Talk:Iran–Israel relations/Archives/2020

Structure of the article and indexes
This article is supposed to describe the state of affairs between two sovereign states. As such it is necessary to consider the factors which help changing the dynamics from both sides. However, this article as you can see below, is structured in a way which presumes that each era in the Iran-Israel relations is defined by an internal change within the Iranian gov exclusively. In order to avoid a biased article in favour of the Israeli views (however difficult it might be on Wikipedia), the article needs to address the relevant shifts in power and changes in policies in Israel as well as the media presence and controversial statements from the Israeli politicians as well. In particular, one could argue that the consistent out pour of warnings and threats regarding the Iranian nuclear program from the Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu as well as the former PM/MD Ehud Barak, are much better well-known, relevant and surely more influential in determining the relations between the two states, than say General Jafari's point of view.

2.1 Biblical 2.2 Israeli independence to Iranian revolution (1947–79) 2.3 Under Khomeini (1979–89) 2.4 Israeli logistical support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) 2.5 Khamenei era (1989–present) 2.5.1 Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 2.5.2 Rafsaanjani presidency 1989-1997 2.5.3 President Khatami term 1997–2005 2.5.4 President Mahmud Ahmadinejad term (2005-2013)

3 In the media

3.1 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 3.2 Iran’s Ambassador to the IAEA, Soltanieh 3.3 Vice President Mashaei 3.4 Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami 3.5 Brigadier General Gholamreza Jalali 3.6 General Mohammad Ali Jafari --Lastsolfa (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Misc
The contenent of the paragraph about Ahmadinejad is not consistent with another wikipedia article: Iran_1989-Present. Also, I'm not sure is a good thing to cite only western media about any "destroy Israel" speech, as there have already been problems: Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel Xarvh 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Jews made money from Iran-Contra Affair and Israeli Mossad trained the Shah's secret police, SAVAK, to monitor, interrogate and torture enemies in the Israeli style. .

Thank-you, Iranasgabad, for that racist and paranoid thought. And the link. Very amusing. Joffan 00:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Would you like to make a 1948-2006 torture and oppression contest between Iranian and Israeli regimes? I don't think it would be in the interest of an Iranian perspective. Counterboint 01:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Factual background deleted
The article is headed by "This article or section needs to be updated" title. Well I have tried to update it, and it fascinates me what reasoning could there be behind the unsurprisingly unexplained deletion of my updates to the article intro:

Publicly, Israel has been named as "The Little Satan" (The USA has been referred to 'The Great Satan'). Speeches on relevant issues by Iranian leaders in public and parliament are often accompanied by audience cries of "death to Israel" -.

Is anyone arguing that these facts are erroneous? pray offer me some shred of evidence to this end. I would love to wake up to a reality where they are not true.

Secondly, I have added statistics concerning the number of Iranian Jews living in Israel (75,000) and Iran (25,000), and a better phrasing of that paragraph (much needed!). What's the problem with that? is there someone who prefers not to see numbers of living Jews?

All of the facts I mentioned are backed by solid references from non-Israeli sources, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be part of the article, until someone suggests a rational reason to me.

Counterboint 00:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Speculation deleted
This sounds like someone's opinion: "It may be that Israel merely uses Iran as a propaganda tool to divert attention away from its oppression of the Palestinian people, and that public histrionics such as complaints about Iranian nuclear development are intended to rally American support for Tel Aviv's regime which faces mounting criticism for its corruption and its economic failures."

Wise choice. Anyone could use anything as a propoganda tool, that still doesn't merit an entry in wikipedia, here is an example:

"It may be that Iran merely uses Israel as a propaganda tool to divert attention away from its oppression of the Iranian people, and that public histrionics such as complaints about Israeli nuclear development are intended to rally Islamic support for Teheran's regime which faces mounting criticism for its repression, expansionism, corruption and economic failures."

see, its not difficult... :) Counterboint 09:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The map
Why do we need a map of the arab league here? It's not related to the article and Iran is not a member of it.--Zereshk 10:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The main items on the map are Iran and Israel. The Arab league is a major player in the region between the two and is a party in the Arab-Israeli conflict. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps then we should put a map of Europe there too. After all, Europe is where Iran has been receiving its secret shipments from Israel through now. Correct? The article isnt about Iran-Arab-Israeli politics. The map just seems redundant to me. As if trying to make Iran look like an Arab state.--Zereshk 06:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * On the map, Israel is on left and Iran on right, shouldn't the bottom labeling be also as such? 117.218.25.11 (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Pre-revolution relations
This section needs to be updated and expanded. I added the fact that Iran voted in favour of the UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 condemning zionism during the Shah era. The common view that Iran did a U-turn in 1979 and went from 'warm relations' to bitter freeze regarding Israel is simply not true.

Cyrruss 08:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * True. Even so, they did hold good relations.--Zereshk 22:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the time spanning from 1948 until 1979 is a pretty long time, even in international politics. I've read somewhere that the Iran-Israel relations started to crumble in the 1970s, before the revolution. I'm not that well-informed myself on the topic, but if somebody knows more and have some sources available, please expand this section. Cyrruss 09:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Outcomes of a war
The stuff about the outcomes of a hypothetical war is POV, highly speculative and unreferenced. Irans infrastructure would be "shattered" etc. Considering the U.S. recent track record (and Israel's for that matter) of military failures in the broader region this is totally unwarranted. For that reason I have deleted it.

Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Interview on Iranian nuclear weapons
"Occasionally, Israeli officials do let slip indications that their fears of Iran are less extreme than the "second Holocaust" rhetoric would indicate. In November, Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh explained candidly in an interview with the Jerusalem Post that the fear was not that such weapons would be launched against Israel but that the existence of nuclear capability would interfere with Israel's recruitment of new immigrants and cause more Israelis to emigrate to other countries.

Sneh declared that Ahmadinejad could "kill the Zionist dream without pushing a button. That's why we must prevent this regime from obtaining nuclear capability at all costs."

Sources:
 * http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1162378366509 (original interview)
 * http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB01Ak01.html

--70.48.240.240 18:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy
This page needs some conspiracy crap cleanup. You know what I'm talking about --Telecart 00:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge request: Plans_for_military_attacks_against_Iran
There is currently an AfD on the related Plans_for_military_attacks_against_Iran article. It may be best to merge the contents of this other article into this article where appropriate. --70.51.234.169 23:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Update tag
who placed the update tag here? what specifically needs updating? i'll remove the tag if nobody mentions anything specific that needs to be updated. thanks. SJMNY (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * after 2 weeks with no response i removed the 'update tag' because nobody said why it was there. if you think there is something that needs updating please tell us what it is. SJMNY (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad
the text in parenthesis in the 2nd sentence in the 1st paragraph under the heading 'ahmadinejad' is grammatically incorrect, did you mean to say "non-military means?" if so please correct it gramatically and source that, if thats not what you meant i'll remove it. SJMNY (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sasha Baron Cohen - Iranian Jew? Not according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacha_Baron_Cohen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.76.220 (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sasha Baron Cohen's mother was born in Israel and is of Iranian heritage

U.S. and Iraqi Permission for an Israeli Airstrike on Iran
Israel does not have the capability to attack Iran without violating Jordanian or Syrian and Iraqi airspace. Basic geographical research demonstrates that Tel Aviv, in a direct route to Tehran, is approximately 1000 miles. Since the Israeli airforce does not have the capability to circumvent the Arabian peninsula, by the Red Sea to Persian Gulf, then the air strike route must be through Iraq. Since the U.S. and Israel are allies in the war on terror, is it taken for granted that an Israeli attack on Iran be permissible via Iraqi airspace and U.S. support? There is an issue here that should be documented. Read the following article: There is perceived evidence that the U.S. is going to sanction the Israeli attack on Iran by opening Iraqi airspace. These developments are relevant to the section in the article titled: Perceptions of Israeli threats to attack Iran during 2003-2008 --Edwin Larkin (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2188501/US-military-chief-to-visit-Israel-for-talks-on-Iran.html

Profits of War and Treacherous Alliances
In the early 1990s a book appeared which gave details of Israeli arms sales to the mullahs of Iran in the early 1980s.[] Profits of War by Ari Ben-Menashe was quickly suppressed though lawsuites, press ridicule by the White House reporter Steven Emerson and a fog of other irrelevant information and allegations against the author. Recently most of the material has resurfaced in Trita Parsi's "Treacherous Alliances: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States." []

Israel's secret war against Iran - new book
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/israel-waging-secret-war-with-iran/85831/?print


 * Israel and America are intensifying a clandestine war against Iran that has run hot and cold since the Islamic Revolution in 1979 but has grown more urgent as Iran races to obtain an atomic bomb.


 * That is a central claim in a new book, "The Secret War with Iran," by an Israeli journalist, Ronen Bergman, who also details a series of mishaps during the past 2 1/2 years that have likely delayed Iran's efforts to go nuclear.

--John Bahrain (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

______________________________________________

It states in the beginning.. "Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel; the Iranian Jewish community is guaranteed one seat in the Majlis..."

But how can this be when on wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew it says Iran has 10,800 jews living inside the country.. The US and Israel have over 5 million, Europe, Canada, even Turkey has more jews.

Ditc (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)DiTC 4/17/09


 * Probably because the US, Europe and Canada are definitely not part of the Middle East and Turkey is often not considered part of the Middle East? Nil Einne (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no clear cut consensus on the merge.Greyshark09 (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit shocked that Israeli support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war has its own separate article, and that these two articles are not linked in anyway. It seems clear to me that the former article, which is a well-researched article, should be merged into this one. Thoughts?ShamWow (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fully agree.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  09:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Qajar (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. But how to do it ? Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''
 * Strong oppose - The article has more to do with and October Surprise conspiracy theories and the Iran–Contra affair. Relevant information should be included here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * strongly oppose - The US supported Iran too in the sense it gave them weapons for hostages to fund contras. Also, Israel-Iran relations date back to before the Ayatollahs took power, as they were allies before that event. Israel, like the US, didn't support anyone, but merely worked just to see both sides lose. Merging them would merely serve to promote more conspiracy.05:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Interview Soltanieh – Wolf Blitzer, april 2006
Mr/Mrs Wikispan wants to have the interview with Soltanieh (april 2006) in this wiki article because that interview ‘pertains to the “wiped off the map” controversy’, he says. I don’t think it pertains to that. ‘The controversy’, to my idea, is a controversy about: ‘what did Ahmadinejad say, and what is, or what is not, an appropriate English translation of it’. In this interview, Soltanieh is not being asked his opinion about any translation, nor does he on his own initiative give an opinion about a translation. So this interview pertains not to ‘the (translation) controversy’.

Soltanieh does however certainly give his opinion about the ‘regime’ of Israel and answers the question: ‘should there be a state of Israel?’ So, Soltanieh being an important Iranian official, his opinion on Israel would be best at its place in Iran-Israel relations. This article ‘Ahmadinejad and Israel’ is already long and complicated enough as it is, it doesn’t do any good to the article, I would say, to place here interviews that are off topic and are already placed in a more appropriate wiki article. --Corriebertus (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I wish for it to remain in the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel article because of the nature of Wolf Blitzer's question to ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh. He quotes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying "Israel must be wiped off the map of the world" and asks "should there be a state of Israel?" Perhaps we should start a discussion on the relevant talk page? Wikispan (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

the map
NEVERMIND

Unbalanced and unsourced
I see two problems with lead section. First, it is unbalanced and one-sided. Second, the controversial information, that allegedly "Iran has severed all diplomatic and commercial ties with Israel" has no neutral sources.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  15:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This was your second revert. You have violated the 1RR.--Yespleazy (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Was first edit a revert?--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  16:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is a "neutral source"? We use the term "reliable source" on wikipedia. The Christian Science Monitor is considered a reliable source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the source that says "Iran severed ties with Israel". The Christian Science Monitor cannot be a reliable source since being a Christian religious journal it is pre-conditionally biased against clergical Islamic Iran.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  16:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The CSM is a highly respected publication as far as I'm aware. Your personal opinions on why you think it's biased (which seem to be based on its name) are irrelevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

While the CSM is published on behalf of a fringe religious group, that does not rule it out as a RS. They have after all won seven Pulitzer Prizes. They are a bit more Mainstream media and a bit less mainstream Christianity than the Deseret News. Hcobb (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As there was not counterarguments about the unbalanced section, I am removing the biased information. Main problem with CSM is that it covers the news from a Christianity perspective projecting a biased information at clergical Islamic Iran. For this very reason, CSM as a source for this article is non-neutral.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  15:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, wrong! What are you smoking! CSM is considered one of the most objective, non-partisan sources out there! Don't be "fooled" by the name. Read the well-sourced Wikipedia article on CSM itself: The paper has been known for avoiding sensationalism, producing a "distinctive brand of nonhysterical journalism." In 1997, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, a publication critical of United States policy in the Middle East, praised the Monitor for its objective and informative coverage of Islam and the Middle East." Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't decide on your own that a source which is usually considered a RS is not neutral. The place for that is RS/N. I'd be surprised if they share your view, but you're welcome to try and convince them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Reason for biblical relations
What's missing is the WHY of the biblical relations. Let me see if I can dig up a reference (other than Asimov) for the Persian policy of using the Jews to balance against the Arabs, especially Babylon/Iraq. Hcobb (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Rtnews template
I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap  ☏  02:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding change from "International Community" to "Western Countries"
Given the references to this matter, the word "international community" should be changed to "Western Countries" where the references mention only "US and the EU"

There are two references for this case:

1. Given the reference on quote 18; "The "cancerous tumor" of Israel is the biggest problem confronting Muslim countries today, Iran's supreme leader said on Sunday, repeating an epithet slammed just days earlier by UN chief Ban Ki-moon and US and EU official" (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4270418,00.html). - Mentions US and EU, not the international community.

2. The reference on quote 19 (http://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-israeli-a-malignant-zionist-tumor/) appears to be a misquote from the newspaper when the newsarticle refers "The international community" to this article http://www.timesofisrael.com/ban-ki-moon-joins-us-in-condemning-khamenei-and-ahmadinejads-inflammatory-comments-on-israel/. Where it clearly says Ban Ki-moon joins US in condemning Iran’s ‘inflammatory’ comments on Israel", yet again US and not the international community.
 * There is not a shred of evidence there is any "misquote." Times of Israel is a reliable source, that is their own report. And it doesn't allow you either to change the title of their article in the ref template.
 * This is simple - the reference, Times of Israel, writes explicitly "international community." Ynet lists a few countries, doesn't write specifically though "Western" countries. The Times of Israel reference is RS, and when they write the international community, we can take it as RS.
 * You've reverted this twice already from an IP address, once from a user account. I highly suggest that you self-revert this source misrepresentation, a serious violation, in addition to the fact it's deliberately changing the title of an article, while a discussion is held. -- Jethro  B  06:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw, Ban ki Moon = Secretary General of the United Nations. That's probably why the word "international community" is used - and makes sense. That's what the United Nations is. -- Jethro  B  06:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, im new to this and the reason I made an account is because wikipedia encourges me to do so, I don't see anything wrong with that, I've already pointed this out to you and I apoligize for any misconceptions it may have caused. "Warnings" from your side doesnt help though.

To the issue: Lets not get confused here, international community already has a clear definition. Even in the times of Israel it says "Ban Ki-moon joins US in condemning Iran’s ‘inflammatory’ comments on Israel". (http://www.timesofisrael.com/ban-ki-moon-joins-us-in-condemning-khamenei-and-ahmadinejads-inflammatory-comments-on-israel/). Neither US, EU nor Ban-Ki Moon himself, which the articles refer to, is regarded as the international community as defined.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mawa3931 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly, that's considered the international community, as seen from the additional ref. Look, it's really simple - this is a reliable source. They wrote explicitly "international community." You can't dispute that.  They didn't write "Ban ki Moon joins US, but they're not international community." They wrote "Ban ki Moon joins US," and in their other article, wrote it's considered as international community. Ban ki Moon represents United Nations.
 * The warnings are about edit-warring. Wikipedia doesn't just let you make a change and keep making that change again and again and again, even when you're reverted.
 * You're challenging an RS based on what you think is the international community. Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works, and you need to self-revert. Right now, as it stands, there is serious source misrepresentation, including a misrepresentation of what a reference title is... -- Jethro   B  06:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

For me it is equally simple, as mentioned in the first post. You have two articles; One that says "US and EU" (quote 18) and the second one says international community, that is correct (quote 19). However when you click on the source of that statement in the article itself, there is no mention of the international community, only "joins the US". Mawa3931 (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh, and yes, it's the United Nations joining US = international community. Regardless, RS writes international community. You can NOT simply go and change A) the statement in the passage on three different times B) The title of the article, which still says "international community" regardless.
 * I really don't know how much simple to make this - your opinion is great, but an RS says otherwise. If you don't get this, I really don't know what will be done, but you're keeping a serious violation in this article. I'm highly recommending to remove this for now. -- Jethro   B  06:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it just be easier to just state precisely what the article says, rather than try to encompass this with a vague term like "western countries" (no reason to capitalize this, BTW), or "international community?" I've made such a change, but if there is consensus against this, it can be reverted.  But I think this is a viable solution to the discussion here.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But the article writes explicitly international community. They write that when linking to an article on Ban ki Moon, representing the UN, the international community. Mawa can think otherwise, but this reference is RS, and if they write international community, we can take that as RS. -- Jethro  B  15:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's true, and while I agree that all the aforementioned sources are reliable, it seems more informative to say who specifically condemned these statements when that information is available, rather than use a term whose definition is somewhat fuzzy, even when used by reliable source. If the article failed to specify what the "international community" represents in this situation, I think it would be OK to use that term.  But because more specific information was reported about who that was, that seems more appropriate to include here.  Something else we could do is something like:
 * ...comments made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad which members of the international community including the United States, France, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemened...
 * At this point the sentence is getting kind of long, but I think it might satisfy the concerns here. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the last suggestion is the best. Although the ref may link to an article that just includes those, it's certainly possible that there were other members condemning it that they simply didn't make an additional article for or felt that an article on Ban ki-Moon would be sufficient to show interantional community, so I think limiting the scope specifically to certain countries would be incorrect, but saying that it included those countries would definitely be correct. -- Jethro   B  19:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the suggested sentence by Jethrobot is more accurate.. And there are many more sources on the net that mentions US and the EU as the sole condemners if you'd like more references on that. Mawa3931 (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of 'Biblical' section in the article? Feedback...
I have a few points in regards to the 'Biblical' section and was hoping for other points of view: Filastin (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is about relations between the two modern states
 * The Biblical section refers to the Jewish people in the area - not Israelis
 * Maybe this section could be sourced properly and used in an article relating to the history of the region
 * For the following reasons, should the section not be removed? It doesn't add any information on the relations between the two states


 * As an aside, History of the Jews in Iran is already listed in 'See Also' and contains the information in the 'Biblical' section.Filastin (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It should be removed. I was just reading it and was wondering what it had to do with their relations today. The Sweden-American relations page makes no mention of Norsemen. Contributer232312 (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Jewish community there is the oldest ion terms of continuity and descent, and that has played a seminal role in the formation of Iranian attitudes, at least.
 * "'Jewish-Muslim relations in Iran should never be idealised. But to view the history of Jews in Iran as nothing but a long, uninterrupted chain of persecution and discrimination is equally wrong and does not do reality justice. The decisive factor why Iranian Jews lacked the urge to migrate to Israel might well be found in the deep and historically rooted connection they feel to Iran. When talking to Iranian Jews, especially as a German, you hear again and again that there is no comparison possible between what Jews suffered in Iran and the persecution in Europe. They talk about the deep homesickness for Iran felt by their relatives who emigrated to Israel, an analysis of the Israeli Iranian community which, it turns out, is shared in there and which the Israeli press has commented on with incredulity. There is yet another reason that makes Iranian Jews reluctant to migrate to Israel. Why should they even consider moving there if “the Israelis, in general, see Iranians as dogs”? This answer, Haggai Ram writes, was given by one of the leading members of Tehran’s Jewish community to the Aliyah emissary Haim Sadok in the 1970s. It appears that most Iranian Jews stayed in Iran not solely due to a lack of faith in Zionism or because their roots in Iran were so deep, but also because of the discrimination and racism they would suffer in Israel.' Katajun Amirpur, 'Iran’s Policy towards Jewish Iranians and the State of Israel. Is the Present Iranian State Islamofascist? Die Welt des Islams 52 (2012) 370-399 p.396 Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)"

You're missing the point. Neither Israel nor Iran existed to have relations back then - "Ancient" Israel is not the Israel of today, despite what romanticists would have you believe, and its politics are completely different. A diatribe on the historical movements of the Hebrews has no place in a page on the international relations of two modern states.Contributer232312 (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. You are selective in asserting that since 'This article is about relations between the two modern states,' one is automatically entitled to erase any background. (a) Wiki articles on inter-state relations are primitive, and there is no rule. (b) Some provide historical background, others do not. (c)This article, like most wiki I/P articles is jejunely pitched to skew the history. Before Khomeini things were sweet (untrue, the Shah was often contemptuous of Israel; the Iranian Jews were often more proud of their Iranian heritage than the version of Jewish y being promoted by Israel; (c) many efforts, mostly unsuccessful, were made to get them out of Iran in the post-Israeli independence period, and we hear nothing of it. All this is in Tita Parsi's book but systematically neglected.etc.etc.etc. The page needs  much work, rather than excision. Note the following examples which contradict one of your premises.
 * France–Israel relations history goes back to Dreyfus prelude in the 1890s-
 * Israel–United Kingdom relations goes back to 1917 background
 * Israel–United States relations goes back to 1912
 * Israel–Russia relations goes back to 1944
 * Israel–Japan relations goes back to 1920
 * Israel–Spain relations section on medieval religious and cultural ties
 * It's one of the exiguous examples of an ancient Jewish diaspora reality which neither Zionism nor Islamic politics has managed to destroy or extirpate (they have an extraordinary collusion in undermining Judaism's cosmopolitan identity), and their continued presence there inflects the modern relationship between the State of Israel and Iran. I think you have no warrant therefore in just removing that passage. If anything, it needed rewriting, along the lines suggested in Amirpur and modern scholarship on the ancient Biblical community (not just Bible citations). Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That was quite the straw man. The issue isn't how far back the articles go. The passages in those articles deal with the events that led to the creation of the Israeli state pertinent to those countries. The article on the relations with Spain doesn't reach back in history to talk about relations, it does so when discussing religious and cultural ties. Those articles are distinguished from this one in that the passage here is simply a diatribe on Jews in Iran, and not a description of relations.

In my opinion, most it should be removed, and what remains should be consolidated into a section on cultural and religious ties. There's currently more (unnecessary material) in that section now, than under Khomeini, which is quite absurd. Contributer232312 (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Country Comparison
Country comparison should be made universal in international relations pages by the community after consensus, rather than one-by-one insertions. This section deals in no way with relations between the two countries. Rather than placing a table, information taken from individual nation pages should be used only when in relation to important historical factors between the two countries - or to correspond with major events worthy of encyclopedic entry. This page should be an article on relations and not a profile on the individual countries themselves .--Filastin (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Third Source
Third source http://foumanco.startlogic.com/history/Iranian_History_1963.html is down. Can anyone replace it? Thanks in advance. 176.41.62.243 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Syria
Folks, it is not acceptable to add incidents between Israel and Syria to this page unless sources specifically indicate Iranian involvement. The idea that everything that happens in Syria and Lebanon is Iran's doing is propaganda for the ignorant and doesn't belong here. Zerotalk 00:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If multiple sources talk about Iranian involvement, for sure those incidents belong here.--AttacksinSyria (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the sources you are trying to edit-war into the article support them being here. Zerotalk 12:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

1953 Coup
The statement that there was a "coup" in 1953 that brought the Shah to power is POV if not an outright fabrication. It was a power struggle between the Shah and the Prime Minister, but it is flat our wrong to claim that it brought Pahlavi to power as he'd been Shah for over a decade at that point. "Consolidated" his power, perhaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.132.166 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This sentence should be edited to either say that the coup "kept" the Shah in power or it should refer to when the Shah was actually put in power by western powers in 1941, when Reza Shah was forced to abdicate by the World War 2 allies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.176.17 (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Iran's official position
with regard to the Jews, Israel and the I/P conflict is obviously relevant to the subject of the article. The removal of the Khamanei quote needs very strong justification, and talk page discussion, before it can be tampered with. Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Propaganda war
What happens currently could have been guessed given the step-by-step process that we have lived for 10 days. I suggest that we protect wikipedia from the intrumentation that the propaganda system will try to make of this.

First point is to consider immediately anyIsraeli and Iranian media as not wp:rs. It is logical that media in war time support government and lose any objectivity and reliability.

Pro-Israeli and Pro-Iranian media should be handled with the highest care as well.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Anti Israel.jpg

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 December 2019
Adam Hegazy337259 (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC) replace the "Iran-israel relation.png" file with "Iran_Israel_Locator_(without_West_Bank).png" file without quotation marks
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Why? – Ammarpad (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2019
Adam Hegazy337259 (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2019
Please Replace the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iran-israel_relation.png with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iran_Israel_Locator_(without_West_Bank).png

Keep the file of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iran-israel_relation.png on Iran-Palestine relations page Adam Hegazy337259 (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: As asked in response to your previous request - Why? Please explain your reasoning for this change. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 16:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2020
A link is broken. The original reference source has been deleted. The source still exists on the wayback machine.

Change: http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE26Ak01.html To: https://web.archive.org/web/20060527190342/http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE26Ak01.html JMYounker (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Request to mention Nahum Manbar and his dealings with Iran
I think it is relevant and should be mentioned in this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahum_Manbar

LeavingLasVegas33 (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)