How we view international news; double standards

Purple said:
The IRA had legitimate grievances and had widespread support in NI
Click to expand...

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 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

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

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.
Click to expand...

So is "terrorist".
 
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?
 
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
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

I really think it boils down to who is in charge and in whose interest does any of this reporting serve?
 
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.
 
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.
 
TheBigShort said:
I really think it boils down to who is in charge and in whose interest does any of this reporting serve?
Click to expand...
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).
 
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.
 
[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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
The World judges the Brits by a high standard, likewise the Israelis, well done them.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
Also many of the Russian Israelis are refugees from the Soviet Union. Irish republicans speak English, doesn’t make them Brit lovers.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
I suppose I meant the Soviet Union which the pinkos so hanker for. Look it up on Wiki:
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Purple said:
There's no version of the history of the region where we in the West aren't the bad guys.
Click to expand...

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
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register