Tensions Between US/NATO & Russia Are Flaring Dangerously

DaveF, I appreciate your being willing to open this topic.  The topic is complex (many faceted) and the limbic system is activated so often and so early.   We all come from different perspectives.  But it is important.
I would be very interested if some of my Jewish friends could speak to this issue too.

How about we narrow the issue:  We are discussing the need for Israel as a safe haven from persecution.

I have two impression:

1.  persecution, when it occurs repeatedly, has a reason.  The repeated victim is playing some role in the process.  (First time:  "Don't blame the victim."  Fifth, sixth and seventh times:  "It is time to look at how I get myself into this situation over and over.")

2.  the story of always-being-persecuted can be used to drive specific psychological processes.  Circling the wagons, solidifying intra-group allegiance.  It can also be used to justify violence against out-groups (because we were victimized first and harder).

I believe that both impressions 1 and 2 are very closely related. They are both the products and the results of BLUE Meme thinking where one's group identification (in vs out) is held as paramount. 

Paraphrasing Emerson:  "Your in-group / out group status is so central to my thinking that I can't see who you are." 

Contrast this with a GREEN Meme person, like Bernie Sanders for example, whose kindness and good will includes everyone with little attention of their group identification.  Bernie (I imagine) would be very unlikely to elicit persecution and unwilling to give preference and allegiance to his in-group or commit violence against out-groups.   Can you imagine Bernie bombing Canada to fragment it into French and English sections in order to improve the relative strength of the US?

Ethnocentrism is very problematic.

Ken Wilbur suggests first owning and honoring one's group identity.  Then, widening the circle of friendship to include more.





The issue for me in your description was solely having to do with this "one world government" mind-picture you were painting, based on four lines from Isaiah.  It seemed not only a stretch - but a very, very big stretch to suggest "a one-world government ruled from Jerusalem" was the prime motivator for the depth of support for Israel in America.

Especially when the competing explanation is based on recent history, survival, and common sense.

Again, if your Isaiah Theory held water, Zionism would have happened long ago.  It was only after WW2 that Zionism was able to really catch on.  Why might that have been?  Hmm, perhaps it was something that happened immediately prior.

So if you're backing away from your Isaiah Theory, then I'm good.  We can move on to the "understanding persecution" phase once we put Isaiah to bed.

But if you still want to hang on to that as…how did you put that…

I suspect that this vision of the one-world government ruled from Jerusalem is the central motivating myth of the Zionist/Neocon faction and is the source of buy-in from so many Jewish people.
Yes, right.  This is where you just lose me.

So you still believe this?  Do you have any evidence that supports your suspicion?  Preferably, from the suspect group themselves?  Presumably this would not be a deep dark secret if it were truly a "central motivating myth" that had general buy-in.  Nazis didn't hide their central motivating myths.  That's because, if it is a secret, it can't be a central motivating myth for many people.

A brilliant piece was published this morning by the times recognizing world order collapse.None of this will come as a surprise to regular readers here at the Peak.They did an outsanding job on the timelines.It really is a global revolution.We tend to only pay attention to the big dogs for direction.Just last Friday Italy,France and Spain suffered there worst stock market crashes in recorded history.Not a single mention in any American papers…Looks as if things are just getting started.At least this time we didn't start the fire!

Edwardlinski said:

At least this time we didn't start the fire!
Maybe so...maybe not.  I am not so sure after reading this, http://michael-hudson.com/2016/06/us-imperialism-the-brexit-culprit/
WILPERT: So let’s begin with the political context in which the Brexit vote took place. Aside from the right-wing arguments about immigrants, economic concerns, and about Britain’s ability to control its own economy, what would you say–what do you see as being the main kind of political background in which this vote took place?

HUDSON: Well, almost all the Europeans know where the immigrants are coming from. And the ones that they’re talking about are from the near East. And they’re aware of the fact that most of the immigrants are coming as a result of the NATO policies promoted by Hillary and by the Obama administration.

The problem began in Libya. Once Hillary pushed Obama to destroy Libya and wipe out the stable government there, she wiped out the arms–and Libya was a very heavily armed country. She turned over the arms to ISIS, to Al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda. And Al-Qaeda used these arms under U.S. organization to attack Syria and Iraq. Now, the Syrian population, the Iraqi population, have no choice but to either emigrate or get killed.

So when people talk about the immigration to Europe, the Europeans, the French, the Dutch, the English, they’re all aware of the fact that this is the fact that Brussels is really NATO, and NATO is really run by Washington, and that it’s America’s new Cold War against Russia that’s been spurring all of this demographic dislocation that’s spreading into England, spreading into Europe, and is destabilizing things.

So what you’re seeing with the Brexit is the result of the Obama administration’s pro-war, new Cold War policy.

Point taken…The tentacles are far reaching…

I am ashamed of the destructive actions of our so called leaders in the aforementioned countries, and their apparent lack of concern for the negative consequences they have had on others. Brexit is at least a small (?) "silver lining".

DaveF wrote:

I suspect that this vision of the one-world government ruled from Jerusalem is the central motivating myth of the Zionist/Neocon faction and is the source of buy-in from so many Jewish people.

…  Do you have any evidence that supports your suspicion?  Preferably, from the suspect group themselves? 

Several books offer the supporting thinking behind this impression. (Its not original with me.)  See the reading list at the bottom of my original post.  No quick answers.  I am talking about understanding the world view, motivation and fear and the myths and stories that support those world views.

  • Understanding Jewish Influence
  • 50 years of the Deep State
  • Grand Deceptions
  • The Transparent Cabal
  • Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel.
  • The Anna Baltzar Interview on her months in Palestine
  • The many discussions (one here) of the role that Zionist / Single-Issue-Israel-first donors play in American politics.
Again, most of my Jewish friends are ORANGE, GREEN and YELLOW and are NOT included in this analysis.  I'm talking about the Neocons who are trying to start a war with Russian or bomb some more in the ME.

I am not trying to give anyone a hard time.  I just want to understand this intensely destructive force at play in the global "Game of Thrones."

Thanks Pinecarr and Edwardelinski for these observations.  I'll just add one part to the Michael Hudson quote:

So when people talk about the immigration to Europe [resulting from NATO bombing the MENA], the Europeans, the French, the Dutch, the English, they’re all aware of the fact that this is the fact that Brussels is really NATO, and NATO is really run by Washington, and that it’s America’s new Cold War against Russia that’s been spurring all of this demographic dislocation that’s spreading into England, spreading into Europe, and is destabilizing things.

So what you’re seeing with the Brexit is the result of the Obama administration’s pro-war, new Cold War policy.

The war impetus for bombing the crap out of the MENA region and antipathy against Russia must include the Neocons.  (Remember Wesley Clark and the "7 countries in 5 years" and "nobody knows why.")

So the above formula should be amended to:

Washington's War Party = American(Western) MIIC + Israel-First Neocons

Hi Sandpuppy,

While you seem to have dismissed me for some reason, my question remains the same: How do you deal with the fact that some of your most important sources are not only clearly bigoted but also not based on facts, but rather are full of opinion based declarative statements?  

And in my first post on this, I also did not word my question correctly, so sorry for that.  In other words, I don't think that you are anti-Semitic, but I do think that you have bought into an anti-semitic body of so-called scholarship.  And, to be clear, this does not mean that I think that the Neocons or that certain elements of the Israeli state (e.g. Likudniks, maybe Mossaad) had no role in 9/11.  They may well have had such a role, along with some American leaders and organizations including, quite possibly, Dick Cheney, certain elements of the US defense/intelligence establishment, and certain US corporations.  So I'm in no way - nor have I ever been - denying that there is no value to any part of Guyenot's thesis.

Nonetheless, it seems fairly clear that both Kevin MacDonald and Lauren Guyenot are both also anti-semitic in the traditional meaning of the word, which means, more or less, hostile or prejudicial towards Jews.  Because of your posts, I have read Understanding Jewish Influence (MacDonald) and JFK-911: 50 Years of the Deep State (Guyenot), and also bothered to learn a little bit about both of these guys.

MacDonald's work is clearly prejudicial - really hateful - towards Jews.  Do you dispute this?  How do you reconcile the fact that you have lifted qualitative judgments from his work - such as the claim that American Jews as a whole attain a level of income and wealth far out of proportion to their percentage of the US population due to, in your words, Jewish "tribal loyalty and cooperation"?  This sort of claim - wholly qualitative and almost impossible to prove one way or the other - has almost nothing to do with the Deep State or 9/11.  It's just a unbacked claim, unsupported in the work of the overtly bigoted MacDonald, and repeated, in a slightly different form, by you.  And, you don't even need to make this sort of claim to pursue Guyenot's 9/11 thesis, yet you choose to do so for some reason.  Why is that?

So Jim, and all, this is what I mean when I say SP has stumbled into a sort of theoretical anti-semitism.  I'm sure you're nice to Jewish friends and neighbors, SP, but you make claims that I see as clearly anti-semitic, without having the intent to do so, I trust. 

I have already posted on MacDonald's position towards Jews and blacks.  Have those of you who find SP's posts compelling forgotten what I posted on MacDonald?  Are you aware, due to your own research of MacDonald's political and racial/ethnic views?  Why is this not relevant?  

SP and others here who agree with his posts on this topic, did you read the part of Guyenot's work that discusses Machiavelli's origins?  If you don't know what I'm talking about, it suggests that you haven't read the work closely and may be doing what I think SP may be doing, which is to swallow a line of thinking whole that actually needs very critical and careful dissection, due to many unsound sections.  PPers are supposed to be critical readers, and not to fall for propaganda or unbacked claims.

What about the fact that Guyenot saw it necessary to publish an essay on the role of Jews in the death Jesus on an anti-semitic French website, led by the openly bigoted Alain Soral?  When you have made many qualitative claims about both Israel and the Jewish people/culture, why is it not legitimate for me to point to the fact that your sources have anti-semitic agendas that make them less reliable, if not totally unreliable?

This has nothing to do with being PC.  These are not knee-jerk reactions on my part.  I read the stuff you've cited, SP, and, at least in the case of Guyenot and MacDonald, we are dealing with people who are bigoted and therefore less reliable.  Yet you have not made any effort to separate their bigotry from any legitimate claims that they may make nor to address my concerns about this.

Making broad, negative claims that cannot be proven and are in many cases simply opinion based about whole groups of people is at the heart of bigotry.  Why is it that these sources are so high on your list?  

I really shouldn't have to do anyone's homework for them.  If you are really only interested in a better understanding of the role of the Deep State in 9/11 - or current political events - why haven't you read these works more critically? Why have you not bothered to differentiate between reliable and unreliable (and slanderous) claims by these authors?

Breaking a few eggs to make an omelet is exactly what Machiavelli justified, and in my view, SP, your discourse to this point has been sufficiently unconcerned with the harm it might cause to qualify as having a somewhat Machiavellian focus on "finding the truth" irrespective of the many falsehoods and harm that it can do by spreading prejudice.  This lack of concern with messy  - arguably unethical - means towards achieving a desired end is another example of how I think the PP community mucks up our local political behavior, making us less qualified to hold forth on national or geopolitics.  And when limits to growth really start to bite, a lot more politics is going to be local, so we ought to be willing to more more nuanced in our discourse and more accountable for our claims.

If there is a diamond of truth among all of the other stuff in the work of MacDonald and Guyenot, then please differentiate for us and focus your research and your claims, as right now the brush you are using is far far too broad.

As far as other reading goes, again, I shouldn't have to do everyone's homework here for them. This is not my burning issue.  I'm all about the three E's and constructive responses and have been since I first got here.  I come from a political background, and I'm pretty tired of all of the emotion-based, unexamined beliefs found in political discussions both in my family, among friends, and here.  But, the nature of some of the statements that you, SP, have made seem both to be untrue and potentially harmful enough to get me to respond, because this is still my chosen community of discourse.

Anyone interested in learning about the nature of the American deep state should be citing other books that don't focus so much on the Jewish role, and should be able to cite other hypotheses.  I have found and read some of these works.  Who else has?  Can you name them?  

Right now the narrow, Israel/Jewish line of research with regards to the Deep State reminds me of a senior essay I read on the extent to which Reagan's arms buildup was responsible for the end of the USSR.  The student cited Rush Limbaugh as if he were a credible source for a history paper and did not mention, much less consider any alternative hypotheses.  It was very obviously narrow, limited, and clearly biased research full of unbacked assertions. There are many other compelling hypotheses for the Soviet Union's collapse, but this students rather uninterested in arriving closer to the truth and allowed in her thoughts to congeal around one belief.

I'd be up for other viewpoints on the deep state, but it seems that there is little or no interest in alternative hypothesis.  Are you guys really intrepidly following Alice deep into the rabbit hole, or did you get stuck in just one just one door in the great hallway, and have neglected to consider the many others?  Does this maybe have to do with the fact that, as Dan Ariely has attested, people like to put a face on their problems, because it's cognitively easier to do so?  So let's hear it.  Who can name - and has read - other deep state books with a different emphasis or focus?  I can and have, but I'd like to see who else has is genuinely curious enough about the nature of this phenomenon to do that.

And, for the record, I'd rather be gardening.  In fact, after spending the first three days of my spring break back in March carefully reading and researching SP's claims, punctuated with that unpleasant interchange with Jim (who I like too!) I threw my hands up, went outside and started a school garden project - the first at my school - and it turned out to be super-successful this spring, at least in terms of student participation and learning.  The slugs have gotten the better of a lot of our produce and I'm most definitely one rank amateur of a gardener.  It doesn't look anything like the magnificent spread that Chris shared with us yesterday, and I'm too ashamed of it so far to show any pictures. But the sweat equity is paying off and the hours I've spent in the garden have been wonderful in terms of being outside and keeping things simple and satisfying.  And, SP, we did a hugel, although it seems that something ate the little lupin starts I planted in it, which we started indoors from seed.  Some peas are coming up, but overall, I still have a LOT to learn. :slight_smile:




…We all know intuitively that if you can’t identify the source of a problem, you can’t solve that problem. So we mumble about Nato and Ukraine and Iraq and Syria but never ask just who is behind all the chaos. Who actually initiated the events that led to the greatest number of refugees in world history?

The answer will surprise you but the evidence has been in writing right in front of your eyes. You have to read it and think about it and ask yourself if the events of the past thirty-four years resemble what the writer suggested?

In the Oden Yinon Plan written in 1982 the author quotes,

“Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.

The entire Arabian Peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of whether its economic might based on oil remains intact or whether it is diminished in the long run, the internal rifts and breakdowns are a clear and natural development in light of the present political structure.” This was followed up with a derivative of the Yinon Plan written for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 called, "A Clean Break..." In this paper written by a number of Jewish citizens, they clearly made their allegiance to Israel known. The writers included Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Meyrav Wurmser and Douglas Feith.

Two of the three new policies outlined in the position paper suggested,

1. Rather than pursuing a "comprehensive peace" with the entire Arab world, Israel should work jointly with Jordan and Turkey to "contain, destabilize, and roll-back" those entities that are threats to all three.

2. Changing the nature of relations with the Palestinians, specifically reserving the right of "hot pursuit" anywhere within Palestinian territory as well as attempting to promote alternatives to Arafat's leadership.

In an interesting aside, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the position paper as being too extreme. If what the writers suggested sounds familiar, it may be because it is a carbon copy of the events of the last thirteen years. The idea that somehow a civil war began in 2011 in Syria is utter rubbish and everyone claiming it knows that it is rubbish. Those same Jewish citizens also hold US passports and would later lie the Bush administration into war in Iraq that continues today.........

I posted a similar question in the Brexit thread but what is everyone's opinion of the very unlikely occurrences of 7 and other references in recent events? Over the last several decades, market crashes have occurred every 7 years. The last one was Sept. 28, 2008. Many people were predicting the next crash 7 years later in Sept 2015. It didn't happen, but then 7 years, 7 months, 7 weeks and 7 days later, on June 23, 2016, it did happen. Cameron inexplicably bumped up the date of the Brexit referendum to coincide with this.
Why, in the movie The Matrix, was there a reference to Thomas Anderson's passport expiring on Sept. 11, 2001? That was revealed in the interview scene in which Thomas naively points out his right to see his lawyer. The agents laugh and glue his mouth shut. On that date everyone's civil rights ended. After taking the red pill, Anderson became Neo and was relentlessly persecuted. Is "NEO" a metaphor for "NWO"?

Why is the "rebel humans' last refuge in the real world" called Zion?

One could write all these off as coincidence but any statistical analysis would prove otherwise. These things would seem to go very "Deep State". These people are secretive and devious, so how do we find reliable information?

Simply declaring that a certain writer is bigoted so they should be dismissed in toto, is not the same as addressing the content of their discussion.  I found Guyenot and MacDonald to make reasoned arguments that seemed to me to be well researched (bibliographies in the hundreds).  Same with The Saker and several others listed.  The Zionism-critical body of literature is real.
I believe that GREEN Meme and higher who examine the practices of Zionism are outraged and incensed by their inhumanity.  This includes Jewish GREEN and YELLOW writers.  Therefore it is NOT anti-Semitism.

Please watch the youtube talk by Anna Baltzar on her experiences in Palestine and ask, what is the mindset of the people running this system?





PPers are supposed to be critical readers, and not to fall for propaganda or unbacked claims.

I must have missed the section that provides what PPers are "supposed" to be.  Please advise as I am positive that I and thousands of others like me wouldn't qualify for membership.  From years of being a member though I can attest that there is a group think on this site and those people who dare think differently or have opinions that are not mainstream are often targeted and attacked.  Opposing and diverse opinions can prompt people to become critical readers and researchers so why not let people have diverse opinions, respectfully, of course.  Not sure why there is an absolute obsession to prove people wrong.  Rather I like to discover how different people see the world from their frame of reference such as the woman in the video above. 

Perhaps there isn't a "right" way to view the Jewish/Palestinian predicament but rather from diverse frames of reference. 

AK GrannyWGrit


So the only link you provided (I'm not in a position to read a number of books just to discover the alleged basis for the "one world ruled from Jerusalem" theory) had a single quote that I found edifying:

Haim Saban discussed his views on the Middle East and Persian Gulf region in great detail in a 2006 interview with Haaretz. Particularly notable were his comments regarding Iran: “When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews. We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It’s truly an existential danger.”
So to this guy, existential threats to Israel are bad.  He wasn't talking about the desire for a one world government ruling from Jerusalem, it was all about "bad guys threatening Israel."  This perfectly fits my model of what motivates these people.

SP, many of your arguments make a great deal of sense.  I'd be happy to talk with you about them.  But one world government as a central motivator - I just don't buy it.  And to date, you've provided not one shred of evidence on this matter.  In fact, all the evidence points in another direction entirely.

I cannot have an evidence-based discussion with you if, under the covers, you are actually driven by superstition, myth, and unsupported opinion from people who clearly don't like the neocons.  If you find the myths written by these people compelling, I know going in there's no point in discussing things since you cannot be convinced by evidence - that you will find your own myths more attractive, and so there is no point in me spending my time and energy.

To me, that "Clinton Email" was the gold standard of evidence - it painted a very clear picture about the extent of neocon influence from Sec State herself.  That email could have been written by an Israeli.

Go find me something similar - preferably a whole collection of examples - written by a neocon, that supports this claim of yours that their central motivating myth is a one-world government ruling the world from Jerusalem.

If you can't find examples of this, I suggest you might consider revisiting your enthusiasm for this claim.

Again, if this their central motivating myth, there should be a metric shitload of examples.  In the real world, people do not hide their central motivating myths!  They must be shared in order to be central and motivating!  As a result, they must be out there for everyone to see.

My goal is to separate fact from fiction.  To do this, I rely on evidence.  its a process that works for me.  What does the evidence tell me about what motivates the neocons?  "Israel must survive at all costs."  That is their central motivating myth.

...on the motivation for BREXIT, from  King World News reader:

"Please, please, please, do not listen to the distorted views of the mainstream media. Yes, immigration is a major problem. But not THE REASON why the we voted to leave the EU. We as a people have demanded our country back from the unelected elites which have become our masters. An unelected EU government with no opposition, with the power to make our laws and determine how we live our lives. Immigration is a secondary topic, the economy is secondary, if we are worse off we will live with our decision. If we suffer, so be it. Our freedom and the freedom of our children is much more important. People have died in the millions to fight for this basic right. We have given a shining example of democracy to the world. We have put our country and our future above our individual interests. The British lion has awakened from a long sleep. Today I have never been more proud of the silent, decent Briton who stood up to be counted.

— From a King World News reader in Yorkshire



Some questions to ponder:

  • Whom has really owned/operated the Federal Reserve System since it's inception in 1913?
  • Where do their allegiances reside?
  • If some were so inclined to run a "global conquest project" (probably not cheap), how might they fund it?

Your post did not address supplying evidence supporting the claim that the neocons are primarily driven by forming "a one world government ruled from Jerusalem."  I can only assume that's because you don't have any such evidence.

All you supply is a constant stream of innuendo, and I just don't find that stuff to be compelling.  It reminds me of Nixon's 11th hour campaign phone calls when he was running for Congress: "Did you know that Helen Gahagan Douglas is a Communist?" <click>


Hi SP,
You have repeated some of MacDonald's bigoted statements, including the wealth distribution example I gave above.  You have also suggested that, in effect, Jews control the media.  You didn't say red meme Jews, you just said Jews.  I am trying to keep my time on this short, so I'm not going back to check.  If this is not an accurate depiction of your view on that, please let me know.

This is in spite of the fact that you do not need these types of positions to forward your thesis that the Neocons and some elements of the Israeli gov't had a role in in 9/11.  Now, if your new thesis is one world government from Jerusalem, I don't know what to say.

Here is the paraphrased core of from MacDonald's Understanding Jewish Influence. Note that he did not say Zionist influence, but rather Jewish influence.  MacDonald is most definitely treating Jews as a group.

Jews are ethnocentric

Jews have an above average intelligence

Jews are psychologically intense

Jews are aggressive

You could easily say that the American white majority or the Han Chinese or Russians are also ethnocentric and aggressive as well.  These are qualitative statements that are almost impossible to prove one way or the other.  Yes, MacDonald cites a lot of sources to support his view.  But I could cite a whole bunch of sources that made blanket statements about the Chinese, the Russians, the Arabs, or the Americans.  Doesn't make them true, and even if some elements of these blanket statements are true, they don't mean that the Chinese, the Americans, or the Jews perpetrated this or that historical crime.

And just to be clear that MacDonald is acting in bad faith, he helped to found and continuous the American Freedom Party, which is a clearly white supremacist party.  He seems to be a guy who sits somewhere between the red and blue meme.

I have already asked you to differentiate the parts of MacDonald upon which you are drawing and  which you are rejecting.  In light of the statements that MacDonald has made above this seems like a reasonable request.  Which parts of Understanding Jewish Influence did you need in order to develop your current viewpoint?  Why do you trust someone who sees white people in the same way that you claim that Jews see themselves?

Hi T2H,
I have agreed for many years that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is a bloody violation of human rights.

But why the focus on Israel & the Jews?  How many Chechen civilians were killed by Putin in the 2nd Chechen War and how many Palestinians have been killed by Israelis since the time of the Chechen war, which was around 1998?  

The same crowd here at PP who has spent a lot of time decrying Israel & the Jews has shown a remarkable tolerance, sometimes even affinity, for Putin.  Why do you think that is?  

Is Putin not a bloody Machiavellian?  The fact that many here let him off the hook so easily suggest that the focus on Israel is becoming singular obsession, whereas other oppressive regimes, including Russia's, have been given a free pass or in many cases praised.