Over 3,000 at today's anti-war march

by MR D Sun Sep 29, 2002 17:03

Stop the War
Fair play to you all, sorry couldnt make it, please post some pictures, thanks

by redJaDe Sun Sep 29, 2002 17:23

As soon as I have the means to upload to another Indymedia server (without it timing out) I'll have a video up.

stay tuned!

redJaDe

by Verbal Sun Sep 29, 2002 18:05

Congratulations to the organisers. The speakers were intelligent & concise, and made their point without resorting to the silly rhetoric that left-wingers sometimes do.

In particular, Michael D. Higgins, Trevor Sargeant, The Palestinian Representative & Joe Higgins were impressive.

There were one or two placards that I thought lowered the tone of the demo, there was one overtly anti-semetic placard blaming 'Zionist Corporations' for the world's problems and one that had what I though was a plug for Jesus. In future, the organisers should ask people with such placards to leave.

There was a hugely impressive turnout, hopefully some of the traditional cynicism and apathy that Irish people have to such demo's will be washed away when the US attack Iraq. I'd encourage anybody who was there to, in turn, encourage people who would be nonchalant about these issues to attend anti-war demo's.

I'd also encourage the organisers to ask people at the demo to take practical steps. Letter writing or emailing (your local t.d. is a good place to start - in a country where elections can be won and lost in a handful of votes a few hundred letters can go a long way), boycotting of products from certain corporations and practical protests to disrupt the operations of anybody or any organisation in Ireland (including political parties) who support the war.

by Aoife Ni Fhearghail - Irish Anti-War Movement Sun Sep 29, 2002 19:11 info at irishantiwar dot org D8 087 7955013

thanks for your comments guys - we were delighted with yesterday's event and the massive demonstrations in London and Rome

regarding practical steps we're encouraging the setting up of local anti-war groups which could then organise their own activities - letter-writing, pickets of local pro-war TDs clinics, building for the Shannon demo etc.

Regarding the banners - on a previous demo I did ask the people carrying a banner with swastikas to remove it (zionism certainly is racism but fascism is something altogether different) and they refused - making a big scene to push them out of the demo would probably have been the very thing rte and the irish times would have covered so i decided against this - so i'm not quite sure what to do about dodgy banners, but there is definately no room for anti-semitism or racism is the anti-war movement.

thanks again and make sure you get on the bus to Shannon
Aoife

by Stephen Sun Sep 29, 2002 21:06

I do not like SWP at all but their speaker (can't remember the name) gave an excellant speech.

by Ard Rith Sun Sep 29, 2002 21:12

It is disappointing to read how the Irish anti -war movement view Zionism as racism. I believe in a two state solution. Jewish people have always longed for a homeland - 6 million dead. Israel has the right to exist and it is obvious that the view of the the anti war movement is itself inherently anti-semitic.This silly little group can in no serious way view themselves as peacemakers.

by Verbal Sun Sep 29, 2002 21:43

I think there need's to be a definition of Zionism. I was refering to a placard that was 'anti-semitic', it tried to blame the current world situation on 'Zionist Corporations'. On it was written baseless claim that Jewish people control the world through their corporations.

When the anti-war movement posted a followup, defining Zionism as racism, I think she was refering to the modern Zionist philosophy of removing non-Jews from all of the Holy Land. The same people who think the oppression on the Palestinians is acceptable because it is being carried out as part of a Zionist policy.

They did say there is no place for anti-semitism, but, although she probably didn't express herself clearly, she's perfectly correct in what she said and it is no way anti-semetic. The people in the anti-war movement would be just as concerned if it were Jewish people that were in the Palestinians position. I don't know what the anti-war movements position is on the state of Israel but I doubt that they don't accept the state of Israel as legitimate.

by Intransigent Sun Sep 29, 2002 21:55

I find it quite disturbing that Ard Rith is using the Holocaust as justification for the killing of thousands of innocent Palestinians so that the state of Israel may accomplish the dream of achieving the Jewish 'Homeland.' I am not anti-semetic but I do maintain that the doctorine of Zionism is a racist one, which calls for a purely Jewish country and I think we are seeing the results of that quite clearly. The doctorine of "Jewish Land, Jewish Labour, Jewish Produce" not being cited as racist is ridiculous. Turning this around and calling me anti-semetic will be like calling me anti-american for being anti-war. Zionism is Racism

by ard rith Sun Sep 29, 2002 22:32

As someone who knows Palestinian people in Ireland I take offence at the charge that I support the murder of Palestinians. Israel exists, nothing will change this fact- I want to see a Palestinian state as well and a shared Jerusalem. People have got to get real and understand the hatred that exists against Israel and the Jewish people among fanatical fundamentalist 'Islamic' groups.If people want to say that the continued existence of Israel is about racism then we are in for much more bloodshed - something which some on the " left" don't seem to have a problem with-provided it's innocent Israeli men , women and children spilling their blood.

by Instransigent Sun Sep 29, 2002 22:41

Perhaps it will come to you as some surprise that not all Jews agree with what the State of Israel is doing. Zionism does not equal Judaism. The same way that Islam does not equal Wahabism (Saudi Arabia's fundamentalist teachings of the religion). The state of Israel was created through Zionism. That state is oppressing the Palestinian and has ignored many UN Security Council Resolutions. It's a recognised problem that Israel is doing this. The oppression comes from the state of Israel and not the whole of the Jewish population. The same way that not all Muslims will support suicide bombers. It's not anti-semetic to be against the policies of the state of Israel. Israel is equated with Zionism; Judaism is not. And as for the last comment of course I have a problem with any inncoent civilians being murdered.

by pat c Mon Sep 30, 2002 11:25

Some zionists do not support the crimes being committed against the palestinian people in the occupied territories. I don't think it would be fair to describe these people as racist.

However, all of the ADULT settlers are racist. For them to continue to lord it over the occupied territories then it is necessary for the IDF to be used to crush the freedom & dignities of the Palestinian People.

The adult settlers are all armed & effectively form a proto fascist militia which carries out attacks on unarmed Palestinian civilians.

I don't believe there is any such thing as an adult CIVILIAN settler; these militia members have chosen to come & occupy a land which is not theirs. They subjugate the inhabitants by force of arms. They bring on the attacks which result in the deaths of settler children in the occupied territories & civilians in Israel.

Israel should be forced to return to their own borders. As a Libertarian Socialist I would like to see a united Palestinian & Israeli people but I'm cyncical enough to know that the best to be achieved in the short to medium term is a two state solution.

Aoife

While there have been some dodgy banners, I dont believe it is wrong or anti semitic to equate THE STATE OF ISRAEL & ITS PRESENT POLICIES AS BEING FASCIST.(Maybe a bit of an Exageration)

A banner which clearly compares the ISRAELI STATE FLAG WITH THE SWASTIKA is not anti semitic.

However comparing the Star of David itself (a Judaic symbol)to a Swastika is objectionable. Unfortunately the Communist Party of Ireland in their magazine, Red Alert did just this. (This issue was distributed on the march).

It best not to confront people who are objecting to "Zionist Conspiracies" , some are genuine over entusiastic pro palestinians (have a quiet word with these), some are eccentric, some barking mad. The real fascists will make their anti semitism quite clear.

Pat

by ard rith Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:31

I agree with the 'anti-war' spokesperson and others that the settlements are wrong and must stop. Israel needs to confront the settlers with the need for this land to be handed back. I would not say that all settlers are all racist- do you happen to know these people? Many are driven by a strong religious conviction.Violence against innocent Israelis is a clear policy among significant numbers of Muslims and condemnation from many is often muted to say the least. I have much respect for the faith of Islam but many are departing from its fundamental teachings and instead engaging in a religious war against Israel and the Jewish people.Irish anti-war and others mouth the usual anti- Israel line because that is the accepted dogma among the left. Israel has sought peace with its Arab neighbours many times. In 1948 the Arabs rejected a partition plan which would have saved people a great deal of bloodshed. The Jewish people have a right to be in the Middle East and the Holocaust should serve as a lesson to us all. Still today Israel finds itself surrounded by a great many who are deeply hostile to them and wish to see their destruction. I still maintain that Irish anti war and others are driven by hatred of Israel, its people and their wish to be different and have a homeland of their own. On a final note the 'left' need to waken up- we don't live and will never live in a utopia -it's an extremely violent world out there - direct some of your bile against those Arab 'populations' and Muslim groups who wish to destroy Israel and the many good things we enjoy in the West because sooner or later you may regret it that you had your head so far up your arse.

by pat Mon Sep 30, 2002 13:34

what are the settlers doing there in the first place? they are illegally occupying land. illegal under the terms of UN resolutions. Illegal under international law.

i don't know any of them personally but i do know of their actions. they try to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. They are no different from German settlers during the second world war seeking lebensraum with the IDF playing the role of the eisatzengruppen.

please spare us the myth of little israel in 1948.

what really happened was hundreds of thousands of palestinians were ethnically cleansed, especially by the nazi collaborators from the Stern Gang & Begins outfits in their quest for lebensraum.

these palestinians & their descendants must be given the right to return or israel should be forced to return to the borders of the 1947 UN Mandate.

by Shane - democratic election forum Mon Sep 30, 2002 13:55 shane_cogan at publicist dot com

Well done to everyone in my native country, Ireland, for a marvelous turnout last Sat. I was at the demo in London, which was absolutely amazing.

Keep the good work up folks
Shane, London Town

by badman Mon Sep 30, 2002 14:17

I was on the demo and my estimate of the turnout is a maximum of 1,500. Most of the people that I consulted with had similar or lower estimates. Accuracy is good.

by Andrew Mon Sep 30, 2002 16:03

Well I'm saying over 2,000 at the high point but I actually think as many as 3,000 people may have taken part at one point or another during the day (a lot of people didn't hang around from all 2.5 hours).

I sometimes 'count' demonstrations if I have a few minutes. I didn't do this on Saturday but I did go the entire length of it a few times distributing LAN leaflets. Also as a photographer on most marches I find a high spot to try and take a pic of all or most of the crowd.

This numbers question is both important and silly at the same time. The important is that people can feel either depressed or elated if they are told a march was 50% bigger or smaller then the previous one. This can put pressures on organisers to not only inflate figures but inflate them by an ever increasing factor (the cops seem to do the reverse, their estimate of 500 was woeful!).

Perhaps what is needed is a couple of people who will regularly 'count' such demonstrations and post reliable estimates?

by chris Mon Sep 30, 2002 17:11

3,000 sounds like an overestimation to me. I'm no expert at crowd sizes, but the crowd never seemed that big.

Overall, I thought it was a good march. My main complaint would be that the march lacked focus - at least, I think it would to bystanders. There seemed to be three distict groups - there were people there to oppose a war on Iraq; people there who's main concern was Israel/Palestine, the 20th anniversary of the massacres, etc.; and anti-Nice campaigners. I think someone who was out shopping on Grafton St. and happened to see the march go by might not be able to tell what it was all about. There were so many people passing out information about their various pet causes... I dunno. I'm not sure turning a march against a war on Iraq into a laundry list of current leftist complaints is such a great idea.

But overall fair play to the organizers. Some of the speakers were truly excellent and there was a good turnout.

chris

by Harry Pollitt Mon Sep 30, 2002 17:28

To pat and some other folk:
Comparing Israel to the Third Reich is childish rhethoric and is I think understandable offensive to many (how come Israel is always compared to the Third Reich, but not say Britian?).

Not only does it totally debase the horror of the holocaust (and I'm by no means a supporter of Israel but their atrocities are not in the same league) but you are only driving a wedge between people who might otherise agree with you, by using this terrible history, - often of their own families, as a political football.

It does a diservice to the cause of ending the occupation.

Finally if there were Israeli "eisatzengruppen" in the Middle East there would be no Arabs there. You do know what they were and what they did, don't you?

Zionism on the other hand is a racist ideology (and ironically very much a by-product of how assimilated into being Europeans Jews were 100/80 years ago), cause it's central tenet has been that European Jews had a greater right to the land of Palestine than native Arabs.

Perhaps it is different now, but that is where it's origins were.

by Tony Mc Manus Mon Sep 30, 2002 18:52

I saw the aerial photo and counted about 630 people there. Boosting numbers is basically lying. State Controlled Broadcaster wins the prize today for getting closest to the real figure!!

by Verbal Mon Sep 30, 2002 21:17

The count at the top of Grafton St...at a rough estimate was about 1300-1500.

630 is a joke. Have you a link to this "photo" you claim to have seen.

by Instransigent Mon Sep 30, 2002 23:28

"The Jewish people have a right to be in the Middle East and the Holocaust should serve as a lesson to us all."

Ard Rith can you please explain to me what special right it is you are talking about when you proclaim that the Jewish people have a right to be in the Middle East? You do know that there were Palestinians living on the land before the state of Israel robbed it from them? And once again what significance does the Holocaust have at this time in relation to the state of Israel. It was an atrocity that is not rivalled though I am somewhat confused at to what part it plays in your argument. You seem to throw it in there and say 'well hey this shit happened to them so it's ok for them to do some shit to a bunch of others standing in their way!' I am thoroughly confused?????

by pat c Tue Oct 01, 2002 09:48

it is not infantile to compare the actions of idf & settlers to the third reich. the only difference is a matter of scale.

eisatzengruppen were usedd to clear territories in poland & the ussr. they didn't exterminate everyone; just enough to terrorise the locals & clear enough land. also to wipe out the potential leaders of any resistance.(intellectuals, cp members, socialists, etc; not just jews)

then the settlers were to move in.

i repeat the only difference is a matter of scale.

the israelis assassinate intellectuals, political leaders and stone throwing children.

by Ray Tue Oct 01, 2002 11:35

The Israeli government may be trying to drive the Palestinians out of Israel and the occupied territories, but they are not trying to kill them all. They may be practicing ethnic cleansing, but they are not operating concentration camps.

When allegations are exagerrated to these levels, they are not taken seriously anymore. You're not going to convince anybody that Sharon is equivalent to Hitler, or that Zionists are equivalent to Nazis, because everybody can see that they really aren't. The problem is that wild allegations like this, that can't be backed up with evidence, discredit the real reports, that can be supported, of a brutal occupation.

Sharon is closer to someone like Milosevic, and the Israeli governments actions closer to those of the apartheid government of South Africa. Those comparisons have evidence behind them, and are going to convince more people than comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis which are clearly untrue.

by pat Tue Oct 01, 2002 13:34

"They may be practicing ethnic cleansing, but they are not operating concentration camps."

tell that to palestinians rotting in israeli internment camps & jails.

" You're not going to convince anybody that Sharon is equivalent to Hitler, or that Zionists are equivalent to Nazis"

yes i am, some people here are convinced. it goes down well with my work colleagues.

the only difference is a matter of scale. parties in the israeli govt have called for the extermination of arabs, so have settler organisations.

ray, i don't think we're going to agree on this. so lets leave it.

by Ray Tue Oct 01, 2002 14:06

- "They may be practicing ethnic cleansing, but they are not operating concentration camps."

- tell that to palestinians rotting in israeli internment camps & jails.

Are those palestinians being gassed? Is the Israeli government performing medical experiments on their Palestinian prisoners? Is it the aim of the Israeli government to kill (not expel, _kill_) every Palestinian in the occupied territories?

" You're not going to convince anybody that Sharon is equivalent to Hitler, or that Zionists are equivalent to Nazis"

- yes i am, some people here are convinced. it goes down well with my work colleagues.

Okay, I'll rephrase. You're not going to convince any but a small minority of people of their equivalence. On the other hand, it would be a lot easier (and more accurate) to demonstrate the equivalence with the kind of ethnic cleansing carried out in the former Yugoslavia.

- the only difference is a matter of scale. parties in the israeli govt have called for the extermination of arabs, so have settler organisations.

The difference is not simply one of scale. Some parties and organisations may have called for the extermination of Palestinians, but that is not the policy being put into operation by the Israeli government. Ethnic cleansing, yes. Genocide, no.

- ray, i don't think we're going to agree on this. so lets leave it.

Tell you what, Pat, I'll leave it for now, but if you use the term 'zionazis' again I'll start up again. How about that?

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but this is getting irritating, and I think that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany actually undermines the Palestinian cause, because it makes people write you off (not to mention alienating Jewish people unnecessarily). The behaviour of the Israeli government in Palestine could be usefully compared to South Africa's treatment of the townships, or even the original concentration camps, set up to hold the Boers. But there is no equivalent to Auschwitz, and implying otherwise makes you look less credible.

by ard rith Tue Oct 01, 2002 14:56

Intransigent is clearly confused and his anti-semitic racist mentality is manifested in his use of the term 'shit' to describe what happened to the Jewish people in the Holocaust. The Jews have always been present in that part of the Middle East and in fact the only place where it is possible for them to live is in Israel(well almost). No Arab country, let's face it, wants them . In 1948 the Jews tried to reach an agreement with the Arabs and were rejected. Today many wish to see the destruction of the Jews in the Middle East.Israel wants to live in peace with its Arab neighbours although a new Israeli leadership is needed to make progress. You should also understand that Palestine never existed as an entity in itself. Jewish heritage is central to the development of Christianity and Islam- therefore to support the murder and removal of the Jews and its ties to this land shows the clear anti-semitic motives of fanatical Islamic 'fundamentalists' and those on the left such as intransigent who support the slaughter of innocent Israeli men, women and children.

by pat Tue Oct 01, 2002 15:50

" I'll rephrase. You're not going to convince any but a small minority of people"

in your days as an anarchist you've never convinced more than a tiny minority that anarchism is right. Does that prove that you are wrong?

"Tell you what, Pat, I'll leave it for now, but if you use the term 'zionazis' again I'll start up again. How about that? "

i didn't use the term zionazi here. but i will use it whenever ithink it is appropriate. why can't you just accept that i have a different opinion to yours? there is no objective way of showing that either of us are incorrect.

unless you think your opinions are laws of nature(?)

"I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but this is getting irritating"

i'm equally irritated by you. i don't want a fight either.

why don't you take your own advice re quarrels with someone else on indymedia? you don't comment on my anti zionist postings & i won't comment on yours? deal?

by Harry Pollitt Tue Oct 01, 2002 21:43

"eisatzengruppen were usedd to clear territories in poland & the ussr. they didn't exterminate everyone"

Wrong. Plain and simple. They exterminated every JEW they could lay their hands on. Other people were also killed but not on the same basis (e.g. not every Orthodox Russian peasant - but lot's of them).

There is no comparasion.

The IDF are not engaged in a programme of extermination of all Arabs. Period.

by Instansigent Tue Oct 01, 2002 23:45

"Intransigent is clearly confused and his anti-semitic racist mentality is manifested in his use of the term 'shit' to describe what happened to the Jewish people in the Holocaust."

Thought that I made it quite clear how I felt the Holocaust was an "atrocity". Maybe not to you but hey I can't be responsible for the lack of perception by some people, especially when I make it so blatantly obvious by calling it an "atrcoity."

"The Jews have always been present in that part of the Middle East and in fact the only place where it is possible for them to live is in Israel(well almost)"

Not denying that Jews lived in the region for thousands of years in peace with the Arabs. What happened in 1947 with the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of the State of Israel destablised that peace and turned the region into chaos. And tell me where anti-senitism first appeared. You'll find the answer is Europe and not the Arabs. The Arabs became anti-Zionist because the doctorine held the belief that one group of people (the Jews) had a greater right to the land over another (the Arabs).

"Israel wants to live in peace with its Arab neighbours although a new Israeli leadership is needed to make progress."

What a noble cause and what great steps they are taking in achieving this goal. I'm not saying the neighbouring countries are doing any better just don't see where you are coming from on this one.

"You should also understand that Palestine never existed as an entity in itself."

So basically your saying that it was up for grabs. Good attitude.

"those on the left such as intransigent who support the slaughter of innocent Israeli men, women and children."

Not gonna respond to this again but I've already stated that I do not agree with the killing of any innocents (might make an exception for you though ;). I don't think that I need to justify myself again. Maybe your not listening but not really my problem.

by Ray Wed Oct 02, 2002 09:23

- in your days as an anarchist you've never convinced more than a tiny minority that anarchism is right. Does that prove that you are wrong?

If I thought there was another more appropriate word that would convince more people, I'd use it in an instant. Besides, 'zionazi' is a deliberately provocative term, used to attack someone's position, while 'anarchist' is a self-description.

- i didn't use the term zionazi here. but i will use it whenever ithink it is appropriate.

Well then I'll call you on it where I think its appropriate.

- why can't you just accept that i have a different opinion to yours? there is no objective way of showing that either of us are incorrect.

Show me the gas chambers in Jerusalem and I'll accept this as a metter of opinion.

- unless you think your opinions are laws of nature(?)

No more than yours. You express yours and I'll express mine.

"I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but this is getting irritating"

- i'm equally irritated by you. i don't want a fight either.

I'm not particularly irritated by you, but by that term. Like saying that all cops are nazis, or comparing NI in the 60's to the Third Reich, its an obvious exagerration that I think discredits the person using it.

(To take an example from the right, Ayn Rand once testified before the McCarthy hearings, arguing that a film was soviet propaganda. Her arguments were that the film didn't show the effects of famine, didn't show the secret police, and contained smiling people - obviously propaganda because nobody in Rusia smiled anymore!)

Whenever people make an obviously false claim it discredits their supportable claims. If people don't believe Israel is comparable to the Third Reich, they'll wonder why you insist on making that comparison, and then they'll wonder if your reports of IDF shootings aren't motivated by something more than a desire to get the truth out.

by pat Wed Oct 02, 2002 11:20

"If I thought there was another more appropriate word that would convince more people, I'd use it in an instant. Besides, 'zionazi' is a deliberately provocative term, used to attack someone's position, while 'anarchist' is a self-description."

you completely avoided my question. to you "zionazi" is provocative. again, your opinions are not laws of nature.

"Show me the gas chambers in Jerusalem and I'll accept this as a metter of opinion. "

there are not gas chambers but children throwing stones are shot, people are buried alive in houses run over by tanks & bulldozers. prisoners die slowly from ill treatment & are shot "while trying to escape". its all just a matter of scale.
my opinion is just as valid as yours.
where do you get your superiority complex from?

"(To take an example from the right, Ayn Rand once testified before the McCarthy hearings, arguing that a film was soviet propaganda. Her arguments were that the film didn't show the effects of famine, didn't show the secret police, and contained smiling people - obviously propaganda because nobody in Rusia smiled anymore!) "

this is a complete red herring. try & blacken me with rand & mccarthy. gee ray, when did you get trained in the stalinist school of falsification?

"Whenever people make an obviously false claim it discredits their supportable claims. If people don't believe Israel is comparable to the Third Reich, they'll wonder why you insist on making that comparison, and then they'll wonder if your reports of IDF shootings aren't motivated by something more than a desire to get the truth out. "

there you go again. its YOUR opinion that its false. your para above is just so much weak sophistry.

ray you're not going to shut me up & i have no desire to silence you. but if you want to avoid being irritated then i suggest you don't read my postings. i have no desire to to upset you in anyway.

or alternatively you could learn to accept that people can hold opinions which are diferent from yours without necessarily being wrong.

there is no objective way in which either of us can prove the other wrong.

(i accept that i might be wrong. why do you claim papal infallibility?)

by Ray Wed Oct 02, 2002 12:17

"If I thought there was another more appropriate word that would convince more people, I'd use it in an instant. Besides, 'zionazi' is a deliberately provocative term, used to attack someone's position, while 'anarchist' is a self-description."

- you completely avoided my question.

I thought that first sentence above answered your question. I don't think the small number of anarchists in Ireland means anarchism is discredited. But if I thought I could convince more people of the ideas behind anarchism by changing the word 'anarchism', I'd do so. I think it would be easier to convince people of the evils of the occupation if those doing the convincing didn't use the word 'Zionazi'.

- to you "zionazi" is provocative. again, your opinions are not laws of nature.

Pat, you got annoyed when you thought I was comparing you to Ayn Rand. How annoyed would you have gotten if I started comparing you to Himmler? Of course its provocative to call someone a nazi.

"Show me the gas chambers in Jerusalem and I'll accept this as a metter of opinion. "

- there are not gas chambers but children throwing stones are shot, people are buried alive in houses run over by tanks & bulldozers. prisoners die slowly from ill treatment & are shot "while trying to escape". its all just a matter of scale.

No, it is not just a matter of scale. The Third Reich tried to kill all Jews. The Israeli government is not trying to kill all Palestinians.

The Israeli government is enforcing curfews at gunpoint, shooting children, attacking cars and buildings with no regard for civilian casualties, closing universities, and using generally brutal means to subdue and drive out the Palestinian people. That's not in question.

But the government is NOT trying to kill all Palestinians, and this is a mjor distinction between it and the Third Reich. Just as it was a major distinction between the Indonesian invasion and plantation of East Timor and the Third Reich. Just as its a major distinction between any number of brutal (colonial) dictatorships and the Third Reich.

- my opinion is just as valid as yours.
where do you get your superiority complex from?

I think your use of the term 'zionazi' is wrong. Why does that imply a superiority complex?

"(To take an example from the right, Ayn Rand once testified before the McCarthy hearings, arguing that a film was soviet propaganda. Her arguments were that the film didn't show the effects of famine, didn't show the secret police, and contained smiling people - obviously propaganda because nobody in Rusia smiled anymore!) "

- this is a complete red herring. try & blacken me with rand & mccarthy. gee ray, when did you get trained in the stalinist school of falsification?

I'm not trying to 'blacken you' with Rand and McCarthy. I was pointing out an unrelated case where exagerration discredited an argument.

"Whenever people make an obviously false claim it discredits their supportable claims. If people don't believe Israel is comparable to the Third Reich, they'll wonder why you insist on making that comparison, and then they'll wonder if your reports of IDF shootings aren't motivated by something more than a desire to get the truth out. "

- there you go again. its YOUR opinion that its false. your para above is just so much weak sophistry.

I think the opinion that gas chambers were a distinctive feature of nazi Germany is more than just my opinion, its an opinion that most people share. And I think that if you try to convince people that Israel is equivalent to Nazi Germany, as is implied by the term 'zionazi', they're going to think "But where are the gas chambers?" Realising that there are no gas chambers, many people will conclude that you'll say anything to attack Israel, and that your reports of Israeli offenses must be taken with a pinch of salt.

Since I think the reports you pass on, of israeli soldiers killing unarmed children for example, are true and accurate, I think its a pity that other people may write them off because they'll think you're inclined to exagerrate things.

- ray you're not going to shut me up & i have no desire to silence you. but if you want to avoid being irritated then i suggest you don't read my postings. i have no desire to to upset you in anyway.

Pat, I'm not trying to shut you up, I'm trying to persuade you to avoid uselessly provocative and inaccurate terms when discussing Israel. That's it.

- or alternatively you could learn to accept that people can hold opinions which are diferent from yours without necessarily being wrong.

- there is no objective way in which either of us can prove the other wrong.

About the use of the term zionazis alienating people?

Tell you what Pat, I'm on an e-mail list with a bunch of friends. I could send them two news reports, identical except that one replaces the words 'IDF' and 'Israeli government' with the word 'zionazis', and ask them which they take more seriously, which they are more likely to believe, and which (if either) they think lessens or boosts the credibility of the reporter.

If they say that it doesn't make any difference, or that they thought the article that referred to 'zionazis' was more credible, I'll accept you're right and drop the whole thing. If they think the word 'zionazis' undermines the report, will you stop using it?

-(i accept that i might be wrong. why do you claim papal infallibility?)

Where have I claimed infallibility?

by pat Wed Oct 02, 2002 13:04

"I think it would be easier to convince people of the evils of the occupation if those doing the convincing didn't use the word 'Zionazi'."

why do you keep repeating yourself? i disagree with you, you're not going to browbeat me into submission. you are now like an old record with a needle stuck in a groove.

"Pat, you got annoyed when you thought I was comparing you to Ayn Rand. How annoyed would you have gotten if I started comparing you to Himmler? Of course its provocative to call someone a nazi"

you have no grounds for calling me a nazi. this is yet another example of your weak sophistry.

"I think your use of the term 'zionazi' is wrong. Why does that imply a superiority complex? "

because you won't accept that what we have here is two conflicting opinions. mine is worth just as much as yours.

"I'm not trying to 'blacken you' with Rand and McCarthy. I was pointing out an unrelated case where exagerration discredited an argument. "

it is no way related to this case. why did you introduce it unless you wanted to discredit me by (false) association?

"Since I think the reports you pass on, of israeli soldiers killing unarmed children for example, are true and accurate, I think its a pity that other people may write them off because they'll think you're inclined to exagerrate things. "

the only people who will write them off are the zionists , the west brits(republicans fly palestinian flag, therefore palestinians are evil) & 'the middle class yuppie life style anarchists' (this does not include you, wsm,af,asf, as, or anyone in lan).

"Tell you what Pat, I'm on an e-mail list with a bunch of friends. I could send them two news reports, identical except that one replaces the words 'IDF' and 'Israeli government' with the word 'zionazis', and ask them which they take more seriously, which they are more likely to believe, and which (if either) they think lessens or boosts the credibility of the reporter.
If they say that it doesn't make any difference, or that they thought the article that referred to 'zionazis' was more credible, I'll accept you're right and drop the whole thing. If they think the word 'zionazis' undermines the report, will you stop using it? "

no, these are a bunch of your friends. i'm sure i could get get a bunch of my friends to agree with my point of view.

there is no objective way of settling this. you have your opinion; i have mine. anyone can pack a list. (btw does this mean you now accept that the majority must be correct?)

"Where have I claimed infallibility? "

i accept that i might be wrong you won't

by Ray Wed Oct 02, 2002 14:06

We have two conflicting opinions. I think the term 'zionazi' is unjustified, unneccesary, and alienating. You think its accurate,useful, and doesn't put anyone off. The simple solution is to _test_ these opinions, and see which is more accurate. Present two versions of the same article, which differ only in that one uses 'zionazi' and the other doesn't, and then aske people what they think.

- no, these are a bunch of your friends. i'm sure i could get get a bunch of my friends to agree with my point of view.

Naturally, I won't tell them which is my opinion. I'll present two versions of the same article, and ask which version they find more convincing, and the other questions above.

I'll present it in this form -
Subject: Settle an argument for me
Message: Which of these reports do you find more convincing? Which reporter do you think is more credible? Which article are you more liely to believe?
and then I'll post the two article versions.

If you go to ForumIreland
http://forumireland.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=2
'an impartial arena to air your views on any aspect of Irish life' (which I've never used before, BTW) you'll see what I mean. If that article gets many responses I'll take it as evidence enough. If it doesn't get many responses, I could post the same thing to an e-mail list of my friends, or to whichever neutral usenet forum or mailing list you suggest.

(Though remember, the disagreement is about what the general public will find more convincing, so alt.palestine is not an appropriate forum to test this)

by pat Wed Oct 02, 2002 15:58

what gives with you?

for an anarchist you are very autoratarian.

why can't you accept that i have a different opinion from yours????????

what has imc done to your mind??????????????

for fucks sake ray go away!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i don't want to submit anything to any of your tribunals!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I HAVE A RIGHT TO MY OPINION.

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO YOURS.

THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE WAY OF PROVING EITHER OF US WRONG.

you can have the last word if you want; i will not be revusiting this thread.

by Ray Wed Oct 02, 2002 17:12

Whether or not Israel is comparable to the Nazis may be a matter of opinion.
Whether or not the term 'zionazis' alienates people is not just an opinion, its a testable hypothesis. You find some people, you see how they react to the term, and then you'll know whether or not they were alienated.

by Bored Wed Oct 02, 2002 20:43

Ray V Pat: Yawn; Yawn; Yawn; Yawn. ZZZZZZZZZZZ...