ColbyCosh.com

I like the idea of chastising people/groups that fixate on this particular conflict to the exclusion of every other, past or present. There may be an uncomfortable truth to the idea that the discussion is so heated because the conflict wasn't decided conclusively, in either direction, as you point out.

Since you brought it up, I wondered if you could explain how Israel's democratic tradition makes what it does somehow less venal than, say, what China has done to Tibet? Meaning, I guess, that in my ethically half-witted tendencies, I don't see how a group, or political body, voting to take my family farm is any better than a non-democratic political group doing the same thing.

"Yes, we've built this wall that cuts your farm in half, but we feel a lot better about doing it because we have a democracy and you don't."

Well, there's an independent judiciary in Israel, for starters, and it's given the IDF constant merry hell over its barriers and other security arrangements. Anywhere you live, certainly including the U.S. and Canada, the authorities might decide to cut your farm in half with a road or some other damn thing. The most relevant difference between Israel and China is that in Israel, they're bound by written law and norms of procedural fairness, and if you bring a lawsuit, it won't be heard by the same person who's bossing the construction crew. Or his brother.

Good one

Whenever I just hear somebody talking about the poor displaced Palestinians, I ask they why Jordan hasn't simply taken their people back. You would think if, say, North Korea conquered Newfoundland tomorrow and started mistreating its inhabitants, the international community would might consider it odd if Canada refused to allow any Newfies to move to another province.

We have an ethically halfwitted tendency to focus on the ones we regard as being capable of correction because they did not involve organized mass murder

The ones that did involve mass murder are equally capable of correction, so long as you can raise the dead. How halfwitted to focus on this technicality.

Your argument implies that it is OK to pay more attention to rough, unequal treatment which leaves its victims alive than to mass murder. Which is foolish for reasons I explained right there in the column, not that they should need explanation.

"Your argument implies that it is OK to pay more attention to rough, unequal treatment which leaves its victims alive than to mass murder"

So then it is more ethical to sanction the Mongolians over the crimes of Genghis Khan, yes?

Here's another answer to your question: the reason for the focus on Israel is that, as the last product of western colonialism, in particular British colonialism, and as citizens in a country led by a political party that uncritically supports Israel, we have more of a responsibility for how Israel behaves than we do for how Russia behaves.