[GandalfTheGrey]

Sorry - no actual story here, just a thought bubble...

So you know how Israel - and particularly her useful idiots - are constantly whining "why single out Israel" "there are far worse atrocities going on around the world which are conveniently ignored" "its obviously a racist, anti-semitic agenda!"

A good reason why Israel is singled out:

- because Israel's own propaganda tells us to single it out. Let me explain....

Israeli leaders and her useful idiots never tire of reminding us that Israel is a beacon of democracy and freedom in a land of oppression. So by implication they apply the standards of the free and democratic west in judging their human rights record. When Israel complains that critics are not equally as critical of tin pot dictatorships in Africa, they are exercising a double standard: accept us as a place of democracy and human rights on the one hand, but judge our human rights records on the same level as the worst dictatorships. The "special" criticism Israel receives is merely affirmation that Israel shall be judged by the very standards Israel sets for itself. It would be just the same as if Germany or Sweden suddenly started stealing land, caging up and indiscriminately slaughtering a section of its own society - they would understandably come under an especially targeted sort of criticism.

[Rich]

Your point is essentially correct Gandalf. If Israel was merely asking to be treated on the same basis as Nasser's regime, Saddam's, The Assad family's or Gadaffi' then they would have point, but they don't. They want to be accepted as a privileged western nation. And while regimes like Saudi and Bahrain might be allies of the West. I don't think any ones particularly proud of it. We supposedly support them out of real politic. No one says we should support them out of principle.

And even worse Israel doesn't just demand our acceptance, but that we should go to war on their behalf. That tens of millions of people must be bombed back into the Stone-age to keep Israel safe. We backed Saddam's war against Iran to keep Israel safe. We went to war against Saddam to keep Israel Safe. We put Iraq under sanctions to keep Israel safe. We invaded Iraq in order to keep Israel safe. We helped to decimate Assad in order to keep Israel safe. And the Zionists continue to demand that we destroy Iran in order to keep Israel safe.

[Storm Petrel]

While I may agree with you, I feel you're omitting the fact that the West's "standards" have slipped somewhat. The "Free and Democratic West" is a lot less freer and democratic than it used to be. Remember when policemen used to walk around in smart black "jackets and trousers" and you might just see the strap of their truncheon showing if you looked hard enough; now they all look remarkably similar to "special forces ninjas" armed to the teeth with exotic electric stun guns. Our Politicians are arguably more venal and corrupt than they've been since the 18th century and we have to all intents and puropses a two tier justice system one for the rich, the other for the rest of us. In comparison Israel is perhaps not that far off the current Western ideal.

[wat0n]

Sorry - no actual story here, just a thought bubble...

So you know how Israel - and particularly her useful idiots - are constantly whining "why single out Israel" "there are far worse atrocities going on around the world which are conveniently ignored" "its obviously a racist, anti-semitic agenda!"

A good reason why Israel is singled out:

- because Israel's own propaganda tells us to single it out. Let me explain....

Israeli leaders and her useful idiots never tire of reminding us that Israel is a beacon of democracy and freedom in a land of oppression. So by implication they apply the standards of the free and democratic west in judging their human rights record. When Israel complains that critics are not equally as critical of tin pot dictatorships in Africa, they are exercising a double standard: accept us as a place of democracy and human rights on the one hand, but judge our human rights records on the same level as the worst dictatorships. The "special" criticism Israel receives is merely affirmation that Israel shall be judged by the very standards Israel sets for itself. It would be just the same as if Germany or Sweden suddenly started stealing land, caging up and indiscriminately slaughtering a section of its own society - they would understandably come under an especially targeted sort of criticism.

Sure, let's compare Israel with a country that has some very close ties to the West, to the point of being a NATO member and being part of the EU's customs union, shall we?

Also, which members of Israeli society have been slaughtered by Israel? You obviously don't mean Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, who are as Israeli as Ban Ki-moon is?

On the other hand, if you want to talk about Turkey killing some of its own citizens, we can do it if you want to

[GandalfTheGrey]

Also, which members of Israeli society have been slaughtered by Israel? You obviously don't mean Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank

ًWhy yes I do as a matter of fact.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Sure, let's compare Israel with a country that has some very close ties to the West, to the point of being a NATO member and being part of the EU's customs union, shall we?

Well I guess the difference in the context of this particular discussion is that Turkish leaders and their apologists don't endlessly lecture westerners about how they are the ultimate free and democratic society in a sea of authoritarianism. In fact I don't think Turkey makes any pretenses about their anti-freedom/democratic tendencies.

But if you want a more obvious distinction, Turkey does not have literally half of its population (and yes, there's no getting round the fact that the WB and Gaza Palestinians are "part" of the Israeli population) systematically denied their rights and periodically slaughtered.

[wat0n]

Why yes I do as a matter of fact.

In which way are they members of Israeli society? Are Afghans under NATO occupation members of any of the occupiers' societies? Do they want to be members of Israeli society anyway?

Well I guess the difference in the context of this particular discussion is that Turkish leaders and their apologists don't endlessly lecture westerners about how they are the ultimate free and democratic society in a sea of authoritarianism. In fact I don't think Turkey makes any pretenses about their anti-freedom/democratic tendencies.

Lolwat?

But if you want a more obvious distinction, Turkey does not have literally half of its population (and yes, there's no getting round the fact that the WB and Gaza Palestinians are "part" of the Israeli population) systematically denied their rights and periodically slaughtered.

No, the Palestinians are not "part" of the Israeli population. They don't want to be part of Israel, the Israelis don't consider them to be part of their population and even the international community doesn't consider them to be Israelis either. It's also quite convinient to whine about Israeli building in occupied land yet at the same time claim that it is basically Israeli territory - you can't have your cake and eat it too.

But, in any event, Turkey's conflict with its Kurdish minority is a very well-known issue. For instance, the restrictions with regards to Kurdish language and the right of Kurds to freely express their culture are pretty well-known (though they have been lifted over time). Furthermore, Turkey also has had a decades long conflict going on with Kurdish militants, which has of course ended with killings of Kurdish civilians by the Turkish Army, destruction of Kurdish villages with the corresponding displacement of persons, etc and, conversely, the deliberate killings of ethnic Turkish and Kurdish civilians by the PKK. And, the so-called "solution process" stalled after the Kobani siege. I don't recall any comparable actions involving Israeli Arab citizens, neither in the military nor in the cultural realm.

[layman]

No, the Palestinians are not "part" of the Israeli population. They don't want to be part of Israel, the Israelis don't consider them to be part of their population and even the international community doesn't consider them to be Israelis either. It's also quite convinient to whine about Israeli building in occupied land yet at the same time claim that it is basically Israeli territory - you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Indeed. The problem seems to be you cannot call them an Apartheid state unless those people are part of that state.

This goes for the Israelis as well though. After all, they build settlements as if it were annexed. They cannot have it both ways either.

[skinster]

Why are they referred to as the Israeli-occupied-territories if they are separate from Israel?

[wat0n]

Why are they referred to as the Israeli-occupied-territories if they are separate from Israel?

Because they are currently under Israeli occupation. In the same way that, for instance, northern Cyprus is labeled as a Turkish-occupied territory.

Why are they referred as occupied if they are simply an Israeli district, anyway?

[skinster]

Do you refer to those Israeli settlers in the West Bank as Palestinians?

[pugsville]

The Classic lets have things both ways at once. Israel sometimes treats the "occupied territories" as part of Israel and often Rhetoric that it a natural part of Israel (When it come it Israel using land or resources) and sometimes as a different entity (when it comes to political rights for the Palestinians)

[skinster]

Judea and Samaria

[wat0n]

Do you refer to those Israeli settlers in the West Bank as Palestinians?

No, I refer to them as Israeli settlers in an occupied territory. So does the world at large, including... Israelis themselves.

In fact, pugsville is wrong as the West Bank is occupied even under Israeli domestic law

[skinster]

And who is occupying that territory that is the West Bank?

Gosh, you're being very silly about really obvious things now, waton.

[QatzelOk]

[wat0n]

And who is occupying that territory that is the West Bank?

Gosh, you're being very silly about really obvious things now, waton.

Israel, for sure. So what?

The US occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, does it mean that Iraqis and Afghans were part of American society and that those territories were part of the US?

Your ignorance about what military occupations are is not my problem.

[skinster]

Israel, for sure. So what?

Thank you.

The US occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, does it mean that Iraqis and Afghans were part of American society and that those territories were part of the US?

Your ignorance about what military occupations are is not my problem.

[wat0n]

Gandalf claimed that Israel's occupation of the West Bank means that the Palestinians there are part of Israeli society. Care to explain why this doesn't apply to the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and why Afghans and Iraqis are not part of American society?

[Rei Murasame]

Actually, Gandalf has highlighted something that is even more insidious than he himself thought it was. He points out that Israel complains when no one holds other countries to the same standard as them, but actually, the effect of Israel's claim to be part of the west has almost entirely insulated it from any real diplomatic obstructions.

For example, when some Muslim group is acting aggressively in or near Israel and Israel doesn't like it, Israel immediately sets a PR campaign in motion, and then embarks on a set of attacks against those people while going on the news and basically stage managing the 24 hour news cycle, and giving detailed feedback to western nations after the fact, and has lots of media partners who immediately jump to defend whatever it is which has occurred.

When some Muslim group is acting aggressively in countries that are not Israel, the exact reverse of this happens. Suddenly, the Muslim insurgents - usually Sunni Muslims - are poor victims who are being victimised by China, Myanmar, the Philippines, India, Libyan Jamahiriyya, Syrian Baathists, Thai Red Shirts, Greeks, or whoever.

Knowledge is power, and knowledge of the differences in reaction can be really helpful. Basically what I learn from this is that it's all about the PR and how you manage the story. East Asian states in particular, need to learn to leverage their media partners and their lobby groups to get out ahead of the story, and shape the way that it is framed and the context that it is reported in before pro-Muslim groups can begin their echo-chamber of outrage routine.

For example, Thaksin Shinawatra and Yingluck Shinawatra in Thailand had immense problems with this, because they allowed the global Islamic media matrix to outmanoeuvre them every single time anything happened in the South of Thailand. The same problem exists with Myanmar, they don't have anyone who will be at CNN or at BBC, or wherever, to short-circuit the whole echo-chamber of outrage before it starts.

So rather than complain about what the Jews have done to serve themselves, I'll instead say that everyone else needs to do studies on how they've been able to accomplish this nonsense, and then do that same nonsense better than they do it. That is the only way.

The other thing is the matter of immigration and race. The line "Israel has a right to exist". Okay, well that's a blood and soil argument right there, and even if it isn't, it would be useful for everyone else to just say that it is interpreted as such, and then apply it to everyone else too. I don't expect that Jews should be able to support Israel's existence on that basis, and then turn around and criticise anyone else for 'being racist'.

Racism is fact, and racism is reality. Everyone should ask the Jews to choose one argument and stick to it. [1]Will they be Zionists and thus acknowledge that race is still a significant social force in the world and that it always be? Or [2]will they choose to be Bolsheviks and condemn all humans including themselves to nullification and oblivion through massive intermingling and diversification?

They should only be allowed to choose one of those options. If they choose to go with the second option, the 'Bolshevik' option, then they are Soviet communists and should be fought against as such. If they choose to go with the first option, the 'Zionist' option, then the game has been reset and race is back on the table.