[wat0n]

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.

Wait, what? Since when is such coverage positive for Israel? The same people who you say tend to side with Muslims in those instances, tend to criticize Israel as well.

I'm also not sure of what real diplomatic obstructions has, say, Thailand suffered as a result of the conflict in the southern part of the country. I at least don't really see many.

[Rei Murasame]

Wait, what? Since when is such coverage positive for Israel? The same people who you say tend to side with Muslims in those instances, tend to criticize Israel as well.

Oh no, ineffective criticism from disaffected left-liberals. Israel never suffers a single consequence at all. You are never denied a visa. You never have weapons sales withheld. You never suffer an embargo. You never have a sitting president of the United States speaking against you with his own mouth.

Did you know that Narendra Modi for years could not get a visa to go the US because American Republicans viewed him as too Islamophobic? Really, it's true. Evangelical Christians stood against Modi because he had the temerity to kill Muslims while being a Hindu. Obviously there is a public relations problems in Asia, because this is a pattern.

Obviously the Jews are doing something that no one else is doing, so it seems obvious to me that it is lobbyists and media presence.

In March 2005, the United States denied a visa to Gujarat’s chief minister, Narendra Modi, now the Bharatiya Janata Party’s prime ministerial candidate in next year’s Indian elections. The visa was denied because of Mr. Modi’s alleged role in the 2002 riots in Gujarat that left more than 1,000 dead, most of them Muslims. But it came about from a highly unusual coalition made up of Indian-born activists, evangelical Christians, Jewish leaders and Republican members of Congress concerned about religious freedom around the globe.

[...]

[wat0n]

Oh no, ineffective criticism from disaffected left-liberals. Israel never suffers a single consequence at all. You are never denied a visa. You never have weapons sales withheld. You never suffer an embargo. You never have a sitting president of the United States speaking against you with his own mouth.

Did you know that Narendra Modi for years could not get a visa to go the US because American Republicans viewed him as too Islamophobic? Really, it's true. Evangelical Christians stood against Modi because he had the temerity to kill Muslims while being a Hindu. Obviously there is a public relations problems in Asia, because this is a pattern.

Obviously the Jews are doing something that no one else is doing, so it seems obvious to me that it is lobbyists and media presence.

I'm aware of that, I'm also aware of how not only the visa ban was lifted upon becoming PM but he and Obama are actually getting along (something Netanyahu can't really boast).

[mikema63]

I'm aware of that, I'm also aware of how not only the visa ban was lifted upon becoming PM but he and Obama are actually getting along (something Netanyahu can't really boast).

They might just like each other better than Netanyahu and Obama do. It's also possible that Modi is willing to put of with more than an entirely inflexible netanyahu (IIRC Israel has elections coming up to which might effect how flexible hew's willing to be).

[wat0n]

They might just like each other better than Netanyahu and Obama do. It's also possible that Modi is willing to put of with more than an entirely inflexible netanyahu (IIRC Israel has elections coming up to which might effect how flexible hew's willing to be).

Put of with what? I don't recall any demands by Obama on India. If anything he's busy courting India for his Asian Pivot strategy.

[danholo]

While Gandalf is wrong to say that "Israel is slaughtering its own population", he isn't entirely wrong either in saying that Palestinians are Israel's own population. While they are a foreign occupied population, the facts on the ground do render their status ambiguous. I think this is a great article that gives a quite accurate picture of the reality at the moment:

Post-Zionist government leading us to a binational state

Op-ed: The Netanyahu governments, even when they include Labor and Yesh Atid members, are disassembling the Zionist project of the 'Jewish and democratic' state.
Aviad Kleinberg

While the media devote their time to Sara Netanyahu's Photoshopped pictures, things are happening on the ground. That's how it is: For those who are determining our future, it's business as usual.

During the third Netanyahu government's term, with Yair Lapid as the person allegedly in charge of the money, with Uri Ariel as housing minister and Nissan Slomiansky as chairman of the Finance Committee, there was a 40% increase in housing starts in the territories.

Many of these housing starts (perhaps most) are outside the settlement blocs, and some are in isolated settlements, whose main goal is to prevent any possibility of territorial continuity on lands which have theoretically been allotted to the Palestinian state (a state which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu theoretically supports). These are not words, these are actions.

These actions, which are much less interesting than whether Isaac Herzog has the voice of a leader, are determining our future. The "one more dunam and one more goat" method, which was used in the past for a state's establishment, is as efficient as ever. This time we are not talking about a Jewish state, but about the binational state which is taking shape.

The Netanyahu governments (even when they included members of the Labor Party and Yesh Atid) are post-Zionist governments which are disassembling the Zionist project of the "Jewish and democratic" state. No one is declaring it (the opposite is being declared), but it's happening on the ground: Anyone who takes a look at the map of the West Bank territories realizes that the State of Israel has intentionally created on them a network of communities, which the only logic that can be found in them is turning the separation between us and the Palestinians from a difficult task into an impossible one.

This plan is not phrased in messianic terms. It is phrased in the boring terms of master plans and housing units and infrastructure. But the Zionist project – which sees territory as a tool for the main thing, which is creating a state with a solid Jewish majority which sustains democratic institutions – is no longer behind it.

According to the world view of Netanyahu and his partners in Judea and Samaria, territory comes first, followed by the Jewish majority, and democracy comes last. This is messianism which has exchanged the festive language of Rabbi Kook with the bureaucratic language of the Israel Land Administration.

But it is based, like its fiery predecessor, on expectations for a divine intervention. First we'll take over the land, quietly, using security and administrative language, under incessant protests against some primeval injustice suffered by the Jews which requires a territorial amendment. Then we'll find ourselves in a de facto binational state.

From some aspects, this has already happened: Israel controls masses of Palestinians who have neither national rights, nor civil rights, nor human rights. But in the meantime, we are convincing ourselves that it's reversible. When it turns out that this situation is irreversible, the Palestinian Authority will collapse. When the PA disappears, it will be difficult being without democracy and feeling as if we still have one. What will happen when we are required to explain why we continue to revoke the civil rights of a huge minority?

According to the plan, at this stage a miracle will happen. For example, a massive immigration of Jews from the United States. And what if a miracle doesn’t happen? If a miracle doesn’t happen, we'll give up the least important part of the triangle – democracy. Israel will declare itself an ethnoratic dictatorship – a state in which only Jews have civil rights.

According to the plan, miracles will happen even after this declaration: First of all, the Palestinians will swallow this bitter pill too, and if they don't swallow it willingly – they will swallow it forcibly. Second, the Western countries will also swallow it. These countries, which see human rights are the cornerstone of their existence, will accept the newly established settlers' state as a distinguished member of the democratic club and agree to advance shared interests together.

And what if these miracles don't happen? That's when our secret weapon will be pulled out: Uprightness. We will head towards abyss, but with our head held high. Thank you, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Housing Minister Ariel – if not for the miracles, than for the uprightness.

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/Articl ... 67,00.html

[wat0n]

While Gandalf is wrong to say that "Israel is slaughtering its own population", he isn't entirely wrong either in saying that Palestinians are Israel's own population. While they are a foreign occupied population, the facts on the ground do render their status ambiguous. I think this is a great article that gives a quite accurate picture of the reality at the moment:

I don't think facts on the ground currently allow one to say both societies have merged. This may happen in the future (though I find it unlikely), but the truth is that the major settlement blocs (and so the bulk of the Israeli settlers, let alone Israelis living in Israel proper) are pretty much separated from the Palestinians.

[danholo]

They are but they aren't. Settlers and Arabs in the WB are very close to each other and while they are separated, they live in completely different worlds on the same territory. It's quite absurd, actually. Then, at the same time, it creates a situation where your land neighbors have less rights and opportunities than you do.

The situation isn't visible in the Israel itself, but even there the Arab towns are completely separate from Jewish ones. The only place Jews and Arabs congrate, then, is when Jews visit Arab restaurants or if your doctor is Arab. Intermixing is very rare, imo. Of course I had some Arab friends in university while I was there but they were Christian/secular.

[wat0n]

That's my point, the bulk of the settlers don't live close to or see many Palestinians. They are effectively separate societies, way more separated than Jews and Arabs in Israel (who, as you said, sometimes live in geographically defined areas but do congregate on occasion - and, unlike in the West Bank, there are mixed cities in Israel like Haifa anyway).

Just as importantly, the Palestinians don't want to be part of Israel. If anything, they want it to get out.

[Buzz62]

That's my point, the bulk of the settlers don't live close to or see many Palestinians. They are effectively separate societies, way more separated than Jews and Arabs in Israel (who, as you said, sometimes live in geographically defined areas but do congregate on occasion - and, unlike in the West Bank, there are mixed cities in Israel like Haifa anyway).

Just as importantly, the Palestinians don't want to be part of Israel. If anything, they want it to get out.

Very true.
And...unfortunately...typical.

This behavior is an excellent example of the desire for Jewish people, and in particular those of the European migration, to maintain a level of "segregation" from other cultures and societies.

[wat0n]

So when I say that Palestinians don't want to live with them, it also proves that Jews are self-segregating?

[Buzz62]

Yes...actually.

Before the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine, it was a progressive country where Palestinian Muslims, Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Christians had largely lived in peace, harmony and cooperation for many centuries. The Palestinian Liberation Organization’s historical leader Yasser Arafat, a Muslim, was married to a Palestinian Christian. If there was a geographical area in the world where Muslims, Jews and Christians lived harmoniously together, it was in Palestine. - See more at: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2014/08/01/je ... hf8B6.dpuf

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2014/08/01/jews-muslims-and-christians-once-lived-harmoniously-in-palestine/
Read the article.

Now tell me...who rocked the cradle?

[wat0n]

You are well aware, from our past exchanges, this isn't true and that in fact Jews from the region had been attacked several times. Posting a shitty blog won't change historical facts, though we know you have problems with those when it comes to Jews being persecuted, don't you?

[Buzz62]

Not really.
I just wanted to watch you flap that broken wing of yours.

In the mean time, relations between the US President and the Israeli PM are reported as "strained".
I notice you managed to forget Rei's assertions.
Don't blame ya...she's correct as usual.

You didn't read the entire article, did you?
You can ignore the events happening today...and you can make repeated "heart-tugs" in public all you like.
That won't change what's happening to Zionism much.

[wat0n]

Not really.
I just wanted to watch you flap that broken wing of yours.

Oh so you just wanted to troll?

In the mean time, relations between the US President and the Israeli PM are reported as "strained".

So...? This isn't the first time relations between both have been strained. In fact, American Presidents have been harsher on Israel on those circumstances than Obama has been.

I notice you managed to forget Rei's assertions.
Don't blame ya...she's correct as usual.

I notice you ignored my counter-argument to her.

You didn't read the entire article, did you?
You can ignore the events happening today...and you can make repeated "heart-tugs" in public all you like.
That won't change what's happening to Zionism much.

Your propaganda definitely won't change the fact that you are factually wrong, as usual.

[Buzz62]

Oh so you just wanted to troll?

ya a little bit.
sue me.

So...? This isn't the first time relations between both have been strained. In fact, American Presidents have been harsher on Israel on those circumstances than Obama has been.

ya well...no. I don't remember an Israeli PM executing an "end-run" around the sitting US President before.
And I don't remember a sitting US President being "harsh" at all towards Israel. Not while they are SITTING US Presidents.
Obama isn't being "harsh" exactly. He just doesn't believe the rhetoric coming from the Zionist camps concerning Iran's nuclear aspirations, and disagrees with these camps on how to deal with Iran. Its the Republicans who are putting Netanyahu in this sticky situation, and Netanyahu is obviously stupid enough to go along with them. But his memorable bomb diagram really means jack-shit. Especially when his own intelligence people are not in line with his position.

I notice you ignored my counter-argument to her.

I read it.
My conclusion stands.

Your propaganda definitely won't change the fact that you are factually wrong, as usual.

Oh really?
Seems to me that my "propoganda" is slowly coming to pass...isn't it.
While the US President makes speeches about the Arab Muslim people, that drive Netanyahu and his Republican cronies out of their minds.
And what will this end-run Republican/Netanyahu speech to Congress accomplish?
SQUAT! It will not change Obama's position, nor will it change Mossad's position concerning Iran's nuclear capabilities and aspirations.
Will it affect the American population? I doubt it.

Zionism continues to slip.
As I've said...and been joked about by you...

tick tick tick tick tick....

[wat0n]

ya well...no. I don't remember an Israeli PM executing an "end-run" around the sitting US President before.
And I don't remember a sitting US President being "harsh" at all towards Israel. Not while they are SITTING US Presidents.

Oh really?

The Reassessment Crisis

In early 1975, the Israeli government turned down a US initiative for further redeployment in Sinai. President Ford responded on 21 March 1975 by sending Prime Minister Rabin a letter stating that Israeli intransigence has complicated US worldwide interests, and therefore the administration will reassess its relations with the Israeli government. In addition, arms shipments to Israel halted. The reassessment crisis came to an end with the Israeli-Egyptian disengagement of forces agreement of 4 September 1975.

...

George H. W. Bush administration (1989–1993)

Secretary of State James Baker told an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby group) audience on 22 May 1989, that Israel should abandon its "expansionist policies", a remark many took as a signal that the relatively pro-Israel Reagan years were over. President Bush raised the ire of the Likud government when he told a press conference on 3 March 1991, that East Jerusalem was occupied territory and not a sovereign part of Israel as Israel claims. Israel had annexed East Jerusalem in 1980, an action which did not gain international recognition. The United States and Israel disagreed over the Israeli interpretation of the Israeli plan to hold elections for a Palestinian peace conference delegation in the summer of 1989, and also disagreed over the need for an investigation of the Jerusalem incident of 8 October 1990, in which Israeli police killed 17 Palestinians.

Amid the Iraq-Kuwait crisis and Iraqi threats against Israel generated by it, former President Bush repeated the US commitment to Israel's security. Israeli–US tension eased after the start of the Persian Gulf war on 16 January 1991, when Israel became a target of Iraqi Scud missiles. The United States urged Israel not to retaliate against Iraq for the attacks because it was believed that Iraq wanted to draw Israel into the conflict and force other coalition members, Egypt and Syria in particular, to quit the coalition and join Iraq in a war against Israel. Israel did not retaliate, and gained praise for its restraint.

Following the Gulf War, the administration immediately returned to Arab-Israeli peacemaking, believing there was a window of opportunity to use the political capital generated by the US victory to revitalize the Arab-Israeli peace process. On 6 March 1991, President Bush addressed Congress in a speech often cited as the administration's principal policy statement on the new order in relation to the Middle East, following the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.[31][32] Michael Oren summarizes the speech, saying: "The president proceeded to outline his plan for maintaining a permanent U.S. naval presence in the Gulf, for providing funds for Middle East development, and for instituting safeguards against the spread of unconventional weapons. The centerpiece of his program, however, was the achievement of an Arab–Israeli treaty based on the territory-for-peace principle and the fulfillment of Palestinian rights." As a first step, Bush announced his intention to reconvene the international peace conference in Madrid.[31]

However, unlike earlier American peace efforts, no new aid commitments would be used. This was both because President Bush and Secretary Baker felt the coalition victory and increased US prestige would itself induce a new Arab–Israeli dialogue, and because their diplomatic initiative focused on process and procedure rather than on agreements and concessions. From Washington's perspective, economic inducements would not be necessary, but these did enter the process because Israel injected them in May. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's request for $10 billion in US loan guarantees added a new dimension to US diplomacy and sparked a political showdown between his government and the Bush administration.[33]

Bush and Baker were thus instrumental in convening the Madrid peace conference in October 1991 and in persuading all the parties to engage in the subsequent peace negotiations. It was reported widely that the Bush Administration did not share an amicable relationship with the Likud government of Yitzhak Shamir. However, the Israeli government did win the repeal of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism. After the conference, in December 1991, the UN passed United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86; Israel had made revocation of resolution 3379 a condition of its participation in the Madrid peace conference.[34] After the Labor party won the 1992 election, US–Israel relations appeared to improve. The Labor coalition approved a partial housing construction freeze in the occupied territories on 19 July, something the Shamir government had not done despite Bush Administration appeals for a freeze as a condition for the loan guarantees.

They have been much worse in the past.

Obama isn't being "harsh" exactly. He just doesn't believe the rhetoric coming from the Zionist camps concerning Iran's nuclear aspirations, and disagrees with these camps on how to deal with Iran. Its the Republicans who are putting Netanyahu in this sticky situation, and Netanyahu is obviously stupid enough to go along with them. But his memorable bomb diagram really means jack-shit. Especially when his own intelligence people are not in line with his position.

Yes, maybe "harsh" isn't the right word to describe Obama's relations with Israel.

I suspect that this was a stunt that was made jointly by both the Republicans and the Likud.

My conclusion stands.

How so? Modi is far from a good example if she wants to make her point.

Oh really?
Seems to me that my "propoganda" is slowly coming to pass...isn't it.
While the US President makes speeches about the Arab Muslim people, that drive Netanyahu and his Republican cronies out of their minds.
And what will this end-run Republican/Netanyahu speech to Congress accomplish?
SQUAT! It will not change Obama's position, nor will it change Mossad's position concerning Iran's nuclear capabilities and aspirations.
Will it affect the American population? I doubt it.

Zionism continues to slip.
As I've said...and been joked about by you...

tick tick tick tick tick....

Well, it is baseless when you consider the statements by other American Administrations on Israel - they have been much, much more hostile and more aligned with Arab states than anything Obama has ever said.

It seems you got used to George W. Bush, who was probably the most pro-Israel President the US has ever elected, being even more supportive of Israel than Reagan.

[Rei Murasame]

I'm aware of that, I'm also aware of how not only the visa ban was lifted upon becoming PM but he and Obama are actually getting along (something Netanyahu can't really boast).

That's only because Netanyahu seems to have some kind of mental problem that inhibits him from being able to see that the deal with Iran is a master play which guarantees NATO's position of strength against Russia, and enables Iran to remain in the hands of the present band of pro-western business leaders who have crept up the ranks of Iranian society in the past 15 years.

It's not because the Democratic Party has any kind of problem with working with Israel. It's just because Netayanhu is being stupid.

The purpose of the deal with Iran is to lock in place the particular clique of people who want to soak up western FDI and position Iran between NATO, Russia, and Sunni Saudi Arabia as a sort of 'swing group' of bourgeois Shias with natural gas and oil.

This is conducive to NATO interests because it peels Iran away from Russia, and unravels the unspoken agreement between Iran and Russia where Iran 'will not interfere' with Russia's interests in the Caucasus and Central Asia. It will be possible for Iran to play the other side of the board, which they might do because the NATO side actually has money, whereas Russia is poorer, has less economic growth, and is under sanctions.

[wat0n]

That's only because Netanyahu seems to have some kind of mental problem that inhibits him from being able to see that the deal with Iran is a master play which guarantees NATO's position of strength against Russia.

It's not because the Democratic Party has any kind of problem with working with Israel.

...Or whoever gets to be an Indian PM, even Modi.

I'm curious about how this deal strengthens NATO's position of strength with Russia. You expect Iran to align with the West as a result?

[Rei Murasame]

I've edited my post to explain. I'm impatient though because I'm really tired of having to repeat this stuff. Everyone knows this stuff already except Israelis apparently.

I used to think that Israel was doing this nonsense against Iran because they had some kind of nefarious agenda that needed to be figured out, but then looking at Netanyahu, I realise now that he's actually just irrational. Netanyahu is the kind of guy who would oppose Iran even if Iran's leadership were literally a collection of CIA plants.