Given that even in "civilized" western countries there are a few percent of the population who really don't like Jews, I doubt that only Iran's leaders want to get rid of Israel.
A final analysis then shows the extent of Antisemitism in different countries of the world, ranked by denominational groups, and based on the World Values Survey data. While in our 28 countries with complete data Protestants in Uruguay, Canada, and Argentina and Roman Catholic regular Sunday Mass Church attenders in Argentina, Canada and the United States are the major denominational communities with the lowest global rates of Antisemitism, Muslims in India, Iran and Iraq are the most antisemitic religious groupings of the world.
Thank you for providing a solid citation on public opinion. As someone who grew up in a heavily Persian neighborhood (mostly Jewish and Baha’i) I was rather surprised to see the number of Iranians who would not want a Jewish neighbor (guess that’s why my neighbors lived in America instead).
One thing to note is that the official policy of Iran is anti-Zionism - not anti-semetism. Jews have a long history in Iran and are afforded special minority rights. (The Baha’i not so much)
There are ~230,000 Persian Jews in Israel, ~70,000 in the US, and under 10,000 left in Iran. As a non-Persian Jew who grew up with lots of Persian Jews, I can tell you that 300,000 left for a reason.
Ah yes, that's something that always annoys me too. Sorry for that. But I think the implication in the direction anti-semite -> anti-zionist is pretty strong, so for this particular question I think that surveys about antisemitism provide a good basis for discussion. I'd assume that anti-zionists form an almost perfect superset of anti-semites.
edit: or maybe not, you could imagine someone who really doesn't like Jews and wants to send all of them to Israel.
Please reconsider this position.There are large numbers of Jewish anti-Zionists, whose motivations range from religious to Palestinian solidarity to just not wanting to be seen or treated as an extension of Israel. As well, there's a great many people who don't mind the existence of Israel as such but object strenuously to its expansionist settlement policy, including a large number of Israelis.
As well as that, there's a phenomenon called Christian Zionism that's popular among conservative evangelicals, which views the establishment of the state of Israel and a number of related milestones as a fulfilment of Biblical eschatological prophecy. Their enthusiastic support for the relocation of the US embassy (and others) to Jerusalem is rooted in a belief that it signals the End of Days and forthcoming battle between good and evil on the field of Armageddon. While a minority position, it's one that's in ascendancy at the moment and counts the US Secretary of State (by conviction) and the President (by transaction) among its adherents.
In short, it's complicated. This is not to say that everyone who's anti-Zionist is good or has valid reasons, many such are indeed anti-Semitic, from casual to virulent. Neo-Nazis often leverage ambivalence or antipathy towards Israel to convert people to anti-Semitism and recruit them, a technique known as entryism. And there are anti-Semitic currents on the left too, particularly among dogmatic types who think Stalin did nothing wrong (sometimes loosely referred to as 'tankies').
I think you may be reading the GP's implication in a different direction to me. While it's not completely controversial to observe that not all anti-Zionists are also anti-Semites (although I do hear some who would hold that view) it's more believable that anti-Semites would pretty much automatically also be anti-Zionists.
The more salient questions are, a.) why would they think that way, and b.) why would you characterize their stance that way?
Briefly, the anger felt by Iranians is due to their support for their fellow Muslims, the Palestinians, and their extreme mistreatment at the hands of the Israeli government. Note this support even though Iranians are Shia and Palestinians are Sunni.
To answer b.) both Israel and Saudi Arabia view Iran and an enemy due to a regional power struggle, where Iran stands in opposition to both. The promotion of Iran as Public Enemy #1 in the ME says more about maximalist Zionist power projection, and Natanyahu's lust for power than anything else. For example, Iran was abiding by the JCPOA, as verified by IAEA inspectors, while Natanyahu was inciting action against Iran, as rapproachment was not in his interests. The canard here is that Natanyahu was claiming Iran was trying to make nuclear weapons and that was unacceptable, despite the fact that Israel already has a well-known but never publicly acknowledged nuclear arsenal, and are famously not a part of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Even with nuclear weapons it is ridiculous to think that the Iranians do not understand the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction vis a vis Israel.
"why would you characterize their stance that way?" Because it's the publicly stated intentions of the current government there. We should take their statement at face value.
No - I don't need to provide citations for widely publicized, factual information.
But why don't you take Khamenei's own words, literally from his Twitter account: "Our stance against Israel is the same stance we have always taken. #Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor in the West Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible and it will happen." [1]
Or a random sampling of the same stated objective through the times:
"Israel should be wiped off map, says Iran's president" - The Guardian [2]
"Referring to comments by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution, Admadinejad said, "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."" - NY Times [3]
"Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi, who leads the Basij volunteer force, made the declaration to mark Islamic Republic Day in Tehran on Tuesday. “Wiping Israel off the map is not up for negotiation,”" The Independent [4]
This is not a single statement or an off-hand remark - it's made consistently, publicly and empathetically by many representatives of the Iranian regime, without retraction or contextualisation afterwards, throughout the entire history of the regime.
These statements must be taken as a credible articulation of the objectives of Iran - and considered in the context of their goals of obtaining nuclear weapons.
As for the article, I would love to visit Iran, but they are grabbing Western tourists willy nilly, accusing them of being spies etc., so that won't be happening.
"Briefly, the anger felt by Iranians is due to their support for their fellow Muslims, the Palestinians, and their extreme mistreatment at the hands of the Israeli government."
Yes, we see how angry they are when the extreme mistreatment of Syrian Sunnis or Chinese Uighur. Ah, wait, they even take part in the former. They do a fine job of making it appear the real issue is religious.
"For example, Iran was abiding by the JCPOA, as verified by IAEA inspectors,"
JCPOA and UNSC 2231 included far more than IAEA inspections, and Iran was NOT abiding by the other issues (ballistic missiles, heavy water, keeping a spare set of nuclear tubes for Arak, etc.).
People mostly repeat IAEA because they are unaware of the other issues, or that the deal had time limits on most inspection issues. Some are aware but prefer to elide it.
"The canard here is that Natanyahu was claiming Iran was trying to make nuclear weapons and that was unacceptable, despite the fact that Israel already has a well-known but never publicly acknowledged nuclear arsenal"
Israel isn't threatening to destroy Iran, it's the other way around.
"Even with nuclear weapons it is ridiculous to think that the Iranians do not understand the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction vis a vis Israel."
Some Iranian don't[0]. If you want to entrust the safety of the world to that, well...
MEMRI is a well-known neocon propaganda outlet, so your arguments merely reflect this.
From Sourcewatch: "Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an Israeli propaganda organization that selectively translates materials from the Arab/Muslim/Iranian press purportedly demonstrating hostility against Israel/Jews."
Note how nothing at your 'source' has any evidence that MEMRI tends to mistranslate quotes or provide them out of context.
When it comes down to it, it seems the complaint is that the people Sourcewatch quotes don't like MEMRI's alleged politics, and therefore we should ignore all evidence. IMHO, an ideological echo chamber is bad for the mind.
Easy enough to find, here's an editor of the Guardian calling out the President of MEMRI for just that:
"The fact is that you gave evidence to Congress claiming that Gallup had found "a large majority of the Arab world" who believed the September 11 attacks "were the work of the United States government itself and/or a Jewish conspiracy". What you said is untrue, and Gallup has confirmed that. I trust you will now apologise to Congress for your false testimony. Finally, in the light of your most recent remarks about me personally, I will make clear now that your nationality and religion do not bother me in the slightest. What does concern me is your political agenda, and the deceitful way you go about promoting it."
Regarding the 'ideological echo chamber,' I fully concur. MEMRI's board has included such characters as Elliot Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Bolton, so the discriminating reader should take that into consideration as well.
Hmmm... looks like it was a Pew poll and indeed, most citizens of Arab nations don’t believe Arabs were responsible for 9/11.
When asked who was responsible, they said “America or Israel”[1]
So while MEMRI’s statement is not factually correct (it wasn’t Gallup and they didn’t ask the question of who did 9/11 to everyone), it’s not that far off base.
In that exchange, both sides agree that Carmon was referring to a poll whose details - even at the time of the exchange - were not publicly available on the net. Given that such finding would not contradict other polls of the time, it's quite possible that this is in fact what the poll found. So I'm not sure this exchange establishes what you think it does.
I do agree that readers should take into account possible biases of their sources.
These hollow giants are only held together by commone enemys. Irans most common enemy is gone- sadam hussein is no more.
Thus a new one had to be found - and the sia - saudi conflict flared up. Cause here, are two, who desperatly need one another to hold there own people in check.
Israel was always just a fallback, for religious indoctrinated hatred, again to keep the sheep together.
There are wulfes out there - you need those dogs to protect you, even if they eat one of you from time to time.
