Weiner-Baird debate lived up to its billing

Israel/Palestine
on 287 Comments

Last night at the New School in New York, we had a great debate between two Democratic Party antagonists on the Israel/Palestine issue: Brian Baird, the former Washington state congressman, and Brooklyn congressman Anthony Weiner. The conversation was deftly moderated by Roger Cohen of the New York Times, who was not afraid to call Weiner out when the congressman said there are no Israeli soldiers in the West Bank, or when he said that all the settlements are in Israel.

The chief response to the debate so far (besides the predictable at the National Review) has been shock at Anthony Weiner’s contempt for international law and Palestinian humanity. A politician who has distinguished himself on healthcare reform and economic justice issues in the U.S. resorts to “It’s war, and war is hell” arguments when Brian Baird, a clinical psychologist by training, describes the destruction of schools and innocent families and U.N. compounds by Israeli bombing, and the collective punishment of millions of people denied lentils, toothpaste, building materials, and the freedom to move beyond a territory less than the size of New York City.  

When Cohen pressed Weiner on where Israel’s eastern border is, he said something about the Jordan River. I have the tape– I have to dig that out. At this point a man in the audience shouted, Are you in Israel now? It was a New York crowd. A heckler from the other side attacked Brian Baird over his statement that the Israelis had bombed Al Quds hospital with white phosphorus. The heckler said that there were militants hiding themselves at the hospital. Baird (a contributor to our book on the Goldstone Report) shook his head in consternation. He said it was no credit to the heckler or the country he was supporting that he was actually defending the bombing of a hospital.

Writes one friend who was in attendance:

what I gathered is something rather surprising: I actually got the impression that Weiner doesn’t really know much about the Israeli Palestinian conflict beyond some basic talking points. Him making a fool of himself claiming there was no occupation in the West Bank or that the border was on Jordan River are gaffes that an actual advocate for Israel in America was not likely to make. It suggests to me that Weiner is just badly informed and that his attachment to Israel is rather shallow: he is not really thinking about Israel beyond some ideal he has known ever since growing up in Brooklyn.

Writes another friend:

To my surprise, I learned something from tonight’s debate.  I thought about Anthony Weiner’s insistence that the borders of Israel extend from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River — a shocking statement to me even though I know this is the viewpoint of the settler movement in Israel.  I didn’t realize that it was the common currency of a “proud Zionist” as Weiner described himself.  So, if Weiner and his ideological pals believe that all the land taken in the 1967 war is “Israel”, no wonder negotiations can go nowhere even with the ever pliable Palestinian Authority.  Weiner and his pals believe negotiations are “giving” land to the Palestinians — an offer of any territory at all is a generous offer.  And to hell with the UN resolutions establishing the state of Israel and its borders, and even to hell with the Israeli juridical position that the land is disputed territory.  Does this mean that Israel no longer claims its legitimacy from the 1947 UN partition resolution?  Mondo bizarro. 

And here is Peter Belmont’s take on Weiner’s “brainwashing” from his blog:

I went into the event in general agreement with what I took to be Baird’s (and, I suppose, Cohen’s) position (that the Goldstone Report was accurate and its findings reliable as to facts and as to law). I heard nothing to make me reconsider my opinion.

On the other hand, I heard much to lower my opinion of the standards for factual accuracy (or is it honesty?), legal acumen, and evenhanded judgment on the part of Congressman Weiner that I took with me going into the hall. Perhaps I was naïve.

A few highlights.

Baird, who had visited Gaza to see the damage from the 2008-2009 Israeli onslaught there (which the Goldstone Report concluded to have constituted, in part, possible war-crimes), opened by remarking that the Congress had overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning the Goldstone Report without discussing it, without holding hearings on it, and without asking himself and a few others in Congress who had visited Gaza for any information they might have acquired first-hand on the subject. It was one of those don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts Congressional votes—and one for which Weiner voted. Weiner did not dispute Baird’s characterization of Congressional process in this matter.

The Congress had somehow concluded (the “how” was not disclosed last night—one may surmise that AIPAC had a hand in developing and ripening this “conclusion”) that the Goldstone Report was, to the extent it contained anti-Israeli conclusions, biased, unreliable, and its allegations (in the nature of an indictment) of war-crimes and crimes-against-humanity assessed against Israel were incorrect and not worthy of being acted upon judicially.

No-one said a word about Judge Goldstone’s reputation as a jurist. Or as a Zionist. Weiner appeared to base his conclusion that the report was biased upon the possibly correct idea that the UN Human Rights Commission which sponsored Goldstone’s work, was itself biased. He ignored the possibility that a good man could do a good job even if the job was offered by a biased crowd.

(Off topic, here, but the USA’s veto of a pro-Palestinian (draft) resolution in the UNSC—for which UK, Germany, Russia, China, and every other country which voted at all voted in favor of—a resolution which expressed ideas the USA has often espoused itself—shows that an ill-intentioned entity can do a bad job, even when the job is offered by a good crowd.)

Weiner appeared to have concluded that the Report’s allegations of possible war-crimes against Hamas were, to the contrary, satisfactorily grounded. How he came to that conclusion—if indeed he did come to that conclusion—was not disclosed.

The issue of “intent” arose, Weiner claiming that various military acts taken by Israel weren’t war-crimes because their intent was not criminal. This discussion was unsatisfactory to me, because there was no elucidation of which acts were crimes per se and which were crimes only if, for instance, they were attacks lacking an intent to damage enemy combatants or war-fighting capacity. All questions of a requirement of “proportionality” were, likewise side-stepped.

There was discussion of the Israeli siege or boycott of Gaza. Weiner said it was OK as a long-continuing act of war, Israel and Gaza (or Hamas as government of Gaza) being, he said, at war. Baird asked if a boycott of “lentils” and ‘tomato paste” and “toothpaste” was allowed as part of a war-based boycott. Weiner seemed to think so.

Baird asked about Israeli destruction (by bombing, shelling, missiles) of an industrial zone in Gaza which had nothing to do with the “war”. Weiner said it was OK to destroy anything in a war, and pointed out that Israel had dropped leaflets on civilian residences announcing impending bombardment so the civilians could get out, as evidence if Israeli morality. I do not remember any discussion of whether or not there was anywhere for such civilians to go which would be safe from bombardment, shooting, etc.

The back-and-forth dragged on, and I got tired of listening.

At a certain point, 45 minutes to an hour into the proceedings, Weiner said that Gaza was not occupied territory and that there were no Israeli troops in the “West Bank” (a phrase which he appeared to intend, at this moment, to designate the part of the occupied West Bank east of the Israeli “separation” or “apartheid” wall).

Congressman Weiner appeared to use language in a very different way than I am used to hearing (or reading) it used, either in a deliberate attempt to mislead us, his audience of the moment, with knowingly false statements or else in a perfectly innocent expression of “received” ideas which he did not know enough to question, ideas which I judge him to have “received” from people who were using knowingly false statements with the intention of misleading their audience, including the Honorable Congressman.

In any case, I saw no point to remaining and rose from my seat in the third row of a large auditorium, and walked out.

I hope Baird and Cohen found a way to rescue this “conversation”, so very much at cross-purposes as to facts and law. Perhaps they took a deeper look at the question of whether or not Gaza is “occupied” territory. Or at whether “collective punishment” by a 4-year blockade, on its face forbidden as an element of belligerent occupation, is permitted as an incident of non-occupational war—and other interesting questions of law.

If one takes the view that Congressman Weiner held all his ideas honestly, one sees that the power of the Lobby is much more than some thought—going, on this view, beyond mere arm-twisting all the way to brain-washing Congressmen. For my own part, I am well persuaded that Congressman Weiner’s performance last night was an attempt to brain-wash his audience, and I am less concerned about whether he was an innocent or a witting participant in this attempt which, either way, may be presumed to have originated with AIPAC and the rest of The Lobby.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

287 Responses

  1. Ellen
    March 4, 2011, 9:33 am

    To think that Wiener is a US Congressman…it explains why it is not possible for the United States to have any political credibility in the ME and cannot be taken seriously.

    “Does this mean that Israel no longer claims its legitimacy from the 1947 UN partition resolution? That would be a logical conclusion.

    • hophmi
      March 4, 2011, 12:07 pm

      Well Phil, I confess I was wondering what you were going to write, since I was there right along with you.

      I don’t actually think it was all that great debate, and I certainly don’t think Roger Cohen was a good moderator. Good moderators keep their personal points of view out and let the audience decide. Roger didn’t do that. Moreover, Baird, in my opinion, cleaned Weiner’s clock (this is why Phil enjoyed the debate), because Baird has been to Gaza, and Weiner hasn’t, because as he said, the IDF told him it wasn’t safe to go. In addition, Baird was articulate, and Weiner was not. I would have liked to see someone who has actually been to Gaza debate Baird.

      Of course, in a debate where the moderator favors one side over the other, it’s very hard for the unfavored side to come out well.

      To be accurate, when asked about Israel’s Eastern border, Weiner didn’t respond. It was only after someone in the crowd shouted “Jordan River” that Weiner said, almost off-handedly, “Jordan River.” I don’t think he attaches great importance to the border question. His main point is that the borders will be determined by negotiation, not by the United Nations. What the borders are now is not really important. And it is not common currency for Zionists to make this argument. Then again, in a debate over Gaza, one might ask why Anthony Weiner was being asked to define Israel’s borders. I think if you asked a Palestinian where the border of Palestine are, he’d say from the River to the Sea. He wouldn’t be right either.

      Though I don’t think he stated his case well, Weiner did state his honest opinion, which is that land conquered by Israel belongs to Israel, and that the UN’s belated and historically ridiculous statement that the acquisition of land by war is inadmissible is nonsense. It’s important not to make too much of this, though I’m sure some of you will take this as proof that Weiner is far to the right. Anthony Weiner is not a one-stater. He’s a proponent of bilateral negotiations, and he’d support a Palestinian state that came out of such negotiations.

      I also don’t think that, despite his inarticulate way of saying it, that Weiner’s war argument is easy to dismiss at all. It is compelling, particularly in the United States, which is fighting two wars in which hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed, to argue that sending in a UN committee on behalf of the UNHRC, a biased party that has spent nearly half its resolutions condemning Israel (32 out of 67 from 2006 to 2010), is going to result in a Goldstone Report no matter what happened. In an urban, crowded place like Gaza, hospitals are inevitably going to be bombed, as are schools. Brian Baird’s credibility starts to fray at the edges when instead of offering an alternative path Israel could have taken, he starts to talk about how crude the rockets are and how there were peaks and valleys to the volume of rocket fire.

      He also loses credibility when he acts like it’s special treatment for the US Congress to reject the Goldstone Report. Does anyone here actually believe that if the UNHRC sent the Holy Blessed Be He Judge Richard Goldstone to Iraq or Afghanistan to investigate “Human Rights Violations by the United States Army” in those regions that the US Congress would not reject the mission and the findings of the mission without reading the report? In fact, I’d bet that the US would pull its UN contribution if that happened.

      Is there anyone here who believes that the US wouldn’t do the same if the party being investigated was a European or North American ally, like Britain or Canada or Germany, all of whom have participated in these recent US ventures?

      Finally, as I was walking out, I saw Alex Kane nearby and I asked the Congressman if he would reiterate his support of Israel’s right to exist, pointing out that people like Alex and Phil, who was carrying Baird’s bag for him, did not support that right.

      This got Alex’s attention, and Alex protested that this was not his position. I then asked Alex whether he believed that Israel had a right to exist as a Jewish state, which of course, he does not. The Congressman chimed in to say that when he says Israel has a right to exist, he doesn’t mean Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.

      It would nice to know whether Baird is a one-stater or not, and what he envisions as the outcome of negotiations. I got the impression from his talk that he was a two-stater, but after that exchange, I’m not sure, and I don’t think it’s honest to say you’re a supporter of Israel but not a supporter of Israel as a Jewish state. If you don’t support Israel as a Jewish state, then you don’t support the principle of two states for two peoples.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 12:23 pm

        I don’t think he attaches great importance to the border question. His main point is that the borders will be determined by negotiation, not by the United Nations. What the borders are now is not really important. And it is not common currency for Zionists to make this argument.

        it is most definitely common currency for zionists to make the argument that the borders will be determined by negotiation. that is staple ziofare in these arguments. and do not be fooled anyone riveted by this conflict does not attach great importance to the border question. that’s just silly. pretending otherwise is a fools errand.

      • hophmi
        March 4, 2011, 12:36 pm

        I meant that it was not common currency to argue that the Jordan River was Israel’s border.

        As far the final borders go, it is not out there to say that the final border will be determined by negotiation.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 12:53 pm

        it is not out there to say that the final border will be determined by negotiation.

        that’s why it’s repeated ad nauseum by ziobots. it’s a slippery evasion tactic because as was confirmed in the palestine papers zioreps do not ‘negotiate’ in familiar terms. ie, they do not bend or accept even huge concessions. so it’s a meaningless pronouncement and one they are not in a position to make. final borders may not in fact be determined in negotiations. they may, in the final say, be imposed.

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 1:06 pm

        —they may, in the final say, be imposed.—

        sure, it’s possible that Israel could extend from the Mediterranean and out to the Hebraic Gulf and on throughout Iran by imposition, he said unseriously, but negotiations of less extensive borders is both preferable and more likely.

        anything other than negotiation means more blood, does it not?

      • Les
        March 4, 2011, 1:30 pm

        Israel’s negotiation stance, with full backing from the US, may be the model for Wisconsin’s Governor Walker.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 1:32 pm

        anything other than negotiation means more blood, does it not?

        since when did ‘more blood’ ever determine future realities. don’t confuse my predictions with what i’m advocating. it’s just stupid to speak for the future with unilateral predictions such as ‘any outcome on borders will be by negotiation’. obviously israel doesn’t follow that MO. did they negotiate declaring their annexation of EJ? no, they just declare it. but wrt their future land theft they claim it will be by negotiation. it’s a purely disingenuous hasbara tactic/strategic position to take. it’s a prediction nothing more and should be addressed as such.

      • pabelmont
        March 4, 2011, 1:51 pm

        No, an alternative to negotiation needn’t be war. One alternative to negotiation is pressure (and don’t imagine that Israel disapproves of pressure as a negotiating tactic) to accept a proffered “deal”. The USA alone might be able to pressure Israel into accepting a “deal”, but the USA will not do it. The EU-Russia-South_America-Turkey “axis” acting more or less alone might be powerful enough to exert enough pressure against Israel to force/encourage Israel to re-examine the value of the WB&G to it as against the value of trade, inter-country-commercial-airflights, and a variety of lesser items.

      • Shingo
        March 4, 2011, 2:53 pm

        As far the final borders go, it is not out there to say that the final border will be determined by negotiation.

        It just happens to be a lie, because if negotiations were the basis of borders, Israel would not be building settlements until that settlements was made.

      • Hostage
        March 4, 2011, 8:13 pm

        anything other than negotiation means more blood, does it not?

        This is the only case I’ve ever heard of in which it is claimed that the final status of territory can only be established through negotiation. Ordinarily when countries dispute the legal status of territories or boundaries they submit the matter to international arbitration or adjudication. Here are a few of the cases that have been submitted to the Courts since Palestine declared its independence in 1988:

        Eritrea/Yemen boundary dispute at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. link to pca-cpa.org
        Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary
        link to pca-cpa.org

        Guyana v. Suriname boundary link to pca-cpa.org

        Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago economic zone/continental shelf link to pca-cpa.org

        The Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger) link to icj-cij.org

        Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) link to icj-cij.org

        Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine)
        link to icj-cij.org

        Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) link to icj-cij.org

        Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger) link to icj-cij.org

        Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) link to icj-cij.org

        Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras) link to icj-cij.org

        Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia) link to icj-cij.org

        Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria) link to icj-cij.org

        Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) link to icj-cij.org

        Maritime Delimitation between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal) link to icj-cij.org

        Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad) link to icj-cij.org

        Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) link to icj-cij.org

        Can you explain why Israel is soooo special?

      • Citizen
        March 5, 2011, 4:20 am

        Yes, israel is soooo special due to AIPACer moneybags & MSM complicity. That’s the difference.

      • seafoid
        March 4, 2011, 12:28 pm

        It all depends on what the borders of Israel are. A small enclave around Tel Aviv could be the Jewish state.

        A Jewish democracy needs a Jewish majority. If the numbers don’t work Israel will need to be resized.

      • Hostage
        March 4, 2011, 1:39 pm

        the UN’s belated and historically ridiculous statement that the acquisition of land by war is inadmissible is nonsense.

        FYI, the First International Conference of American States, which met at Washington in 1888-1889, issued two declarations bearing on the rights and duties of States. One of them outlawed conquest as a means of acquiring territory and required the non-recognition of all acquisitions made by force.

        Several of the Charter members of the League of Nations were American States. The prohibition against territorial conquest was reflected in the adoption of the system of mandates by the League.

        The International Commission of American Jurists created by the Third Inter-American Conference of 1912 included the prohibition against acquisition by force in its codification of international law published in the American Journal of International Law, Supplement (1926). vol. 20, pp 304-384

        In 1928 the (World) Inter-Parliamentary Union declared “8. There is no right of conquest.”

        The Stimson Doctrine (1932) is an example of the United States government implementing the principle non-recognition of international territorial changes resulting from the use of force by Japan. The United States government also refused to recognize the annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union until they regained their independence.

        So, the principle was already reflected in customary international law long before it was incorporated in the UN Charter. For example, in the 2004 Wall case the majority opinion said:

        On 24 October 1973, the General Assembly adopted resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States”, in which it emphasized that “No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.” As the Court stated in its Judgment in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), the principles as to the use of force incorporated in the Charter reflect customary international law (see I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 98-101, paras. 187- 190); the same is true of its corollary entailing the illegality of territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force.

        For you to claim otherwise is historically ridiculous.

      • hophmi
        March 4, 2011, 1:55 pm

        The West Bank was not a conquest.

        “FYI, the First International Conference of American States, which met at Washington in 1888-1889 . . .”

        FYI, the Spanish-American War was in 1898. Puerto Rico and Guam still belong to us last I checked, and I haven’t seen the US offering to give Texas back to Mexico.

        That is the US example. There are plenty of others.

      • seafoid
        March 4, 2011, 2:28 pm

        Israel did it all too late, hophmi.
        It will be a miracle if the Zionists hang onto 78%.
        The world has moved on since 1898.

      • Hostage
        March 4, 2011, 3:48 pm

        hophmi,

        UN Security Council Resolution 228 (25 November 1966) condemned Israel’s attack on the Hebron area as a premeditated attack on Jordanian territory. Resolution 242 subsequently guaranteed the independence and territorial integrity of all the states in the region. The Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty contained a safeguarding clause regarding the territory that came under Israeli military control in 1967. The Jordanians and Palestinians have not ceded any territory to Israel, despite numerous attempts to force them to do so. The ICJ advised that Israel is a belligerent occupant and that it is illegally interfering with the Palestinians exercise of their right of self-determination.

        FYI, the international community and the UN do consider Puerto Rico and Guam as non-self governing territories with the right of self determination under international law and the terms of the UN Charter. The same holds true for indigenous peoples here in the US, including Native American tribes and their tribal lands. See for example Ed Vogel and Erica Bulman, “Panel backs tribe’s claim, U.S. not respecting anti-racism treaty, U.N. committee says”, Las Vegas Review-Journal, link to reviewjournal.com

        In any event your math skills are pretty feeble. The principle was embodied in a declaration in 1889, put into practice during the establishment of the LoN 1919-20, and finally codified as law in 1926. The United States took control of the territory you mention prior to that codification under the terms of the Treaty of Paris 1898. It stipulated that the U.S. Congress would determine the political status of those territories. Nobody is claiming that the US government’s actions in the 19th century were legal or irreversible. The Philippines was granted its independence in 1946 and was a Charter member of the UN. Puerto Rico entered into a Commonwealth agreement with the U.S. and has held a number of referendums and plebiscites on the issue of its status. Guam has had limited self-government since the 1950 Organic Act and it also has scheduled a plebiscite on its status. So, no one is being held at gunpoint, living behind checkpoints, concrete walls, or barbed wire fences – and the international community is still monitoring the US for treaty compliance and human rights abuses.

        By way of comparison, Israel refuses to apply the relevant human rights conventions to the occupied territories despite ICJ and UN treaty body determinations that the ICCPR, ICESCR, & etc. are applicable there and refuses to cooperate with officials on UN monitoring and fact finding missions.

      • Potsherd2
        March 4, 2011, 3:59 pm

        Well, hophmi, back in Roman days it was the common thing to invade other countries like Judea and carry off the population as slaves. So it’s obviously nonsense to declare now, in the 21st century, that such a practice is illicit.

        Because international law never changes anything, and whatever was once done must be admissable forever.

      • lobewyper
        March 4, 2011, 8:38 pm

        Nice clarifying post, Hostage! This sort of history is something the Israeli government wishes did not exist, and when it is raised, they argue, “But we need to begin negotiations based on the current facts on the ground.” (Facts that they keep illegally altering in their favor, of course.)

      • Citizen
        March 5, 2011, 4:27 am

        Hophmi, you forgot, the 19th Century US examples you gave and allude to all happened before 1945. In case you have not noticed, the international community has progressed beyond the law of the jungle since then, since, for starters Nuremberg–the only exception has been Israel. Time for Israel to participate in the minimum criteria for a civilized nation. See Hostage’s example list here for how Israel can commence to do that.

      • Citizen
        March 5, 2011, 4:31 am

        Hophmi’s argument logically deligitimizes Israel as a creature authorized by the UN.

      • annie
        March 5, 2011, 5:25 am

        Hophmi’s argument logically deligitimizes Israel as a creature authorized by the UN.

        perhaps you mean creation? a little freudian slip?

      • Antidote
        March 6, 2011, 6:05 pm

        “In case you have not noticed, the international community has progressed beyond the law of the jungle since then, since, for starters Nuremberg–the only exception has been Israel.”

        In defense of hophmi, this is plain and utter nonsense, citizen. Nuremberg did not change a thing, except for Nazi war criminals, but not for Soviet, American, British and, for that matter, Jewish war criminals (google Salomon Morel, for instance) before, during and after the war (conveniently for the UK/US, Nuremberg only looked at crimes commited ‘before and during’, but not AFTER the war). The main objective of Nuremburg was to establish that a) the Allies were the good guys, b) Hitler’s war was an aggressive, rather than a preventive war (historians have been split on that particular issue ever since), and c) to justify for domestic consumption in the US/UK that the US/UK got into the war against Germany in the first place, allegedly to protect small nations (which — tough luck for them — disappeared behind the Iron Curtain after the war) and to save civilization from barbarity (on the side of the mutual ideological enemy Stalin, who had killed millions of people before Hitler even came to power?).

        No, citizen, the only exception has NOT been Israel. The Allies, ‘flushed with victory’ (Nuremberg preamble) did eventually, and after internal struggles, see link below) ‘stay the hand of vengeance’ with regard to the Nazi leadership and war criminals, who at least got a trial at Nuremberg, but not the civilian German population, in the Reich or Diaspora (expulsions = collective punishment = ethnic cleansing = crime against humanity) whose suffering was arguably worse during peace than during the war. The only thing that stopped was terror bombing (total war), day and night, of all major German cities, by the Western Allies. As Bertrand Russell wrote in the London Times in October 1945:

        “In eastern Europe now mass deportations are being carried out
        by our allies on an unprecedented scale, and an apparently deliberate attempt is being made to exterminate many millions of Germans, not by gas, but by depriving them of their homes and of food, leaving them to die by slow and agonizing starvation. This is not done as an act of war, but as a part of a deliberate policy of ‘peace’”

        Dumping some 14 million refugees into what was left of the Reich, much of it a pile of smoldering rubble and rotting corpses, dismantling industries, including fertilizer production which could be used for making weapons. You think Israel’s policy on building material is the worst since Nuremberg? I completely agree it’s appalling and in violation of international law. But let’s not pretend the law of the jungle was dismissed at Potsdam or Nuremberg. Napalm is no better than white phosphorus, which was also used by the Brits in WW 2 against Germany, even though they’ve denied it ever since. And the ‘Morgenthau light’ plan implemented by Truman (JCS 1067) still led to the death of millions of Germans who were cut off from all international aid, including the Red Cross. Here is first German chancellor Adenauer addressing his party in 1948:

        “National Socialism committed terrible crimes, crimes that future historians will still recount with horror, but the Morgenthau Plan, which, thank heavens, was not implemented, but which was prepared and considered in great detail, represents an offense against humanity that is at least a worthy complement to the National Socialist crime. (Enthusiastic shouts: very true!) If it was planned in the enforcement decrees to let 30 or 40 million Germans die (Shouts: shame!) by choking them off economically, then the preparation and consideration of such a plan reveals such depths of cruelty and inhumanity that, by God, no one can speak of a Christian spirit any longer. (Shouts: very true!) This Morgenthau Plan is done for. The time will come when those who wrote it will be ashamed to talk about it. But I have the feeling that certain offshoots of this Morgenthau Plan have taken effect here. It is time to remove them. I am referring above all to this insane policy of dismantling industries. (Shouts: very true!)”

        I have never met anybody who had not heard of Nazi crimes. How many Americans know about the Morgenthau plan or JCS 1067 and its effects on post-war Germany?

        By any reasonable standards of international law the Allied treatment of Germany would have to be called a genocidal attack, much more so than anything Zionism/Israel has inflicted on the Palestinians. That does not in any way excuse the crimes of Zionism, or Nazism. But let’s not pretend that anything changed after Nuremberg. Violations of international law are a dime a dozen since. Law of the jungle, then and now. Victims regularly turn into victimizers, the world over and throughout history. Who’d you think was the only continental European country which joined Bush’s ‘coalition of the willing’ and sent troops to Iraq, while the entire rest of Western and Eastern Europe was out in the streets, by the millions, protesting against such an unwarranted invasion?

        hint: victim nation, obsessed with projecting Catholic martyrology onto their political history, forever pissed off about having been wrongfully invaded in 1939

      • Hostage
        March 6, 2011, 11:22 pm

        Nuremberg did not change a thing

        Antidote you are an ignoramus who probably thinks the O.J. Simpson acquittal proves that the California homicide statute changed nothing. At the outset of World War I Europe had several neutralized states, including Belgium. One of President Wilson’s fourteen points proposed the abolition of the practice. So, the notion of demilitarized states did not originate with the Morgenthal Plan. Prime Minister Netanyahu is insisting today that Palestine be a demilitarized or neutralized state. Do you have a published source which says the Morgenthal plan killed millions of Germans (besides Dr. Goebbels)? The Wikipedia article makes no such claim and it points out that the proposal was widely publicized and panned during the war. It lists the scores of US and UK administration officials who opposed the plan on the grounds that it violated the Atlantic Charter & etc.

        The principles of international law contained in the Nuremburg Charter were codified. They have been the basis of the statutory jurisdiction of more than a half dozen ad hoc international criminal tribunals, commissions, and a permanent international criminal court. Those principles established that individuals could be prosecuted under international criminal law for crimes of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity regardless of the provisions of municipal law. Your posts are a bit long on hyperbole and short on facts. The abuses of both sides in WWII led to the adoption of prohibitions in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The abuses in post-WWII conflicts led to the adoption of even more prohibitions in the Additional Protocols. If you don’t grasp the concept of the progressive codification of international criminal law, please do a little research on the subject and stop confusing the law with law enforcement.

      • Shingo
        March 4, 2011, 4:39 pm

        It is obvious by now that no pro Israeli position will ever winnable case in a debate. It wasn’t Ignorance on the topic that lead to Weiner’s undoing, it was his case.

        Hophmi, who is clearly better informed than Weiner, demonstrates that here. Though Hophmi knows better, he cannot make a cogent argument without resorting to standard Zionist untruths. 

        Good moderators keep their personal points of view out and let the audience decide.

        Correcting blatant lies, or false statements is not expressing a pov. 

        Cohen didn’t do that. Moreover, Baird, in my opinion, cleaned Weiner’s clock because Baird has been to Gaza, and Weiner hasn’t

        What has Gaza got to do with Israel’s Eastern border and how would visit to Gaza have made Weiner’s case any stronger?

        Did the IDF tell Baird it wasn’t safe to go, or was a visit to Gaza simply not on the itinerary of Weiner’s indoctrination tour?

        addition, Baird was articulate, and Weiner was not.

        A common theme in these debates. Those making the pro Israeli argument are forced to resort to demonstrate cognitive dissonance, which leads to contradictions, double standards and blatant hypocrisy.

        would have liked to see someone who has actually been to Gaza debate Baird.

        Again, how would this have strengthened the pro Israeli argument?

         I don’t think he attaches great importance to the border question.

        Borders are not a topic pro Israelis like to address because it ultimately leads to I convenient issues like the occupation being raised.

         the borders are now is not really important.

        Actually it is, but like I said, discussing borders leads to sensitive issues like occupation, illegal settlements, the apartheid wall and international law.

         that the acquisition of land by war is inadmissible is nonsense.

        No, it’s fundamental. It’s why Germany was not allowed keep Poland and why Saddam was driven our of Kuwait 

         I also don’t think that, despite his inarticulate way of saying it, that Weiner’s war argument is easy to dismiss at all.

        It is actually, because it is based on a false premise that war is unavoidable, which is demonstrably false in the case of Iraq, Cast Lead. Lebanon 2006, 1982, and 1967, which were all wars of choice.

        Brian Baird’s credibility starts to fray at the edges when instead of offering an alternative path Israel could have taken, he starts to talk about how crude the rockets are and how there were peaks and valleys to the volume of rocket fire.

        On the contrary. The trough we have today is the same as the trough we had when Israel chose to break the 2008 ceasefire, which again exposes the lie that war is unavoidable.

        He also loses credibility when he acts like it’s special treatment for the US Congress to reject the Goldstone Report.

        It is because while Congress is happy to cite the UN in condemning Iran’s nuclear program, it dismisses the UN as lacking credibility when it condoms Israeli war crimes.

      • Antidote
        March 5, 2011, 9:22 pm

        “that the acquisition of land by war is inadmissible is nonsense.

        No, it’s fundamental. It’s why Germany was not allowed keep Poland and why Saddam was driven our of Kuwait”

        Please explain to me why, and authorized by what fundamental principles of international law or self-determination applicable at that time or now:

        a) the Soviet Union, starting in 1945, occupied and annexed Eastern Poland and parts of East Prussia, including the political and cultural center of ‘Old Prussia’, Königsberg/Kaliningrad, and ethnically cleansed both the Polish and German population

        b) Poland was compensated for its eastern losses by annexing formerly German territory, and keeping disputed territory it had already occupied and annexed after WW I, and expelled the German population from both Polish and annexed (after WW I and II) German territory

        In contrast to the international consensus re the Palestinians, both the UN and the EU (including founding member West Germany/FRG) have upheld the territorial losses of Germany after WW I and II, including the expulsions of the German population following either war, but infinitely more severe after the second, as legitimate and irreversible.

        After Versailles, which left the winners and their allies with multi-ethnic and restored nation states, and the losers with territorial losses and large diasporas in other countries (Germany, Austria, Hungary), ethnic Germans in Poland and the CSR, much like the Palestinians, lost their elite status in ‘disputed territories’ such as the Sudetenland and the Polish Corridor.

        Hitler, in 1938, specifically compared the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia with the Palestinians:

        “What the Germans demand is the right of self-determination, which every other nation also possesses. It is not up to Herr Benes to give the Sudeten Germans gifts. They have the right to claim a life of their own just as much as any other people.

        If the democracies, however, should be convinced that they must in this case protect with all their means the oppressors of Germans, then this will have grave consequences. I believe I am serving peace the more if I do not leave any doubts about this. I did not raise the claim that Germany may oppress 3,500,000 French or then that 3,500,000 English shall be surrendered to Germany for oppression. But I demand that the oppression of 3,500,000 Germans in Czechoslovakia shall cease and be replaced by the free right of self-determination.

        We would regret it if thereby our relations with other European nations should suffer harm. However, we are not to be blamed. Moreover, it is up to the Czechoslovak Government to discuss matters with the authorized representatives of the Sudeten Germans and bring about an understanding in this or that way.

        My business and the business of us all, however, my comrades, is to see today that right does not become injustice in this case, for German comrades are concerned. Moreover, I am not willing to allow a second Palestine to be created here in the heart of Germany by actions of other statesmen.

        The poor Arabs are defenseless and perhaps deserted. The Germans of Czechoslovakia, however, are neither defenseless nor deserted.”

        Netanyahu, of course, loves to compare himself to Czech PM Benes, and the Sudetenland with ‘Judea and Samaria’. Land for Peace? Just a deception to take over all of Israel, with the help of the new Hitler Ahmadinejad, whose nuclear program needs to be stopped and Iran bombed.

        Dershowitz (“The Case for Israel”, p. 58, preview available on Google books), in an insane defense of ‘might makes right’, even goes as far as declaring it the moral duty of ‘decent people’ to support collective punishment and ethnic cleansing:

        “Generally, those who support the losing side in a war — especially a side so egregoriously evil as the Nazis — do not benefit from the postwar reconstruction that inevitably follows from the surrender of the losing side. Most Palestinian Muslims were on the losing side of World War I, while the Jews of Palestine were on the winning side. The Jewish support for the British in World War I, which included fighting alongside British forces, helped earn them the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The Jewish support — including the military support of thousands of Palestinian Jews — for the Allies during World War II helped to earn the U.N. Partition of 1947. Churchill believed that the Arabs were ‘owed…nothing in a postwar settlement’, because of their widespread support for Nazism. Winston Churchill had characterized the leader of the Palestinians as ‘the dealiest enemy’.

        In the view of many decent people, the Palestinian (and widespread Arab) support for the Nazis should have disqualified them from having much of a say in the postwar rearrangements, much as it disqualified the Sudeten Germans from having a voice in their transfer from the Sudetenland in the borderlands of Czechoslovakia, where they had lived for centuries, to the new, smaller borders of Germany. As Winston Churchill said, ‘Of course there must be transfer,’ despite the objections of those being transferred and his own concerns over its humanitarian implications.”

        ‘Widespread support’ for crimes against humanity neither applies to the Palestinians nor the Sudeten or other ethnic Germans, and no more so than to any other peoples. Such arguments regarding the exceptional case of the ‘Sudeten Palestinians’ as a legitimate exemption of the ‘Holocaust law’ (ethnic cleansing/genocide as a crime against humanity) have nevertheless been made repeatedly at American (and other) universities. As international law expert and German expellees advocate Alfred de Zayas points out re the argument submitted by Timothy Waters (link to law.bepress.com):

        “Surprising that such a piece, so fundamentally flawed in approach, methodology, analysis and conclusions can be presented for a degree at an American university. International Law is by definition international in application. It cannot be applied only for one side and not for the other. The very essence of law is that it must be applied equally, without discrimination. Otherwise it is not law, but only the exercise of arbitrary power.

        Law, of course, is not mathematics, and norms are not identical with their enforcement. If they were, the Sudetendeutsch and the other Vertriebene [expellees] would have had their rehabilitation decades ago.

        The non-enforcement of the international legal rights of the Sudetendeutsch does not illustrate an absence of norms, but rather a violation of norms in total impunity.

        What the international legal structures lack is a mechanism of enforcement that would ensure implementation of international law in all circumstances — even against the victors in any given war .

        For instance, the International Criminal Court aims at establishing a neutral supra-national mechanism that would punish the soldiers of any country for grave violations of international humanitarian law. Since the US does not want to submit to international law, it refuses to ratify the Rome Statute of 1998. Ultimately it is a question of power and political will.

        Timothy Waters appears to adhere to the axiom that “might is right”. This is not very original thinking, nor is there a Sudeten corollary to international law — unless we postulate a new version of Jonathan Swift’s “Modest Proposal”.

        If we accept the Vertreibung als legal, this would be comparable to saying that slavery was/is legal because all the great powers — Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Spain, the United States, practiced it for centuries.

        It would be tantamount to saying that the Holocaust could have been “legal” — if only Hitler had won the war! Hardly a proposition that any of us would endorse.

        No — as the Institut du Droit International made clear at its 1952 Sienna meeting, events like the expulsion of the Germans 1945-48 constitute a major challenge to international law and international order — they are incompatible with the principles of international law applied elsewhere, including the Nuremberg Trials — and are allowed to prevail only because the perpetrators hold paramount political and economic power.

        The Vertreibung was not compatible with international law, nor did it create a precedent (see Yugoslavia). It does illustrate, however, the absence of an international judicial mechanism competent to condemn it and capable to ensure a remedy to the victims.

        This takes us back to Juvenal’s

        qui custodiet ipsos custodes

        who shall keep the keepers ? ”

        link to alfreddezayas.com

        The irony is that every single leader of the Allies at the Potsdam conference in 1945, American, Soviet or British, flushed with victory and the alleged triumph of civilization over barbarism, would have been hanged had their war crimes and crimes against humanity – before, during and, especially, after WW II — been investigated and tried at the military tribunal (Nuremberg) they initiated at the very same meeting that decreed the expulsion of 14 million + ethnic Germans from the Eastern European diaspora and former territories of the Reich, as well as the German reparations including the enslavement of German POWs as forced laborers for years and decades to come, among other crimes against humanity that have been hushed up ever since. Despite many publications, they are barely known to the general public. According to de Zayas, at least 2 million ethnic Germans were killed in concentration camps, during death marches, extrajudicial executions, mob lynchings and starvation and disease. According to the first West German chancellor Konrad Adenauer, who rejected the notion of collective guilt, the death toll of the expulsions was 6 million — the same firue submetted to the Nuremberg trials by Jewish organizations for the death toll of the Jewish genocide. With the sole exception of operating gas chambers, all war crimes and crimes against humanity for which the Nazi leadership was sentenced to death at Nuremberg were authorized at Potsdam as just revenge and retaliation against the Germans. The prize for peace in Europe. An affirmation of the principle to which both Hitler and Stalin quite obviously subscribed: to forge a better world through massive violence, bloodshed and lawlessness.

        to be continued

      • Hostage
        March 6, 2011, 10:14 pm

        Antidote,

        You seem to have gone off the beaten track. Neither Alfred de Zayas nor Timothy Waters ( link to law.bepress.com & link to papers.ssrn.com ) was discussing “the acquisition of territory by war” in the case of the Czech Republic and the Sudetenland. In any event, Zayas and Waters were discussing apples and oranges and talking past each other. I’ll be happy to explain the legal differences between collective punishment, persecution, and ethnic cleansing for you (below).

        In “The Sudeten German Question after EU Enlargement” link to works.bepress.com Jakob Cornides notes “Israel has never compensated expelled Palestinians, but cynically points to the example of the Sudeten Germans, saying that the Palestinians, too, should stop considering themselves as refugees.” That bit of hasbara seems to be the whole point of your long off-topic excursion.

        To answer your other request “Please explain to me why, and authorized by what fundamental principles of international law or self-determination applicable at that time or now …..& etc. ”

        Eyal Benvenisti explains the development of the prohibition against unilateral annexation of territory in the public international law of Europe during the 19th Century. See Benvenisti, Eyal, The Origins of the Concept of Belligerent Occupation, Law and History Review 26.3 (2008), link to historycooperative.org

        That did not prevent the “Concert of Europe” from creating new states on a “multilateral” basis or using “international conference diplomacy”, ala the Berlin Congress or Versailles Conference, to adjudicate or arbitrate disputes through territorial restitution and/or compensation. I cited Carol Fink in an earlier thread. She explained that the Concert of Europe had conditioned grants of territory to new States on the basis of minority rights treaties. Poland had been divided in 1771 between Russia, Austria, and Prussia. The Versailles Peace Conference restored Polish national sovereignty subject to the terms of a minority rights treaty. Here is a link to the earlier comment. link to mondoweiss.net

        The Potsdam Conference only dealt with a temporary period of Allied control during the occupation – pending a final determination by the post-war peace conference. Jakob Cornides noted that “Germany paid compensation to the Allied Powers (and the annexation of German territory by Poland and the USSR was, inter alia, understood to be part of this compensation).” Prussia had been a free state in the Weimar Republic that ceased to exist altogether when the Nazis dissolved the German states under the “Law on the Reconstruction of the Reich (1932)”. It was replaced in the Russian Zone of Occupation by the new state of East Germany. After the reunification of Germany, the voters there rejected a 1996 proposal to merge Berlin and Brandenburg into a revived Prussian state. In an earlier thread I noted that the US government had refused to recognize the annexation of the Baltic states. That unilateral annexation was not approved by the post war peace conference. link to mondoweiss.net

        Articles 12, 13, and 15 of the Covenant of the League of Nations link to avalon.law.yale.edu provided for arbitration, adjudication, inquiry by the Council, or referral of disputes to the Permanent Court. Those functions were distributed to the new General Assembly, Security Council, and International Court under the terms of Articles 10, 11, 18, and 36 of the UN Charter. link to yale.edu

        The State of Palestine was originally created by the Allies (as of 1 March 1920) in accordance with the terms of Articles 30, 50, 60, and especially Article 52 of the Treaty of Lausanne. link to wwi.lib.byu.edu The Central Powers agreed to recognize the newly created states in Asia in accordance with:
        *Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles link to net.lib.byu.edu
        *Article 60 of the Treaty of Neuilly link to wwi.lib.byu.edu
        *Article 74 (2) of Treaty of Trianon link to wwi.lib.byu.edu
        *Article 90 Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye link to en.wikisource.org

        The Jewish Agency and the Government of Israel understood the role of conference diplomacy in the creation of states, since the Zionist Organization participated in both the Versailles and UNSCOP/Ad Hoc Committee processes.

        The ‘Council of Four Conference Held in the Prime Minister’s Flat at 23 Rue Nitot, Paris, on Thursday, March 20, 1919, at 3 p.m. was attended by Prime Ministers Lloyd George, Clemenceau, and Orlando. President Wilson, Lord Balfour, and General Allenby also attended. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu That meeting resulted in the dispatch of the King-Crane Commission to determine the wishes of the inhabitants after a discussion regarding the McMahon letters to King Hussein. Lloyd George argued they were a binding treaty commitment and that the League of Nations mandate could not be used to put aside the bargain with King Hussein. Lloyd George also said Arab help had been essential and General Allenby claimed it had been invaluable. FYI, there was no mention whatever of the Zionist mule corps or the Jewish Legion.

        In 1947, the British government said that if the Arabs and Jews
        could not agree, the time had come to refer the question of Jewish immigration to international arbitration.
        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu The British government had in mind a decision regarding immigration by an arbitration tribunal set up under UN auspices. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        The adoption of the Partition Resolution (with provisions for immediate immigration, a port, and sufficient hinterland) by the two-thirds vote required for important questions gave it a high degree of legal authority. The representative of the Jewish Agency, Mr. Shertok (later the foreign minister and the prime minister of the Government of Israel), referred to its “binding force” on 27 April 1948:

        “With regard to the status of Assembly resolutions in international law, it was admitted that any which touched the national sovereignty of the Members of the United Nations were mere recommendations and not binding. However, the Palestine resolution was essentially different for it concerned the future of a territory subject to an international trust [not a member state]. Only the United Nations as a whole was competent to determine the future of the territory, and its decision, therefore, had a binding force. –U.N. Doc. A/C. 1/SR. 127, P. 7 (27 April 1948)

        See “An International Law Analysis Of The Major United Nations Resolutions Concerning The Palestine Question” link to unispal.un.org

        The UN Mediator was given a mandate by both the Security Council and the General Assembly to “promote a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine”. The Provisional Government of Israel noted with surprise that [the Mediator's] “suggestions appear to ignore the resolution of the General Assembly of 29 November 1947, which remains the only internationally valid adjudication on the question of the future government of Palestine.” link to unispal.un.org

        During the hearings on Israel’s admission to the UN, the representative of Israel, Abba Eban, said that several issues, including refugees, the internationalization of Jerusalem, and etc. could be settled through adjudication by the international Lausanne Conference. link to unispal.un.org

        For twenty years each of the permanent members of the UN Security Council reaffirmed the provisions of UN GA resolution 194(III) regarding Palestinian refugees. Israel and the United States claim that the final status can only be decided through negotiations. But other states have recommended that an international peace conference be convened to reach an adjudicated solution to the Question of Palestine, or that the matter be decided through arbitration. See for example the minutes of the 12th Plenary meeting of the 9th Emergency Session of the General Assembly, paragraphs 241 and 242 (pdf file page 16 of 21) link to un.org

        Alfred de Zayas comments about the Waters article were incorrect in many respects. The article was not submitted for the award of a degree. Waters did not propose that the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans was legal; “might makes right”; and etc. Waters earned his J.D. (cum luade) from Zayas alma mater, the Harvard Law school in 1998 – long before he authored the 2006 article. Waters cited the joint Czech-German declaration of 1997 which said that the expulsion was illegal. He also noted that all of the government parties concerned had rejected the claim that it was an example of ethnic cleansing and that no provision had yet been made for individual compensation. Here are some other relevant background details:
        *Cornides noted “After EU enlargement, Sudeten Germans are free to return to Bohemia, settle down there, and acquire land property or set up businesses. Restitution and/or compensation is therefore the only remaining issue.” That certainly is NOT the case with the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.
        *Sudeten Germans who were anti-Nazi activists were not deported. Their property was not transferred to the state. See Cornides, Waters, and Haaretz (2003) link to haaretz.com
        *The Czech prime minister has offered to compensate Germans that did not collaborate with the Nazis. link to news.bbc.co.uk Israel has NOT offered to compensate Palestinian refugees.
        *The fact that Sudeten Germans were assumed to be guilty until proven innocent and that Czechs were presumed innocent until proven guilty is discriminatory and a form of persecution and collective punishment. But it is not necessarily the crime of ethnic cleansing, since anti-Nazi activists were excluded.
        *The Czech Republic has not repealed the Beneš-Decrees, but they no longer produce legal effects. Israel has not repealed its own “Nazis and Nazi Collaborators -Punishment- Law- 5710-1950″. link to mfa.gov.il John Demjanyuk, was charged with offenses under sections 1 to 4 of that statute. link to uniset.ca

        I hope that answers some of your questions.

      • Donald
        March 6, 2011, 11:41 pm

        Timothy Snyder says the death toll among the 12 million expelled Germans was 600,000, the bulk of them dying as refugees during the war, though some were massacred.

        link

      • sherbrsi
        March 5, 2011, 2:54 am

        Of course, in a debate where the moderator favors one side over the other, it’s very hard for the unfavored side to come out well.

        Have you read Cohen’s columns? He may not be as hardliner a Zionist as Friedman or Kershner, but his loyalties definitely lie with Israel. And a moderator is perfectly within his right to interject to point out factual inaccuracies and other logical errors, or even to direct the debate (that’s the point of moderation, after all). Though he is as deeply flawed as any other so-called “liberal” Zionist, Cohen was a good choice in that while he clearly is a supporter of Israel, he isn’t entirely blinded by it.

        nd that the UN’s belated and historically ridiculous statement that the acquisition of land by war is inadmissible is nonsense

        If that is the case, what is stopping Israel from annexing the West Bank and Gaza?

        If you don’t support Israel as a Jewish state, then you don’t support the principle of two states for two peoples.

        Affirming the political identity of a state is irrelevant to recognizing its physical existence, and it has no effect on the two state process. Israel could be the Christian or the Chinese state then, there will be no two states unless borders are imposed not by Israeli settlements, but an external and objective force based on international law.

        Btw, hophmi, you have proved that no Zionist, no matter how articulate or well-versed, can ever make the case for Israel without resorting to delegitimizing international law (much of that made to prevent the horrors of Nazi aggression and the Holocaust, laws which Israel is consistently guilty of violating with its very existence by itself and especially in the OT), Palestinian self-determination or granting Israel the right to an ethno-supremecist apartheid state. Without your weapons of deception and slander which shoot the messenger in the first place, the bankruptcy and futility of your movement is truly shown.

      • Citizen
        March 5, 2011, 4:39 am

        Exactly Sherbresi, no Israel Firster will even acknowledge that “Never Again” & it’s implementation at Nuremberg, and subsequently at Geneva, for example, is to be applied universally. The goy world just does not get it–for some odd reason they don’t realize that’s a patented Jewish-Israeli invention.

      • braciole
        March 5, 2011, 12:49 pm

        Weiner did state his honest opinion, which is that land conquered by Israel belongs to Israel, and that the UN’s belated and historically ridiculous statement that the acquisition of land by war is inadmissible is nonsense.

        This demonstrates that Weiner is stupid rather than how left or right wing he is. He lacks the imagination to realize that just as he can claim that land conquered by Israel belongs to Israel, others can claim that land conquered by, say, Lebanon belongs to Lebanon, so if at some point in the future, Hezbollah becomes powerful enough to defeat the IDF in war, then it is game over for Israel. While that seems improbable, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility, particularly with the decline of the United States and the potential rise of democracy in the Middle East. Is Weiner prepared to accept that outcome?

    • Kathleen
      March 4, 2011, 12:25 pm

      Just love Wiener on so many issues. So committed to those less fortunate going after most fat cats who make most of their money off of the working class. But as so many Jewish congress people (both alleged liberals and conservatives) have been doing for decades they take a hard right turn into the darkness when it comes to Israel no matter what they do. One would think that Wiener would have noticed there is a very large shift taking place..the shift is headed for the truth.

      He is so passionate and so compassionate about so many other issues. So blind on this one

      • Taxi
        March 4, 2011, 12:33 pm

        One hand giveth while the other taketh away. This is how ALL politicians operate.

        Never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever trust a politician!

      • Kathleen
        March 4, 2011, 12:53 pm

        On this issue Wiener and so many others willfully have their heads up where the sun does not shine. So so dangerous

      • yourstruly
        March 5, 2011, 9:48 am

        How can the congressman from Brooklyn be considered a progressive when he’s an Israel-firster? Because of his views on health care, workers’ rights and such? Except his support of the settler entity undermines whatever he might accomplish with his votes on said issues, the reason being that the settler entity’s intransigence vis-a-vis justice for Palestine is why* “they hate us.” Indeed, would there have been a 9/11 if Palestine were free? And if no 9/11 would we be in multiple perpetual wars in the Mideast and Central Asia? That’s not to say that our government wouldn’t have made up other excuses for going to war in the oil rich Mideast, but stripped of any connection to a western colonial outpost in the region, it’s problematic whether the public would buy in. Which leaves us with a so-called progressive whose support of the settler-entity negates whatever he might achieve (for the common good) by his position on health care, etc. Negate it because these perpetual wars and the militarization that enables them + global warming not only = doomsday, it uses up so much of our national wealth (& distorts our political system such) that there’s too little left for us to attain progressive goals. Meanwhile we continue the slide towards the dead-end ahead. So what is it exactly that makes Weiner a progressive?

      • Kathleen
        March 6, 2011, 12:46 pm

        This has been going on for decades. Jewish congress people and others defining themselves as liberals based on social justice issues and then they take a radical and irrational turn to the wrong on the I/P issue. And if they don’t most of them are booted out

    • kosmotropic
      March 5, 2011, 10:06 pm

      hey Ellen are you the same Ellen as from TPM cafe?

  2. Scott
    March 4, 2011, 9:36 am

    This is exactly right–both the Israeli right and center believe that all the 67 conquests are now Israel, and Israel is willing to negotiate giving up part of that. Rabbi Ackerman (forgot first name) of Rabbis for Human Rights told this to our CMEP delegation in January; they actually believe that offering 50 percent of the West Bank is a “generous offer.”

    • RoHa
      March 4, 2011, 9:10 pm

      “This is exactly right–both the Israeli right and center believe that all the 67 conquests are now Israel,”

      So now that the whole of Palestine is Israel, it is time that all the inhabitants be given full citizenship and equal rights.

      • sherbrsi
        March 5, 2011, 3:17 am

        So now that the whole of Palestine is Israel, it is time that all the inhabitants be given full citizenship and equal rights.

        That won’t happen so easily RoHa. Rights are not given, they are fought for.

        But thank the “liberal” Zionists for dragging their feet on settlements, an Israel more than ever entrenched and expanding in Palestine makes the case for Israeli apartheid even more undeniable.

        Who are they fooling with “negotiations” here? That is the limitation of Zionists. It’s not enough to make facts on the ground, they have to secure recognition of it. If they could do it without Palestinian consent, they would have annexed Gaza and the West Bank long ago. But they actually believe that the more the settlements increase, the more the Palestinians will be pressured into approving not only Eretz Israel, BUT also Zionism (as in recognizing Israel as the Jewish state). Fat chance.

        They truly do want it all, but with everything at stake, Israel stands more to lose than the Palestinians.

    • sherbrsi
      March 5, 2011, 3:11 am

      50%? I would say even 1% is generous. It’s not about the numbers, it’s about the mindset. When you work from the position that Palestine is actually Israel, and thus the birthright and exclusive state of world Jewry, anything given to the gentiles is really just a display of Jewish and Zionist charity. That is how they get away with it, and the US supports it wholeheartedly, as it may not publicly rubber stamp Israel’s latest colony in the WB or the last razing of Arab East Jerusalem, but short of affirming that Palestinians have the right to Palestine, their native birthplace and that of there numerous generations, the US is sending a message that Israel can do what it pleases. Of course, then, they do exactly that. Another reason that the settlements are so popular not only in the centre and right but also the left is due to support of Israel militarism, the view that Israel gained the “spoils of war,” thus why the notion of Jewish entitlement to Eretz Israel is so deeply ingrained in religious and secular Zionists alike. Just read hophmi’s statements. According to another Zionist who used to post here, rachel, he is actually supposed to be the moderate Zionist.

      If the US wanted to, it could put an end to the territorial aggression and occupation quickly. It only has to recognize existing legal standards, conventions and resolutions that are affirmed every year, if only insofar as they support the two-state solution. However, the US and its Congressman can afford this level of ignorance and rejectionism, because supporting the Palestinian position, or even the two-state solution, does not gain them anything. Supporting Israel and doing its bidding however, they can easily line their pockets with lobby money, or in the case of Weiner, just serve their own agenda.

  3. seanmcbride
    March 4, 2011, 9:41 am

    The *Democratic* Party, not just the Republican (Christian Zionist) Party, is dominated by Likudniks, Greater Israelists and pro-Israel extremists. And here is some supporting evidence. Many Democrats are in fact hard-right fascists, racists and ethno-religious nationalist extremists when it comes to Israel. Double standards and self-contradictions this extreme make them appear to be crazy to most of the world. Totally unbelievable. And it’s a safe bet that this state of affairs will not be sustainable in American or global politics over the long run.

    • Kathleen
      March 4, 2011, 12:54 pm

      and the whole world sees it and has tired of the hypocrisy

      • Shingo
        March 4, 2011, 3:11 pm

        and the whole world sees it and has tired of the hypocrisy

        and the whole world sees it and has sickened at the cognitive dissonance. This goes way beyond hypocrisy.

  4. hughsansom
    March 4, 2011, 9:53 am

    I’m genuinely surprised that Roger Cohen had the courage to stand up to Weiner (who, to me, sounds like a somewhat toned-down Alan Dershowitz, but without the gift for law).

    Something I find interesting here — how hard times push people away from the comfortable, “safe” middle. Extremists like Weiner make the patently absurd comments they do. People like Roger Cohen (or in the past, Anthony Lewis) come out sounding more genuinely liberal.

    In a different realm, you see something similar in economics. Paul Krugman sounds a lot more progressive than he did ten years ago. The obscenities of the “moderates” (who are really pretty conservative) have pushed honest, but otherwise cautious, liberals to state their positions more openly.

  5. Elliot
    March 4, 2011, 10:00 am

    It’s great that the wonderful Brian Baird has taken it on the road!

    Educated people in the US love to mock their fellow citizens’ ignorance of world geography.
    How many Americans can cite the geographic features of disputed areas around the world?
    What divides North and South Korea (the DMZ is the wrong answer)?
    North Ireland and Eire?
    What’s the name of the island the Russians and Japanese are fighting over?
    The first heckler got it right: Israel is America is Israel.
    And Weiner still flunked.

  6. justicewillprevail
    March 4, 2011, 10:12 am

    Of course we know that most Zionists think the borders are the River Jordan, and the facts support that. However, the next question they have to answer is where do the West Bank Palestinians live? And why don’t they have equal rights to new arrivals, why don’t they have the vote and why aren’t they represented in Israel. It seems the Zionists are making the one state solution the only option, and their next logical choice is then apartheid or democracy. Apparently they think both are compatible. The fiction that Israel is a democracy for all, and that the West Bank is in Israel, and isn’t in Israel, depending on the identity of the occupant is absurd, ridiculous and vindictive.

    • Potsherd2
      March 4, 2011, 10:46 am

      With people like Weiner in Congress, the fiction is that the US is a democracy. Instead of a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zion.

  7. seafoid
    March 4, 2011, 10:19 am

    Erez Israel has been the Jewish state since 1967. You can’t plant half a million settlers somewhere without going the whole hog.

    The whole idea of YESHA was to plant so many Jews in the space that this would be impossible :

    link to flickr.com

    Sadly the Zionists got their population projections wrong.

  8. Chu
    March 4, 2011, 10:26 am

    First impression was that the night may be stacked against Brian Baird, a west coast representative against Anthony Weiner in his hometown with moderator Roger Cohen. By the end of the night Bard seemed like the wise adult of the debate, Cohen siding with Bard’s positions.
    But about half way through, it felt like an intervention for Anthony Weiner when Cohen asked him if he felt remorse for all the ill-actions of Israel toward the Palestinians, which Baird brought up during Cast Lead with many details that were cited. (i.e. shooting children picking up rocks, blockading basic food supplies [lentils]) Weiner would return to the tired phrase, we’re at war (we’re?) and war is tough.
    Cohen further challenged Weiner to reconcile his mainly liberal positions in the US Congress with his hawkish view on Israel. So the million dollar question was asked and that is where Anthony began to go off the rails… Too much to write about on it and I hope there a video. But the real problem that Weiner has is that he openly admitted that Israel exists from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. That was a Congressman in a public debate laying out this false claim. He was cornered and Cohen got him on this point. The audience grumbled with dismay…

  9. David Samel
    March 4, 2011, 10:28 am

    I must say I’m very surprised at Weiner’s borders remark. I didn’t realize he was so ignorant as to let something like that slip. He impresses me as being a very bright guy who can be a real champion on some domestic issues. While I knew he was staunchly pro-Israel, I did not realize how extreme were the views he would allow himself to publicly articulate. I would have expected him to mouth the usual two-state claptrap, but apparently he doesn’t see the need to do so.

    • Ellen
      March 4, 2011, 11:57 am

      He may be bright and he may even be a nice guy, and assuming he did not intend to lie, he shows that he is completely brainwashed.

      That is what happens when generation after generation a group of people are told that some dusty place in the middle east is their land (ergo the golden calf) because the story is that a few thousand years ago “their people” lived there. And it is now their right to expel others at any cost. With this logic Americans should take Ireland, or Italy or even Great Britain.

      It is completely crazy on so many levels. And just think….our foreign policy is supporting these insane fairy tales!

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 12:15 pm

        yeah i think it is possible he’s brainwashed. until i know more about him i’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. there’s an extraordinary brainwashing effort in play. it’s just rather shocking someone can make it into congress so clueless, and if he isn’t clueless and he is bald face lying the anticipation his audience will fall for this? it’s like expecting the crowd to all agree the naked emperor is wearing clothes.

      • Kathleen
        March 4, 2011, 12:56 pm

        He is too smart too capable…this is willful hypocrisy. Not a doubt in my mind. Come on he signed up for this debate. He knows what he is doing. Wiener pulling a Huckabee

    • Donald
      March 4, 2011, 12:59 pm

      “I must say I’m very surprised at Weiner’s borders remark. I didn’t realize he was so ignorant as to let something like that slip.”

      Someone at Talking Points Memo (the Cafe portion, and I think it was MJ Rosenberg) once said that with a lot of pro-Israel American politicians, including those in New York, their support is purely political. It isn’t an issue they care about at all, it’s just a stand they take in order to win election. They care about other things–they just wave Israel’s flag because they have to. So that might be the case with Weiner. He probably has passionate feelings about domestic issues and the fact that he apparently can’t even do a credible job presenting the Zionist side without looking ignorant shows that he has no interest in the subject. He wants to be a Congressman and he lives in New York, so he says what he has to say. Knowing a lot about the subject and expressing well-informed liberal Zionist views might even be a handicap if rightwing Zionists have real clout in his district. Nobody is going to lose an election by having a kneejerk position in support of Israel and you don’t have to know anything about the subject to have one.

      • Donald
        March 4, 2011, 1:06 pm

        “Knowing a lot about the subject and expressing well-informed liberal Zionist views might even be a handicap if rightwing Zionists have real clout in his district.”

        To add to that point, much as we despise the NYT and Tom Friedman at this website, rightwing Zionists tend to see them as anti-Israel. Possibly Weiner feels more pressure from people like that than from people like us.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 1:26 pm

        good point donald

      • Donald
        March 4, 2011, 3:55 pm

        Well, I’ve listened to an hour of this so far and boy, is it hard to take. Weiner is awful. He’s also typical. He seems to think that pre Gaza War, all the violence went from Gaza to Sderot. So far Baird hasn’t corrected him on that.

      • Colin Murray
        March 4, 2011, 2:25 pm

        If Weiner is Zionist of political convenience rather than a true believer, why would he volunteer to debate?

      • Donald
        March 4, 2011, 4:11 pm

        “If Weiner is Zionist of political convenience rather than a true believer, why would he volunteer to debate?”

        I’ve listened to most of this–Weiner really makes me nauseous.

        That said, if he were a true believer I would have thought he’d be a bit smoother than this. He really seemed confused about the question of where the settlements are and when Roger Cohen asks him immediately afterwards where the boundaries of Israel are in his view, he didn’t seem to understand the point.

        I think a smart politician does things like this to beef up his credentials among his constituents. That’s whether he’s a true believer or not. Weiner isn’t the Congressman from Butte Montana–he’s the Congressman from Brooklyn. So that’s why I think he did it. And he doesn’t have to know a damn thing to win brownie points with the Zionist faithful–he just has to repeat all the standard talking points and if he muffs things a bit, making himself look stupid, they won’t mind.

        He might be a true believer anyway. If he is, he’s a really ignorant one.

        But whatever he is, that was a sickening performance. I saw most of it, but couldn’t watch it to the end.

    • seafoid
      March 4, 2011, 4:13 pm

      Wiener was just expressing the ideology that was behind the behavior seen in the Palestine Papers.

      And that ideology has no reverse gear.

    • seafoid
      March 4, 2011, 4:30 pm

      Wiener says that Israel is the progressive option. Israel is the only democracy.

      Time for some fresh hasbara.

  10. seafoid
    March 4, 2011, 10:34 am

    Israel is in real trouble. This Arab intifada was not expected. Wiener thinks it’s 2008 again. Back then Livni could say

    No. In order to create your state you have to agree in advance with Israel – you have to choose not to have the right of choice afterwards. These are the basic pillars.”

    “Israel takes more land [so] that the Palestinian state will be impossible . . . the Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we’ll say that is impossible, we already have the land and we cannot create the state”. She conceded that it had been “the policy of the government for a really long time”.

    Another choice comment from Livni, this one from a Nov. 13, 2007 meeting, where she and Abu Ala (Qurei) were discussing what should be included in the “terms of reference” for the upcoming Annapolis meeting (the eighth meeting on this question):
    AA: International law?
    Livni : NO. I was the Minister of Justice. I am a lawyer…But I am against law — international law in particular. Law in general. If we want to make the agreement smaller, can we just drop some of these issues? Like international law, this will make the agreements easier.

    That was the river. But this is the sea.

    link to haaretz.com
    “Netanyahu’s face reflects Israel’s situation in the world community. It’s not that he doesn’t know the circumstances are bad; he’s no fool. He has even asked ministers and members of his party to be careful about what they say. “You have no idea of the political situation we are in, Israel is in a very serious international predicament,” he tells them. “

  11. petersz
    March 4, 2011, 10:46 am

    Golda Meir ordered the Green Line to be erased from all maps of Israel in 1973. Ezer Weizman once said the Palestinians can never be allowed an independent state because their dream would be always be to take back the rest of Palestine and drive Israelis into the Mediterranean. Shimon Peres once said their can never be a Palestinian state. Yitzhak Rabin never agreed to one either and he was never a “dove”. The Oslo accords says nothing about any creation of a Palestinian state. Ariel Sharon once told the Italian Prime Minister that the South African bantustan model would be copied to contain the Palestinians in “cantons”. The Likud Charter states Palestinians do not have the right to self determination in “Judea and Samaria”. Avigdor Lieberman states the Golan Heights belong to Israel as its original annexation to Syria was incidental and that it was a “mistake” by Sykes and Picot. Time to bury this “2 state solution” nonsense once and for all!

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 4, 2011, 11:13 am

      One man, one vote. Worked in South Africa, will work in Palestine.

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 11:56 am

        and Israel as well.

      • Taxi
        March 4, 2011, 12:20 pm

        Well it DOESN’T in the crappiest democracy in the mideast!!

        Talked to any Arab israelis much – or EVER?!

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 4, 2011, 2:12 pm

        “and Israel as well.”

        It’s all Palestine.

    • seafoid
      March 4, 2011, 11:28 am

      They should have gone to Patagonia, the Zionists.
      It will be such a tragedy when they lose their Jewish state.

      • jimby
        March 4, 2011, 11:59 am

        The Brits tried to give Uganda to the zionists but they unfortunately turned it down and insisted on Palestine.

      • hophmi
        March 4, 2011, 12:39 pm

        “The Brits tried to give Uganda to the zionists but they unfortunately turned it down and insisted on Palestine”

        Unfortunate? You’d support a Jewish state in Uganda?

      • Citizen
        March 4, 2011, 1:20 pm

        Slight nuance correction, jimby, the Brit elite wanted to give Uganda or Kenya to the zionists but the Brit settlers in Africa shouted against it, and so did the Brit non-elite classes, and it was turned down by the zionists when the zionists ultimately united on the matter at their conference and all pushed for Palestine.

      • jimby
        March 4, 2011, 1:35 pm

        Not really hophmi, but it would be better than what we got. We have a disaster in the making.

      • Ellen
        March 4, 2011, 1:39 pm

        In the next century or so, the will be no states with borders as we understand a state today. The idea of a nation state is modern and will be an anachronism in a few generations.

        It is already happening in Europe.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 1:42 pm

        i agree ellen. even more absurd the concept borders will be based on religious ethnicity will gain traction.

      • hophmi
        March 4, 2011, 2:52 pm

        “i agree ellen. even more absurd the concept borders will be based on religious ethnicity will gain traction.”

        Don’t know what either of you are smoking, but this is not the direction in which the world is going.

      • Ellen
        March 4, 2011, 4:27 pm

        You might want to read about the Schengen Agreements. Think about the European Union, common currencies, etc.
        link to en.wikipedia.org

        And didn’t Ghandi say something to the effect that a nation founded on religion sows the seeds of it’s own destruction.

      • Citizen
        March 4, 2011, 5:59 pm

        Just the direction Israel has been going since its inception, right Hophmi? Glad to see you realize its a dangerous dinosaur loose in the park.

      • Potsherd2
        March 4, 2011, 7:39 pm

        No one seems to have asked the Ugandans.

      • RoHa
        March 4, 2011, 9:16 pm

        When they got the chance, the Ugandans expelled the descendants of the Indians who entered during the Empire period, and the Indians were far less objectionable than the Zionists.

      • thankgodimatheist
        March 5, 2011, 6:38 am

        “It will be such a tragedy when they lose their Jewish state.”
        It depends for whom it’s a tragedy! Personally I wouldn’t be excessively saddened.

        “Unfortunate? You’d support a Jewish state in Uganda?”

        I would but I’d be careful to ask what the people over there think first, you don’t want to repeat tragedy after tragedy for the indigenous after all?

      • RoHa
        March 4, 2011, 9:13 pm

        Why do you hate Patagonians?

  12. clenchner
    March 4, 2011, 10:51 am

    Weiner is talking like an old school Likudnik, from before first term Netanyahu. He reminds me of Fatah die-hards post 1988, still talking about the Palestinian National Charter or sending back all Jews who immigrated to Palestine after the British Mandate began. Both are ludicrous, posturing buffoons. One can’t help but wonder if they believe it themselves.

    • MarkF
      March 4, 2011, 11:29 am

      If he grew up attending a synagogue and living in a family similar to mine, I can totally see how Weiner believes it. It’s pretty much pure emotion driven by how we grew up hammering into us that the land is “ours” and it’s “our home”. He damned well means “we” and “ours” when he talks about Israelis and Israel.

      What a mess…

      • Kathleen
        March 4, 2011, 12:58 pm

        Don’t buy it for a second. He is clearly committed to the Israeli myths first. He knows…he knows what he is saying is bullshit.

      • Citizen
        March 4, 2011, 1:29 pm

        Kathleen, MarkF means Weiner is driven by pure conditioned emotion in the subject matter, so much so he totally ignores his otherwise often voiced universal values; however, I will grant you Weiner is a perfect example of the self-dumbing down of the heralded Jewish brain and too, certainly BS to those aware of the heralded Jewish urge to help the underdog, as Weiner certainly is because that’s part of his childhood conditoning too. Perhaps the latter aspect of such a good reputation should be amended to “good for the underdog, so long as the underdog will always come when the Jews call.”

      • Citizen
        March 4, 2011, 1:36 pm

        Or as Truman said, the Jews favor the underdog until they are the uber-dog, and than that little man came when Israel called because otherwise his personal presidential ambition would have been at risk. Since 1948, only Ike and Kennedy ever really faced up to the Zionists in the USA.

      • MarkF
        March 4, 2011, 4:10 pm

        Kathleen, Citizen pretty much nails it. I’m tellin’ ya, it’s a VERY defensive posture, defensive at all costs and it’s very ingrained.

        I’m not defending or excusing because the guy’s smart enough to know better. It’s sort of a blinders/tit-for-tat mentality. It’s personal. If you point out something hienous Israel has done, it’s an attack on him (Weiner) and he’ll defend it like he’s defending a member of his own family.

        Didn’t say it made sense….

      • Pixel
        March 5, 2011, 1:20 am

        I think you’re absolutely right.

  13. Taxi
    March 4, 2011, 11:10 am

    Weiner’s out and out lies to American citizens cause death and misery to millions of people.

    ALL politicians the world over who are on aipac’s payroll will one day be hunted down and tried for their war crimes including the despicably bigoted Weiner.

    Yes that phase of the struggle is coming their way – lists of names are already being compiled by international lawyers.

    EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE NOW AND YOU’D BETTER BELIEVE IT!

  14. Chu
    March 4, 2011, 11:18 am

    Baird called Weiner’s bluff on a few occasions, it seemed to have shaken him. After that, Weiner just went for the flat out false claims of Israel is all of the West Bank, etc. There was a lot of rubbish that the moderator called him on also; usual talking points that are easily refutable.

  15. annie
    March 4, 2011, 11:22 am

    large goi maps of israel prominently displayed on the walls of all the hostels in israel indicate all the land between the jordan and mediterranean belongs to israel. this is a common belief in israel, not unusual at all. when i was canvassing for the calif ballot initiative (israel divestment) an israeli woman engaged me. she was around 30 raised and educated in israel. i forget how the topic came up but i think she said something about ‘why should israel give up land for the arabs’ and i told her israel only got 55% of the british mandate. she couldn’t believe this. i just told her to look it up on wiki or any history book. i told her israel had no border on the jordan and that the green line was an extended ‘border’ of israel, not an israeli concession and that international law doesn’t recognize annexation acquired thru war anymore.

    anyway, there is a possibility weiner wasn’t ‘lying’, it is possible this is what he was taught and still believes. it’s amazing really.

    • Taxi
      March 4, 2011, 11:27 am

      Politicians lie annie. On purpose!

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 11:30 am

        oh i know taxi. i don’t know weiner and he could have very well been lying. but there’s an assumption congresspeople are smart and informed or know what they are talking about. it seems a little unfathomable weiner would say something so blatantly false. you don’t find it possible he actually believes that?

      • Chu
        March 4, 2011, 11:34 am

        annie, you’re right. he doesn’t understand the truth, he’s been so indoctrinated. He spoke about Israel in the 1st person, not 3rd person.

      • Taxi
        March 4, 2011, 12:17 pm

        Ignorance is no defense of the law.

        Wiener is perfectly aware of what the counter argument to zionism is and he like every other corrupt politician only speak according to aipac’s message. He’s clearly guilty of intentionally circulating misinformation that is causing death and misery.

        Show these dastardly people NO MERCY – they’re ain’t exactly showing ANY mercy to Palestinians!

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 12:44 pm

        my intention is not to defend him. as a representative of the people he’s responsible to have a decent grasps of the facts and there’s no excuse not to. i just met a number of people in israel (including some americans) and i gave an example of an israeli i met here who had no idea israel’s border wasn’t jordan. one kid around 18, i said ‘no..israel has no official borders, go look it up’. we were at a hostel and there were computer there. i’m just saying there are people who actually believe this stuff and there’s an industry out there perpetuating these myths. perpetuating the myth the ‘negotiations’ are about israel ‘giving up’ what is rightly theirs. these people believe this.

        but there is no excuse, none what so ever, a congress person should be so ill informed. but is it possible? yes i think it may be, i find it conceivable. it’s not like people have to pass some rorschach test to run for congress. quite the opposite in fact. ideologues are lavishly funded. look at huckabee. do you also think he knows the truth? would you stake your life on it?

      • Citizen
        March 4, 2011, 1:39 pm

        And he spoke about Israel as his country. So why is he a US rep?

      • Potsherd2
        March 4, 2011, 7:40 pm

        Did he REALLY say that!?!?

    • seafoid
      March 4, 2011, 11:32 am

      The Palestinian population is just too big now to pull off Erez Israel. It’s like Israel spent 43 years paying off a big mortgage and suddenly finds out it shares ownership of the property.

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 11:56 am

        but, but, but seafoid, how did that population get so big?

        I’ve read hundreds of times on this site how all the Zionists ever wanted to do was to exterminate and drive off all the Palestinians.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 12:08 pm

        I’ve read hundreds of times on this site how all the Zionists ever wanted to do was to exterminate

        please link to a few of them please. i think the general understanding is most zionists want the land without people on it. there’s little indication they want the job of exterminating people, they just want them gone. anyway could you please provide some examples of what you are referring to? i’m not sure a comment accusing zionists of a sole desire to exterminate palestinians would pass moderation. but i’m open. i’d agru against it tho. i don’t think most zionist would consciously willing desire to engage in genocide. but i do think the outcome in terms of freeing up the land wouldn’t be rejected either.

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 12:22 pm

        annie, that driving all the Arabs out of Israel platform was once illegal in Israel.
        now it’s sickeningly common and open racists sit openly in the cabinet.
        but it’s still rejected.
        maybe not forever, but for now.

      • seafoid
        March 4, 2011, 12:26 pm

        They expelled as many as they could in 1948. There was no room for non Jews in the Jewish democracy.

        They then got all messianic and brought Gaza back into play in 1967. I don’t know why they were so stupid.

        Dayan explained Israeli policy best. *Treat them like dogs. those who want to can leave*.

        I think they just expected the Palestinians to go somewhere.

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 12:38 pm

        seafoid, if they wanted to expel all of them, it wouldn’t have ben difficult. that’s just never been the policy.
        thirty years ago, when there still was a real Israeli Left, it would have been something no more than whispered in public.

      • Kathleen
        March 4, 2011, 12:51 pm

        “annie, that driving all the Arabs out of Israel platform was once illegal in Israel”

        When was it actually “illegal”

        Talked with a bunch of young Jewish men on Ohio States campus a few years back they were all about getting rid of all Arabs in what they saw as belonging to them (U.S. citizens) based on religious texts written by Jews. They myth lives on

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 1:16 pm

        annie, that driving all the Arabs out of Israel platform was once illegal in Israel.

        quit diverting. i’m not engaging you in a debate about what was or was not illegal in israel. you made an inflammatory claim about the site and the posters here . now back it up w/links or retract it.

        I’ve read hundreds of times on this site how all the Zionists ever wanted to do was to exterminate

        i ask you once nicely. now back it up and quit pussyfooting around your gross inflamation. you and your buddies keep ratcheting up the discourse whining about the antisemitism here never contemplating the fabrications in your own accusations. hundreds of times, you shouldn’t have much problem sourcing that for us.

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 1:35 pm

        Kathleen,

        there once was a bigot named Kahane…..left NYC and tried to set up a political party in Israel….. didn’t work out for him…..got elected to the Knesset, but he and his party stank too strongly ……..barred from participating in the next election in 1988 under the revised Knesset Elections Law banning parties that incited racism.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 1:44 pm

        exactly, and around 150,000 nutjobs showed up at an event to celebrate some anniversary of his in israel last year.

      • Citizen
        March 4, 2011, 1:46 pm

        Israel has always done what it thinks at any time it, as a small state, can get away with–that’s Israel’s policy. The first thing it did after the UN recognized it was to break its condition subsequent promise to the UN to allow the Palestinians to return. Conquests by war, actual extermination en masse, forced transfers of people (except the ethnic Germans) has not been looked on kindly as a result of WW2 and the laws established in its wake, starting with at Nuremberg.

      • kapok
        March 4, 2011, 2:13 pm

        The policy: an interminable pythonic squeeze. Expulsion not necessary.

      • seafoid
        March 4, 2011, 2:34 pm

        Don’t be ridiculous. Israel didn’t expel the Palestinians because if it had tried there would have been WW3. And Israel really f***ed up in Lebanon in 1982, don’t forget.. The world lost faith in Israel in 1982. Plus apartheid fell a few years later.

        Israel has benefited from the idea of Arab exceptionalism for 40 years. But that is over now. And it is time for equal rights for all. Israel is finished.

      • DBG
        March 7, 2011, 2:12 am

        It’ll be a good 20 years before the Arab world figures everything out. massive changes like those which are taking place today don’t fix themselves in months, this will be a long process. Egypt is still in chaos and Libya is basically lost right now. Prophesying about the end of Israel is more of a pipe dream than anything. You can’t just keep repeating something until it is true.

        Israel is the only stable thing in the ME right now, hopefully this upheavel in the ME will make them realize the status quo needs to change, they’ll give the Palestinians a fair deal on a state in the WB and Gaza w/ EJ as their capital and Israel will again be the beacon of democracy in the ME.

    • Kathleen
      March 4, 2011, 1:00 pm

      On CSpans Washington Journal they are still popping up maps of the West Bank as one contigous piece of land…no illegal settlements.

      I just do not buy that Wiener does not know what he is saying is bull.

    • Avi
      March 5, 2011, 8:22 am

      annie,

      Growing up, I recall how the Green Line never actually meant much in terms of freedom of movement for Israelis. That is to say, it was no international border or obstacle of any kind.

      Sure, the occupied West Bank wasn’t Israel proper, but in my consciousness — based on what people in my immediate surrounding taught me, and based on first hand experience — the West Bank was merely a territory that would somehow remain under occupation forever.

      This was well before the first Intifada of 1987. Back then, the situation was certainly sustainable as far as Israel and Israelis were concerned. So, my perceptions of a permanent state of occupation were realistic given the conditions on the ground.

      The border, that is, the international border, as far as that naive me was concerned, was the Jordan river. Such sentiments were certainly popular among many Israelis.

      Further strengthening my perception of the West Bank being part of Israel were the settlements. One could not avoid them or ignore them. Any Israeli who traveled across the Green Line and saw the enormous settlement blocks with their own shopping centers, movie theaters and recreation centers knew that THIS (The settlements) was not temporary.

      So, when the Oslo accords came along, I had to adjust my perceptions to fit the new reality. So, the only way the West Bank could ever become a Palestinian state — and the only way settlements would be removed — was if I reverted to the model that was used in the Sinai, thus making it possible that perhaps, somehow, Israel would give up the settlements in exchange for a peace agreement with the Palestinians (as was the case with Egypt and the settlements in the Sinai).

      That sentiment was shared by many in the so-called Israeli left.

      At the time, instead of buying into government platitudes and false promises, I should have made a more comprehensive assessment of the political conditions and government policies. Needless to say, since the Oslo Accords, I have realized my own naivete and the wishful optimism that nurtured it.

  16. Jethro
    March 4, 2011, 11:29 am

    Do you think it’s possible that someone in the MSM will be reporting this Weiner bombshell? Someone like…Roger Cohen, perhaps?

  17. seanmcbride
    March 4, 2011, 11:42 am

    Do I understand Anthony Weiner correctly? He is aggressive and strident in demanding progressive standards and behavior from outgroups and the world at large, and at the same time aggressive and strident in defending anti-progressive behavior by his own group. In other words, there is zero authentic moral content in his preaching towards outgroups. He is farcical.

    Am I missing something here? And is this syndrome typical of many pro-Israel activists who define themselves as “liberals”?

    What makes them tick? Where are they coming from? And are they really unconscious of their bizarre self-contradictions? Perhaps they are fully conscious of their conspicuous and crazy self-contradictions but believe they can brazen and bully their way through any situation through sheer bullshit? I am leaning towards the latter explanation these days. I think they know exactly what they are up to.

    • Kathleen
      March 4, 2011, 12:49 pm

      this serious contradiction has been embedded in not only alleged liberal Jewish representatives but many other alleged liberals for decades

      • Citizen
        March 4, 2011, 1:58 pm

        Yes, Kathleen, liberals just are not as up-front as often about their own biases. And they are definitely not devoid of crocodile tears.

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 4, 2011, 2:17 pm

      “Am I missing something here? ”

      No. If you aren’t willing to apply your principles to yourself, you have no principles. Weiner is unwilling to apply his supposed liberal ideas to himself.

    • sherbrsi
      March 5, 2011, 3:40 am

      Perhaps they are fully conscious of their conspicuous and crazy self-contradictions but believe they can brazen and bully their way through any situation through sheer bullshit?

      What else are Foxman and Dershowitz for?

      When you can’t address the argument, shoot the messenger.

      The lobby made Carter apologize for even mentioning apartheid in the same sentence as Israel. It’s not surprising to see how he earned the ire of Zionists preferring to live in their own delusions of a liberal and democratic Israel. America is the perfect state for that. No other state except Israel itself enforces such a tight bubble on its population, feeding them a steady diet of misinformation and propaganda regarding the Zionist state.

      That the MSM which doesn’t even touch the fundamental issues like the settlements, occupation, oppression or ethnic cleansing with a ten-foot pole surely helps this environment of skirting any opportunity for self-reflection.

  18. jimby
    March 4, 2011, 12:03 pm

    “I have the tape– I have to dig that out.”
    Oh dear Phil, are you tape recording? There are cheap digital recorders that can post it all on mp3 so easily

  19. iamuglow
    March 4, 2011, 12:18 pm

    Israel won’t give up the Jordan border and they won’t remove their 500K settlers…but they don’t want the people in the land they control to be ‘citizens’ with equal rights.

    Try as they may they aren’t going to get 2 million Palestenians to disappear. IMO, the condemnation of Israel and reconiztion of the Palestenian cause is only going to grow with time. One state with equal rights seems unaviodable and inevitable at this point.

    • Pamela Olson
      March 4, 2011, 1:53 pm

      Two million? More than four million, actually, in the West Bank and Gaza. Well over five million if you add in the Palestinian-Israelis.

      Not going anywhere.

      • iamuglow
        March 5, 2011, 10:49 am

        yeah. I meant the WB. Israel doesnt want Gaza, right? The wet dream is that egypt will take responsiblity for Gaza. That takes care of 2 million arabs. Then I imagine they can forsee annexing their choice areas of the WB so as to only add a small number of Arabs to their population. Who knows, I wouldn’t put it past them to unilaterally redrawn a border around an Arab town in Israel to firm up the ‘right’ demographics in Israel.

        But even taking advantage of all chaos that would ensue from that, I dont see how will it ever work. As others have said on this site Israel trying to redraw their borders is going to lead to one state with equal rights and majority of Arabs. I dont see how it will end any other way.

        BTW, looking forward to your book. Congrats.

  20. Kathleen
    March 4, 2011, 12:47 pm

    Phil I don’t believe for one second that Anthony Wiener does not know about the lies he was repeating. Just do not believe it. Why would he sign up for such a panel. Pulling a Huckabee. Sad Pathetic telling.

    “The conversation was deftly moderated by Roger Cohen of the New York Times, who was not afraid to call Weiner out when the congressman said there are no Israeli soldiers in the West Bank, or when he said that all the settlements are in Israel.”

    Wiener knows he knows

    • annie
      March 4, 2011, 1:11 pm

      maybe you’re right kathleen. i don’t know the guy from adam.

      • Kathleen
        March 4, 2011, 1:18 pm

        He is pushing a radical fundamentlalist view a Greater Israel view. They still believe they can pull this off. He knows what he is doing. I feel this in my bones. I have watched too many clips of him on the floor pushing stands based on facts.

        This is a fundamentalist act that is irrational..he knows it but wants what other radical Israeli fundamentalist want no matter what.

        Facts do not matter for Wiener on this one. Sad

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 1:37 pm

        ok kathleen. my bones tell me nothing about him so i’ll defer to your bones.

      • hophmi
        March 4, 2011, 1:46 pm

        “He is pushing a radical fundamentlalist view a Greater Israel view.”

        How is calling for negotiations and the two-state solution pushing a radical fundamentalist view?

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 1:55 pm

        How is calling for negotiations and the two-state solution pushing a radical fundamentalist view?

        something tells me you’re taking the words out of context. better to ask “how is claiming israel’s border is the jordan river pushing a radical fundie veiw’

        but you probably already knew that.

      • hophmi
        March 4, 2011, 2:01 pm

        “something tells me you’re taking the words out of context. better to ask “how is claiming israel’s border is the jordan river pushing a radical fundie veiw’”

        Something tells me you didn’t read Kathleen’s post, where she said that Wiener “wants what other radical Israeli fundamentalist want no matter what.”

        Again, most radical fundamentalist Israelis are not fans of negotiating with the Palestinians or the two-state solution.

        And again, you seem incapable of understanding that emotions run just as high on the other side, who would say that historic Palestine stretches from the River to the Sea.

      • Citizen
        March 4, 2011, 2:03 pm

        It’s pretty radical to think that the natives will go along with the premise that, for starters, all the land belongs to Israel, and its only out of the goodness of its heart that Israel will discuss giving a few bones to the natives. Unless, of course, Uncle Sam is on your side.

      • hophmi
        March 4, 2011, 2:45 pm

        “It’s pretty radical to think that the natives will go along with the premise that, for starters, all the land belongs to Israel,”

        I don’t think Wiener said that he thought the “natives” would go along with his premise. I think it was a rhetorical talking point. It’s just as radical to believe that the Jewish majority would go along with the influx of millions of Palestinian refugees.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 2:54 pm

        Something tells me you didn’t read Kathleen’s post, where she said that Wiener “wants what other radical Israeli fundamentalist want no matter what.”

        ok hophmi, you wanna play ball? here’s kathleen (i only extracted portions about her bones etc)

        Phil I don’t believe for one second that Anthony Wiener does not know about the lies he was repeating…….

        “The conversation was deftly moderated by Roger Cohen of the New York Times, who was not afraid to call Weiner out when the congressman said there are no Israeli soldiers in the West Bank, or when he said that all the settlements are in Israel.”

        Wiener knows he knows…..He is pushing a radical fundamentlalist view a Greater Israel view. ….. He knows what he is doing. I have watched too many clips of him on the floor pushing stands based on facts…..This is a fundamentalist act that is irrational..he knows it but wants what other radical Israeli fundamentalist want no matter what….Facts do not matter for Wiener on this one. Sad

        nothing in anything she’s addressing deals with 2 states. iow kathleen’s references to fundies are NOT related to weiner’s opinions on 2 states. you are conflating her comments wrt fundies relate to weiner’s alleged advocating of 2 states INSTEAD of anything kathleen said in her statement which most definitely was wrt pushing the MYTH israel’s ‘borders’ imitate an eretz israel. THIS you evade.

        most radical fundamentalist Israelis are not fans of negotiating with the Palestinians or the two-state solution.

        i will believe the sincerity of weiner and other alleged fans of ‘negotiating’ a 2 state solution when they start taking action wrt condemning those who are expanding the settlements. when they start offering support for obama to condemn the settlements (LIKE SUPPORT A VETO).

        you seem incapable of understanding that emotions run just as high on the other side

        when in doubt grab your emotional dagger hophmi? this has nothing to do w/my ability to gauge others emotions. we are all too aware the pain and suffering of the oppressor as he contemplates the possible potential loss of that which he has yet to acquire vs that of people w/no rights, no land to speak of, everything stolen from them. so save your crocodile tears for another day. this argument we are having here??? it is about what kathleen said, not about some implication wrt weiner’s position on 2 states that she never mentioned.

      • hophmi
        March 4, 2011, 3:02 pm

        I don’t want to play ball with you because you don’t follow the rules and all you want to do is fight over semantics.

        You’re just not worth it.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 3:28 pm

        lol! oh that’s rich hophmi. so good of you to conceed! by the way the difference between advocating for 2 states and repeating fundie view on eretz israel isn’t a matter of ‘semantics’. but go ahead and conflate they mount to the same friggin thing!

        nice divert. i’m always available to chew up your arguments and spit them out if your feeling masochistic in the future, just challenge me again.

      • sherbrsi
        March 5, 2011, 3:47 am

        How is calling for negotiations and the two-state solution pushing a radical fundamentalist view?

        When the negotiations are nothing more than smoke and mirrors for expanding illegal Jewish colonies, and there is no Israeli desire for an objective (not an Israeli dictated) two-state solution based on international law and standards.

        Anyone who believes in any Israeli sincerity for negotiations while supporting the legitimacy of existing and continued settlements has no credibility in being an advocate for two-states.

      • Citizen
        March 5, 2011, 5:00 am

        Yes, hophmi, so radical Israel promised the UN to allow return of all the Palestinian refugees ASAP as a condition to it’s entry to the UN and continued validity of its seat at the UN. What was radical was that the UN never called Israel on its breach of entitlement contract.

      • Ellen
        March 4, 2011, 1:46 pm

        Wiener and Jon Stuart were roomates in New York in their early days and remain friends. Just an interesting trivia fact.

      • Kathleen
        March 6, 2011, 12:56 pm

        that is interesting. Stewart protects Israel at every turn by generally remaining silent about their crimes against humanity. Mavi Marmara, Goldstone Report etc.

        He consistently goes after Iran’s President and ignores Netanyahu. He allows the Bush warmongers like Rumsfeld, David “Axis of Evil” Frum, Bill Kristol, Rice to come on and attempt to rebrand and respin their WMD lies while challenging MSNBC’s Chris Matthews for some line in his book more seriously than Stewart has ever challenged the WMD pack of lies.

        Stewart plays all nicey nice with war criminals. Stewart never goes after Netanyahu, illegal settlements. I believe Stewart lines up with a so called liberal like Wiener full of serious contradictions and hypocrisy. Speak with forked tongues and stands

      • seanmcbride
        March 6, 2011, 2:18 pm

        Jon Stewart is yet another Likud mole on the left — a very familar type by now. The cognitive dissonance gives one a headache if you are at all paying attention.

  21. Kathleen
    March 4, 2011, 1:05 pm

    A great debate at Cooper Union some years back worth the listen. Well educated opinions and some spinning. At Scribe Media

    The Israel Lobby: Does it Have Too Much Influence on US Foreign Policy?
    Last March, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt published an article in the London Review of Books. Entitled “The Israel Lobby: Does it Have too Much Influence on US Foreign Policy,” it drew swift charges of anti-Semitism in the editorial pages of American newspapers.

    At root are passages like the following:

    …the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the “Israel Lobby”. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country — in this case, Israel — are essentially identical.

    Those attacking Mearsheimer and Walt suggest the duo outline a nefarious Jewish cabal with a stranglehold on American Mideast policy. Think smokey back rooms; think political and media domination; think subtle and sneaky manipulation of the unsuspecting, innocent gentile. Think historical stereotype.

    • RoHa
      March 4, 2011, 9:23 pm

      “Think historical stereotype.”

      Interestingly, it seems that the loudest denouncers of the historical stereotypes are often the one who live up to the stereotypes.

  22. Kathleen
    March 4, 2011, 1:24 pm

    Phil “Weiner and his pals believe negotiations are “giving” land to the Palestinians — an offer of any territory at all is a generous offer. ”

    This is the myth being sold on NPR and the rest of the MSM. How generous it was of Israel to pull out of the Gaza. This will be the statement endlessly repeated

    Never show true maps of the West Bank cut up with illegal settlements covering large swaths of Palestinian lands.

    • Citizen
      March 4, 2011, 2:12 pm

      It is amazing how the MSM, from PBS through MSNBC and so many think tanks with high credentials in foreign policy always convey the notion that Israel did give up land, or offered to do so, or promises now to do so–without every going into the facts regarding who’s land it was and/or is in the first place.

      • Citizen
        March 4, 2011, 3:06 pm

        In truth, the AIPACers and Israel are hell-bent on repeating their biblical history at any cost to themselves or the world; it’s a fact that Gaza City is one of the oldest settlements in the world; it’s believed to have been established by the Canaanites, around 3000 B.C. Remember Joshua and what he did?

  23. DICKERSON3870
    March 4, 2011, 1:26 pm

    RE: “to hell with the UN resolutions establishing the state of Israel and its borders, and even to hell with the Israeli juridical position that the land is disputed territory. Does this mean that Israel no longer claims its legitimacy from the 1947 UN partition resolution? Mondo bizarro.” – Weiss

    MY COMMENT: This brings to mind the idea of rabid supporters of Israel as being akin to “drag queens”. In particular, I recall a discussion of Dershowitz in the past where I noted how impressive he is when discoursing on the separation of church and state (in this country, obviously) and how childish he becomes when the topic of Israel comes up. Mondo bizarro indeed!
    Take it away Reinaldo Arenas, Julian Schnabel and Johnny Depp…
    Johnny Depp as Bon Bon in Before Night Falls (VIDEO, 03:06) – link to youtube.com

    • hophmi
      March 4, 2011, 1:48 pm

      “to hell with the UN resolutions establishing the state of Israel and its borders, and even to hell with the Israeli juridical position that the land is disputed territory. Does this mean that Israel no longer claims its legitimacy from the 1947 UN partition resolution? Mondo bizarro.”

      Does it matter, Phil? You don’t believe the partition plan is legit. And as many say, Israel is a strong military power. It doesn’t need to be recognized as a Jewish state or as anything else, because it is can beat the bejesus out of its enemies.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 1:57 pm

        You don’t believe the partition plan is legit.

        you crack me up. does the goi think the partition plan is legit? cuz they certainly don’t act like it and their policies don’t reflect it either.

      • Hostage
        March 4, 2011, 5:45 pm

        Annie,

        Most people do not understand why Israel was in such a hurry to apply for membership in the UN. Israel’s declaration of independence was NOT incompatible with continued tutelage under UN auspices. However, UN membership was based upon legal equality and was considered incompatible with any form of tutelage. Israel only paid lip service to the partition plan until the day it was admitted to the UN as a full member State. The same day that the UN formally recognized Israel, the Arab States signed the Lausanne protocol which was based upon the map of Israel from the UN partition plan. Israel promptly rejected the plan and insisted that it needed to be completely revised. Israel subsequently insisted that it was established by its own act and was not in any sense a successor to the debts or treaty obligations of Palestine (as required under the terms of resolution 181). See D.P. O’Connell , The Law of State Sucession, Volume V Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, 1956, eds H. Lauterpacht H.C. Gutteridge, A.D. McNair, pages 10-11, and 178

        Here is some additional background on that. As a result of the negotiations concerning Mosul and the future of Iraq, it was agreed that Iraq could apply for membership in the League of Nations, and if it was admitted, only then would the mandate lapse. See George Scott, The Rise and Fall of the League of Nations, (London: Hutchinson, 1973), ISBN: 0091170400, page 134.

        The Mandate required the British to establish self-governing institutions on both sides of the Jordan river. According to the League of Nations, the bilateral treaties between the British and the Hashemites in Iraq and Transjordan regarding the establishment of “independent governments” did NOT effect the status of those Mandates. See The League of Nations, Official Journal, 1928, p. 1574.

        In 1941, France proclaimed within the framework of its Mandate, the independence and sovereignty of the Syrian State. The proclamation said “the independence and sovereignty of Syria and Lebanon will not affect the juridical situation as it results from the Mandate Act. Indeed, this situation could be changed only with the agreement of the Council of the League of Nations, with the consent of the Government of the United States, a signatory of the Franco-American Convention of April 4, 1924.

        During the San Francisco Conference on UN organization the Government of France still considered Syria and Lebanon to be subject to the mandate. See International law: achievements and prospects, by Mohammed Bedjaoui, UNESCO, Martinus Nijhoff; 1991, ISBN 9231027166, page 46 link to books.google.com

        In 1946 the United States advised Great Britain of its intention “to recognize the independence of Trans-Jordan, as in the case of the Levant States, on securing a satisfactory assurance of the continuation of the rights guaranteed the United States under the American-British Convention of 1924. Formal termination of the mandate with respect to Trans-Jordan would be generally recognized upon the admission of the latter into the United Nations as a fully independent country.” See Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. The Near East and Africa Volume VII (1946), page 798 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        As a matter of customary international law, the Council of the League of Nations adopted a resolution on 4 September 1931 regarding the general conditions which had to be fulfilled before a LoN mandate regime could be brought to an end. One of the requirements was that all of the territory of a joint mandate had to be emancipated. See Luther Harris Evans, “The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758, American Society of International Law, link to jstor.org

        In 1946 the Jewish Agency claimed that the mandate was indivisable and that the Jewish people still had a secured legal interest in the territory of Transjordan despite the fact that the provisions of the mandate with regard to the Jewish national home had been temporarily waived. The Agency claimed that the plans for Transjordan’s independence violated Article 80 of the UN Charter. See the Palstine Post, April 9th, 1946, page 3 link to jpress.org.il

        When Transjordan applied for membership in the United Nations, a legal objection was raised on the grounds that it was still part of a joint mandate that had not been properly terminated, and it was suggested that the application should not be considered until the question of Palestine as a whole was addressed. See Minutes of the 57th Session of the Security Council, S/PV.57 pages 100-101 (pdf file pgs 3-4 of 52) link to un.org

        During the General Assembly deliberations on Palestine, there were proposals to incorporate part of Transjordans’ territory into the Jewish state. A few days before the November 29, 1947 decision on partition, U.S. Secretary of State Marshall noted frequent references had been made by the other members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine regarding the desirability of the Jewish State having both the Negev and the Transjordanian Port of Aqaba. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1947. The Near East and Africa Volume V, page 1255 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Chaim Weizmann personally lobbied President Truman on the subject and said the Port of Aqaba must be given to the Zionists.
        link to books.google.com

        So Transjordan is either an integral part of Palestine or one of the five invading Arab states. The Jewish Agency could never decide.

      • Citizen
        March 5, 2011, 5:05 am

        Yes, the key, Hostage, was that Israel only gave lip service to get into the UN & be recognized as a full member of it. That’s always what Israel does–lies through its teeth as to what it promised and does what it wants–Uncle Sam enables Israel to do this.

      • MRW
        March 4, 2011, 2:22 pm

        its enemies ?

        Who are Israel’s enemies, hophmi?

        [jesus, it's like WWII language you just can't shake.]

      • Citizen
        March 4, 2011, 2:44 pm

        Hophmi, the new state of Israel itself accepted the UN partition borders and promised to allow ASAP return of the Arabs who had fled. This was a condition subsequent to the validity of Israel as an accepted UN member state. I’m not even discussing how the UN swing vote came about, nor the fact that all the Arab states in the region were ignored, and that the Palestinians themselves had no voice in the partition decision, which was much more than fair to Israel. Your argument that might makes right was rejected by the ex-post facto laws first applied at Nuremberg, and then, at Geneva. Most famously, it was Goering’s leitmotif. Israel was saved by the US in 1973, and it didn’t do well against Hezbullah subsequently in Lebanon. It will only be able to beat the bejesus out of its enemies so long as it has big host country help and such help ultimately depends on a powerful host country economy. What Israel can do now with its military might is not the best way for an Israel lover to project/predict how Israel will fair in the future if it does not changed its ways. History is full of the debris of once mighty nations. So, yes, Hophmi, it matters–legitimacy always matters. Jews aren’t the only ones that never forget. And instant transparency is growing like Topsy. There’s more lights in the dark jungle these days and they have long battery life.

  24. andrew r
    March 4, 2011, 1:27 pm

    Weiner takes exception to the idea Israel wasn’t defending itself. Oh, I believe Israel was defending itself during Cast Lead. It’s a regime of racial segregation and has to attack civilians if it wants to stay that way.

    • hophmi
      March 4, 2011, 1:49 pm

      “It’s a regime of racial segregation and has to attack civilians if it wants to stay that way.”

      Oh. So why did it wait through years and years of rocket attacks before doing so?

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 1:58 pm

        it didn’t. jeez hophmi, feels like swatting flies today wrt your arguments.

      • hophmi
        March 4, 2011, 2:02 pm

        “it didn’t. jeez hophmi, feels like swatting flies today wrt your arguments.”

        I see you took your Palicaine today.

        Hamas fire rockets over the borders for years before Israel went into Gaza. The war was 2008-09. The rockets started years before that.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 2:04 pm

        Hamas fire rockets over the borders for years before Israel went into Gaza.

        fantasy

      • hophmi
        March 4, 2011, 2:08 pm

        “fantasy”

        Really? You’re denying that rockets were fired into Israel for years before the war? Just making sure that you are actually denying this fact.

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 2:17 pm

        annie, you’re fantastic! totally.
        pay no attention to this please. it’s like-um- boring and you’ll like -um-triple yawn and all that other good shit.

        ROCKETS FROM GAZA

        Human Rights Watch

        —-Since 2001, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups in Gaza have fired thousands of rockets deliberately or indiscriminately at civilian areas in Israel. Such attacks virtually stopped during a ceasefire that began in June 2008 but escalated in November 2008 after an Israeli military incursion into Gaza. The rocket attacks continued during and since Israel’s three-week-long military offensive in Gaza that began on December 27.

        Palestinian rocket attacks – which have killed three Israeli civilians and wounded dozens of others since November – are an ongoing threat to the nearly 800,000 Israeli civilians who live and work in range of the rockets. Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have sought to justify the attacks as appropriate reprisals for Israeli military operations and the ongoing blockade against Gaza, and as a lawful response to the Israeli occupation of Gaza. As noted below, international humanitarian law (the “laws of war”) does not support these asserted justifications.

        link to hrw.org

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 4, 2011, 2:18 pm

        “Palicaine”

        Bigot.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 4, 2011, 2:19 pm

        “Hamas fire rockets over the borders for years before Israel went into Gaza. ”

        Israel was oppressing and murdering Palestinians for decades before Hamas even existed.

      • MRW
        March 4, 2011, 2:27 pm

        Hamas was keeping the cease-fire and hadn’t fired one rocket for four months before Nov 4, 2008, the first night Israel attacked and killed six Palestinians.

        Israel killed over 6,000 people since 2000 by the time the war started. How did that happen? Spontaneous combustion?

      • Donald
        March 4, 2011, 2:42 pm

        “It’s a regime of racial segregation and has to attack civilians if it wants to stay that way.”

        “Oh. So why did it wait through years and years of rocket attacks before doing so?”

        It didn’t. Israel had Gaza under a blockade for years. There was ordnance flying across the border in both directions for years.
        You talk as though Israel withdrew, and the Gazans kept firing rockets and Israel sat meekly and never did anything until finally they decided to stop the rockets. That story might go over well in the US, where people believe all sorts of crap, but the reality is more complicated and far more Palestinian civilians died before the Gaza War than Israeli civilians. That’s not to deny the rocket fire.

        link

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 3:03 pm

        Wooody, you’re being a fool with your bigot comment in response to “Palicaine”

        that Ziocaine shit is over this blog. can’t be anything bigoted about the formula, can there?

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 3:06 pm

        Woooody, –Israel was oppressing and murdering Palestinians for decades before Hamas even existed.—–

        Arabs and Muslims in Palestine were oppressing Jews for centuries before Israel existed.

      • Citizen
        March 4, 2011, 3:08 pm

        Yes HAMAS was born from the 1987 Infatada. It was born out of the urge for self-defense against Israeli oppression.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 3:10 pm

        thanks for the link fuster. notice the title? “rockets from gaza”. the hrw report wasn’t focusing on israeli incursions into gaza therefore for the most part it did not address them in that report. but notice the notes at the bottom: “Letter to EU Foreign Ministers to Address Violations between Israel and Hamas,” March 16, 2009, available at here.

        The IDF in November 2006 had stopped its previous frequent firing of heavy artillery into Gaza after two high-profile incidents involving large numbers of Palestinian civilian casualties. Regrettably in January 2009, the IDF resumed the unlawful use of this weapon in densely populated areas.

        whoops! as i said the concept Hamas fire rockets over the borders for years before Israel went into Gaza is a fantasy.

        *the blockquote above is merely one reference to one time period and is not meant to imply israeli incursions were limited to the nov 6 reference.

      • Taxi
        March 4, 2011, 3:16 pm

        Palestinian/Arab jews, lived in peace with their brethren moslem and christian Palestinians UNTIL THE EURO ZIOS ARRIVED to the holy lands.

        Where on earth do you get your euro persecution complex from? The supermaket? Can I buy me one too?

      • Taxi
        March 4, 2011, 3:16 pm

        Palicaine = oxygen.

        Ziocaine = carbon monoxide.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 3:17 pm

        that Ziocaine shit is over this blog. can’t be anything bigoted about the formula, can there?

        you’re so clueless. zionism is a political construct. the comparable bigotted construct to palicaine would be jewacaine. no one says that because it is grossly anti semitic and would be likely be banned.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 3:22 pm

        “fantasy”

        Really? You’re denying that rockets were fired into Israel for years before the war? Just making sure that you are actually denying this fact.

        nice strawman hophmi!!!!!! move those goalposts a little why doncha!!!!

        needless to say, the casual observer might note no mention was made by you wrt “the war”. the original fantasy allegation of yours to which i responded was :

        Hamas fire rockets over the borders for years before Israel went into Gaza.

        do you seriously think we do not notice israel and her hasbara tools ALWAYS frame israel’s actions as a ‘reaction’ or ‘response’. it might behoove you to question why hamas fired rockets.

        lol, like i said earlier …..swatting flies.

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 3:25 pm

        lived in peace under oppression, Taxi. the price of peace for the Jews was the oppression.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 3:34 pm

        or conversion. many of the people zionism is oppressing now are just their own breathen sans the side trip to collect some european influence.

      • hophmi
        March 4, 2011, 3:35 pm

        I think the conflict as it plays out in the US is illustrated by assertions like Wiener’s that there are no IDF soldiers in the West Bank and assertions like Annie’s that there weren’t years of Hamas rockets before the Gaza War.

        Both are factually incorrect and speak to the inability of one side to appreciate the narrative of the other.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 3:36 pm

        the price of peace for the Jews was the oppression

        in palestine? you don’t happen to have a source from the pre zionist colonialism era for this allegation do you? please provide it.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 3:38 pm

        assertions like Annie’s that there weren’t years of Hamas rockets before the Gaza War

        please provide a copy paste for this allegation. oh right, you can’t because it is a bald face lie. i never claimed ” there weren’t years of Hamas rockets before the Gaza War”. you’re the historical revisionist hophmi, not me.

        i thought you were over your little masochistic impulses for the day but it appears you’re back for more.

      • Taxi
        March 4, 2011, 3:39 pm

        There was NO oppression of Palestinian jews by moslem or christian Palestinians. You are inventing crap to justify your attachment to your fake victimhood buster.

        Oppression arrived with the euro zionist invaders.

        Check you effing history books – non hasbara edition that is!

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 4, 2011, 3:41 pm

        “zionism is a political construct. the comparable bigotted construct to palicaine would be jewacaine. no one says that because it is grossly anti semitic and would be likely be banned.”

        Exactly, Annie. Right on the head.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 3:41 pm

        hophmi, quit digging yourself a deeper grave you fool.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 3:45 pm

        thank you woody. hophmi makes arguments so easy to refute. fussy too. where are the smart ziobots today? do they even exist? if the do they are probably relegated to more complex tasks than battling infowarriors on blogs. like ‘creating narrative’ over @ the isarel project.

        hi woody, i just saw your edit. i see you were referencing fussyboy’s cluelessness trying to defend hophmi’s bigotted remark. yep, completely tone deaf on this one. they don’t even realize the swamp they are entering sometimes. i true sign of an addict.

      • andrew r
        March 4, 2011, 3:46 pm

        “Arabs and Muslims in Palestine were oppressing Jews for centuries before Israel existed.”

        Oh no, not the liberation from dhimmitude trope. That’s even more insipid than the rescue from pogroms trope. FYI, the nascent Zionist colony was oppressive to Mideastern Jews as well as Muslims. My posts in this cifwatch thread illuminate some evidence: link to cifwatch.com

        Also as I briefly mention in this thread, if Jews were so despised in Palestine they would’ve been attacked indiscriminately just trying to get it off the ground. In fact, before Tel-Aviv was founded, the Palestine Office, forerunner to the Jewish Agency, operated in Jaffa. Nothing stopped them from conducting business as usual which they abused to evict the fellahin from their farms.

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 3:52 pm

        annie, you can find it easily. look up the Ottoman Empire and rights of Christians and Jews.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 4:01 pm

        you made the allegation, back it up. we’ve been down this road before fussy. last time you claimed to have linked to it yesterday! seriously, if you want a serious discussion regarding this or any topic be prepared to source your allegations. otherwise no one will take anything you say seriously which is a fair assessment of your standing here to date.

      • andrew r
        March 4, 2011, 4:04 pm

        fuster – The Labour Zionists eventually linked up with the British empire that gave the world apartheid and the Amritsar massacre. Maybe they did that for a reason? Colonizing Palestine was not a struggle against the Ottomans. It utilized internal Ottoman bureaucracy to make the peasants yield to the land sales they had no say in.

      • Ellen
        March 4, 2011, 4:14 pm

        Jews were not repressed in Palistine in anyway before the European Zionist enterprise entered the scene.

        That is simpy more propaganda. You know this.

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 4:21 pm

        and I’ve posted that stuff before, annie.

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 4:24 pm

        dear andrew, the peasants never owned much land, so they never had much to say about the buying and selling of it. just like in the rest of the world.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 4:51 pm

        that’s no argument fus. if you’re going to keep hauling out old arguments keep a stash of links to prove you won those arguments because i doubt you did. it’s just basically your say so. if what you are saying has truth to it produce some links again and again and again if need be. the rest of us are pulling our weight. you don’t think we’ve not fought these same battles before.

        cough it up. you do this almost every day, it’s getting very tiring. have you read the boy who cried wolf? just yesterday i said to you ‘the dog ate my homework’. same thing. excuses. phff

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 4:55 pm

        you want to keep arguing while not producing a shred of evidence for your segue into this diversion of yours.

        cough up you evidence or cease this line of defense.

        “Arabs and Muslims in Palestine were oppressing Jews for centuries before Israel existed”.

        cough it up, NOW

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 5:14 pm

        annie,

        buy a cat and order it about that way, maybe they can cough up a hairball for you when you command

        the frog says,

        kiss me, baby….. NOWWWWWWWWWWW.

        (I’lll start keeping a link stash, when I’m on my machine and not the wife’s.)

      • lyn117
        March 4, 2011, 5:27 pm

        Hamas fire rockets over the borders for years before Israel went into Gaza…

        May I refer you to the following link:
        more or less when Israel went into Gaza

        This one is also relevant:
        Did Hamas fire rockets before Hamas was founded?

        And here is a book or two you should read

        who exactly attacked who in the middle east conflict”
        when was the first attack on Gaza?

      • Potsherd2
        March 4, 2011, 5:30 pm

        fusty is once again practicing that old standard: the lie by part-truth. What he’s referring to is the system of Ottoman law that privileged Muslims above non-Muslims, as for example levying higher taxes in lieu of military obligation. The old dhimmi argument of the Islamophobes.

        But this is not what he says. What he says is that they were oppressing Jews. Not non-Muslims but specifically Jews. As in, those evil anti-semitic Arabs and Muslims. That is the implication of what fusty says, that is what he wants people to believe, that there were centuries of antisemitism in Palestine, that Palestinians have always been antisemitic and their resistance to the Jewish takeover of their land has been based in antisemitism.

        You see, you take a truth, dice it up, then add a speck of it to a bowl full of lies.

        But the actual truth is that the Ottoman laws did not single out Jews, were not antisemitic, and were not especially “oppressive” relative to the standards of the times. The actual truth is that Jews were always part of the mideast and were tolerated there as any other tribe might be tolerated, more or less, depending on local conditions.

        The actual truth is that even European Jews who showed up for religious purposes were not “oppressed” more than any other nonMuslim group, but mostly tolerated despite their great differences from the rest of the population. And the actual truth is that the strong hostility between Palestinians and Jews came about only with the arrival of Zionist immigrants with their program of Jewish supremacy.

      • mig
        March 4, 2011, 5:42 pm

        Funny youtube clip :

      • Taxi
        March 4, 2011, 5:43 pm

        I’m sure annie would rather clean her over than kiss a racist old toad.

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 5:47 pm

        Pots,
        I’m more than willing to amend to explicitly recognize that it was not only Jews that were oppressed. It didn’t seem necessary to add in the others, but I wouldn’t deny their oppression or deny their right to be aggrieved by virtue of it.

        No lie was intended and nobody should think that I would deny the oppressive character of soooo many other regimes and to sooo many other peoples. The people who inherited Turkey from the Ottoman Empire have much to answer for as well. Their effort to retain control of their land after the unequal treaties post-WWI is in many ways admirable.
        Their brutality toward minorities is vast and undeniable and the harshness of their campaign against the Kurds in the 1990s make the Israelis seem soft-hearted and squeamish.

      • Taxi
        March 4, 2011, 6:11 pm

        To omit glaring FACTS is tantamount to LYING fuster.

        You omit often so therefore you are a discredited pathological liar.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 6:50 pm

        not that funny mig. the truth of the matter is that most people during most of the time got along in palestine. these days we are in are an aberration of history. zionism is an aberration and it’s survival is questionable. jews on the other hand have a marvelous track record surviving. i have no doubt they will outlast zionism too.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 6:52 pm

        No lie was intended and nobody should think that I would deny the oppressive character of soooo many other regimes and to sooo many other peoples.

        how generous of you. repeat after me ” nobody should think that I would deny the oppressive character of the zionist regime”

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 6:59 pm

        What he’s referring to is the system of Ottoman law that privileged Muslims above non-Muslims

        you shouldn’t be giving him an out pots, you should require him to back up his blatherings all on his own. he’s a creative little toad and he’ll take your post and run with it leapfrogging about from pebble to pebble like a good little troll. like this:

        I’m more than willing to amend to explicitly recognize that it was not only Jews that were oppressed.

        !!!!!!!

        my point is if he’s going to inject this inflammatory crap into the threads (another successful fussy highjack) he should be required to back them up all on his little lonesome. i believe it was yesterday he made the allegations:

        “And Hamas flat refuses to sit down in the same room to talk.”
        and
        “Obama sent Kerry to see if there would be talks.”

        both flat out lies. he shouldn’t be allowed to sleeze out of these allegations using your knowledge of events and twisting them. he’s a troll and should be outted accordingly.

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 7:03 pm

        Nobody should think that I would deny the oppressive character and practices of the present Israeli government.

      • Potsherd2
        March 4, 2011, 7:31 pm

        Yes, fusty, now that we mention it, you’re willing to make such ammendments, but when we do, then what happens to any point that you were trying to make about Arabs and Jews. It dissolves and disappears. All we’re left with is: before Israel was founded, things were the way they were, not always nice for anyone. And since Israel was founded, things have not been nice for the Arabs.

        And this proves …

      • Taxi
        March 4, 2011, 8:32 pm

        fuster you forgot to CONDEMN ALL past israeli governments – every single one of them, not just this “present” one.

        Sly slimy maneuverer.

      • andrew r
        March 4, 2011, 9:15 pm

        dear fuster, please take ten minutes to read some history not designed to apologize for Zionism like Rashid Khalidi. The peasants had the right of usufruct and had no reason to believe they could be dispossessed at a moment’s notice. The Ottoman state was feudal and private landownership was only a few decades old at the first aliyah.

      • RoHa
        March 4, 2011, 9:37 pm

        “Arabs and Muslims in Palestine were oppressing Jews for centuries before Israel existed”

        And yet they stuck around, and were still there when the foreign Jews came to start oppressing the Muslims and Christians.
        Furthermore, they seem not to been Zionists. Certainly the Palestinian Muslims and Christians thought of them as part of the native Palestinian community.

      • Hostage
        March 4, 2011, 9:39 pm

        Boy are you misinformed. The British mandatory administration established a land commission to determine the extent of state land available for Jewish settlement. It determined that little or no such land existed that wasn’t already under cultivation by Arab tenants or occupants. The prescriptive legal rights under the Ottoman code of cultivators who had occupied the land for ten or more years were affirmed. The rights of so-called absentee landlords were limited in most cases to usufruct from village lands. In those cases the landlords had no legal right to dispose of the properties without the consent of the tenants. See for example ”A broken trust: Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians 1920-1925”, By Sahar Huneidi, pages 212-223 or ”State lands and rural development in mandatory Palestine, 1920-1948”, By Warwick P. N. Tyler, page 21: “The State Lands of Palestine” link to books.google.com

      • RoHa
        March 4, 2011, 9:51 pm

        “The rights of so-called absentee landlords were limited in most cases to usufruct from village lands. In those cases the landlords had no legal right to dispose of the properties without the consent of the tenants. ”

        But when Zionists bought those lands, they then evicted the Arab tenant by force of arms. The ethnic cleansing started long before 1947.

      • Hostage
        March 4, 2011, 9:57 pm

        The Israelis don’t even have laws with guarantees of equality today that are comparable to those of the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th Century. The ICJ noted that the existing rights under Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin 1878 were preserved by safeguarding clauses in Article 13 of the Palestine Mandate and a Chapter of the UN Partition plan. Here is the text of the treaty:

        The Sublime Porte having expressed the intention to maintain the principle of religious liberty, and give it the widest scope, the Contracting Parties take note of this spontaneous declaration. In no part of the Ottoman Empire shall difference of religion be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various professions and industries, in any locality whatsoever. The freedom and outward exercise of all forms of worship shall be assured to all, and no hindrance shall be offered either to the hierarchical organization of the different communions, or to their relations with their spiritual chiefs.

        Ecclesiastics, pilgrims, and monks of all nationalities traveling in Turkey in Europe, or in Turkey in Asia, shall enjoy the same rights, advantages, and privileges.

        The right of official protection by the Diplomatic and Consular Agents of the Powers in Turkey is recognized both as regards the above-mentioned persons and their religious, charitable, and other establishments in the Holy Places and elsewhere. The rights possessed by France are expressly reserved, and it is well understood that no alterations can be made in the status quo in the Holy Places. The monks of Mount Athos, of whatever country they may be natives, shall be maintained in their former possessions and advantages, and shall enjoy, without any exception, complete equality of rights and prerogatives. link to fordham.edu

        Compare that to the Knesset discussion in the Haaretz article “MKs debate protection of ‘equality’ in future constitution”. link to haaretz.com

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 10:04 pm

        Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg aka Ahad Ha’am

        Ha’am made his first trip to Palestine in 1891. The trip was prompted by concern that the Jaffa members of B’nai Moshe were mishandling land purchases for prospective immigrants and contributing to soaring land prices. Ha’am’s reputation as Zionism’s major internal critic has its roots in the essay “A Truth from Eretz Yisrael” published in pamphlet form shortly after his visit in 1891 (this essay can be found in Kol Kitve Ahad Ha’am, The Jerusalem Publishing House, 1953.)

        Disturbed by what he saw in 1891, Ha’am wrote about external perceptions of Palestine:

        “We who live abroad are accustomed to believe that almost all Eretz Yisrael is now uninhabited desert and whoever wishes can buy land there as he pleases. But this is not true. It is very difficult to find in the land [ha’aretz] cultivated fields that are not used for planting. Only those sand fields or stone mountains that would require the investment of hard labor and great expense to make them good for planting remain uncultivated and that’s because the Arabs do not like working too much in the present for a distant future. Therefore, it is very difficult to find good land for cattle. And not only peasants, but also rich landowners, are not selling good land so easily. […]” (quoted in Wrestling with Zion, Grove Press, 2003 PB, p. 14)

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 10:18 pm

        Hostage, so how does that affirmation of continued tenancy by the Land Commission prevent the British from transferring sovereignty to a new state that does not wish to affirm the customary rights of tenancy from the Ottoman Empire?

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 10:47 pm

        Hostage, a few centuries after the Israeli Empire has completely pacified all the people of the captured lands, and those people are nicely settled into docile subservience, let’s have some more comparisons to the rights that the Ottoman’s were coerced into proclaiming in the last days of their Empire.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 11:05 pm

        our troll is hungry. he needs to be fed.

      • Taxi
        March 4, 2011, 11:11 pm

        Uhuh he gets this fuzzy-deep ’bout this time every night.

      • andrew r
        March 4, 2011, 11:50 pm

        Hostage: “The rights of so-called absentee landlords were limited in most cases to usufruct from village lands.”

        In Rashid Khalidi’s Palestinian Identity, the Vali of Beirut personally expelled the peasants from the site of Merchavia (The first Moshav) at al-Fula. He said Elias Sursuk was free to dispose of his property. The Ottoman state must have been very corrupt if this went against the law but Constantinople never took serious action against JNF settlement (albeit some half-hearted measures that could be worked around) until during WWI.

        Roha: “But when Zionists bought those lands, they then evicted the Arab tenant by force of arms. The ethnic cleansing started long before 1947.”

        In many cases, local Ottoman police could be relied on to do the job. Of course the Hashomer did have to occupy ruined villages itself. Yigal Allon and Ze’ev Schiff called this guard the seed of the IDF, in case someone doesn’t think that’s a colonialist army.

      • andrew r
        March 5, 2011, 12:24 am

        “The Israelis don’t even have laws with guarantees of equality today that are comparable to those of the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th Century.”

        I’m no specialist on the Ottoman empire but it became very racist in decline. Both the Sultan and the Young Turks who deposed him and created a constitutional monarchy viewed the Armenians as a 5th column and natural ally of Russia. The Committee of Unity and Progress still wanted to save the empire and shared the same paranoia about enemies within. Under both the Sultan and the Pashas there was a series of state-sanctioned pogroms and massacres culminating in the genocide of WWI. Herzl tried to convince an Armenian resistance leader to surrender (Phil did a post about this; the comments are worth reading).

        link to mondoweiss.net

        So I don’t put much stock in that treaty. The Ottoman state was theocratic and sectarian and if you axe me that provision was a fig leaf for European encroachment through their patronage of the minority religious communities.

      • andrew r
        March 5, 2011, 12:44 am

        “Hostage, so how does that affirmation of continued tenancy by the Land Commission prevent the British from transferring sovereignty to a new state that does not wish to affirm the customary rights of tenancy from the Ottoman Empire?”

        Actually, in a twisted sort of way, Israel did just that. Only instead of affirming the right of usufruct, it affirmed the penalty for failing to cultivate the land ~ seizing it as state property. The Ottoman law remained but the peasants who cultivated the land did not.

      • Hostage
        March 5, 2011, 1:44 am

        Fuster,

        The Council of the League of Nations adopted a resolution on 4 September 1931 regarding the general conditions which had to be fulfilled before a LoN mandate regime could be brought to an end. It was decided that the State in question had to accept a minority rights agreement like all of the other newly created States that were established after WWI. See See Luther Harris Evans, “The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758, American Society of International Law, link to jstor.org

        The Jewish State and the Arab State were required to “accept” a minority rights commitment and the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ in the event of any disputes. The agreement was acknowledged in a “Declaration”. Resolution 181(II) explained “The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them. The rights contained in the Declaration were also supposed to be incorporated in the constitutions of the new States. See chapter “C. DECLARATION” of UN General Assembly resolution 181(II). link to yale.edu

        One of the guarantees provided that “No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be paid previous to dispossession.”

        During the 45th session of the Ad Hoc Political Committee that was considering Israel’s application for membership in the United Nations, the representative of Lebanon said link to unispal.un.org

        “The United Nations had certainly not intended that the Jewish State should rid itself of its Arab citizens. On the contrary, section C of part I of the Assembly’s 1947 resolution had explicitly provided guarantees of minority rights in each of the two States. For example, it had prohibited the expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State except for public purposes, and then only upon payment of full compensation. Yet the fact was that 90 per cent of the Arab population of Israel had been driven outside its boundaries by military operations, had been forced to seek refuge in neighbouring Arab territories, had been reduced to misery and destitution, and had been prevented by Israel from returning to their homes. Their homes and property had been seized and were being used by thousands of European Jewish immigrants.”

        The United Nations Palestine Conciliation Commission maintains a registry of property that Israel has wrongfully expropriated. During the 48th session of the Ad Hoc Political Committee that was considering Israel’s application for membership in the United Nations, the representative of Cuba asked if Israel had supplied the required declaration? He noted that the rights were under United Nations guarantee. See pages 2-3 of the .pdf link to doc.un.org

        Mr Abba Eban said he could answer in the affirmative and needed a little time to produce the documents. He said that the declaration had been supplied by the Foreign Minister to the Secretary General on 15 May 1948.

        At the 51st session Mr Eban answered affirmatively that the rights stipulated in section C. Declaration, chapters 1 and 2 of UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by the resolution. See The Palestine Question, Henry Cattan, page 86-87 and the verbatim UN record, link to doc.un.org The instruments that Mr Eban cited during that and the other hearings were the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (which had been signed and published in the official gazette), and various cables and letters of confirmation addressed to the Secretary General. General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, 11 May 1949 contains a footnote (5) regarding “”’the declarations”’ and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel”. The footnote cites the minutes of the 45th-48th, 50th, and 51st meetings of the Ad Hoc Political Committee contained in documents A/AC.24/SR.45-48, 50 and 51. link to unispal.un.org

        The Minority Protection Plan was cataloged by the UN Secretariat in a 1950 study of Minority Rights legal instruments. See Chapter 3 of the UN Secretariat report on Post WWII Minority Rights instruments, E/CN.4/367, 7 April 1950. link to un.org UN GAR 181(II) is also listed in the Table of Treaties, on Page xxxviii, of Self-determination and National Minorities, Oxford Monographs in International Law, Thomas D. Musgrave, Oxford University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-19-829898-6

        FYI, the 1856 Treaty of Paris declared that the Sublime Porte of the Ottoman Empire had been admitted to participate in the Public Law and System (Concert) of Europe. See International law: achievements and prospects, UNESCO Series, Mohammed Bedjaoui (ed), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, ISBN 9231027166, page 7 link to books.google.com

        That system of public international law governed territorial accessions and the creation of new states. The delegates of the First Zionist Congress acknowledged that fact when they said the aim of Zionism was the creation of a home for the Jewish people in Palestine, ”’secured by public law”’.

        Carol Fink explained that in 1878 the Concert of Europe dictated the conditions on internal governance of four new states. She says that is when the concept of granting title to a territory on the basis of minority rights treaties started, with the cases of Serbia, Montenegro, and Romania. See Defending the Rights of Others, page 37 link to books.google.com

        At the Versailles Peace Conference the Supreme Council established ‘The Committee on New States and for The Protection of Minorities’. All the new successor states were compelled to sign minority rights treaties as a precondition of diplomatic recognition. It was agreed that although the new States had been recognized they had not been ‘created’ before the signatures of the final Peace Treaties. The Jews and Minority Rights, (1898-1919), Oscar I. Janowsky, Colombia University Press, 1933, page 342

        Here is Prime Minister Clemenceau’s memo that was attached to the Polish Minority Rights Treaty:

        This treaty does not constitute any fresh departure. It has for long been the established procedure of the public law of Europe that when a State is created, or when large accessions of territory are made to an established State, the joint and formal recognition of the Great Powers should be accompanied by the requirement that such States should, in the form of a binding International convention undertake to comply with certain principles of Government. In this regard I must recall for your consideration the fact that it is to the endeavors and sacrifices of the Powers in whose name I am addressing you that the Polish nation owes the recovery of its independence. It is by their decision that Polish sovereignty is being restored over the territories in question, and that the inhabitants of these territories are being incorporated into the Polish nation…. …There rests, therefore, upon these Powers an obligation, which they cannot evade, to secure in the most permanent and solemn form guarantees for certain essential rights which will afford to the inhabitants the necessary protection, whatever changes may take place in the internal constitution of the Polish State.’

        See Sovereignty, Stephen D. Krasner, Princeton University Press, 1999, ISBN 069100711X, page 92-93 link to books.google.com

        Dr. Mallison cited the legal obligations regarding minorities in the partition plan and noted that

        “In most civilized legal systems it is recognized that legal rights may only be exercised conditioned upon compliance with legal duties. The refusal of the State of Israel to comply with the nondiscriminatory requirements of the Palestine partition resolution, its main claim to title, puts in serious jeopardy its claim to legal title to the limited territory allocated to it by the resolution.”

        See Mallison’s testimony during the Senate hearings on “The Colonization Of The West Bank Territories By Israel”, page 50 link to loc.gov

        I hope that helps answer your question.

      • Hostage
        March 5, 2011, 2:17 am

        That begs the central question. If Israel won’t grant equal rights to the Palestinians in response to the current international outcry, how much longer do you think it will be before you witness the last days of their attempt at establishing an Empire?

      • annie
        March 5, 2011, 2:28 am

        i really appreciate all your posts hostage. thanks for taking the time to educate us.

      • Hostage
        March 5, 2011, 2:36 am

        andrew r,

        The rights contained in Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin were the subject of safeguarding clauses regarding the “existing rights” of the non-Jewish communities in the resolution of the San Remo Conference, Article 13 of the Palestine Mandate, and a Chapter in the UN Partition plan. See for example paragraph 129 of the majority opinion in the ICJ Wall case, page=159 (pdf file 51 of 139) link to icj-cij.org

        Those rights are still under UN guarantee and are the source of tremendous friction between the UN and Israel. The United Nations and its subsidiary organs say that Israel still has a binding legal obligation that flows from resolution 181(II) and that the United Nations has a permanent responsibility in the matter. see the “Report Of The Committee On The Exercise Of The Inalienable Rights Of The Palestinian People”, S/12090, 29 May 1976 link to un.org and United Nations General Assembly resolution 57/107 of 3 December 2002

      • Cliff
        March 5, 2011, 4:20 am

        Yea, and at the same time these CRUDE ROCKETS WHICH ONLY KILLED 12 people or something in a decade, Israel killed at least 200 people in Gaza. And I recall a similar HRW report that stated Israel shelling the hell out of Gaza BEFORE THE war, in a MUCH SHORTER TIME FRAME, with you guessed it – MUCH MORE AMMUNITION.

        There is no comparison between what Israelis go through and what Palestinians go through.

        There is no comparison to both the quantity and profundity/scale of the crimes committed between the both sides. Israel comes out on top.

        And PALICAINE is bigoted. Were not referring to Ziocaine as ISRAELICAINE. A nationality, established. We are referring to the cultish element of Zionism, like the people-without-a-land-for-a blah blah or ‘there is no palestinian people’ or ‘human shield human shield human shield’ or any number of talking points that have been used intellectually dishonestly and are often flat out lies (the majority ).

        YOU refer to us as Palicaine, when we’re simply wrong. I mean, lets investigate. What is annie wrong about? Those crappy rockets. When you look into it, YOU STILL LOSE. I can dig up that HRW report.

        I mean, the ONLY thing you have, is the number of rockets fired. They suck. They weren’t hellfire missiles. But you got the sheer number of them.

        So you can sensationalize it and sell it as great PR.

      • tree
        March 5, 2011, 4:30 am

        Hamas fire rockets over the borders for years before Israel went into Gaza. The war was 2008-09. The rockets started years before that.

        I guess everyone’s forgotten the IDF’s Operation Summer Rains in June -August 2006 and Operation Autumn Clouds in November 2006. Certainly hophmi has.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        And prior to Operation Summer Rains, from the end of March to the end of May, 2006, Israel fired at least 5100 shells into Gaza. It also began its blockade of Gaza during this time.

        In the month of June, also prior to the start of Operation Summer Rains on June 28, 2006, this is the timeline of events that Wiki lists:

        * On June 9, an explosion occurred on a busy Gaza beach, killing eight Palestinian civilians.[15][16][17] Following the blast, an internal Israel Defence Forces (IDF) enquiry was initiated. On June 13, Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz and Chief of Staff Dan Halutz appeared alongside IDF General Meir Klifi to announce the findings of the enquiry, stating “The chances that artillery fire hit that area at that time are nil.” In further interviews, Klifi theorised that the deaths could have been caused by old ordinance or by a Palestinian planted mine.[17] Mark Garlasco, a US-based Human Rights Watch group employee, aired the opinion that the injuries sustained by the Palestinian victims were inconsistent with an explosion from beneath the sand.[17] Israel acknowledged that it had been shelling 250m away from the family’s location. Palestinians claimed that the explosion was caused by this Israeli shelling.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]

        * On June 10, Hamas formally withdrew from its 16-month ceasefire, and began openly taking responsibility for the ongoing Qassam rocket attacks.[26]

        * On June 13, Israel killed 11 Palestinians in a missile strike on a van carrying Palestinian militants and rockets in Gaza. Among those killed were nine civilian bystanders. Reuters called this “the deadliest such attack in four years”.[19]

        * On June 20, Israel killed 3 Palestinian civilians in a missile strike on a car in Gaza’s Jabaliya refugee camp.[17][27]

        * On June 24, Israeli commandos entered the Gaza Strip and captured Osama and Mustafa Muamar, whom Israel claimed were Hamas militants. Hamas claimed that they were the sons of a Hamas supporter but not Hamas members themselves. It was Israel’s first raid into the Strip since its forces pulled out of Gaza in September 2005.[28][29][30]

        * On June 25, armed Palestinians crossed the border from the Gaza Strip into Israel via a makeshift tunnel and attacked an IDF post. During the morning attack, two Palestinian militants and two IDF soldiers were killed and four others wounded. The Palestinians captured Corporal Gilad Shalit, who suffered a broken left hand and a light shoulder wound. Hamas claimed that the attack was carried out in response to June 9 killings, but the IDF concluded that the digging of the tunnel must have taken between 3 and 6 months.[31][32]

        * On June 26, Shalit’s captors issued a series of statements demanding the release of all female Palestinian prisoners and all Palestinian prisoners under the age of 18.[33] The statements came from Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades (the military wing of Palestinian governing party Hamas), the Popular Resistance Committees (which includes members of Fatah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas), and the Army of Islam. More than 8,000 Palestinians were being held as prisoners by Israel. Approximately two thirds of these prisoners were convicted in court, while around ten percent were held without charge.[34]

      • Citizen
        March 5, 2011, 5:15 am

        Fuster, please note what happened when the US tried to “pacify” its enemy in Vietnam.

      • thankgodimatheist
        March 5, 2011, 7:18 am

        “look up the Ottoman Empire and rights of Christians and Jews.”

        What do the Palestinians have to do with it, fester? Do you also ignore that they were subject to the Ottomans’ oppression as any other people in the region?
        Not much knowledge of the history of the area, I believe!

      • Hostage
        March 5, 2011, 8:15 am

        Citizen,

        Exactly. Many years ago an Army radio interviewer challenged Prime Minister Sharon about his disengagement proposal by asking how Israel would stop the terrorist from launching rocket attacks from Gaza after the withdrawal? Sharon responded saying that was no reason to maintain an IDF presence there, since the IDF was already failing to stop the rocket attacks in the first place.

        I always wondered how a demilitarized Palestinian Authority was supposed to stop those attacks, when the largest and best equipped military in the entire region had been unable to do it?

      • bijou
        March 5, 2011, 8:48 am

        No time to read all this thread, but wanted to contribute this historical dimension:

        Let’s not forget that Israel created Hamas in the first place, a fact that is easily verified by just a little googling and historical research. So remember that as you cry into your whiskey glass over all those big bad rockets (which, although indiscriminate because they can’t be aimed with any reliability, nonetheless overall inflict far less damage on Israel than Israel inflicts on Gaza alone, let alone the occupied territories together).

      • bijou
        March 5, 2011, 10:11 am

        It didn’t seem necessary to add in the others,

        It never does, does it? The world is only about what happened and might happen to Jews. This is one of the core problems with Zionism, right there in a neat lit’ nutshell…

      • Hostage
        March 5, 2011, 10:30 am

        andrew r,

        Khalidi was writing about events that only transpired after the Ottoman revolution of 1908, not before the turn of the century. It goes without saying that the CUP government violated traditional property rights. The Zionists practice of expropriating “Abandoned property” was modeled on the Turkish practice (Emval-i-Metroukeh) that the Allies condemned and prohibited in Article 144 of the Treaty of Sèvres link to wwi.lib.byu.edu

        Khalidi mentioned the customary grazing and tenure rights on pages 98-99, and said

        when the land concerned had formerly been sparsely populated or uncultivated (though even in such cases, it may have been the subject of customary grazing rights which the inhabitants were unwilling to surrender). But most of the land purchased after the turn of the twentieth century, was fertile and therefore inhabited, and fellahin with long-standing traditional rights of tenure frequently stood in the way of the close settlement of Jewish farmers on the land. The fellahin naturally considered the land to be theirs, and they would often discover that they had ceased to be the legal owners, and/ or that they no longer had rights of usufruct on the land, only when the land was sold by an absentee landlord to a Zionist settlement agency. The situation was particularly acute if the agency concerned did not require their services as hired laborers or tenant farmers, and intended to replace them with Jewish settlers, as was increasingly the case after the turn of the century. If the land were purchased or otherwise acquired by an Arab landlord, the result was much the same insofar as title was concerned, but very different in other respects, since both the old and the new Arab landlords needed the fellahin to cultivate their land.”

        Those traditional rights were internationally recognized in the The Anglo-French Accord of 1926 which stated

        “All the inhabitants, whether settled or semi-nomadic, of both territories who, at the date of the signature of this agreement enjoy grazing, watering or cultivation rights, or own land on the one or the other side of the frontier shall continue to exercise their rights as in the past.”

        Jewish immigration to Palestine was prohibited ipso jure in the 19th Century. US Consul Lew Wallace summarized the reply of the Sublime Porte to an inquiry on that point on behalf of some local Romanian Jewish committees:

        In conclusion, there is nothing to prevent all the Israelites on the earth from settling in Asiatic Turkey. They shall not settle in Palestine – that is the only prohibition.

        See United States Department of State / Index to the executive documents of the House of Representatives for the second session of the forty-seventh Congress, 1882-’83 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Consul Oscar Straus was advised of the instructions that had been sent to the valis or governors general of Syria and Palestine. The Foreign Minister told him:

        You can report to your Government: there is no intent to prevent American citizens, be they Jews or Christians, individually, as distinguished from en masse, to visit Syria or Palestine as travelers, or who come as visitors; the only object is to prevent the further colonization of Palestine by Jews, as the settlement there of religious bodies in preponderating numbers may lead to political complications, which it is the purpose of the Ottoman Government to avoid.

        See United States Department of State / Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, with the annual message of the president transmitted to Congress December 5, 1898, page 1093 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Even the agents of the Rothschilds had to make their land purchases in the names of local Jewish citizens of the Empire. So, there were few opportunities for Jewish colonists to displace Arab tenants prior to the revolution.

      • DBG
        March 6, 2011, 7:13 pm

        Dear fuster, please take ten minutes to read some Palestinian propaganda designed to blame every ill on in the world on Israel.

      • andrew r
        March 4, 2011, 2:26 pm

        Duuuh, Gaza was attacked all throughout the 2000′s. Come to that, Gaza was first invaded in 1956. Don’t forget Sharon’s pacification in 1971. And the first Intifada. To pinpoint when Israel stopped attacking Gaza and started again is rather tricky.

        Oh, didn’t even get to the ceasefire which Israel broke on 4 November.

      • andrew r
        March 4, 2011, 2:48 pm

        Obviously, operations in Gaza began prior to 1956.

        link to chss.montclair.edu

      • Chu
        March 4, 2011, 3:22 pm

        I wish that Baird could have indicated that the Palestinians have been pushed into a corner (Gaza) as the result of the state of Israel. They are the remnants of refugees from towns that Israel has expelled them from.
        Other that that, he brought a lot of points up that rarely are debated by house members.

    • Kathleen
      March 6, 2011, 1:02 pm

      Extremely disproportionate use of power and weapons. Go read the Goldstone Report,

      link to goldstonereport.org

      Amnesty International’s report
      link to amnesty.org

  25. annie
    March 4, 2011, 2:02 pm

    oh wow, i didn’t see this video on the top of the post earlier. has this been up a long time?

    thanks!

  26. straightline
    March 4, 2011, 2:07 pm

    Oh hophmi, your willful ignorance of the facts no matter how many times you’re told them is getting pretty tiresome.

    Here’s just one quote but there are many many more I can use.

    “The issue of Palestinian refugees resonated with me because I myself was a
    refugee. … We came to the U.S. in August 1944 as part of a token group of
    about 1,000 mostly Jewish refugees … In 1987, when I read Simha Flapan’s The
    Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, I was so shocked and disbelieving that
    it took me a second reading of his book to come to terms with what he wrote at
    the outset: that the 1948 war was as needless and unnecessary for the
    “security” of Israel as was the Israeli invasion of Lebanon of 1982. I learned
    that … the 1948 war was not defensive, but a war to gain more territory than
    the U.N. had allotted for the Jewish state and to “cleanse” the area of
    Palestinian Arabs. I learned that even before the May 15 invasion by Arab
    armies, Jewish forces had succeeded in expelling some 300,000 Palestinians
    from their homes, but another 400,000 Palestinians remained in areas that the
    Jews coveted. Since the Jewish population of Palestine in 1948 was only about
    600,000, the Ben-Gurion leadership required war in order to rid the new Jewish
    state of most of its Arab population.” (Ronald Bleier, November 1992)

    • mig
      March 4, 2011, 6:03 pm

      “I learned that even before the May 15 invasion by Arab
      armies”

      ++++ Arab army intervention was good thing. Without it, maybe all arab population would been cleansed from Israel & palestine. All data points to that direction.

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 7:04 pm

        no, mig, “Arab army intervention was good thing,” no not a good think.

        “Without it, maybe all arab population would been cleansed from Israel & palestine. All data points to that direction.”

        all data not at all say that. is bs.

      • Hostage
        March 4, 2011, 10:15 pm

        Fuster,

        Prior to May 15th internal US State Department memos authored by Under Secretary of State for UN Affairs Dean Rusk and the U.S. Consul General Wasson reported on Israeli militia massacres and predicted that the Arab armies would enter Palestine. They said that the UN would be confronted by a very anomalous and intolerable situation:

        “The Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership. The question which will confront the Security Council in scarcely ten days’ time will be whether Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council. The situation may be made more difficult and less clear-cut if, as is probable, Arab armies from outside Palestine cross the frontier to aid their disorganized and demoralized brethren who will be the objects of Jewish attack. In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside Palestine which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.

        Those declassified memos were published in the Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa , Volume V, Part 2, page 848 and were cited in “The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951″, William Roger Louis, Oxford University Press, 1984, ISBN: 0198229607, page 545; Zionism and the Palestinians, Simha Flapan, Croom Helm, 1979, ISBN: 0856644994, Page 336; and Fallen pillars: U.S. policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945, Donald Neff, 2nd Edition, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1995, ISBN: 0887282598, page 65.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 10:20 pm

        wow,i never heard of those before hostage. re the jewish massacres of palestinians:

        In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside Palestine which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.

      • Potsherd2
        March 4, 2011, 10:30 pm

        fusty won’t read those, they were printed too long ago

      • fuster
        March 4, 2011, 10:34 pm

        Hostage, interesting memo, if you have a link leading to the entire thing, I would be appreciative if you would supply it.

        I’m quite a fan of the US Dept of State and would like to read all about what they were predicting, in that memo, would happen.

        By the time of the invasion the Palestinian’s had already lost their initial offensive and the initiative was with the Israelis.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 10:57 pm

        fussy

        Those declassified memos were published in the Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa , Volume V, Part 2, page 848 and were cited in “The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951″, William Roger Louis, Oxford University Press, 1984, ISBN: 0198229607, page 545; Zionism and the Palestinians, Simha Flapan, Croom Helm, 1979, ISBN: 0856644994, Page 336; and Fallen pillars: U.S. policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945, Donald Neff, 2nd Edition, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1995, ISBN: 0887282598, page 65.

        google is your friend. i found one of the books in 30 seconds. tag, you’re it.

      • annie
        March 4, 2011, 11:01 pm

        Palestinian’s had already lost their initial offensive

        please provide a source for what you allege as the palestinian ‘initial offensive’.

      • Hostage
        March 5, 2011, 12:07 am

        Yes Annie, Simha Flapan and many others have explained that it was a myth that the Arabs rejected partition and prepared for war. Future Secretary of State Dean Rusk was writing about the Israeli policy of blaming the victims long before Christopher Hitchens and Edward Said published their book by that title. The representatives of the Jewish Agency blamed the neighboring Arab states, even though the members of the Security Council knew all about Plan Dalet and the ethnic cleansing operations by then. In fact, the Agency admitted that the majority of the Palestinian Arabs were willing to cooperate or acquiesce in the peaceful implementation of a partition of the country. See for example the Minutes of the 271st Meeting of the Security Council. link to un.org That was before the habarists started claiming that Palestinians never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

        In 1943, the US Minister in Cairo advised the Secretary of State that

        I have noted in discussions with Zionist spokesmen visiting Cairo recently a marked hardening in their attitude (possibly owing in part to increased confidence resulting from alleged large-scale clandestine arming by Jews in Palestine) which in several cases has taken the form of frankly admitting that it is idle to continue to talk of “negotiations” with Arabs, in balance it is obvious that any solution satisfactory to the Zionists would have to be “imposed” on the Arabs by threat or use of force and this latter is the only realistic line of action to adopt.”

        See Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, 1943. The Near East and Africa, Vol 4, page 75 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        By 1946 every Arab government, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, had expressed support for the principle of partition. Of course, they did not support ethnic cleansing, transfer, or a lopsided division of the territory in favor of the Jewish Agency. See for example Joseph Heller, “The birth of Israel”, 1945-1949: Ben-Gurion and his critics, page 83 link to books.google.com

        Prior to the implementation of Plan Dalet and the massacre at Deir Yassin, the US Minister in Saudi Arabia advised Secretary Marshall that the Saudi’s and Abdullah of Transjordan had warned the other members of the Arab League (in March of 1948) that the partition was a civil matter and that the Arab states shouldn’t take any action that the Security Council might interpret as aggression. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Ian Bickerton’s “A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict” says that few Palestinians joined the Arab Liberation Army because they suspected that the other Arab States did not plan to interfere or assist in the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. According to Bickerton, for that reason many Palestinians favored partition and indicated a willingness to live alongside a Jewish state (see page 88, 4th Edition).

        On the day after the partition plan was adopted, the Palestine Post ran a front page article saying that the influential Cairo newspaper, Al Mokkatam, had published an editorial supporting the partition of Palestine. The editorial said

        “We stand for Partition because we believe it is the best final solution for Palestine. If rejection of Partition would have solved the problem we would have welcomed it, but in fact it will lead to further complications that will give the Zionists another space of time to complete their plans of defense and attack.”

        See page 1 of the Palestine Post, 30 November 1947 link to jpress.org.il

        The British High Commissioner, General Sir Alan Cunningham, noted in his reports that by late April 1948 the Jewish attacks had led to a crisis with ominous and intolerable implications for the British:

        “Recent Jewish military successes (if indeed operations based on the mortaring of terrified women and children can be classed as such) have aroused extravagant reactions in the Jewish press. . . .Jewish broadcasts, both in content and in manner of delivery, are remarkably like those of Nazi Germany. . . .on the roads, Hagana armoured cars are increasingly impudent and intrusive. . . . The Arabs of the large towns, who have borne the brunt of recent Jewish offensive action are . . . bitter against the British. . . .They must pin the blame on someone, and who [are] more deserving than the British?

        See Theory and practice in the history of European expansion overseas, By Robinson, et.al, Routledge, 1988, ISBN 0714633461, page 144 link to books.google.com

      • Citizen
        March 5, 2011, 5:21 am

        Fuster, why keep making grandiose flat statements sans any support at all? “all data,” and “bs?”
        fuster=bluster

      • thankgodimatheist
        March 5, 2011, 7:22 am

        “no, mig, “Arab army intervention was good thing,” no not a good think.”

        “all data not at all say that. is bs.”

        Not only a textbook hasbararat! Also a vulgar one at that!

      • bijou
        March 5, 2011, 10:12 am

        Too dusty for fusty…

      • Potsherd2
        March 5, 2011, 10:22 am

        fusty refuses to read all this old out-of-print bs

      • Donald
        March 5, 2011, 12:11 pm

        I just wanted to say this was one of the most informative threads ever. Some of the comments here deserve front page status.

      • annie
        March 5, 2011, 12:49 pm

        i agree donald, it’s a real treasure trove. extra late night entries make it a thread worth bookmarking for future reference.

      • annie
        March 5, 2011, 1:28 pm

        hostage, it’s going to take awhile to peek thru all these links. the first one in your 12:07 comment (link to un.org/pdf) page 3-4 Mahmoud Fawzi Bey (egypt)

        we should all deem it only fair and proper to accept the report from the Mandatory Power. We should. for example, have a look at part 7 of the report of the United Nations’ Palestine Commision [document S/663], in which the representative of the United Kingdom is quoted as stating ……” the Jewish story that the Arabs are the attackers and the Jews the attacked is not tenable”

        The issue before us is far too serious to be taken lightly as some might seem to suggest. It is an issue of fundamental human rights and of the very essence’ of our liberties and of our law, the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter confirms the right of peoples to self defence. It also confirms the right to self determination. There is no place in the charter for invasion

        it doesn’t sound like much has changed w/the UN! and this is in march 48. he goes on to ask what their (jewish agency) intent is “that neither their persons’ nor their land should belong to a Jewish State?”……and he asks “Will they be required to sit supinely by and look on while this is being imposed by force?”

        The Arabs are wholeheartedly dedicated to order. If the Security Council is seeking to maintain order-and indeed it is order which the Security Council seeks to maintain-the Arabs are completely in accord with that desire.

        .. Answer 4 : Both Arabs and Jews in Palestine are now receiving illicit consignments of arms from outside sources. While the Palestine Government has no exact knowledge of the quantity and description of arms possessed by either side, it is its opinion that the Jews are better armed than the Àrabs. In this connexion it will be recalled that there have recently been instances of the seizure in the United States by United States authorities of large consignments of high explosives destined for Jewish organizations in Palestine.

        it is a treasure trove.

      • Taxi
        March 5, 2011, 3:13 pm

        I agree with Donald – with Hostage’s input coming fast to mind.

  27. mjordan
    March 4, 2011, 2:17 pm

    wait a second, you can’t claim to be a liberal but reject liberal values i.e. rule of law, international law.

    it’s like claiming to be a vegatarian and ordering a big beef burrito every day. does anyone know where to find audio of the debate?

  28. Cheryl
    March 4, 2011, 2:23 pm

    Weiner states that Israel was at war and so justifies the bombings and use of phosphorus, albeit horrific but necessary. I do not recall him addressing Baird’s statement that major destruction occurred after an area was secured. Did Israel declare war on Gaza or on Hamas or is this no longer necesary with the war on terror?

  29. Caner Dagli
    March 4, 2011, 2:25 pm

    Weiner is a seeming contradiction. It’s hard for me to square his performance with the fact that he’s married to a Muslim woman who is, I believe, half Arab. Unless it’s just pure pander.

    • Citizen
      March 4, 2011, 3:18 pm

      According to wiki (source: The Observer): Abedin was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Her father was of Indian descent and was a Middle Eastern scholar who died when she was 17 years old, and her Pakistani born mother is a professor in Saudi Arabia.[1] At the age of two, her family relocated to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Abedin returned to the United States to attend George Washington University.
      Huma Abedin began working as an intern for the White House in 1996 and landed an assignment with the First Lady. She currently works for Clinton at the State Department.[4]

      • bijou
        March 5, 2011, 10:13 am

        OMG he’s married to Huma Abedin???? How is it possible then that he could be so blatantly ignorant of basic facts?

      • bijou
        March 5, 2011, 10:21 am

        Wow, it’s for reals: Here is the wedding story… Check out Clinton’s commentary…

        Assimilation!
        Assimilation!
        Assimilation!

        ::snark::

        Makes his whole shtick in defense of Israel even weirder…. he’s doing all that while living in Queens marrying a Muslim… but more to the point, I would have hoped that she would have educated him better than this. It makes this even MORE incomprehensible….

      • iamuglow
        March 5, 2011, 10:57 am

        I dont buy that Weiner is ignorant of the facts. He’s knows all the facts that most people on this site know about I/P. Yet his commitment to Zionism overides all of that…and he will edit, ignore or twist reality is to support that. Somewhere below the surface he’s knows he’s conning people. He’s okay with that. Its not about right or wrong. Its about supporting Israel, right or wrong.

  30. lareineblanche
    March 4, 2011, 2:39 pm

    Weiner’s arguments can’t really be considered arguments, he mostly bends the facts.
    This guy’s a “progressive”? I guess I should try to get to know the US congress members better, but something tells me I wouldn’t benefit much from that.

    So ringing people up on the phone to tell them they’ll be bombed is not a problem… got it! And he keeps calling the “Goldstone” report “biased”… And his discussion on “intent” is not born out by the facts. All wrong. He may be a respected member of Congress, but on this issue I can say with confidence that he is just another hack.

    The guy seems to know little about international law, also (or he’s just playing dumb). It is not true that Israel did not have any other option but to invade Gaza.

    There are, of course, distinctive aspects that made German crimes so appalling (from gas chambers to systematic human experimentation), but Jackson repeatedly emphasized that it was one particular common crime — aggressive war — that was at the heart of what Nuremberg was meant to prevent. From Jackson’s Summation to the tribunal:

    The central crime in this pattern of crimes, the kingpin which holds them all together, is the plot for aggressive wars. The chief reason for international cognizance of these crimes lies in this fact.

    And in his Opening Statement, Jackson announced the core purpose of the Trials: “this inquest represents the practical effort of four of the most mighty of nations, with the support of 17 more, to utilize international law to meet the greatest menace of our times: aggressive war.” “Aggressive war” wasn’t just some vague rhetorical slogan. To the contrary, Jackson explained that “the issue is one of no novelty and is one on which legal opinion has well crystalized,” and then defined it with great specificity:

    [A]n “aggressor” is generally held to be that state which is the first to commit any of the following actions:

    (1) Declaration of war upon another state; (2) Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another state; (3) Attack by its land, naval, or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another state; and (4) Provision of support to armed bands formed in the territory of another state, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded state, to take in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.

    And I further suggest that it is the general view that no political military, economic, or other considerations shall serve as an excuse or justification for such actions; but exercise of the right of legitimate self-defense, that is to say, resistance to an act of aggression, or action to assist a state which has been subjected to aggression, shall not constitute a war of aggression.

    link to salon.com

  31. piotr
    March 4, 2011, 2:59 pm

    hophmi: “the UN’s belated and historically ridiculous statement that the acquisition of land by war is inadmissible is nonsense.”

    This is highly original claim. hophmi longs for the good old times when the life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”, everybody could make a war on everybody else and the fit who were surviving were fit indeed.

    One can point out that there is a number of situations, surprisingly small! when disputed territories are kept in the aftermath of an armed conflict that post-dates the creation of UN. I see only one exception to the following rule: the power that insists on keeping a territory extends full rights of its citizens to inhabitants who remain in that territory. And the exception is Israel.

    And whether this exception is named “apartheid” or not, it remains uniquely ugly. Eventually, there will be a critical mass of states that are unhappy with that ugly exception and something will be done about it. Either Israel can exists as a normal state, or it will not survive.

  32. lareineblanche
    March 4, 2011, 3:02 pm

    Boy, I can’t get over it, this guy’s just a clown (Weiner). He has no idea what he’s talking about.
    Apparently, wherever settlements are built, that’s where Israel is, period.

  33. Cheryl
    March 4, 2011, 4:00 pm

    Brian Baird spoke with credibility because he had actually been to both Sderot and Gaza. Anthony Weiner struggled with wanting to have “balance”
    yet had never been to Gaza nor had he requested information from Representative Baird after Baird’s trips to Gaza.
    Additionally, Representative Weiner’s derogatory demeanor toward Roger Cohen left me with great respect for Baird’s demeanor.
    And what, Ambassador Cunningham did not solicit first hand knowledge of the effect of Operation Castlead on Gazans because he was afraid the Israeli’s would say “no”? And, this is the person who oversees the Leahy provision on human rights violations? Wow.

  34. seafoid
    March 4, 2011, 4:09 pm

    Baird says he and Wiener were teammates . Who says there is no class system in the US?

  35. Shingo
    March 4, 2011, 5:24 pm

    I’m justwatching the debate and at 00:16:00, Weiner tries to justify the use pf white phosphorous as possibly intended to jam amas heat seeking rockets. Has anyone ever even tried to suggest such an insane argument? Has Hamas EVER used a heat seeking rocket?

  36. mig
    March 4, 2011, 5:47 pm

    They dont have those. Heat seeking things are used against aircraft.

    • Avi
      March 5, 2011, 8:36 am

      Indeed.

      Heat-seeking rockets/missiles are used against aircraft as the hot exhaust from the engines makes homing in on them a physical possibility.

      To claim that Hamas have heat-seeking rockets is false. Besides, if they did, they would have attempted to shoot down Israeli helicopters that dropped bombs on Gaza during the 2008/09 massacre.

  37. ToivoS
    March 4, 2011, 5:53 pm

    While Annie is wiping up the floor with Hop and the frog I will return to topic. Weiner’s statement caused me to hesitate for a couple of hours. What does it mean that he believes the boundaries of Israel extend from the Jordan River to the sea? Are the Zionists now finally coming entirely out of the closet and letting us goyim know that the two state peace process was in fact a charade all along to hide their real intention to colonize the WB.

    After reading the failure of Camp David in 1999 and the role of Denis Ross and Michael Indyk in the peace process, I began to entertain the possibility that the Zionists forces were just playing us and their real intentions were hidden.

    However, to take this idea further required entertaining the idea there was a conscious Jewish conspiracy to steal WB land that was covered up with massive lying and deception. But no, we can’t go there can we for that is antisemitism.

    So the question remains — what is going on inside Weiner’s head.

  38. mig
    March 4, 2011, 6:37 pm

    ToivoS : “Are the Zionists now finally coming entirely out of the closet and letting us goyim know that the two state peace process was in fact a charade all along to hide their real intention to colonize the WB.”

    ++++ Yes it is. Dont know about that closet thing, they have been quite straight about this.

    “After reading the failure of Camp David in 1999 and the role of Denis Ross and Michael Indyk in the peace process, I began to entertain the possibility that the Zionists forces were just playing us and their real intentions were hidden.”

    ++++ They are doing that in open.

    “However, to take this idea further required entertaining the idea there was a conscious Jewish conspiracy to steal WB land that was covered up with massive lying and deception. But no, we can’t go there can we for that is antisemitism.”

    ++++ I have called it as realism. Because that happens as we write this.

  39. Potsherd2
    March 4, 2011, 7:48 pm

    Toivo – there are some excellent questions here that didn’t seem to get asked.

    Say that Israel is the entire country from the river to the sea. OK, then why aren’t all the people living in Israel citizens of the state? Why doesn’t Israeli law apply in the entire country? Why is part of Israel under military occupation? Why are there two sets of laws applying to different populations? Why are there different standards of due process? Different rights?

    The fact is, that most of the practices of the Civil Administration, Border Police and IDF would be illegal if carried out in Israel proper. And the fact also is, that if the West Bank is part of Israel, Israel is an apartheid state.

    Not to mention that there exists the pitiful and corrupt object known as the PA. What is it doing in Israel, when Israel forbids the PA to exercise any sort of authority at all within what it claims as Israel.

  40. DICKERSON3870
    March 4, 2011, 8:41 pm

    RE: “to hell with the UN resolutions establishing the state of Israel and its borders, and even to hell with the Israeli juridical position that the land is disputed territory. Does this mean that Israel no longer claims its legitimacy from the 1947 UN partition resolution? Mondo bizarro.” – Weiss

    MY COMMENT: Speaking of “mondo bizarro”, I’ve got to run now; the Joy Division’s here…

    I’ve been waiting for a guide to come and take me by the hand,
    Could these sensations make me feel the pleasures of a normal man?
    These sensations barely interest me for another day,
    I’ve got the spirit, lose the feeling, take the shock away.

    It’s getting faster, moving faster now, it’s getting out of hand,
    On the tenth floor, down the back stairs, it’s a no man’s land,
    Lights are flashing, cars are crashing, getting frequent now,
    I’ve got the spirit, lose the feeling, let it out somehow…

    Joy Division, Disorder (VIDEO, 03:40) – link to youtube.com

  41. RoHa
    March 4, 2011, 8:51 pm

    “I didn’t realize that it was the common currency of a “proud Zionist” as Weiner described himself.”

    I thought it was obvious. Again, I refer to Ben Gurion. In 1938 Ben-Gurion said to other Zionists, “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.”

    • straightline
      March 4, 2011, 10:26 pm

      And to continue the theme:

      “We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his
      question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion
      waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘Drive them out!’” Yitzhak Rabin,
      leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23
      October 1979.

      But of course, Hamas just fired their rockets without any reason – right?

  42. RoHa
    March 4, 2011, 9:45 pm

    “brain-washing Congressmen”

    Have Congressmen…

    Naaah. Too easy.

  43. hughsansom
    March 4, 2011, 9:57 pm

    What can we conclude from Anthony Weiner’s comments? The one unambiguous point is that he is violently, viciously pro-Israel. But

    Whether he is monstrously ignorant or maliciously deceptive is harder to say. It is clear that many members of Congress (like John Boehner or James Inhofe) are deeply, deeply stupid people — profoundly lacking in even an average level of native intellectual capacity. There is some reason to believe that Weiner is better than this. But who can say? Maybe the determination to hold dear to one racist tenet (say, a claimed inherent superiority of one ethnic group) is sufficient to obliterate large sections of brain matter.

    Philip Weiss is surely right. Weiner knows there is no real downside to obscene comments like his. No major media outlet will report it (certainly not the Times), few in New York will change their vote on account of such comments (in no small measure because of the systematic deception on the part of media, politicians and ‘experts’), and his idolaters will nod their heads in assent.

  44. The Hasbara Buster
    March 4, 2011, 11:22 pm

    Weiner said it was OK to destroy anything in a war, and pointed out that Israel had dropped leaflets on civilian residences announcing impending bombardment so the civilians could get out, as evidence if Israeli morality. I do not remember any discussion of whether or not there was anywhere for such civilians to go which would be safe from bombardment, shooting, etc.

    The answer is that prior to the Goldstone report Israel did not even care whether the fleeing population had any safe escape route. Only after the report was issued did the country organize its first-ever training course for a new military post aimed at minimizing harm to civilians. Among other curious statements, the course instructor declared: “We are adding the humanitarian side, like which road needs to be kept open so civilians can evacuate if needed.” See here. I.e., the fact that leaflets were dropped in Gaza doesn’t mean that civilians were allowed to safely evacuate — only that they were warned that they would be bombed.

    • Potsherd2
      March 5, 2011, 10:24 am

      In Lebanon, Israel dropped leaflets warning the residents to evacuate, then strafed the roads when they attempted to do so.

  45. annie
    March 5, 2011, 2:59 am

    the fact that leaflets were dropped in Gaza doesn’t mean that civilians were allowed to safely evacuate

    the leaflets and ‘warnings’ were not for the protection of gazans. Eyal Weizman explains in Lawfare in Gaza: legislative attack the purpose of the warnings under the section titled “The technologies of warning”

    The Israeli military has since the Lebanon war become ever more careful about exposure to international legal action. The results include the search for ways to implement the strategy of large-scale destruction that can be seen to accord with the principles of international humanitarian law. For example, the military’s “international law division” and its operational branch have devised tactics that allow its soldiers in the field to apply what are being called “technologies of warning”.

    …….

    An officer at the international-law division explained to Yotam Feldman the logic of these warnings: “The people who go into a house despite a warning do not have to be taken into account in terms of injury to civilians, because they are voluntary human shields. From the legal point of view, [once warned] I do not have to show consideration for them. In the case of people who return to their home in order to protect it, they are taking part in the fighting.” By giving residents the choice between death and expulsion, this military interpretation of international humanitarian law shifted people between legal designations – one phone-call turns “non-combatants” into “human shields”, who can thus be defined as “taking direct part in hostilities” and shot as “legitimate targets”.

    The Israeli military’s ability to warn people in Gaza about the impending destruction of their homes has also allowed it to define most buildings in Gaza as legitimate targets. The purported military ability to warn and perform “controlled” and “discriminate” destruction might even have created more devastation than do “traditional” strategies, in part because the manipulative and euphoric rhetoric used to promulgate them induce officers and politicians to authorise their frequent and extended use. In this case, the “technologies of (mass) warning” contribute both to the proliferation and the retrospective justification of mass destruction.

    • justicewillprevail
      March 5, 2011, 6:06 am

      Thanks for that astonishing quote, Annie. Even if you get used to the colossal indifference to human life that the IDF and their cheerleaders epitomise, there is something beyond belief and reason in the callous disregard for people who offer no threat whatsoever to the crushing force of a military juggernaut. It is twisted beyond words to make the pretence of ‘warning’ people in order to claim that it is therefore ‘legal’ to destroy them. One of the traits of fascism was its use of bureaucracy to create categories and distinctions where non existed, in order to discriminate and deny basic rights, to separate and punish groups who were defined as ‘other’, outsiders, threats to the state etc. By virtue of the definitions foisted upon them, with no recourse for them, they were subject to punitive sanctions simply for being who they were defined as by the state. This officer is so proud of his Kafaesque reasoning, so eager to show how they can square humanitarian demands with the destruction of families in their houses, as if the two acts were mutual. It betrays the effects of an ideology so internalised, a militarised outlook that has evacuated any sense of common humanity, which is quite chilling. Thank god for the brave people of Breaking the Silence who prove that some Israelis can’t stomach the fascism either.

  46. Citizen
    March 5, 2011, 5:29 am

    Weiner acted and said would he did because he is not use to being outside the DC & jewish ghetto–the bubble when it comes to all things Israel. For the same reason Uncle Sam was taken by surprize by the Arab populist revolt.

  47. RepStones
    March 5, 2011, 5:42 pm

    Can anyone explain this idea that because a country is a ‘democracy’ it is supposed to get a free pass for oppression and destruction against people who are non-citizens???

  48. eljay
    March 5, 2011, 6:30 pm

    >> Can anyone explain this idea that because a country is a ‘democracy’ it is supposed to get a free pass for oppression and destruction against people who are non-citizens???

    It’s quite simple, really. Israel is “a good in the world” and “a beacon unto the nations”. Self-(self-)determination, Native Americans, San Remo, blue dot in a sea of green, ethnic cleansing is “currently not necessary”, the “Chosen People”, make “better wheels” and, last but never least, “Remember the Holocaust!”

    Any more questions? :-)

    • MHughes976
      March 6, 2011, 5:49 pm

      The plain truth that democracies don’t have the right of which RepS speaks has been noted for a long time, at least since Thucydides’ account of the crimes that sometimes disfigured the Athenian democracy.
      Few of us would accept the statement ‘I have decided to do it, therefore I have a right to do it’. And the statement ‘We have voted to do it, therefore we have a right to do it’ is no more plausible.

  49. Kathleen
    March 6, 2011, 1:08 pm

    Wiener’s voting record
    link to govtrack.us

    and let’s not forget that Anthony Wiener has been pushing for clemency for the Israeli spy Jonathon Pollard who seriously undermined U.S. National Security
    link to weiner.house.gov

    What the hell is up with Sheila Jackson Lee? She signed the letter

    11.18.10
    Weiner, Colleagues Urge Clemency For Jonathan Pollard

    Washington, DC – Today, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D – Queens and Brooklyn) and 39 of his colleagues announced they are sending a letter to President Obama urging him to pardon Jonathan Pollard, who received a disproportionately severe sentence when he was convicted of spying for Israel, one of the United States’ closest allies.

    “We write to urge you to use your constitutional power to extend clemency to Jonathan Pollard, thereby releasing him from prison after the time he has already served,” the letter reads. “We believe that there has been a great disparity from the standpoint of justice between the amount of time Mr. Pollard has served and the time that has been served – or not served at all – by many others who were found guilty of similar activity on behalf of nations that, like Israel, are not adversarial to us.”

    In 1985, Pollard was charged with passing classified information to the Israeli government. He cooperated with investigators, admitted his wrongdoing, and was sentenced to life in prison. No one who has ever pleaded guilty to a similar crime – one count of spying for an ally – has ever been sentenced to a life term. He has now served more than 25 years in federal prison.

    Weiner has been a longtime advocate for awarding Pollard clemency. In 2005, he urged Attorney General Gonzalez to release crucial information in the Jonathan Pollard case to Pollard’s attorneys.

    During the sentencing phase of Pollard’s trial, the government submitted a memo to the court which was later referenced by the judge as justification for his stiff sentence. Despite the fact that they the necessary security clearance, the government has never allowed Pollard’s lawyers to review the memo. This has severely hamstrung Pollard’s attorneys’ efforts to win him clemency.

    The letter concludes with Weiner and his colleagues writing that “we see clemency for Mr. Pollard as an act of compassion justified by the way others have been treated by our justice system; as an act that will do nothing whatsoever to lessen our defenses against espionage; and a step that far from hurting the national security, could advance it by the impact it would have within Israel. We urge you to use the clemency power in this case.”

    See the Full Letter:

    November 18, 2010

    President Barack Obama
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington, D.C. 20500

    Dear Mr. President,

    We write to urge you to use your constitutional power to extend clemency to Jonathan Pollard, thereby releasing him from prison after the time he has already served. Mr. Pollard committed serious crimes and he has expressed remorse. Such an exercise of the clemency power would not in any way imply doubt about his guilt, nor cast any aspersions on the process by which he was convicted. Those who have such views are of course entitled to continue to have them, but the clemency grant has nothing to do with that.

    We believe that there has been a great disparity from the standpoint of justice between the amount of time Mr. Pollard has served and the time that has been served – or not served at all – by many others who were found guilty of similar activity on behalf of nations that, like Israel, are not adversarial to us. It is indisputable in our view that the nearly twenty-five years that Mr. Pollard has served stands as a sufficient time from the standpoint of either punishment or deterrence.

    In summary, we see clemency for Mr. Pollard as an act of compassion justified by the way others have been treated by our justice system. We urge you to use the clemency power in this case.

    Sincerely,

    Barney Frank

    Bill Pascrell, Jr.

    Member of Congress

    Member of Congress

    Edolphus Towns

    Anthony Weiner

    Member of Congress

    Member of Congress

    Henry A. Waxman

    Gary L. Ackerman

    Member of Congress

    Member of Congress

    Gregory W. Meeks

    Maurice D. Hinchey

    Member of Congress

    Member of Congress

    Michael E. McMahon

    Janice D. Schakowsky

    Member of Congress

    Member of Congress

    John W. Olver

    Eliot L. Engel

    Member of Congress

    Member of Congress

    Theodore E. Deutsch

    Robert A. Brady

    Member of Congress

    Member of Congress

    Donald M. Payne

    Shelley Berkley

    Member of Congress

    Member of Congress

    Jerrold Nadler

    Carolyn B. Maloney

    Member of Congress

    Member of Congress

    John Lewis

    Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Member of Congress

    Member of Congress

    Charles B. Rangel

    Robert C. “Bobby” Scott

    Member of Congress

    Member of Congress

    Laura Richardson

    James A. Himes

    Member of Congress

    Member of Congress

    Brad Sherman

    Patrick J. Kennedy

    Member of Congress

    Member of Congress

    Bennie G. Thompson

    John J. Hall

    Member of Congress

    Member of Congress

    Sheila Jackson Lee

    Eleanor Holmes Norton

    Member of Congress

    Member of Congress

    Robert E. Andrews

    Niki Tsongas

    Member of Congress

    Member of Congress

    Danny Davis

    Member of Congress

Leave a Reply