Galway IPSC protest against Atlantic Homecare's support of Israel

by TD - IPSC Sat Dec 02, 2006 22:01

more !.

Brian taking the Chutzpah or is that inside the tent pissing out

Scottish Andy, an Amnesty International and Shell to Sea stalwart

by Stuart Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:35

Quote: Israeli goods were'nt proscribed and that it could continue as an outlet for the rogue state products, if it wished, this flies in the face of Israel's EU Favoured Nation status as its granting was hinged on Israel's compliance with humanitarian and International law

Shouldn't the focus be on changing the Favoured Nation status? Atlantic Homecare isn't a valid target, just a soft target. Israeli product is on sale in so many shops, and many proportionately more than Atlantic Homecare. And there are 100% Israeli services on sale in Ireland. This energy should be directed towards the Department of Foreign Affairs.

by David L - IPSC Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:56

I'd say we should put our energies into where they are most effective. As you point out, Atlantic is a soft target - they can easily take Israeli goods off their shelves, and have done so in response to public pressure.

So rather than trying to put all our eggs into one basket and exclusively putting pressure on the Department of Foreign Affairs, such campaigns make sense.

In addition, any pressure we put on the Department will only be strengthened by the sucess of these small local actions.

by Fred Johnston Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:52 sylfredcar at iolfree dot ie

Any demonstration where people give of their time in a just cause is worthy of note. I was asked to take part in the Atlantic Homecare protest but was unable to attend. I approve, I must say, of small actions. But shops are one thing, and the relevant government department quite another and, indeed, so is the media: some of you will know already that the Israeli government recently wined-'n'-dined in Israel several journalists from a variety of Irish newspapers, including, as I recall, The Irish Times and The Irish Independent, with the view to diluting what Israel sees as the pro-Palestinian viewpoint in Ireland. I think there is a case here to make a protest to the National Union of Journalists (NUJ). I think this is a serious issue. More note, perhaps, or at least as much note, should be taken of these goings-on.

by TD - IPSC Sun Dec 03, 2006 21:23

It cannot be allowed to maulder beneath the fig leaf of hypocrisy for the sake of profit, it has to be outted . In Galway, at least, it will not be allowed to use the repellent moral obfuscation of Ahern's government and the EU regarding Israeli goods and produce to whitewash its actions in a fog of PR bullshit. Getting the EU to enforce its own strictures is a battle apart and will be joined by and by.

AH does'nt or should'nt need any imprimatur to do the decent thing and withdraw these tainted goods from its stores, only a smidgin of initiative, only a bona fide committment to ethical standards?.

by avi15 Mon Dec 04, 2006 15:32

If you want to talk about collective punishment, then boycott of Israel is collective punishment of the Jewish people. Bet you never thought of that, or maybe you did . If you did, that would be even more worrying...Hence, this action is either stupid, malicious or both.

by Danny Kaplan - Gush Shalom Mon Dec 04, 2006 17:19

Heartening to see that my Israeli friend "Avi" agreeing, by default, that the vicious US/UK/UN sanctions operated against Iraq in the nineties were "stupid, malicious or both" and the murder of over half-a million children as result "was'nt a price worth paying".

by Stuart Mon Dec 04, 2006 18:46

I think it is fair enough to inflict (as Avi15 calls it) "collective punishment" for the atrocities committed in the name of the elected government of Israel, through either sanctions or effective direct action. Israel is, of course (for Avi15's elucidation) a terrorist state, and is not "the Jewish people".

But I do not see that action against a home hardware shop and its staff will have the slightest impact on Israel, which I assume is the intended target. Many stores stock Israeli products, many stock a far higher proportion of Israeli product than Atlantic, some services in Ireland are 100% Israeli.

by TD - IPSC Mon Dec 04, 2006 20:56

It's self evident, "avi15," that Israeli governments since 1948 have "thought (of)" and viciously visited collective punishment on the Palestine people and more recently on Lebanon, for after all; "Palestinians ... are a nightmare which we must get rid of " (Shimon Peres, Israeli Foreign Minister, 1988) and "We must use terror, assassination, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid Galilee of its Arab population." (Founding Israeli PM, David Ben Gurion addressing the General Staff, May 1948).

Your distorted morality inverts and perverts where the IPSC is coming come, we appeal to peoples sense of fair play to boycott Atlantic Homecare, Caterpillar and other companies of its stripe until they conform to ethical trading standards and rogue state,Israel, is forced to comply with International Law and UN resolutions.

So what, if, as "Stuart" puts it "Many stores stock Israeli products, many stock a far higher proportion of Israeli product than Atlantic ... (and) that action against a home hardware shop and its staff will (not) have the slightest impact on Israel," go tell that to the spirits of Rosa Parks and Sophie Scholl, the IPSC doesn't paralyze itself with self-serving and self-fulfilling pusillinamity, it does something, it creates moral facts on the ground, it creates particulars, if you want, in tone with conscience and you'll be displeased to know, we'll be creating another moral fact, another King Cnut, as it were, against the tsunamis of US dollars poured down Israel's pate de foi gras throat, outside Atlantic Homecare in Galway at noon this Saturday.

by Stuart Mon Dec 04, 2006 21:08

I can think of three straight off, all identified easily by a reading of (for instance) the Sunday Business Post. They provide everyday customer-level services. One is a defence / technology company partnered to a major Irish concern.

The best way to impact Israel and Israeli policy would be sanctions at a national level that affect all interests, or objectively targetting Israeli defence / technology interests operating in Ireland, not picking on random targets. My preference would be the withdrawal of diplomatic relations, taking Greece's former role as "the only arab nation" to support Palestine.

It is an achievable, practical political objective.

by avi15 Tue Dec 05, 2006 02:34

Israel is totally identified with the Jewish people. It is the Jewish people's only state. Every Jewish religious service prays for the welfare 1) of the state of Israel 2) of the IDF.

Israel is not the rogue state you make out - quite the opposite, in fact.

It is only your ignorance and bigotry that lead you to these positions.

by john Tue Dec 05, 2006 09:55

If Israel is not a rogue state, why does it act so appallingly? Dont even attempt to justify its genocidal adventures into lebonan as defending itsef because it wont wash.

Israel is a jingosit paranoid little state with massive fire power given to it by the US and acts accordingly like is has some sort of a Napolean complex.

If Israel wants to be treated with respect, then it should stop the slaughter, disist in creating strawmwan for the religiouly funded IDF to blow to pieces, comply with UN resolutions and withdraw to its 1967 borders.

by Really Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:11

Avi15

I suppose it was Jimmy Carters bigotry and ignorance that caused him to write

"The bottom line is this. Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law, with the Roadmap for Peace, with official American policy and with the wishes of a majority of it own citizens - and honour its own previous commitments - by accepting its legal borders.…...The United States is squandering international prestige and goodwill and intensifying global anti-American terrorism by unofficially condoning or abetting the Israeli confiscation and colonization of Palestinian territories."

by noidear Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:09

taking a quote from big jimmy who supported segregation when in the senate in 62 is quite rich to say the least if not desparate

fair enough he encouraged a peace deal between Egypt and Israel, which showed that if the arab nations were willing so was Israel

He was of course a energy crisis one term president, not to mention the Iranian hostage balls up

you quote him but you obviously are unaware that the reason Israel has the best american military hardware was in fact a precedent set by big jimmy!!! the arms treaties he rolled in with Israel and Saudi Arabia provided the best military hardware to the 2 states and guaranteed them supplies of the best military hardware money could buy for generations

tis great to quote a one liner from a former us president, but the hard facts are he helped create the Israel you see today

by really Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:15

Noidear

I was merely trying to point out that even a US president, who as you rightly point out armed Israel can see and states that it is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict that is the cause of mideast problems and that Israel is an obstacle to peace

i was pointing out to Avi15 that the usual labels of anti-semitism cant be always used

by Really Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:05

Avi15

what about the 750,000 people expelled from Palestine in 1948 by the Israelis? Is this not ethnic cleansing

What about Isralei dissidents like Glilad Atzmon, Illan Pappe, Tanya Reinhardt, AaroN Shabtai, and many others who constantly talk of Israeli genocide, are these misguided anti-semitic jews

What of Susan nathan and her book "The Other side of Israel" documenting the lives of "Israeli Arabs" and her documentation of the treatment of "citizens" of Israel and her life since completing Aliya and then moving to Tamara an Arab town in galilee

Is she too another self hating jew?

Criticising Israel is not anti-semitic

Tanya Reinhardt has said that the best way to love jews is to criticise Israel

Gilad Atzmon has said that he had a choic of being an Isralei Jew or a human being, he choose being a human being

Calling everyone who criticisies Israel anti-semitic and being akin to Hitler etc is like Holocaust denial - a perversion of the truth

by John Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:44

Israel is involved in genocide in Lebanon by any definition of the term. It is you who are in denial and a rather tragic myopic one at that. The charge of Jingoism is rightly aimed at the right wing press in Israel that advocates the necessity of the massacre of men woman and children whom by an imposed juxtaposition find themselves within easy firing range of a zealous religiously motivated and ultra paranoid IDF.

Suggest you read “The Case Against Israel” by Michael Neumann

“Once you start ranting about Israel, you are ranting about the Jewish people. That puts you in the company of Hitler, Ahmadinejad and anti-semites down through the ages.”

This is as ridiculous as suggesting Al-Qaeda represents Islam worldwide.
The lazy and insulting references to Hitler and the anti-semitic tag are customarily trotted out to intimidate critics of Israel’s oppression of Palestine. It is a non-sense and illustrates perfectly the moral/political bankruptcy of those who would defend Israeli policy.

More suggested reading:
“The Politics of Anti-Semitism” by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffery St. Clair
“Roadmap to No-where” by Tanya Reinhart

Your closing comment is another attempt to correlate criticisms of Israel as criticisms of Jews.
This again is nonsense. When I criticise Irish policy both foreign and domestic it does not inherently mean I attack Catholicism likewise with Israel and Judaism.
These are the facts, nothing here is fantastical except your own illusions.

by omg Tue Dec 05, 2006 13:44

what about the 750,000 people expelled from Palestine in 1948 by the Israelis? Is this not ethnic cleansing

Excuse me but were they not asked to leave by their arab brethen? I think you will find a Syrian Prime minister at the time who actually says this as does numerous arab history sources. They were asked to leave so that the arab armies could drive the jews into the seas---please read your history books--proper ones not dumbstruck or propaganda sites thx

While we are at it what about the 400,000-500,000 Jews expelled from the arab world at the same time?
Yes they were expelled by arab nations not told to leave by the jewish state, do you see the jewish state crying about this? And when the arabs asked about right of return one Israeli leader said ---sure as soon as you grant Jews right of return to all arab lands--the arabs almost choked in disgust---not one palestinian supporter ever ever mentions this, wonder why?

TELL THE TRUTH PLEASE

by avi15 Tue Dec 05, 2006 14:46

It is you all who live in fairy land. You impute to me things I have not claimed. For one thing, I never said that criticizing Israel was antisemitic. I said that ranting about it is. Do you know the difference between ranting and criticising? Let me help you: one is fueled by unbridled hatred and the other involves the judicious use of reason.

To give you a lesson in English, as you do not seem overly familiar with this [foreign] language: genocide simply means the attempt to annhilate a particular ethnic group through mass murder, i.e. what the Nazis did to European Jewry (6m killed). What happens to the Palestinians is no such thing, as we take a lot of care to avoid civilian casualties. It's not our fault that their terrorists attack us from withn their populations and then make maximum propaganda out of the resulting collateral damage. Moreover, if we wanted to wipe the Pals out, we would have done it by now as they do not have the military power to stop us. It would have been very easy.

On the subject of refugees, your figures are a) inflated and b) include mostly people who fled voluntarily. We never let these Pals back because we judged it (rightly) to be physically dangerous. What you do not mention is the larger number of Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries following murderous persecutions after 1948. We absorbed them and didn't complain to anyone about it, whereas the Arabs deliberately refused to absorb their refugees, despite infinitely greater resources; and whine endlessly about it. In fact, more or less half of the population of present day Israel is composed of Jews driven out of Arab countries. Some of those consist of black (yes, black!) Jews who had lived in those Arab countries literally for thousands of years.

In fact, there is considerable evidence that Arab regimes deliberately have kept the Palestinian issue alive when it could have been solved years ago. They did this, to distract their own populations from the pathetic state of their countries: nothing works quite like whipping up anti-Jewish chauvinism? That could work in Ireland, too Why not give it a go? Oh, I forgot: you have already.

by Caobhin Tue Dec 05, 2006 15:10

....we take a lot of care to avoid civilian casualties. It's not our fault that their terrorists attack us from withn their populations and then make maximum propaganda out of the resulting collateral damage.

i.e when the Palestinian resistance aren't obliging enough to stand in a nice compact group where we can murder them without too much "collateral" damage it's their fault for civilian deaths because it makes us look bad.

Moreover, if we wanted to wipe the Pals out, we would have done it by now as they do not have the military power to stop us. It would have been very easy.

It is not Israel on it's own who has the might to crush the "Pals" as you put it you racist prick, it is as the 52nd state of Amerikka who has that shameful power. Your beloved IDF are only good for shooting stonethrowers and torturing the civilian population.

On the subject of refugees, your figures are a) inflated and b) include mostly people who fled voluntarily. We never let these Pals back because we judged it (rightly) to be physically dangerous.

That's very convenient, the numbers were inflated from the meticilous count kept by the Israelis, they left voluntarily anyway and they can't come back anyway because they're "physically dangerous".

What you do not mention is the larger number of Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries following murderous persecutions after 1948. We absorbed them and didn't complain to anyone about it, whereas the Arabs deliberately refused to absorb their refugees, despite infinitely greater resources; and whine endlessly about it.

So now the settlers/colonists who took up the mass invitation by Israel to jews throughout the world to come and occupy anothers land are refugees - what about your beloved "right of return" ? A bit more choice than the terrorized and penniless Palestinian refugees driven to Jordan and Lebanon were given by the Israeli military.

In fact, more or less half of the population of present day Israel is composed of Jews driven out of Arab countries. Some of those consist of black (yes, black!) Jews who had lived in those Arab countries literally for thousands of years.

Quick lesson in logic -arriving voluntarily to colonise other peoples land does not constitute being driven out.

In fact, there is considerable evidence that Arab regimes deliberately have kept the Palestinian issue alive when it could have been solved years ago. They did this, to distract their own populations from the pathetic state of their countries: nothing works quite like whipping up anti-Jewish chauvinism? That could work in Ireland, too Why not give it a go? Oh, I forgot: you have already.

Yep, the old reliable in Irish politics - anytime a politican is caught dipping fingers in the till distract them with the old reliable palestinian issue.

Oh I forgot -I'm about to be labelled anti-semitic.

by omg Tue Dec 05, 2006 15:44

So now the settlers/colonists who took up the mass invitation by Israel to jews throughout the world to come and occupy anothers land are refugees - what about your beloved "right of return" ? A bit more choice than the terrorized and penniless Palestinian refugees driven to Jordan and Lebanon were given by the Israeli military

Please please get a clue

read the attached document, read it well. 2 states were meant to be created in 1948 but the arabs did not declare a state--for the simple reason that they sought to eradicate the jews

But they lost their unlosable war and paid the price, now give over with the lies, its all their in black and white sunshine, recorded forever in history by the UN

by omg Tue Dec 05, 2006 17:37

Finally if you wish to learn the true history as documented by the UN and the powers of the regions i suggest you look at this link.

An informed view is much better than being a stooge for one side or the other.

Over time both sides have tended to wipe out or twist facts which are pertinent to them, leading to an entire generation of misinformed people who bleat on and on and have actually no idea of just how idiotic they sound

enjoy

by Caobhin Tue Dec 05, 2006 19:17

I have had an education so you know what you can do with your links -, throwing a few links to a septic college is supposed to impress and wins the argument eh?

entire generation of misinformed people who bleat on and on and have actually no idea of just how idiotic they sound

I agree completely - it's just a pity irony is a concept obviously well beyond the limits of your intelligence.

by omg Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:34

when your facts get shown as rubbish you dissapear pretty quickly and then snake back to throw an insult because on the facts front you dont have a leg to stand on

well played son,you got told, not by me but by the UN and the documented facts

next time you post shite here expect a history lesson in UN documents to show up your idiotic facts again

The links are to bona fida UN documentation as you well know, well beyond your realm im sure

by john Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:02

Ah that’s ok then; Israeli destruction of Lebanon has UN approval.
Hard to see exactly where you extrapolated that from, but then it would seem the UN has done a complete u-turn on the matter and has later condemned Israeli actions and the International Court in The Hague has cited Israel on its policies and actions.

I suppose global opinion is irrelevant as well because in your view the UN has said its ok for Israel to butcher civilians and reduce a neighbouring country to rubble.

Well all turn our backs then and let you get on with it. Apologies for disagreeing with you, I didn’t mean it. I have been brainwashed by all that neo-nazi biased reporting in the press. I should never have believed the IDF were capable of atrocities or that Israel is doing anything other than simply defending itself.

But of course I could never think that. I have a conscience and no-where within it can I find justification for oppression and wholesale slaughter. There is acute paranoia and zealotry at work here. The fanatic defence of Israel only lends to that paranoia.

In the words of H. L. Mencken-

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under

by omg Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:23

Ah that’s ok then; Israeli destruction of Lebanon has UN approval.
Hard to see exactly where you extrapolated that from, but then it would seem the UN has done a complete u-turn on the matter and has later condemned Israeli actions and the International Court in The Hague has cited Israel on its policies and actions.

Firstly John, no one mentioned Lebanon apart from yourself so in essence you are arguing with yourself? nice way to try to change the subject matter entirely --and yes the UN did a u-turn and rightly so, same as the Israeli supreme court said the wall impedes arab palestinians rights

My point John was simple, that Caobhin was posting pure bullshit, i stick to that point as it is completely and utterly true and as he said himself he would be called an anti-semitic for posting such facts, well when his facts are shown as pure BS then welll what can you say......

by omg Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:39

I suppose global opinion is irrelevant as well

And finally global opinion John is UN opinion........United Nations is what the UN stands for..........192 of them in fact...i would think that it is a pretty accurate assesment of global opinion.....or maybe counterpunch is a better global assesor in your eyes...yawn..

by John Wed Dec 06, 2006 13:03

I don’t think I was being caught out, I believe this whole debate too important to allow semantics turn it into a school yard observation of minor errors.
Lebanon was mentioned in this thread as was Palestine and several other matters which are central to any debate regarding Israeli policy in the region.

I believe Israel to be wrong in its action over the past decades, I think it has acted arrogantly yet manipulated the siege mentality of its citizens and made it central to its political agenda, arming itself to the teeth under this auspices and in doing so acquired nuclear weapons thus dangerously accelerating the possibility of an arms race in the region.
I think it has, and is, enacting a policy of netralisation to what is considers its enemies and particularly under the umbrella of the bush administration has become ever more cavalier with its military actions causing untold destruction and misery to cilivians.

Would I be correct in saying that you support Israel? Do you think it has acted in good faith in the region and conducted itself with nothing but honour and consideration for its neighbours.

Debate is absolutely necessary on this. Hysterical slurs of anti-Semitism, allusions to Hitler and so on are have been used on this thread to stymie such debate.
It would be nice to get out of the blame game, address the issues at hand and competently see if we can have a convergence of opinion and agree that peace is ultimately what we all want.

by John Wed Dec 06, 2006 13:16

just as a matter of clarification, the UN and globel opinion are not the same thing, and as you yawn how many die?

by omg Wed Dec 06, 2006 13:42

Would I be correct in saying that you support Israel? Do you think it has acted in good faith in the region and conducted itself with nothing but honour and consideration for its neighbours.

I support in sofar as i do not accuse the state as committing genocide or the countless other over the top statements by people on here. I think Israel has acted with the same amount of good faith as its neighbours has shown towards it yes. i would consider it has acted with the same amount of honour and consideration as its neighbours has shown towards it, i would say actually a bit more honour than its neighbours have shown as it has managed to secure peace treaties with two of those neighbours and in the process returned all lands that it took from them from previous wars where they invaded its territory needlessly.

I disagree with its implementation of the wall, i think it is an over the top reaction to a constant barrage of missiles and bombs from the arab palestinians

I think the Israeli state is paranoid but it is rightly paranoid as it has irans leader stating openly that is should be blown off the map,a hezbollah militia collecting offensive missiles and trying to overthrow a democratic elected parliment next door, a guarantee from the arab palestinians that when they gave goverance of gaza to them to stop the missiles but less than a day later the missiles rained in from gaza, the syrians leader also quoted as saying they want to eradicate the jews

I think Israel realises that the only solution is what was agreed in 1947, a 2 state solution, which one must recognise the arabs rejected in the first place not the Israelis as so often misquoted here.

Like the north this will take a lot of time to come to fruition but given the precedence set in the past peace talks it is not unachievable but as long as groups like HAMAS refuse to even acknowledge that Israel exists and stick to the misguided opinion that they should rule all of what was palestine when the state of Israel is in fact a tiny part of that

peace and negotiation is the only option for both sides, the current fighting is not doing any good for eithier side --it just lets extremists on both sides have more say

by John Wed Dec 06, 2006 14:13

Agreed.

It is imperative political/religious extremists are marginalised as much as possible.
I believe Israel has a right to exist and won’t succumb to the usual anti-British rhetoric which is an underlining reason for Palestinian support in Ireland.
However I do have much criticism of Israel and its use of its military dominance to shepard and displace people through the region. By its own actions it is fueling the very accusations it has tried to dispel.
A leap of faith must be taken. Israel must now be militarily secure enough to realise that any large scale attack on its borders would be an act of suicide. In light of this can it not prove its democratic and tolerant credentials by dismantling the settlements, compensate and stimulate the economies which it was implicit in destabilising and cease all offensive military action.

by omg Wed Dec 06, 2006 14:46

and i think things like this are a good start!

by Stuart Wed Dec 06, 2006 15:25

Omg: I disagree with its implementation of the wall, i think it is an over the top reaction to a constant barrage of missiles and bombs from the arab palestinians

The Irish company CRH is one of the largest shareholders in the Israeli company Nesher, supplier of concrete for the construction of the wall. The incomplete wall is already destroying the livelihoods and quality of life of thousands of people, cannot conceivably lessen terrorist activity, and in doing so is a further cause of resentment fuelling terrorism.

Action against CRH would be a far more appropriate behaviour than against Atlantic, which is not Israeli, does not pay taxes to the rogue state and would apparently be supported even by Omg.

by omg Wed Dec 06, 2006 18:01

q: What you do not mention is the larger number of Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries following murderous persecutions after 1948. We absorbed them and didn't complain to anyone about it, whereas the Arabs deliberately refused to absorb their refugees, despite infinitely greater resources; and whine endlessly about it.

a: So now the settlers/colonists who took up the mass invitation by Israel to jews throughout the world to come and occupy anothers land are refugees - what about your beloved "right of return" ? A bit more choice than the terrorized and penniless Palestinian refugees driven to Jordan and Lebanon were given by the Israeli military.

As you are obviously somebody with no idea about the middle east(i presume you think that waving a palestinian flag in the north makes the north the same as the m/east) i will again post my refute of your so blatently ignorant totally incorrect in fact comment its laughable

slowly taken apart just for you:

You said:A bit more choice than the terrorized and penniless Palestinian refugees driven to Jordan and Lebanon were given by the Israeli military.

some quotes that obliterate that fact, just for you all from arab leaders at the time

This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country."

- Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in The Arabs (London, 1955),

We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.

- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in Sir Am Nakbah ("The Secret Behind the Disaster") by Nimr el Hawari, Nazareth, 1952

Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return."

- Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, The Memoirs of Haled al Azm, (Beirut, 1973), Part 1, pp. 386-387

as far as the 1st part of that question--your answer shows that you actually totally misunderstood the question, the person was referring to Jewish refugees kicked out of arab lands, 200,000 from Iraq alone but you id doubt would get that point(well you obviously didnt)

by Caobhin Wed Dec 06, 2006 19:01

How exactly do those three quotes you must have spent the last 24 hours dredging up from the internet refute the fact that Israeli violence caused the mass exodus of the Palestinians from their land in 1948? How do they verify your lies that the influx of jewish settlers onto stolen land ever since was an equivalent (or no doubtto you the only one) refugee crisis? Can you answer anything without resorting to google search - admit it you're making this up as you go along. (Oh yes and I'm anti-semitic )

You are no doubt unaware of your staggering hyocrisy in using the UN to back you up when Israel has been the biggest and most flouter of UN resolutions.

by David Thu Dec 07, 2006 03:54

Using out of date quotes and citing a historically irrelevant UN resolution is about as valid as using Churchill’s “We’ll fight them on the beaches” speech as a rally call to defeat the IRA post the Good Friday agreement.

Israel at present doesn’t care (nor did it at the time) who rejected the 1948 accord for a 2 state solution, its leaders where even then whipping up nationalist frenzy in what it saw would be an all out fight to secure its virgin borders. Hardly a testament of righteousness in the face of what it mistakenly saw as a war of survival given that it knew its foundation was at the detriment of a settled and geographically indigenous people, i.e. the Arabs.

Israel’s roots is sown in controversy, its legitimacy constantly questioned, its existence an act of international expediency.
It has acquired nuclear weapons, dismissed international criticism of such as anti-semitic vitriol, used the holocaust as an incongruous defence of its clearly illegal actions and behaved in a manner at odds with its own sense of persecution.

Israel is a pariah state, ignorant of its own war-crimes, oblivious to its wretched behavior, and zealous in its own self-righteousness.

It is time it consigned the persecution complex. Accepted its precarious position and tried to live in peace with its displaced neighbours and did so humbly and economically.

by omg Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:24

How exactly do those three quotes you must have spent the last 24 hours dredging up from the internet refute the fact that Israeli violence caused the mass exodus of the Palestinians from their land in 1948?

You must be dim! 3 different arab leaders telling the arabs to leave and return when they have eradicated the jews! the war they could not lose, the final solution!

Israel at present doesn’t care (nor did it at the time) who rejected the 1948 accord for a 2 state solution, its leaders where even then whipping up nationalist frenzy in what it saw would be an all out fight to secure its virgin borders. Hardly a testament of righteousness in the face of what it mistakenly saw as a war of survival given that it knew its foundation was at the detriment of a settled and geographically indigenous people, i.e. the Arabs.

The arabs invaded Israel not the other way around no matter how much you want to believe otherwise fellow. Its common knowledge ---thats why arab leadership today refer to 67 borders they cant say 48 as it drags up the quagmire that they were offered a state(much bigger than 67) but threw it back in the worlds face and tried instead to eliminate a a race which had 6million just killed
jesus how shamefull, no wonder they never mention it

by omg Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:47

How do they verify your lies that the influx of jewish settlers onto stolen land ever since was an equivalent (or no doubtto you the only one) refugee crisis

Again you dont get it, It was an influx of settled Jews from arab lands such as Iraq, Iran, Eygypt etc that were kicked out of land they had been in for generations 200,000 from Iraq alone were kicked out by the arabs, over 2million from all the newly formed arab kingdoms(given to the arabs by Britain and France as promised for allying against the Turks), the facts of history dont need to be verified as they are written in every history book the world over, just go check, also as 6million were killed in ww2 up to 48, you seriously saying that the remainder were not refugees? wtf is wrong with you? are you a holocaust denier as well?

Read your history, get it right, dont rely on dumbstruck for your info fellow

by David Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:18

Is this needled into all pro-israeli arguement as a default position to drum out criticism?
Again you use the 48 accord as a stick with which to beat Arab backs. Has Israeli policy since then been based on this "well they turned down the offer?" mantra, ergo justification in finitum, for the IDFs brutal assaults on the men woman and children of Palestine and Lebonon.
Do your soldiers scream "1948" as they shoot innocent civilians in the street?
Do the your bricklayers shout "remember the holocaust" as they build that obscene wall?
There is absolutely nothing to justify Israels barbarity post 48 or 67, no list of arab atrocities drummed out by you can ever come close to the death toll exacted in Palestine or Lebonon by the IDF.

The Arabs didnt kill 6 million jews, the Nazi's did, along with a hell of a lot of other people who didnt fit their racial or religious profile, including no-doubt those of arab extraction.

Even this is not justification for Israeli butchery as much as you might wish it was.

by omg Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:17

David

6million was only mentioned as its relevant to the timeing of 48, the denying of the other clown of jewish refugee status in 48 and to the barbarity of attacking a people with a view to killing them off after they had just undergone 6 years of persecution.

In all honesty your arguement is irrelevant. the arab borders were agreed in 1915 by Henry mcmahon and the Shariff of Mecca and they specifically did not include what you now call Israel, so the arabs had zero claim on the land to begin with

please refer to the british white papers on Palestine

History, it never lies, that is why the world agrees Israel has a right to exist, just as the arab world the shariff of Mecca agreed to has every right to exist, unfortunately that never included west of the Jordan river, the British specifically did not include it and it was agreed upon, no amount of lies can ever ever change that fact

by Caobhin Thu Dec 07, 2006 13:29

"You must be dim! 3 different arab leaders telling the arabs to leave and return when they have eradicated the jews! the war they could not lose, the final solution!"

Even when you dredge up out of context selective quotes to justify your ineptness you can't get it right - understand what the word "partly" means and fyi WWII ended in 1945. You must be extremely intelligent.

"you seriously saying that the remainder were not refugees? wtf is wrong with you? are you a holocaust denier as well?"

What I am saying ween is that there is a massive difference between a refugee driven by force of arms for racist and sectarian reasons and someone who takes up an invitation to colonise anothers land as the majority influx of israelis to Palestine since 1948 have been. I never denied that there were tit-for-tat expulsions at the time so try move on from your pet hang up.

Took you a while to try smearing me as a nazi as well - knew you'd get round to it eventually. - you and your fellow zionist fanatics are a disgrace to all the victims of the Holocaust abusing their memory for your own venal cause.

by omg Thu Dec 07, 2006 14:06

colonise anothers land.....

the arab borders were agreed in 1915 by Henry mcmahon and the Shariff of Mecca and they specifically did not include what you now call Israel, so the arabs had zero claim on the land to begin with

what part of the above do you not understand? I understand you have an Irish hangup about colonisation for shure....This is the last time i post as your knowledge of history in the m/east is appalling so i will give you a further history lesson...you viewed the British as occupiers in the m/east then i presume from that crass statement and the arabs as rightfull owners?(the common Irish approach as its viewed as a similar situation to the colonisation of the north)

this shows your lack of knowledge of the m/east as it was the turks that controlled the entire area from 1299 to 1922 so on your fountain of knowledge its the turks that are the rightfull heirs to the entire m/east then! you cant have it both ways---you eithier agree to the current arab countries existance through the agreement of 1915 or you say that all arab states are currently invalid as the rightfull rulers were the turks for almost a thousand years
please read the history...you get a better idea what you are talking about

by Syrianna Thu Dec 07, 2006 15:57

You’re having hard time gettin your head around colonisation and conquests aren’t ya, omg?

The Turks colonised the entire region after they conquered it, same as the Brits did later, and in India, Egypt etc etc.

The point is that you are seriously grasping at straws here with that hog wash, and I’m sorry I don’t have a persecution complex so it is hard for me to understand your steadfast grip on what is fast descending into nonsense. Who colonised the middle east first? The Turks? The Brits? The Mesopotamians? What does it matter?
Who are the indigenous people of the region? Arabs, plain and simple.

I give it to you that the creation of Israel was a mistake.
Your historical claim to it another mistake, cited in a fantasy called the Old Testament.
Israel has displaced the original indigenous people, and not content with that decided to illegally further expand and displace more indigenous people, much like the yanks did with those pesky redskins.

Please leave the Nazi, Hitler loving, anti-Semitic garbage on your desk top. I oppose all illegal occupations and acknowledge all conquests and colonialism as wrong. You just happen to be Jewish, so what? I take exception to the fantasies of Christianity as well, being an Atheist as I am.

I don’t feel any responsibility for the Holocaust, it was not done in my name or for any cause or beliefs I value.

I don’t need to know the exact historical accuracies of a region to identify if tyranny exists there.

And it is a needless tyranny, continued by entrenched idiotic apologists as your self. Only problem is people are dying as we type, but they are dying in your name, not mine.

by shane Thu Dec 07, 2006 16:21

Who are the indigenous people of the region? Arabs, plain and simple

Nope, you got that one incorrect! The arab makeup is far from plain and simple, its a bit like saying the Irish always have been the inhabitants of Eire

its simply not true....practically every race on earth was conquered/mixed at some point. To ignore the conquerers impact genetically is to ignore the world today, a bit like a blinkered horse, racial purity does not exist

by answer to shane Thu Dec 07, 2006 16:49

I think Syrianna was talking about who in the current context of Palestine can be considered the indigenous people of the region. its a fact that prior to the creation of the state of Israel the majority population in the region was Arab, how far this goes back i dont know, but seeing that the state of Israel bases its claims of legitimacy on the fact that they are the indigienous people of the region maybe they should go back in history to when Abraham (the father of Judasim, Christianity and Islam) left his birthplace which is now Iraq and went and conquered what is now Palestine/Israel

In essence banal arguments about racial purity etc tend only to come from extreme pro Israeli apologists who see the state of Israel as being a pure Jewish state.

Syrianna is more concerned with human life as most people should be and the only way to preserve human life in the region is to talk and compromise something that Israel is not willing to do in its quest for the "Greater Israel"

Indeed isnt the language strinkingly similar to that used by other racially motivated states in the last century

by giveitarest Thu Dec 07, 2006 17:04

give it a rest

look if every indigenous culture claimed its indigenous landright the entire world would be owned by a tribe of africans

The jews are entitled to their homeland. Thats why places were called Judea and Samaria, like arabs they are from the region, same as the Syrians or the Iranians or whoever....

now get back to the protest news

by giveitarest repsonce Thu Dec 07, 2006 17:12

I agree totally - a racially based argument is ridiculous but some points are worth noting

(1) Judea and Samaria are Jewish terms these regions have other names too

(2) jews are indeed indigenous to the region and deserve a right to a homeland

However, is it right to advocate a right to a homeland oin religious grounds especially at the expence of people already living there

The basis of the conflict is the uprooting of 750,000 people in 1948 to create the state of Israel, since then countless thousands more have been uprooted, dispossesed and killed

One cannot talk about this issue without debating the basis of Israels claim to the land at the expence of people who were living there prior to massive Jewish immigration in the 1930's and in the post war period. One cannot seriously still beleive the original Zionist claim to have found "a land without people for a people without land" can we?

One cannot give these debates a rest and talk about the protest without debating the reason one has to protest in the first place

by John M Mon Dec 11, 2006 19:08

What a load of chidish un informed idiots are the IPSC lot
Repeat propaganda lies
Claim no one Arab was ever responsible for anything nasty
Claim Israel and Jews are responsible for every ill in the world
So have they all become Muslims whose whole religion is a distortion of all known truths -they are follower s of the youngest of the 3 main religions and act like the naughty youngest child who will never admit he did anything wrong ?

Arabs cause the havoc in the Middle East
Look any where in the world except the North and if there is a problem it is because Muslims want this or that -- NUI students go and protest against that !
Darfur Nigeria Indonesia Phillipines , Shias killing Sunnis and vice versa in Irag - sort them out and leave your hate of Jews at home .

by Reply to John M Mon Dec 11, 2006 19:18

I am afraid JohnM that your assertion that the IPSC are uninformed childish idiots is probable more accurately pointed at yourself.

Firstly, you seem to show a lack of knowledge of the IPSC - solidarity with Palestinians is not Jew hating, indeed the IPSc has Christian, Jewish and Muslim supporters and indeed support for Palestinian human rights is central to manu Jewish Human Rights organisations of which the IPSC is linked to namely B'Tselem, Rabbis for Human Rights etc.

Secondly It would seem from your post that it is you who are far more muslim hating than the IPSc is Jew hating, this again is linked to you lack of knowledge, Palestinians can also be chrsitians and yes even Jews

John M yourposts which betray your hatred and lack of knowledge say more about you that the IPSC

BTW Shias killing Sunnis etc in Iraq never happened before until the US invasion!!!

by Fred Johnston Mon Dec 11, 2006 20:11 sylfredcar at iolfree dot ie

They call themselves, quite deliberately, the Israeli Defence Forces, yet who in God's name are they defending themselves AGAINST, being the most sophisticatedly-armed, indeed nuclear-armed, army in the Middle East? I love your notion that the IDF take care not to harm civilians - must be badly-trained, then, for they have a peculiarly-high sucess rate in killing Palestinian women and children, usually by the family-load. Maybe you could pass this on to them: a child is a small figure, roughly one third the size of an adult male or female. A female is smaller than a man and in Palestine will be dressed somewhat differently. These images will retain their proportions even with night-sights. Therefore it is quite easy to distinguish among them. If you want to, that is.

by Stuart Mon Dec 11, 2006 20:37

by Reply to John M: BTW Shias killing Sunnis etc in Iraq never happened before until the US invasion!!!

The cemetery of the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf contains the bodies of many tens of thousands of Shiites killed in reprisal by the predominantly Sunni armed forces after a US-inspired uprising in 1991. The Iran-Iraq war was characterised by Sunni-Shia animosity. Communal violence in Pakistan dating from the Iranian revolution is almost invariably between Sunni and Shia. Saddam Hussein perceived Shiite mullahs and non-conformist Shiite communities as a disloyal and destablising force acting against Iraqi national unity.

There is no doubt that the occupying forces have been responsible for escalating violence, but community violence between religious and ethnic groups is not a product of this war. It was exploited by British occupation in the 1920's - Arthur "Bomber" Harris exploited inter-community tension in his taxation bombing campaign (from a Harris bombing report of 1924: "The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means, in casualties and damage: They know that within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.”)

There is no doubt that the occupying forces are guilty of inhuman exploitation of resolveable tensions.