believe it.

Leave it to a time like this to be unable to find the link, but in point of fact, Imindeedanutjob DID make such a comment. And I posted as much in a thread here on INGO and try as I might I can't find it. I am not speaking of the older comment. The one I refer to is much newer, happening last year or earlier this year.

 

[cobber]

First if all, that "embassies are US soil" belief is a myth. Embassies simply fall under the jurisdiction of the sending nation.
Secondly, yes, that's exactly what Iran did. It closed the embassy... After the US failed to leave, as directed. Following Pearl Harbor the US expelled all Japanese diplomats and closed the embassy. What do you think would happen if they said "no?"
More recently (2011, 2012), Canada and the UK expelled ALL of the Iranian diplomats in their countries.

But if you want the international law justification, Article 9 concerning diplomatic missions allows for the host country to expel any member of a receiving nation, without providing justification.

So it's in one's best interests to scadattle when the host nation says GTFO... Lest you end up a hostage, or lose your presidency to an actor from California.

Expel yes, detain and threaten a trial, no.

Re the US soil issue, what is your source? Perhaps you consulted an attorney practicing international law?

Article 9? Are we talking UCC, or League of Nations, or what? If you are talking Vienna Convention, that applies to Persona Non Grata. How is that related to territoriality? So if a nation expels diplomats, or the entire mission, it can then occupy the premises? So the Iranians were actually within the law?

In the event the sending nation does not recall the PNG, what actual remedy is allowed under the Convention, Article 9?

My understanding was that the over-run of our embassy was NOT done by the government, but rather by a mob, and the government later owned it. Mob violence is the same as a governmental act?

From UN commentary on the very treaty you cite as controlling authority:

Article 22 confirms the inviolability of mission premises – barring any right of entry by law enforcement officers of the receiving State and imposing on the receiving State a special duty to protect the premises against intrusion, damage, disturbance of the peace or infringement of dignity. Even in response to abuse of this inviolability or emergency, the premises may not be entered without the consent of the head of mission. Article 24 ensures the inviolability of mission archives and documents – even outside mission premises – so that the receiving State may not seize or inspect them or permit their use in legal proceedings.

United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
Text here: http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/%28httpAssets%29/7F83006DA90AAE7FC1256F260034B806/$file/Vienna%20Convention%20%281961%29%20-%20E.pdf

So when did the Iranian government declare the American personnel PNGs and expel them pursuant to Article 9?

Was the student takeover of the compound a violation of Article 22?

How do you feel about Benghazi?

 

[rambone]

Did "Iran" really threaten to "wipe Israel off the map"?

 

[Mark 1911]

If Israel is not the wound that he's talking about, what is?

Seems obvious to me. As obvious as it has been for a very long time.

 

[Jludo]

So when he says the people of Islam must stand against oppression and aggression in reference to Israel and that Israel is an open wound, he is actually saying we ought to buy them cookies and invite them over for Ramadan dinner?

I can't speak Arabic or Farsi or whatever language they speak but to assert those leaders never called for he destruction of Israel doesn't pass the laugh test.

You can laugh all you want, doesn't make it alright to misquote their leaders. Ya they make no qualms about disliking Israel, it's when people claim they openly threaten Israel.

 

[88GT]

Iranian Calls for 'Islamic Awakening' - Middle East - News - Israel National News

Sheikholeslam said that “In near future the Islamic Awakening movement would also swallow the Zionist regime.”

Iran Calls for Israel's Destruction as Islamic Republic Marks Quds Day | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com

“Westerners are after [the establishment] of a new Middle East. We are also after a new Middle East which will definitely be formed … but in this new Middle East, there will be no trace of the US and Zionists,” Ahmadinejad said, according to Iranian news outlets.

Iran?s Supreme Leader: Israel Will ?Disappear From the Geographical Landscape? | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com

Iran’s supreme leader echoed the usual anti-Semitic commentary coming out of the Islamic Republic, saying Israel would “disappear from the geographical landscape” and be replaced by a Palestinian state, the Mehr news agency reported. “With God’s help, this year as well the Iranian nation will punch the faces of the enemies of Islam on Quds Day,” Khamenei said.

August 17, 2012

"The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor. Even if the Zionists remain on one span (more like inch) of the Land of Palestine is dangerous, because they will come to have a legal and official government."
"A new Middle East will definitely take shape, but with the grace of God and the help of the nations in this new Middle East, there will be no American or Zionist presence in it."
(Speech in Tehran marking annual Iran Quds Day protest against Israel's existence)

August 1, 2012

The Quds Day is not merely a strategic solution for the Palestinian problem, as it is to be viewed as a key for solving the world problems; any freedom lover and justice seeker in the world must do its best for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the path for the establishment of justice and freedom in the world…the presidential election hopefuls must go kiss the feet of the Zionists to ensure their victory in the election…

Foreign Ministry lists Iran?s anti-Israel remarks | JPost | Israel News

The Iranian president further stated that “the international al-Qods day is the day of unity among all human beings to remove the Zionist black stain from the human society.”

Is it the position of the deniers to argue that because the exact choice of words by Amhedinejad et. al. wasn't a literal translation of "wipe Isreal off the map" that Iran does not have annihillistic (I think I made that word up) intentions toward Israel? Are you reduced to quibbling over semantics? Does it change the foundation of the argument that Iran DOES in fact want Israel wiped off the map if they didn't use those specific words?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Is it the position of the deniers to argue that because the exact choice of words by Amhedinejad et. al. wasn't a literal translation of "wipe Isreal off the map" that Iran does not have annihillistic (I think I made that word up) intentions toward Israel? Are you reduced to quibbling over semantics? Does it change the foundation of the argument that Iran DOES in fact want Israel wiped off the map if they didn't use those specific words?

T'would appear so.

 

[Jludo]

I don't under the ire against Israel. I really don't.

Nobody has a problem with Israel, we just don't have a problem with Iran either. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in two centuries and no one has demonstrated their intent to attack anyone now. Its their problem, let them sort it out.
My only position is to keep the US out of any military action and do away with sanctions. People fabricating quotes isn't helping anything.

 

[Mark 1911]

"Barack Obama and Amhedinejad" is starting to sound too much like two figures from the not-so-far distant past, i.e Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler. We all know what that kind of policy ended up costing the world in terms of destruction and loss of life. Maybe our current leaders think the lessons of history are no longer relevant?

After all, nobody expected Hitler to invade Poland either.

 

[Jludo]

Is it the position of the deniers to argue that because the exact choice of words by Amhedinejad et. al. wasn't a literal translation of "wipe Isreal off the map" that Iran does not have annihillistic (I think I made that word up) intentions toward Israel? Are you reduced to quibbling over semantics? Does it change the foundation of the argument that Iran DOES in fact want Israel wiped off the map if they didn't use those specific words?

What complete BS, mistranslating and perpetuating a blatant lie. and then calling it semantics when you're called out for it? Come on. You can't keep saying they avow to 'wipe Israel off the map' and then "well they didn't literally say it, but that's what they mean"

 

[Jludo]

"Barack Obama and Amhedinejad" is starting to sound too much like two figures from the not-so-far distant past, i.e Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler. We all know what that kind of policy ended up costing the world in terms of destruction and loss of life. Maybe our current leaders think the lessons of history are no longer relevant?

Ahmadinejad hasn't been president of Iran for nearly 3 months now.

 

[Mark 1911]

What complete BS, mistranslating and perpetuating a blatant lie. and then calling it semantics when you're called out for it? Come on. You can't keep saying they avow to 'wipe Israel off the map' and then "well they didn't literally say it, but that's what they mean"

So you think Iran is just minding their own business, just wants to develop a peaceful nuclear energy program, Iran is a "nice guy" and means no harm to Israel?

Ahmadinejad hasn't been president of Iran for nearly 3 months now.

So because Ahmadinejad been gone for three whole months, now there's nothing to worry about any more from Iran?