Here's Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations addressing the Iranian people, with Farsi subtitles, telling them that "we" (the Jews, the U.S.) want to have a close relationship with the Iranians again, to help them prosper, if they will just give up their nuclear dreams. Here's MJ Rosenberg skewering Hoenlein for presuming to represent the Jews.
I notice that Hoenlein says that the Iranians are seeking "hegemony" in the region. Is that such a bad thing? Realists say that all states seek hegemony in their region, as a way to protect themselves. It's why the Israelis sought nuclear weapons more than 40 years ago, without the international outcry. Trita Parsi says that Tehran and Jerusalem have battled for hegemony for centuries. The Israelis have hegemony now. What if the Israelis offered to give up their nukes in order that Tehran would abandon its schemes? Would never happen, right? Chomsky's right, true nonproliferation's the best answer.
If the Arab and Islamic world universally accepted Israel and established diplomatic relations on a peer status, then the conditions of deferred (or not so deferred) war would cease, and it would be feasible for Israel to give up nukes.
Its not the case now. There is NO public indication that Iran, or even Syria are willing to cease aggression with Israel.
Iran is the key. Syria can treaty with Israel, but so long as it maintains comparable relations to Iran as presently (agent for Iranian agitation), a peace treaty with Syria is paper only.
It is NOT insignificant that Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and others receive military and financial support from Iran, and maintain functional proxy armies ON Israel's borders.
Thats if you want to get "realist".
@Richard Witty: "There is NO public indication that Iran, or even Syria are willing to cease aggression with Israel."
What on earth are you talking about Richard? There is no indication that Iran or Syria has ever initiated aggression against Israel. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the Jewish supremacist hegemon known as Israel.
See how slick Richard presents the problem.
"If the Arab and Islamic world universally accepted Israel …."
Translated,from zionise,"If the Palestinians give up the right of return, and allow the Jews to control Jerusalem ,we will make nice with Iran".
Don't think the Palestinians are going to buy that Richard. Maybe you could pass this revelation back to your pals in the Lobby.
Repeat after me – Iran is not a threat to Israel. Iran is certainly a threat to Israel's hegemony in the Middle East, which is another thing entirely. Iraq was also a threat, and so it had to be dismantled.
Eqpyt was the dominant early threat, but that was readily dismantled.
Ghada Karmi's Married To Another Man is quite good on Israel's long thrust for hegemony through either the reduction ot Arab states to quisling status (Jordan, Eqypt) or to the strategic destabilisation and disintegration (Lebanon, Iraq).
It's all bollocks
Witty says: "There is NO public indication that Iran, or even Syria are willing to cease aggression with Israel."
The above is a perfect expression of Jew-think a la Witty et al, inter alia.
On one side we have 6 million (non-aggressive?) Israelis killing the Gazans like fish in a barrel, destroying half of Beirut, thumbing their noses at the UN, at World Opinion and International Law, selling arms and WMD to anyone who'll buy them, upsetting the oil security of the whole world; a primary cause of the aggression against Iraq that has left that country in ruins (they don't give a shit), and promising to visit another thuggish holocaust on various other countries that are too weak to protect themselves.
On the other side we have one Arabic version of our Mumbler-in-Chief, who in the same manner as Bush is way out of his league speaking in public and who doesn't realize that paranoid Jews are listening really closely for any hint of lack of *respect* for their thuggish power. [If these aggressive Jews were on your freeway, you would be well-advised to drive timidly like a Palestinian in the slow lane so as not to 'threaten the existence' of these folks who will never again let you forget the Holocaust, and what that means for their driving peace of mind.]
First of all, Iran cooperated with us after 911 in Afghanistan. Too bad Iran was a better chess player than our bumbling putzes that came up with the Grand Scheme to Make the Middle East Safe for Democracy (and Jewish hegemony). Iran's people, from diplomats to military leaders, have not expressed a fraction of the aggression that Israel's people have. The Jews are on the warpath, holding 75 million Iranians and the economic life-blood of the world hostage to the ill-advised words of just another ignorant misunderestimated president.
Second, Syria is cooperating with various American idiots (and their Jewish enablers)who think that torture of lesser human beings is perfectly acceptable. The Syrian people have not expressed a fraction of the aggression that has come their way from Israel and the Lobby.
The Jew-controlled media has already brain-washed most Americans into believing that Iran has to be prevented from enriching Uranium and deserves to be attacked over this problem. Meanwhile, Iran has already developed all the rocket power she needs to knock out most of the refineries in the Middle East. So, as many in Iran have stated, it doesn't need nuclear weapons as a deterent to Israeli/American aggression. How difficult is it to target 7 missiles out of every 10,000 at each refinery in Saudi Arabia? One missile appiece and the oil-based economy of the world goes up in smoke before your very eyes! And what would you expect the Iranian people being burned alive by our high-tech weaponry to utter in their dieing breaths?: that they deserved to die in a fiery holocaust caused by excessive fear of one's neighbors?