More like "oranges and grapefruit."

They don't EXACTLY line up perfectly; but the're pretty close.

I'm sure that Mr. Cole understands much of his potential audience here in the USA and titled it accordingly.

I thought that was the neocons and Israel.

That's what this hatred and incitement is all about.

while simultaneously running several themselves?

Is it possible there are peace proposals that all of Israel's neighbors would accept but Israel rejects?

Or do you just like asking irrelevant rhetorical questions as a diversion?

...considering that Iran has exported and supported numerous terrorist acts.

the return of the 12th Imam, al-Mahdi.

whats not to like?

a 12th imam, and that's because I think it feeds into their rapture/eschatology/second coming fantasies.

1. Women are not subjugated

2. Homosexuals are not stoned to death.

There are many more, but those are two biggies.

And yup.

I don't get this OP, at all.

Of course, Israel has many negatives. Of course, Iran has some "reasons" for its current governance. Neither of those things changes the reality of anything.

Why can't people just put everything on the table and be honest?

but Palestinians do not count I suppose.

Iran is run by a fundy dictatorship.

Israel is not.

Iran's government held Americans hostage.

Israel never did.

"Iran is fun by a fundy dictatorship."

What does "fundy" mean? Is it a quippy suggestion that Iran funds terrorism? Saudi Arabia, a major U.S. ally, is by far the biggest funder of terrorism in the Middle East. In fact, the Sunni-ruled (not Iran) Persian Gulf states are a large reason why ISIS even exists (the other big cause is the United States.)

Iran is authoritarian, but Saudi Arabia, the U.S.' biggest ally in the region, is a MONARCHY. A MONARCHY. This is the only form of government that appears in U.S. foundational documents--the Declaration of Independence--explicitly stating the danger of such an authoritarian regime.

"Israel is not."

Israel is a massive propaganda state that brainwashes its population into supporting vicious atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank.

"Iran's government held Americans hostage."

America has made Iran an official enemy. America funded and provided Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction to attack Iran with in the 1980s. The U.S. blew up an Iranian civilian airliner killing 290 people in 1988. Who cares if they then take hostages. And what are you talking about "American hostages..." as if them being American gives them any more intrinsic value... This suggest you dehumanize non-Americans.

"Israel never did."

You're right, Israel is a major U.S. ally, it would be weird if they had U.S. hostages... ......

However, Israel has attacked a U.S. vessel killing 34 of its crew members -- 34 Americans.


Oh, btw, Israel killed almost 2,000 civilians in Gaza this summer -- it was a massive atrocity the likes of which you can't even imagine.

a history lesson is on order. Iran took the US embassy employees hostage because of what the US did!

In 1953, US/CIA and Gulf despoiler BP overthrew democratically elected Iranian leader Mohammed Mosaddeqh because he promised to nationalize Iran's oil reserves for the benefit of the people of Iran. The CIA and BP overthrew him and installed the Shah of Iran who ruled until, dying of cancer, he fled to his benefactor the US. Khomeini and others were outraged... they wanted the Shah to stand trial in Iran for his 25 years of merciless rule. So, the reasonable, justifiable target was the US which had abetted his rise and then offered him shelter. He was a US puppet and the embassy events were BLOWBACK!

As if that was not enough, during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Reagan armed Iraq (Saddam) to fight the Iranians adding more fuel to the fire.

US meddling in Iran, Iraq and elsewhere... while supporting Israel not matter what is why they hate us.

And BTW, Israel attacked the USS Liberty in 1967 killing 34 US servicemen; and US aid workers like Rachel Corrie, Brian Avery, Furkan Dogan were wounded or killed by Israelis.

Read!

And do you think it justifies the behavior of the Iranian government?

And what's it to you?! What justifies US behavior in Iraq or Iran? Spare me your snark.

Both Israel and Iran have fundies, and they actually are very similar in their roles. But you don't hear much about the Israeli fundies, and all you hear about in Iran are their fundies.

So you make an excellent point, albeit unwittingly.

And Iran's current government didn't exist when Americans were held hostage.

There was a revolution at the time, remember? The West's man was being forced out.

Absolutely, spot on analysis.

At the end of the day, Israel is funded by the West and the West has the most power. So of course Israel will use that influence by questionable means to gain more power in the Middle East.

...to persuade the U.S. to invade Iraq, including supplying questionable intelligence about WMD. Now they want to do the same with Iran. Sacrifice American lives to support Israel's land grab in Palestinian territory. I used to be a strong supporter of Israel. No more. Not until they elect a government that will dismantle illegal settlements and seriously pursue a peace deal leading to a solid two-state solution.

6. The Iranian people were the victims of West-backed coups that overthrew democratically elected governments, yet they don't have their leader trying to throw himself at the U.S. Congress specifically to undo painstaking, years-long diplomatic negotiations aimed at to further world accord and limit nuclear proliferation.

7. Iran doesn't take $8 billion-plus per year from the U.S. taxpayers and workers, but seems to subsist somehow despite the most oppressive sanctions regime ever unleashed on a sovereign nation.

That does not make the current regime in Iran ok in any way, shape, or form.

you're saying that's an aggressive war. Bald faced Propaganda. Israel has never launched military action against anyone until after enduring numerous, unending missile attacks or a full blown military attack (see Yom Kippur war below for an example).

Iran has funded numerous terrorist groups operating in various countries:...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#State_Department_Report

when you wrote that:
Israel has never launched military action against anyone until after enduring numerous, unending missile attacks or a full blown military attack (see Yom Kippur war below for an example).

you rewrite actual history and replace it with a recurring Israeli myth. The 1967 war was initiated by Israel. It was Israel that attacked Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. This attack was justified as pre-emptive self defense. Unfortunately for Israel the concept of pre-emptive self defense has no basis in law. No problem though because the Israeli terror state is supported unconditionally by the US war state.

Your "history" of the Yom Kippur war of 1973 is also similarly suspect, because the Israeli held territories that you reference are actually land illegally seized by Israel subsequent to the 1967 War. You might wish to read about the Fourth Geneva Convention to become familiar with provisions regarding seizure and colonization of land captured during a war.

Hpe this helps you.

of the territories is legal. The settlements are not.

and is definitely not legal. Please give me a citation showing that a 48 year occupation that is actually expanding is in any way legal under International Law.

You might wish to start with UN Security Council Resolution 242 regarding the acquisition of territory in war.

You might wish also to look at the Fourth Geneva Convention, again regarding territory seized in war.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states in paragraph 1, [2]

from the Fourth Geneva Convention:
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

also from the same source:
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. (Article 49 Para 6)

There is also the Security Council Resolution 446 in support of my point.

I could continue but will not.

are the settlements, not the occupation itself.

again, provide specific citations to support your claim. Your statement seems to be lacking any foundation or basis in law.

it will end with a negotiated peace with the Palestinians (or a unilateral withdrawl by the Israelis). Until then it is absolutely legal under international law.

Go away.

The settlements in the WB are definitely illegal. the occupation itself is not.

Go read the following

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9614F8FC82DCA5DF852575D80069E0C0

http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=124

The settlements are illegal.

The occupation has become settlements.

To deny this is just to look foolish.

Do stick around.

I did not actually post OP number 5. Please take it up with the actual poster.
But since we are corresponding:
Anything to say about Israel having many actual atomic devices, in violation of International Law?

as a husband and father I am used to getting blamed for things. Usually I am guilty, just not this time.

.. mobilizing military forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Six-Day_War

regarding the concept of "eretz ysroel" or greater Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

some thoughts from Israeli politicians regarding the future of Israel:
http://monabaker.com/quotes.htm

Netanyahu recently gave a speech talking about Israel as an explicitly Jewish state. What role is there for non-Jews in this state? To live in Bantustans perhaps?

Israel has acted since 1948 in a very consistent way. They are seizing all land that is useful to them with the purpose of expansion and to prevent any possibility of a viable Palestinian state.

No amount of talk can disguise this fact.

the UN and other international bodies disagree with you on who was the agressor

from a 1982 UN report

Jordan does not deny initiation of hostilities along the Jordanian-Israeli frontier .... on 5 June 1967, but contends her recourse to force was permissible under Article 51's exception of 'collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations'. Israel's attack on Egyptian air fields ... is alleged to have constituted an 'armed attack' under Article 51 and thus justified an attack by Jordan - an ally of Egypt - against Israel as a collective self-defence measure.

"The legal question that therefore arises is whether Israel's action in firing 'the first shot' of the 1967 war against Jordan's ally, Egypt. ... was an act of aggression or justifiable self-defence. ... It has been suggested that the 'cumulative efforts' of Egyptian provocation -­ the closing of the straits of Tiran and passage through the Gulf of Aqaba, the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force and the resulting immediate deployment of strong contingents of Egyptian forces along the frontier, the signing by Egypt of joint defence pacts with other States and subsequent mobilization on all frontiers and the sabre-rattling war fever generated in the streets of Cairo -- was to create a situation whereby Israel would by inaction risk sustaining an imminent and potentially overwhelming strike, and that, accordingly, the series of Egyptian actions must be deemed an 'armed attack'." 10/ - See more at: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9614F8FC82DCA5DF852575D80069E0C0#sthash.mtBecrvY.dpuf

"... during the currency of the mandate the people of Palestine enjoyed an independent international status and possessed sovereignty over their land; Palestine possessed its own identity, which was distinct from that of the mandatory Power; its administration was theoretically its own though, in fact, it was in the hands of the mandatory; the Government of Palestine, as representative of the people of Palestine, concluded agreements with the mandatory Power and became party, through the instrumentality of the mandatory, to a number of international treaties and conventions; however, the full exercise of sovereignty by the people of Palestine was restricted in certain respects by the powers of administration entrusted to the mandatory Power by the League of Nations; upon the termination of the mandate the mandatory's powers of administration came to an end and, as a result, the restrictions upon exercise of full sovereignty by the people of Palestine ceased, so that by virtue of this right as well as by virtue of their right of self-determination they became entitled to govern themselves and to determine their future in accordance with normal democratic principles and procedures. The first and fundamental rule in any democracy is the rule of the majority. This rule, however, was not respected by the General Assembly of the United Nations which recommended in 1947, in circumstances and under political pressures already mentioned, the partition of the country between Arab and Jewish States. The events which followed and the emergence of Israel have prevented the Palestinian people from exercising their right of sovereignty over their own land."

So your source undercuts your argument. The Israelis have prevented any exercise of sovereignty, thus are in violation themselves.

a single man, not a UN declaration. A man who was acting on his own as a representative of the Palestinian people (he was not selected or voted on by them)

1) The Israeli occupation and subsequent use of Palestinian land is illegal
2) It is a continuing crime.
3) To say that the victim of the theft must negotiate with the thief for the return of the stolen property flies in the face of sense and law.
The occupier has no right to ask for negotiation.
4) The UN, International Law, and the World Court exist for such situations. That Israel can refuse to recognize any authority over its actions is only possible because the US protects Israel.