the same can be said about the 6 arab initiated wars over the past half century.

According to the Iran's official news agency:

If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why should the Palestinian nation pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions. [...] The same European countries have imposed the illegally-established Zionist regime on the oppressed nation of Palestine. If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there. Then the Iranian nation will have no objections, will stage no rallies on the Qods Day and will support your decision.[44]

According to United States media:

They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets. The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets, (it) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet. If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel? Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime? [45]

But he goes beyond just saying that Israel should disappear, attacking them on another front such as whether or not a holocaust happened. His intentions are obvious.

He may not intend to attack Israel with Persian troops... and why should he... when he can just arm someone else to do it for him... does that make him less dangerous?

If so, then we should not complain about the US arming Israel and letting them wipe Iran off the face of the map... since 'we' didn't pull the trigger ourselves.

Its easy to take something said in another language and bend it to what you already believe. ;) I know, I know... that cuts both ways...

... so now what?

if they were, why do they protect the Jewish enclave that lives within Iran?

I know how the recent war with Hezbollah has been spun by Israeli political and military spokesmen and it is my opinion based on the available evidence that it was Israel who was violating Lebanese sovereignty in a cross border military OP that led to the capture of the two IDF soldiers ... just as they have done hundreds of times before ... perhaps with the implicit goal of provoking a conflict with Hezbollah in order to get the US to move against Iran.

You are entitled to your opinions of course, but I would prefer that the US ceases all military and financial support for Israel ... I don't want one red cent of my tax dollars supporting that country.

I consider it a rogue nation that is responsible for endangering the whole world.

If we had any politicians within this country that truly cared for America and had a spine we would at least be having a national conversation about such support ... but with the media being under the sway of a whole swath of Zionist inspired propaganda, and the US Congress being Israeli occupied territory ... I'm not going to hold my breath for that to happen anytime soon.

Currently peaceful Iran is discussing protecting their jews by requiring them to wear identifying marks. Hmm...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1516930/posts

Ahmadinejad said, “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury. Any [Islamic leader] who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."

What does a "right to exist" mean exactly? There is no "right to exist" for states under international law. The formula has arisen in international diplomacy uniquely regarding Israel. It does not mean simply diplomatic recognition, which is the "fact" of existence. It does not mean recognizing Israel's "right to self-determination," either, or we would be using that famous term.

Let us pretend for a moment that Hamas is being asked to recognize Israel in the normal diplomatic sense. In this case, however, the EU position is unsupportable, because diplomatic recognition of a state routinely requires one bit of vital information: "right to exist" where? Israel's borders are not set. Even its plans for those borders are not known; with impressive brashness, Mr. Olmert has announced that we will not know until 2010.

It is entirely legitimate for Hamas to require firm confirmation of Israel's borders before recognizing it. It should also be incumbent on the international community to confirm where those borders will be before insisting that Hamas recognize Israel's "right" to them. Otherwise, recognizing Israel's "right to exist" could be construed to mean that Israel has a "right to exist" within whatever borders it chooses in coming years.

As the Palestinians stand to lose most of what is left of their homeland to this fuzziness, Hamas is refusing to endorse it. Is this extremist Islamic intransigence, warranting a funding freeze? Let us run a little thought experiment: Would Canadian, or Norwegian, or English, or French governments be called on the international carpet for not recognizing the "right to exist" of a neighboring state that is, with military force, settling its own ethnically defined population within contiguous walled cities and enclaves in Canadian, Norwegian, English or French national territories, while promising to carve those nations into "cantons?"

Absent clear borders, recognizing Israel's "right to exist" must mean something else. And of course it does. Clearly implicit in the term is Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. In other words, the "right" Hamas is being required to endorse is that Israel can legitimately compose itself as a state in Palestine that is populated and run primarily by Jews, primarily for Jews.

Such a state would thus be authorized by Hamas to sustain whatever laws and policies necessary to preserving its Jewish majority, even rejecting the return of Palestinian refugees mandated by international law. Or building a massive Wall on Palestinian land designed to protect the Jewish state from the "demographic threat" of mass non-Jewish citizenship-i.e., the Palestinians. Israel's would also be legitimized for past actions on the same agenda, such as expelling the Palestinians from their homes in 1948, and for its future plans, such as confining Palestine's indigenous people to cantons.

Harking back to its pre-Oslo days when Fatah, an international terrorist organization, led the Arab struggle against the Jewish state, the group’s armed wing has become the first Palestinian organization to publicly identify with Iran’s president’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call to “wipe Israel off the map.”

Now really look at what you found. Which do you believe? English.aljezeera.net or www.aljezeera.net or the translated pages from aljezeera.net? Not to mention aljezeera.com.

same damned song everywhere I go.” Ani DiFranco

One of the calls for punative action against Iran via UN economic sanctions or possible military attacks against its fledgling nuclear program, is based on the premise that Iran must not be allowed to develop even peaceful nuclear capability, because of its radical stance. As evidence they point to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map."

Turns out that the accusation is more debatable than fact.