How we view international news; double standards

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.
 
Being 'anti-Israel' does not equate to anti-Semitic.
I agree, but supporting the Islamic Human Rights Commission does make you 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?
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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 

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.


Thats so disingenuous. I was responding to this

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

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.




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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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?.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.?

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?

Im open to be convinced otherwise.
I think the bar is set very high.

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.

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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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?

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.
 
You inferred that I suggested that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid.
No I didn't. I 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.


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.

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.

You also 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? 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.



Relative to Russias influence over US policy, I would consider Israel to have greater influence over US policy, wouldn't you?
No.

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.

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.
 
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.


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?


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.

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.
 
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.

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.

Is there significant support for Israel amongst US public, which in itself can influence political affairs at Congress?
Yes. You are getting it now.

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.

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.

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.