Or you are doing your best to tweak me because I think you are one of the world posters on this board and make that fact known consistently responding to your nonsense.

*worst posters.

That's great, like the other people that have called me out, I don't really care. But if that's all you can focus on, you can have your fun.

In other words Jamiet, or Tolstoy or whomever. I would love to hear why Israelis are consistently described as among the worlds worst oppressors among western human rights activists while Other countries (s.arabians, Iranians, Egyptians, Indonesians, Turks, Chinese, and various African nations) are not scrutinized nearly as much. As American Jews I think we see these discrepancies and think anti semitism because it simply doesn't make sense.

There's a distinction, sometimes not very sharp, between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. While what Palestinians have to go through in the West Bank is pretty awful, it's pretty awful for the people of Western Sahara under Moroccan occupation too, but we never hear about that. We never hear about how Azeris were driven from their homes in the west of their country by Armenians, but we hear about Palestinian refugees for the 1948 and 1967 wars constantly. And so on.

Israel isn't sinless by any means, but it's also true that its sins get much more scrutiny than any other state on Earth.

In west Papua, Indonesia claimed Nd invaded the territory which is completely distinct ethically culturally and geographically. They then imported over a million Indonesians and displaced hundreds of thousands of ethic Papuans in a campaign of violence which has killed 150 thousand. When was the last march against Indonesian nationalism or resolution in the un condemning it? Why Zionism above all?

I'm going to guess that it's because there doesn't exist a large contingent of neoconservative political figures in the US that would back Indonesia on almost everything at taxpayers' expense. Israel is afforded a lot of consideration in US foreign policy planning, so its transgressions subsequently get more scrutiny. It's kinda like how one would be more willing to call out a best friend over something than a random stranger: you expect better of someone with whom you closely associate. If the US and Israel had no special diplomatic ties, I guarantee you the overwhelming majority of US citizens wouldn't give a shit one way or the other.

And sure, anti-Semitism drives that sentiment for *some* people, but I'd imagine it's a pretty small minority.

We actually do back Indonesia on almost anything at taxpayers' expense. The US is the reason they were able to occupy East Timor for so long. We're the reason Suharto was able to keep power for over thirty years. We're the reason they were able to smash the Aceh separatists with such success.

So it's not just that the Americans back pretty much everything Israel does. We back a lot of countries that way who do bad things. Israel's sins get more attention than any others', however. Why? A part of it, not all and I'd say not even most, is due to antisemitism. Maybe not here in America or in the nice parts of Europe you all seem to be from, but in the rest of the world for sure.

@ Jamie,

Yes I am satisfied with your answer. It explains perfectly well my position. I don't support the anti-propaganda law but I still think Putin is a good leader who has saved a lot of lives with his foreign policy. I don't think I need to oppose Russia or Russia based on this law anymore than you believe you need to oppose the Palestinians based on Hamas's social conservatism.

Ah yes East Timor, another genocide committed in the name of anti-communism.

Communism doesn't have any stones to throw when it comes to genocide.

Tell that to Fretilin.

Holodomor, Cultural Revolution, Cambodian Killing Fields...

" Cambodian Killing Fields..."

Garbage. Your buddy Nixon bombed Cambodia to the stone age and supported the coup in Cambodia that eventually led to the Red Khmers coming to power. The Americans backed Pol Pot and the Soviets & Vietnamese got rid of him. The whole of the Soviet bloc opposed Pol Pot, which had nothing to do with the Communist Party of Indochina, they were a nationalist vehemently anti-Vietnamese movement.

Your history sucks.

"Holodomor"

Not even considered a genocide by Robert Conquest.

"Cultural Revolution"

Funny, all the whining and crying about the "genocidal" Chinese yet the Republicans opened diplomatic relations with China at precisely the time when this was going on. Meanwhile the Soviets thought they were batshit insane and had just fought a war with China in 1969.

I was a very little boy when Nixon died. I don't know how we could have been "buddies." Anyway, the Khmer Rouge were still communists and still committed a genocide, and that's the point.

At least we're getting you to admit the Holodomor even occurred.

Looks like even you can't justify the Cultural Revolution, having to resort to obscurantism. Love to see what you have to say about the even worse Great Leap Forward.

He's a Republican and the hero of most of the 90s generation Republicans. If I'm being asked to respond to every event you can conjure in your mind then you can be held responsible for defending Nixon's crimes.

Khmer Rouge were not communists. That's the *point*. They were expelled and driven out of power by *communists*. They were nationalists backed by the CIA. And Nixon's carpet bombing of Cambodia killed just as many people and led to their coming to power. No word of complaint from you.

"At least we're getting you to admit the Holodomor even occurred."

You're "getting me" to do nothing. I never denied a famine occurred. But you don't care about deaths, you only care about scoring political points while ignoring the crimes of your own ideology. Golodomor is a propaganda term for a famine that occurred throughout the USSR. It is not a genocide or deliberate policy. Even the liars who concocted fraudulent research to demonize the USSR admit this.

"Looks like even you can't justify the Cultural Revolution, having to resort to obscurantism"

Looks like you can't even justify the Republican policy of opening relations with a supposedly genocidal government while the USSR went to war with them. How does that talking point work for you? Obscurantism? Just trotting out meaningless buzzwords now?

The Khmer Rouge weren't communists? There's no point to keep talking to someone so far removed from reality as you.

They openly said they weren't communists. They wanted to liquidate the working class. They took cash from the CIA while fighting the Soviet Union and its allies. How am I detached from reality? Talk to me when your reading of history exits the realm of middle school social studies class.

It's kind of hard to say Israel gets more scrutiny than others. Iraq. Iran, and now Syria have been subject to invasive inspections of their weapons programs, Israel has not. Iraq was subject to a decade of sanctions and a war for its weapons program. Iran has been under constant military encirclement over the past decade. While this has been going on, Israel keeps getting billions in new weapons. That seems like a big double standard in the eyes of Israel's neighbors.

And it's not as if Israel has been a passive power towards its neighbors. What was the repercussion for Israel attacking Iraq's nuclear facility? Nothing. What was the repercussion for Israel bombing the Syrian border over the past couple of years? Nothing. The invasion of Lebanon? Nothing. The disproportionate attention to Israel's human rights record is in direct correlation with the complete non-accountability it has had over its weapons programs and relations with its neighbors.

The other difference is that the other cases mentioned, they involve issues of sorting out issues of decolonization or territorial distribution among newly independent states. In Israel it looks more like a land grab because of the settlement issue, and it doesn't look like Israel is showing willingness to give up territories gained through war.

@ Santa: "Why the discrepancy? Why are Israel's actions so objectable that the syrian conflict with over 1000% more casualties in nearly 1/10 the time is ok with you as long as both sides play fair?"

The Syrian conflict is not "ok with me" at all. It's a horrible situation. However I do not believe that a limited bombing campaign as proposed by the USA and its allies would have resolved the situation. In fact it would have made things worse, increasing instability and killing a load more people without actually bringing the conflict to an end. Saying that I am opposed to NATO / US bombing of government territory in Syria is not the same as saying that the conflict there is "ok" with me.

"In other words Jamiet, or Tolstoy or whomever. I would love to hear why Israelis are consistently described as among the worlds worst oppressors"

I wasn't the one who brought up the topic of Israel / Palestine in this thread.


@ Putin33

"Yes I am satisfied with your answer. It explains perfectly well my position. I don't support the anti-propaganda law but I still think Putin is a good leader who has saved a lot of lives with his foreign policy. I don't think I need to oppose Russia or Russia based on this law anymore than you believe you need to oppose the Palestinians based on Hamas's social conservatism."

Ok, I can understand your position then. I would say that I still support a boycott of the Winter Olympics because I think it's important to highlight the government-sanctioned oppression of LGBT people in Russia. That doesn't mean that I won't acknowledge Putin's successes in foreign policy at the same time.

Did you support a boycott of the London Olympics over the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?

I was not aware of any such boycott being proposed. In any case, both the wars you mentioned took place well before the London Olympics. Boycotting an event in 2012 in the hope of encouraging the UK not to invade Iraq in 2003 would seem futile, no?

Maybe a boycott on vodka should be in order until Putin opens up to the rainbow.

Well, maybe not vodka, it's too good... some other Russian product?

"Boycotting an event in 2012 in the hope of encouraging the UK not to invade Iraq in 2003 would seem futile, no?"?

That's not the point. The Sochi "boycott" is to occur well after the propaganda law is passed, so it's not for a future event either. And why should London be exempt any punishment for its bad behavior? Invading and bombing countries and torturing people is a much more serious manner than fines.

As I said, Russia is being singled out. London and everyone else is given a pass for much worse behavior.

You don't get it Putin. Laws can be undone. Invasions can't. There is no point in boycotting over an invasion 9 years later. But there is in boycotting an unjust law as there is a chance it can be reversed.

London's militaristic foreign policy can be compelled to change, if the same logic applies. Poor excuses. This is transparent Russophobia.

"I was not aware of any such boycott being proposed."

Because bombing civilians doesn't cause leftwing British celebrities to bat an eye. While it's fun to hate on Russia.

Putin, you know I love you man, but you are aware that nobody west of Rumania has given a rat's ass about Russia since 1989, right?

http://i.imgur.com/K85jybh.gif