Open public debate

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Sep 06, 2006 13:08

During the last few days we had confirmation of two definite speakers: the First Counsellor of the US Embassy John Young, who will outline his government's approach to the conflict, and the TCD lecturer Ronit Lentin who will speak on the widespread and largely unknown internal opposition in Israel to the invasion.
Working hard to confirm the other speakers....posters and leaflets advertising the debate will be printed soon.

All welcome

by Paddy Power Wed Sep 06, 2006 13:11

Have Kieran or Richard not confirmed yet or are they just playing hard to get? 11/8 a confirmation from one or the other pretty soon.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Sep 06, 2006 13:22

Presuming you're referring to the iawm speaker - the only runner on the field at the moment is a participant from the Raytheon 9...we are awaiting confirmation as mentioned.

Anyway PP - do you think the idea of the debate is a good one - politically that is. Lets leave the personal stuff out of it.

by anon Wed Sep 06, 2006 13:26

You mean Eamonn McCann, who just happens be an SWP member. Ah yes, RBB and Kieran Allen will probably stand aside for him. No bother.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Sep 06, 2006 13:33

Once wrong is OK - twice wrong is a farce - hilarious as you say. Don't the words 'awaiting for confirmation' have any meaning?

Hold your horses and wait - and why, while you are at it, don't you suggest a more 'acceptable' speaker for the anti-war movement - to help us all make up our mind. A non-SWP anti-war activist who understands well what happened in Lebanon and who can string two words together.

Waiting breathlessly.

by Tank Girl Wed Sep 06, 2006 13:58

How about an AWI speaker, Fintan lane? Or Ploughshares, Deirdre Clancy? You could even try David Norris. Hes certainly independent.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Sep 06, 2006 14:07

Hi Tank Girl,

All three mentioned, Deirdre and Fintan and David are excellent choices. I will talk to the first two tomorrow evening at their meeting to check willingness and availability and will email David.....watch this space.

You see TG, as Fintan just wrote in another thread, the things that unite us are much more numerous, and important methinks, than those that divide us. Hope you agree.

by John Fri Sep 08, 2006 22:23

So, what did Fintan Lane and Deirdre Clancy say when you asked them to speak? And who are the rest of the speakers on both sides? Update would be nice.

by anti-war irelander Fri Sep 08, 2006 23:55

Don't know what response Michael got from Fintan or Deirdre but just saw Colm Breathnach of Anti-War Ireland on the Late Late Show speaking really well on his experiences in Palestine and seeing a 12-year-old boy murdered by the Israeli army. Another possibility as a speaker?

by MichaelY - iawm Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:27

Colm was very good in the L8L8 last night - as he was good as well the night before last in the ATGWU. And thanks for all the suggestions for speakers.

The main problem we are encountering at the moment, re:the debate, is to find speakers who will confirm to speak in favour of the Israeli invasion in front of what they say is going to be "a hostile crowd" - one speaker, a prominent member from the US Embassy, has confirmed.

We are awaiting confirmation from Alan Shatter and a couple of other Irish people who have been contacted. Watch this space

by antiwar Sat Sep 09, 2006 13:42

We can assume then that your call for nominations was rhetorical. So, who is confirmed to speak from the antiwar side? From what you've just said, it's obvious that you've confirmed those speakers. Who are they?

The pro-Israel side: have you asked somebody from the Israeli embassy in the same way you got somebody from the US embassy for the last debate?

by MichaelY - iawm Sat Sep 09, 2006 19:32

Yes we have asked the Israeli Embassy and they declined nominating instead an Irishman who has been contacted - we are awaiting confirmation along with Shatter
The anti-war side is also still open . We have one speaker confirmed : an anti-Zionist Jewish TCD lecturer. The rest is still fluid.
At the moment the most likely outcome is to cancel the debate.....we'll see.

by dowser - none Sun Sep 10, 2006 19:12

I'll bet McCann was the proposed Raytheon speaker for the Lebanon debate.

In any case, don't the zionists have enough platforms without the iawm/swp providing another one for them? What about the call to culturally boycott Israel and its representatives??? The IPSC and others have called on people to boycott Israeli goods, they've also called on people to refuse to deal with the representatives of Israel and not to take their money or sponsorship. Where does the iawm/swp stand on that? You asked the Israeli embasy for a speaker, for Gods sake! During the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, would you have asked the South African ambassader to speak at a public meeting despite the wishes of the anti-apartheid movement?

Also, speaking of the IAWM, I just noticed the following on the Raytheon petition:

430. Kevin Wingfield Steering Ctte, Irish Anti War Movement

Now, MichaelY, he's not listed as a 'steering ctte' member on the iawm website, so when exactly was this beauty from the SWP put on the committee? Was he elected on? When? Including RBB and O'Sullivan brothers, that means the SWP now has at least 4 members on a tiny steering ctte. Same-o, same-o.

by observer Sun Sep 10, 2006 19:32

The IAWM steering committee is a bit of a lame duck these days. It contains about three, maybe four, competent people - the rest are pretty useless. Apart from Boyd Barrett, most anti-war activists wouldn't recognise many, if any, of the people on this 'committee'. Maybe Michael Youlton cos he posts every second minute on this site. Why such a collection of mediocrities? Long story - but right now almost any IAWM member could get on the steering committtee because, in reality, the IAWM hardly exists. The only people you ever see leafletting for them are steering committee members (except Boyd Barrett, who hardly leaves Dunleary) and SWP foot soldiers. And the SWP are really pouring their energies into People Before Profit, which promises better returns for them in next year's elections.

by pat c Sun Sep 10, 2006 20:46

For a pro Israeli speaker I would suggest Tom Carew. He has has had many letters published in the IT on the topic. He quite belligerently defends the Israeli actions.

He was involved in the PSEU but has retired.

They may have contact details for him.

Public Service Executive Union
Address: 30, Merrion Square, Dublin 2.

Pseu Tel: 01-6767271 Fax: 01-6615777

email: [email protected]

http://www.pseu.ie/

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:09

PatC - Thanks for the information - I called the Union this morning and they promised they will try to get us a contact number or an email by lunch time.

Now, to the rest of the anonymous well-wishers above.
1. 2 local groups of the IAWM have already started small scale boycott activity. The first in M&S Henry St by the Central Dublin group (16 of us and three 'observers - only 2 members of the SC) and the second in Tescos Phibsboro with 3-4 people from the North Strand group. Another activity re:boycott planned for this week. Don't know if anybody else has done anything on this yet. We are liaising closely with the IPSC on this one - more info from them on their National Boycott Day next Saturday 16th.
2. Yes, for our planned debate we approached the Israeli Embassy as we wanted all of us to hear their strategy and rationale for their barbarism directly from the horse's mouth. They pleaded too much work and they declined. Issue closed.
3. As for the Steering Committee, at the moment it has three celebrated SWP members and six, in the words of the intelligent anonymista above, unknown non-SWP mediocrities, including myself!! Can't win them all sunshine....wish we could match all the other anti-war organisations with their shiny stars!! So you see why we have to rely on 'established' personalities like RBB and Kevin to boost our profile somewhat!! And we rely heavily of course on the support and encouragement of people like yourselves. Keep it up.

by joe Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:20

First of all, well done to the IAWM for its work on the consumer boycott.

However, your invitation to the Israeli embassy and your discussions with them are in complete contradiction to the politico-cultural boycott call. The intention of this call is to have Israel treated as a pariah state - it's going to be hard to convince people to do this if anti-war groups like the IAWM are inviting them to speak at public meetings and asking them for their advice on speakers.

by pat c Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:23

Nothing contradictory here. You cannot have a debate with yourself; you need speakers from the opposing side. The idea is to expose their ideas as being without merit.

There are nothing ruled out when you are combatting Zionism, you use the most appropriate tools.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:36

Editor's Note: Reference to hidden comment edited out

Joe -
Your position has merit....first we checked our stance with the IPSC and members of the Palestinian and the Lebanese community. They both stated that provided this initiative was in the format of a public debate they had no problem.....a debate does not reflect support of speakers - I presume we agree on that one!
However, the issue of the pariah state encompasses a much larger question. It is my personal stance that if the Palestinian resistance and the Palestinian people along with their elected organisations are successful in their struggle....the time will come that the Israeli State will be, willy nilly, brought to the negotiation table. It is Olmert and his cabal who will not talk to Hamas at the moment - not the other way around.
This is one of the issues that we thought would be raised in the debate - it is, of course, the Israelis who backed off - not for 'security reasons' but because they don't want debate right now. They prefer to rely on their armed might and terrorism against civilians.....finally, we never asked them for help and advice...they proposed a lecturer to speak on their behalf.

by joe Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:40

There are pro-Israel groups in Ireland and individuals like Alan Shatter and Carew who can be asked to put forward the Zionist position. Israel is not short of defenders. However, to ask the Israeli embassy, when a politico-cultural boycott call has been made, is the epitome of contradiction. Why picket against Israeli state sponsorship of cultural events in Ireland if you are willing to provide their representatives with a public platform, paid for with the donations of people who oppose the Israeli oppression of Palestine? That makes no sense. I didn't donate money to the IAWM so that it could be used to fund a platform for the Israeli embassy.

There is a serious lack of consistency here.

by joe Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:49

Another non-embassy person is Tom Cooney, law lecturer and former ICCL activist, who is very strongly pro-Israel and enjoys public speaking. Asking him wouldn't be treating with the apartheid Israeli state.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:57

Joe,

I am listening very carefully to your argument - and have to take serious and respectful note because the IAWM relies and is based on the support of people like yourself.
To clarify matters, as they stand right now, Shatter has been invited and we're awaiting confirmation while we'll get in touch with Carew. If you do have a contact number for him pls forward.

The key question here is that these individuals, and a few others supportive of the Israeli posiiton, are not very keen to debate....don't know if you saw Shatter in L8L8 on Saturday - he wasn't debating Fisk - he was hiding behind a presumed 'desire for peace' and repeating himself. I counted - he mentioned 'Tne Peace Process' eleven times......the issue of the stolen land, of the occupation, of who and why broke the Oslo Accord....he either doesnot know or he doesn't want to talk about it. Did you hear him mention the Wall once?
For an Irish audience, of either political stance, I believe it is hugely important to hear the Israeli position DIRECTLY without intermediation. Shatter and Carew, welcome as they are to debate with us, are not part of formulating policy...they reflect views and are PR help to the Israelis. The two Embassies, linked to their respctive governments, are part of formulating policy.....
You may find our position on this contradictory.....it may very well be! However, allow me to go back to Mao and his work on how the political process moves forward on working on contradictions.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:04

Joe,

Tom Cooney was the person mentioned by the Israeli Embassy. We sent him three emails and left two messages on his private UCD line. We are waiting.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:17

Hi Pat,

Just met and had tea with Tom Carew. He agreed to speak on the side of the angels.
A knowledgable man.
Thanks for the suggestion companero.

Fraternally

by pat c Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:40

"Just met and had tea with Tom Carew. He agreed to speak on the side of the angels."

I am glad to hear that you didn't imbibe anything stronger this early in the day. I take it you mean the Fallen Angels.

"A knowledgable man."

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:45

I didn't say f a l l e n angels because the poor man has in fact fallen recently and damaged seriously his right leg which is in plaster. No joke PatC - true.
He was very friendly and he seemed OK. That's all I can say after 30 minutes.

Thanks again

by PaddyK Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:22

I attended a debate a couple of years back at which Tom Cooney was the Pro-Israeli speaker. The crowd attendant was "hostile" to pro-Israeli sentiment and after muttering something about, "You people, blab, blab..." (hard to hear ) he ran away.
Yes really , he ran away, just like in Monty Python's Holy Grail. Everyone laughed, but in fact it was highly annoying.
The result was a large gaping hole left in the middle of the debate. Luckily the pro-Palestinian speaker, an X-Kibutzim Jewish teacher I think, had plenty to say. But my observation on that night was that Cooney does not have the strength of his convictions.
Beware !

by star of david Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:54

The crowd attendant was "hostile" to pro-Israeli sentiment

Like the previous poster said, you attract a lot of rabble that have the brainpower to think that attackiing someone in a debate is going to gain them kudos in their respectively dim organisations

and anyhow he simply has to answer: The Hezbollah Militia and its long range offensive rockets

hes allready won the debate

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Sep 14, 2006 14:33

As our intended guests from Lebanon couldnot acquire visas in good time to come over, we felt that the debate would be very weak in their absence. So we decided to cancel it.
Thanks to all of the comrades who participated in this thread and to all of you who tried to help with suggestions and criticisms.
We will now put all our efforts to organise a large number as humanly possible to take part in the Sept. 23rd national demonstration.