Today Anthony Weiner D-NY had the unmitigated gall as to defend Israels actions in international waters.
This was about instigating an altercation and they succeeded," Weiner, one of Israel’s leading allies in Congress, told me. He insisted that the activists piloting the flotilla were offered other alternatives by Israel, such as docking the ship and transporting the supplies to Gaza by land.
"If you want to instigate a conflict with the Israeli navy it isn’t hard to do," Weiner continued. "They were offered alternatives. Instead they chose to sail into the teeth of an internationally recognized blockade."
Pushed on whether the Israeli response, which killed at least nine, was disproportionate, Weiner wouldn’t acknowledge it. "It’s always easy to criticize the response to a hostile act, but for a week at least the Israelis were trying to prevent this altercation," Weiner said, adding that the Israelis had been "set upon."
There are so many things wrong with his depiction of events where do I begin?
This was about instigating an altercation and they succeeded.
No, Mr. Weiner, this was about bringing aid to Gaza citizens who are currently being starved to death by Israel in what some call the New Warsaw Ghetto. In case you missed it Mr. Weiner, there is an extreme humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip. The economy has collapsed. They are experiencing 45% unemployment. Places that were destroyed by Israeli bombs over a year ago are still sitting in ruins. Electricity is sporadic. The people of Gaza are being subjected to a slow starvation that amounts to genocide.
If you weren’t so emotionally invested in Israel, perhaps you could see this.
He insisted that the activists piloting the flotilla were offered other alternatives by Israel, such as docking the ship and transporting the supplies to Gaza by land.
Which was unacceptable Mr. Weiner because Israel refuses to allow parts to replace broken down farming equipment into the strip. It seems not allowing the people of Gaza to farm is part of the planned genocide by slow starvation planned for the New Warsaw Ghetto. Back up generators have failed because Israel won’t allow those things to pass through by land either. Hundreds ofsick people have died because of this travesty alone. It seems that is also part of the planned genocide for the New Warsaw Ghetto.
"If you want to instigate a conflict with the Israeli navy it isn’t hard to do," Weiner continued.
So you’re argument is that a shipload of people armed with sticks and stones, trying to help end Israels New Warsaw Ghetto are "instigating a conflict" and so they deserved what they got? Really Mr.Weiner? Are you wearing such rose-colored glasses when you look at Israel that you believe this crock?
Oh, but you’re not done are you Mr. Weiner?
"They were offered alternatives. Instead they chose to sail into the teeth of an internationally recognized blockade."
Excuse me, Mr. Weiner, but in case you missed it, this act of international terrorism happened in international waters. You aren’t proposing that Israel has a right to commit acts in violation of international law in order to proceed with its plans to commit genocide in the New Warsaw Ghetto are you? Are you really so blinded by loyalty to Israel that you think it is acceptable for Israel to attack ships sailing under foreign flags in international waters?
Yes, Mr. Weiner, I think you are and I think that’s a shame Mr. Weiner because most of the time you’re a pretty decent Democrat.
"It’s always easy to criticize the response to a hostile act, but for a week at least the Israelis were trying to prevent this altercation," Weiner said, adding that the Israelis had been "set upon."
Mr. Weiner, you need to remember your own people’s history, your own people’s Warsaw Ghetto. Perhaps then, you’d realize that trying to relieve the siege of Gaza is anythign except a hostile act. As for being "set upon", it was the activists trying to put an end to Israels genocide that were set upon, Mr. Wiener.
All Israel had to do to avoid conflict was not raid the flotilla.
We don’t need anymore congressmen who believe black is white, war is peace, good is evil Mr. Weiner. We had enough of that with the neocons who, by the way, were working hand in hand with Mr. Netenyahu throughout the 90′s and into this century. You really need to step back from this Mr. Weiner, it’s obvious you’ve got too much emotional investment in the state of Israel to see clearly what that state has become under the far right wing Likud and Mr. Netenyahu. It’s obvious that when it comes to Israel, you can’t see that the neocons have taken over and you can’t see that they’re no better than the Nazi’s.
It’s really a shame, Mr. Weiner. I thought you were better than that.
What do you call THIS Mr. Weiner, if not the New Warsaw Ghetto:
Medical ethics violated
The contribution made by medical personnel in making decisions in respect to the Palestinian diet in Gaza is grave and violates medical ethics. It is reminiscent of a situation whereby doctors monitor torture, believing that examining the tortured individual before and during the interrogation protects him from irreversible damages. The principles of medical ethics require medical teams to act on behalf of patients, as Gaza had not been struck by drought. Malnutrition there had not been forced by nature. We are dealing with a case of deliberate starvation (or "minimal diet") that can be stopped at any given moment.
Word games making pretense of not crossing red lines are invalid in a reality whereby pregnant women, babies, and children suffer from anemia, whose damage to their development is known. And did anyone look into the development of a child who grows up within this food pyramid? Will these security experts be kind enough to reveal to us the intimate connection between Israel’s security and an anemic Palestinian child?
Or THIS:
Around 46 per cent of Gaza and West Bank households are "food insecure" or in danger of becoming so, according to a UN report on the impact of conflict and the global boycott of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.
The UN report says 34 per cent of households – with income below $1.68 per day and/or showing decreasing food expenditures – are "food insecure". The WFP officially defines "food security" as "the ability of a household to produce and/or access at all times the minimum food needed for a healthy and active life". It goes on to say that 12 per cent of households are "vulnerable" to food insecurity.
And does this remind anyone of how the Nazi’s stripped the Jews of all their wealth?
the report points out that some action taken by families to continue to feed themselves – including the sale of land, jewellery and other assets" – will have an "irreversible impact on livelihoods".
What is the purpose of this:
The UN report comes against a background in which a 2004 survey of Palestinian households showed a "slow but steady" growth in actual malnutrition – as measured by reduced growth, vitamin deficiencies, anaemia and other indicators – among a minority of the population. The 2004 survey found "stunting" rates of abnormal height-to-body ratio at just under 10 per cent.
except an attempt by right wing extremists in control of the Israeli government to commit atrocities against the Palestinian peoples by slowly starving an entire peoples to death? How is this not slow and deliberate genocide? How is this NOT the New Warsaw Ghetto, just made more palatable by the slow, subtle nature of its inevitable "Solution" to the Palestinian problem?



56 Comments







Antony don’t impress that much.
He is a type of guy that would not be able to go so high in the old days.
He may know or may not know, that he is really being used. As a charicature.
Nice Jewish boy like next door, if you live in NYC.
Scrowder,take a deep breath.Sleep on this for a day or two.Your interpretation of this event is as one sided as Mr.Weiner’s.As with most middle east problems,the causes are complex and long standing.Iam sure there will be plenty of blame to go around.Every story has saviors and villans.One mans savior is another mans’villan,blame like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Why should he take a deep breath when he is telling the truth? The Israeli government attacked a humanitarian vessel in international waters in violation of international law. If this was Iran doing this to Kuwait or any other country in that part of the world delivering supplies to dissidents, the U.S. would not only sponsor the resolution of condemnation but we would probably attack Iran. I think something that is very interesting and is obviously lacking in this entire story is the fact that Turkey is a Nato ally wherein Israel is not. According to Nato’s charter, an attack on one is an attack on all. The humantarian ship that was attacked was flying a Turkish flag. This is not some incident that can and should be swept under a rug. Eventually someone has to stand up to Israel and get them to stop acting like spoiled children. They should remember history because if you forget history, you are inevitably doomed to repeat it. (David and Goliath).
I guess you can call it one sided. This post is about the side of Peace and Justice and Freedom. Versus lies, murder and ethnic cleansing.
I Liked Anthonys statements, on HCR.
I got po’d when he went with Dennis “the mennis” Kucina-cave-in.
And the rest o the bums.
I have to wonder how many of the bleaters tossing around the phrase “international waters” have actually bothered to check the relevant law.
You mean this one?
Looking for a link to the whole thing right now.
Edit: here it is.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600066?OpenDocument
Word
No, I mean this one:
Inspected by a NATO country (Turkey) and certified to be free of weapons, and containing only materials listed by the flotilla officials.
Israel blocks paper – paper – from being admitted to Gaza. Contraband?
newt, the legalities of this sit in a secondary position to the morality of it and to the lack of reason and decency that pervades the larger picture around this grisly bit of shit.
Do you have any nagging thoughts that most of the people on those boats were betrayed by a few people who were not “peace activists”?
As much as I’m well willing to believe that the Israelis were stupid enough and crazy enough to break heads to stop those boats, I can’t find any sense in thinking that they dropped onto the decks of those boats with the idea that they wanted to kill people.
That doesn’t add up.
Do you know what happens to the guy who illegally enters my premises?
no, newt, I don’t know. and hopefully it won’t happen. every now and then in NYC, somebody shoots a burglar with an unlicensed gun and gets booked on a felony.
any answer to my question as to whether I’m the only one having those thoughts?
I have no suspicions that everyone aboard thought that if assailed, they would lie down to a illegal incursion.
I’m not sure I follow: you mean they intended all along to fight the IDF?
I guess I’m more naive than you. I thought that this flotilla was going to be boarded, the supplies unloaded and passed along, and the publicity was going to undermine the siege.
That this wasn’t going to be a peaceful protest didn’t occur to me. I never suspected that the people on board might welcome a physical fight.
What happens to the cop who tells you three times to come out and only comes in after you when you refuse? Same thing?
You are equating an illegal IDF incursion with civil servants? Really?
I owe you a root beer or something stronger?
Root beer is about as out-there as I get, ty.
No, you’re equating the armed forces of a sovereign nation with burglars.
No. Pirates.
don’t confuse the IDF with cops. even bad cops.
That law does not apply here. For one thing, that law only applies when the laws of war between states are in force. This is a conflict between Israel and Hamas, which is not recognized as a state and hence, the law that applies here is the one listed previously.
Of course, with so many people who have a vested interest, sorting out the legal opinions is like sorting out evidence that smoking causes cancer or that there really is global warming. You can listen to those with an agenda, or listen to those with the facts:
Um, you’re going to have to explain to me which other country Israel is currently at war with. Careful, don’t legitimize Gaza as a sovereign state in the process, because you’re going to open up a whole massive can of war crimes issues mounted on top of the crimes against humanity.
Otherwise the entire article of law cited doesn’t apply. Though neither does the one that newtonusr cited for that matter.
Neither Turkey nor Israel are signatories to any established international maritime legal framework that I know of. The fact that Israel did this in international waters is an issue for how we deal with Israel’s violation of our laws, not a violation of their own. They don’t recognize it.
Yes, that denial of legitimacy comes in handy.
Yeah it’s sorta like how we get to assign people as UEC’s or POW’s completely at random, and change the designation at-will, depending on which one suits the immediate statement we’re making to justify their indefinite detainment, rendition, or “harsh” interrogation.
Speaking of redefining laws to fit your contingencies, this will make your blood boil.
HAHAHA! ROFLMAO! LOLOLOLOL! newtonusr your link is killing me! Wrong to suggest the CIA is not accountable. HAHAHA!
Ouch! My ribs hurt. You’re killing me!
The New York Times, Onion edition.
Ugh. Yeah, that’s about right.
Though, Koh should have gone for the more obvious solution. Rather than playing around with legal technicalities, they should have just suggested that every Predator Drone be outfitted with a snazzy uniform. Complete with badges, medals, and cute names like Capt. Fantastic and Lt. Col. Sanders.
I take that back, the legal framework cited by newtonusr does have some relevance regarding humanitarian aid, just not the portions regarding the handling of international waters.
Yes it does, but what it says is that Israel is in the wrong to blockade Gaza, not that the flotilla had the right to break the blockade.
If you’re driving home and a cop stops you and says the street is blocked and you can’t enter (and he has absolutely NO legal justification for the sawhorses he erected to close the street) do you floor it and blast on through?
Yep, making sure you have your video uploading the entire event on the internet live. Unless, of course, you intend to gun down the motherfucking pig for stepping outside the law like the fat fucking pig he is first.
And what gives you the right to adjudicate the legal issue, scrowder?
And what gives you a right to adjudicate?
And the yiddish speaker in me is screaming “Wo ist der מצוה (miztvah) im dieser aktion? bei dem Israelistadt?”
I’m not, remember? See #37
The gun.
I’m being sarcastic Ironymeter. Your analogy is a bogus one to begin with. You’re giving Israel legal authority where none exists for them. They are not the cop in this story, they are the brownshirts.
If you’re driving home and some brownshirt stops you and CLAIMS he has the legal authority to stop you from going home and he’s erected some illegal barricades in my way, I get out of the car, subdue the little fuck, handcuff him and read him his rights, take down his stupid barricade and then drop him off at the police station. That’s IF I don’t know he’s slowly starving a hundred thousand little kids to death. Otherwise, ~~~EDITED IN MODERATION~~~.
Adjudicate that.
~~~ModNote: This discussion can do without the vivid imagery, please.~~~
No, you’re not. Your answer is to attack and remove the obstacle, killing him gruesomely if you feel he deserves it. And you feel you have the right to kill because (pause for laughter) you are the morally superior one.
I could argue that you can be at war even without a sovereign enemy (and I’m sure you know Israel considers itself at war) but does it matter? Whether or not Israel had the right to stop the flotilla, whether or not the cop had the right to enter you home are legal questions that get decided by the courts after the fact. Neither the cop nor the naval captain is going to argue the law with you on the spot.
Confronted with the armed and legitimate forces of duly constituted authority you can either (A) fight to the death because you feel they are acting improperly, or (B) surrender and fight in court.
Recently a friend was denied entry into Canada because of something he had with him, even though it was something perfectly legal to bring into the country. Legally, he was right and they were wrong, but at that moment his options were to either physically crash through the border checkpoint or to go home and fight it in court later. Since he’s still alive, you can guess which option he chose.
When a naval blockade tells a civilian vessel to turn around and go away the civilian captain doesn’t get to say, “I’m right and they’re wrong: full speed ahead!” He either complies or he starts a fight trying to run the blockade. Since there are people dead, you can guess which option the captain of the Mavi Marmara chose.
I’m sure you could, except when you’re trotting out international legal codes like you’ve been doing, you’d be wrong. Turns out so is Israel, but what else is new?
You mean except for the part where they weren’t breaching the blockade right?
I’m sorry, could you explain that part?
You mean the part where they didn’t breach the blockade? Sure. They didn’t breach the blockade.
Better?
Everything I’ve been able to find indicates that they did not breach the blockade, they stopped, and by some accounts they were actually tracking a course away from the blockade for a bit.
They may have intended to, threatened to, or otherwise future-tensing to, but I’m not currently under the impression they were actively breaching, breach-ING, the blockade.
That would make one hell of a fucking difference, Nathan: do you have a source? I never heard the MM stopped, let alone turned away.
Read it again:
assault has a very wide range, starting with verbal conduct.
Spare me the parsing of the parsing, mac. I have been here a long time.
Assailed meaning physically set-upon. If assailed, they would not lie down.
fair enough, newt.
enjoy the root beer.
And if lieing down (meaning heaved to in the current circumstances), they would not have been assailed.
You mean, if Gaza activists had just stayed quiet, remained subservient to their oppressors and remained in Turkey, and let their dispossession be formalized, they would have never been in in jeopardy.
Oh, and Anthony Wiener is a complete asshat. I’m hoping there’s some kind of salon event with him here at some point, and I hope that people rake his ass over the coals for his bullshit theatrics on HCR, and his subsequent pandering for cash on all the lefty blogs using links to his bullshit theatrics as the pitch primer.
Complete. Fucking. Douche. Bag.
not fair to leave a – - straight line – - like that!
Ahh, so you kinda grasp the sarcasm, but not quite. The point I’m making is to call your response bullshit because YOU think Israel is the morally superior one.
Bullshit. You’re the one assuming a stance of moral superiority by presuming to decide what is right and violently implement your judgment:
“Yep (you crash the barricade), making sure you have your video uploading the entire event on the internet live. Unless, of course, you intend to gun down the motherfucking pig”
I’m the one saying these are “are legal questions that get decided by the courts”
I’m saying follow the law, you’re saying take the law into your own hands. Which of us is under the delusion of moral superiority?
I’m saying that ISRAEL IS IN BREACH OF THE LAW. You’re trying to paint them as cops. What a crock of shit.
I guess that just went WHOOSH right over your head.
You’re making the false analogies here fella, sorry the conversation pool is a little too deep for you. Perhaps you shouldn’t play?
As cops breaking the law in my analogy, or was “he has absolutely NO legal justification” a little too deep for you?
Where we really differ is how to respond to a cop breaking the law. Sorry, but I can’t go along with “gun down the motherfucking pig.”