# How we view international news; double standards



## Purple (23 May 2018)

We in this country are rightly critical of Israel and how it behaves in Gaza and the West Bank but are we fair?
A little over a week ago Israeli security forces killed 62 people on its border with Gaza after days of protests stemming from the USA moving its embassy to Jerusalem. It was widely reported and widely condemned by news outlets across Europe and Ireland with lots of noise from the UN.

Then, a few days later a HAMAS representative admitted that 50 of the 62 killed were HAMAS operatives with only 12 being "civilians". That gave credence to the Israeli position that what happened was an attack, not a protest. While the it is still appropriate to condemn the excesses of the IDF I find it very incredible that this revelation was not widely reported in the Irish media. 

At the same time the widespread oppression of the Kurds in Turkey [broken link removed] here. What they are doing now far exceeds the excesses of the Israelis and the history of oppression of the Kurds within Turkey dates back to the founding of the state of modern Turkey. 

Why do we get so exorcised about what Israel does while we ignore what Turkey does?

Why is Israel held to higher standards that its neighbours?


Why are we not all calling for a boycott on Saudi Arabia for it's support of terrorism and the horrific war it has wages in Yemen? In that war Saudi (and the USA, France and the UK, along with other Sunni Arab countries) is backing a government which is supported by the local al-Qaeda faction, a group regarded as one of the most dangerous in the region. 

Where's the politicians and musicians protesting about that or the more than 100 people executed in Saudi each year for crimes including attending public protests and adultery, after which their severed heads can be left on public display?

Where are the same mob protesting about the oppression of the Kurds? 

I just can't shake the idea that the fact that Israel is Jewish has something to do with it.


----------



## Betsy Og (23 May 2018)

I broadly agree in relation to other unreported war crimes, re Saudi its oil - pure & simple - if there ever a reason to be an environmentalist and move beyond oil..... 

My reluctance to say its anti-semitism is due to the Israeli position of producing that card at ever opportunity as the shield for any criticism. Israel is a modern state and we expect a bit more, is part of it. The relentlessness of their campaign is another aspect - for decades they have laid seige to a people. You can get into chicken & egg type arguments over who started it, but Israel seems determined to finish it a la the Kinahans. If you were stuck in the Gaza strip I'm sure you'd be willing to protest. From the pictures we've seen it was people throwing stones from half a mile away, who were picked off by snipers - it was totally disproportionate response to any perceived threat.

Why would Irish people hate the Jews?, do we hate the Mormons or the Quakers or whoever else? If it wasn't for Israels actions we'd barely have cause to think of them at all [other than remembering the holocaust], much less hate them.

I think the Kurds are one of the most hard done by peoples ever, they fought ISIS in the front lines, but yet they can't be given a homeland in the mountains. So Turkey are another nation who can FRO.


----------



## Purple (23 May 2018)

Betsy Og said:


> Israel is a modern state and we expect a bit more, is part of it.


 Yes, that's certainly a factor.



Betsy Og said:


> The relentlessness of their campaign is another aspect - for decades they have laid seige to a people.


 Yes and no; the culpability of other players in the region is willfully ignored by our media. Why do they do that? 



Betsy Og said:


> If you were stuck in the Gaza strip I'm sure you'd be willing to protest.


 I would indeed. I'm not sure that's I'd only be protesting against the Israelis though.



Betsy Og said:


> From the pictures we've seen it was people throwing stones from half a mile away, who were picked off by snipers - it was totally disproportionate response to any perceived threat.


 Agreed.


----------



## cremeegg (23 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Why do we get so exorcised about what Israel does while we ignore what Turkey does?
> 
> Why is Israel held to higher standards that its neighbours?



Because the State of Israel was created by a decision of The UN. It is "our" responsibility.

The UN, (at the time "we" the west, had most influence) brought Israel into existence, with the express purpose of Jews from around the world coming to live there. This was done to assuage European guilt after the Holocaust.

Now we feel guilty about the adverse effects our decision had on the people who lived there at the time.


----------



## Purple (23 May 2018)

cremeegg said:


> Now we feel guilty about the adverse effects our decision had on the people who lived there at the time.


True but an examination of the population of the area at the time, and in the 50-100 or so years leading up to then shows that it's not that simple.


----------



## TheBigShort (23 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Then, a few days later a HAMAS representative admitted that 50 of the 62 killed were HAMAS operatives with only 12 being "civilians".



With respect, within the artice itself from "Israel Times", it is somewhat disputed as to how many of the victims were Hamas.
Also, being a member of Hamas is quite common in Gaza, and when the organisation called Hamas openly calls for Palestinians to partake in a march it is not surprising to me to see that large numbers of Hamas members would partake in the protest. 
Finally, the only evidence of an 'attack' from Hamas, that I have seen, are petrol bombs, stone-throwing and wire-cutting the fence. 
The Israeli response was wholly disproportionate, quite often indiscrimanate and rightly condemned for its barbaric murders of children.


----------



## Purple (23 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> With respect, within the artice itself from "Israel Times", it is somewhat disputed as to how many of the victims were Hamas.
> Also, being a member of Hamas is quite common in Gaza, and when the organisation called Hamas openly calls for Palestinians to partake in a march it is not surprising to me to see that large numbers of Hamas members would partake in the protest.
> Finally, the only evidence of an 'attack' from Hamas, that I have seen, are petrol bombs, stone-throwing and wire-cutting the fence.
> The Israeli response was wholly disproportionate, quite often indiscrimanate and rightly condemned for its barbaric murders of children.


With respect, are you certain that you are getting the full story?
CNN covered the same story and they are hardly pro-Israeli.
That doesn't excuse Israeli excesses but it is not balanced reporting when we only hear about the excesses of one side.

I think back to the morons from the Labour party's LGBT group marching in Dublin with Hamas flags even though if Hamas got their hands on them they'd throw them off the roof of a high building for being LGB or T.


----------



## TheBigShort (23 May 2018)

Purple said:


> With respect, are you certain that you are getting the full story?



Probably rarely ever get the full story. So in between the propaganda from all sides I try to gauge matters with what is put in front of me.
My understanding is that no Israeli soliders were injured in the protests?
Video footage of shootings show clearly indiscriminate fire, including attacking people at prayer, and teenagers running away from the border fence.
The article you linked automatically labels all Hamas members as terrorists, therefore Israel was 'under attack' - not so, it is quite plausible to be a Hamas member and _not _be engaged in terrorist activity.

So in the end 60+ Palestinians dead, several hundred injured, no Israelis injured - it was a slaughter.


----------



## TheBigShort (23 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Why do we get so exorcised about what Israel does while we ignore what Turkey does?



I agree, I reckon it is because Turkey is a NATO member.
Although we are not in NATO we know how to toe the line.



Purple said:


> Why are we not all calling for a boycott on Saudi Arabia for it's support of terrorism and the horrific war it has wages in Yemen?



Again, all to do with national interests and very rarely to with innocent civilians.



Purple said:


> Where's the politicians and musicians protesting about that or the more than 100 people executed in Saudi each year for crimes including attending public protests and adultery, after which their severed heads can be left on public display?



There are quite a few, but I suspect if they ever got into power they would become rudderless in all this.
Its why we are 'nuetral' but allow US warplanes to land at Shannon. Its why we expel Russian diplomats at the behest of dubious British claims but only summon Israeli diplomats despite slaughter.



Purple said:


> I just can't shake the idea that the fact that Israel is Jewish has something to do with it



I disagree. Despite all the condemnation, we dont actually do anything. The reason I think Israel gets a hard time over their blatant atrocities over say, Saudi Arabia, is because it relies heavily on Western support to survive.
The West doesnt like being put into the position of having to justify bare-faced Israeli atrocities.
Israels biggest threat is not the Palestinians, Hamas or Arabs, it is the populations of Europe and US turning against their political establishments in their support for Israel.


----------



## cremeegg (23 May 2018)

Purple said:


> True but an examination of the population of the area at the time, and in the 50-100 or so years leading up to then shows that it's not that simple.



It really is that simple, as the source you quote quite clearly shows.

In 1922, when political Zionism was already active, the Jewish population of Palestine was 11%. Today it is 74.7%.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2018)

cremeegg said:


> It really is that simple, as the source you quote quite clearly shows.
> 
> In 1922, when political Zionism was already active, the Jewish population of Palestine was 11%. Today it is 74.7%.


At that time there were restrictions on Jews emigrating to the area, restrictions which became far stricter under the British Mandate. At the same time there was a massive influx of Arabs, mainly to work for Jewish Zionist settlers who were investing large amounts of money in agricultural infrastructure. 
The reason that the Jewish population of the area was so low was because they had been driven out of the area under force of arms in previous generations. When you look at the Stat's the majority of Palestinians are there the same amount of time as the Jews. 
The correlation between the Jews and the Nationalists in Northern Ireland is striking; both dispossessed with their land planted by outsiders, both willing to fight to get it back. That's why I don't understand why the Shinners/Nationalists/IRA heads are pro-Palestinian as in the Irish context the Palestinians are the planters.  

Of course none of that excuses Israeli excesses now or Palestinian terrorism now or in the past.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I disagree. Despite all the condemnation, we dont actually do anything. The reason I think Israel gets a hard time over their blatant atrocities over say, Saudi Arabia, is because it relies heavily on Western support to survive.


We can't do anything that means anything but we don't make noise about Saudi or Turkey like we do about Israel. Irish people won't buy Israeli oranges but we'll happily go on holidays to Turkey (unless we fear a terrorist attack).


----------



## Purple (24 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Its why we are 'nuetral' but allow US warplanes to land at Shannon. Its why we expel Russian diplomats at the behest of dubious British claims but only summon Israeli diplomats despite slaughter.


We are not Neutral, we are unaligned. If we were neutral we'd be capable of defending ourselves but we are not. Austria and Switzerland are neutral and have large armies.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2018)

I'm not suggesting that the Israelis are justified in killing so many people or that they behave well. I am suggesting that our childish framing of those who oppose Israel as the good guys or somehow noble is totally inaccurate.

In my view it's a hangover from the days when we supported the IRA and the PLO seemed like their counterparts in the Middle East but at a distance in our eyes they were free from the same grime that tarnished the IRA.

We still think that Yasser Arafat was a hero even though he murdered children and embezzled at least $11.5 million of the  $600 million missing from the funds of the Palestinian Authority.  We ignored the Munich Olympic attacks or his funding and support of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.
We know about the $11.5 million because French investigators traced it to a Swiss Bank Account in his wife's name.
The Guardian is hardly a supporter of Israel but they reported about Suha Arafat more than a decade ago, including the alleged $100,000 a month she received as a salary while living in luxury with her children in Paris, that on top of the theft allegations and all the time when the people her former husband was supposed to represent were hungry and dying.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2018)

Imagine Richard Boyd Barrett and the others in Slogans before Reality if we'd sold a naval ship to the Israeli's instead of a Libyan Warlord.
What's gas is that we sold it for €100,000 to a middle-man who then flipped it for €685,000. Oh, and we forgot to mention that we'd left €16,000 worth of fuel in the tank!


----------



## Betsy Og (24 May 2018)

On the subject of ships, was there any justification for blocking the flotilla of medical aid that time? Should the LE Aisling have been kept and utilised for such humanitarian work - still under Irish Naval control - or does Israel think we'd be slipping them an odd AK-47???, or maybe they just don't like siege relief, you never know how dangerous food and bandages could be......


----------



## Purple (24 May 2018)

Betsy Og said:


> On the subject of ships, was there any justification for blocking the flotilla of medical aid that time? Should the LE Aisling have been kept and utilised for such humanitarian work - still under Irish Naval control - or does Israel think we'd be slipping them an odd AK-47???, or maybe they just don't like siege relief, you never know how dangerous food and bandages could be......


On that issue; why didn't our media report on the fact that Egypt had closed its border with Gaza and, as a fellow Arab nation, could easily have supplied all of the food and medical needs of the people there?
Where were the protests outside the Egyptian embassy? Where were the calls to boycott them?

Why does nobody like Hamas? Because most countries including the USA, Canada and the EU categorize them as a terrorist organisation.
Imagine how the British would have reacted if Sinn Fein had taken power in a quasi-independent Northern Ireland in the mid 1970's. That's what this is like for Israel.

The Palestinian question is as much to do with the inter-generational hot/cold/hot civil/regional war between Sunni and Shia Islam, between Egypt and Iran and their respective power groups, as it is to do with a conflict between Israel and the Arabs.

The people writing in the Irish Times know all this but they choose not to say it. Instead they choose to frame this as a conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, as if the border around them was eternal and immutable instead of a 90 year old European creation. Why is that?


----------



## TheBigShort (24 May 2018)

Purple said:


> We can't do anything that means anything but we don't make noise about Saudi or Turkey like we do about Israel. Irish people won't buy Israeli oranges but we'll happily go on holidays to Turkey (unless we fear a terrorist attack).



We could do things like stop importing Israeli goods, but to do so would bring the wrath of the US Administration and before long we would feel the heat from Washington.



Purple said:


> We are not Neutral, we are unaligned. If we were neutral we'd be capable of defending ourselves but we are not. Austria and Switzerland are neutral and have large armies.



Fair enough, we are 'unaligned'. That is why we allow US warplanes to land in Shannon on their way to a conflict that we have no direct part in - no doubt if, Russian or even Iranian warplanes requested landing here on their way we would tell them where to go. We may be 'unaligned' but we know which pot our gravy is in. 



Purple said:


> Imagine Richard Boyd Barrett and the others in Slogans before Reality if we'd sold a naval ship to the Israeli's instead of a Libyan Warlord.



Except we didn't sell it to a Libyan Warlord, according to the article we sold it to a Dutch business man who in turn sold it to a Libyan warlord - Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27492354

He is a complex character. My guess is if our navy ships were falling into the 'wrong hands' in Libya we would have got a wrap on the knuckles from the US, UK and France by now.



Purple said:


> Imagine how the British would have reacted if Sinn Fein had taken power in a quasi-independent Northern Ireland in the mid 1970's. That's what this is like for Israel.



I don't think that is a useful analogy. Hamas have been democratically elected in the Gaza Strip have they not? The recent protests have as their basis, legitimate grievances of being driven out or having to flee their homelands.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I don't think that is a useful analogy. Hamas have been democratically elected in the Gaza Strip have they not? The recent protests have as their basis, legitimate grievances of being driven out or having to flee their homelands.


The IRA had legitimate grievances and had widespread support in NI. If there was a partitioned Catholic State-let they may well have won an election whilst still being terrorists. 
As I pointed out already if you agree that Palestine is the homeland of the Arabs who identify as Palestinian then you have to agree that Northern Ireland is the homeland of the Unionists. 
Personally I prefer to deal with the here and now and not get bogged down about what date you start counting from when assessing the legitimacy of peoples claim on "homelands". It's one of the reasons I don't like Nationalism.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Except we didn't sell it to a Libyan Warlord, according to the article we sold it to a Dutch business man who in turn sold it to a Libyan warlord - Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar.


Sure, and we couldn't have any control over who it was sold to next? Riiight.


----------



## TheBigShort (24 May 2018)

Purple said:


> The IRA had legitimate grievances and had widespread support in NI



Yes, but not political support. They had no meaningful political representation until after the Hunger Strikes and the organization of SF. Hamas has political support and it is exercised in the ballot box.
The fact they are labelled as 'terrorists' by US, EU etc is moot. Its support base considers the US and Israel as terrorists too.



Purple said:


> As I pointed out already if you agree that Palestine is the homeland of the Arabs who identify as Palestinian then you have to agree that Northern Ireland is the homeland of the Unionists.
> Personally I prefer to deal with the here and now and not get bogged down about what date you start counting from when assessing the legitimacy of peoples claim on "homelands". It's one of the reasons I don't like Nationalism.



I agree, but unfortunately what has happened in the past...in the very distant past...is still a major factor determining opinion.



Purple said:


> Sure, and we couldn't have any control over who it was sold to next? Riiight.



I agree, I assumed your ref to RBB was because he would not object to our navy ships falling into anti-US/Israel and anti-imperialist factions in Libya, but would object if they did fall into pro- US/Israel factions - which it appears the ship may have done.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, but not political support. They had no meaningful political representation until after the Hunger Strikes and the organization of SF. Hamas has political support and it is exercised in the ballot box.
> The fact they are labelled as 'terrorists' by US, EU etc is moot. Its support base considers the US and Israel as terrorists too.


I'm drawing an anology. I know that they didn't have the political support in the 70's but if they had, and they were still blowing up kids, then they would be like Hamas today. In that scenario while they would be labelled as 'terrorists' by US, EU they would consider the British army terrorists. 



TheBigShort said:


> I agree, but unfortunately what has happened in the past...in the very distant past...is still a major factor determining opinion.


 Yes, that's the problem and that's why talk of "homelands" etc doesn't help as the legitimacy of each sides claim depends on when you start counting from.



TheBigShort said:


> I agree, I assumed your ref to RBB was because he would not object to our navy ships falling into anti-US/Israel and anti-imperialist factions in Libya, but would object if they did fall into pro- US/Israel factions - which it appears the ship may have done.


 Yes, but "imperialist" is a pejorative and subjective term.


----------



## TheBigShort (24 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Yes, that's the problem and that's why talk of "homelands" etc doesn't help as the legitimacy of each sides claim depends on when you start counting from.



I know its not helpful, but it is, and always will be, part of the equation. It cannot be removed.
The challenge is to bring the protaganists together to carve out a viable peaceful path for all sides that doesn't infringe, impose, defeat, dismiss, etc the grievances of the past for any side.  



Purple said:


> Yes, but "imperialist" is a pejorative and subjective term.



So is "terrorist".


----------



## Purple (24 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I know its not helpful, but it is, and always will be, part of the equation. It cannot be removed.
> The challenge is to bring the protaganists together to carve out a viable peaceful path for all sides that doesn't infringe, impose, defeat, dismiss, etc the grievances of the past for any side.
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed on both points.

I started the thread to have a discussion about the selective nature of reporting by Irish news outlets about the region and the selective moral outcry by the Irish public. So far this thread has turned into a discussion about Israel alone. Kind of proved my point; we are inundated with reports about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict but we here next to nothing about other much bigger and bloodier conflicts in the region. The same is true of conflicts generally; if it involved white people we hear all about it but if it's black, brown or yellow people we don't really care. I always remember the Rwandan Civil War and genocide being described as a "tribal conflict", as if that explained it. The subtext being sure what can you expect from a bunch of darkies? 
"Tribal Conflict" is a racist term used by people too lazy or too stupid to understand a conflict or dispute between darker skinned people in another part of the world.

Maybe at some level that's the issue in the Middle East, maybe we expect the white Jews to, well, "play the white man" where as those Arabs know no better?
Kind of ironic to expect lower standards from the people who invented civilisation. 

Maybe the problem is racism rather than antisemitism?


----------



## TheBigShort (24 May 2018)

Purple said:


> I started the thread to have a discussion about the selective nature of reporting by Irish news outlets about the region and the selective moral outcry by the Irish public



I agree that there is a selective nature of reporting by Irish news outlets, but I would extend that further afield to UK, US also. I also think that the narrative is highly selective also. Its amazing how often reporting in different countries, from different outlets, can illicit near verbatim the same perspective of the issue being reported, direct from the reporter.

In fairness to the Irish public and general public in most countries, most people can only grind their axe to what they hear about. Yemen is an obvious disaster that is being kept at arms length from the public. It probably something to do with this

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...500-civilians-war-crimes-export-a8042871.html

People trying to raise awareness now of issues that do not suit powerful vested interests tend to get a token drip-feed of those issues such as the above. By right, it should cause at a minimum the temporary suspension of arms sales to SA - but no such measure is even being contemplated as far as I know.




Purple said:


> Maybe the problem is racism rather than anti-semitism?



I really think it boils down to who is in charge and in whose interest does any of this reporting serve?


----------



## Betsy Og (24 May 2018)

Re the "play the white man" vs Arabs know no better. Israel is a modern democracy, not sure how robust but has free elections. You expect that to moderate behaviour. Arab nations have no real history of democracy, which lends itself to religious leaders or ruling regimes, more risk of extremism.  That's not racism, its history/culture.

Re Egypt and floatilla, doing nothing to help is not as bad as storming the aid ship, so Israel rightly grabbed the headlines.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 May 2018)

There is no question but the double standards _Purple_ highlights exist.  Is it anti Jewish?  I think of people I know who get outraged by any Israeli excess.  They are not anti Jew.  But they share a common world view which I have dubbed elsewhere in this blog as Shortie Syndrome.  It could be summarized as “the root of all evil is America”. Or maybe capitalism. It’s sort of a throwback to the Cold War.  If Russia was the main sponsor of Israel rather than America the pinkos would be singing a completely different tune.


----------



## Purple (25 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I really think it boils down to who is in charge and in whose interest does any of this reporting serve?


And yet the people who are giving out about Israel claim that they are disproportionately powerful and backed by America and powerful international interests (the international Jewish conspiracy?).
The selective ire and indignation which the moral bell ringers reserve for Israel and America makes a lie of the claim the suggestion that we are spoon fed what "the man" wants. If that was true we'd hear nothing about Israel and all about Russia in Syria.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 May 2018)

Purple said:


> And yet the people who are giving out about Israel claim that they are disproportionately powerful and backed by America and powerful international interests (the international Jewish conspiracy?).
> The selective ire and indignation which the moral bell ringers reserve for Israel and America makes a lie of the claim the suggestion that we are spoon fed what "the man" wants. If that was true we'd hear nothing about Israel and all about Russia in Syria.



Fair enough, but I dont think it is all as simple as that (or as I made out previous). 
The reporting from Gaza is prominent because it is an issue that lies at the root of so many previous conflicts in the Mid East for so many years. 
The intractable nature of the conflict, coupled with its strategic importance insofar that it can draw so many other players into it, is what probably puts it top of the conflict reporting charts. That is what I mean by "in whose interest", effectively it is in all of our interests to know what is happening there, both from a humanitarian point of view and a selfish national strategic view.
What I mean by "who is in charge", merely reflects the policy response. 
If the Iranians had crushed the most recent "uprising" (btw-whatever happened to that?) by shooting innocent protestors, the US and EU policy response would be wholly different to the policy response toward Israel.
This, compared to say the Yemen conflict, which on pure humanitarian grounds is in all of our interests, but which from selfish national strategic grounds provides very little interest. That is why when the Saudi's bomb wedding parties killing entire families it is news for a day, item 5, on the editorial. 
Thats my theory on why Saudi gets away with it but Israel is under the microscope (nit that they appear to care).


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 May 2018)

Whilst the critics of Israel are certainly not its friends, it should actually be proud of the double standards applying to it.  Take the NI troubles, they got a totally disproportionate global coverage.  As for the 13 dead on Bloody Sunday, it caused the Brits more grief than the 7,000 killed in Tianenman Square.  The World judges the Brits by a high standard, likewise the Israelis, well done them.  

I think this goes a long way to explain the apparent double standards of the media.  Though it still remains that there is a significant Shortie Syndrome which despises Israel for the reasons aforementioned.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 May 2018)

[QUOTE="Duke of Marmalade, post: 1569628, member: ] If Russia was the main sponsor of Israel rather than America the pinkos would be singing a completely different tune.[/QUOTE]

Russia is a main sponsor of Israel. Russian is one of the main languages in use in Israel after Hebrew and Arabic. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews are of Russian descent.
It is very much in Russias interest what occurs in Israel, it is very much a sponsor of Israel.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 May 2018)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> As for the 13 dead on Bloody Sunday, it caused the Brits more grief than the 7,000 killed in Tianenman Square. The World judges the Brits by a high standard, likewise the Israelis, well done them.



Bloody Sunday received so much attention for so long because of the bare-faced lies the government, through a supposed independent judiciary, propagated for so long that the victims were terrorists. 
Not much point in crediting ourselves of being judged to a higher standard, that when such standards are relied upon, that the holders of high office in a democracy, resort to conspire, collude, and corrupt the very standards that they are bound to uphold.

As for detesting Israel, who detests Israel? 
I can detest an Israeli government that stands over the mass slaughter of innocents without detesting Israel, the nation or its people. Just as I can detest a British government for its collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, I can admire British people, its positive culture and influence on the world.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 May 2018)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The World judges the Brits by a high standard, likewise the Israelis, well done them.



The World does not judge Israel to a higher standard. To do so, would involve accountability. There is no accountability for what Israel is doing, not that I can see. 
On the otherhand ordinary Iranians will suffer the consequences of economic sanctions for apparently complying (or non-compliance if you believe Israel) of nuclear weapons deal with the West. 
Between Israel and Iran, it is clear to me that Iran is being judged to a higher standard and being held to account for meeting that standard too.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> [QUOTE="Duke of Marmalade, post: 1569628, member: ] If Russia was the main sponsor of Israel rather than America the pinkos would be singing a completely different tune.



I suppose I meant the Soviet Union which the pinkos so hanker for.  Look it up on Wiki:


			
				“Wiki” said:
			
		

> Israel and the Soviet Union were on opposite sides in the Cold War


Also many of the Russian Israelis are refugees from the Soviet Union.  Irish republicans speak English, doesn’t make them Brit lovers.


----------



## Purple (25 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The reporting from Gaza is prominent because it is an issue that lies at the root of so many previous conflicts in the Mid East for so many years.


 Yes, but it doesn't really lie at the root of any of the conflicts. It is just an easy target for anti-Israeli sentiment within Arab countries. For those countries it is their bogyman, their "war on terror" type issue which whips up nationalism and emotion and distracts from corruption, ineptitude and injustice at home. None of the Arab players care one bit about the Palestinians and their claims for a historical homeland. At the same time they were protesting about the creation of Israel and going to war to destroy it they all supported the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan. Remember that Palestine was partitioned along the same grounds with Isreal being the Jewish homeland and Jordan being the Arab/Muslim homeland. The fact is that the Hashemites didn't let the people who we now know as the Palestinians into their bit of Palestine (now known as Jordan) because they didn't want to lose power in the new country. 



TheBigShort said:


> The intractable nature of the conflict, coupled with its strategic importance insofar that it can draw so many other players into it, is what probably puts it top of the conflict reporting charts.


 It only burns that brightly because we in the West keep giving it oxygen. 
The nature of the conflict has as much to do with the horrific war of conquest wages by the Saudis when they conquered the Arabian peninsula with the backing and support of the British at the turn of the last century as it does with anything else. History didn't start with the Zionist movement.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The World does not judge Israel to a higher standard. To do so, would involve accountability. There is no accountability for what Israel is doing, not that I can see.
> On the otherhand ordinary Iranians will suffer the consequences of economic sanctions for apparently complying (or non-compliance if you believe Israel) of nuclear weapons deal with the West.
> Between Israel and Iran, it is clear to me that Iran is being judged to a higher standard and being held to account for meeting that standard too.


Oh no.  Iran is judged by very low standards by nearly everyone.  Those mad Ayatollahs would actually use Nukes to wipe Israel of the face of the earth, together with any other infidel states unable to defend themselves.

Don’t tell me Shortie Syndrome extends to sympathy with the Ayatollahs


----------



## Purple (25 May 2018)

Betsy Og said:


> Arab nations have no real history of democracy, which lends itself to religious leaders or ruling regimes, more risk of extremism. That's not racism, its history/culture.


The reason that Arab countries have such a bad record when it comes to modern democracies has a lot to do with the military, economic and political undermining of such institution in the Arab would from the 1900's onward.  The UK and France were terrified of the emergence of pan-Arab nationalism when the Ottoman Empire was dying. That's why the supported a barbaric tribe called the Saudis and used them to kill or maim one third of the population of Arabia in order to ensure that the Hashemites didn't emerge as the rulers of the region. At that time the Hashemites had representative parliaments, educated women and, by the standards of the time, were moderate and liberal.
The same sort of thing, to a less bloody extent, happened in Egypt and other parts of the region. The reason for the political vacuum which has been filled with religious extremism is largely due to Western interference in the region. Think Syria, but on a much larger ad bloodier scale.
If you want to know what a country run by ISIS would look like just think Saudi Arabia.

Why do so many of the people there hate us? We gave them lots of damned good reasons to, that's why.

It has nothing to do with culture or religion and everything to do with politics and oppression.
There's no version of the history of the region where we in the West aren't the bad guys.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 May 2018)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I suppose I meant the Soviet Union which the pinkos so hanker for. Look it up on Wiki:



The only one hankering after a failed economic and political system, that has been obselete for nearly as long as it was in existance, is yourself.
Where exactly are going with this, any of this, with regard to the OP?




Duke of Marmalade said:


> Those mad Ayatollahs would actually use Nukes to wipe Israel of the face of the earth, together with any other infidel states unable to defend themselves.



Yeh, just like the NKoreans, just like Gaddaffi, just like Sadam before them, just like the commies. 

Sympathy with Ayatollahs no, ordinary Iranians, yes - try read my post again.


----------



## Betsy Og (25 May 2018)

Purple said:


> There's no version of the history of the region where we in the West aren't the bad guys.



Reminds me of a meeting I was in, big massive boardroom table, the works. This guy, Irish(ish) but English schooled &accent and very much landed gentry type (not a bad lad in fairness) was just back from somewhere in Africa talking about how badly it fared in the early 20's and said something like "it was a disgrace what we did the them".... probably with me looking askance he goes "well, not the Irish", so I said "yeah.... we were kinda busy at home at the time...." and his solicitor goes "hmmm yeah.... I can see now why this table is so wide..."

Moral: Twas the Brrrriittttishhh


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The only one hankering after a failed economic and political system, that has been obselete for nearly as long as it was in existance, is yourself.
> Where exactly are going with this, any of this, with regard to the OP?


OP highlighted a media bias against Israel and questioned whether this was anti Jew.  I said I don’t think so.  It is more the distinctly pink tinge of our liberal media.  But why would pink equal anti Israel?  I was only surmising it was a Soviet legacy and not a Nazi one, but I might be wrong.  Ironically extreme right wingers can also be anti Israel but they are anti semites.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 May 2018)

Purple said:


> None of the Arab players care one bit about the Palestinians and their claims for a historical homeland



I agree, or at to the point that none of them care insofar that it does not advance their own selfish national interests. 
I agree it a tool that is used to beat the Israelis with, but the Israelis do more than enough to assist in that regard. 
In the end, the resolution (if ever) will take the participation and massive effort and resources of numerous outside players, from the West, Africa, Russia and EU. 
It is simply not convincing that Trump can "stand with the people of Iran against tyranny", or feel the "sufferring of ordinary NK's" whilst simultaneously ignoring the plight of Palestinians. 
Perhaps that is why Gaza gets more profile? The atrocious conditions the people live in are being witnessed?


----------



## TheBigShort (25 May 2018)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> OP highlighted a media bias against Israel and questioned whether this was anti Jew.  I said I don’t think so.  It is more the distinctly pink tinge of our liberal media.  But why would pink equal anti Israel?  I was only surmising it was a Soviet legacy and not a Nazi one, but I might be wrong.  Ironically extreme right wingers can also be anti Israel but they are anti semites.



The only thing I can make of that is that you think there is still a significant presence of Soviet sympathisers determining our media content? Has anyone told Denis O Brien this?

The way I look at it is that the Palestine/Israeli conflict has been going for decades. Understandably there is therefore a higher media presence on the ground there with access networks developed over the years.
Unlike say Yemen, which im assuming does not have as much established media, nor the access for reporters. 
If you watch RT you can see documentaries and reporting from Syria that you cannot see on British networks for instance. 

Furthermore, the political responses to atrocities is also skewed, with derogatory language used against 'enemies' like 'mad Ayatollahs', 'Animal Assad', 'Butcher of Baghdad' etc...but treating Israeli leaders who sanction slaughter as state persons.


----------



## Purple (25 May 2018)

Betsy Og said:


> Reminds me of a meeting I was in, big massive boardroom table, the works. This guy, Irish(ish) but English schooled &accent and very much landed gentry type (not a bad lad in fairness) was just back from somewhere in Africa talking about how badly it fared in the early 20's and said something like "it was a disgrace what we did the them".... probably with me looking askance he goes "well, not the Irish", so I said "yeah.... we were kinda busy at home at the time...." and his solicitor goes "hmmm yeah.... I can see now why this table is so wide..."
> 
> Moral: Twas the Brrrriittttishhh


Yea, only there were plenty of Irish who took the Queens shilling and cracked the heads of the natives.
Men like Sir Michael Francis O'Dwyer, for example, who was Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab when Colonel Reginald Dyer opened fire on a crowd in what became known as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre (if you saw the film "Gandhi" you'll remember that bit).   O'Dwyer was from Barronstown in Tipperary. He actively supported Colonel Dyer and his actions.
I know we re-wrote our history after independence to pretend that a large chunk of the population didn't consider themselves British but 100 years later we should be a bit more balanced.


----------



## Purple (25 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The only thing I can make of that is that you think there is still a significant presence of Soviet sympathisers determining our media content? Has anyone told Denis O Brien this?


I don't think he runs the Irish Times or RTE, the two most biased news organisations we have in this context.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 May 2018)

Purple said:


> I don't think he runs the Irish Times or RTE, the two most biased news organisations we have in this context.



Biased how?


----------



## Delboy (25 May 2018)

Purple said:


> I know we re-wrote our history after independence to pretend that a large chunk of the population didn't consider themselves British but 100 years later we should be a bit more balanced.


Nope, we still have a large percentage who view themselves as British or at least yearn for a return. The royal wedding schmooze in the Irish media last weekend was testament to that


----------



## Purple (25 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Biased how?


Seriously? Read this thread.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 May 2018)

Purple said:


> The Palestinian question is as much to do with the inter-generational hot/cold/hot civil/regional war between Sunni and Shia Islam, between Egypt and Iran and their respective power groups, as it is to do with a conflict between Israel and the Arabs.
> 
> The people writing in the Irish Times know all this but they choose not to say it. Instead they choose to frame this as a conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, as if the border around them was eternal and immutable instead of a 90 year old European creation. Why is that?





Purple said:


> Seriously? Read this thread.



Ok, this is the only reference to IT's that I found and none for RTE. I'm looking at the IT's website today on Middle East section.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east

There appears to be widespread reporting of events occurring in different parts of the Middle East with no over emphasis on any particular issue.
As for the IT choosing to frame this as a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians....they are hardly alone in that are they?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...s-updates-dead-Gaza-border-trouble-US-embassy
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/03/politics/israel-two-state-explainer/index.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/israel-palestine-conflict
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...conflict-hard-gets-can-donald-trump-do-solve/

Even the "Times of Israel" describes it as such

https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/israeli-palestinian-conflict/

Hard to see the bias in the IT that is not evident across a broad spectrum of media outlets.


----------



## Purple (25 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Ok, this is the only reference to IT's that I found and none for RTE. I'm looking at the IT's website today on Middle East section.
> 
> https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east
> 
> ...


Does that mean you accept that there is bias across a broad spectrum of media outlets?
Edit; Actually forget I asked. I'm not getting into another reductive semantic discussion with you that spirals into nothing.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 May 2018)

I haven't claimed there is bias, you have. I have stated that I believe there is selective reporting, both here and abroad. I have put forward my views on why that might be, such as ;

1. The length of time a particular conflict may be ensuing - providing for established reporting networks
2. The strategic importance of any conflict to ours, and other countries.
3. Access to reporting - I cited Russia Today, having obvious more access to sites in Syrian controlled territory for instance than say the BBC would.
4. Vested interests in not wanting information being reported - such as Saudi atrocities in Yemen using British made weapons.

These are _some_ reasons that _may _go someway to answering your OP. That, or you can run with the anti-Jewish conspiracy - good luck with that.



Purple said:


> I'm not getting into another reductive semantic discussion with you that spirals into nothing.



Gee, you mean you push forward a view claiming bias, anti-Jewish conspiracy in the media, and the first post that challenges that view, with some links to back it up, you want to shut down the discussion.

Perhaps the bias is somewhat closer to home?

שיהיה לך סוף שבוע נעים


----------



## Purple (25 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I haven't claimed there is bias, you have. I have stated that I believe there is selective reporting, both here and abroad. I have put forward my views on why that might be, such as ;
> 
> 1. The length of time a particular conflict may be ensuing - providing for established reporting networks
> 2. The strategic importance of any conflict to ours, and other countries.
> ...


Where did I suggest there was an anti-Jewish conspiracy? 
By the way, I agree with most of your points above. 





TheBigShort said:


> Gee, you mean you push forward a view claiming bias, anti-Jewish conspiracy in the media, and the first post that challenges that view, with some links to back it up, you want to shut down the discussion.
> 
> Perhaps the bias is somewhat closer to home?
> 
> שיהיה לך סוף שבוע נעים


No, I just couldn't face another plethora of comments and answers in which you set yourself up as the righteous inquisitor en chief focusing on the ever more minute dissection of specific examples rather than the bigger picture discussion. 

Given that this is not a court of law, that you are not a barrister and that other posters are not on the Stand it is conducive to the flow of a discussion not to delve into such minutia in what becomes a rather myopic flow which is neither interesting or informative.


----------



## Sunny (25 May 2018)

If we stick to the original example, the only reporting that 50 of the 62 killed were members of Hamas that I can find is in the Times of Israel. CNN reported on the Times of Israel article but didn't independently verify the report. Suits both sides to make it sound that way I think. CNN did make a good point about Hamas using civilian population for their own purposes but that same point has been made numerous times across multiple media outlets. At the end of the day 62 people died on one side. 0 people even injured on the other side. Whatever about the rights and wrongs, you would think at this stage that Israel would stop allowing themselves being goaded into action by Hamas. They play into their hands every single time. Let them throw their rocks and run at the barbed wire fence. If they get through, then they could have reacted but it just looked like they were shooting at ducks.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Why do we get so exorcised about what Israel does while we ignore what Turkey does?
> 
> Why is Israel held to higher standards that its neighbours?





Purple said:


> _I just can't shake the idea that the fact that Israel is Jewish has something to do with it_.





Purple said:


> Where did I suggest there was an anti-Jewish conspiracy?



I interpreted the above comments to mean that you believe we get so exorcised about what Israel does while ignoring what Turkey does, because you have an idea that Israel being Jewish has something to do with it. Meaning an anti-Jewish bias in the Irish media.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 May 2018)

Sunny said:


> Let them throw their rocks and run at the barbed wire fence. If they get through, then they could have reacted but it just looked like they were shooting at ducks.



There is (was?) video footage of an Easter 1916 commemoration in Derry earlier this year where PSNI vans came under attack with petrol bombs. 
Apparently agreement could not be found between PSNI and organisers of the march as to how close the police presence should be to the commemoration (I cannot verify this, but sounds plausible), hence the ready made petrol bombs when PSNI encroached over the disputed territory.

The PSNI vans simply retreated back. I cant help think that the petrol bombers (mostly teenagers) would have been shot in Gaza.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> There is (was?) video footage of an Easter 1916 commemoration in Derry earlier this year where PSNI vans came under attack with petrol bombs.
> Apparently agreement could not be found between PSNI and organisers of the march as to how close the police presence should be to the commemoration (I cannot verify this, but sounds plausible), hence the ready made petrol bombs when PSNI encroached over the disputed territory.
> 
> The PSNI vans simply retreated back. I cant help think that the petrol bombers (mostly teenagers) would have been shot in Gaza.


Can I get you back on topic please.  OP condemned the excesses of the Israelis (personally I wouldn't be so quick to do so).  He was not as I understand him intending to dive into the old Israeli/Palestinian thing.  Rather he drew rather stark attention to the completely unbalanced media coverage of such events.  To me his examples proved this to be so, I don't see how that can be denied no matter what "side" you are on.  He posed a supplementary as to whether this was anti Jewish _per se. _ I am not sure you even accept his premise that double standards are clear to be seen here. 

Whilst not on topic nonetheless I think comparing the PSNI approach to a few hoodlums in Londonderry these days is not in any way comparable to the persistent threat to Israel's very existence from its enemies within and without.  There was a time when the hoodlum threat in Londonderry was considerably higher than today and we know how it was dealt with then.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 May 2018)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Rather he drew rather stark attention to the completely unbalanced media coverage of such events. To me his examples proved this to be so, I don't see how that can be denied no matter what "side" you are on.



For which I provided a list of possibe reasons as to why this may be the case, none of which had anything to do with being on any side.
In fairness to _Purple _he did acknowledge that he agreed with some of those points.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> He posed a supplementary as to whether this was anti Jewish _per se. _ I am not sure you even accept his premise that double standards are clear to be seen here.



Firstly, you have to show that the media coverage is unbalanced. I have already stated that media coverage is selective. What I mean by that, and in line with the OP, I agree the Palestine/Israel conflict receives more airtime than the other examples provided - again, I provided what I thought reasonable points that may provide some reason as to why this is so.
But if you mean reporting that Israel killed 62 Palestinians and shot dozens more while no injuries from sling-shots and thrown petrol bombs were sustained on the Israeli side, is 'double standards' at play, then I disagree. It is just stating the facts.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> There was a time when the hoodlum threat in Londonderry was considerably higher than today and we know how it was dealt with then.



How?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> How?


Bloody Sunday


----------



## TheBigShort (25 May 2018)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Bloody Sunday



Good God, is there any point in having a discussion about media bias when you are obviously so blind to the facts that you invent your own version of events, regardless? 

The 'hoodlums', as you describe them, were unarmed citizens. Many of whom were shot whilst running away from Army gunfire.
Sound familiar? 


You obviously have a penchant in admiring those in authority, be it Army or Central Bankers, those in power can do no wrong in your eyes.
Clearly, for you, the slaughtering of innocent civilians by those in authority and with over-whelming fire power is not something you think the media should be focusing on. 
Especially while there are 'mad' Ayatollahs coming in the middle of the night to getcha!


----------



## Purple (29 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I interpreted the above comments to mean that you believe we get so exorcised about what Israel does while ignoring what Turkey does, because you have an idea that Israel being Jewish has something to do with it. Meaning an anti-Jewish bias in the Irish media.


Okay, so Where did I suggest there was an anti-Jewish conspiracy?
You do know the difference between a conspiracy and a bias, right?


----------



## Purple (29 May 2018)

Sunny said:


> If we stick to the original example, the only reporting that 50 of the 62 killed were members of Hamas that I can find is in the Times of Israel. CNN reported on the Times of Israel article but didn't independently verify the report. Suits both sides to make it sound that way I think. CNN did make a good point about Hamas using civilian population for their own purposes but that same point has been made numerous times across multiple media outlets. At the end of the day 62 people died on one side. 0 people even injured on the other side. Whatever about the rights and wrongs, you would think at this stage that Israel would stop allowing themselves being goaded into action by Hamas. They play into their hands every single time. Let them throw their rocks and run at the barbed wire fence. If they get through, then they could have reacted but it just looked like they were shooting at ducks.


I don't disagree with any of that. 

Hamas know that the best way of getting international attention is with dead bodies. That used to mean dead Israeli Jews but now it means dead Palestinian Arabs. They don't really care which side the bodies come from, just as long as they are there and there are news cameras pointing at them.

Gaza is under siege by Israel and Egypt. If either party lifted their bit of the siege then the blockade would be over. Where are the protests on the Egyptian border? Where are the opinion pieces about how the Egyptians are treating their Arab brothers and sisters?


----------



## TheBigShort (29 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Okay, so Where did I suggest there was an anti-Jewish conspiracy?
> You do know the difference between a conspiracy and a bias, right?



Did you not read my previous comment?
I _interpreted _your previous comment to _suggest _that you believe there is a bias in Irish media against Israel, because of something to do with being Jewish.
It is not beyond the realms of imagination then to conclude that those who hold a bias against Israel _may conspire _to highlight and report events occurring in Israel more so than others, is it?
But rather than get bogged down in ;



Purple said:


> another plethora of comments and answers in which you set yourself up as the righteous inquisitor en chief focusing on the ever more minute dissection of specific examples rather than the bigger picture discussion.



I will glady accept that you do not consider there to be a conspiracy in the media against Israel on the basis that it has something to do with it being Jewish, but rather there is only a bias.
So other than your speculative assumption that there is bias, do you have anything else to back up that assumption?


----------



## odyssey06 (29 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Gaza is under siege by Israel and Egypt. If either party lifted their bit of the siege then the blockade would be over. Where are the protests on the Egyptian border? Where are the opinion pieces about how the Egyptians are treating their Arab brothers and sisters?



What do you mean, hold the Arabs to the same standards as white\westernized people???
Such a thing is beyond the capability of most left liberals who criticise Israel and are blind to racist view they have of Arabs as incapable of moral improvement.


----------



## Purple (29 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I will glady accept that you do not consider there to be a conspiracy in the media against Israel on the basis that it has something to do with it being Jewish, but rather there is only a bias.


 Good.



TheBigShort said:


> So other than your speculative assumption that there is bias, do you have anything else to back up that assumption?


 Please see my first post.


----------



## TheBigShort (29 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Please see my first post.



I have seen it, thanks. There is ample amounts of coverage of affairs relating to Turkey and the Kurds. Here is a sample.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/kurdistan-a-dangerous-and-volatile-moment-1.3238590

https://www.independent.ie/world-ne...nge-after-turkey-takes-key-town-36719075.html

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0310/858648-un-turkey/

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0509/873613-saudi/


----------



## TheBigShort (29 May 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> What do you mean, hold the Arabs to the same standards as white\westernized people???



Thats somewhat odd to say the least? 
It is white/westernised people that have been plundering the Arab world for the last century. Carving up regions and wealth, overthrowing democratically elected governments, imposing regime change under false pretences, imposing crippling economic sanctions against governments that dont toe the line, getting into bed with governments that do - regardless of their human rights abuses. 

And no-one is ever held to account. 

The only standard set by Western governments in the Middle East is, "what is best for our self-interest", that is all.


----------



## odyssey06 (29 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Thats somewhat odd to say the least?
> It is white/westernised people that have been plundering the Arab world for the last century. Carving up regions and wealth, overthrowing democratically elected governments, imposing regime change under false pretences, imposing crippling economic sanctions against governments that dont toe the line, getting into bed with governments that do - regardless of their human rights abuses.
> And no-one is ever held to account.
> The only standard set by Western governments in the Middle East is, "what is best for our self-interest", that is all.



So it's ok then for Arab goverments to do whatever they want? Without criticism?
Arab governments are conducting human rights abuses but you won't criticise them only any western allies they might have?
What standard do Arab governments set?


----------



## TheBigShort (29 May 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> So it's ok then for Arab goverments to do whatever they want? Without criticism?
> Arab governments are conducting human rights abuses but you won't criticise them only any western allies they might have?
> What standard do Arab governments set?



I condemn all governments that engage in systematic and/or deliberate human rights abuses regardless of their ethnicity, religion or any other defining characteristic. Regardless of whether that is the Irish government, UK, France, US, Israel, Russia, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria or whoever.

Do you?

However, this topic is not about me. Instead it is about an alleged, or perceived bias in the Irish media. 
I would accept that there appears to be more coverage of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict than other conflicts although that is just my perception.
I am a long way from thinking that there is bias against Israel, let alone that if it does exist that it has anything to do with being Jewish.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (29 May 2018)

B/S that's a long list of bad guys. I think I asked you this before but which society/nation do you admire and wish us to follow?


----------



## odyssey06 (29 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I condemn all governments that engage in systematic and/or deliberate human rights abuses regardless of their ethnicity, religion or any other defining characteristic. Regardless of whether that is the Irish government, UK, France, US, Israel, Russia, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria or whoever.
> Do you?
> However, this topic is not about me. Instead it is about an alleged, or perceived bias in the Irish media.
> I would accept that there appears to be more coverage of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict than other conflicts although that is just my perception.
> I am a long way from thinking that there is bias against Israel, let alone that if it does exist that it has anything to do with being Jewish.



There is a blatant anti Israel bias in the mainstream Irish media. Clearly without a doubt Israel are held to a standard that does not apply to their neighbours. 

I think some of it is anti-western, and some of it is anti-semitic and some of it is naive, in that people don't seem to realise that a country with free press will have more critical information about a government coming to light, and that a country with an unfree one will cover up and hide their actions. So yes Western governments should be criticised when it is justified, but we should also remember that sometimes non-Western governments are much better at pulling the wool over the eyes of journalists and their own people.


----------



## TheBigShort (29 May 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> There is a blatant anti Israel bias in the mainstream Irish media



On what basis have come to this view? 



odyssey06 said:


> Clearly without a doubt Israel are held to a standard that does not apply to their neighbours.



Held to a higher standard by whom? What sanctions are placed on Israel for its abuses,  both humanitarian and of its continued and persistent breaches of UN resolutions with regard to its expanding occupation of Palestinian territories? 
What accountability will there be for the slaughter of 62 Palestinians, and hundreds more shot, for protesting their grievances? 
Is the price of protest to be shot dead? 

Israel can only consider itself to be held to a 'higher standard' when it is accountable for its abuses. It is not accountable.
Its _perceived _higher accountability probably stems from the fact that it relies on international support from EU, Russia and primarily US for its continued existence. 
As I mentioned before, if the populations of Europe, particularly UK and France, and the population of US turns on its political establishments to put the Palestinian/Israel conflict at the top of the agenda, then the very existence of Israel could be in jeopardy.

That is why I believe mostly that the Palestinian/Israel conflict receives more attention in ours (and other Western countries) than other conflicts occurring in the world.


----------



## TheBigShort (29 May 2018)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> B/S that's a long list of bad guys. I think I asked you this before but which society/nation do you admire and wish us to follow?



With respect, I dont really buy into to flag-waving or nationhood at all (granted its convenient for the World Cup and song contests). I believe we all have much more in common with each other than what we differ fundamentally.
That is idealistic, but so is flag waving and national anthems.
But given the option of choosing to live, work, raise a family etc, Ireland and/or Britain are societies I admire. I fall short of wishing to follow anyone, we should lead at every opportunity.

After that, perhaps you could stay on topic?


----------



## odyssey06 (30 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> On what basis have come to this view?



On the basis of paying attention to the world and the Irish media's reaction to it for the last 20 - 30 years.



> Is the price of protest to be shot dead?



It was not a peaceful protest. If they don't want to get shot don't start a riot beside armed soldiers, that advice, cynical as it may be, applies to anywhere in the Middle East.


----------



## odyssey06 (30 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Israel can only consider itself to be held to a 'higher standard' when it is accountable for its abuses. It is not accountable. Its _perceived _higher accountability probably stems from the fact that it relies on international support from EU, Russia and primarily US for its continued existence. As I mentioned before, if the populations of Europe, particularly UK and France, and the population of US turns on its political establishments to put the Palestinian/Israel conflict at the top of the agenda, then the very existence of Israel could be in jeopardy.
> That is why I believe mostly that the Palestinian/Israel conflict receives more attention in ours (and other Western countries) than other conflicts occurring in the world.



Devoting more attention to it is a form of bias. It creates a misleading impression about Israel and the Middle East which in turns leads to more critical attention. The media's job is to report what is going on not direct crusades directed at one particular state.


----------



## TheBigShort (30 May 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> On the basis of paying attention to the world and the Irish media's reaction to it for the last 20 - 30 years.



Should the media just ignore it, or down play it? It is in the news today again. It being reported that Hamas fired up to 50 rockets into Israel with Israel responding with air strikes.
It is being reported that UN Security Council is meeting to vote on a proposed US resolution condemning Hamas for rocket attacks.
Im failing to see any bias in the reporting.



odyssey06 said:


> It was not a peaceful protest. If they don't want to get shot don't start a riot beside armed soldiers, that advice, cynical as it may be, applies to anywhere in the Middle East.



What sanctions or accountability will Israel face for the shooting dead of dozens of unarmed protesters?


----------



## Sunny (30 May 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> There is a blatant anti Israel bias in the mainstream Irish media. Clearly without a doubt Israel are held to a standard that does not apply to their neighbours.
> 
> I think some of it is anti-western, and some of it is anti-semitic and some of it is naive, in that people don't seem to realise that a country with free press will have more critical information about a government coming to light, and that a country with an unfree one will cover up and hide their actions. So yes Western governments should be criticised when it is justified, but we should also remember that sometimes non-Western governments are much better at pulling the wool over the eyes of journalists and their own people.



So Israel being held to a higher standard than Iran is a bad thing??? I would hope they are being held to a higher standard if they are as democratic as they claim to be. Do you really think people and journalists are stupid when it comes to places like Iran and Iraq and don't see what is happening. Journalists have been reporting human abuses in these places for years. The problem is we know nothing can be done unless we decide to invade and topple Iran like we did in Iraq and nobody wants that. So there is plenty of criticism but it goes nowhere. The fact that people think that by criticising Israel, they might listen and make a difference is a good thing. It means that people still think it is an open democratic country receptive to concerns by the international community. However, they make that view hard to defend sometimes. It is not anti-Israel bias. It is not ignorant or naivety. It is simply applying the same standards to Israel as we apply to the US and the allies in recent years when we saw prisoner abuse, civilian deaths, rapes, torture etc and there was public uproar across the world. That's the price you pay for being a civilised country.  

Israel might not like it but the fact of the matter is that are an occupying force in Gaza. They mightn't agree and you mightn't agree but the UN says they are and most of the international community says they are. And being an occupying force has responsibilities towards civilian populations whether they like it or not. Terrorist attacks are deplorable and Israel has a right to defend itself but that right doesn't permit any country to stand on ordinary people's civil liberties and unless you are telling me that every man woman and child in the Gaza strip is a terrorist, there are civilians suffering because of the actions of their own leaders and the actions of Israel. Having sympathy for them doesn't mean you are anti-Israel. The brutal truth is that it is pointless looking to Hamas to protect their own by doing the right thing so we have to look to Israel to be bigger, to be better, to be calmer, to be more constructive, to be more honest, to be fairer, to be more responsible. Mightn't be fair on Israel but not much in the world is actually fair.


----------



## odyssey06 (30 May 2018)

Sunny said:


> Israel might not like it but the fact of the matter is that are an occupying force in Gaza. They mightn't agree and you mightn't agree but the UN says they are and most of the international community says they are. And being an occupying force has responsibilities towards civilian populations whether they like it or not. Terrorist attacks are deplorable and Israel has a right to defend itself but that right doesn't permit any country to stand on ordinary people's civil liberties and unless you are telling me that every man woman and child in the Gaza strip is a terrorist, there are civilians suffering because of the actions of their own leaders and the actions of Israel. Having sympathy for them doesn't mean you are anti-Israel. The brutal truth is that it is pointless looking to Hamas to protect their own by doing the right thing so we have to look to Israel to be bigger, to be better, to be calmer, to be more constructive, to be more honest, to be fairer, to be more responsible. Mightn't be fair on Israel but not much in the world is actually fair.



You have the nous to draw the distinction between amenable to criticism and worthy of criticism, but I don't think that is true of the mainstream media here.
It is a form of bias and a double standard from the media.

But, the perception they create with this unfairness is that Iran et al is not doing anything that should be criticised, and that only Israel is.
Other countries are getting a free pass.
Over time this has generated the perception in Ireland that Israel is always and the only bad guy.

By all means criticise Israel, if you also criticise similar behaviour elsewhere, and with full recognition of the nature of the enemy they face and the challenges it presents.
The Irish media do not.


----------



## TheBigShort (30 May 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> It is a form of bias and a double standard from the media.
> 
> But, the perception they create with this unfairness is that Iran et al is not doing anything that should be criticised, and that only Israel is.



I must be living in a parallel universe.
Israel and Gaza is in the Irish media again today. Reports of indiscriminate rocket fire from Hamas into Israel followed by targeted air strikes by Israel.
The UN is meeting to discuss a proposed US resolution to condemn Hamas.

Where is the bias in the Irish media today? Im not seeing it.

As for comparisons between Iran and Israel, Iran is facing economic sanctions not because it wasn't complying with the nuclear weapons program deal, but because it was complying! And Trump thought the deal too soft so tore it up.
On the other hand, Israel, it is alleged, has its own undeclared nuclear arsenal. Its weapons stockpiles are not subject to scrutiny nor inspection. It faces no sanctions whatsoever.
When Iranians protest against their government for economic and social hardship, the US declares its support for the protesters. When Palestinians protest against Israel for legitimate grievances the US stands with Israels slaughter of protestors.
When Russia is alleged, on very dubious grounds, to have used CW in Salisbury, the Irish government responds by expelling a Russian diplomat!
When Israel shoots dozens dead and injures hundreds, it gets a finger-wagging!!

The fact that the Irish media reports this, is in no plausible way, a bias against Israel.


----------



## Firefly (30 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I must be living in a parallel universe..



You're only realising that now?


----------



## Purple (30 May 2018)

Firefly said:


> You're only realising that now?


LOL


----------



## TheBigShort (30 May 2018)

Purple said:


> LOL





Firefly said:


> You're only realising that now?



A little gift wrap for you two!

Obviously the understanding of the phrase 'parallel universe' and who actually lives in the real one passed you by


----------



## Purple (30 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> A little gift wrap for you two!
> 
> Obviously the understanding of the phrase 'parallel universe' and who actually lives in the real one passed you by


Touché!


----------



## TheBigShort (30 May 2018)

https://louisallday.wordpress.com/2018/04/01/israel-the-semantics-of-propaganda/

Here is an alternative view, albeit referencing UK and US media I think it can be applied to Irish media reporting on Palestinian and Israel. 
The article outlines the view that far from portraying Israel as the aggressor or the bad guy, that the media in fact use language that portrays Israel as the perpetual victim.
I think the article has merit.


----------



## TheBigShort (3 Jun 2018)

Just my perspective, but the media response in Ireland to the shooting dead of a volunteer 21yr old medic by Israeli forces, who was helping the injured, is one of near apathy.


----------



## Purple (5 Jun 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> https://louisallday.wordpress.com/2018/04/01/israel-the-semantics-of-propaganda/
> 
> Here is an alternative view, albeit referencing UK and US media I think it can be applied to Irish media reporting on Palestinian and Israel.
> The article outlines the view that far from portraying Israel as the aggressor or the bad guy, that the media in fact use language that portrays Israel as the perpetual victim.
> I think the article has merit.


It sounds like something written by the People's Front of Judea. 
In Ireland Hamas combatants are referred to as "Fighters" not as "Terrorists" even though the EU regards Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Semantics me This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language, as they say. 
In Ireland we are cravenly pro-LBGT and yet we ignore the horrific treatment of members of the LGBT community in Gaza. In Israel a LGBT Arab man or women can live openly, join the military and advocate for their community.


----------



## Sunny (5 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> It sounds like something written by the People's Front of Judea.
> In Ireland Hamas combatants are referred to as "Fighters" not as "Terrorists" even though the EU regards Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Semantics me This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language, as they say.
> In Ireland we are cravenly pro-LBGT and yet we ignore the horrific treatment of members of the LGBT community in Gaza. In Israel a LGBT Arab man or women can live openly, join the military and advocate for their community.



The people in Gaza are suffering abuses of their human rights from their own leaders but also from Israel and Egypt. There can be no denying of that. No matter how many Hamas terrorists, there are, there is no doubt that civilian men, women and children are suffering. It's not just Israel's problem and I don't think anyone is saying it is but they are part of the problem and they are part of the solution. They just don't to accept that. 

As for LGBT community, yes Israel is to be congratulated but as in all things with regard Israel, they are one big contradiction. I was reading recently their open campaign of 'misery' against Eritrean and Sudanese refugees or as Israel calls them, 'Infiltrators' to make them leave. Government minister referring to them 'Cancer on our body'. Telling them they can't work but then asking for payslips when they go to renew visas. Threatening them with extended retention if they refuse to be relocated to Rwanda or Uganda. Turning a blind eye to racist attacks in African neighbourhoods. 

Israel it seems to me sometimes seem to pick and choose what human rights they want to recognise and have ready made excuses for the one's they don't recognise. Gaza is full of terrorists. The refugees are infiltrators. Palestinian citizens of Israel who had houses destroyed were living in illegal houses despite some of them being built before Israel was created while at the same time building illegal settlements themselves. As I said, one big contradiction.


----------



## Purple (5 Jun 2018)

I agree with everything you said Sunny. I started this thread to talk about how Israel gets so much attention but its neighbours, who are far worse, get so little. So far the vast majority of the posts are about Israel and what it does wrong. My first post asked why we ignore what is going on in Turkey, what's going on in Saudi Arabia. 

Would there be calls for a boycott of the Eurovision if it was being held in Turkey?
What do we know about how Africans are treated in Saudi?

I'm not excusing Israels behaviour; it is further away from the ideals of a real liberal democracy now than at any point in the last 70 years. I am just questioning why our media refuses to contextualise what it does and why it doesn't report on other countries in the region to the same extent.


----------



## Sunny (5 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> I agree with everything you said Sunny. I started this thread to talk about how Israel gets so much attention but its neighbours, who are far worse, get so little. So far the vast majority of the posts are about Israel and what it does wrong. My first post asked why we ignore what is going on in Turkey, what's going on in Saudi Arabia.
> 
> Would there be calls for a boycott of the Eurovision if it was being held in Turkey?
> What do we know about how Africans are treated in Saudi?
> ...



I do agree with you that the Arab countries get a much easier ride. I wonder is that down to ignorance. How many times are human abuses put down to 'Islam' even though it has nothing to do with religion. It is simply another corrupt evil regime getting rich and powerful on the backs of their citizens. Over here, we seem to shrug our shoulders and say almost go 'that's the Arab's for you'.... With Israel it seems to be a bit different. I don't want to suggest it is because they look more like us that we expect more from them but I think despite all the criticism, Israel is recognised as a valid and valued democracy in the international community. I think it makes it hard for people to reconcile what they think Israel stand for and the pictures on the ground. After all, people just see protestors throwing petrol bombs like a good Saturday night in Belfast getting met by automatic and sniper gunfire. They hear about the homes of Hamas terorrists getting destroyed and children being made homeless. When did the civilised world start punishing children for the sins of their fathers? But there is a very valid point to be made that the suffering of ordinary Israeli's is not covered to the same extent.

I don't know the answer to be honest. I am torn with regards to Israel but that is probably the wrong phrase. I have great sympathy for it and situation it finds itself in trying to protect itself and living in fear but at the same time I just want to scream at them to stop being so stupid and stubborn. What they have been doing is not working to maybe its time to do something different. Even talking to ordinary Israeli's can be challenging at times. They just seem so defensive and paranoid all of the time. Having said that, I have never been there so I could be just one of those ignorant foreigners spouting rubbish from the safety of Dublin.

I know the US has to back them and that it has to be unconditional military support. 100% agree that if Israel is attacked, the US has every right to defend it. But I sometimes wonder if the reluctance of the US to even slightly criticise Israel or hold them to account even through pointless UN security council resolutions really helps them in the long run. Or the US for that matter. Like, what the consequences of the US not vetoing a resolution condemning Israel? It's a pointless piece of paper so what does it matter...At least then, the US might be seen as honest brokers to some extent in a peace process because unfortunately they are the only ones who can do it.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> I started this thread to talk about how Israel gets so much attention but its neighbours, who are far worse, get so little. So far the vast majority of the posts are about Israel and what it does wrong. My first post asked why we ignore what is going on in Turkey, what's going on in Saudi Arabia.



I don't think it is fair to say we 'ignore' what is occurring in Turkey and SA. As pointed out to you there is ample reporting on issues arising in those countries. I would suggest that the ignorance is probably at the political level rather than at media level.
In the same topic that the (non-existent) rights of LGBT in Arab countries was raised, the rights of medical personnel to go about their business of treating the injured is almost completely ignored.




Purple said:


> I am just questioning why our media refuses to contextualise what it does and why it doesn't report on other countries in the region to the same extent.



I find this hard to agree with. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is currently dominating media because of events occurring there.
Syria has dominated for the last 7yrs.
The other point is what influence does Western media and reporting have on the state policies of Arab countries? I would say very little. So we can protest all we want about LGBT rights in Palestine, SA, Iran or Qatar or wherever...unless it puts political pressure on those governments then it just goes by the wayside.
Im looking at RTE, Irish Times, Irish Independent websites today. I cannot even find a mention of the killing of medical personnel in Gaza...its as if it was yesterday's news!
The shooting dead of medical personnel is a breach of Geneva convention.
No editorials, no comment. I guess...no pressure so? Where is the supposed bias against Israel? Where is the holding of Israel to a higher standard today, or yesterday?
It simply is not there.



Sunny said:


> Over here, we seem to shrug our shoulders and say almost go 'that's the Arab's for you'.... With Israel it seems to be a bit different.



I would disagree. Haven't you heard of Gadaffi, "The Butchers of Bagdad", "Animal Assad"? These are all countries in which Western powers have toppled or tried to topple, precisely because of what they do.
Anyone following events in the Middle East will know that Iran is now also being targeted for economic sanctions...what economic sanctions are there against Israel?
Perhaps the perceived bias in reporting against Israel stems from the fact that Israel is never held to account for anything it does.


----------



## Sunny (5 Jun 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I would disagree. Haven't you heard of Gadaffi, "The Butchers of Bagdad", "Animal Assad"? These are all countries in which Western powers have toppled or tried to topple, precisely because of what they do.
> Anyone following events in the Middle East will know that Iran is now also being targeted for economic sanctions...what economic sanctions are there against Israel?
> Perhaps the perceived bias in reporting against Israel stems from the fact that Israel is never held to account for anything it does.



None of those were toppled for what they did. Many were carrying out atrocities for years with implicit and explicit western support. They didn't get all their weapons from the evil Russians. Only reason they were toppled is that the US attitude to the Middle East changed after 9/11 and society changes.

Iran had sanctions imposed for years yet still threatened Israel with nuclear destruction while working towards creating nuclear weapons. Even when sanctions were removed after the nuclear deal, look how many western countries were piling into Iran despite no regime change and despite horrendous human rights record. The reason why there is such acrimony towards Trump's decision is the lost business that the deal brought. Not because people thought it was a great deal. Trump is right. It is a poor deal but it was probably the best deal that could have been got at the time.


----------



## Purple (5 Jun 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Haven't you heard of Gadaffi, "The Butchers of Bagdad", "Animal Assad"? These are all countries in which Western powers have toppled or tried to topple, precisely because of what they do


 Are you seriously suggesting that they were overthrown because of how they treated their own people?



TheBigShort said:


> Anyone following events in the Middle East will know that Iran is now also being targeted for economic sanctions...what economic sanctions are there against Israel?


Again, is that because of how they treat their people or is it because they are in a cold war with Saudi Arabia and the Saudis underwrite the US Dollar as their world's reserve currency?



TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps the perceived bias in reporting against Israel stems from the fact that Israel is never held to account for anything it does.


 How do you square that with this?;



TheBigShort said:


> The other point is what influence does Western media and reporting have on the state policies of Arab countries? I would say very little. So we can protest all we want about LGBT rights in Palestine, SA, Iran or Qatar or wherever...unless it puts political pressure on those governments then it just goes by the wayside.


----------



## Purple (5 Jun 2018)

Sunny said:


> Iran had sanctions imposed for years yet still threatened Israel with nuclear destruction while working towards creating nuclear weapons. Even when sanctions were removed after the nuclear deal, look how many western countries were piling into Iran despite no regime change and despite horrendous human rights record. The reason why there is such acrimony towards Trump's decision is the lost business that the deal brought. Not because people thought it was a great deal. Trump is right. It is a poor deal but it was probably the best deal that could have been got at the time.


 Relative to Saudi Arabia Iran is a bastion of freedom, tolerance and peacefulness.


----------



## Sunny (5 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> Relative to Saudi Arabia Iran is a bastion of freedom, tolerance and peacefulness.



Wouldn't argue with that.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Jun 2018)

Sunny said:


> Only reason they were toppled is that the US attitude to the Middle East changed after 9/11 and society changes.





Sunny said:


> Iran had sanctions imposed for years





Purple said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that they were overthrown because of how they treated their own people?



We can get bogged down into what were the "real reasons" as to why any country was invaded or overthrown. Whether it was WMD, links to Al'Qaeda and 9/11, the petro-dollar and oil supplies, gassing its own people or being capable of striking the UK in 45 mins, it doesn't matter.
What matters is that those regimes, and others, were/are and being held to account through economic sanctions, military strikes, outright invasions. 
Israel is not held to account for its atrocities or breaches of UN resolutions etc.
Palestinians endure what I have often heard described as horrendous conditions in an effective open air prison for the actions of Hamas against Israel.
Israel suffers no economic sanctions, and is not held to a higher standard by anyone, let alone Irish media.


----------



## Purple (5 Jun 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> What matters is that those regimes, and others, were/are and being held to account through economic sanctions, military strikes, outright invasions.


That would be true if they were being replaced with better governments, or any governments. It would be true if "we" were backing the side which was less abusive. It would be true if the most abusive country of all, which is also the biggest sponsor of terrorism, received any sanctions at all. Instead there are thousands of US Marines and a carrier battle fleet there protecting the absolute monarchy which rules it.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> That would be true if they were being replaced with better governments, or any governments. It would be true if "we" were backing the side which was less abusive. It would be true if the most abusive country of all, which is also the biggest sponsor of terrorism, received any sanctions at all. Instead there are thousands of US Marines and a carrier battle fleet there protecting the absolute monarchy which rules it.



I dont dispute that. There appears to be a correlation between the political and media treatment of Middle East regimes that chime with Western (or rather US) interests and those that dont.


----------



## Purple (6 Jun 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I dont dispute that. There appears to be a correlation between the political and media treatment of Middle East regimes that chime with Western (or rather US) interests and those that dont.


The Fox News type pro-Israeli media don't report on the bad things that Israel do and vilify the other side and the Guardian type "liberal" media seem to do the opposite. We don't have the equivalent of the Fox News type media here.


----------



## TheBigShort (6 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> We don't have the equivalent of the Fox News type media here



Thank God for that. I can only assume there is little appetite for it.

I disagree with your opposite analogy, albeit this is just my perception - if Hamas had targeted and killed an Israeli volunteer medic, a Fox news type media would be outraged and baying for revenge.
Other than the reporting of the events of that tragedy, I dont see any editorials, commentary in the Irish media condemning Israel or seeking revenge, do you?


----------



## Purple (6 Jun 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Thank God for that.


 We can agree on that!



TheBigShort said:


> I disagree with your opposite analogy, albeit this is just my perception - if Hamas had targeted and killed an Israeli volunteer medic, a Fox news type media would be outraged and baying for revenge.
> Other than the reporting of the events of that tragedy, I dont see any editorials, commentary in the Irish media condemning Israel or seeking revenge, do you?


I did see something on RTE about it but no editorials.
Anyway, the point of the thread wasn't that there was anti-Israeli coverage but rather that there's wasn't the same level of criticism of other countries in the region who are far worse.


----------



## Purple (17 Aug 2018)

I see the leader of the British Labour Party, Mr. Corbyn, is getting in trouble because he placed a wreath at a monument commemorating the PLO terrorists who murdered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. 
Our president has frequently supported the same organisation as well at oppressive totalitarian dictatorships who have murdered tens of thousands of their own people and trained terrorists who have murdered people all over the world. 
On one side there is a extremist like Marine Le Pen who is rightly criticised for her views. Her counterparts on the left get a free ride; I see no difference in substance between her and someone like Paul Murphy. Why is the media ire here reserved for the extremists on the right when their counterparts on the left are equally unsavoury and dangerous?


----------



## Delboy (17 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> I see the leader of the British Labour Party, Mr. Corbyn, is getting in trouble because he placed a wreath at a monument commemorating the PLO terrorists who murdered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.


You can't be serious 
At a time when he and his party stand accused of anti-semitism!



> Why is the media ire here reserved for the extremists on the right when their counterparts on the left are equally unsavoury and dangerous?


Because the majority of the media are left wing themselves


----------



## Purple (17 Aug 2018)

Delboy said:


> You can't be serious
> At a time when he and his party stand accused of anti-semitism!


It was in 2014. Footage is only coming to light now. Given the current anti-semitism accusations I'd say its release is part of a plan to damage him.


----------



## TheBigShort (17 Aug 2018)

The accusations of wreath laying are highly dubious. He was part of a large delegation that was commemorating the lives of innocent civilians who died at the hands of Israeli militants from its armed forces. The fact that some of that delegation laid wreaths to commemorate what they perceive to be martyrs is hardly shocking.

From my perspective the Tory-lite element of the British Labour party, led by Tony Blair, have lost control to Corbyn and are trying to usurp him.
The Republican-lite element of the Democratic party in the US, led by the Clintons, have also lost control.
All this stuff about Russia interference, Russia poisoning, anti-Semitism in the British Labour Party is garbage.
I don't like Donald Trump, but fake news it is.


----------



## Delboy (17 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> All this stuff about Russia interference, Russia poisoning, anti-Semitism in the British Labour Party is garbage.


Is there any left wing cause you don't rally to! To call the accusations/info to hand so far 'garbage' is spin at its very best


----------



## odyssey06 (17 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The accusations of wreath laying are highly dubious. He was part of a large delegation that was commemorating the lives of innocent civilians who died at the hands of Israeli militants from its armed forces. The fact that some of that delegation laid wreaths to commemorate what they perceive to be martyrs is hardly shocking.



By some of the delegation, you actually mean Corbyn! 

Corbyn's answers are highly dubious, and his handling of the anti-semitism scandal within his own party even more so.


----------



## TheBigShort (17 Aug 2018)

Delboy said:


> Is there any left wing cause you don't rally to! To call the accusations/info to hand so far 'garbage' is spin at its very best



Just fighting the spin.

Between Russia and Israel, which country do you think exerts more influence over the US political system? I would say Israel, without a shadow of a doubt. Early this year, on foot of Israeli lobbying, acting against the will of the UN, President Trump announced that the US would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Who could have influenced the US President to change US foreign policy like that?

Do you believe that the Russians tried to kill former spy Skirpal using a toxic military grade agent that was subsequently left in a bin to be found by bin rummagers?


----------



## TheBigShort (17 Aug 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> By some of the delegation, you actually mean Corbyn!
> 
> Corbyn's answers are highly dubious, and his handling of the anti-semitism scandal within his own party even more so.



His handling of the anti-Semitism scandal is poor, granted. But that does not makes him anti-Semite. To suggest or imply or infer that he is anti-semite is ludicrous.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> From my perspective the Tory-lite element of the British Labour party, led by Tony Blair, have lost control to Corbyn and are trying to usurp him


Wow, so Corbyn is a true Labour Party man? From my perspective all the hard work done by Neil Kinnock in the 1980's to make Labour electable had been undone by the undemocratic nefarious hand of the Trade Unions when they elected the idiot brother who was in their pocket instead of the brother who was able, articulate and electable. 
My Corbyn has strongly condemned illegal actions by Israel and rightly so. He has been slow to condemn illegal actions by PLO affiliated groups. If nothing else laying a wreath at a monument commemorating dead members FATA who were "close to", i.e members of, Black September, shows extremely bad political judgement. Given the shambolic state of the Tories Labour may well win the next election. The best hope the Tories have is that Corbyn is still in charge when that election happens.


----------



## odyssey06 (20 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> His handling of the anti-Semitism scandal is poor, granted. But that does not makes him anti-Semite. To suggest or imply or infer that he is anti-semite is ludicrous.



He doesn't seem to have a problem associating with anti-semites, he doesn't seem particularly bothered about his party being associated with anti-semitism, or engaged with rooting it out of his party. If he's not an active anti-semite, he is an enabler of it.


----------



## TarfHead (20 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> ..
> The Republican-lite element of the Democratic party in the US, led by the Clintons, have also lost control.



The House Democrats are led by Nancy Pelosi, the Senate Minority leader is Chuck Schumer.  They're Clinton era Democrats and are showing no inclination to cede power to any of the new wave of candidates that have emerged.

And that's all that Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Beto O'Rourke are.  Candidates.  They have run compelling campaigns to usurp incumbents but they still have no effective power to thwart the White House or implement policy.

And there's a big difference between acting as an activist and governing as a politician, as Nikuyah Walker has discovered in Charlottesville.

Nothing has changed in the balance of US politics 'til the mid-term votes are counted and seats are taken.


----------



## joe sod (20 Aug 2018)

It shows that Jeremy Cornyn will never be prime minister, when he layed that wreath he was a nobody and nobody cared. It was a step way too far to do that especially in the era of global terrorism. It is actually very similar to something Boris Johnson would do, also not a candidate for prime minister, they are actually opposite sides of the same coin, they go deeper and down to appeal to the worst elements of their support base


----------



## TheBigShort (20 Aug 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> He doesn't seem to have a problem associating with anti-semites, he doesn't seem particularly bothered about his party being associated with anti-semitism, or engaged with rooting it out of his party. If he's not an active anti-semite, he is an enabler of it.



What anti-semites does he associate with?


----------



## TheBigShort (20 Aug 2018)

TarfHead said:


> The House Democrats are led by Nancy Pelosi, the Senate Minority leader is Chuck Schumer.  They're Clinton era Democrats and are showing no inclination to cede power to any of the new wave of candidates that have emerged.
> 
> And that's all that Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Beto O'Rourke are.  Candidates.  They have run compelling campaigns to usurp incumbents but they still have no effective power to thwart the White House or implement policy.
> 
> ...



Granted. It may be premature to assume to Democrats are in disarray, but the trajectory in my opinion is heading that way.


----------



## TheBigShort (20 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> Wow, so Corbyn is a true Labour Party man?



From my perspective, yes.


----------



## TheBigShort (20 Aug 2018)

joe sod said:


> It shows that Jeremy Cornyn will never be prime minister, when he layed that wreath he was a nobody and nobody cared



He wasn't a nobody. He was a prominent member of the Labour party, somewhat sidelined by the Blair faction. 
He was part of a delegation of British parliamentarians, including conservatives, that were engaged in building a prospective path to peace in Israel/Palestine. 
As part of that delegation he took part in a ceremony to commemorate innocent victims of Israeli military attacks in 1985. 

The notion that 'nobody cared' is interesting however. It shows that this is just part of a propaganda circus to oust Corbyn. 
If anyone cares now, they should have cared then. Why didnt the Labour party leadership reprimand him, or sanction him in 2014? 
Because "nobody cared"?? 
If nobody cared then, they dont care now. 

Lord Sheikh (ive never heard of him until today) founder of the Conservative Muslim Foundation was also at the conference (not the wreath laying ceremony) that it is believed members of Hamas were also in attendance.

But so what? If you want to build bridges to peace, all factions in a conflict need to be engaged. 
This 'controversy' is nothing more than an attempt to damage Corbyn and oust him from leadership and has absolutely nothing to do with Israeli/Palestine relations.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> What anti-semites does he associate with?


Well he's supported the Islamic Human Rights Commission, a group which is virulently anti-Israeli and gave their ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ award to the murdered staff of Charlie Hebdo two months after they were murdered.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> From my perspective, yes.


I don't know how you can square his views and policies with your own capitalist ideology.


----------



## TheBigShort (20 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> Well he's supported the Islamic Human Rights Commission, a group which is virulently anti-Israeli and gave their ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ award to the murdered staff of Charlie Hebdo two months after they were murdered.




Being 'anti-Israel' does not equate to anti-Semitic. Also, when you say 'anti-Israel', do you mean against the existence of the Israeli state, or against Israeli policies of occupation, apartheid, forced eviction, murder of protesters and medics?


----------



## TheBigShort (20 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> I don't know how you can square his views and policies with your own capitalist ideology.



Simple really, I support his anti-war, peace pursuing initiatives. 
As for capitalism, I thought I had explained all this before? I support the exploitation of the earths resources in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner. 
Value should not be measured on shallow concepts of profit alone, but also on the extent of who benefits, the impact on the environment etc. 
I dont think Corbyn would be a million miles away from that.


----------



## odyssey06 (20 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Simple really, I support his anti-war, peace pursuing initiatives.



He's not anti-war or pro-peace. He's against force when deployed by western governments, he doesn't seem to care about terrorist organisations like Hezbollah using force.


----------



## TheBigShort (20 Aug 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> He's not anti-war or pro-peace. He's against force when deployed by western governments, he doesn't seem to care about terrorist organisations like Hezbollah using force.



That's a very simplistic view of complex issues.


----------



## PMU (20 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> J Early this year, on foot of Israeli lobbying, acting against the will of the UN, President Trump announced that the US would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Who could have influenced the US President to change US foreign policy like that?


  The answer is nobody influenced the US president and President Trump did not change US foreign policy.  In 1995 the US Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act to provide for the relocation of the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ45/html/PLAW-104publ45.htm. This was under Bill Clinton's presidency. President Trump didn't change US policy on Jerusalem. He simply implemented it.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> That's a very simplistic view of complex issues.


Not as simplistic as this;


TheBigShort said:


> I support his anti-war, peace pursuing initiatives


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Being 'anti-Israel' does not equate to anti-Semitic.


I agree, but supporting the Islamic Human Rights Commission does make you anti-semitic. 


TheBigShort said:


> Also, when you say 'anti-Israel', do you mean against the existence of the Israeli state, or against Israeli policies of occupation, apartheid, forced eviction, murder of protesters and medics?


 No. Protesting at disproportionate use of force by the IDF in the killing of combatants who mingle with protesters is also not anti-Israeli. Failing to condemn murder and terrorism by those seeking to destroy Israel is anti-semitic. It's not that hard to see or make these distinctions.


----------



## TheBigShort (20 Aug 2018)

PMU said:


> The answer is nobody influenced the US president and President Trump did not change US foreign policy.  In 1995 the US Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act to provide for the relocation of the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ45/html/PLAW-104publ45.htm. This was under Bill Clinton's presidency. President Trump didn't change US policy on Jerusalem. He simply implemented it.



Thats fair enough. But the point still stands. How does a country like Israel, get a country like the US to pass an Act like that? This policy goes against the grain of most international institutions, the UN, the EU etc. 

Its clear to me, that Israel is more influential, and by default, interferes in US political affairs to a far greater extent than Russia ever could. 
Yet, the hype is about Russia.


----------



## TheBigShort (20 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> I agree, but supporting the Islamic Human Rights Commission does make you anti-semitic.



Im not familiar with this organization, but a cursory check on them has revealed nothing anti-Semitic.


----------



## TheBigShort (20 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> Failing to condemn murder and terrorism by those seeking to destroy Israel is anti-semitic. It's not that hard to see or make these distinctions.



No its not anti-Semitic. Its anti-Israel. The Israeli state, in its current guise of oppression, murder, terrorism, apartheid of the Palestinian people and Arabs is arguably anti-Semitic. 
The return of Jewish people to their holy land and the establishment of a Jewish state to live in peace is a wholly legitimate aspiration. 
The destruction and imprisonment of another people, through murder, imprisonment, apartheid, eviction etc is not a Jewish aspiration. It is a policy. One that is being enacted by the Israeli government against the wishes of very many Jewish people.


----------



## TheBigShort (20 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> Not as simplistic as this;



True, but I haven't made any dubious accusations against Corbyn being a supporter, or apologist of terrorism.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The Israeli state, in its current guise of oppression, murder, terrorism, apartheid of the Palestinian people and Arabs is arguably anti-Semitic.


 There's no arguing with someone with such simplistic and extremist views on the topic.



TheBigShort said:


> True, but I haven't made any dubious accusations against Corbyn being a supporter, or apologist of terrorism.


 No, but you've made no counter-argument against those who have made valid accusations and asked valid questions of him and many in his party. I agree that the label of "anti-semitic" is thrown around far to quickly when people question the actions of Israel and its move towards fundamentalism. I started this thread by asking why Israel gets so much more media attention than its neighbours. Your post above just reinforced that point. If Israel is oppressive, murderous, engages in terrorism and oppresses its Palestinian population then those same accusations (and then some) can be levelled at most, and maybe all, of its neighbours.   
You, and Mr. Corbyn, are fast to criticise Israel but slow to criticise those neighbouring countries. It is reasonable, in the absence of any other explanation, to attribute that to an anti-Israeli bias and therefore to attribute that bias to anti-semitism.


----------



## TheBigShort (20 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> No, but you've made no counter-argument against those who have made valid accusations and asked valid questions of him and many in his party. I agree that the label of "anti-semitic" is thrown around far to quickly when people question the actions of Israel and its move towards fundamentalism



I dont need to make a counter-argument!
I do not think Corbyn and/or British Labour Party is anti-Semitic. I have not seen or heard or read anything of substance to suggest it is.
To me, these are highly dubious claims with the intent of damaging Corbyns standing as leader.



Purple said:


> I started this thread by asking why Israel gets so much more media attention than its neighbours. Your post above just reinforced that point. If Israel is oppressive, murderous, engages in terrorism and oppresses its Palestinian population then those same accusations (and then some) can be levelled at most, and maybe all, of its neighbours.
> You, and Mr. Corbyn, are fast to criticise Israel but slow to criticise those neighbouring countries.



Thats so disingenuous. I was responding to this



Purple said:


> Failing to condemn murder and terrorism by those seeking to destroy Israel is anti-semitic. It's not that hard to see or make these distinctions.



To which I responded



TheBigShort said:


> No its not anti-Semitic. Its anti-Israel.



Seeking to destroy Israel is anti-Israel.
Seeking to destroy Jews is anti-Semitic.
There is a big difference.






Purple said:


> It is reasonable, in the absence of any other explanation, to attribute that to an anti-Israeli bias and therefore to attribute that bias to anti-semitism.



No its only reasonable if you follow the propaganda of throwing anti-semitic around too easily.
20% population of Israel is Arabic. Does the destruction of Israel mean anti-Arabian too? Of course not.
If the purpose of destroying Israel is to destroy Jews, then that is anti-semitism.
But Arabs, Palestinians, Persians et al are not for destroying Jews. They may want to destroy the Jewish State of Israel, but not Judaism.


----------



## PMU (20 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Thats fair enough. But the point still stands. How does a country like Israel, get a country like the US to pass an Act like that?


They didn't.  The United States is nobody's stooge. An overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act.  Most states of the USA have negligible Jewish populations and have little or no dealings with Israel. It just beggars belief to suggest that Israel could somehow put pressure on a majority of senators and congressmen to pass this act if they did not wish to do so. They passed the act because it was consistent with US policy that American embassies are based in the city designated by the host country as its capital.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2018)

PMU said:


> They didn't.  The United States is nobody's stooge. An overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act.  Most states of the USA have negligible Jewish populations and have little or no dealings with Israel. It just beggars belief to suggest that Israel could somehow put pressure on a majority of senators and congressmen to pass this act if they did not wish to do so. They passed the act because it was consistent with US policy that American embassies are based in the city designated by the host country as its capital.


Or maybe it was the Zionist bankers and financiers on Wall Street who coerced them into doing it? After all they are all part of the international Jewish conspiracy and they do control the media and generate all that fake news...


----------



## TheBigShort (20 Aug 2018)

PMU said:


> An overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act. Most states of the USA have negligible Jewish populations and have little or no dealings with Israel.



Exactly the point. Most states of the US have negligible Jewish populations and have little or no dealings with Israel. 
Yet somehow, an Act like the Jerusalem Embassy Act gets passed by Congress and is then enacted by President Trump.

If the Jewish population in the US is almost negligible (I think its 2%) and most States have little or no dealings with Israel...how on earth does an Act like this, that is so explicit in its endorsement of Jerusalem as being the capital city of Israel get passed? 
When UN resolutions have supported notions of shared sovereignty, or international status of the city of Jerusalem, somehow, the US administration has taken a different course from the most of the world that has been resoundingly condemned as provocative. 
All this, and no influence from Jewish population in US, no influence from Israel - hey, they hardly even deal with each other. 

If the US is an impartial participant in Israeli/Palestinian affairs, why has it acted in a manner that is so provocative? When, clearly as you have pointed out, Israel has barely any dealings with US?.


----------



## TheBigShort (20 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> Or maybe it was the Zionist bankers and financiers on Wall Street who coerced them into doing it? After all they are all part of the international Jewish conspiracy and they do control the media and generate all that fake news...



Well it certainly wasnt the Jewish population, as most States in the US have barely any dealings with Israel. 
So who was it? 
Which lobbyist(s) pushed forward a bill that passed in Congress back in 1995, that is explicitly in line with Israeli aspirations, and pursued each US administration since to enact that policy? 
It had to be lobbyists as we know the Jewish population is negligible and most States have little or no dealings with Israel.


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Well it certainly wasnt the Jewish population, as most States in the US have barely any dealings with Israel.
> So who was it?
> Which lobbyist(s) pushed forward a bill that passed in Congress back in 1995, that is explicitly in line with Israeli aspirations, and pursued each US administration since to enact that policy?
> It had to be lobbyists as we know the Jewish population is negligible and most States have little or no dealings with Israel.


Maybe people in the USA look at the situation in the region and, despite its many flaws, still support Israel. Maybe other intelligent people form different opinions and hold different views to you. The notion that for someone to disagree with you, to draw different conclusions to yours, they must have been duped or they must be stupid is supremely arrogant.  
Have you entertained the notion that you are being subtly duped by an anti-Israeli left wing media, that maybe the British Labour Party and the newspaper that supports it is in fact anti-semitic?


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> The notion that for someone to disagree with you, to draw different conclusions to yours, they must have been duped or they must be stupid is supremely arrogant.



What a stupid and supremely arrogant thing to say.



Purple said:


> Have you entertained the notion that you are being subtly duped by an anti-Israeli left wing media, that maybe the British Labour Party and the newspaper that supports it is in fact anti-semitic?



Im not anti-Israel. Im anti-oppression, state murder, apartheid etc. Whether its Israeli, South African, British, Irish or wherever.

As for the British Labour Party being anti-Semitic, like I have said, I have not seen,  read, or heard anything of any substance to lead me to believe that this is true.
Im open to be convinced otherwise.

So now that we know that the Jewish population in the US is negligible and that most States have any little dealings with Israel.
Is it possible therefore that it is devote Jewish people with strong ties within US and Israeli political affairs that enables the political aspirations of Israel to feature so prominently on US political affairs - the Jerusalem Embassy Act 1995, being an example?
This BBC report would at least imply so
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-44120428

"_In this case, his base also lobbied hard for the move. That included right-wing American Jews whose message was amplified by the conservative orthodox Jews dominating Mr Trump's inner circle."_

Ultimately my point is that Israel, or supporters of Israel, have far more influence over US political affairs than Russia, or supporters of Russia.
If there is meddling in US political affairs, lobbyists for Israel would be a good place to start I would have thought, more so than Russia.


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> What a stupid and supremely arrogant thing to say.


 So it's arrogant to suggest that it's arrogant to suggest that people who disagree with you have been duped or are stupid? You'll have to explain that one to me. 



TheBigShort said:


> Im not anti-Israel. Im anti-oppression, state murder, apartheid etc. Whether its Israeli, South African, British, Irish or wherever.


 But not Iran or Syria or Saudi ARabia or Egypt or Turkey or Russia or Cuba or Venezuela etc.? 



TheBigShort said:


> As for the British Labour Party being anti-Semitic, like I have said, I have not seen, read, or heard anything of any substance to lead me to believe that this is true.


 Maybe your definition of anti semitic is different to the internationally recognised one, the same one that Jeremy Corbyn refused to accept. Maybe you are using the same definition he uses?



TheBigShort said:


> Im open to be convinced otherwise.


 I think the bar is set very high.



TheBigShort said:


> So now that we know that the Jewish population in the US is negligible and that most States have any little dealings with Israel.
> Is it possible therefore that it is devote Jewish people with strong ties within US and Israeli political affairs that enables the political aspirations of Israel to feature so prominently on US political affairs - the Jerusalem Embassy Act 1995, being an example?
> This BBC report would at least imply so
> https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-44120428
> ...


 Okay, so it's all part of the international Jewish conspiracy and suggesting that people in the USA may have just formed different opinions to you and haven't been duped is arrogant. Got it. Thanks.



TheBigShort said:


> Ultimately my point is that Israel, or supporters of Israel, have far more influence over US political affairs than Russia, or supporters of Russia.
> If there is meddling in US political affairs, lobbyists for Israel would be a good place to start I would have thought, more so than Russia.


Have you thought about appearing on Russia Today? George Galloway has (had?) a show on it. I'm sure you're a big fan of his.


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> Maybe other intelligent people form different opinions and hold different views to you. The notion that for someone to disagree with you, to draw different conclusions to yours, they must have been duped or they must be stupid is supremely arrogant.



You inferred that I suggested that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. 
I have suggested no such thing, im open to persuasion.



Purple said:


> But not Iran or Syria or Saudi ARabia or Egypt or Turkey or Russia or Cuba or Venezuela etc.?



Them too, all States actually. Its not hard to figure.



Purple said:


> I think the bar is set very high.



As so it should be. If you are going to throw around labels of anti-semitism simply as a consequence of disagreeing with Israeli policy towards protesters, people praying, medics doing their job, then yes, the bar should be set high.



Purple said:


> Okay, so it's all part of the international Jewish conspiracy and suggesting that people in the USA may have just formed different opinions to you and haven't been duped is arrogant.



What are you talking about "Jewish conspiracy"? 
I merely posted a BBC article that infers that Trumps policies are influenced by members of Jewish Orthodox community, which are in line with Israeli (legitimate) aspiration to have Jerusalem as its capital.
Relative to Russias influence over US policy, I would consider Israel to have greater influence over US policy, wouldn't you?



Purple said:


> Have you thought about appearing on Russia Today? George Galloway has (had?) a show on it. I'm sure you're a big fan of his



No desire to appear on it, but I do like George. I don't always agree, but no doubt he is intelligent, informed and also an excellent orator. 

But that is beside the point. 

I personally think that the Russian 'interference' in US elections or political affairs is hyperbole relative to the interference, or influence Israel has in US political affairs.


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> You inferred that I suggested that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid.


No I didn't. I said;


Purple said:


> The notion that for someone to disagree with you, to draw different conclusions to yours, they must have been duped or they must be stupid is supremely arrogant.






TheBigShort said:


> Them too, all States actually. Its not hard to figure.


 And yet you reserve all your bile for Israel... which was the point of this thread. 



TheBigShort said:


> As so it should be. If you are going to throw around labels of anti-semitism simply as a consequence of disagreeing with Israeli policy towards protesters, people praying, medics doing their job, then yes, the bar should be set high.


 Who is throwing around labels of anti-semitism simply as a consequence of disagreeing with Israeli policy towards protesters, people praying and medics doing their job? You really need to quit with the strawman arguments. That twice in one post now. 



TheBigShort said:


> What are you talking about "Jewish conspiracy"?
> I merely posted a BBC article that infers that Trumps policies are influenced by members of Jewish Orthodox community, which are in line with Israeli (legitimate) aspiration to have Jerusalem as its capital.


You also said;



TheBigShort said:


> Well it certainly wasnt the Jewish population, as most States in the US have barely any dealings with Israel.
> So who was it?
> Which lobbyist(s) pushed forward a bill that passed in Congress back in 1995, that is explicitly in line with Israeli aspirations, and pursued each US administration since to enact that policy?
> It had to be lobbyists as we know the Jewish population is negligible and most States have little or no dealings with Israel.


You totally disregard the idea that the US public simply support Israel, despite its failings, because it is still the closest thing to a functioning liberal democracy in the Middle East? I suggested that was arrogant on your part. You then said that me even saying that was arrogant. You still haven't explained why you think so, despite my request that you do so. 





TheBigShort said:


> Relative to Russias influence over US policy, I would consider Israel to have greater influence over US policy, wouldn't you?


 No. 



TheBigShort said:


> No desire to appear on it, but I do like George. I don't always agree, but no doubt he is intelligent, informed and also an excellent orator.


 There are lots of looneys who are excellent orators. I put him in the same category as David Icke. 



TheBigShort said:


> I personally think that the Russian 'interference' in US elections or political affairs is hyperbole relative to the interference, or influence Israel has in US political affairs.


 And yet you reject the suggestion that you think there's an international Jewish conspiracy. 

I think that our media bias against Israel is mirrored in the USA by their bias against Iran.


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> And yet you reserve all your bile for Israel... which was the point of this thread.



What bile? You are arguing that there is a bias in Irish media against Israel. Im not convinced, so I disagree. I have outlined some reasons as to why I believe that to be the case. 
I also consider Israel not to be held to higher standard as there are no real apparent consequences for the atrocities carried out in its name.




Purple said:


> You totally disregard the idea that the US public simply support Israel, despite its failings, because it is still the closest thing to a functioning liberal democracy in the Middle East?



No I do not. If you are stating to me that there is significant public support for Israel in the US, which I believe there is, then that significant support will/should translate into political support? 
On the other hand, im told by another poster, that the Jewish population in the US is negligible. That most US states have no engagement with Israel. 
So which is it?
Is there significant support for Israel amongst US public, which in itself can influence political affairs at Congress?
Or is there negligible Jewish influence over US political affairs, in which case, how does an Act like Jerusalem Embassy Act, explicit in its support for Israel, get passed through Congress and enacted by the President?



Purple said:


> No



Great, personally I think there is significant support amongst US public for Israel, translating into political influence on US political affairs. Far more than any Putin Russian conspiracy to interfere in US affairs.
Thats just my opinion.



Purple said:


> And yet you reject the suggestion that you think there's an international Jewish conspiracy.



Yes, dont you? I dont think there is an "international conspiracy", I simply believe Israel, through widespread public support in the US, is better placed to influence or interfere (call it what you will) US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Aside from Jerusalem as being the capital of Israel, the US also tore up the Iranian nuclear deal, despite protestations from the EU.

Maybe this is just coincidence, but tearing up that deal also aligned itself with Israeli policy toward Iran.


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> If you are stating to me that there is significant public support for Israel in the US, which I believe there is, then that significant support will/should translate into political support?


Yes, and that's all there is to it.



TheBigShort said:


> On the other hand, im told by another poster, that the Jewish population in the US is negligible. That most US states have no engagement with Israel.
> So which is it?


 Why are you attempting to construct a false dichotomy? There is widespread support for Israel in the USA because they support Israel, not because they are Jewish or are influenced or controlled by Jewish money of media. 



TheBigShort said:


> Is there significant support for Israel amongst US public, which in itself can influence political affairs at Congress?


 Yes. You are getting it now. 



TheBigShort said:


> Or is there negligible Jewish influence over US political affairs, in which case, how does an Act like Jerusalem Embassy Act, explicit in its support for Israel, get passed through Congress and enacted by the President?


 Because there is widespread support for israel. You answered this question in your previous sentence. 



TheBigShort said:


> I dont think there is an "international conspiracy", I simply believe Israel, through widespread public support in the US, is better placed to influence or interfere (call it what you will) US foreign policy in the Middle East.


 Okay. So there is no lobbying or dark influencing, just a public support for Israel, based on the geopolitical factors in the region. On that we can agree. 



TheBigShort said:


> Aside from Jerusalem as being the capital of Israel, the US also tore up the Iranian nuclear deal, despite protestations from the EU.
> 
> Maybe this is just coincidence, but tearing up that deal also aligned itself with Israeli policy toward Iran.


I think there is a strong anti-Iranian bias in the US media, just as there is a strong anti-Israeli bias in the Irish media. I think the USA pulling out of the Iran Nuclear deal was a very bad idea.


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> Yes, and that's all there is to it.



Yes, so widespread public support can have influence on political affairs, can it not? 
Btw, I think it is the evangelical Christians that also believe in the establishment of Israel, as precursor to the return of Christ, that hold most sway. This religious faction I think is now the largest religious faction in the US - although I stand to be corrected on that.



Purple said:


> So there is no lobbying or dark influencing, just a public support for Israel, based on the geopolitical factors in the region. On that we can agree.



Of course there is lobbying! All political systems have lobbyists. Whether it is "dark" or not, depends on what you think of lobbying.
From my perspective, the US political system is wide open to influence from the wealthiest of donors. 
So with broadbased support for Israel amongst population, with Jewish Orthodox advisors in the administration, it is clear to me that Israel has a greater influence over US political affairs than Russia does.


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2018)

Okay, so the reason that Israel is supported by the USA is because a majority of the American public support Israel and that is reflected amongst their democratically elected representatives.
Russia is seeking to influence, and has influenced, American policy and their elections through secret and underhand means.

Do you understand the difference?


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> Okay, so the reason that Israel is supported by the USA is because a majority of the American public support Israel and that is reflected amongst their democratically elected representatives.



Well 'majority' would be stretching it a bit. But a significant portion of 'Red States' would hold views of Israeli preference.
But im glad now that you see how the Israeli government can use this support to influence US political affairs.
That combined with wealthy pro-Israeli lobbyists inside and outside of the US administration.



Purple said:


> Russia is seeking to influence, and has influenced, American policy and their elections _*through secret and underhand means. *_[_/_QUOTE]
> 
> Yes thats what we keep hearing about. I haven't seen anything to back it up, have you?
> Instead, as I recall the US has imposed economic sanctions against Russians, some of which were imposed by Trump.
> ...



However I see you have your tin foil hat on...secret and underhand means...you are the little conspiratorial theorist arent you?


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> But im glad now that you see how the Israeli government can use this support to influence US political affairs.


You still don't get it, do you?
The people of the USA support Israel and her policies. That's why the US government supports Israel and her policies. That's all. Without broad based support from the public lobbyists etc would have no power.
Personally I disagree with the stance of the USA and their blanket vetoing of UN declarations etc. but that's what the AMerican people want.



TheBigShort said:


> However I see you have your tin foil hat on...secret and underhand means...you are the little conspiratorial theorist arent you?


Every Intelligence Service in the USA, many of whom are at odds with their President, as well as Social media companies such as Facebook, have stated that Russia sought to influence their last Presidential election through illegal means. Do you know something that they don't?


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> The people of the USA support Israel and her policies. That's why the US government supports Israel and her policies. That's all.



Thats a bit simple to be honest. While most Americans look favourably on Israel, most of them are not busy on the policy detail - like everyone else, most people take their que from their political leaders. So if Trump says scrapping the Iranian deal is good, then supporters of Trump and Israel thinks it's a good idea. 
If Obama thinks the Iranian deal was good, then supporters of Obama and Israel thinks it's good. 
In the end its all about power and influence. 
In my view, Israel exerts more power and influence over US policy than Russia does.



Purple said:


> Every Intelligence Service in the USA, many of whom are at odds with their President, as well as Social media companies such as Facebook, have stated that Russia sought to influence their last Presidential election through illegal means. Do you know something that they don't?



Good God, you really have bought into it. Social media is full of fake accounts, from ALL nationalities. 
If I go on Twitter it doesn't take long to find an account that is pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian, or pro-UI or pro-UK or anything else for that matter. 
I have no idea who is behind these accounts and I have no idea if they bear any influence. 
Even Trumps twitter handle is 'therealdonaldtrump' because there are so many fake Trump accounts out there. 
Buying advertising is not illegal. Why cant Russians in American buy advertising that supports one candidate over another? 
Do you think US Intelligence agencies dont do the same in other countries? 

At the end of the day, what good are all these intelligence agencies, what good is all that money for political donations, what good is all that lobbying, if some FB ads can thwart the whole electoral system! 

It is farce, it is beyond reason, that ads on FB can unduly influence the electorate.
What about TV ads. 
According to this, pro- Clinton groups made up 75% of TV ads. Who are these people, where did they get their money from? Are any of them Russian?

https://www.publicintegrity.org/201...ored-75-percent-tv-ads-2016-presidential-race

All politics is dirty, 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-it-true-truth-explained-obama-a8030116.html


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Thats a bit simple to be honest. While most Americans look favourably on Israel, most of them are not busy on the policy detail - like everyone else, most people take their que from their political leaders. So if Trump says scrapping the Iranian deal is good, then supporters of Trump and Israel thinks it's a good idea.
> If Obama thinks the Iranian deal was good, then supporters of Obama and Israel thinks it's good.
> In the end its all about power and influence.


 So you think that the electorate is too stupid to distinguish between the individual and the policy and just blindly follow their leader? It's a good thing that you are too clever to fall for that.
... and you're the one talking about others being simplistic!



TheBigShort said:


> In my view, Israel exerts more power and influence over US policy than Russia does.


 The issue is whether Russia is doing so illegally.



TheBigShort said:


> Good God, you really have bought into it. Social media is full of fake accounts, from ALL nationalities.
> If I go on Twitter it doesn't take long to find an account that is pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian, or pro-UI or pro-UK or anything else for that matter.
> I have no idea who is behind these accounts and I have no idea if they bear any influence.
> Even Trumps twitter handle is 'therealdonaldtrump' because there are so many fake Trump accounts out there.
> ...



Have a read of this.


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> Have a reda of this.



Thanks for that, that gave me a good laugh. 

I like this bit

_"This is another demonstration of the fact that the Russians aren’t really pursuing partisan attacks, they are pursuing attacks that they perceive in their own national self-interest,"_

And there was me starting to think, ok, the Russians are up to no good - but at least they would be fair about it! 

Then I was thinking, isnt China, North Korea, Iran up to no-good hacking? And sure enough true to form I clicked into another link - Microsoft report.

_"the current national security adviser, John R. Bolton, suggested that Russia was not the only threat in the fall elections. He also named China, Iran and North Korea — the other most active cyberoperators among state adversaries — as threats."_

But somewhat sadly, 

_"Microsoft hasnt found any evidence linking these other countries"
_
I dont doubt that there is espionage, hacking, fake news - but this is nothing new. The US has been spying on Germany, the Brits were eavesdropping our phonecalls. 

And who could forget the elephant in the room - British based Cambridge Analytica who worked for both Trump and Leave campaign. 
Or the rigging of the Democratic primary elections that put Clinton forward instead of Sanders.
Shush!! Best to let those ones pass on by! Keep shouting 'Russia, Russia, Russia!' 
Actually its quite eery the amount of coverage the NY times is given all this Russia stuff, them and CNN. 
You'd be forgiven for thinking they were being fed info from the same intelligence services that gave them WMD.


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Aug 2018)

Jeremy Hunt, UK Foreign Secretary calls for European unity  against Russia.

Sorry, topic gone way-off.


----------



## TheBigShort (1 Sep 2018)

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2018/0901/990892-israel-palestine-refugee-aid/

More Israel in the news. More US policies welcomed by Israelis.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...e-a6884971.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

The opinions of Roger Waters (Pink Floyd).


----------

