A couple more comments re the debate the other night between Anthony Weiner and Brian Baird at the New School. From a smart friend who watched it here:
Baird was remarkable--particularly the answer near the end where he concedes Weiner might have been exposed to danger had he traveled to Gaza; the way Baird thinks aloud and does not sacrifice complexity. The subtext of Weiner's remarks, even his physical posture--arms rigidly folded, looking the other way, etc.--seems to be to have been this: "It is ignoble for Jews to be asked to accept 'terms.' From anyone. So the U.S. support of Israel imposes no obligation on Israel and confers no right to request cooperation by the U.S."
Even more unstated/unconscious: "It is right for Israel to dictate terms to a weaker authority in negotiations between unequals; also, to choose whom to negotiate with. Given the overwhelming reality of anti-Semitism, this imposition when it comes from Israel is nothing but justice with the necessary precautions." His ignorance about the borders was shocking; symptomatic, too, that he regards his ignorance as irrelevant. This should have been a moment for someone to step in and rehearse the finding of international law.
And this is from Ziad Jilani at ThinkProgress, reprising the Brooklyn congressman for his shocking assertions on Thursday night in New York. Full post at the link. Excerpt:
At one point during the debate, Weiner began to say that the West Bank was more relatively prosperous than Gaza in part because there is no Israeli occupation there (although there is an enormous blockade). [NYT's Roger] Cohen pointedly asked Weiner if he was really serious in claiming that Israel is not currently occupying the West Bank, which is the position of the international community and the United States. Weiner repeatedly insisted that there was no occupation there, even going as far as telling Cohen he agreed that there was “no IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] presence there”:
WEINER: You can see a difference in the development in the West Bank with 11 percent year over year growth, with no Israeli occupation there either, with increasing access to checkpoints —
COHEN: What about area C, D,
WEINER: Hold on, maybe this would be helpful
COHEN: No occupation in the West Bank, did I hear you right?
WEINER: Yes.
COHEN: Have you been to the West Bank lately?
WEINER: Yes.
COHEN: You didn’t see the IDF there?
WEINER: In Ramallah? No. In Nablus? No. Now can I tell ya there might be some people in this room who think Jerusalem is occupied.
COHEN: Well hold on a second there, let’s stick to the West Bank. You’re saying there is no IDF presence there?
WEINER: No.
COHEN: Well hold on a second there, let’s stick to the West Bank. You’re saying there is no IDF presence there?
WEINER: No.
the transcript here is wrong. if you listen to the video after cohen asks him “You’re saying there is no IDF presence there?” he clearly answers ‘yes’. affirming he is saying ‘there is no idf presents there.’
video of the clip
Jared Malsin reports
Anthony Weiner: Extremist
If there are no IDF in the West Bank, who’s manning those checkpoints?
Much in the same way Israel invented the cellphone, the cherry tomato and quite possibly ear plugs and eye covers, I suspect that the Israeli army has found a way to create self-manning checkpoints.
In fact, true to their neocon allies, Israeli are in the process of privatizing the checkpoints and outsourcing the oppression to for-profit security companies – doubtless run by retired IDF generals with cronies in the office.
But the troops are still there now.
Weiner’s just lying. Jews in this country know the Israeli soldiers are manning the checkpoints in the West Bank–and shooting Arabs there:
link to thejewishnewsplace.com
So what does he think he will gain by such bold lies so easily checked? My guess is he relies on the general fact that most Americans, especially his own constituency, don’t care about the Palestinians at all. He won’t lose his seat by such lies; he will retain strong support.
It reminds me of the Russia Today interview in which both professor Finkelstein and Benny Morris participated. Morris put on that silly grin of his and uttered absolute nonsense as though he couldn’t care less.
Perhaps it’s the type of insolence that the powerful party develops when its transgressions go unchecked for a long time, a sort of delusional smugness.
Finkelstein on pathological lying
link to normanfinkelstein.com
Maybe he’s an idiot. Experience has taught me never to exclude that possibility, especially for a politician.
I thought it was very telling that Weiner is still in office and Baird is not. I couldn;t help but wonder how much money Baird’s opponent receoved from AIPAC during the mid terms.
Dual loyalist Anthony Weiner is a faux progressive, who, while he tilts leftwards on health care and labor issues, on the I/P conflict, he leans way to the right. Doesn’t he know that he’s supporting an entity whose intransigence vis-a-vis justice for Palestine endangers our troops in Afghanistan? Or is it that he doesn’t care?
Weiner has no dual loyalty. Lives and breathes his sole allegiance to Likud.
The American Progressive movement is, essentially, dead at the federal level.
We have no voice. Only fakers who are bought and paid for by lobbyists.
Deaf, dumb and blind
That’s the words used in the Quran about people whose hearts have been sealed. Occasionlay, I hear of a person or run into one who seems to fit the description.
Sad.
PW writes His ignorance about the borders was shocking; symptomatic, too, that he regards his ignorance as irrelevant.
That is not at all clear. I think he is not ignorant at all. There something much more revealing going on here. Basically, it has been the Zionist plan to colonize the WB from the very beginning. During the peace process it was necessary to pretend otherwise in order to delay a resolution so that more facts on the ground could be established. Those facts are in place. What we are seeing now is an open admission that the whole WB belongs to and will remain in Israel. In their arrogance they can tell the rest of the world to stuff it — they are the determining power and they therefore have the right to determine what the facts are. All that remains for the rest of us is to ponder and analyze these new facts that they create.
Anyway that is how they are behaving and that is how Weiner is behaving. I don’t think it will work but that is what we are up against.
Toivo – I would disagree. If Weiner had said these things in a speech to AIPAC or at a college campus, or even in an interview with an MSM reporter, he could have hoped to get away with outright lies. But not in this forum, in a debate with Baird moderated by Cohen. Weiner’s ignorance was breathtaking. He was much closer to Michele Bachmann (“founding fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery”) than liars like Cheney and Rumsfeld.
I certainly don’t mean to defend Weiner. I’m sure that even if he were forced to admit his extraordinary list of errors, he would not change his mind one iota, because he is firmly committed to his unquestioning support of Israel regardless of any facts or developments. Moreover, his appalling ignorance is even more inexcusable than the lies told by people like Oren or Dershowitz, both of whom are far too sophisticated to have uttered such nonsense. Example: “Gaza is not occupied” is their kind of lie (Weiner tried that one too), but about the WB, they would say “We tried to give it back, but the Palestinians are more interested in destroying Israel than having a country of their own.” I also think Weiner appeared to be quite embarrassed when his most ridiculous statements elicited ridicule from the two other men on stage as well as many in the audience. I think he’s quite willing and capable of deliberately lying on behalf of Israel, but for the most part, that’s not what was going on.
I’m not sure what lesson is to be learned from this performance, other than the fact that even people who appear quite intelligent about some things can be shockingly dumb about others.
btw, I generally agree with your opinion that Israel planned to colonize the WB, and that the peace processes were a delaying tactic, a pretense of negotiations that they never intended to consummate. But Weiner did not consciously decide to make admissions of territorial ambition that Israel avoids, telling the world to “stuff it”, nor did Israel appoint him as a spokesman for announcing a groundbreaking shift in policy. He was just shooting off his mouth, channeling Bachmann, nothing more than that.
That does appear to be common theme among Israeli propagandists. Just look at Dershowitz, Indyk, Ross etc. Their argument become infantile when it comes to Israel.
I must agree with ToivoS here.
The phrase “facts on the ground” has been echoing whenever settlements were discussed in Israel – in the media or political debates.
It always seemed like a fool’s errand to a leftist like me. They’d either have to be pulled down or be left under Palestinian control. So I never paid the phrase “facts on the ground” its due attention. But the blatant disregard for Arabs’ humanity and rights that is so prevalent today in Israel, coupled with the oh-so-surprising silence from the rest of the Western world – shows we were the fools.
This is the endgame. Weiner knows it and so do his Zionists puppeteers. I believe he was sent to this debate for the express purpose of floating the “that’s not a controversial thing to say” comment. To sort of test the water about the Jordan River border (which obviously took everyone by surprise), but also to make this talking-point a “fact on the ground” for future debates.
When the Jordan River border becomes common Zionist currency – and it will raise controversy – the Zionists will point back to this debate between progressives and claim that even back then it was not a controversial thing to say. “Cohen and Baird merely raised an eyebrow” they’ll say “they didn’t shoot Weiner down”.
You can see this “testing the water” attitude when he tries to sell the “Egypt will become an Isalmist state” talking point. He was pretty sure that would be an easy sell and actually asks the audience if they won’t reconsider before moving on to sell some other Zionist wares.
I think he was sent there to see how far the envelope can still be pushed and in which direction. And no one pushed back on the Jordan River border idea – everyone was just taken aback. I even regard Weiner’s body language and note-taking differently, now that I think of it. He came to spy on true progressives. He came to do his acting class homework.
That brings me to a question I have. Weiner said that the northern border with Lebanon is constantly being encroached upon and eaten away. Is there any truth to this or is is just one of hundreds of lies be told that night?
There’s Rager village in the north – which is half on the Israeli side and half in Lebanon. Except the Israeli side is actually annexed Syrian land. The Lebanese regard this as occupied land, and the Syrians won’t say its theirs.
Also when the “blue line” – the international border with Lebanon, as it’s called in Israel – was drawn by the UN according to historic maps in 2000 after Israel’s hasty withdrawal from south Lebanon, the Lebanese had some contentions about said maps’ accuracy. Israel acquiesced on all Lebanese points – ie. allowed those encroachments to happen. Israel had similar objections to the UN line in other place but those stayed in place. So these are the encroachments Weiner had in mind.
Israel still flies its planes over Lebanon. And I think maybe goes into Lebanon’s territorial waters – though I might be wrong on the later.
Thanks Anon,
I was vaguely familiar with that arrangement, but Wiener suggested that the encorachment is contuing, which sounded rather odd, though not unexpected given what a bald faced liar he is.
It’s continuing in as much as it has not been resolved. I think that’s a semantic quibble – and fair game in a debate. Left as an opening by the other side to pursue if they so wish.
Doing so would have allowed Weiner to show how Israel went above and beyond what the UN decided, while Lebanon enjoyed both worlds – gaining from UN mistakes and Israeli concessions. Brian did not take the bait.
If anything, Weiner’s remark left the impression that Israel’s northern border isn’t resolved either. Alas, this is yet another shameful truth to come out of this debate.
No you’re actually right on both accounts. There have been several incidents of the Israeli navy ramming Lebanese boats. There have also been several incidents of Israeli navy boats intercepting Lebanon bound ships. Piracy on the high seas is not limited to Somalia, it seems.
zionists and other racists of the world
from where the hatred that is poisoning your souls?
that leads you to believe you are better that those who are the target of your hatred
thereby dehumanizing them
or so you think
except it is you who become dehumanized
self-inflicted
as the denial of someone else’s humanity lessens your own
that same hatred your chain
none of us free
until the last chain is broken
what’s area D?….the west bank is much more prosperous than gaza… in gaza there is only one idf soldier…the presence of the idf in central cities in the WB is diminished but to claim there is no occupation there is real ignorance.
this morning got through to Washington Journal after someone else brought up the West Bank and politely asked the moderator and CSpan to stop throwing up such a blatantly inaccurate map of the West Bank. Always throw up a map of the West Bank as one contiguous piece of land. Never show the illegal settlements…Never. The host was nice but repeated some lame excuse that they have several maps. A lie. They have shown the same inaccurate and lying map of the West Bank for years.
Please contact the Washington Journal and ask them to do a program on the illegal settlements. Also ask them to put up an accurate map when they make reference to the West bank
link to c-span.org
If there is no occupation and there are no settlements, Israel is not a democracy.