https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croesus#War_against_Persia_and...
Ayatollah Khomeini himself wrote a personal note thanking the hospital for its help after the revolution succeeded.
https://www.csmonitor.com/1998/0203/020398.intl.intl.3.html
""" It comes as a surprise to many visitors to discover that Iran, a country so hostile to Israel and with a reputation for intolerance, is home to a small but vibrant Jewish community that is an officially recognized religious minority under Iran's 1979 Islamic Constitution.
"Khomeini didn't mix up our community with Israel and Zionism - he saw us as Iranians," says Haroun Yashyaei, a film producer and chairman of the Central Jewish Community in Iran."""
Iran's objection is not with Judaism but with the occupation and the meddling in their affairs through proxies.
Like you just posted a straight up lie
The phrasing is "After Israel, it is home to the second-largest Jewish population in the Middle East."
The links you posted actually support my point rather than refute it.
The "Jewish population by country" page lists Iran at 8,500–20,000. Palestine is not listed as a separate entry with a larger Jewish population.
You may be referring to Israeli settlers in the West Bank, but those individuals are Israeli citizens counted under Israel's population in every demographic source I'm aware of.
Counting them under "Palestine" would require simultaneously recognizing Palestine as a sovereign state while attributing Israeli citizens to it, which no standard demographic dataset does.
If you have a source that counts a Jewish population in a recognized state called Palestine that exceeds Iran, I'd genuinely be interested to see it. But calling a direct Wikipedia/BBC citation a "straight up lie" is a strong claim that should probably come with a stronger source and also shows, you arrive with an ulterior agenda, that I at least, do not have.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Jews [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm
To accuse parent of lying is taking it much too far
But in this case, there's not really much ambiguity - Trump is openly threatening genocide and, as a result, is destroying any remaining moral authority that the USA might once have had.
They even send JD Vance to support Orban in his elections. The same Orban and Hungary which Xi Jinping supports and recently visited out of all the EU.
You cannot agree with someone on so many actions and keep pretending that you are against each other.
That said the general chaos of Russia vs the west and US against Iran makes China relatively stronger as it sits things out and watches.
At what point are the US military expected to refuse unlawful orders? Some form of high-level mutiny might actually be the best way forward for America right now.
I don’t think making unbased claims adds to the discussion; the facts are already severe enough to warrant their own critique.
Or if you put CO2 in the atmosphere you are contributing to toxicity and global warming?
We don’t know which infrastructure he wants to attack, and even if people do die, that is still not genocide.
Genocide is very clear intent to destroy a people.
Destroying infrastructure, or any war, is serious enough as is, we don’t need to fake arguments here.
I think you may be living under a rock. He has announced multiple times that he wants to go after oil processing, power plants, desalination plants, and bridges. His threat for today's deadline (made last week) is to destroy every power plant and bridge in the country.
Indeed we don't. So why make them?
"a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again."
where is the intent ambiguous to you? are you just one of those that says Trump blusters big to force negotiations? otherwise, he's quite clearly said the he wants to eliminate "a whole civilization" which is exactly what genocide is. not really sure how you can be confused on this other than willingly so
Such great deal making, love it.
Article IIc of the Genocide Convention would likely cover that particular case, but I'll note that that's just your reading of it - Trump hasn't actually given specifics.
What he definitely has done, though, is make a clear statement of intent. And, historically, the most difficult part in proving genocide has been with demonstrating intent. Trump's just made that bit easy.