September - National Anti-War demonstration

by Concerned Citizen - None Sat Sep 02, 2006 19:14

Whilst I would like to attend the demo, I have my reservations. Here is why I am hesitant about attending

BOYCOTT ISRAELI GOODS

What good will this do, punishing the civilians from the other side will just cause resentment and make the situation worse. More importantly it will be seen as taking sides to many observers.

Yes no one is saying what Israel is doing is right, the issue here is human rights. Something should be done certainly but this is not the right way to go about it.

If I do attend I will have my own placard and not be affiliated to any political party.

What do your viewers think?

by Hugh O'Donnell Sat Sep 02, 2006 20:22

How about you do something practical to help people of Palestine.
Yes go on the demo, but also keep a presence in the media

See opinion column below by Hermann Kelly calling for boycott of Israeli goods in support of Palestinians.
Email your reaction to column to Examiner letter page : [email protected]
It's time to oppose Israeli intransigence and work for peace

Opinion Column for The Irish Examiner, Thursday Aug 31, 2006
Why it's time for Ireland to boycott Israeli goods and impose sanctions
by Hermann Kelly

At the start of the latest conflict in Lebanon, I was going to write an article supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, and the danger of the rise of fanatical Islamic jihadism, but now, as the fire embers are turned over, and the bodies of innocents are laid to rest, I think it’s time to deal with the root causes of conflict in the Middle East - the activities of Israel, and the ideology of Zionism.
France’s President Chirac was spot on, saying on Monday that the various crises afflicting the Middle East are all interlinked, and "the interminable Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is at the heart of the problem.
Apologists for the actions of Israel often point out, quite correctly, that they are a response to provocation, that it is a matter of tit for tat, of like for like. This is true to some extent. Yes, Arabs have killed Israelis and vice versa. During the recent Lebanese/ Israeli conflict, 10 Arabs were killed for every Israeli. Not quite equal batting. However the Palestinians have never done to the Israelis, what Zionists have done to the Palestinian people.
What happened in 1948, was that 700,000 Palestinian people were violently expelled, in more modern parlance, ‘ethnically cleansed’ from their own land, and supplanted by Zionist settlers.
This is the original sin, the monumental crime and grave injustice which festers at the heart of the Middle East conflict. If peace is ever to come about, this injustice must be made good.

To further aggravate this violent expulsion, the Israeli government’s “Right of Return Law” since 1950 has barred the Palestinian people, both Muslim and Christian from returning to their homeland, and refused any compensation. A UN resolution of 1974 (3236): "Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return." Israel of course, has absolutely no intention of allowing this to happen.

Even today, many resident Arabs are discriminated against in a despicable fashion. It is not without reason therefore that the United Nations General Assembly in 1975 adopted Resolution 3379, which states as its conclusion: Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination. This was rescinded in 1991 as an Israeli condition before entering the Madrid Peace talks.
But surely, the actions of Zionists cannot be equated with ideas of racial superiority? If we look at the way in which the Palestinian people are currently treated by the Israeli government, our suspicions may be aroused that they are not treated with full human rights.
But how about the Palestinians in the land occupied by Israel after the “Six Day War” in 1967? Perhaps they are being well treated at present? Sadly no.
If people don’t believe that Israel is an apartheid state, they should examine not only the laws of return but also the corralling of Palestinians in the West Bank into swathes of land completed ringed by 25 foot concrete walls, enclosed areas in which Israeli security forces decide who may enter and who may leave. For the Palestinian people who live there, it is little better than an open-air prison.
Two years ago, after much deliberation, and listening to all sides, the International Court of Justice in The Hague declared the Israeli construction of these concrete separation barriers to be against international law, and called for them to be taken down. What is Israel’s response? - to keeping on building. If there ever was an obstacle to peace, the wall is it.
The people of the world look on in amazement as this concrete “separation barrier” or ‘apartheid wall’ grows by the day. What the wall does is squeeze the Palestinians into small, economically deprived and disconnected segments of land. In many ways, they resemble a ‘bantustan’ from the South African apartheid regime.
If it sounds as though I’m pushing the argument a bit far, it was Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Dayan, who in 1967 publicly called for the creation of "a sort of Arab 'Bantustan'" in the West Bank similar to the nominally independent ‘homelands’ established in South Africa.
Going one step further, John Dugard, a South African professor, serving as the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine in 2004 described the situation in the West Bank as "an apartheid regime ... worse than the one that existed in South Africa."
Well, if international sanctions could be brought to bear on apartheid-South Africa, then why not present-day Israel?
Israel needs to be pressured in order to act justly, and comply with accepted international law. It is time, I believe, to carry out a boycott of Israeli goods, and encourage the Irish Government to divest in Israel and impose sanctions against this runaway state.
The recent Lebanese conflict has shown up the myth of the Israeli army’s invincibility for what it was; a myth. The military confidence of the country has been weakened. It is now in their own best interests that the Israeli’s make peace with their neighbours, as, demographically time is not on their side. Sanctions may also, perhaps, concentrate their mind on the benefits of peace for the whole Middle East region.
See whole article at www.ipsc.ie ( website of the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign)
Post reaction to [email protected]

by PaddyK Sat Sep 02, 2006 21:19

You should be taking sides, theres nothing wrong with that. In this instance you will be taking the side of the oppressed and occupied people of Iraq and Palestine and Lebanon against the US, UK and Israeli aggressor and their plan to gain control of Middle East resources at any cost in human life and the complete destruction of the social fabric in those countries and others.

Your Question, as to why boycott israel:

The Israeli military junta/government cannot be boycotted. You physically dont have the ability or the Mechanism to so such a thing. They receive 5 billion a year in Support from the US and they are immune to boycott or sanction in the UN vis-a-vis its patronage by the US, who unflinchingly protects all its actions.
The Israeli people are almost entirely in support of the actions of their government, they exist in complete denial in a safety bubble of Pro-israel/ anti-arab propaganda that is pounded into them from the time they come into the world. They are practically all trained soldiers who play some part in the oppression of the Palestinians yet fail to morally question those actions on a daily basis but continue to allow their sons and daughters to be ordered to commit crimes.

Like this :

http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/testimony_en.asp

"After a day or two, a 12-year old kid climbed on one of the APCs. There were lots of guesses about his age. First they said he was 8, later, that he was 12. I don’t know. In any case he climbed on an APC and one of our sharpshooters killed him. I already mentioned, we were looking for kids."

Israel needs your help.
The bubble of self denial must be burst so that Israelis can no longer pretend to themselves and their children that they are supporting a democratic state. When they go abroad they should see a world opposed to the buying and selling of all their produce. Their artists should not be allowed exhibit, their academics should not be allowed lecture, their comedians should not be laughed at, not even if they are funny. The only voices that should be allowed out of Israel are those that openly speak out against racism and occupation.

Ilan Pappe is a professor of History at Haifa University in Israel, this is what he has to say in support for the case for boycott and his call to the world for help in this.

--------------------
"As in South Africa under apartheid, denial and indoctrination is so powerful that it is not natural to expect that a movement within the society (in South Africa’s case the white society, in Israel’s case Jewish society) will arise that is strong enough to stop it. The consequences go beyond even the atrocities suffered by the Palestinians. I believe what Israel is doing will destroy the Jewish people in the near or distant future as well. Even with 250 nuclear weapons and the support of the world’s only superpower. For the sake of Jews and Arabs, the world has to play a role in dismantling apartheid. The world has to help. And the only way short of violence, which I am against, is pressure. To send a message that there is a price tag attached to apartheid. This is important because self-image is important to Israeli culture. It is very true that sanctions are problematic: they make the poorest and the workers suffer disproportionately, while the wealthy and powerful can escape their effects. But any message that Israelis are not part of the ‘civilized world’, that Israel is a pariah because of its behaviour, can be effective, because it will attach a price tag to apartheid and racism. It is very true that this might not be enough, since it has not been tried. But it must be better than suicide bombings. I can say after 35 years that we have tried the option from within and it has failed, and in many ways the ‘peace camps’ are the worst: they believe in this ‘dialogue’, that they are so generous because they are offering Palestinians a fraction of 20% of their homeland, but cannot go further and hate Palestinians for not giving up more."
--------------------------

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7281

by PKWatch Sat Sep 02, 2006 21:28

I wonder who sends you on here. Are you paid double time at weekends? Only a couple of days ago you wrote that you would be happy if the Israelis blew up would-be suicide bombers. Not very worried about collateral damage are you Paddy?

by PaddyK Mon Sep 04, 2006 13:39

lan Pappe is senior lecturer in the University of Haifa Department of political Science and Chair of the Emil Touma Institute for Palestinian Studies in Haifa, again he is calling for the world to help stop the slow "genocide" in Gaza. He says once again :

"Nothing apart from pressure in the from of sanctions, boycott and divestment will stop the murdering of innocent civilians in the Gaza Strip. There is nothing we here in Israel can do against it. Brave pilots refused to partake in the operations, two journalists - out of 150 - do not cease to write about it, but this is it. In the name of the holocaust memory let us hope the world would not allow the genocide of Gaza to continue."

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5656.shtml

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Sep 04, 2006 13:59

Hey Paddy K

Good message above - don't take too much notice of the anonymistas who will come in and argue every conceivable point under the sun. What we say and, most importantly, what we do defines what and who we are.

As far as the boycott issue goes, two local groups of the iawm, in co-operation with IPSC comrades, have tried quite successfully to test the ground re: boycott direct action over the last week. One action was in M&S in Henry Street where over 20 of us went in quietly, filled about five trolleys and a number of baskets with Israeli products [mostly fruit, sweet potatoes and herbs] and left them nicely in front of the check-outs while a couple of us made a short speech....we gave about 350 leaflets to customers who, with the exception of one or two, were very receptive. The second action was by a smaller group of North Strand iawm activists who repeated the process in Tescos in Phibsboro.
It is important to note that both the ICTU and a couple of Unions, among them Mandate and Impact, have passed motions supporting and encouraging the boycott. Now how this process translates into shop floor action remains to be seen. Lots of work needed there.

More boycott activity planned for the 16th - watch this space.

Anti-war meeting planned by AWI (Dublin) for this Thursday, 19.30 ATGWU Hall and posters are beginning to go up for the 23rd.

by PaddyK Mon Sep 04, 2006 21:36

Thats great MichaelY,

Keep the momentum going on the ground, as you say, words are one form of protest but without action to back them up they are generally ineffective. I presume one can be arrested for that sort of thing. Well Done to you and the crew , good to hear also that the people on the ground were not hostile to your message. There is hope for Ireland yet. Look forward to hearing of further actions.

http://inminds.co.uk/boycott-brands.html

Heres a pretty exhaustive list from The Boycott Israel campaign of who they reckon are major investors in Israel and supporters of its policies.
Now I feel bad about that Large Coke at the Pirates of the Carribean the other night.

Dear God, Not the Wonderbra.

by Concerned Citizen - None Tue Sep 05, 2006 14:56

Hi All, thanks for your comments, interesting reading.

Not for one moment was I suggesting we don't do something to highlight the atrocities, that is taken for granted. The problem with demo's is that you always get someone 'jumping on the bandwagon' so to speak. This is nearly always the case. My worry is that extremists will take over and use the msg for their own purposes. Already we see SINN FEIN, ANARCHISTS, SOCIALIST WORKERS, LABOUR and other political parties turning up at these rallies. Sometimes its hard to know whether or not they are their purely because they care or simply because they would jump on any cause to get votes.

In general I am totally disillusioned with the state of politics in Ireland, however having said that I have far more respect for the independents, such as David Norris, Tony Gregory, Joe Higgins etc who have the guts to stand up in the dail and address issues such as Extroadinary Rendition and the use of Shannon Airport. Issues that nobody else wants to address.

FAIR PLAY TO THEM!

All I am saying is ' Think Twice before judging Israel in Middle East conflict'

See Tom Kelly's article:

"The cop-out policy of Irish neutrality stands shamefully indicated as having done nothing to save those Jews who sought refuge in the Irish Free State but were rejected. However De Valera was merely reflecting a well established anti - Semitism that was alive and well in Ireland."

"A few years ago visitors to Belfast were amazed to see Palestinian and Israeli flags flying from lamp posts in the city. Not surprisingly , in our simplistic interepretation of Middle East politics, Nationalists flew Palestinian flags and Loyalists flew Israeli flags."

This is why I am concerned.

by PaddyK Tue Sep 05, 2006 17:51

The value of the life of an Arab in Occupied Palestine dropped recently to an all time low.

Whilst the world goes around in a flap, trying to patch together a UN Force that will meet the fetishes of the flailing Israeli leadership, murder in Palestine is reduced to the lowest level of Israeli army gangsterism . It now appears that death squads have been quietly unleashed onto the streets of Palestinian towns. No uniforms, no jeeps , no "arrest" warrants , just a gang of Israeli army thugs armed with M16s roaming the streets of Ramallah murdering young men on sight. Doing this with complete impunity in front of an entire community of people and the Palestinian police. Nobody moved to arrest or kill this gang of thugs, they just killed a young man and wandered off down the street.

Now, If you listen real hard you still wont hear the international array of politicians squeak like a mouse.

Concerned Citizen, why are you even tiring your brain cells thinking about politicians and Anti-Semitism? What have they got to do with whats going on in Palestine?

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5677.shtml

"The boy they killed was just a village boy. And the children who witnessed this killing were just children. As in all parts of the world; children who had begged their parents for an ice-cream before going to bed. And now must live with this violation of their sensitivity forever. And the thugs could just walk away!"

by NKelly - Housewife Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:25 nkelly71 at yahoo dot com

I'm amazed at Hermann Kelly's article on Israel. I'm a regular reader of the Irish Catholic newspaper and Mr Kelly has often written pro-Isreali articles along with Mr David Quinn. But now that he has left this newspaper he suddenly u-turns and is now pro-palestinian? Has your right wing conservative views changed also Mr Kelly? That certainly would be like Paul on the road to Damascus!

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:27

Just to add our 'Well done comrades' to Anti War Ireland for organising a very good meeting last night in Dublin's ATGWU Hall. It was also to be noted that all three speakers, Ciaron from the Catholic Workers/Ploughshares and Deirdre and Harry from AWI supported the call for the National Demonstration on Saturday Sept 23rd - Parnell Square 1 pm.

A question raised from the floor re: the utility and sense of having 'such' demonstrations was answered very adequately by Deirdre. The question, of course, underlies the key contradiction that exists in some peoples minds between mass mobilisation on the one hand and direct action on the other. There are camps on both sides arguing for the one form they accept and criticising/ undervaluing/ denigrating the other. This is a false dichotomy as far as I, and many people in the IAWM, are concerned. Without revisiting past wounds, and personalising the debate, the action taken by the Ploughshare 5, as much as the action taken by the Raytheon 9 more recently, link and focus our opposition to the use of Shannon and Baldonnel as warports....the same focus is shared by all of us who are working hard to make September 23rd a large, colourful, dynamic show of how people feel in Ireland about the Government's attitude to the war and its collaboration with the Empire.

As far as I am concerned, the key question facing us over the next period is the ability of all anti-war organisations to work together while retaining their autonomy, to unite in their strategic aims while pursuing, if need be, diverse tactics and thus maximising our impact. That's the main message I got from last night's gathering.

by LIES Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:36

just a gang of Israeli army thugs armed with M16s roaming the streets of Ramallah murdering young men on sight. Doing this with complete impunity in front of an entire community of people and the Palestinian police. Nobody moved to arrest or kill this gang of thugs, they just killed a young man and wandered off down the street.

nobody mentioned the fact that the guy had an ak47?

KEEP IT REAL

STOP POSTING LINKS TO PALLYWOOD SITES AS A SOURCE FFS

by hmmz Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:51

Lies

the guy did not have an AK47, in fact the guy did not exist at all

Some1 point to one valid arab media link that reported this apart from intifada and counterstrike, you will not find any because there are none

the article is pure and utter bullshit

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Sep 08, 2006 13:04

To LIES and hmmmm

With all due respect, the issue of whether the 'guy' exists or not, of whether he was carrying a Kalashnikov or some other weapon and of whether electronic intifada is a v a l i d source of news re: Palestine or not have little to do with the title of the thread.

I will be gracious and not accuse you of trying to derail the thread, because you will correctly argue that you're responding to comments made by other messages above...but as I have seen you pop up often and defend Israeli actions, whatever their content, can I ask you to desist ?

You do know of course that we'll have a very large and positive demonstration on Sept.23rd however hard you try to tell us we're wasting our time. So please relax and get a life. Do something else more productive with your time.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Sep 08, 2006 13:04

To LIES and hmmmm

With all due respect, the issue of whether the 'guy' exists or not, of whether he was carrying a Kalashnikov or some other weapon and of whether electronic intifada is a v a l i d source of news re: Palestine or not have little to do with the title of the thread.

I will be gracious and not accuse you of trying to derail the thread, because you will correctly argue that you're responding to comments made by other messages above...but as I have seen you pop up often and defend Israeli actions, whatever their content, can I ask you to desist ?

You do know of course that we'll have a very large and positive demonstration on Sept.23rd however hard you try to tell us we're wasting our time. So please relax and get a life. Do something else more productive with your time.

by lies Fri Sep 08, 2006 13:23

What happened in 1948, was that 700,000 Palestinian people were violently expelled, in more modern parlance, ‘ethnically cleansed’ from their own land, and supplanted by Zionist settlers.

Hugh, stop trying to rewrite history. What actually happened was the invading arabs told the Palestinians to leave and they could return when they (the invading arabs)had completed the genocide that the germans started

Michaely
I merely come on here and point out the glaringly obvious errors, good luck with your protest, hopefully you shall get more than 20 people

Syrian Prime Minister Haled al Azm admitted, “Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees....But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave” (The Memoirs of Haled al Azm [Beirut, 1973], Part 1, 386-87).

On April 3, 1949, Near East Broadcasting Station of Cyprus said, “...the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees’ flight....” (Samuel Katz, Battleground—Fact and Fantasy in Palestine [Bantam Books, 1985], 15).

The Jordanian newspaper Filastin 2/19/49 reported, “The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.”

Another Jordanian newspaper, Ad Diofaa 9/6/54, quoted a complaining refugee: “The Arab government told us: ‘Get out so that we can get in.’ So we got out, but they did not get in.”

According to the New YorkLebanesepaper Al Hoda 6/8/51, “The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, [gave] brotherly advice to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:52

See you all on Saturday 23rd.
Don't forget the Irish Paelstinian Solidarity Campaign gig on Monday 25th 8pm at the Olympia.

And on Oct. 28th we'll be going to Shannon

Leaflet to distribute for Sept. 23

by uh huh Mon Sep 18, 2006 13:10

A 'biggie'? You reckon?

For f**ks sake, would you please lay off this bullshit hype? It simply demoralises people when the 'huge', 'massive' or 'biggie' demonstrations predicted by the IAWM and the SWP don't materialise. There is no feeling out there at the moment that would indicate that this march will be a 'biggie'.

A couple of thousand would be a success and can be built on.

by uh huh Mon Sep 18, 2006 13:18

Should probably have avoided the cranky tone in the last comment, MichaelY, but I hope you hear where I'm coming from. The SWP and its antiwar group has a long history of hyping things unrealistically, leading to disappointment and demoralisation when the masses don't pour out of the factories. A few thousand would be a good score in the present climate.

by MichaelY - iawm (per cap) Mon Sep 18, 2006 13:37

I can see where you're coming from and I have no problem with the core of your message. I would even say that inside the iawm, many of us have to argue consistently to keep things in perspective and not hype things either internally or externally - precisely in order to avoid disappointment and demoralisation. A reality check in politics is always a good thing!

However, in respect to Sept 23rd there are a few hopeful signs. Over and above the 25,000 plus leaflets printed by the iawm [copy above], which have been received very very well, and the 3,000 posters put up around Dublin, Galway and Cork [whence I hear at least a couple of buses are coming], the fact that the AWI, the IPSC, Cosantoiri Siochana and the Anti War Network along with the CW and a number of anarchist collectives, support this demo is a very hopeful sign. The Greens, SF and the LP, particularly its Youth, also said they would mobilise.

This provides a setting where one can be hopeful that Sept 23rd will be larger than the March 18th mobilisation where we had about 1,200 people. I fully agree with you that a few thousand people would be an extremely positive sign - a good beginning and a trigger for Monday's IPSC gig which must be supported at all costs. And then we can build for the Shannon gig on Oct. 28th called by the AWI.

So - thanks for your PS and c u on Saturday

by Seán Ryan Mon Sep 18, 2006 14:20

Went up O'Connell St. this morning on a bus before 9am, spotted a few posters on poles advertising this event, along the central divide.

Came down O'Connell St. a few minutes back, no posters left on the central divide.

I guess the hired help at DCC are still ignoring Dermot Lacey and Co., the elected members of DCC.

Somebody ought to sue DCC. These posters aint cheap. Neither is the freedom of speech, nor the freedom of association.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Sep 18, 2006 16:05

Keep up the good work comrade. It's been a long hard road for all of us - but I really feel we are slowly and gradually getting closer to a united anti-war movement.

by hugh o' donnell Mon Sep 18, 2006 23:05

NKelly is being mischevious above using the name of the Hermann Kelly's wife as a cover name. The person is also being untruthful as Hermann Kelly never wrote any article of the issue of Palestine / Israel in any publication before. He has not changed his spots at all, as the author well knows. Time to grow please and speak the truth.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:59

Further to Sean's message re: ripping posters

Letter to Matt Twomey, Assistant City Manager for Waste: Permission to poster for Irish Anti War Movement event on Sept 23

Dear Sir,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
As you see below, the Irish Anti War Movement gave adequate notice of its intention to use its right to poster for a public demonstration on September 23. Notification was posted with you on 6th September and copied to Con Coll and [email protected] at your office.
It appears that DCC personnel have been instructed to remove these posters in defiance of agreed procedures and votes of Dublin City Councillors and previous assurances.
It appears that your office is intent on not playing fair in this matter.
This appears to have been done without reference to us as the organisation notifying your office.
I must protest in the strongest possible terms at what appears to be your (or your colleagues') actions.
I look forward to your early reply and confirmation that you have withdrawn all instructions to litter wardens and others to remove said poster.
Yours
XXXX
Steering Committee
Irish Anti War Movement

by tom eile Tue Sep 19, 2006 16:16

Good luck with the march Michael .But why does the IAWM 's calendar prioritise the anti-war protest being held outside the British Labour Party's conference on the same day ? Should we all go over to London?

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Sep 19, 2006 17:26

What the iawm priorities are can be seen from the 25,000 copies distributed of the leaflet above, the posters all over Dublin town (when the DCC does not rip them up), the continuous stalls. Tonight we'll be in the City Centre postering, on Thursday evening at the GPO and in front of Molly Malone leafletting. Check Rathmines, Inchicore, Ballymun, Galway and Cork and you'll get a good view of our priorities.

The Belfast based iawm group (BAWM) and some comrades from Derry decided, in their wisdom, to go to Manchester instead. The Socialist Party in Belfast are staying and demonstrating there. The AWI comrades, on the other hand, are coming to Dublin - Cork and Galway and Sligo and Tralee, I understand, are bringing buses to Dublin too on Saturday.

So, tom eile, thank you for your best wishes and I imagine you'll be marching in one of these places come Saturday. What more can one ask? Lol and best wishes.

by redjade Tue Sep 19, 2006 17:48

Well, it took three years but finally the IAWM opposes the US/etc occupation of Afghanistan.

Congrats to the reformers within the IAWM politburo and all others involved.

back in September 27 2003 I posted the question:
"Have we forgotten Afghanistan? {why?}"
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/61338
and never got a straight answer since.

Why the change in IAWM talking points? Has something changed in the Afghan War that hadn't happened before - or because it is now a NATO operation? Please explain this one, I'm sure many would like to know.

Perhaps the IAWM could have one of the Afghan refugees speak, as well?

And, would it be too much to ask to add a mention on the poster of the Raytheon 9?

yes, I'm sure it was an oversight and the posters have already been printed... I've heard that story before, for three years

Afghans mentioned - Raytheon 9 not

by GUILTY AS CHARGED! Tue Sep 19, 2006 17:54

Yes Sir!

by MichaelY - iawm (per cap) Tue Sep 19, 2006 18:29

Dear Redjade,

As one of those so-called IAWM 'reformers' (your words not mine), along with a number of other 'reformers' in the Steering Committee, we argued recently, when discussing the specific leaflet, that our opposition to the war in Afghanistan, must be stressed in equal manner as our opposition to the war in Iraq. This was accepted without too much argument. As far as I am concerned, nothing has changed in Afghanistan since the invasion...if anything, the resistance has got stronger and the position of the NATO forces much more brittle.

A whole number of us were active in support of the Afghani hunger strikers in the Cathedral and two of us are continuing our support by working with them in Mosney......
I can't comment on why the Afghanistan issue did not have prominence ealier on - and neither can I say anything on your Indymedia article of three years ago. You were right then and you have been 'vindicated' it appears.
On the Raytheon 9, there is a lot of work taking place in the IAWM about the Derry comrades, including circulating the petition and organising a number of benefit gigs. One of the 9 was also invited to speak in the recent Galway IAWM meeting.

Hope the above go some way in satisfying some of the points you made.

Fraternally

by redjade Tue Sep 19, 2006 18:41

make that a sincere thanks.

MichaelY, you're the first IAWMer to give me a straight answer all these years later.

Although, I still suspect the more subtle reason is that it is a NATO operation now - rather than a ill-defined but pretty popular US-led UN-endorsed operation. Always easier to bash a NATO gig rather than explain the complexities of things. But thats all pure speculation on my part.

I hope to see a photo of all the Raytheon 9 on stage at the rally
with the Dublin Afghan Refugees

Direct action deserves to be celebrated and encouraged by the IAWM.

by anon Tue Sep 19, 2006 19:01

Perhaps its cos a few British Soldiers are being killed that has changed they public policy, as opposed to when it was just Afghanis getting killed but now the war is more unpopular which means they change there position to the popular one. It may have taken the soldiers relative 5 years to shake some of the UK public out of its need for revenge SWP principals shine through once again.

by Statin' the Obvious. Tue Sep 19, 2006 21:50

A. Because Irish foreign poilicy is set from London!

Whether a changing of the guard from Blair to Brown makes any difference, don't hold your breath!

I'm pretty sure the conference is in Manchester. Check that out before heading to London.

by Galwegian Tue Sep 19, 2006 23:48

MichaelY: "One of the 9 was also invited to speak in the recent Galway IAWM meeting."

Galway Alliance Against War, who organised this, is NOT a section of the IAWM.

by another one Wed Sep 20, 2006 00:17

the whole rally wont make any difference anyway...
im just going to meet like minded people

by Still Confused Wed Sep 20, 2006 01:45

It says on the leaflet "No to War" , but I'm (still) confused-

Is the Irish Anti-War movement a pacifist group? Does it oppose all violence?
Has it ever protested against wars going on in Africa, for example?

It strikes me that it's a kind of anti-imperialist group, but even that is not clear. Has the IAWM ever protested at any of the British military bases in Ireland for instance?

I could be mistaken, but there seems to be an anti-american, anti-israeli bias in the activities of the IAWM,and since Israel and the USA don't have a monopoly on violence I would seek clarification of this stance before lending my support.

Lastly, people on this site and elsewhere have deemed it innappropriate for the chair of the IAWM to continue in the role since he is a selected candidate in the general election next year for a registered political party. Some people feel that to support an IAWM rally will strengthen his electoral chances, and further the aims of his party, with which they might not agree. They could be right or wrong on this. I would like to know if the IAWM has made any public pronouncements on this subject. And if not, why not?

by MichaelY - iawm (per cap) Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:13

Dear friend,

The set of questions you posed above are extremely relevant and focussed. Some of them are straight forward (and will try to respond to those) others are very complex and require further discussion.

1. The Irish Anti War Movement, as its name implies, is a m o v e m e n t, as distinct from a political p a r t y or organisation. As such it has members with a variety of political and social views - it has many pacifists but also has members who believe that peoples opposition to repression and oppression could, and at times must, take non-peaceful, indeed violent forms.
2. The IAWM is a movement focussing primarily, if not exclusively, on the political stance and actions of the Irish Government and State re: the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq by allowing the use of Shannon and Baldonnel as warports. It is in this context that we look critically at what the Irish State is doing re:the invasion of Lebanon and the genocidal war in Gaza. The IAWM, is not against the USA or Israel or Britain or Sudan as states....our point of reference is the involvement of the Irish State, and by implication of all our citizens, with the foreign policies of such states. Your comment that the IAWM is an anti-imperialist movement is very close to the truth - with particualr emphasis on focussing on and opposing the Irish State's stance towards the actions of the Empire.
3. As the situation in Dhafur seems to escalate, a number of our members have asked for an internal debate on the issue. This will begin next week after the Sept 23 demo is out of the way.

We now come to a complex issue, i.e. the involvement of members of political parties, and particularly those of the SWP, in the IAWM. First and foremost the truth is that we have a whole set of members of parties in the movement, including members of the Labour Party in our Steering Committee, along with a number of non-aligned people. The latter group numbers 6 while SWP members in the SC are 3. That must tell you a part of the story.
As to the fact that Richard BB has been the Chairperson of the IAWM since its inception - as well as being a prominent SWP member and an election candidate for that party - this is very well known...for me, personally, the problem, if indeed there is one, is not his SWP affiliation but the fact that he's been there from the beginning without any structure in place for an orderly replacement in times of difficulty (absence or illness) or longer term change. Many well known anti-war activists have been in the IAWM, in various positions, in the past. The issue of the internal structures of the IAWM has been discussed many times...as much as the structures of any organisation come under the microscope. Look at the debates re:the Indymedia Collective going on at the moment.
Let me conclude by saying all of us are fully aware of what's ahead. We are taking things in order of priority and dealing with them. The IAWM has been definitely growing over the past year and that gives us a lot of hope. Finally, from the tone of your questions I think you are definitely a person who would be an asset for any anti-war organisation, and most certainly for the IAWM. So why not join us?

Fraternally

by Still confused Wed Sep 20, 2006 20:15

Thank you for answering my questions. It seems the lleast I can do is answer the question you asked me:

Why not join the Irish Anti War Movement?

I don't believe that the IAWM is open and honest. Perhaps it seems silly to you but the the fact that the name of the organisation is "anti-war" while some members are pro-violence seems to me to be incredibly duplicitous. Fair enough there are some pacifists in the IAWM, but you don't have to be anti-war to be a member. This is a clear case of what's called "passing off' ,isn't it? Like when a chemical milk substitute is called something like -"taste's like REAL MILK', in the hope that the casual consumer won't notice the small print.

The fact that the chair of the IAWM is chair for life, and also running as a candidate in an election for a recognised political party (or one of its front groups), would definitely make me think twice about supporting the movement.
Would my efforts be helping in the fight against imperialism or instead helping get him elected? Would he be speaking for me when he acts as a spokesman for the IAWM? Does the media recognise him as having two distinct roles?

The whole thing has a very dodgy air about it. I saw "vote anti-war" written somewhere recently- does that mean that he sees himself as an anti-war (but not pacifist) candidate?

The history of the SWP setting up front groups is really troubling. Globalise Resistance etc. Now, you could say that the front group argument doesn't apply in this case, but I think a lot of people would feel- once bitten, twice shy...

The IAWM exists to criticise the Irish State- so why the constant references to Bush and Blair? Neither of them are Irish citizens or hold office here. What's the significance of the date September 23rd in Ireland?

Surely the IAWM is just part of a larger international movement which seeks to criticise the US, and Britain and other European countries which support Israel? Arent there protests in other places on September 23rd? Thefact that you can talk about the IAWM as if it were a purely Irish organisation is troubling too.

Lastly, where were you? Why didn't you protest during the attack on the Short Strand, or the campaign of sectarian intimidation against the catholics in Aghohill last year? If you are anti-imperialism, anti-oppression, anti- innocent ciivilians being targeted- then why the great silence regarding events in this country? Surely a truly anti-imperialist movement would have something to say on the subject -even if only to comment on the complicity of the Irish government?

by MichaelY - iawm (per cap) Wed Sep 20, 2006 21:33

Dear friend,

Just back from cutting down slats for placards for Saturday and postering in the City Centre.
I appreciate a lot your honesty and candid prose. I will try to respond to some of the points the best I can and I sincerely hope it will help clarify some key political questions.

1. I don't believe that the IAWM is open and honest. Perhaps it seems silly to you but the the fact that the name of the organisation is "anti-war" while some members are pro-violence seems to me to be incredibly duplicitous - your quote.

If you read carefully my message, I didn't say that some or any members of the IAWM are "pro-violence". I said some accept non-peaceful means of responding to oppression! To make it more specific, what should a Lebanese anti-war activist have done when the might of the Israeli Army destroyed villages, houses, roads, bridges last July and August? What did the black people of South Africa do when faced with the Boer apartheid regime? What did Yugoslav, and Greek leftists do when attacked by the Nazi hordes in the mid-40s? And since you raise the issue of the 6 Counties, what did a significant part of the nationalist population do over the last 30 years when faced by Unionism and the Brits? One can argue the rights and wrongs for ever - but the reality is oppression breeds resistance and resistance can be, and usually is, multiform and often violent. Being a realist and being 'duplicitous' are not exactly synonyms!

2. "The fact that the chair of the IAWM is chair for life, and also running as a candidate in an election for a recognised political party (or one of its front groups), would definitely make me think twice about supporting the movement."

Again the fact that RBB has been chairing the IAWM since 2003 does not and should not make him "chair for life"!! Having worked with the fella for a good while now, I think he is honest, extremely hard working and WYSIWYG - if a bit ambitious!. I agree with you that the SWP badge around his neck is a problem for many....but then nobody is perfect. I really hope that over the next 2-3 months, the IAWM has its National meeting and the issue of structures and chair/vice-chair gets aired out. Incidentally, as I am not and have never been in the SWP I would not attempt to respond to questions about them.

3. "Surely the IAWM is just part of a larger international movement which seeks to criticise the US, and Britain and other European countries which support Israel? Arent there protests in other places on September 23rd? Thefact that you can talk about the IAWM as if it were a purely Irish organisation is troubling too."

The IAWM is an Irish organisation - pure and simple. It is, however, as you say part of very large international anti-war/anti-imperialist movement. We are proud of our links with comrades from other countries and, yes, Sept . 23rd is a global day of action with similar demonstrations in the US, France, Italy, Spain and the UK. One other very important element of the IAWM, you may not know, is that many of our new members come from Catalonia, Iran, Afghanistan, France, Palestine, Lebanon, Brittany, Spain, the Netherlands, Greece and probably quite a number of other places I forget....these are young people living and working here......does that make us less irish? Think about that please.

Finally, I leave your last point unanswered at the moment...because it needs its own specific treatment and will take too long and it's late. So, you can think twice about us, you can be troubled if you wish, but I still believe you'd be welcome and a real asset among us. Hope to see you on Saturday good friend.

by antiwhat? Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:16

ROFL

so the IAWM is upset at the USA and Israel using its military muscle around the globe and therefore protests against it but at the same time encourages violent action against it. NOW thats a novel approach to being **antiwar**

You are a joke

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:09

Hey anonymous messenger,

The IAWM does not support or encourage or promote or incite or work with violence.
If you could pls go and read carefully a couple of paragraphs of my message above, you will, sooner or later, get my drift.
Violence comes when the rich and powerful and armed to the teeth forces attack people.....the IAWM is 100% against such attacks whether they come from the US or Britain or Israel.....and we are also against the collaboration of the Irish State with those forces by allowing Shannon and Baldonnel to be used as warports.
And this, unfortunately is anything but a joke.....people are dying every day as a result of invasions and occupation.
What some of us believe, as activists and politically responsible citizens, is that when people are repressed, when their houses are bombed, their children killed, when cluster bombs maim and shatter lives.....they will respond!! And in that resistance, historically, violence always plays a part.....
No more to be said really.....

by give it up Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:14

And in that resistance, historically, violence always plays a part

so you are saying for example that in the leb/Israel conflict you were cheering for hezbollah, well done you prove my point, you support or turn the other cheek to violent resistance because it is reactionary to oppresive force, again thats not antiwar, plz stop digging that hole

thx

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:35

There was BBC2 programme the other night I was watching where a number of British scientists demonstrated a few experimental models of b o t s - computer-generated figures which, according to their developers, "simulate and reproduce human thought and speech". Answering Paxman, one of the developers said "They can't actually think - properly speaking - or read and understand - not yet anyway - they just repeat what they have been programmed to say".

Obviously, one or two of these bots came recently to this island - probably trying to get to the K CLUB. And decided to try Indymedia for a laugh. According to this creature, the correct "anti-war" position for people who are being bombed, hounded from their village, killed, oppressed is ....what exactly?

1. Run for your life [1.5 million did in Lebanon] 2. Pray [be it to the Pope or Buddha or Mohammed] 3. Sit and take it because higher powers decided that was your destiny 4. Try to convince the planes and the tanks to show mercy and compassion 5. Write letters to the Press 6. Go and see your TD and complain 7.Join hands with your loved ones and close your eyes 8. Watch some telly and hope it all goes away....

Any more anti-war positions I missed? C'mon bot - educate us all further.....

by the poor guy Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:42

According to this creature, the correct "anti-war" position for people who are being bombed, hounded from their village, killed, oppressed is ....what exactly?

You are the antiwar hero not them michael!! They are PART of a war, a tiny but SUBTLE difference, one which is a bit beyond you at this stage i fear. i never said they do not have a right to defend themselves against an oppresive force but as a nuetral party and an antiwar one at that you should be abhored at that not egging em on michael, after all tis more needless violence

I love golf, in fact i love most sport

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:59

GO and enjoy your golf - poor guy!

In the meantime, for those of us who will remain behind, not as neutrals but as committed to the oppressed of this world, lets enjoy Hugo Chavez' speech to the United Nations yesterday entitled "Rise Up Against the Empire".

http://www.counterpunch.org/

by ahh shucks Thu Sep 21, 2006 13:09

ahh michael, dont worry i support yas!

on a serious note did ya ever think about taking a full page in a national newspaper(i am sure you could get a few prominent names that love free publicity) to endorse it. It would give your march a lot of exposure and momentum which you could use.

after all when you play with the big boys you occasionaly need to use their tactics, and i dont think it would be 2 expensive if ya all chipped in

the publicity would be worth it

by Darren - Palestine Solidarity Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:58

Don't forget the gig on Monday night ... Donal Lunny & friends in the Olympia at 7.30. Tickets from the Olympia box office.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Sep 22, 2006 13:13

Tomorrow's demonstration has two key objectives:
- Show + demonstrate to the FF/PD Coalition that their decision to allow the use of Shannon and Baldonnel as warports is a clear statement of complicity + collaboration in the Empire's War and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Tell them that the the anti-war movement in Ireland stands steadfastly against the US warmongering on Iran that is likely to exacerbate the tension in the Middle East and threaten the whole area with mayhem and destruction.

In the context of the latter objective, it is significant to note that having gone through the diplomatic motions with Iran, George W. Bush is shifting toward a military option that carries not only severe risks for American soldiers in Iraq, but also the interests of peace abd stability in that tense part of the world.. Yet, despite this looming crisis, the Bush Family continues to withhold key historical facts about U.S.-Iranian relations.
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, who reflects the thinking of influential neoconservatives, reached a similar conclusion – that Bush had essentially made up his mind about attacking Iran. He noted that on the day after the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Bush responded to a question about Iran by saying: “It’s very important for the American people to see the President try to solve problems diplomatically before resorting to military force.”
“‘Before’ implies that one follows the other,” Krauthammer wrote. “The signal is unmistakable. An aerial attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities lies just beyond the horizon of diplomacy. With the crisis advancing and the moment of truth approaching, it is important to begin looking now with unflinching honesty at the military option.” [Washington Post, Sept. 15, 2006]. This is, of course, the same Charles Krauthammer who also has a column in our very own Irish Times.

To read more about this issue, please go to
www.consortiumnews/2006/092006.html
and have a look at an excellent article by Robert Perry entitled ' The Bushes and the Truth about Iran'.

by wasteotime Fri Sep 22, 2006 13:36

maybe you can do a link up and declare your undying love for nasrallah

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Sep 22, 2006 13:37

Further to my message above:

The threat to use violence and US warmongering on Iran are not the best way to curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions according to the absolute majority of citizens of 25 countries, according to a poll carried out last week on behalf of the BBC World Service. It is interesting to note that while 60% of those questioned believe that the Teheran leadership is actually trying to develop nuclear weapons, only 11% of the 27,000 polled believed that military violence was the best way to resolve the problem. 40%, on the other hand, argued that diplomacy was the only way to proceed in this respect.

The poll was conducted by the GlobeScan Institute and its Director Doug Miller noted that the United Nations must take on a leadership role to ensure that an end is put to nuclear proliferation. His sentiments were echoed by Bill Clinton who suggested that the US “should start talking to Iran….without too many preconditions”.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Sep 22, 2006 14:39

Obviously the fact that we are going to have a successful national march tomorrow and our position against the US warmongering on Iran is touching a few raw nerves.
Expected.......
Waste of time - why don't you go and watch a bit of golf played by the American millionaires and their locak friends and leave this thread for those who care.

Bah - indeed!!