I mean, Iran's leadership have literally and publicly called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Several times.
I don't think it's an overreaction to at least consider the possibility that they might mean what they say.
I don't think it's an overreaction to at least consider the possibility that they might mean what they say.
Unlike John McCain singing "bomb bomb Iran" during his 2008 campaign https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris
Iran has also never shot down a US passenger flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
"Public timer, which is set to mark destruction of Jewish state in 2040 as predicted by Khamenei..."
I don't know how Iranian leadership can make it any clearer they want Israel gone? What more should they say or do?
Is wanting an Israel state gone different than wanting the Israeli inhabitants gone?
I see a possible difference, especially if Iranians are forced to choose between Palestine and Israel existing.
Not really imo no. I'm not necessarily saying Iran wants to kill every last Israeli but the "solution" they are planning for the region is definitely a violent one. Why else would they invest so much in Hezbollah/Hamas etc.
"Iran said they want to destroy Israel. Israel should be worried."
To which you reply: "Well, there are two sides. Israel said they want to drown Palestine."
So now let's ask a follow up question: Israel said they want to drown Palestine, should Palestine worry about Israel?
Secondly, saying "Israel's leadership" said they want to drown Palestinians is a pretty ridiculous claim. Who said it exactly? When? Are they currently Israel's leadership?
Cause Israel is a democracy with many officials. Without something more specific, even if this is a real thing, it's like pointing to US congresspeople from the 1950s saying "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" and using that to "prove" that Obama is actually racist.
Whereas Iranian leadership is a dictatorship and the same people claiming they would like to kill all Israelis are the people in power now.
And there are debates about the state of Israels democracy: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/democracy-means-ju...
That said, you're leaving out context that make clear this is different.
Maybe the biggest difference is - he didn't suggest drowning all Palestinians, unlike the statements calling to "eradicate Israel". He specifically said it's better to drown Palestinian prisoners in the sea rather than release them (as part of a security deal, I believe.) (Which is still a despicable thing to say, don't get me wrong, but a very different thing nonetheless)
Also, the headline from the article that talks about this statement is "Lieberman Blasted for Suggesting Drowning Palestinian Prisoners". His sentiment is far too widespread, but statements like those are still not palatable. (Though to be fair, the situation today is probably worse.)
> And there are debates about the state of Israels democracy
Yeah things are not looking super rosy, but so far everything is speculation. There were also worries about the US's democracy, worries about a potential constitutional crisis, etc. I think it's safe to still call the US a democracy.
Interesting how there is very little discomfit about that from non Israelis.
What do you expect the Iranian government to do.
(Which is what the post you replied to was talking about…)
But I am not sure if this discussion thread is intended to be factual or not.
https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1018803983543078912
https://twitter.com/JasonMBrodsky/status/1262782215756361730 The "final solution" when talking about Jews... hmmm, what could they possibly mean?
All I said in my original comment was that it's not an overreaction to at least consider the possibility that they might mean what they say. Is it so obvious to you that there's literally nothing to worry about?
100%, and obviously Iran is an adversary of Israel's.
But expressing hope that your adversary falls (and wishing ill on their people) and directly threatening them are distinct. Given the heat of this discussion, I think that's a fair delineation to make.
Not sure how some originality changes the sentiment. I don't think it's relevant in the slightest.
> Not a credible threat by a head of state.
I don't think you have looked up what credible means. National leadership is credible. That's the nature of the role. Political posturing are tactics of leadership as well, but that doesn't make the sentiments less credible. Opportunity often changes a feint into an actual assault, in conflicts.
I think we're talking about the fact that much of the Iranian leadership would press a button that made Israel magically disappear without additional consequence, if they could...following that, what would they be willing to sacrifice to do it?
If you don't think there is any possibility that Iran would want Israel gone, that's fine. At least come out and say it.
Much of every country's leadership would do this to their adversaries. That shows credible intent, not a credible threat.
There is motive. There is opportunity. The lacking element is means.
There are a large number of conditions (access to nuclear ordinace, among others) wherein means is achieved. Threat is not simply about what means exist now, but the conditions and consequences of change. The world conditions ensure it's a credible threat and countries take it seriously, despite your misgivings.
Apparent capability is an important component of threat credibility under practically every military doctrine.
The more fundamental question is: does this represent a policy stance or domestic messaging point? One can reasonably disagree on the answer. But the quotes I've been shown sound more like bluster than actual threats. For evidence of Iran's belligerence, these statements are relatively par for the course. (Their extraterritorial meddling makes a stronger pitch for credible intent and threat.)
Is it not a credible threat because they don't have means? 'Cause I'm not sure what you might mean otherwise.
(How on earth these are still up on Twitter is a separate discussion)
You posted a link from 2011 about Ahmedinejad being mistranslated but there are plenty of other times the Iranian authorities have called for the destruction of Israel.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070708083524/http://www.iribne...
It's not relevant to the discussion though. We're talking about "Israel" defending itself, not "the Jews".
https://mondoweiss.net/2020/07/we-have-biblical-rights-to-th...
There are women living in Iran, who are on the whole well-treated /s
Oh boi, I have a treat for you.
There are billboards in famous public squares or places in Iran which even have countdown until destruction of Israel! Here is one from a semi-official news agency that has ties with IRGC! The article is from a few years ago, but you can still find these billboards throughout the cities!
Title of the news article: "Countdown of destruction of Zionist regime in Palestine"
On the billboard: "Remaining until destruction of Israel"
https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1396/05/10/1480680/روز-شم...
This one is installed in the center of Tehran, the capital!
Edited to fix the style