Ahmadinejad: Iran Will Never Recognize Israel

[oberliner]

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad underscored that Tehran would by no means recognize the Zionist regime of Israel and would continue support for the oppressed Palestinian people for good.

"The Iranian nation will never recognize the Zionist regime," Ahmadinejad said, addressing a number of Muslim figures and scholars in New York on Monday night.

His remarks were appreciated by the applause of the audience.

Ahmadinejad further stressed Iran's seriousness in supporting the Palestinian, Lebanese and other nations as an Islamic and humanitarian duty, and said this is why the arrogant powers are angry at Iran.

Iran has always attached much importance to the Palestinian issue and provided support for the Palestinian people.

In recent remarks earlier this month, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei described Palestine as the number one issue of the Islamic World.

http://english.farsnews.net/newstext.php?nn=8906301449

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proteus_lives]

5. I couldn't put it any better even if I tried.

:thumbsup:

[oberliner]

6. Interesting that the Iranian news agency uses "Zionist regime" and Israel interchangeably

At least in this article.

[still_one]

2. He also won't recognize gays, women, Baha'i, Jews, and other groups. The asshole is a bigot

[dennis4868]

3. SOUNDS LIKE...

Newt Gingrich!

[LeftishBrit]

4. Agreed

[Ken Burch]

8. And we can assume that any Iranian leader, especially one put in power by a U.S. invasion

would also be a bigot.

It's a country that will never have a progressive government by any of our standards.

Especially if the U.S. REALLY did what it wants and put a leftover Pahlevi back on the throne.

[oberliner]

18. Why is Iran a country that will never have a progressive government?

I don't understand why you are saying that the people of Iran are not capable of such a thing.

[Ken Burch]

21. It may have a government with progressive qualities

But that government is not going to be pro-Israel(at least not before a lot changes in terms of Israel's treatment of Palestinians).

There's an assumption in the minds of some folks that if only the U.S. bombed Iran or overthrew Ahmadinejad, the Iranian government would then be exactly the sort of regime "The West" wants. That is not going to happen. Iran will never organize itself on Western terms.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

37. Look at how well it has worked out for the people of Palestine.

NOT.

[LeftishBrit]

22. 30 years ago...

the same might have been said about most Latin American countries.

They had brutal tyrannical leaders, some of them installed by America; and one could be pretty sure that Reagan et al would have liked to keep many of the nasty leaders, and replace others by even worse ones.

Yet many (not all) of these same countries now have fairly good leaders.

30 years ago most people were pretty sure that the Soviet Union, short of a big war, would continue in the same form more-or-less forever. Yet it didn't.

40 years ago, Spain was still under semi-fascist rule, seemingly almost untouched by the defeat of fascism 25 years earlier. Now it is one of the world's more progressive countries.

Why assume that Iran will NEVER be progressive?

I agree that it won't become progressive through invasion and war; but that doesn't mean it can't become progressive at all.

[Ken Burch]

24. It could it if it chose to ON ITS OWN TERMS

U.S. bombing of so-called Iranian "nuclear" sites can't cause that.

And Hillary "last of the 'liberal hawks' Clinton" has got to be made to accept the fact that, from here on in, the use of American force for any purpose other than repelling a foreign attack on U.S. territory can never again be progressive. World War II was the only time it ever was.

[Shaktimaan]

34. I don't understand.

What is your definition of the word "progressive?"

Why do you consider WWII progressive but not WWI, the Korean war or any others? What about WWII made American involvement specifically progressive? I mean, I would get it better if you said it was "ethical" or "necessary." But progressive?

And what makes you think HC gives a crap about being progressive anyway?

[LeftishBrit]

36. No one, least of all me, was saying that it could become progressive through being bombed by the US

However, you can't go from that to saying that it is 'a country that will never have a progressive government by any of our standards'.

[Ken Burch]

7. So what? The Shah never recognized Israel either.

No Iranian government of any stripe ever would. Therefore, Bad Beard Boy's announcement doesn't actually matter.

[Jim Sagle]

9. Actually he did.

From Cosmeo: Discovery Channel's Online Homework Help Service.'s Iran page (my emphasis):

The Shah's Growing Power.

After he was restored to his throne with the aid of the U.S. in 1953, Shah Muhammad Riza Pahlavi became increasingly confident and secure in his ruling position and began to devote more attention to his dynastic aspirations. He had divorced his first wife in 1948 because she had borne him no male heir, and in 1959 he dissolved his second marriage for the same reason. He remarried in 1959, and the new queen gave birth to a son, Prince Riza Pahlavi, in 1960.

At the same time he began to exercise more and more control over the government, keeping it closely aligned with the U.S. In March 1959, Iran signed a defense agreement with the U.S. On July 23, 1960, Iran recognized Israel; the step led to difficulties with Egypt, and the Arab League announced extension of its boycott of Israel to include Iran.

[Ken Burch]

10. I stand corrected about the past.

However, we can still assume that no future Iranian government would recognize Israel. And, as a pro-Israeli type, I think you'd really need to ask yourself, at some point, if Israel gained anything from having diplomatic relations from one of the most repressive and hated regimes in the region, a regime that was hated around the world?

Israel SHOULD have tried to form alliances with the world's liberation movements, not the world's defenders of the status quo.

[proteus_lives]

11. And you have no problem with that.

[Ken Burch]

12. I didn't say that.

I simply said that it's an unrealizable objective AS LONG AS Israel maintains the status quo in the West Bank.

You're not going to get any Arab or Muslim recognition of Israel WITHOUT Israel accepting a viable Palestinian state.

It's always been silly of past Israeli governments to have believed otherwise(as Begin's government did when it set up that silly stage set for the "regional conference" that is fatuously invited the Arab and Muslim countries to attend shortly before Camp David, even though the Israelis KNEW nobody would show up for it).

And at a certain level, the whole obsession with "recognition" just ends up sounding childish. Countries have gone to war AFTER having diplomatic relations in the immediate past(look at both world wars in the 20th Century). If Israel has trust issues with the Arab world now, why shouldn't we assume that the Israeli political class will do everything it can to keep those trust issues alive AFTER widespread regional recognition of it was achieved? The dominant parties in Israel now owe their dominance solely to the climate of paranoia and hatred they've carefully nurtured. Do you think they'd just let that end? Why would they, when doing so would send Likud, Kadima and Beitenyu to the political boneyard?

The primary issue is statehood for the Palestinians. Get that dealt with fairly and decently, and it then becomes possible to deal with the other issues. Insisting on recognition before anything else happens serves no purpose and isn't a realistic goal.

[proteus_lives]

13. "You're not going to get any Arab or Muslim recognition of Israel WITHOUT Israel..."

"accepting a viable Palestinian state."

Not according to Egypt or Jordan.

Silly as the Saudi peace plan.

"And at a certain level, the whole obsession with "recognition" just ends up sounding childish."

Childish to you. Maybe it's not childish to get recognition from nations that have attempted to destroy Israel on several occasions.

But of Israeli concerns don't matter to you.

[Ken Burch]

14. Egypt is seen, throughout the region, as having betrayed the Palestinians

and Jordan has lost prestige in the rest of the Arab world for playing fast and loose with Palestinian rights.

Both states are permanently isolated in the regional dynamic.

No other Arab government would ever, under any circumstance, take the risk of the kind of grassroots blowback and diplomatic isolation that Egypt and Jordan received for selling out the Palestinians. Why even bother trying to get any other nations to TAKE such a risk?

It should be enough to get recognition at the moment a viable Palestinian state is created. There's no reason Israel HAS to have it first. Getting recognition first is not going to put Israel in a stronger position than recognition at the moment the Palestinian state was created.

And recognition without the creation of a Palestinian state doesn't make Israelis any safer than non-recognition. We can assume that Arab states that recognized Israel without getting a Palestinian state in exchange would be overthrown. We can then assume that the first acts of the provisional forces that overthrew them would be to REVOKE recognition. Knowing that, why is it worth getting such "recognition"
It would be the diplomatic equivalent of "fools' gold"-flashy, but worthless.

Why base Israeli diplomatic and military strategy on the most risky approach, rather than the least risky one?

[oberliner]

15. Actually most of the Arab world have said they would recognize Israel

In fact it is one of the key components of the Arab Peace Initiative.

Iran is the only country whose leadership seems to be saying that they would never recognize Israel.

[Ken Burch]

16. Yes---IN EXCHANGE for the creation of a Palestinian state

They won't do it WITHOUT getting that state.

And there's no good reason that Israel should insist on getting the recognition FIRST.

What matters is getting the recognition, and getting it under terms that won't undermine the governments that offer the recognition.

[oberliner]

17. Right - but Iran is saying they would never recognize Israel

The message is not - we will not recognize Israel until there is a Palestinian state (as most of the Arab world has stated).

But rather - we will not recognize Israel ever, no matter what.

[Ken Burch]

20. If, in exchange for a Palestinian state, you got all the OTHER states in the region

to recognize Israel, it really doesn't matter as much what Iran does. In any case, no good could come of any Western-backed attempt to overthrow the current Iranian government, since all they will do is harden Iranian grassroots opinion against both the U.S. AND Israel for years to come, if not eternally.

Better to deal with the other countries and not obsess about Iran.

[azurnoir]

23. Isn't it a bit "strange" that Iran recognized Israel in 1960 under the Shah but apparently

what is being said now is all that matters when simultaneously Iran signed the NPT also under that same long depose Shah and is being held to the letter of law on that? IMO a bit of a double standard

[oberliner]

25. Iran recognized Israel in 1960?

What is your evidence of that? When did this happen exactly?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

27. copied from post 9 in this thread

From Cosmeo: Discovery Channel's Online Homework Help Service.'s Iran page (my emphasis):

The Shah's Growing Power.

After he was restored to his throne with the aid of the U.S. in 1953, Shah Muhammad Riza Pahlavi became increasingly confident and secure in his ruling position and began to devote more attention to his dynastic aspirations. He had divorced his first wife in 1948 because she had borne him no male heir, and in 1959 he dissolved his second marriage for the same reason. He remarried in 1959, and the new queen gave birth to a son, Prince Riza Pahlavi, in 1960.

At the same time he began to exercise more and more control over the government, keeping it closely aligned with the U.S. In March 1959, Iran signed a defense agreement with the U.S. On July 23, 1960, Iran recognized Israel; the step led to difficulties with Egypt, and the Arab League announced extension of its boycott of Israel to include Iran.

[oberliner]

29. Iran did not formally recognize Israel

On the date cited, the Shah gave an interview which has been interpreted as Iran affirming that de facto recognition of Israel had been granted (dating back to 1950).

[azurnoir]

30. well it is apprently a common "misconception "

The Shah of Iran was the first Muslim leader to recognize the State of Israel, although when interviewed on CBS 60 Minutes by reporter, Mike Wallace, he criticized US Jews for their control over US media and finance. < [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQgZ3oLp_WY Mike Wallace interviews Mohammad Reza Pahlavi> ]

During his reign however, it was reported in the New York Times (1982), that half of the arms to Iran were "being supplied or arranged by Israel".

http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/139370

Pahlavi has lived in exile since 1979, when his father, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, was overthrown during the Islamic Revolution. Under the shah's regime, Iran saw nationalization of its oil and a strong movement toward modernization. Still, his secular programs and recognition of Israel cost him the support of the country's Shiite clergy, sparking clashes with the religious right and others who resented his pro-West views.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/22/iran.crown.prince/

While a Muslim himself, the Shah gradually lost support with the Shi'a clergy of Iran, particularly due to his strong policy of Westernization and recognition of Israel. Clashes with the religious right, increased communist activity, Western interference in the economy, and a 1953 period of political disagreements with Mohammad Mossadegh (in which each side accused the other of staging a coup, eventually leading to Mossadegh's downfall) would cause an increasingly autocratic rule

http://tripatlas.com/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

[oberliner]

31. Would you consider reading a book on the subject?

Each of these internet snippets (except for CNN) actually all appear to refer back to the same Wikipedia entry for the Shah. The YouTube video says nothing about Iran recognizing Israel - in fact, it is just the Shah going on about supposed Jewish control/power in the US.

There are several good books that you might want to consider reading if you are interested in understanding this topic in greater depth.

One is Israel's Quest for Recognition and Acceptance in Asia: Garrison State Diplomacy by Jacob Abadi which looks at Israel's attempts to convince Iran to grant de jure recognition and the pressures within Iran that prevented that from occurring (mostly due to opposition from nationalist and religious groups within the Iranian parliament).

[azurnoir]

32. sure I have read enough already to know there was an arms trade between

Iran and Israel and supposedly Ben-Gurion made a secret visit to Iran but sure

[oberliner]

33. Good info!

The book I recommended discusses that visit as well.

[proteus_lives]

19. I think most Israelis would support a Palestinian state.

The trick is a fair peace.

The devil is in the details.

[Ken Burch]

26. The trick is in not trying to sabotage a Palestinian state

by denying it contiguous control of the West Bank, or absolute control of its own water supply.

The Israeli government has got to make it clear that it has given up any notion, once and for all, of trying to force Palestinians to settle for either permanent exile or statelessness(and Likud-style "autonomy" equals permanent statelessness, since it would never lead to a state)on their own land.

Peace requires the Israelis to treat the Palestinian side as equals in all of this. The Israelis have no reason to object to that, OR to insist that self-determination for Palestinians is a privilege to be earned rather than a natural right.

[proteus_lives]

28. I agree.

"contiguous control of the West Bank, or absolute control of its own water supply."

The future Palestinian state should have both those things.

But the Palestinians (and the Arab states behind them) need to recognize Israel's security concerns. Both sides have to be willing to give.

[Shaktimaan]

35. What?

Since when does any Arab state care about the Palestinians? What kind of blowback and isolation did Jordan experience? And how did they sell out the Palestinians as compared to every other Arab state?

And how is Egypt isolated in the regional dynamic? Egypt?!

We can assume that Arab states that recognized Israel without getting a Palestinian state in exchange would be overthrown.

What? Why? That seems like a lot to assume. You really think people care enough about that to revolt on a large scale?

And at a certain level, the whole obsession with "recognition" just ends up sounding childish.

Not really. It gives the Israelis a much needed affirmation of support for peace. Knowing that a state is willing to make an official declaration instead of just promises behind closed doors demonstrates a level of commitment and honesty that would push Israeli popular support much higher. It sounds symbolic to you, sure. But it is very real currency in real-politick. Think about Sadat's trip to Jerusalem. That demonstrated a very real level of commitment to Israel. It meant something.