American Zionist org supports new limits on free speech in the ‘human rights loving democracy’

Israel/Palestine
on 107 Comments

In a reversal of an earlier statement seeming to oppose the Israeli law making it illegal to advocate for boycott, this statement by Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America says that the boycott movement is an existential threat to Israel, a human rights loving democracy, and so therefore American Zionists must maintain solidarity with the Jewish state… The whole Jewish state– i.e., the West Bank too:


A boycott against any part of the Jewish state of Israel, a human rights loving democracy, is wrong, immoral, despicable, and frequently anti-Semitic.

So the new battle line inside the Jewish community is, Boycott the settlements/Don’t boycott. I’m glad the line has moved. Not that I think it will make much difference.

107 Responses

  1. James
    July 18, 2011, 12:10 pm

    i thought the zionists were telling us the bds movement wasn’t a threat? woe to those zionists that a movement might be able to threaten them more then they regularly threaten palestinians with their religio-centric damaged brain cells…

    • seafoid
      July 18, 2011, 5:10 pm

      They are really scared of BDS. I was at a Palestine support group in London 10 years ago and we discussed a boycott because of what was happening even then and I remember a Jewish lady stood up and said it would not be possible because of Kristallnacht. That held off the pressure for a while but Israel just got worse and worse and now the settlers have even gone after the left in Israel.

      So BDS is the only thing that can bring Israel to its senses. And the treatment of those Jews under the Nazis won’t save Israel. They know they haven’t a leg to stand on.

      10 years ago Israel could have stopped the occuopation honourably but for the settlers it was always all or nothing. .

  2. Bumblebye
    July 18, 2011, 12:21 pm

    No. Morton Klein loves a Jewish Supremacist Expansionist Israel, and considers the Palestinian territories obsolete, the Palestinian people a pestilential nuisance by existing, and what to do about their continued existence in his Israel the next problem on the list to be dealt with.

  3. Dan Crowther
    July 18, 2011, 12:25 pm

    So, for those of you scoring at home: BDS is anti semitic.
    Military Occupation, Ethnic Cleansing and a Ethnocratic Government are Pro-semitic, apparently.

    • Ellen
      July 18, 2011, 1:33 pm

      The expression “anti Semitic” is troublesome on many levels.

      Might be best to use real language instead of late 19th century race-based and politicized mis-nomers. Anti – Semitic = Against Semitic peoples.

      Let’s just stop the expression anti-Semite and say instead what we mean: Anti Jewish to mean those who suffer Judenphobia and everything related.

      Not all Jews are Semites and Not all Israeli’s are Jews.

      So do we mean?

      So, for those of you scoring at home: BDS is anti Israeli
      Military Occupation, Ethnic Cleansing and a Ethnocratic Government are Pro Jewish, apparently.

      • Dan Crowther
        July 18, 2011, 4:17 pm

        my point was to point out the ridiculousness of the charge.

        so yea, BDS – anti jewish. according to klein, the other things i mentioned are pro jewish, or are of benefit to the “jewish people.” which is ridiculous

        if your troubled by my use of anti-semitic, i can see where this is going – ill be frank, i dont give a …….. i was qouting from the article. if your troubled by kleins use of anti semitic, i agree.

      • Ellen
        July 18, 2011, 5:38 pm

        Dan, it is not personal. Not troubled by your used of the over used and now meaningless misnomer “Anti Semitic.”

        Am troubled by how that term came about and how it is used in language. I would never say Anti Semitic to mean Anti Jewish or Jew-phobia or anything like that.

        Why? It abstracts those conditions of the mind, making them something else, something removed, giving it a different meaning — just as in all language of propaganda and manipulation.

        And besides, a Semite does not mean Jewish. Has about as much to do with modern Judaism as Semitism has to do with most of modern Christianity.

  4. HRK
    July 18, 2011, 12:36 pm

    Boycotting illegal? There’s not even any threatening speech, no imminent danger. Just a boycott! How can this be possible in the 21st century?

    • MRW
      July 18, 2011, 2:56 pm

      Dual loyalty.

      • hophmi
        July 19, 2011, 10:50 am

        I agree; boycotting Israel is a great way to show your loyalty to the Arab countries.

      • James
        July 19, 2011, 11:16 am

        it’s a good way to vote against israels present approach to resolving conflict… that part the folks in power in israel doesn’t seem to understand..

  5. bijou
    July 18, 2011, 12:41 pm

    “a human rights loving democracy”

    You can’t make this stuff up. Vile.

    I suppose it was once true wrt to human rights for Jews, although I think that era is rapidly ending as we speak. Viz this recent story:

    Lieberman: Israeli Human Rights organizations are terrorist organizations

    And also, I wonder if this is ‘legalese’ evasion… one could certainly say that one “loves” the law, but that doesn’t mean one respects it or lives by it…

  6. seafoid
    July 18, 2011, 12:42 pm

    And so they tie themselves to fascism, hoping to protect Israel but fatally undermining both Israel and their own organisations. When it is all or nothing in the service of the dark side , the devil eventually comes calling for payment .

    And antisemitism- Mort is the boy crying wolf.

  7. seafoid
    July 18, 2011, 12:46 pm

    Look at this filth from the settlers.
    What a monster Israeli indulgence has spawned

    link to haaretz.com

    “Israeli democracy, by means of its elected legislators, has passed a decision by a large majority that forbids treating the heroic inhabitants of Judea and Samaria as though they were cottage cheese. As usual, when a rightist-nationalist law is passed, the left wakes up, moans and waves the flag of democracy.
    The Labor Party, for example, is convening an emergency discussion of the topic: “The threat to democracy on the part of the extreme right and other elements.” However, this law did not just barely pass by a single vote and it is not a matter of a rightist minority. This time is was a majority of the people’s representatives. This law is allowable, worthy and constitutional
    The part of the nation that is gladly prepared to accept that we are a human shield between us and the Arabs, the part which benefits from the taxes we pay, the part which accepts the blood of our wonderful sons that is spilled in the defense of its pubs and cafes – this selfsame public is not allowed, morally, to boycott our fruit. ”

    I simply cannot imagine the white people of the US voting to deny human rights to Latinos. They would have a majority to do so but I simply cannot see it.

    • Haytham
      July 18, 2011, 6:28 pm

      I simply cannot imagine the white people of the US voting to deny human rights to Latinos. They would have a majority to do so but I simply cannot see it.

      Yes, but the US is still a liberal democracy and the denial of human rights to Latinos (I think you meant civil rights, but I digress) would be completely unconstitutional. Discrimination by race/religion is systemic in Israel so I think you would have to be insane to argue that Israel is a liberal democracy.

      The US and Israel are not the same. Becoming more similar to each other, yes, but not the same. Besides, the US has been down this road before and most of the population is ashamed of that and would absolutely not welcome a return to those dark days. Israel appears to still be towards the beginning of this dark road and things are going to get much worse before they get better.

  8. lysias
    July 18, 2011, 12:51 pm

    So the ZOA considers the West Bank — or at least the settlements in it — to be a “part of the Jewish state of Israel”.

    • Ellen
      July 18, 2011, 1:35 pm

      Yes.

    • seafoid
      July 18, 2011, 5:11 pm

      I think that is fantastic. This is also Israel’s position. The Palestinians need to declare this to the world in September.
      Give Oslo a decent burial.

  9. Taxi
    July 18, 2011, 1:09 pm

    “… frequently anti-Semitic”.

    You can tell they’re employing the word ‘frequently’ here with bitter restraint – they really wanna call ANY AND ALL criticism of israel as anti-semitic, except nowadays they know that won’t wash no more.

    I don’t know ’bout you folks out there but this is all further indication of the ACTUAL DOWNFALL of zionism, both in israel and over here. So much zionist desperation daily in so many articles here and elsewhere – explains why I’m having the best summer ever!

  10. eljay
    July 18, 2011, 1:09 pm

    >> Morton Klein: A boycott against any part of the Jewish state of Israel, a human rights loving democracy, is wrong, immoral, despicable, and frequently anti-Semitic.

    Hey, Morty. Israel’s past ethnic cleansing of Palestinians; its ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder; and its unwillingness to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace are also wrong, immoral, despicable and unjust.

    Or are you one of those guys who thinks the victim should lie perfectly still until the rapist has achieved “enough rape”, after which the two parties can discuss “peace, not ‘justice'”?

    • Haytham
      July 18, 2011, 6:37 pm

      Or are you one of those guys who thinks the victim should lie perfectly still until the rapist has achieved “enough rape”, after which the two parties can discuss “peace, not ‘justice’”?

      Unfortunately, your analogy is imperfect. Human beings rape other human beings, generally speaking.

      A Zionist (and in fact Zionist ideology itself) does not see the Palestinians as human beings; therefore, it is not rape but maybe more akin to either (1) what factory farms do with pigs and chickens; or (2) what farmers do with unwelcome vermin that invade their land and eat their crops.

      Even someone “civilized” like Richard Witty, if given the opportunity to press a magic button and instantly create [another] mass Palestinian exodus, would hold his nose and do so without looking back. Some Zionists wouldn’t have to hold their nose at all but instead would be selling tickets to the event.

  11. Fredblogs
    July 18, 2011, 1:45 pm

    I think this law is a vast overreaction to at most a minor threat.

    I can see why they consider it a threat though. Since at least the Palestinian originators of the BDS movement intend it to continue unless Israel gives them the Right of Return. Which would mean the end of Israel as a haven for Jews and its replacement with another majority Arab country. In general, Jews have not done well in majority Arab countries in the last century or so. So even if you disagree with them, you should understand why they are afraid of it.

    So from their point of view, the message of BDS is “boycott Israel until it is destroyed”.

    Some of them see the idea of letting people in Israel call for BDS as akin to this:

    link to theonion.com

    BTW, how do people here feel about the vandalism in France and America where BDS proponents went into stores and damaged or destroyed Israeli products? Do you guys consider that a legitimate tactic, or something to be condemned?

    • eljay
      July 18, 2011, 3:01 pm

      >> Which would mean the end of Israel as a haven for Jews and its replacement with another majority Arab country.

      How so? Israel would remain the nation state of all Israelis.

      >> BTW, how do people here feel about the vandalism in France and America where BDS proponents went into stores and damaged or destroyed Israeli products?

      Link, please?

      >> Do you guys consider that a legitimate tactic, or something to be condemned?

      Vandalism is not peaceful protest. I condemn it.

      • Fredblogs
        July 18, 2011, 5:49 pm

        How so? By the influx of Palestinians in numbers exceeding the Jewish margin of majority in Israel.

        This one from America, damaging the packaging then putting them back on the shelves:
        link to youtube.com

        Found this one from England, stealing goods, dumping them on the ground outside the store, then pouring what looks to be ketchup on them.
        link to youtube.com

        I couldn’t find the French one I was thinking of. I amounted to a riot in a grocery store. All that comes up when I search is one with a horde of greenshirts taking stuff off of shelves. But it didn’t show whether they stole the items or just left them to rot all over the store.

      • eljay
        July 18, 2011, 6:20 pm

        >> How so? By the influx of Palestinians in numbers exceeding the Jewish margin of majority in Israel.

        But they’d all be Israelis, in the state of Israel.

        Anyway, RW’s already taken care of that with his suggestion that Israel unilaterally re-draw its borders as required in order to excise areas of non-Jewish Israelis that may threaten the supremacist (in the sense of non-egalitarian), permanent-majority status of Jews in Israel. I call it “bureaucratic ethnic cleansing”. (I’m not sure if I actually came up with that term first, so apologies to anyone who may have beat me to the punch.)

        Thanks for the links.
        >> This one from America, damaging the packaging then putting them back on the shelves …

        I see them taking the products off the shelves, then applying stickers to them, but I don’t see them damaging the products or putting them back on the shelves. So, in this case, as long as they bought what they vandalized, no foul. If they applied the stickers and returned the vandalized products to the shelves, I condemn that and I expect them to be held accountable.

        >> Found this one from England, stealing goods, dumping them on the ground outside the store, then pouring what looks to be ketchup on them.

        I don’t see where they stole (i.e., did not pay for) the goods. I do see at least one person being arrested for, I assume, disturbing the peace and defacing Tesco property. I don’t condemn the vandalism in that case, but I do think they should be made to clean up the property. If they did actually steal the items, then I condemn that and expect them to be held accountable.

      • Fredblogs
        July 18, 2011, 7:46 pm

        If the Arab citizens outnumbered the Jewish ones, it would be Israel in name only. Rapidly followed by a name change, and another holocaust. You can’t have a viable democracy when 51% of the country wants to exterminate the other 49%.

        I don’t think you understand the right of return. It isn’t a right of return to a Palestinian state. It means a Palestinian State for the Palestinians, and the Palestinians also get Israel. Redrawing the borders does not good because the RoR means they get to move into whatever borders are left to “Israel”.

        Aside: I find the idea of giving chunks of Israel to Palestine in order to “de-citizenize” Arabs living there to be disturbing. They are citizens of Israel, you can’t just dump them into another country without their permission. I don’t think they want to go, but I could be wrong. If there were a referendum and a majority of people in those areas endorsed the plan, and those who wanted to stay Israelis could move into what is still Israel, that would be OK.

        As to the stickers. The stickers damage the packaging. You can’t see the labels with the stickers in the way. Also, look closely, they have a shot with an entire row of cheese packages on the shelf with stickers on them. See about 55 seconds into the Trader Joe’s video.

        They didn’t buy any of them. What would be the point of that? That’s the opposite of what they want. If you buy a shopping cart full of the item you are trying to boycott, you are doing it wrong. They want to have no one buy them. That works out poorly when they just protest outside (Montreal liquor store sold out of Israeli products in about 2 hours when BDS advocates picketed it). I don’t know what happened to the defaced items in the Trader Joe’s.

        As to the British one, the reason you didn’t see them pay for the goods is that they didn’t pay for the goods. The video doesn’t explicitly say so, but the news reports of the incident make it clear. They took the goods without paying, dumped them on the ground outside the store, and poured ketchup on them. They were arrested for theft (let off by a judge who didn’t understand that taking something that doesn’t belong to you with plans to destroy it is theft. Nothing in the definition of larceny says you have to plan to keep it, just to permanently deprive the owner of it).

      • annie
        July 18, 2011, 8:02 pm

        If the Arab citizens outnumbered the Jewish ones, it would be Israel in name only. Rapidly followed by a name change, and another holocaust. You can’t have a viable democracy when 51% of the country wants to exterminate the other 49%.

        ooookkkkayyy. extermination rhetoric alert!

      • nmi
        July 18, 2011, 8:22 pm

        Gosh, I wonder why those horrible Iranians who have been plotting a second Shoah for decades never seem to get around to exterminating their Jewish population—the second largest in the Mid East.

        Nor have they expelled their Jewish population.

        Nor have there been any pogroms against Iranian Jews who, in point of fact, are constantly being bribed by Israel to vacate their Iranian homeland but have steadfastly stood by Iran, are quite proud of their long history as Iranian Jews and have repeatedly told the Israeli mafiosi to kindly go jump in a lake.

      • eljay
        July 18, 2011, 9:10 pm

        >> If the Arab citizens outnumbered the Jewish ones, it would be Israel in name only. Rapidly followed by a name change, and another holocaust. You can’t have a viable democracy when 51% of the country wants to exterminate the other 49%.

        Wow, just like that! Well, then, Israel has two choices:
        – kill all the non-Jewish Israelis; or
        – drive all non-Jewish Israelis out of Israel.
        Because you never know if, some morning, that minority of non-Jewish Israelis will wake up and decide to holocaust all the Jewish Israelis. You can’t have a viable democracy when 20% of the country wants to exterminate the other 80%.

        >> I don’t think you understand the right of return. It isn’t a right of return to a Palestinian state. It means a Palestinian State for the Palestinians, and the Palestinians also get Israel.

        I’m aware of that. But I support a limited RoR for refugees, w/ an offer of compensation in lieu of return to the refugees that should be allowed to return, and with compensation only to those which are not.

        >> Aside: I find the idea of giving chunks of Israel to Palestine in order to “de-citizenize” Arabs living there to be disturbing. They are citizens of Israel, you can’t just dump them into another country without their permission.

        But they might wake up one morning and decide to kill all the Jews. Israel has to do somthing!

        >> As to the stickers. The stickers damage the packaging. … They didn’t buy any of them.

        Stickers deface the packaging, they don’t damage it. Regardless, I already stated that if they didn’t purchase everything they vandalized, I condemn their actions. So, I condemn their actions.

        >> As to the British one, the reason you didn’t see them pay for the goods is that they didn’t pay for the goods. The video doesn’t explicitly say so, but the news reports of the incident make it clear. They took the goods without paying, dumped them on the ground outside the store, and poured ketchup on them.

        Then I condemn the theft, the vandalism and the defacing of Tesco property.

      • Shingo
        July 18, 2011, 9:32 pm

        If the Arab citizens outnumbered the Jewish ones, it would be Israel in name only. Rapidly followed by a name change, and another holocaust.

        So if 51% means a Holocaust, why don’t we have a small scale holocaust taking place with 20% of the Populatin being Palestinian?

        I don’t think you understand the right of return. It isn’t a right of return to a Palestinian state.

        It’s you that doesn’t understand the right of return. It isn’t a right of return to a private property, not any state.

      • Shingo
        July 18, 2011, 9:40 pm

        You seriously are a one man freak show Fred.

        This one from America, damaging the packaging then putting them back on the shelves:

        The goods aren’t damaged.

        Found this one from England, stealing goods, dumping them on the ground outside the store, then pouring what looks to be ketchup on them.

        You probably have no nails left on your fingers from scraping the bottom of the barrel to find that one.

        Now Fred, would you like to see what vadalism looks like – as practiced by the lunatic religious nut jobs that you are defending?

        Jewish settlers are terrorising Palestinians, says Israeli general
        link to independent.co.uk

        link to youtube.com

      • eljay
        July 19, 2011, 7:15 am

        >> A senior Israeli army commander has warned that unchecked “Jewish terror” against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank threatens to plunge the territory into another conflict.
        >> In unusually outspoken comments, Major General Avi Mizrahi took aim at extremist Israeli settlers, and said the yeshiva, or religious seminary, in Yitzhar, one of the most radical Jewish strongholds in the West Bank, should be closed, calling it a source of terror against Palestinians.

        “Jewish terror”? This army commander is clearly anti-Semitic! Why does he hate Israel so much?!

        >> The army has anxiously watched an upsurge in violence by hardline settlers, who in recent months have set fire to a West Bank mosque, burned Palestinian olive groves, and vandalised Palestinian property. Settlers have killed three Palestinians this year.

        Did any Palestinians fight back? If so, they are “aggressors” according to Zio-supremacist “common sense”. It’s best that they just lie still until “enough Israel” has been achieved. Then, there can be discussions about “peace, not ‘justice'”.

      • Shingo
        July 19, 2011, 7:50 am

        “Jewish terror”? This army commander is clearly anti-Semitic! Why does he hate Israel so much?!

        Indeed Eljay,

        You’ve gotta love that self governance and humanizing of the other. But understandably, what concerns Fred is people putting stickers on products in a supermarket.

        He clearly has his priorties in order.

      • hophmi
        July 19, 2011, 10:51 am

        “You can’t have a viable democracy when 51% of the country wants to exterminate the other 49%.

        ooookkkkayyy. extermination rhetoric alert!”

        Most of the extermination talk here comes from people like you, Annie, who claim that the Israelis want to exterminate the Palestinians.

      • annie
        July 19, 2011, 11:23 am

        you, Annie, who claim that the Israelis want to exterminate the Palestinians.

        oh yawn. out and out lies should be deleted or banned. obviously you cannot source your lie hophmi.

    • Cliff
      July 18, 2011, 3:07 pm

      Israel is a ethno-religious State that discriminates against it’s token, Arab minority population.

      The only reason Israel exists as a ‘haven for Jews’, is because Zionist terrorists as well as the ‘official’ army ethnically cleansed 800,000 Palestinians.

      Thus, a Jewish majority. The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians has not ceased since then. Israel has been revealed to having used an administrative/bureaucratic trick to remove the residency status of nearly 140,000 Palestinians between 1967 and 1994.

      link to haaretz.com

      Israel is not a haven for Jews. Jews live all over the world. Describing Israel as a ‘haven’ for Jews is a dishonest PR tactic to whitewash the history of ethnic cleansing and oppression inflicted by Israel on the indigenous Palestinian Arabs. They were the majority, and owned the majority of land.

      link to 1.bp.blogspot.com

      This is a good compilation of maps:

      link to l000.tumblr.com

      • Fredblogs
        July 18, 2011, 5:55 pm

        Jews also died in many parts of the world during the Holocaust. Even America sent Jewish refugees back to Europe to be murdered by the Nazis. After the Arabs failed to destroy Israel in 1948. They turned on their local Jews, who fled to Israel.

        Also it is inaccurate to say that the Arabs owned a majority of the land. Most of the land was state land, not privately owned. It passed to the government of Israel when Israel was founded. The maps that you are citing simply assume that all land that wasn’t privately owned by Jews was owned by Arabs. Which was not the case.

      • Chaos4700
        July 18, 2011, 6:59 pm

        The Arabs didn’t fail to destroy Israel in 1948 because there was no Israel before 1948. There also were comparatively few tensions between actual native Jews in Palestine and everyone else before European Zionists showed up.

        The Holocaust is the fault of Nazi Germany, not the Palestinians. You have absolutely no right to wage shoah on anyone, no matter what was done to you, let alone what was done to your grandparents and not you!

      • straightline
        July 18, 2011, 8:11 pm

        Well there is a certain amount of historical revisionism here. The Zionists were well aware that they had the upper hand in 1948 as is now well documented. The Arabs tried valiantly to help the Palestinians who were being persecuted by the Zionists.

        The Zionists did not want – and even tried to prevent – Jews fleeing persecution in Europe from going anywhere but to Israel:

        “If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by
        bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to
        Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative.” (David Ben-Gurion,
        1938)

        And there is much evidence to suggest that many – though not all – Jews left Arab countries because of bribes by Israeli organisations and as a result of false flag operations by Zionist organisations.

        “Any reasonable person, Zionist or non-Zionist, must acknowledge that the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews is unfounded. Palestinian refugees did not want to leave Palestine. Many Palestinian communities were destroyed in 1948, and some 700,000 Palestinians were expelled, or fled, from the borders of historic Palestine. Those who left did not do so of their own volition. In contrast, Jews from Arab lands came to this country under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations. Some came of their own free will; others arrived against their will. Some lived comfortably and securely in Arab lands; others suffered from fear and oppression.” Yehouda Shenhav, Haaretz 15 August, 2003

        One could argue that Native Americans did not own their land either or any other group that have been dispossessed by colonialists. After all Palestine was emerging from being under Ottoman rule for hundreds of years. Legalistic arguments about ownership in these circumstances is really missing the point – as I’m sure you’re aware.

      • Shingo
        July 18, 2011, 9:41 pm

        After the Arabs failed to destroy Israel in 1948.

        After the Israel succeeded in destroying 500 villages, massacraing thousands fo Palestinians and expelling 750,000 Palestinians in 1948.

      • MRW
        July 19, 2011, 5:59 am

        Even America sent Jewish refugees back to Europe to be murdered by the Nazis.

        Zionists ordered the US and Canadian leaders to do this. They needed to fill Palestine. (Source: The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black, MacMillan 1983 or 4….too lazy to look right now.)

      • hophmi
        July 19, 2011, 10:53 am

        “After the Israel succeeded in destroying 500 villages, massacraing thousands fo Palestinians and expelling 750,000 Palestinians in 1948.”

        Go ahead, make it 600 and a million. You’re already stretching the truth; adding a little more won’t matter.

    • PissedOffAmerican
      July 18, 2011, 3:18 pm

      “BTW, how do people here feel about the vandalism in France and America where BDS proponents went into stores and damaged or destroyed Israeli products?”

      Sounds like a plan we should apply to Chinese hardware products. I usually have to actually pay for them and schlep them to the jobsite before I discover they’re pure unadulterated shit.

      • Fredblogs
        July 18, 2011, 5:57 pm

        If Israeli goods were pure shit, then there would be no need for a boycott. A boycott is a statement that “we won’t buy these goods that we otherwise would buy”. You can’t boycott something that you wouldn’t have bought anyway.

      • Chaos4700
        July 18, 2011, 7:02 pm

        Fred’s got a point. I mean that’s the hard-earned sweat of American progress that Israel stole from us, so they’d better damn well be making good products if they’re going to make off with our intellectual property and put significant portions of the US workforce out on the street.

      • Shingo
        July 18, 2011, 9:45 pm

        If Israeli goods were pure shit, then there would be no need for a boycott.

        Use your brain you dolt. Buyers are motivated by price as well as quality, which is the point that POA was making.

      • hophmi
        July 19, 2011, 10:54 am

        “I mean that’s the hard-earned sweat of American progress that Israel stole from us, so they’d better damn well be making good products if they’re going to make off with our intellectual property and put significant portions of the US workforce out on the street.”

        What the heck are the blathering on about now? How did Israel take the US’s intellectual property?

    • Shmuel
      July 18, 2011, 3:45 pm

      BTW, how do people here feel about the vandalism in France and America where BDS proponents went into stores and damaged or destroyed Israeli products?

      Can you tell us exactly when and where this happened, preferably with links. Thanks.

      • MRW
        July 19, 2011, 6:01 am

        Don’t hold your breath, Shmuel.

    • annie
      July 18, 2011, 4:10 pm

      from their point of view, the message of BDS is “boycott Israel until it is destroyed”.

      morton klien is a liar: he claimed in the article The global BDS movement targets all of Israel, even within the Green Line, and explicitly rejects the existence of Israel within any borders.Hence, the ZOA is now more sympathetic with the Knesset’s actions even though the law is not perfect.

      he knows damn well he can’t back that up.

      Omar Barghouti on the 6th anniversary of the BDS call: ‘[BDS] targets a system of oppression so that all people can live in equality and justice.’

      Five years ago a rabbi stood up and asks Barghouti why he wasn’t honest about the BDS demands of ending inequality and having full equality for Palestinians in Israel. He asked him “Why don’t you just say it, that you want to destroy Israel?”

      I specifically copied this segment of the interview because Barghouti’s response clearly speaks to the intentions of the BDS movement.

      Let me understand what you just said, so i told him “your saying ending inequality would destroy Israel what does that say about Israel? Has ending inequality destroyed South Africa? Ending apartheid destroy South Africa? Has ending segregation in the US destroyed the United States, southern states that had an apartheid system? We did not call it apartheid then but it was an apartheid system. Since when does ending inequality destroy anything? It destroys inequality, it destroys apartheid, it destroys injustice. That’s what we’re deligitimizing in Israel, it’s occupation, it’s apartheid, it’s denial of our basic rights, it’s ethnic cleansing. Yes, we’re proud to be deligitimizing israel’s oppression, Israel violations of international law. That does not call for ending the existence of any person or any group or anything, it does not target people as people, it targets a system of oppression so that all people can live in equality and justice.”

      barghouti also reiterates (as he has done time and again) in the interview pacbi is neutral on one or two states.

      the hasbarists have to lie to make their point and they know it. their inflammatory stand is because they have to use scar tactics for the masses because the truth hurts them.

      • Shingo
        July 18, 2011, 5:15 pm

        With all die respect Annie, BDS has to target all of Israel to be effective.

      • annie
        July 18, 2011, 5:22 pm

        of course. i’m not understanding how anything i said contradicts that. perhaps you are missing barghouti’s point.

      • annie
        July 18, 2011, 5:34 pm

        shingo, israel and her supporters do not want to argue the ethics of the boycott against israel. therefore the primary tactic they’ve chosen is the broad brush ad hominem. they would much rather argue that our intentions are not pure. that we really are not interested in equality and human rights but instead have bad movtives. that we are out to destroy israel. it is them claiming quality will end israel, not me or pacbi. their argument is not direct because they don’t want to make it direct. they have to include that ‘step’ process almost everytime they talk about bds. can you hear it? a step to weaken Israel, as a prelude to its demise.

        i think the movement itself is making no stand on whether the final resolution means one state or two, they just want every single person to be equal whereever they are and they want all their international rights including right of return. they are not seeking the destruction of israel. it is only those with very narrow closed racist minds conjuring up the idea free people equals destruction. it’s orwellian.

      • Fredblogs
        July 18, 2011, 6:15 pm

        Excuse me, I said the founders of the BDS movement were out to destroy Israel. Or at any rate want to keep the boycott going until Israel is destroyed. Many of the proponents of BDS do not realize that this is the goal.

        However, note:

        link to bdsmovement.net

        “3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.”

        By which of course, the Palestinians mean that every descendant of the Arabs who left Israel (voluntarily or involuntarily) in the 1948 war, and subsequently, gets to move back to Israel, take the property away from the people who now own it, and vote Israel out of existence.

        The Israelis are never going to agree to that. It would be suicide, nationally and individually.

        Boycotts are supposed to be about getting someone to change their behavior. If the behavior of theirs that you are trying to get them to change is “continuing to exist”, then the boycott isn’t about bringing about a peaceful resolution, it is just about economically damaging a country for the rest of its existence. Which is fine. Nothing wrong with that, but at least realize that that is what you are doing. You’re not trying to get Israel to change, just to hurt it until it dies (though not necessarily trying to cause it to die).

        If you want to debate the ethics of a particular boycott, you have to say which boycott, because there isn’t one boycott here, there are many overlapping ones. The one that wants Israel to stop building in the WB. The one that wants them to evacuate the WB, the one that wants them to evacuate the WB, unblockade Gaza, and give the Palestinians the RoR. Compounded with what you are boycotting, all of Israel, stuff made in the settlements. Stuff made in Israel or elsewhere outside the WB and the settlements, stuff made by companies that make some stuff in the settlements, stuff made by companies that support the settlements, etc.

        So you tell me which one of those boycotts you support, (what you are boycotting and what you want Israel to do to get rid of the boycott) and then we can talk about the ethics of it. Although actually, as long as you are honest about which one you are trying to get people to support, don’t make unrealistic statements about the effect it might have, such as “this can convince Israel to give the RoR”, and stick to talking, rather than “deshelving” or other euphemisms for theft and vandalism, I don’t have any moral problem with any of them.

      • Chaos4700
        July 18, 2011, 6:54 pm

        The founders of the BDS movement are out to end the occupation. That Israel itself and the occupation (and ethnic cleansing, and abuse of Palestinians, and theft and state terror and nuclear arms trade) are synonymous is not the fault of the rest of the world.

        Israel doesn’t exist without its crimes against humanity. That’s the sad reality of Zionism.

      • Fredblogs
        July 18, 2011, 9:51 pm

        Why does America hate democracy? We don’t let Mexicans or Canadians vote in our elections. Or Iraqis, or Afghans.

        Democracy means citizens vote. It doesn’t mean you don’t get to pick who gets to be citizens.

      • Fredblogs
        July 18, 2011, 9:54 pm

        Thank you for being honest about your intentions. I wish more anti-Israelis were that honest. Most of them pretend (or mistakenly believe) that the “occupation” the Palestinians are trying to end is the occupation of the West Bank and the “occupation” of Gaza. Very few admit that by “occupation” they mean the existence of Israel.

      • Shingo
        July 18, 2011, 10:18 pm

        Most of them pretend (or mistakenly believe) that the “occupation” the occupation of the West Bank and the occupation of Gaza has something to do with “security”.

        Very few Zionists admit that by “occupation” they mean to steal land.

      • Shingo
        July 18, 2011, 10:19 pm

        We don’t let Mexicans or Canadians vote in our elections.

        That’s becasue we don’t expell them and steal their land.

        Democracy means citizens vote. It doesn’t mean you don’t get to pick who gets to be citizens.

        Thanks for comfirming that Israel is not a democracy.

      • MRW
        July 19, 2011, 6:02 am

        Democracy means citizens vote. It doesn’t mean you don’t get to pick who gets to be citizens.

        Says who? You?

        You’re wrong.

      • hophmi
        July 19, 2011, 10:55 am

        “the hasbarists have to lie to make their point and they know it. their inflammatory stand is because they have to use scar tactics for the masses because the truth hurts them.”

        What lie? Why can’t you just admit that your aim is to end Israel’s existence?

      • annie
        July 19, 2011, 11:13 am

        admit? ;) you’re such a blowhard hophmi. here’s glick today “Israel’s destruction would be all but preordained”….”the alternative is national suicide”!!!!! that lie. obviously SA wasn’t ‘destroyed’ the US wasn’t ‘destroyed’, jim crow laws were destroyed.

        plus, no one should be putting words in the mouth of the leaders of the bds movement. they have neither the power or the resources to ‘destroy’ israel. you’re bloviating. i’ve already linked to omar’s 6th anniversary interview several times. go check it out, he deconstructs the ‘destroy” lingo. there’s no denying it, right now israel’s alleged impending destruction is the numero uno hasbara talking pt. and they’re the backed by the big superpower! maybe i we should deliver hankies to israeli supporters while the bulldoze more settlements.

      • hophmi
        July 19, 2011, 11:17 am

        “Israel’s destruction would be all but preordained”….”the alternative is national suicide”!!!!! that lie. obviously SA wasn’t ‘destroyed’ the US wasn’t ‘destroyed’, jim crow laws were destroyed.”

        Obviously, the situation here is very different. Protestors of Jim Crow were not looking to take over the United States. South Africa was a place where 20% of the population oppressed the other 80% based on race. Moreover, for the most part, the ANC did not blow up white people.

        Why you don’t believe the statements of the Palestinians themselves or organizations like Hamas who have sworn to destroy Israel is mystery enough. That you expect Israelis themselves not to believe them is cruel and stupid.

        Yugoslavia is a better example of what can happen when two peoples who don’t like each other are forced together.

      • annie
        July 19, 2011, 11:42 am

        Why you don’t believe the statements of the Palestinians themselves or organizations like Hamas who have sworn to destroy Israel is mystery enough.

        the context of our discussion being bds, i very much do believe the statements of palestinians themselves.

        Since when does ending inequality destroy anything? It destroys inequality, it destroys apartheid, it destroys injustice. That’s what we’re deligitimizing in Israel, it’s occupation, it’s apartheid, it’s denial of our basic rights, it’s ethnic cleansing. Yes, we’re proud to be deligitimizing israel’s oppression, Israel violations of international law. That does not call for ending the existence of any person or any group or anything,

        you’re gripping your destruction framing like a starving dog w/a steak bone. phff!

      • annie
        July 19, 2011, 11:48 am

        oh, and just to remind you. Yadlin said Israel would be “happy” if Hamas took over Gaza because the IDF could then deal with Gaza as a hostile state.

        iow, it makes your job so much easier to scream hamas! hamas!

      • Cliff
        July 19, 2011, 2:39 pm

        hophmi is an ignorant whiny child.

        His conception of ‘ending the existence of Israel’ is not literal. It is as a Jewish majority with Jews as the privileged majority and the 20% Palestinian Arab population as a discriminated/second-class minority.

        That’s what Israel is.

        It’s the most revolting thing to hear creeps like hophmi whine about ‘the end of Israel’. Narcissists like him (or this new troll, Fred) think the world revolves around Israel. It’s Israel that is colonizing Palestinian land. Not the other way around. It’s Israel that has been occupying Palestinian land for almost 50 years.

        Israel, that gets away with murder and flaunts international law.

        If Jews were being occupied; if 300 Jewish children were incinerated during an Operation like ‘Cast Lead’, etc. – then freaks like hophmi would be crying Holocaust! Except, Zionists do that even now. Even now, they will cry about the ‘rise of antisemitism’ and imply a new Holocaust is coming.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        Given the rising anti-Semitism in Europe, it wouldn’t surprise me if there were another Holocaust of the remaining Jews there in 30 years or so.

        It’s a testament to how self-centered these freaks are.

        Israel kills 10 times the number of Palestinian children. 5 times the number of civilians in general. In addition to every other crime it commits against the Palestinians of course.

        And recall that these SAME Zionists use the argument that there are worse conflicts. Yet, they will cry about a new Holocaust for Jews.

        So, Palestinians are A) not suffering enough to warrant our attention according to Zionists like Fred/Hophmi/eee (freaks) BUT B) there is a rise in antisemitism apparently and we shoudl expect a new Holocaust soon.

        The upside-down world of Zionism, where if a Jew breaks a finger-nail today, he’s going to be exterminated tomorrow! If a Palestinian loses his home and land, his livelihood, his friends, his family – well…..hey, why aren’t you talking about China! Tibet! Darfur! Look everywhere else but here at Israel-Palestine! Forget those suffering Palestinians! And oh yea, antisemitism!

    • Chaos4700
      July 18, 2011, 7:00 pm

      Why do Zionists Jews hate democracy? Why must you insist on killing off your neighbors in order to steal their votes? That’s not democracy any more than Nazi Germany was a democracy.

    • kapok
      July 18, 2011, 11:49 pm

      Destroy Israel.

      Fine by me. It’s just a glorified shtetl innit? Ain’t no pogroms or holy coasts in the offing. Perfect time for Jews to join the rest of the humans. No need to be close to the sacred stones. Almighty God, ruler of the Universe, doesn’t care where you put your altars.

  12. nmi
    July 18, 2011, 2:46 pm

    “BTW, how do people here feel about the vandalism in France and America where BDS proponents went into stores and damaged or destroyed Israeli products? Do you guys consider that a legitimate tactic, or something to be condemned?”

    I support it 1000 percent.

    • Fredblogs
      July 18, 2011, 6:21 pm

      Thank you for your honesty. If not your math skills.

    • hophmi
      July 19, 2011, 11:02 am

      I figure that’s true of most people. So, Mondoweiss supports worldwide vandalism as a response to Israel.

      • Mooser
        July 19, 2011, 2:30 pm

        “I figure that’s true of most people. So, Mondoweiss supports worldwide vandalism as a response to Israel.”

        Now there’s a legal mind trained to brilliant sharpness! Oh well, you know what they say: tu quoque is cheap.

  13. PissedOffAmerican
    July 18, 2011, 2:47 pm

    Its really quite telling how quickly these pro-zionist organizations, media entities, and hasbarist mouthpieces will drop all pretense of morality and democratic ideals when an abominational Israeli premise becomes actual Israeli legislation.

    • MRW
      July 18, 2011, 2:58 pm

      For the US portion of it: dual loyalty and exceptionalism.

  14. nmi
    July 18, 2011, 3:26 pm

    “Vandalism is not peaceful protest. I condemn it.”

    So much for the French Resistance and their frequent use of sabotage! I suppose they should have just written a letter to the editor, back when they were dealing with a similarly ruthless and blood-spattered regime?

    • lysias
      July 18, 2011, 3:56 pm

      Vichy and Nazi propaganda regularly called the French Resistance “terrorists”.

      • Fredblogs
        July 18, 2011, 6:27 pm

        Yes, and people regularly called the WTC terrorists “terrorists” as well. Just because some people use the term wrong, doesn’t mean that everyone uses it wrong.

        Attacking an enemy military target makes you a freedom fighter. Attacking civilian targets makes you a terrorist.

        BTW nmi, I love that you just compared French resistance fighters in occupied France, who would be shot if they got caught, with self-righteous vandals putting stickers on Israeli products in Trader Joe’s in California.

      • nmi
        July 18, 2011, 7:28 pm

        ps: I never put stickers on Israeli products.

        I simply destroy them so that they are unusable.

      • straightline
        July 18, 2011, 8:20 pm

        “Attacking an enemy military target makes you a freedom fighter. Attacking civilian targets makes you a terrorist.”

        I think that makes many members of the IDF terrorists. Or do you subscribe to the view that whatever the IDF says it did is correct?

        How many people did these self-righteous vandals kill?

      • Chaos4700
        July 18, 2011, 9:34 pm

        Fred? What’s your opinion of the Zionist attack on the King David Hotel?

      • Fredblogs
        July 18, 2011, 9:55 pm

        That’s nice. Please turn yourself in to the police. Oh, and if you picked them up first or moved them, remember that you are turning yourself in for _larceny_ not vandalism.

      • MRW
        July 19, 2011, 5:56 am

        Yes, and people regularly called the WTC terrorists “terrorists” as well.

        If they buy the official US conspiracy theory they do. (Especially the unsophisticated idiots who think kerosene, jet fuel, melts or pulverizes steel/iron). However, intelligent people, those who can read, know that seven of these so-called terrorists are alive and were living abroad at the time of the attack, and had nothing to do with it.

      • MRW
        July 19, 2011, 6:04 am

        I simply destroy them so that they are unusable.

        That’s a great idea, nmi. I’m walking in with a razor blade next time.

  15. annie
    July 18, 2011, 4:34 pm

    here’s a revealing sentence from klien’s article

    The anti-boycott law applies to any area under Israeli control.

    it means they are going after palestinians. they are going to try to sue pacbi.

    • seafoid
      July 18, 2011, 5:28 pm

      The thing about a stupid law like this is if it doesn’t scare people it backfires. They can’t arrest 10,000 people. The prisons are already full with Palestinians.

      The law is a nonsense. It is time for Israeli lefties to break the law and see what the authorities can do. The settlers are jumped up bullies and have no Plan B.

      • annie
        July 18, 2011, 10:29 pm

        seafoid, i don’t think it will stop bds. the train has left the station. it will gain traction in europe and it will create a situation where israel will need to lean financial on the US more to pick up the slack at the time we can’t afford it. because of our pollies we’ll suck it up hold our noses and pay up. it will get ugly. in another couple years it will be very ugly.

        we’ve got a whole new generation of american kids indoctrinated by martin. their switcheroo on martin’s legacy isn’t gaining ground. it’s mired in hoaxville. they(israelis)’re ethnic cleansers and no amount of squealing is going to change that. everybody knows that.

      • seafoid
        July 19, 2011, 4:41 pm

        It won’t stop BDS Annie but what it will do is weaken the only people in israel with the potential to save the country from the disastertowards which the settlers are driving them .

    • ToivoS
      July 19, 2011, 1:11 am

      annie points out:

      The anti-boycott law applies to any area under Israeli control.

      OMG annie do you not realize what you revealed — this LAW applies to the US congress.

  16. nmi
    July 18, 2011, 4:51 pm

    We can take these revelations as a basis for future action–indeed, a blessing in disguise, of sorts.

    If all forms of resistance are a) in violation of the law and b) “anti-Semitic” then the question becomes which illegal and anti-Semitic acts are likely to be the most effective. The movement can drop its self-defeating pretense of carrying out resistance “within the boundaries of the law.”

    According to “the law” as it stands, the victims of the Mavi Marmara were criminals, their killers, “peace officers.”

    Under such perverse conditions, one should make it a point of standing firmly for lawlessness—for breaking all Israeli laws, for violating their sovereignty, for destroying their export goods, for carrying out all manner of sabotage, for infiltrating and undermining their loathesome state at every opportunity.

    • Fredblogs
      July 18, 2011, 6:42 pm

      Actually, according to the law as it now stands, the dead men from the Mavi Marmara had a legal status about the same as soldiers. When passengers on a blockade runner attack soldiers trying to capture the ship, they (the passengers) are treated as combatants (e.g., potentially lethal force can be met with lethal force) until they surrender or are subdued, then they become POWs. The crew get POW status whether they attack or not.

      Their killers are “soldiers on the other side of the war”.

      I’m sorry if your upbringing didn’t teach you this, but there is a world of difference between refusing to obey an unjust law and throwing all laws out the window. Rev. MLK, Jr. broke laws against demonstrations. He didn’t use those laws as an excuse to destroy property, commit sabotage, or murder people, as you advocate (breaking all Israeli laws includes the laws against murder).

      War is not an end in itself. The point of it is to get a better peace. That can’t happen if you behave so vilely and untrustworthy (blowing up schoolbuses, sending people with medical passes to suicide bomb the hospitals whose doctors previously saved their lives, etc.) that peace can’t take hold, or can’t last because of memories of the last round of atrocities (looking at you Serbia and Bosnia).

      • nmi
        July 18, 2011, 7:19 pm

        So the busses blown up in Israel contained NO members of the IDF?

        By YOUR standards, which you describe above, these busses are completely legitimate military targets. Indeed, ANY target in Israel where IDF members are likely to exist, is a legitimate target, which means anywhere in Israel at any time. (Certainly, these busses were far more legitimate military targets than an aid vessel in international waters containing NO soldiers whatsoever!)

        Again–your standards, not mine.

      • Chaos4700
        July 18, 2011, 9:35 pm

        That’s the trouble with Zionists. So eager to shoot anybody and everybody that they inevitable put at least one of their shots through their own foot.

      • Fredblogs
        July 18, 2011, 10:10 pm

        Interesting point. If the buses contained primarily active members of the IDF, then the military advantage to the Palestinians might outweigh the civilian damage to Israel. However, the Palestinians typically go for maximum civilian casualties, while eschewing military targets.

        Blow up a soldier in a barracks, that’s military (Lebanon marine barracks was a legitimate military target). Capture a soldier on active duty, that’s legitimate military target (Gilad Shalit was captured, not kidnapped) Blow up a reservist in a pizza parlor, that’s civilian.

        Of course, the way they are holding him without letting the Red Cross visit is a war crime. As is the sending of people who are not identifiable as soldiers to attack military targets.

        Unfortunately for your argument about the ships: Under international law any civilian ship that attempts to run a blockade (refuses to be searched) can legitimately be boarded and captured, in an act of war against the blockaded party. Declaring an intention to visit the blockaded port, or otherwise demonstrating that intention makes the demand to divert or be searched legitimate. Also, enforcing the blockade in international waters is entirely within the law. The only place you can’t enforce it is in the territorial waters of a neutral country. Without violating international law, they could have stopped the Mavi Marmara as soon as it left the territorial waters of Turkey. Of course, that’s unusual, since most blockade runners are identified by the fact they are headed for the blockade, not by them saying they are going to run it. Also it’s a hassle to patrol the whole world (outside other countries’ territorial waters) when they are coming to a known location.

      • mig
        July 19, 2011, 3:41 am

        Fred :

        “Under international law any civilian ship that attempts to run a blockade (refuses to be searched) can legitimately be boarded and captured,

        ++++ 2 points. Those boats were checked in few ports allready. So why doesnt Israel send their officials in to their sailing point to check their cargo. In fact Israel doesnt allow those boats to enter gaza strip at all.

        ” in an act of war against the blockaded party.”

        ++++ No. Unarmed civilians cant do act of war.

        “Declaring an intention to visit the blockaded port, or otherwise demonstrating that intention makes the demand to divert or be searched legitimate.”

        ++++ Did Israel allow boats return their path after checking in Israeli port. No.

        “Also, enforcing the blockade in international waters is entirely within the law.”

        ++++ Meaning of Israeli blockade is a collective punishment to gaza people. This has been confirmed by Israeli officials.

      • Djinn
        July 19, 2011, 1:36 pm

        “As is the sending of people who are not identifiable as soldiers to attack military targets”

        Wrong, occupied people have the right to resist occupation, even violently and they do not need to wear army uniforms or identify as soldiers to do it.

        Is it not embarrassing to be so wrong on so many issues? If I showed half as much ignorance as you I’d crawl under a rock for a few years while I educated myself.

      • kapok
        July 18, 2011, 11:34 pm

        vile.

        You go to war with the army you have, not the one you want.
        D. Rumsfeld, patriot, freedom fighter.

        Perhaps if the Palestinians had a few Blackhawks, Merkavas, Hellfire missiles, F-16s etc they could zero in on some legitimate targets.

      • kapok
        July 19, 2011, 12:05 am

        MLK
        gah, another ghoul embracing King’s corpse.

      • kapok
        July 19, 2011, 12:40 am

        The law. Moses had some. Remember him. Extremely Jewish.

    • MRW
      July 18, 2011, 7:43 pm

      nmi, read the guy who wrote the law:

      International waters’ travelers are not presumed to be anything but what they are: innocent.
      link to craigmurray.org.uk
      link to craigmurray.org.uk
      link to craigmurray.org.uk

      Fredblogs: Actually, according to the law as it now stands, the dead men from the Mavi Marmara had a legal status about the same as soldiers.

      They weren’t soldiers. Israel had no right to touch them, period. Not in international waters. If you are promoting this reasoning, then anyone on any pleasure craft anywhere on the open seas is liable to be treated as soldiers AFTER they get shot at by Israelis.

      You expect us to believe that’s true? Uber alles Israelis?

      • nmi
        July 18, 2011, 7:49 pm

        Of course it’s true.

        Israel just proved it’s true. If they have the opportunity, they will prove it again.

        Blinding, disfiguring and murdering people who get in Israel’s way is legal.

      • Fredblogs
        July 18, 2011, 10:41 pm

        Couple of problems with that. He didn’t write the law. He was part of a committee that wrote the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea. A treaty which neither Israel, nor Turkey are party to (and neither are bound by).

        He also made an unwarranted definitional change. Basically, he’s playing semantic games. The San Remo Manual, the applicable law here, is the law for armed conflicts, which this is. No formal declaration of war from either party is required. Even if actual “war” was required, 10,000 missiles fired at Israel by Hamas qualifies. Oh, and if you want to quibble over “at sea”, attempts to bring in weapons by sea count (see Cuban Missile crisis). Mr. Murray isn’t actually analyzing the law, just trying to twist it against Israel.

        link to icrc.org

        As for the status of the attacking passengers those:
        “(a) who are passengers on board enemy or neutral vessels or aireraft are to be released and may not be made prisoners of war unless they are members of the enemy’s armed forces or have personally committed acts of hostility against the captor;”

        Note the “personally committed acts of hostility against the captor”. So, if you fight, you’re a POW when captured.

        “146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:… (f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.”

        I’m afraid that the idea that “international waters” is a bar to enforcing a blockade is just a misunderstanding about what is meant in the law by “neutral waters”.

        Paragraph 14 describes that “neutral waters” are the territorial waters of a neutral state. International waters aren’t “neutral waters”.

        As for the straw man argument about pleasure craft. The craft would have to be reasonably believed to be breaching or attempting to breach a blockade, _and_ refuse to divert, _and_ refuse to be searched, _and_ the passengers would have to attack (or pull a gun) the Israelis before they could be shot at. The dead men on the Mavi Marmara did all of that. The ship was reasonably believed to be attempting to breach a blockade (their stated goal). Israel asked them to divert, they refused. Israel asked them to submit to search, they refused. They then stabbed and bludgeoned the Israelis who boarded (resisted capture).

      • Shingo
        July 19, 2011, 7:47 am

        Couple of problems with that. He didn’t write the law. He was part of a committee that wrote the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea. A treaty which neither Israel, nor Turkey are party to (and neither are bound by).

        The same treaty which Israel’s spin doctors happen to cite to argue for the legality of the blockade.

        At least you admit there is no legal justification for it.

        The San Remo Manual, the applicable law here, is the law for armed conflicts, which this is. No formal declaration of war from either party is required.

        Your argument fails either way. As Hostage posted recently:

        The official commentary of GCVI Art 59 and the explanation for the San Remo Manual Articles 102-103 make it clear that the aid shipments are supposed to be allowed free passage to the “coasts of the blockaded belligerent” and that a blockade becomes illegal whenever the civilian population does not have adequate supplies of food, medicine, & other essentials.

        Note the “personally committed acts of hostility against the captor”. So, if you fight, you’re a POW when captured.

        Fail.

        Self defense against an illegal seizure of the boat in international water is not an act of hostility against the captor.

        “146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:… (f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.”

        Fail again. The Israelis did not aslk to search the vessel. The activists would have agred to a search of the vessel at sea. Indeed, the vessel was searched repeatedly prior to departure.

        As for the straw man argument about pleasure craft. The craft would have to be reasonably believed to be breaching or attempting to breach a blockade, _and_ refuse to divert, _and_ refuse to be searched, _and_ the passengers would have to attack (or pull a gun) the Israelis before they could be shot at

        Fail again.

        Isral did all the attacking, havintg shot and kileld one of the passengers before boarding he craft. The passengers are not obliges to sacrifice their lives.

        The dead men on the Mavi Marmara did all of that.

        False. The photographer Israel shot before boarding the vessel cerainly did not.

        Israel asked them to submit to search, they refused

        False. Israel did not ask them to submit to search.

        Please stop lying Fred. It won’t work on this forum.

        They then stabbed and bludgeoned the Israelis who boarded (resisted capture).

        After the Israelis had fired on teh vessel and killed on eof the passengers, who was armed with nothing more than a a camera.

        Debunking you facists habrats is like taking candy from a baby. You peopel are pathetic.

      • Fredblogs
        July 18, 2011, 10:57 pm

        Oh, as to that second link. Very impressive. Except that as the passenger speaking on the video says, it’s paint, not blood.

      • Shingo
        July 19, 2011, 7:48 am

        Except that as the passenger speaking on the video says, it’s paint, not blood.

        Israel had already killed one of the passengers before boarding the vessel.

        Cold blooded and sadistic murder.

  17. kapok
    July 19, 2011, 12:36 am

    Hey, Fred C Dobbs, you seem to be the outstanding hasbarat du jour. I bring this up from time to time. I guess most think it’s a joke. But bear with me a sec.

    Picture it, Northern Nevada! Perfect spot for an exclusive Jewish state. Plenty o’ lebensraum and lax gun laws for puerile settlers to strut around with their uzis. Same latitude as the Holy Land. The deserts will bloom! Close to those other Jewish states, Florida and New York. Americans love Jews and Jews love them back! Not a suicidal Islamist to be found. Huh? Huh? Whatya say? Myself, I don’t detect a flaw in my plan. It’s a win-win!

    • Mooser
      July 19, 2011, 2:28 pm

      “Myself, I don’t detect a flaw in my plan. It’s a win-win!

      Maybe it works for you, but it’s a hell of a lot too close to Washington State for me!

Leave a Reply