What's the best thing that Israel has done for America?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Truly they are a loyal and helpful ally.

[BaconBacon96]

lol

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

You're really not even trying to hide it anymore, are you?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

You're really not even trying to hide it anymore, are you?

Hide what?

[SWE]

You're really not even trying to hide it anymore, are you?

That he opposes apartheid? I don't recall him ever trying to hide it.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

You're really not even trying to hide it anymore, are you?

Hide what?

Shall we go back to the Happy Merchant meme, or has it been deleted?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

You're really not even trying to hide it anymore, are you?

That he opposes apartheid? I don't recall him ever trying to hide it.

Explain what apartheid has to do with discredited far-right conspiracies theory about the Liberty.

[Famous Mortimer]

You're really not even trying to hide it anymore, are you?

Hide what?

Shall we go back to the Happy Merchant meme, or has it been deleted?

This is dumb as hell. Snowstalker is not anti-Semitic. If he was cheering on US drone bombing in Pakistan but condemning Israel in the occupied territories, then you would have a case. As it stands, there's no evidence that he (or the anti-Israel left in general) hold Israel to a different standard than they hold any other Western power. You could argue that the left are self hating Westerners but to say that they are anti-Semitic is, again, idiotic. 

[Vosem]

You're really not even trying to hide it anymore, are you?

Hide what?

Shall we go back to the Happy Merchant meme, or has it been deleted?

This is dumb as hell. Snowstalker is not anti-Semitic.

The opinions he has might as well be, even if he doesn't realize it himself. Someone who says blacks hinder America, while being fine in other countries, is still a racist.

If he was cheering on US drone bombing in Pakistan but condemning Israel in the occupied territories, then you would have a case. As it stands, there's no evidence that he (or the anti-Israel left in general) hold Israel to a different standard than they hold any other Western power. You could argue that the left are self hating Westerners but to say that they are anti-Semitic is, again, idiotic. 

No, Israel is definitely held to another standard. No one cares about the Moroccan occupation of the western Sahara; the Turkish annexation of northern Cyprus; or the Bhutanese expulsion of Nepalis, even though these have all contravened international law much more, and much more flagrantly, than Israel has. You could of course point out that Israel is a much closer American ally than any of these countries, which is true, but then you'd have to note that Israel's singling out dates back to before it was such a close American ally, and is sustained mostly by anti-Semitism; and the left is, while maybe not being overtly anti-Semitic, at least abetting anti-Semitism when it joins in.

[ag]

No, Israel is definitely held to another standard. No one cares about the Moroccan occupation of the western Sahara

It will surprize you, but for many years I was getting a lot more mailings about Western Sahara than about Israel. Perhaps, because I speak Spanish and lived in Spain for a while. BTW, Mexico has both Palestinian and SPDR embassies - and they produce roughly equal ammounts of news.

But, anyway, you were responding to the post that said that Israel is not being held "to a different standard than they hold any other Western power." You chose to illustrate the contrary with Morocco and Bhutan. I guess, Morocco is geographically pretty far West, but that was not what that poster had in mind, I believe.

[Vosem]

No, Israel is definitely held to another standard. No one cares about the Moroccan occupation of the western Sahara

It will surprize you, but for many years I was getting a lot more mailings about Western Sahara than about Israel. Perhaps, because I speak Spanish and lived in Spain for a while. BTW, Mexico has both Palestinian and SPDR embassies - and they produce roughly equal ammounts of news.

In Spain, because of proximity to Morocco, I can imagine that the occupation of Western Sahara is a bigger issue than in most places. But around the world, more attention is paid to Palestine than Western Sahara, I'm afraid.

But, anyway, you were responding to the post that said that Israel is not being held "to a different standard than they hold any other Western power." You chose to illustrate the contrary with Morocco and Bhutan. I guess, Morocco is geographically pretty far West, but that was not what that poster had in mind, I believe.

I interpreted Western as meaning simply "ally of America", which to be fair is a much broader usage of the term than is normal, but seems to make sense in this case, since most countries otherwise defined as Western don't have issues with bordering territories that are hell-bent on making war on them unless they are occupied. Bordering Khaled Mashal is not the same thing as bordering Elio di Rupo.

[Beet]

They showed up a bunch of Soviet military hardware.

[Cory]

I interpreted Western as meaning simply "ally of America", which to be fair is a much broader usage of the term than is normal, but seems to make sense in this case, since most countries otherwise defined as Western don't have issues with bordering territories that are hell-bent on making war on them unless they are occupied. Bordering Khaled Mashal is not the same thing as bordering Elio di Rupo.

So you "interpreted" it incorrectly. Israel isn't held to a higher standards then the "anti-Zionist" left then other Western Liberal Democracies.

Try again.

[ag]

I interpreted Western as meaning simply "ally of America", which to be fair is a much broader usage of the term than is normal, but seems to make sense in this case, since most countries otherwise defined as Western don't have issues with bordering territories that are hell-bent on making war on them unless they are occupied. Bordering Khaled Mashal is not the same thing as bordering Elio di Rupo.

Bhutan is an "ally of America"? Well, I guess, Morocco, having recognized the US in 1787 qualifies But, frankly, few people would think of it as "a US ally". Not in the same sense as Israel, most definitely.

[ag]

No, Israel is definitely held to another standard. No one cares about the Moroccan occupation of the western Sahara

It will surprize you, but for many years I was getting a lot more mailings about Western Sahara than about Israel. Perhaps, because I speak Spanish and lived in Spain for a while. BTW, Mexico has both Palestinian and SPDR embassies - and they produce roughly equal ammounts of news.

In Spain, because of proximity to Morocco, I can imagine that the occupation of Western Sahara is a bigger issue than in most places. But around the world, more attention is paid to Palestine than Western Sahara, I'm afraid.

Western Sahara happens to be out of most people's mind most of the time: that slice of empty desert only interests those who speak Spanish, really. No holy sites there and not many journalists. However other, less remote places, get their share of coverage - and Israel is far from being the top item on everyone's attention, as I just tried to demonstrate

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=213125.25

BTW, as a Russian you might appreciate that up until East Timore got its independence in around 2000, Indonesians, who wished to travel to Europe, could not get a Schengen visa: if they wanted to visit Germany and France they needed 2 distinct visa stamps, obtained in 2 different embassies. You know why? Because Portugal said so. Because of East Timor. Israelis, most certainly, were never treated like that. THE WORLD HATES INDONESIA!!

[Vosem]

I interpreted Western as meaning simply "ally of America", which to be fair is a much broader usage of the term than is normal, but seems to make sense in this case, since most countries otherwise defined as Western don't have issues with bordering territories that are hell-bent on making war on them unless they are occupied. Bordering Khaled Mashal is not the same thing as bordering Elio di Rupo.

So you "interpreted" it incorrectly. Israel isn't held to a higher standards then the "anti-Zionist" left then other Western Liberal Democracies.

Try again.

Ah. Otherwise, the statement doesn't make sense, as no states classically defined as "Western" besides Israel are in a geopolitical situation where one of their neighbors is a threat (or is perceived as a threat) to the state's existence. If you're going to interpret that word literally, his post makes no sense whatsoever.

I interpreted Western as meaning simply "ally of America", which to be fair is a much broader usage of the term than is normal, but seems to make sense in this case, since most countries otherwise defined as Western don't have issues with bordering territories that are hell-bent on making war on them unless they are occupied. Bordering Khaled Mashal is not the same thing as bordering Elio di Rupo.

Bhutan is an "ally of America"? Well, I guess, Morocco, having recognized the US in 1787 qualifies But, frankly, few people would think of it as "a US ally". Not in the same sense as Israel, most definitely.

Not in the same sense as Israel because Israel has been attacked so virulently and vehemently for so long. That's why Israel requires the close friendship that America provides.

No, Israel is definitely held to another standard. No one cares about the Moroccan occupation of the western Sahara

It will surprize you, but for many years I was getting a lot more mailings about Western Sahara than about Israel. Perhaps, because I speak Spanish and lived in Spain for a while. BTW, Mexico has both Palestinian and SPDR embassies - and they produce roughly equal ammounts of news.

In Spain, because of proximity to Morocco, I can imagine that the occupation of Western Sahara is a bigger issue than in most places. But around the world, more attention is paid to Palestine than Western Sahara, I'm afraid.

Western Sahara happens to be out of most people's mind most of the time: that slice of empty desert only interests those who speak Spanish, really. No holy sites there and not many journalists. However other, less remote places, get their share of coverage - and Israel is far from being the top item on everyone's attention, as I just tried to demonstrate

Conozco a muchas personas que hablan español, pero estoy cierto que pocos de ellos saben o piensan mucho sobre la situación en Sahara Occidental.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=213125.25

How many of those articles about other countries are about public transportation policy, though? Try again.

BTW, as a Russian you might appreciate that up until East Timore got its independence in around 2000, Indonesians, who wished to travel to Europe, could not get a Schengen visa: if they wanted to visit Germany and France they needed 2 distinct visa stamps, obtained in 2 different embassies. You know why? Because Portugal said so. Because of East Timor. Israelis, most certainly, were never treated like that. THE WORLD HATES INDONESIA!!

Indonesia's occupation of East Timor was, in fact, given a lot of attention by the world while it was going on, though the example is a tad out of date. Of course, it should also be noted that the establishment of an independent regime in Dili had no way of threatening Jakarta, and that Indonesia was never the subject of a campaign where the country's very existence was denied by dozens of other countries.

[Famous Mortimer]

You're really not even trying to hide it anymore, are you?

Hide what?

Shall we go back to the Happy Merchant meme, or has it been deleted?

This is dumb as hell. Snowstalker is not anti-Semitic.

The opinions he has might as well be, even if he doesn't realize it himself. Someone who says blacks hinder America, while being fine in other countries, is still a racist.

If he was cheering on US drone bombing in Pakistan but condemning Israel in the occupied territories, then you would have a case. As it stands, there's no evidence that he (or the anti-Israel left in general) hold Israel to a different standard than they hold any other Western power. You could argue that the left are self hating Westerners but to say that they are anti-Semitic is, again, idiotic. 

No, Israel is definitely held to another standard. No one cares about the Moroccan occupation of the western Sahara; the Turkish annexation of northern Cyprus; or the Bhutanese expulsion of Nepalis, even though these have all contravened international law much more, and much more flagrantly, than Israel has. You could of course point out that Israel is a much closer American ally than any of these countries, which is true, but then you'd have to note that Israel's singling out dates back to before it was such a close American ally, and is sustained mostly by anti-Semitism; and the left is, while maybe not being overtly anti-Semitic, at least abetting anti-Semitism when it joins in.

The reason people don't care Northern Cyprus or Western Sahara is because hardly anyone dies as a result of those conflicts. The Cyprus conflict in particular has seen like 2 deaths in the last two decades, from crazing people running at guards.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, Israel is definitely held to another standard. No one cares about the Moroccan occupation of the western Sahara

It will surprize you, but for many years I was getting a lot more mailings about Western Sahara than about Israel. Perhaps, because I speak Spanish and lived in Spain for a while. BTW, Mexico has both Palestinian and SPDR embassies - and they produce roughly equal ammounts of news.

But, anyway, you were responding to the post that said that Israel is not being held "to a different standard than they hold any other Western power." You chose to illustrate the contrary with Morocco and Bhutan. I guess, Morocco is geographically pretty far West, but that was not what that poster had in mind, I believe.

The Western Sahara certainly deserves more attention than it's been getting, but we don't give $3 billion in aid to Morocco every year.

[ingemann]

I think western, especially European (but also Americans) opinion of Israel are mostly reactive. Most people including westerners see Israel as part of the west, so when Arabs complain about Israel and western hypocrisy, the reaction are that people look at Israel and decides whether they think Israel's behaviour are okay, and here's Bibi a problem, the old Israeli leaders was able to sell Israel in ways, which made the West see Israel's abuses as a result of Palestinian terror, but Bibi have succeed in turning the view around to the benefit of the Palestinians. But we wouldn't react to it, if it wasn't brought up all the time by Arab countries and "pundits" and the Israeli governments the last 20 years have done their best to get rid foreign apoligists for the Israeli action, of course it doesn't help that many of apoligists who are left, are connected to anti-Muslim groups and parties.

As for West Sahara, if the West Saharans, had someone who push their suffering into western view all the times, we would also have a much more hostile view of the Moroccan occupation. We can just see the difference between international view of Xinjiang and Tibet, where the Chinese treatment of the locals are worse in Xinjiang, but more people care about Tibet, because of their better PR campaign.

[Silent Hunter]

In answer to the original question, Operation Opera. Imagine what Saddam would have been like with a nuclear bomb.

[ag]

Ah. Otherwise, the statement doesn't make sense, as no states classically defined as "Western" besides Israel are in a geopolitical situation where one of their neighbors is a threat (or is perceived as a threat) to the state's existence. If you're going to interpret that word literally, his post makes no sense whatsoever.

Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Norway all border on Russia: arguably a state less civilized and more threatening to their neighbors than anything Palestinians can ever hope to be.

Bhutan is neither Western, nor even borders on Nepal - I have no clue how that example is relevant.

[ag]

How many of those articles about other countries are about public transportation policy, though? Try again.

Quite a few: China is building Brazilian roads you see. In any case, none of the articles about Israel were about a "public transportation policy". Indeed, only a shameless racist extremist would even consider describing it thus.

You are, really, giving a bad name to our fellow tribesemen here.

[Vosem]

Ah. Otherwise, the statement doesn't make sense, as no states classically defined as "Western" besides Israel are in a geopolitical situation where one of their neighbors is a threat (or is perceived as a threat) to the state's existence. If you're going to interpret that word literally, his post makes no sense whatsoever.

Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Norway all border on Russia: arguably a state less civilized and more threatening to their neighbors than anything Palestinians can ever hope to be.

The size differential makes this example not particularly relevant to Israel v. Palestine; those countries cannot collectively hope to subdue Russia.

Bhutan is neither Western, nor even borders on Nepal - I have no clue how that example is relevant.

Yeah, that was a bad example. Strike it.

How many of those articles about other countries are about public transportation policy, though? Try again.

Quite a few: China is building Brazilian roads you see.

This is indeed quite significant news, but I have seen very little discussion of it and what it entails, especially as compared with this issue.

In any case, none of the articles about Israel were about a "public transportation policy". Indeed, only a shameless racist extremist would even consider describing it thus.

You are, really, giving a bad name to our fellow tribesemen here.

But it is. The reason for this law being passed is very simple, which is that because of the nature of Jewish settlement in the West Bank, where Jews go in and form new communities rather than joining the existing ones, because of those residents being hostile to their presence, Jews and Palestinians live in separate communities in the West Bank, so buses carrying just Jews or just Palestinians would travel to fewer destinations and be more convenient for both groups, while buses carrying both groups would increase the length of the typical trip. It's not about being unwilling to share a bus with the other group (indeed, sharing buses among different groups of Jews within Israel has proven to be much more contentious).

[MalaspinaGold]

RE: the previous post: For the love of God, stop.

[ag]

But it is. The reason for this law being passed is very simple, which is that because of the nature of Jewish settlement in the West Bank, where Jews go in and form new communities rather than joining the existing ones, because of those residents being hostile to their presence, Jews and Palestinians live in separate communities in the West Bank, so buses carrying just Jews or just Palestinians would travel to fewer destinations and be more convenient for both groups, while buses carrying both groups would increase the length of the typical trip. It's not about being unwilling to share a bus with the other group (indeed, sharing buses among different groups of Jews within Israel has proven to be much more contentious).

I have not seen such an eloquent defence of the Nuremberg Laws in a long time.