Galway no events posted in last week
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony Public Inquiry >>
Promoting Human Rights in IrelandHuman Rights in Ireland >>
The World is Drowning, Says Antonio Guterres. Send Lots of Money Fri Sep 06, 2024 07:00 | Chris Morrison The "surging seas are coming for us all", UN chief Antonio Guterres warned last week. The only solution is to send him lots of money. Give me a break, says Chris Morrison: there's no evidence sea levels are rising fast.
The post The World is Drowning, Says Antonio Guterres. Send Lots of Money appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
News Round-Up Fri Sep 06, 2024 01:35 | Richard Eldred A summary of the most interesting stories in the past 24 hours that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy about the ?climate emergency?, public health ?crises? and the supposed moral defects of Western civilisation.
The post News Round-Up appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Germany Could Adopt Rwanda Plan Paid for by U.K. Thu Sep 05, 2024 19:00 | Will Jones Germany is considering deporting migrants to Rwanda, where it could use asylum facilities paid for by the U.K., after Keir Starmer scrapped the scheme on which the U.K. has already spent at least £318 million.
The post Germany Could Adopt Rwanda Plan Paid for by U.K. appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
India is Fuelling Hindu Sectarianism Around the World Thu Sep 05, 2024 17:00 | Aditya A India presents itself as a beacon of democracy and makes grand statements about protecting minorities. But the increasingly fanatical religious leadership is driving Hindu sectarianism around the world, says Aditya A.
The post India is Fuelling Hindu Sectarianism Around the World appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
With Teachers Like These, no Wonder British Youngsters Are so Unpatriotic Thu Sep 05, 2024 15:00 | Joe Baron Teacher Joe Baron says it's no surprise 18 to 24 year-olds are so unpatriotic. They've been taught by woke history teachers to hate their own country.
The post With Teachers Like These, no Wonder British Youngsters Are so Unpatriotic appeared first on The Daily Sceptic. Lockdown Skeptics >>
Voltaire, international edition
Voltaire, International Newsletter N°97 Fri Aug 30, 2024 12:14 | en
The New Iranian Foreign Policy Fri Aug 30, 2024 12:12 | en
Press lies about the Venezuelan presidential election, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Aug 27, 2024 06:59 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N°96 Fri Aug 23, 2024 15:28 | en
China chooses international law, distances itself from Israel and reunifies the ... Fri Aug 23, 2024 15:18 | en Voltaire Network >>
|
Crisis in Gaza
galway |
rights, freedoms and repression |
news report
Friday April 11, 2008 15:03 by Margaretta D'Arcy
![Report this post to the editors Report this post to the editors](../graphics/report.gif)
Debacle at public meeting in Galway
30 students from The Irish Centre Of Human Rights Galway walked out in the middle of an Amnesty public meeting called to hear the recent experiences of a Galway woman in Gaza “Crisis In Gaza” was an Amnesty Public Meeting in Galway’s Harbour Hotel on the 9th of April: Treasa Ní Cheannabhain had been invited to talk about her recent and highly-publicized visit to Gaza, a community under siege. Noam Lubell (an Israeli citizen) from the NUI Galway Human Rights Centre was on the platform to give, we were told, the perceptive overview of an academic and human rights expert. The evening ended in disarray when about 30 of his students walked out at what was perceived as a personal question to Mr Lubell. A bizarre turn of events in an open public meeting and extremely disrespectful to Ms Ní Cheannabhain.
One would expect high emotion when such contentious issues as Gaza are under discussion, but surely the point of the Human Rights Centre (“a world-premiere university-based institution with a global reputation”) is to provide an effective interaction between the precise scholarship of the academic community and the raw, often “anecdotal,” experience of public life. Its students are said to be of the highest calibre, but unless they can find their way to listen to and learn from the passions of the outside world, they will be of very little use to the outside world. The pursuit of Human Rights involves solving problems, no matter how uncomfortable. Compare Bertie Ahern’s account of his patient experience in the Good Friday negotiations, and his ultimate success.
If academics think fit to cause the break-up of off-campus discussions because they don’t like the manner of a questioner, they are unwittingly reverting to the mediaeval concept of irreconcilable feud between town and gown. It was perhaps naive of Mr Lubell to commence his contribution with an apology to his students who “already knew what he was going to say.” (Presumably they had come primarily to hear Ms Ní Cheannabhain?) The Galway townspeople present did not know what he was going to say; our edification, in a city hotel, should have been his first thought rather than the diversion of university personnel. Separation and condescension were thus already in place even before the meeting was properly underway.
Moreover, the convenors of the event had made a serious mistake in their preliminary arrangement. I am informed that Amnesty has a policy that no citizens of a country in conflict, no matter what their credentials, should be on the platform when that country’s role is in dispute. Amnesty should not have invited an Israeli citizen, even if he’d been “balanced” by a Palestinian speaker, and in any case there was no Palestinian.
I understand that the faculty members of the Human Rights Centre are hired primarily on their academic record. Might I suggest that in dealings with an unfamiliar non-academic public, communication skills, and sensitivity to cultural differences (specifically those that involve neo-imperialism and post-colonialism), be also taken into consideration?
I
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (20 of 20)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20I dont undertand did the students walk out in solidarity with the israeli academic? what was actually said? I find the above report a little hard to follow
As one of the '30' students who walked out during the recent talk on the 'Crisis in Gaza', i would like to point out that underlying the idea of political activism is standing up against things that you do not believe in and protesting against them. The 'walk out' protest was not in response to either the presentation of Treasa Ni Cheannabhain or Noam Lubell, but to the outrageously bigoted comments from the audience to the tune of the necessity for Israelis to pack up and leave as well as the heritage of the Israeli speaker Noam Lubell. It may be appropriate to point out here that Noam Lubell has worked, and continues to, for many years for a number of Israeli NGOs directly involved in alleviating the humanitarian situation in the West Bank and Gaza as well as advocating for Palestinian rights. Whilst it should not even be necessary to point this out, it certainly does point to the irony of the above comment.
Michelle,
It seems to me from the garble in the original report which is admittedly tricky to understand and your explanation of you and your friends actions , that you walked out on the people on Gaza.
Who cares who said what to who?
This isnt about you and your friend's sensibilities, it's about life and death in Gaza.
Get off your hobby horse and knuckle down and help clarify the plight of the Gazans to people who dont have the full picture..
Mike, I was one of the students who walked out too, and I think you might have gotten the wrong perception of the whole thing.
The reason I, and I suspect many others walked out, was precisely because the meeting had (long ago) ceased to be about Gaza. The issue simply was not being raised. The discussion, and that is a generous word, had long ceased to be about the crisis, and what could be done, but had descended into something which i find difficult to describe, but left me feeling distinctly and deeply uncomfortable.
I feel very strongly about the situation in Gaza, but I also believe in decency, and fairness. And the talk that night had moved far away from those two fundamental principles.
To say that to walk out was to turn your back on Gaza, could not be further from the truth.
I have rarely felt so uncomfortable, and upset as i did that night. To think that the event took place in the name of "solidarity" is unsettling.
What is important is doing what we can to help alleviate the immediate disaster in Gaza. The question must be asked as to what this meeting did to further that aim?
OK Daragh , I was not there, you were and we still have no idea of what actually happened at the meeting to cause someone like you, an informed supporter of Palestinian rights to become so sickened as to abandon a meeting in support of our Palestinian brothers and sisters.
But respectfully I ask, how then are we to stop the enemies of the Palestinian cause from wrecking all efforts to highlight their plight when now they know that all that have to do is repeat performance of whatever it was that destroyed this meeting.
Such actions, fall into the hands of the enemies of our Palestinian comrades.
Respectfully to you, Mike.
Students from the Irish Centre for Human Rights indeed walked out after an hour and a half of the meeting. The students didn’t leave in disrespect but rather believing that in such meetings everybody should be respected and that such events should be used to work towards finding solutions. Most of the students walked out in protest after a member of the audience started to talk about the “holocaust propaganda” which was preceded all through the talk by additional statements such as “every Israeli should feel responsible for the Genocide in Palestine”.
Are the students, several of which have in fact have lived and worked in Palestinian non-governmental organizations, “brainwashed” as it was suggested when they left the room or simply well-informed individuals who were coming to the public talk to learn more and see how they could do more for Gaza and then left because what was happening in the room was totally going against human rights activism? I suggest the latter.
Human rights activism and solidarity movements should be about working towards peace, trying to look at a situation leaving as much as possible the emotions aside to try to figure out what we can do to help. It is certainly not about questioning someone on their personal background to make a case that they cannot possibly be objective and contribute to the discussion. Doing so is being close-minded, not trying to find a solution and close to discrimination.
Contrary to what it was suggested the students are more than open to hear the passions of the outside world. They are not however open to be part of discussions where people do not want to have constructive dialogue. The students will be of great use to the outside world precisely because they can even in emotional situations stop and think and try to have a constructive dialogue not on the basis of bias and of accusing all individuals of a country to be guilty by association to the country they were born in. To reply to another comment, no the students didn’t turn their back on the Gazan people when walking out of the talk. Peace cannot be achieved by pointing the fingers at the other side and only blaming and by stirring hatred. Peace can only be achieved when the different sides will sit together and it is those going against that that are turning the back on the people of Gaza.
I will agree that Mr. Lubell was perhaps naïve, naïve to believe that people were going to the talk to have a constructive debate and would listen to what he had to say rather than just see him as the enemy on account of where he was born and not on the basis of the work he has done and what he said last Tuesday.
Here’s how it looked from where I was sitting: Unfortunately, it appeared that once the audience realised that I was an Israeli citizen, they seemed to regard me as a representative of Israeli government policies, rather than listen to anything I was saying. This was despite the fact that I spent almost all of the talk focusing on the human rights violations committed by Israel against the Palestinians, and speaking of Israel’s responsibility for the plight of the people in Gaza. This included information about my years of work with human rights organisations, such as B’Tselem (www.btselem.org) and Physicians for Human Rights (www.phr.org.il), and the work done by them to address the human rights violations caused by the occupation. Some members of the audience appeared oblivious to all this, and were instead intent on admonishing me for my ‘failure’ to renounce Israeli citizenship and for coming from a state founded on ‘holocaust propaganda’, and then pointing their fingers at me demanding to know my ‘heritage’. I did not ask the students to leave or ‘break up’ the discussion, and myself stayed till the end - if the discussion was broken up by anything then it was by the comments which diverted what was meant to be a discussion about Gaza into questions about my heritage. I was later told that the students that left did so because they had come to hear about Gaza, and not about ‘holocaust propaganda’ or criticism of the speakers.
I am not overly disturbed by criticism of me, though I am more often used to being criticised by right-wing fanatics because of my human rights work, and not by those who are supposed to be on the same side of the fence in the struggle for justice. What I am very disturbed by, is the tone in which the above article speaks about the students who were there. They are all intelligent, open-minded and committed individuals, who have chosen to further their education so that they can have a real impact in their future work in the field of human rights. A number of those in the audience have already spent time working in the ‘outside’ world, including on protection of Palestinian rights, and a number of others are in fact scheduled to live in Gaza for a few months later this year, volunteering with Palestinian human rights organisations, with their efforts supported by the Irish Centre for Human Rights (including myself). If there were any displays of being close-minded that evening, it was not by the students, but by the individuals in the audience who reacted to my nationality, instead of to the content of the talk.
Perhaps we can move on from this, and get back to working on issues that we’re all supposed to agree on, like how to help the people in Gaza.
Dear Noam,
How kind of you to come on here to try to help clarify what occurred at this meeting after you having weathered what sounds to be a detestable encounter on the day.
Two key elements of your statement that I want to highlight immediately.
Firstly, your ending sentiment ; that you wish to move on from this and get back to working on issues that we’re all supposed to agree on, like how to help the people in Gaza.
Absolutely !!! that is he only thing to do, but only after the student action is analysed, as it in itself was an act of protest that should be quantified in it merits to harm or help the Palestinian cause.
Secondly, your choice to stay at the meeting even when the students felt obliged to leave.
If you deceide it wise or proper to stay in support of the Palestinians, then how can it be legitimate and helpful for the students to leave and remove their support from the meeting?
There is a problem here ,which ultimately impinges on the general public's ability to mobilise in support of the Palestinians.
With all due respect , it needs to be analysed.
Actions speak louder than words.Perhaps those who have fought for rights should be listened to,learned from and argued with, but stooping to insults and then wanting to continue an argument that serves no benefit to anybody.Thats petty and infantile
1.There were not thirty students from the human rights centre there, fifteen at the most, the other half therefore were members of the public who walked out in protest I presume for the same reason as we did – the aggressive and discriminatory tone of the final questions.
2. We did not leave in the middle of the talk but rather at the end long after the dialogue had become completely unconstructive. The talk was a ‘call for action on the humanitarian crisis on gaza’ and the final twenty minutes of comments and questions concerned calls for the dissolution of the state of Israel and, most repugnantly, the ‘heritage’ of Noam Lubell. As a young human rights student and member of the 'outside world' I regret that I was not given the opportunity to experience an informative and useful dialogue on ways to alleviate the suffering of people in Gaza but rather the partisan opinions of a few activists determined to further their own political agenda at the expense of genuine discussion of a humanitarian crisis.
Well Deirdre,
Like it or not . The Disolution of Israel is one particular thread of the debate that remains valid for many who seek a peacefrul resolution to the situation. Calling for Israel to be dismantled in it's current form and reconstructed as a state for all it's citizens and with provision for the enactment of the right of Palestinian return is not a repugnant act.
In fact, for many it is the only feasible solution.
With regards to the personal heritage of Noam Lubell , the man himself has clarified that he did not walk out of the meeting as a result of this ignorant line of questioning. But you took it on yourselves to abandon the meeting in sympathy. If you had left with him in an act of solidarity, then I could see your angle.
Im sorry, I fail to see how your actions helped the Palestinians in anyway whatsoever or helped alleviate or illuminate the Gaza crisis in any way shape or form. But I can see how an enemy of the Palestinians will take succour and inspiration from your actions in the face of this kind of pressure.
I found the action of the students both shocking disturbing,and insulting.
As a teacher of second level students for thirty years I couldnt believe that students studying human rights in particular, would walk away from a chance to debate at least WHY Gaza is under siege?
Its appalling that those students who are given the right to travel here to study ,take it for granted,and dont have a thought for the hundreds of Palestinian students that are continually refused this chance to study abroad every year simply because they are Palistinian!!! Im not sure of the number of students that were present but even if its only fifteen ,its still a large body of students studying Human Rights to be so biased in their opinions!
How come we don't have any Palestinians studying Human Rights at Galway Human Rights Centre?
I dont know the nationality of the students that were present at the meeting,but if they were all from Israel I find that very disturbing that the Galway Human Rights Centre is complicit with the Israeili Government in the choice of students that are allowed to travel from Israel and those that are not! So who is in charge at the Galway Human Rights Centre? Perhaps they could enlighten us on this?
In the meantime Gazeans continue to suffer under Siege from a brutal Regime!
Ok, let's get a couple of things clear before people genuinely lose the run of themselves. Treasa, I was also at the meeting. It must surely have been clear to you that difficulty of the students (including myself) was with the increasing hostility of the questions in general and those directed at Noam in particular. As a teacher for thirty years I would have assumed that you would have tried to instil in your own students an abhorrence of bullying in any form and enough personal assurance not to sit there and mutely spectate on its occurrence. Even within the rigid disciplinary structures of a secondary school, who exactly would be worthy of condemnation in the aftermath of a scenario where someone had been publicly intimidated and abused? Those responsible for the bullying, the target himself or those who were for our own part shocked, disturbed and insulted by it and left in protest?
Treasa, none of the students' actions were in any way intended as an insult to you. We attended your presentation with interest and no hostility. You may remember that a number of questions were asked by people affiliated with the Centre, many of which related to potential solutions and practical aspects of the issue at hand, such as water and power supplies. In fact, the only question of the night picking up on the title of the meeting itself - "Gaza: A Call to Action" - came from a member of the Centre asking what could be done, what the call to action meant, how this crisis might eventually be solved. What was remarkable about this evening, which went so horribly wrong, was that the students from the Centre who attended were there to hear more about a situation with which we already have grave concerns. As has been mentioned, a remarkable amount of the students at the meeting are researching or writing on issues relating to the Israel/Palestine situation, are due to travel to Gaza and the West Bank to intern with human rights organisations there, or have already done so. Imagine what it would take in a public meeting to so alienate a group of students whose sympathies were firmly with the issue which was to be discussed. If the questions had stuck to this line then things might have remained interesting and productive, but they quickly veered completely off topic. It is not the students who failed to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
It is disingenuous and dishonest for Margaretta to write an article such as this pointing the finger at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, its staff or its students as those whose behaviour was unacceptable. It is shocking and infuriating for Treasa to question whether all of us are in fact Israeli as the only logical explanation for our action in walking out - I should point out, not during any of the presentations, but after roughly an hour and a half of increasingly vitriolic ad hominem remarks. None of the students present were in fact Israeli. Why is this the first place your mind goes to? The Irish Centre for Human Rights has had many Palestinian students over the years, including the head of Al Haq and other Palestinian human rights activists. But why should we have to justify ourselves or our record on certain nationalities in any way? Is it necessary to have the appropriate credentials in support of Palestine in order to have the temerity to hire an Israeli member of staff? Is it not possible to be appalled at unacceptable behaviour in a public meeting without being suspected as closet Zionist mass-infiltrators?
In future, I would hope that such meetings are better chaired and manage to maintain a purposive focus on the most relevant topic - the human rights and humanitarian situation for Palestinians in Gaza. I have no doubts about the contribution, present, past and future, of the staff and students of the Irish Centre for Human Rights to this issue.
Four points in reply to Noam Lubell.
As I wrote in my original piece, he ought not to have been on the platform of the Amnesty meeting at all.
At a public meeting it is important for the public to know the qualifications and provenance of the speakers (i.e. their "heritage"). He should have introduced himself as a man with dual citizenship, Israeli and UK, who claims to have been a consultant to the British government and the BBC.
By the same token, he interrupted Treasa with equivocations about proportionality of casualties -- which at once reminded myself and others of the sly responses made by British spokespersons to casualty-figures in the IRA conflict. This re-created some of the context of the weeks after Bloody Sunday, when several Britons living in Ireland renounced their British citizenship out of disgust for Ted Heath's soldiery and the lies that their commanders told. But I didn't hear anyone actually exhort Noam Lubell to do the same.
On the other hand, he did exhort the meeting not to see the issue as "black and white." So why then does his comment take such a b-&-w view of his students -- "intelligent, open-minded, committed" -- all of them, at all times, upon all issues? Indeed much of his comment consists of such sweeping generalizations, as b-&-w as you could ask for.
Treasa, Michael Kearney here, and while I'd rather get in touch privately, seeing as this is already on the newswire I'll continue.
First off, I wasn't at the meeting, but I was in Galway the previous week and did voice concern that the meeting could get messy, on the basis that the speaker, Mr Lubell, was Israeli, relatively new to Galway, and unfamiliar to the public that were likely to attend, rather than on anything he might say or not say.
Now, this statement! "I dont know the nationality of the students that were present at the meeting,but if they were all from Israel I find that very disturbing that the Galway Human Rights Centre is complicit with the Israeili Government in the choice of students that are allowed to travel from Israel and those that are not! So who is in charge at the Galway Human Rights Centre? Perhaps they could enlighten us on this?"
Why, oh why? After all our shared experiences of campaigning for respect for human rights in Israel and the oPts, both as academics, non-academics, students, teachers, doctors, unemployed etc... dangerous, unsubstantiated, and baseless accusations of complicity with the government of Israel (or any government for that matter) in the selection of students are thrown about without any regard for either accuracy or gravity. I don't think I've ever felt so justified in muttering GUBU to myself.
While respectful and aware of your longstanding and enthusiastic support for the Palestinians, as a past student of the Irish Centre for Human Rights (for almost five years) for much of which time I was also a member of the Galway IPSC branch, do I need to remind you that the Centre allowed the use of its facilities for the Galway IPSC weekly meetings (as it has done for several other community based rights campaigns) which was a huge help?
I'm confident that anyone (other than yourself unfortunately) who has had any interaction with the Centre over the past eight years would surely dismiss any such contention, I mean, basically you are implying that the Centre is in bed with the Israeli government! GUBU again! Not only has there been many Palestinian students at the Centre, today there are graduates working in Ramallah, Bethlehem, Gaza, Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and elsewhere in both Israel and the oPts on legal/ humanitarian/ and cultural issues. As for who runs the Centre? I'd suggest simply checking the website where all necessary details are fully available, but given that you must surely have met many of the staff before, including the director William Schabas, I'm finding this line of questioning to be pure nasty. And if you haven't met them then I'm sure you could have swung by and had a chat first rather than throwing up such ill thought out nonsense on the web.
On another line which is present in this thread, even if the students at the Centre were all right-wing nut jobs, what can the University do? Demand conformity to a particular line on every issue? Assess potential entrants for unacceptable thoughts 'Are you or have you ever been a Zionist?' Such contentions simply defeat the whole point of University...
As a lecturer in human rights myself I'm very conscious that not all my students necessarily agree with, accept, or perhaps even respect some fundamental principles of basic rights. My job in this regard is basically to encourage critical thought and analysis of legal, political, economic and other issues and at the end of the day what position students accept is up to themselves; you can't bludgeon into them (or anyone for that matter) a particular stance on any issue, moreover advocacy of the dissolution of the State of Israel. Students of human rights are just that 'students', as varied and eccentric as the rest of our community, and sure aren't we all continuously learning.
So, if people choose to leave a meeting for whatever reason, that's their choice. The crucial thing here is for the speakers/ those making comments from the floor, to reassess how they go about generating interest/ action on the situation in the oPts, because if you're off-putting to people who actually come to such meetings, you don't have much chance with the rest of the public...
To conclude, inshallah!, I'd happily have passed over this post but I'm only responding because as a colleague of Treasa’s when in the Galway IPSC, and as an affiliate of the Irish Centre for Human Rights, I couldn't let baseless smears against the Centre stand. With regards the meeting, as noted I wasn't there, but suggestions that all the Centre's staff and students are in an academic ivory tower divorced from the real world (Margaretta) is incorrect, (I'm trying to tott up in my head now how many students that I know who have been detained, arrested, threatened, or assaulted whilst going about their work and it is not insubstantial).
So, in sum, there is definitely anger in this thread, anger against the occupation and our seeming inability to improve the lot of the Palestinians. Can anger be effective? Perhaps, but it needs be wielded precisely, elsewise you cause more damage than good, and this appears to be the most self-defeating post and thread I've seen in quite a bit.
Regards, MK, (and my ‘heritage’, whatever is meant by that, is none of anyone’s business)
Many Israelis ( not a majority of course) have sought to salvage their country's honour, and have dissociated themselves from policies of aggression, theft and displacement ( and the human right's abuses neccessary to effect those policies). Maybe they have not often been maimed by plastic bullets or had their homes bull-dozed, but they have suffered suspicion, hostility and career disadvantage and, as many activist accounts record, have made a valuable contribution with their local knowledge and vernacular language skills. They deserve credit.and a genuine welcome.
The principle of a liberation front is to accept help from people of all backgrounds ( even those which seem to have an unpromising heritage) and all ideological starting points.
" Can anger be effective? Perhaps, but it needs be wielded precisely, elsewise you cause more damage than good, and this appears to be the most self-defeating post and thread I've seen in quite a bit. "
Michael Kearney,
I dont have the personal experience that you have in this field but I am deeply interested and I want to know what happened at the meeting. I am finding this discussion very intersting but also very frustrating because it still is not easy to understand who left, why they left and what is being learned from the whole thing.
I feel intersested , not self- defeated, like you say. I hope we get more clarification
This is exactly the thing I am concerned about. The Galway Human Rights Center has my full support and I understand exactly their reasons for leaving the discussion. I was a bit shocked at the tone used by the author and Treasa in the comments that sounded a bit nationalistic in a xenophobic-kind-of-way, not something I would expect from supposed champions of human rights. You expect behaiviour like this in internet discussion boards, not at public meetings.
Again, my full support for The Galway Human Rights Center and Noam Lubell, who seems like a very level headed guy. Shame on Treasa for trying to pull the centre into disrepute. I wonder if you short changed her for a mars bar that she would accuse you of collaboration with the Zionist aggressors in economic suppression of its opposers....
Firstly, I did not attend the meeting, so I can't comment on exact occurences.
Going by whats being said here, I sense something quite uncomfortable.
I have attended many meetings concerning Palestine, including the visit of the israeli ambassador in 2006 and other NUIG Lit'n'Deb debates. I was up till recently an avid supporter of the IPSC but on seeing how they treated that great man Tommy recently, I have deep and sincere reservations about them. On that matter; you can't co-operate with bigots like Republican Sinn Fein, simple as that.
The actions of these students has smackings of sympathy for Israel, and I will explain this.
From reading what Noam Lubell wrote, he is a great individual for helping out where it was needed, my only complaint against him would be that he was alleged to have questioned Treasa about casualty figures, that just leads to "ah come on, all the blame doesn't lie with Israel". Now, the students walked out, why? Was it concerning Gaza or the machinations of a public debate, answer being the latter. Here is my problem, this implies they had reservations with people questioning Israel, because remember this, we are all different, some of us are a lot more passionate than others, so people can question that state in different ways, naturally being aroused by the prescence of an Israeli citizen. If I was there, and I am 21 years old, studying the LLB law degree in NUIG, including the completion of European Human Rights and International Protection Of Human Rights, with Donncha O'Connell; then I would have questioned any notions of a shared responsibility for the Gazan people. Of course, the Palestinian Authority is resposible for its people but not for the harm done to them. Activism involves actually getting into the thick of it, sticking your neck out and saying things people don't want to hear, not doing a synchronised walk-out because deep down you believe its not all Israel's fault. The fact that the Centre has helped the IPSC comes for nothing when one considers the sitting on the fence that organization engaged in when the issue of racism was brought up at the Liam Mellows protest. If you support Palestine then thats it, there is no room for solidarity with Israel, how can stand with those who want to cripple you?
Also, those of you criticizing Treasa and then saying you stand with the Palestinians, get off the fence, your facade can be seent through.
I hate to say it, but is there any organization out there who won't look at my views and think "fanatic", thats the way people like myself are made to feel.
Yes I must agree with the sentiments in the above post.
It is very important to know whether the meeting was abandoned by these people as an act of protest against insults levelled at Mr. Lubell , which indicates a naive but completely acceptable sensitivity or was it something else. Incidentaly, though I was not at this meeting, I have been at many such meetings and while it is not unknown for one or two idiots to heckle or cojole a speaker, I have never witnessed a group of Palestinian sympathisers mount a campaign of intimidation or suspicion against anyone , not even an ardent zionist, for honestly speaking their mind. So I am completely confused as to what the nature of the attack could have been against Mr Lubell, a fellow sympathiser, to have convinced this group to abandon proceedings.
But we also need to clarify was it this kind of scenario described above or was it indeed some kind of attempt on behalf of Mr Lubell or those who walked out of the meeting to apportion blame to the Palestinian side and in some way to protest suggestions that the state of Israel is a rogue entity acting beyond all decent norms. This scenario would indicate either a terrible misguidance of the students and young people attending at the least, or at worst an undercurrent of pro-Israel extremism undermining the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign at this most critical juncture in time.
For this to have occurred at the Human Rights Centre would be a very grave turn of events requiring a very serious and carefully directed high-level response.
Again, I agree with the sentiments above that call for immediate an unqualified clarifications of these events.