Haganah Bet, you are singing the praises of an historical terrorist organisation if csteele's information is correct.

PaulL.,

This is why I had some problem with the links:
- Many of them are from the same article in the same tabloid.

Of that article,
- it uses the "wipe off the map" phrase without qualification, not mentioning any mistranslations (it presents the quote as fact).
- In that sense, how can one believe the other translations are accurate?
- Assuming the translations are accurate, they are really about the Israeli regime and this is perfectly reasonable. The current regime is extremely hostile to peace, and arguably criminal. These are not threats but the truth albeit from a different viewpoint. Western countries for example use threatening language about despotic regimes of their choice around the world. It's also perfectly reasonable to question the creation of Israel and whether it really has any legitmacy (at least in it's current form).

Are you advocating thought crime against Iran (while ASSUMING their intentions) based on some quotations that are questionably translated and utilised over and over again in western media despite this?

Iran is not producing nuclear weapons. There is no evidence that they are at all. (and even if they were, where are the sanctions and threats against India, Pakistan and Israel, who developed them illegally and/or are not signatories to the NPT?). What I'm saying is, the ones who are threatening here, with the track record of bombing other countries and implementing aggressive sanctions, is not Iran, it's the West....in fact the West has been violating Iranian sovereignty since 1953 at least. Iran under these threats and constant attacks have every right to pursue nuclear weapons (in my minority, but correct opinion)

here is something you should read on this issue. The IAEA has called bulls!@# on USA "facts" on Iran on numerous occassions. The US' own NIE also does this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#International_Atomic_Energy_Agency

"Fool Me Once, Shame on You, Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me"
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080225084143AAXuaEx

Why Steel do you need to quibble about CSteele's assertions when I admitted to the veracity of the same? Irgun/Etzel (but don't forget Lehi) was indeed, at one time, viewed as a terrorist organisation, yes I freely admit that.

The leader of Irgun/Etzel during the War of Independence is also the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his part in the Camp David accords while the leader of Israel.

He is the single most revered and reviled figure in Israel's history, yet his input was critical to the formation of the State.

Now, what do you mean by legitimacy in regard to the State of Israel, legitimacy how?

Under International Law? That is easy, it is recognised even by it's enemies (or some of them at least) who have entered into peace treaties, thereby recognising the legitimacy of the State.

Under the auspices of the UN? That is also rather simple, the State of Israel came into being as a result of UN Resolutions. That said, the validity of UN Resolutions comes a poor second to International Treaties, which supercede Resolutions by a big margin.

Biblically? Well that really is neither here nor there, regardless of the semantics entered into by either side, legitimacy is determined solely by reference to more earthly concerns (I have found that biblical arguments underlie a weak position).

Historically? Well, the State was promised as a homeland by the British as a lure to secure the yishuv's support during WWI. They fulfilled the deal, like King Talal(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Talal) of Jordan, King Faisal of Iraq(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_I_of_Iraq) & King Ibn Al'Saud of Saudi Arabia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud), they were/are entitled to the benefit thereof. That is the result of the Balfour declaration, as was agreed between Weizmann and Al'Saud.

As a matter of fact? That is the true position, because much as some people here dislike the fact, the State of Israel will continue to exist. Nothing short of coordinated offensive action between it's neighbours will change that (something they have proven to be singlularly inept at arranging to date, touch wood).

You're right it definitely has a solid basis and it's essentially part of the past. But that doesn't mean people or governments in the Middle East have to accept the circumstances upon which the state of Israel was built and must be silent on the issue. The current form of Israel probably wasn't envisioned by the original people who pledged such a state. I meant legitimacy in the sense of the comination of factors in the setup of it and the political system, which likely could be much better and which almost certainly exacerbates racial and/or religious frictions through it's exclusivity.

Thank you for being open Haganah Bet.

From my earlier posts you would have probably gained a fair inkling of how I would view the organisation and man that you idolise so I don’t feel the need to waste anyone’s time by elucidating those views here.

However following the theme of my conversation with PaulL permit me to point out that Yasser Arafat was also awarded the Nobel Peace prize. Therefore I am wondering if we follow your logic, and history, Arafat also “demonstrated that peace without security was an illusion and that true peace could never be achieved in the region without the power to demand it.” Doesn’t it therefore lead us to the conclusion that the only real difference between the two men is that Arafat never gained that power?

A Palestinian may hold just as legitimate view of Arafat as you do of Begin. It all comes down to what side of the fence you live on. I just seem to have a need to see both sides.

This follows when examining the histrionics about Ahmedinejhad from the various posters here. An earlier link from stephenlmeyer said “Roughly nine-in-ten (89%) Nigerian Christians have a favourable view of the U.S., compared with only 32% of Nigerian Muslims.” This tells us little about the merits of the view or the U.S., but far more about who holds them. Boaz claims to be a Christian and you have flagged your biases but I wonder about PaulL and Stephen.

I have tried to illustrate valid counter view points from my imaginary Iranian. It is certainly not that I have sympathy for those views more that I have empathy for the people who might hold them, as I would for you.

For instance when I hear that 7000 Taliban have been killed so far this year I can’t help but feel for them and their families. It is their invaded country and they have been caught up in the currents of world events not solely of their own making. Are they not deserving of our grief?

I will admit to being a little loathe to ask these questions Haganah Bet because of the audience they may play to and the connotations they draw from the past but since I expect I will get and honest answer I will take the risk. They do form part of a larger argument/theme.

Are you an Australian?

If you are and push came to shove whose interests would you put first, Israel’s or Australia’s?

Have you supported past actions by Israel that have run dramatically against the interests of Australia?

If not where have you drawn the line.

Did you support Australians with Jewish backgrounds joining and fighting with the IDF in the last conflict in Lebanon?

CSteele,

You ask some interesting questions, I will try to do them justice...

As an Australian Jew, I would hope firstly that the two were never in serious conflict, if that unfortunate turn of events should occur, my response would be dictated solely by my conscience. I do support the right of Australian Jews to fight for Israel, they are entitled to citizenship, which has it's price. Then again, service in the IDF is not specifically prohibited under Australian Law.

As to whether I regard Arrafat and Begin as being on par, I do not - my opinion in this regard is based upon the demonstrated duplicity (the maintenance of an armed terrorist wing actively killing Jewish civilians whilst supposedly seeking peace), the equally demonstrated level of corruption within the Palestinian Authority (the scale of which was breathtaking - while their people died for lack of food, aid and medical supplies) and the fact that Begin is remembered for seeking the best outcome for his people, not just himself.

That said, I have previously stated that I personally hold some, small hope that Hamas may have the makings of a genuine contender. If they remain true to their roots and continue to look after the communities that they have sworn to protect, then there may be some hope. If they can keep the balance between using force to protect and acheive limited objectives, if they can see that violence is not ultimately the answer, then yes, there just may be - the question is, can they do so while still remaining relevant within their electorate?

It may be counter-intuitive, but lasting peace is only ever derived from strength, not weakness (eg.Begin-Sadaat). Peace (as opposed to a cease-fire/truce) only lasts when neither party can afford to breach it.