"Tibet, which suffers a far more brutal occupation? Or the fighting in Kashmir? Or Sudan? Why do you people never talk about those things, but its always Israel..."

Why don't you diary about these good causes, only leave the Islamophobia out of it, the jihad nonsense, in particular? Yet the only diaries we have seen from you are about Israel. So ask yourself the same questions.

I suppose Lakrosse one main reason has a lot to do with the fact that this human rights cause, Palestinian occupation/colonialism, and lack of freedom, is nurtured by the USA, while those others are not. By the USA, I mean you and me, and whomever is an American, we who contribute our tax monies to help subjugate and even kill Palestinians, as we saw in Gaza. It is close to home, therefore, and we are partially responsible.

The why not them is also another version of the criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic meme.

the Tibet/China issue does not have a direct immediate effect on our security...Israel/Palestine does.

Whether rightly or wrongly, I/P has been an effective recruiting tool for anti-American and anti-West terrorism and that alone makes it a more important issue for us.

Here's an update just for you.
From Mondoweiss

The China-Darfur distraction
by David Samel on December 20, 2009

One line often used against Israel's critics is that there are bigger fish to fry, that Israeli oppression of Palestinians pales in comparison to human rights violations around the world, such as Darfur or Chechnya or Myanmar/Burma or the Chinese occupation of Tibet. This has become a familiar complaint in discussions of BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions), war crimes investigations, and the September protest of the Toronto International Film Festival's celebration of Tel Aviv. Some of Israel's defenders insist that anyone who targets Israel instead of more oppressive regimes must be acting out of some nefarious ulterior motive. I wonder what that might be.

In response, many critics of Israel have defended their position by contending that the extent of Palestinian suffering compares with or even exceeds the misery of other global victims. While I find this argument to be factually convincing, there is something fundamentally unsound in engaging in such comparisons at all.  Why should activists who seek to change Israeli policy be expected to first familiarize themselves with every other worldwide human rights violation, and resolve those that are deemed more pressing, before they can legitimately attend to the Palestinian situation? In any other context, such demand would be considered unreasonable, even ridiculous. For example, the Olympic games in Beijing were met with demonstrations all over the world against China's oppressive policies. The Chinese government defended its suitability as an Olympic host, but never accused protesters of anti-Asian racism because they were ignoring greater evils.

But in the service of Israel, no argument sinks to a level that is unutterable. If it can be imagined, it can be articulated, because there are legions of the willingly gullible who are eager to grasp any line of reasoning to shield the moral superiority of their beloved country from challenge. All skepticism is tossed aside. There is no recognition that this claim is analogous to that of the hapless lawyer who argues that his client should not stand trial for burglary because there are murderers at large. And that analogy holds only if the questionable factual premise is true, and the suffering of others greatly exceeds that of the Palestinians.

The China-Darfur distraction serves the additional purpose of reinforcing the conviction that "the world's oldest hatred" is the ubiquitous explanation for protest of Israeli policies. "You are singling out the Jewish State for condemnation while letting much worse violators of international law and human rights off the hook." The target audience, predisposed to swallow any pro-Israel argument, will be especially happy to embrace one tinged with implications of anti-Semitism.

The accusation is cynical as well. Those who make it are not agitating for relief for the unfortunate whose suffering supposedly outranks the Palestinians'. They are defending Israel from pressure to remove its stranglehold on Palestinian life, and exploiting the misery of other human rights victims as a convenient pretext for portraying protesters against Israel as anti-Semites. They can make no credible claim that the Israeli critic's attention would be better spent elsewhere, since their attention is also focused on Israel, but in defense of "second-rate" oppression rather than opposition to it.

So regardless of whether you believe that Palestinian suffering is the single most troublesome international tragedy, the fifth worst, or the fiftieth worst, there is no need to justify efforts to alleviate it. Israel's treatment of its own Palestinian citizens is reminiscent of the era in American history that gave rise to the Civil Rights Movement, and its treatment of non-citizen Palestinians under occupation is far, far worse. If it's broke, it should be fixed, notwithstanding dubious claims that there are more urgent wrongs in need of repair. Those who bring up China or Darfur in defense of Israel are just engaging in the world's most common faux accusation of racism.  Their time and energy would be better spent actually working to solve those other problems, instead of adding to this one.