Is Iran Seeking to Destroy the Jews? Or Is It Challenging the West's Double Standards?

The narrative that Iran seeks to "destroy the Jews" has long been a central talking point in Western media, particularly when discussing the nation's stance on Israel and the broader Middle East.

But this assertion, often framed in absolute terms, distorts the complexities of Iran’s geopolitical position, its relationship with Judaism, and its ongoing opposition to Zionism. To truly understand Iran’s perspective, it's essential to look beyond the superficial rhetoric and propaganda that saturates much of the discourse, especially in Western circles.

1. The Critical Distinction Between Judaism and Zionism

Iran's critique has never been of Jews or Judaism as a religion. In fact, Judaism is deeply respected within Iranian society, with a historical Jewish community in Iran that predates Islam itself. From the time of Cyrus the Great, who famously liberated the Jewish people from Babylonian captivity, to the present day, Iranian Jews have coexisted peacefully in Iran. Jews practice their faith freely, have representation in the Iranian parliament, and are regarded as integral to the country’s cultural fabric.

What Iran opposes is Zionism—specifically, the political ideology that supports the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. It is crucial to recognize that opposition to Zionism is not rooted in anti-Semitism but in anti-colonialism. Zionism, from the Iranian viewpoint, is seen as an extension of Western imperialism—an ideology that has dispossessed millions of Palestinians and continues to fuel conflict in the region. Iranian leadership argues that this form of nationalism, which justifies land occupation and suppresses Palestinian rights, must be challenged. But this challenge is not a call for Jewish extermination; rather, it is a critique of a political structure that perpetuates occupation and oppression.

2. Acceptance of Jews as Part of the Region’s History

Iran’s government has often reiterated that it does not have an issue with Judaism or Jews. From Tehran to Shiraz, the Jewish community in Iran enjoys protections that many minorities in the region do not. Iran’s humanitarian stance extends to all groups, affirming the notion that Jews are part of the historical and cultural tapestry of the Middle East. In fact, some of the oldest Jewish synagogues and cultural sites remain in Iran today.

This acceptance is often overlooked by Western critics, who simplify the Iranian-Israeli conflict into a "Jews vs. Muslims" narrative. However, this framing neglects the reality that Iran’s animosity is directed at Israel’s government and its policies, not its Jewish population. Iran sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a struggle for justice, not a religious war.

3. Iran’s Proposed Solution: A Democratic and Humanitarian Approach

Iran’s long-standing solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rarely mentioned in Western media. The Iranian government advocates for two major pillars: the return of Jewish immigrants to their countries of origin (for instance, those who emigrated from Europe after 1917) and a referendum held among the original residents of Palestine—whether Muslim, Christian, or Jewish.

The idea of a "right of return" for Jewish immigrants may seem provocative, but it is based on a principle of international law often applied to other conflicts. Iran suggests that Jewish immigrants should return to their homeland (e.g., Polish Jews returning to Poland, or Hungarian Jews returning to Hungary) and that Palestinians displaced by Israeli policies should have the right to return to their homes. This is not a call for the eradication of Jews but rather an appeal to rectify a colonial history that has caused ongoing displacement and violence.

A referendum, in Iran’s view, would allow the people who historically lived in Palestine—before the mass migrations of the 20th century—to determine the future governance of the land. This solution aligns with democratic principles that the West often champions but rarely considers as a feasible option for resolving this particular conflict.

4. Commitment to International Law and Justice

Iran argues that its stance on Israel and Palestine is rooted in international law, particularly the right of self-determination. Yet, despite championing these rights in other contexts, Western powers often ignore or undermine similar principles when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Iran, for its part, maintains that both Jews and Palestinians deserve justice and must coexist within a framework that respects human rights and international law.

This raises a critical point of hypocrisy. How can Western nations consistently invoke the rule of law and human rights while turning a blind eye to the illegal occupation and systemic oppression that defines Israeli policies towards Palestinians? Iran’s insistence on applying international law equally—whether to Zionists or any other group—is dismissed as radical, despite its grounding in globally accepted norms.

5. The Rejection of Violence: Dialogue, Not War

Contrary to popular belief, Iran has consistently advocated for non-violent solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its calls for a referendum and the peaceful return of displaced people stand in stark contrast to the violence and bloodshed that has characterized the conflict for decades. While the media often portrays Iran as a warmonger, Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that the path to peace lies in democratic processes, not military might.

This stance is a direct rebuke of Israel’s military aggression in Gaza, the West Bank, and beyond. The international community has watched as countless Palestinian lives have been lost to Israeli airstrikes and ground operations. Iran’s criticism of these actions is not a call for Jewish extermination, as some would have you believe, but a demand for an end to the violence and a return to dialogue.

6. Resistance to Western Colonialism: A Larger Struggle

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as Iran sees it, is not just a regional issue; it is emblematic of broader Western attempts to control the Middle East. Zionism, in this framework, is viewed as a colonial project imposed by Western powers to maintain influence in the region. Israel’s expansionist policies and its treatment of Palestinians are seen as extensions of this colonial mindset, with Zionism functioning as a tool to destabilize and control.

Iran’s resistance, therefore, is not just about Palestine but about challenging the broader neo-colonial policies that have long afflicted the region. The West’s one-sided support for Israel is seen as part of a strategy to maintain control over the Middle East’s resources and political structures. Iran’s call for justice, democracy, and the return of displaced peoples is not only a response to Israeli policies but also a critique of Western interventionism.

Final Thoughts

The Western narrative surrounding Iran’s stance on Israel is riddled with inaccuracies and simplifications. Iran is not calling for the destruction of Jews; it is challenging Zionism as a colonial project and advocating for the rights of Palestinians in accordance with international law. By painting Iran as an existential threat to Jews, Western media obscures the real issues at play—issues that demand a deeper, more nuanced understanding of history, politics, and justice.