Veraticus

And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine.

What an absurd statement. Is invading Ukraine some kind of slippery slope that requires constant effort or else we’ll just wildly slide wildly down it? No one forced Russia’s hand here but their madman despot.

It’s “whataboutism” in the sense we’re interrogating focus. Why do you think white ethnonationalists spend so much time asserting “white lives matter?” Because there’s only so much air in the room, and they know giving air to one cause deprives another.

I think it’s worth wondering why people spend so much time discussing Israel/Palestine and so little discussing other issues that are at least as large from a “people impacted” perspective. Obviously there’s also an African infantilization (that is to say, racist) double standard here — we simply don’t expect Africa to have human rights. But I would say there is certainly also an Israel double standard, and it is antisemitic in the same way saying “well of course Sierra Leone is a hellhole, there’s no news there” is racist.

You are not a news outlet. But you choose what you’re spending your time and effort on. And it is this. I think many people don’t interrogate why they get so involved and what their opinions actually mean in terms of what their focus accomplished and what it broadcasts.

I apologize for choosing you as the vehicle for this message; I don’t mean to attack you personally. There are a ton of people doing this and your message was as good as any other to demonstrate my point.

Higher expectations is reasonable! Would you say two times higher? Ten times higher? A hundred times higher?

As a baseline, how much have you posted about Sierra Leone and the human rights abuses there in the last year?

Your second point is entirely correct; see also self-hating gays in the Log Cabin Republicans.

I think the shield for your first point is pretty narrow these days. About a decade ago that point held a lot more salience, but as my “new antisemitism” link discusses, the position has been adopted so vigorously by antisemites that I think it is indeed very close to antisemitic unless deployed extremely carefully.

Yes, criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic. But since this canard is so often invoked by idle and ignorant spectators, with no real understanding of Israeli or Palestinian politics, inserting themselves into a fraught and unhappy situation, usually specifically to criticize or delegitimize only Israel… it’s tough to see how that isn’t a special standard applied only to Israel. Or, worse, it’s invoked by real antisemites hoping to get bystanders on-side with actual antisemitism by cloaking it as criticism of Israel.

As a concrete example of this new antisemitism – in 2017, Hamas altered its charter, which was wildly and outright antisemitic, to specifically state that it doesn’t actually want to kill all Jews as previously stated, but only the occupiers of Palestine. Given their actions, the huge amount of specifically anti-Jewish sentiment in Gaza, and even the incredibly virulent language in their old charter, do you think they actually changed their minds about Jews? Or are they simply cloaking their antisemitism in a package that more people might agree with these days? A new kind of antisemitism?

How in the world did this person call anyone an antisemite? Are you responding to the right post?

Nothing they do will ever cause the international outrage any other country’s actions would cause.

Israel has 45.9% of all UNHRC condemnations ever passed, passed at it. Do you believe Israel is committing 45.9% of all human rights atrocities on Earth right now?

You are right Israel is measured by double standards, but it’s not that its actions produce less outrage than other countries’ – they produce far more. This is new antisemitism.

It’s not actually necessary to rake Israel over the coals more than other countries. Doing so is a double standard. Sierra Leone has roughly the population of Israel; If you aren’t holding it to task for its human rights abuses as much as you are Israel, you are engaged in that double standard.

I was reading about new antisemitism the other day and I thought it was interesting.

Most canny antisemites have turned to the old (and formerly totally fine) canard “criticizing Israel is not antisemitic” to shield their actual antisemitic criticism. Not wanting to call Hamas a terrorist organization is a perfect example. They’re only terrorizing Israel, which isn’t inherently antisemitic! /s

But yeah it’s really everywhere now. Sometimes it’s mask off as in this incident. But frequently it’s mask on.

It’s not perfect and especially a huge amount of rockets can overwhelm it. Also it’s much more effective on slower homemade rockets, not the faster kind Iran typically sells Hamas.

Where to begin! The famines? The oppression? The lack of liberties? The persecution of queer people, or, indeed, any thought viewed as slightly aberrant? The megalomaniacal madman who keeps his people in chains while he lives the life of the ultra-rich? The gasping, desperate poverty of his subjects? Their inability to leave the country? The militarism? The backwardness?

Oh, wait, what we like?

Uh…

Their entire ideology is projection. They’re grooming kids, so they assume everyone is grooming kids.

You really have to give it to nativists; they’re willing to shoot themselves in the foot, so people overseas will also get shot in the foot.

He is a war criminal, and also, apparently, a paranoid madman.

Lula walked this back literally just today btw.

His entire plan made very little sense. And he’s dead now so clearly whatever he thought he was doing definitely did not work out.

It’s sad that you’re so committed to this you’re willing to literally believe anything but the truth. You have literally no reason to doubt any of these accounts but you’ve elected to do so anyway; I don’t know why anyone would want to simp for a murderous madman and his genocidal regime and their war of territorial aggression. Like you haven’t even linked any sources that disagree with me, you’re simply asserting the sources are wrong and that the generals mean exactly the opposite of what they’re saying.

Why? What have they ever done to you to earn your trust? Why do you believe that literally every source reporting these things is wrong, when you have no proof?

I hope you recover from whatever has led you to apologize for the most brutal regimes and worst people on the planet. But that journey will occur without me because I’m not interested in trying to help you realize the truth any more.

We’ll see if he’s still dictator in a year to take advantage of that!

Yes, here you go: https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2023/05/30/from-a-war-zone-to-a-remote-camp-an-illustrated-explanation-of-russias-deportation-of-ukrainians/11477766002/

The quote says literally exactly what the article is saying: that Ukraine is a stepping stone to the rest of Europe (Poland probably being next).

Russia has been reversing victim and offender for this entire war. It is clear the general means this in exactly the sense that Ukraine deserved being invaded in a war of territorial aggression and its people deported. Their ambition does not stop in Ukraine, but they will blame the innocent countries of Eastern Europe for forcing Russia to invade them.

It’s literally Hitler’s playbook, just done by Putin.

I actually definitely believe the US was looking to do some light ethnic cleansing in Iraq. But even so, there’s many documented instances of Russia doing it; so no need to compare them to the US. Their war aim seems to include some amount of ethnic cleansing.

Look up the articles I linked you. Children are being shipped to ghettos; adults are being moved to death camps. While not as endemic as Nazi Germany it is still clear what Russia is trying to do. That the machinery is not as advanced as the actual Holocaust doesn’t mean it isn’t a genocide.

It doesn’t matter if their belief is sincere or how real their anxiety is. There is no justification for a war of territorial aggression on territory a dictator has clearly coveted in the past and the genocide of its native population. Literally this is the same level as excusing Hitler’s aggression against Poland. It doesn’t matter how encircled a country feels; it does not justify a war of territorial aggression and the murder of the country’s native inhabitants.

If their goal is not to murder Ukrainians and take their territory, why is that exactly what they’re doing and what they’re claiming? Literally today a Russian general said Ukraine is simply the first stop to an invasion of Europe. How much more proof do you need that this has nothing to do with NATO or the west, and is only Putin’s mad ambitions for expanding the Russian empire?

In what sense does any amount of anxiety justify a war of territorial aggression and the committing of war crimes against a population and the deportation of its children?

If Russia was worried about NATO there are many better ways to handle that than creating a bunch of corpses. Or trying to take Ukraine’s territory, which again they have already demonstrated their desire for after doing it in Crimea.

I have actual sources of the war crimes they’ve committed. Where is the proof they’re not committing the well-documented war crimes against the civilian population that you assert? That it’s simply temporary?

Because it is actually an extermination campaign. Putin wants the land and he doesn’t want the people on it. His actions to this point make that quite clear.

So are you arguing his relationship with BRICS is actually good despite them probably arresting them if he shows up? What would make a bad relationship in your eyes?

No… you’re a tankie and Putin sucker 🙂