Israel and Double Standards
Evander
Disappointed FatherRegistered User regular
Disappointed FatherRegistered User regular
So, something that I've noticed over time (and I'm not thefirst) but has also kept poppingup in he Zionism thread, is the seemingly double standards that the world applies to criticizng Israel in comparision withthe rest of the world. Since this has nothing to do with Zionism, I decided to create a new thread for it, rather than taking the other one off topic.
So, for those of you asking "what double standards?", or saying "there are no double standards.", I'll give a few examples.
The first, and easiest to point out, is that fact that Israel is criticized heavily for the civilian casualties that result unintentionally when they target terrorist leaders and bases in attempt to curb terrorism. At the same time, he same people do not seem to criticize the fact that Palestinian attacks are almost always carried out specifically and intentionally on civilian targets, and only for the purpose of casuing pain and fear.
Another one is the complaint of Israel displacing the Palestinians, and stating that Israel should be disolved and removed, and the Palestinians given back their land. These same people, though, do not call for the disolvement of the US or Australia, and the land to be given back to the American Indians or Aboriginees, respectively, even though both America and Australia are relatively young countries as well.
Israel is also criticized for being a "religious" nation, and therefore unfair, even though the actual government of Israel creates their policyin a decidedly secular manner, and no religious laws are imposed on any Israeli citizens who do not want to follow them. The same people who criticize this ignore the fact that the world is full of nations who actually DO have religious governments, which impose religious rules on their citizens, many of which are the Islamic countries that are Israel's enemies. In fact, the Palestinians have stated in the past that their intention in building a country for themselves is to build an Islamic country, so if Israel were to be removed on the grounds that it is religious, all that would happen is a new religious nation popping up in the area.
Finally, Israel is often criticized over the fact that they make it difficult for Palestinian refugees to enter the country in order to work. This criticism, seperate from the criticism that Palestinian refugees are not given Israeli citizenship (which ignores the fact that Palestinian refugees are not given citizenship by any of the neighboring Arab nations either) ignores a number things. First, and foremost, it ignores the fact that Palestinian terrorists are litterally constantly trying to get into Israel in order to attack civilians, and so Palestinian travel across the border has to be regulated strictly as a matter of national security. Next, it ignores that fact that Palestinians are allowed in to work at all, where Israel is not opposed to allowing it's citizens to give employment to these non-citizen refugees, meanwhile one only has to look at America and it's treatment of Illegal immigrants who cross the border only because they want a better life for themselves and their families, and see how America refuses to simply let them in to do jobs, and how the American people cry out so harshly against giving jobs to foreigners. Why is this okay in America to exclude these outsiders, but Israel is criticised because even though they are doing what they can to be more inclusive, without risking their safety, they are somehow not inclusive enough?
There are, of course, more of these double standards applied, but those serve as a good example of the types of things I am talking about. I'd ppreciate any insight as to why people think that Israel seems to be the subject of more criticism than other nations, or even if some one who criticises Israel but not other nations would be willing to share their thought process.
Also, I just want to state for the record that I did not make thisthread to criticize Palestine, or the religious nations of the world, or the US, or Australia. They are all merely examples.
In closing, I'd like to leaveyou with the lyrics to a song that I find very relevant. The song was written by Bob Dylan to express his feelings on Israel. It's title is "Neighborhood Bully".
Thoughts?
So, for those of you asking "what double standards?", or saying "there are no double standards.", I'll give a few examples.
The first, and easiest to point out, is that fact that Israel is criticized heavily for the civilian casualties that result unintentionally when they target terrorist leaders and bases in attempt to curb terrorism. At the same time, he same people do not seem to criticize the fact that Palestinian attacks are almost always carried out specifically and intentionally on civilian targets, and only for the purpose of casuing pain and fear.
Another one is the complaint of Israel displacing the Palestinians, and stating that Israel should be disolved and removed, and the Palestinians given back their land. These same people, though, do not call for the disolvement of the US or Australia, and the land to be given back to the American Indians or Aboriginees, respectively, even though both America and Australia are relatively young countries as well.
Israel is also criticized for being a "religious" nation, and therefore unfair, even though the actual government of Israel creates their policyin a decidedly secular manner, and no religious laws are imposed on any Israeli citizens who do not want to follow them. The same people who criticize this ignore the fact that the world is full of nations who actually DO have religious governments, which impose religious rules on their citizens, many of which are the Islamic countries that are Israel's enemies. In fact, the Palestinians have stated in the past that their intention in building a country for themselves is to build an Islamic country, so if Israel were to be removed on the grounds that it is religious, all that would happen is a new religious nation popping up in the area.
Finally, Israel is often criticized over the fact that they make it difficult for Palestinian refugees to enter the country in order to work. This criticism, seperate from the criticism that Palestinian refugees are not given Israeli citizenship (which ignores the fact that Palestinian refugees are not given citizenship by any of the neighboring Arab nations either) ignores a number things. First, and foremost, it ignores the fact that Palestinian terrorists are litterally constantly trying to get into Israel in order to attack civilians, and so Palestinian travel across the border has to be regulated strictly as a matter of national security. Next, it ignores that fact that Palestinians are allowed in to work at all, where Israel is not opposed to allowing it's citizens to give employment to these non-citizen refugees, meanwhile one only has to look at America and it's treatment of Illegal immigrants who cross the border only because they want a better life for themselves and their families, and see how America refuses to simply let them in to do jobs, and how the American people cry out so harshly against giving jobs to foreigners. Why is this okay in America to exclude these outsiders, but Israel is criticised because even though they are doing what they can to be more inclusive, without risking their safety, they are somehow not inclusive enough?
There are, of course, more of these double standards applied, but those serve as a good example of the types of things I am talking about. I'd ppreciate any insight as to why people think that Israel seems to be the subject of more criticism than other nations, or even if some one who criticises Israel but not other nations would be willing to share their thought process.
Also, I just want to state for the record that I did not make thisthread to criticize Palestine, or the religious nations of the world, or the US, or Australia. They are all merely examples.
In closing, I'd like to leaveyou with the lyrics to a song that I find very relevant. The song was written by Bob Dylan to express his feelings on Israel. It's title is "Neighborhood Bully".
Bob Dylan wrote:Well, the neighborhood bully, he's just one man,
His enemies say he's on their land.
They got him outnumbered about a million to one,
He got no place to escape to, no place to run.
He's the neighborhood bully.
The neighborhood bully just lives to survive,
He's criticized and condemned for being alive.
He's not supposed to fight back, he's supposed to have thick skin,
He's supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in.
He's the neighborhood bully.
The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land,
He's wandered the earth an exiled man.
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn,
He's always on trial for just being born.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized,
Old women condemned him, said he should apologize.
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad.
The bombs were meant for him.
He was supposed to feel bad.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That he'll live by the rules that the world makes for him,
'Cause there's a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac.
He's the neighborhood bully.
He got no allies to really speak of.
What he gets he must pay for, he don't get it out of love.
He buys obsolete weapons and he won't be denied
But no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Well, he's surrounded by pacifists who all want peace,
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease.
Now, they wouldn't hurt a fly.
To hurt one they would weep.
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Every empire that's enslaved him is gone,
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon.
He's made a garden of paradise in the desert sand,
In bed with nobody, under no one's command.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Now his holiest books have been trampled upon,
No contract he signed was worth what it was written on.
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth,
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health.
He's the neighborhood bully.
What's anybody indebted to him for?
Nothin', they say.
He just likes to cause war.
Pride and prejudice and superstition indeed,
They wait for this bully like a dog waits to feed.
He's the neighborhood bully.
What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers?
Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill,
Running out the clock, time standing still,
Neighborhood bully.
Thoughts?
Evander on
0
Posts
The why are people calling for getting rid of Israel, but the same people aren't calling for getting rid of the other countries mentioned?
You must admit, it doesn't quite make sense for some one to say that, because it is a religious nation, Israel should be removed, and a Palestinian nation built in it's place, eventhough that Palestinian nation would also bea religious nation.
Many of the things being said in the Zion thread, and the very basis for Israel's existence, are the reasons.
Well, you see, It's because that currently, our method to "get rid of" those enemy countries don't seem to be working to well. I absolutely despise the fact that theocracies and the like exist. I do call for those countries to stop being assholes. However, it's easier to affect positive policy on an ally, rather than an enemy.
Aside from the fact that your article is clearly biased, I think that is something worth discussing.
But are you saying that immigration policy is more concerning that attacks on civilians or discussing the destruction of a country?
Please expand on that.
I'm not saying that people ignore what the US does entirely, but if some one called for the US to be removed entirely, they would be laughed at. Why is the stance that Israel should be destroyed considered a valid one?
And, as far as the unintentional Palestinian civilian casualties, what would the oponants of Israel's military policies suggestthat Israel do instead, in order to defend themselves from terrorist attacks on their civilians?
I think where a lot of this "seeming" double standard come from is that fact that, when people criticise the US, they often have suggestions as to whatthe US could be doing differently. When people criticise Israel, though, for some reason they don't seem to feek the need to give suggestions, other than Israel stop whatever it's doing, regardless of consequences.
I think the only way it would be "clearly biased" is if it has gotten its facts wrong.
I'm saying that I'm not going to cricicize Israel until I know much more about all the details of what's going on there, and I don't really have the time to drop out from my day job and do a few months of research.
From what I've read and heard so far, saints and sinners exist on many sides of the Israel-Palestine clusterfuck, but it is really hard to tell which is which without knowing a lot more about the local situation. Since I don't, I will refrain from pointing fingers here.
That protest to immigration laws, on the other hand, concerns matters a lot closer to home - the Jewish community here in Germany - and thus is something I am more likely to have a strong opinion on. And my opinion is: Those complaints were really, really strange.
Why do you think Jews don't care about other ethnc groups? Jews have historically shown a lot of compassion towards the plights of other groups.
It is the other groups that don't seem to care about Jews.
Case in point, in 1947, the Jews graciously accepted the Proposed UN borders which gave half of theland (the southern desert) to the Jews, and half of the land (the fertile north) to the Palestinians. The Jews had no qualms with there being a Palestinian nation, it was the Palestinians who refused to accept the fact that the Jews were being given a nation.
Honestly, I think ithas to do with Israeli Jews thinking that they "know what's best" for Russian Jews. At least, that is my guess.
And the bias in the source comes from the fact that they make a clear judgement on the situation based on those facts. It is not just reporting, it is also editorializing, which is fine, but needs to be recognized as biased.
This is going off tangent, though, so I'll toss you a PM
edit: the double standard that Israel is displaying isn't the tangent, it's my guess that is. I don't want my guess to be misinterpretted as official israeli policy.
You used the word "Jews" in the post above a couple oftimes, but neither time did it have anything to do with religion. The country was set up for members of the Jewish nation, and gives the "right of return" to Jews, but actually goes AGAINST the religious definition of a Jew in doing that.
According to the Jewish religion, a Jew is either some one whose MOTHER is Jewish, or a convert. The religion of the father is entirely irrelevant in the Jewish religion. Also, conversion, in Judaism, is a long and tedious process involving study and the showing of true commitment to follow Jewish ways. It is easily comparable to the naturalization processes that many countries have for immigrants. It should also be noted that Judaism uses a sort of a "once a Jew, always a Jew" rule, in which, if you are a Jew, by birth or by conversion, and you consider yourself as having converted to another religion, Judaism still recognizes you as a Jew.
A Jew, as defined by Israeli immigration law, though, is some one who had either or both parents as a Jew, whether those parents where practising or not, or some one who has converted.
Essentially, we are talking about a hereditary nationallity here, that Israel considers itself to be an extension of. Not special treatemtnt for those who believe in God a certain way.
Also, in order for Israel to proper act as a safe haven for Jews in times of discrimination, it needs to have a rule like this in place, otherwise Jews would have issues fleeing their countries and moving there.
I also think it needs to be noted that the land in question has changed hands many times. Pretty much every empire has had it. The Romans, then the Ottomans, then the British. I've never understood why anyone believes the Palestinians have any more of a claim to that land than the Jews.
As an aside, who had it before the Romans? I've read a few articles on the history of the area, but I can't remember if they ever said who the original peoples of that area were.
Well . . . duh.
Do you really want us to evaluate and think of Israel as though it were morally equivalent to Hamas?
Anything that kills civilians is just going to agitate the Palestinians more anyway. How would you feel if you came back to crater of a house and found your family dead? Would you say, "I'm cool with it because my next door neighbor was a criminal"? Or would you be angry that the people you loved were dead? Would you, perhaps, be more willing to take up arms against the ones who killed them?
(And, yes, the Palestinians are foolish to bomb the Israelis for the same reason.)
That is to say, if it's inappropriate for Israel to behave a certain way, then it ought to be inappropriate for anyone to behave that way. The standard we hold Israel to should be the minimum standard for the behaviour of any group or country.
I don't disagree there, but wouldn't that mean that people would be criticizing both sides? Or criticizing Israel, but then turning around and criticizing the terrorist Palestinians even more?
Instead I see people saying "The Israelis kill Palestinian civilians, so we should get rid of Israel." I don't disagree that Israel's behavior should be held to a higher standard, but it's absurd to ignore that fact that the terrorist behavior of TARGETING civilians is even lower.
This is not the case with Israel.
Edit: In other words, Native Americans make up 0.8% of America's population. It doesn't make sense anymore to give it back to them and have the other 99.2% of the population go somewhere else.
The universal critique of Palestine is right there in what you are saying. You have continually been calling them terrorists, and no one has disagreed or asked you to stop.
What part of the word that universally means "attacks civilians and is completely and utterly repugnant" do you think demands an extra and specific denouncing every time we critique Israel? Israel is often attacked by terrorists, and when retaliating often acts deplorably by by killing civilians. Both sides are called on their faults, and that in no way reduces the burden on either. Palestinian groups that use terror tactics will never have the international legitimacy needed to accomplish anything substantive, and Israel is rightly judged for civilian casualties it could and should avoid.
This is a totally honest question because it has completely dropped out of the media. Is Israel still occupying parts of it?
"With great power comes great responsibility"
It isnt hypocritical to hold Isreal up the same standard as terrorist organizations, and for fucks sake it isnt hypocritical to hold them up to a stiffer standard when they hold the sole power to rectify the situation.
IIRC they have withdrawn without achieving their stated objectives, which pissed off a lot of Israelis since there has been lots of death and destruction and nothing to show for it.
And Hizbollah got a lot of cred in the Arab world for showing that they can stand up to Israel without losing the fight (which counts as a "win" in these parts). And then they managed to be far better at relief efforts than the Lebanese government (they had more money - thanks to Iran and other parties - and were better organized to boot), which further endeared them to large segments of the population. Now they are close to replacing the government as the top dogs in the country.
Depressing, really.
It isn't?
The population of Israel is estimated at about 7.1 million people. There are 4,255,120 registered Palestinian refugees, however this includes not justrefugees living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but also Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. I also want to note, and this is not to discredit them, but there were only 711,000 refugees in 1950. I'm not saying that numbers are misrepresented, I just want to give context of BOTH the number of people who were actually displaced, as well as the number of displaced people today. If we find it important to look at who was displaced when, then it is equally relevenat to see the numbers of people who were actually displaced.
Regardless, 7.1 million is still also several million more than 4.3 million. What would we do wit al of the people whowould be displaced from Israel?
Also, I want tosharea link with everyone that refutescertain myths about Israel. I will openlyadmit that the site does have a specific agenda, but I haven't noticed anything on there that is an outright lie while skimming it. Please give it a read:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/index.html
Well, I certainly wouldn't say, "The Israelis kill Palestinian civilians, therefore Israel should be destroyed". Instead, I would say, "The Israelis kill Palestinian civilians and they should bloody well stop doing it". I don't see how that is a double standard, unless I'm advocating the murder of civilians elsewhere by non-Israelis.
People expect better from Israel because it is a semi-western democracy.
You can look at Israel as the best of a bunch of violent retarded governments in the Middle East or you can look at it as a terrible western democracy.
If you are comfortable with people thinking of Israel as a third world country go right ahead and complain about it being judged otherwise. If not, give it a rest.
No one ever cut the United States any slack because we are doing so much better than Mexico.
Dude, if you havethe solution to all of this, please share it. What can Israel do all by themselves that will fix the situation without sacrificing their country?
Not to mention that Hamasis currently the leading party in Palestine
And Arafat was a known terrorist, yetgiven a nobel peace prize.
Yes, because Israel has never, ever, ever done anything to encourage or alienate thse people.
No one ever told the US to disolve, either.
When one terrorist attack happened on American Soil, America went and bombed the HELL out of two different countries. Plenty of civilians died, and the countries were distroyed. The world may have said thatthey dissapproved, but they didn't call for the US to be dissolved.
Israel is CONSTANTLY under attack, and yet any time it retaliates EVERYONE starts talking about how evil Israel is.
And that justifies terrorism?
Israel welcomed having a palestinian nation as neighbors, it was the palestinians who refused to have Israelis around. The Arab-Islamic rejectionist policies are what created Palestinian terrorism, not Israeli actions. Israeli actions have only been in reaction to being attacked.
Recognize Palestine as a nation, set up official diplomatic relations with them, stop all incursions into Palestinean land by Isreali forces, pull out of all settlements, and allow the Palestineans the ability to not be dependant on Isreali controlled infastructure.
No, i think that is in your head Evander.
Zionism/Isreal started with a terrorist attack in support of the Isreali state...
Most definitly not. If you consider the attacks on the U.S. unprovoked, then the attacks from Isreal are also unprovoked.
And plenty of people criticized us for it, especaily for Iraq.
You're still ignoring why these civilians are dying (the terrorists surround themselves with innocent people so that when the Israelis attack them there will becivilian casualties).
It's not likeIsrael is simplybombing Palestinian Villiages, which is along the lines of what other nations at war (such as the US) regularly do. Israel sets of very precise strikes on exactly where thePalestinian terrorists are located, and takes them out. Unfortunately, civilians get caught in the cross-fire, because the terrorists want to make Israel look worse.
How do you propose that Israel defend itself without these civilians dying? I am all ears.
A quote from Golda Mier that is echo in the sentiment of most Israelis is as follows:
"We can forgive [the Palestinians] for killing our children, but we can not forgive them for forcing us to kill theirs."
Just rememebr that the Israelis aren't dancing in the streets when civilians die, they are mourning the fact that it had to happen.
It's easy for us living in relative safety to simply say "why don't they stop killing people. killing is bad." But we're not the one who have to risk being blown up every time we ride a public bus or go to the mall.