New Pro- Palestine Lobby Established in US

by Seán Fri Jun 20, 2003 16:07

An bhfuil a fhios ag éinne cad é ainm an ceathrú duine óg Palaistíneach a chuir cuairt ar Éireann an samhradh seo caite, ar dtús ar Bhéal Feirste ansin go Baile Átha Cliath?

Does anyone know the name of the fourth Palestinian young person who visited Ireland last summer first to Belfast and then to Dublin.

Hanine, Mohammed, Maisa'

by Àine - IPSC Sun Jun 22, 2003 04:03

Jenin

by Seán Mon Jun 23, 2003 15:27

cheers áine

by Kamranistan - Kamranistan Co. Tue Jun 09, 2009 20:20

Hey all!

The International Pro Palestinian Lobby is officially online at its temporary website!

www.ipplobby.org

by Frank Adam - private citizen Sat Jun 13, 2009 21:23

One day the penny will drop that the Arabs can have their Arab state in Palestine when they stop putting conditions on Israeli self- determination and sovereignty; stop annoying Israel; and switch priorities from the negative against the neighbours to the positive about themselves. Given a five years peace the area will flourish especially if the money retailed through UNWRA is wholesaled as public project wages.

While the Arab World in and out of Palestine seeks to liquidate Israel as printed in black on white in the PLO and Hamas charters, the Arabs of Palestine are unlikely to get much from Israel.

The present condition of the Arabs in Gaza, Hebron and Nablus Districts is a direct result of the Arab rejections of two states for two peoples policies since 1937. If Arabs inflict war you get wartime limitations on civil rights.

The best thing Arabs and their friends can do now to call off Israel, is cut losses not only the UN181 borders which the Arabs junked in 1947 - '48; but the Jewish post 67 suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv which are the results of forty years Arab obstreperous talk and useless violence from a position of weakness. Then stop niggling Israel which is a policy of shining failure and make it up with Jordan and Egypt instead of demands on Israel.

by Anoy Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:15

Frank it is my opinion (based on this and other comments I have seen from you), you are an apologist, a racist and a sophist, because you are, you assume when one take's a position in opposition to your own in regard to Israel, characterised in the form of critisim of Israeli state violence, then this person is acting as an apologist for Arab state violence - this is not necessiarily the case - one can take the position of just critising injustice, by whom ever it is perputrated by.

by Filament Sun Jun 14, 2009 22:02

Anoy, the problem I have with your position is that injustice perpetrated by Hamas etc is rarely criticized by those who criticize Israel. Frank seems well informed and objective to me.

by Anoy Mon Jun 15, 2009 01:56

With all due respect Filament - the commentary / racist drivel selectively interspersed with dates and facts, Frank spouts is about as objective as those you are complaining about who see no evil on the Hamas side.

by Frank Adam - private citizen Tue Jun 16, 2009 19:15

"Sophist" is a compliment in the context of a lot of the postings here that are ignorant of the detailed history and one sided; because it means Annoy and others have had to note an argument that is new or not in their pre-digested leaflets for easy batting. A great pity as the Irishman Connor Cruise O'Brien wrote "The Siege" one of the better books on the dispute - precisely because he as an Irish minister and diplomat had met and heard several of the main players and can judge them from his own real experience as a player in the UN game.

Second as a child of first generation immigrants and a success in the "career open to talents" as the French Revolutionaries' Rights of Man put it; I have great personal and public interest not to indulge any racism whatsoever out of professional necessity, enlightened self interest, and to sleep well o'nights. So I challenge Annoy to pinpoint what (s)he thinks is racist in my writing - apart from the fact that (s)he does not like my opinions and is disturbed by evidence.

Indeed it does not necessarily make congruent Venn diagram circles that an objection to injustice has to be posited as criticim of one of the parties in the dispute. On the other hand any serious treatment of any dispute and the torts and offences arising from it should take into account the story and events seen by each side and consider them as mitigation of the circumstances, intentions and consequences - otherwise rough justice does not necessarily settle the dispute.

Just take a few of the big but often sidelined issues in the Arab dispute with Israel and try a reasoned reply:
*If Israel can live with a 20% minority on personal civil rights why cannot Palestine do likewise?
*Who is racist? Israel giving its minority the best minority conditions in the Arab World and good by any standards - despite the open warfare of the neighbours from the same ethnicity - or the PA and other Arab parties demanding an Arab Palestine state without a [Jewish] minority?
*Given all the intense arguments for the liberty, equality and equal opportunity of the Arab Israelis why swallow wholesale the idea that the Jews of Israel are not entitled similarly ?
*In parallel why do tens of millions of Irish across the English speaking World still need an independent Ireland? The answer might be obvious but try writing "as writing maketh an exact man."
*Put aside the Arab propensity to shout, "Humiliation!" Insults!" whenever they do not get their way pronto, and try and justify whether the Arab refusals were sensible or over-reaching mistakes ref: Peel , UN 181 , Camp David (twice) and the Israeli offer to return to the '49 - '67 border in June '67....
*Given that all Arab countries have bottom third ratings for human and civil rights or economic fairness (qv The Guardian recent series on every country of the World's scores for rights) what are the prospects of a Palestine Arab state being any better? that anybody - including Annoy- would trust themself or their livlihood to it ? Especially as the same Guardian series gave Israel a slot in the top third?
TTFN .

by Greg T - IPSC-personal capacity Tue Jun 16, 2009 22:25

And what of the fact that the state of Israel was founded on ethnically cleansed land? The Palestinians were not responsible for the Holocaust and the centuries of anti-antisemitism in Europe that preceded it. As for the future, surely it's better to try to get away from the idea of ethnically and/or religion based states and try to build a non-racist world.

by Anon Wed Jun 17, 2009 17:26

Definition: "Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

I have taken some quotes from various comments you have posted on indymedia in the past.

Firstly I hold, your insistence on using the word "Arab", is in my opinion where the racism begins.

"The Arab tragedy is that they still think they are entitled and able to knock their neighbours about as in the Middle Ages and so end up pulling the cloth and tea kettle into their own laps:"

Implicit in this statement - Arabs have a sense of entitlement and are inherently violent - your use of the word "arab" is explicitly stating is it is a quality of an entire race of people.

"Here is an interesting moral question disentangling the bad faith of the proposed dummy contract, from the perfect honesty of the Arabs who have no intention of keeping it?!"

Implicit in this statement - Arabs peoples are dishonest

"That has always been why Arabs and other Moslems pursue this war and the West is daft to pay for the Palestine Arabs food etc because that excuses Arabs weighing the consequences of wars on their civil population."

Implicit in this statement - The entire Arab world is waging a war on the west and hence consequently all Arabs are our enemy by virtue we are Westeners.

This is the language of a racist Frank, if one is to condemn Israeli state violence one must be careful in the language one chooses to use, if one uses the words "Jew violence" in the formers stead - it is implicitly defining the violence of a state, as a quality inherit to a people, and one would be called out rightly, for being anti-semitic or racist.

One needs to be careful with use of language from this perspective, it is important so we can attribute blame correctly. So when an innocent Israeli and /or Jewish child is the victim of Ha mas or Fatah violence – we do not attribute some of the blame for the crime committed, against the victim, because of what its government or armed forces labelled as Israeli or Jewish has done in the past. We just condemn the murderous act for what it is, contemptible, and ask that those responsible be brought to justice. Conversely one does not label the violence as “Arab” we define explicitly with whom the violence lies, so we can hold the perpetrators accountable, rather then assign it to a people or race, we do this to ensure the reverse does not occur.

Your use of language of race by application of the word "Arab" to much of what you write, with its implicit application of blame obfuscates the topic of crimes perpetrated upon innocents, this tactic either used consciously or unconsciously, then allows for or insists upon, that crimes committed must be put in context of the wider
"story and events" , when in fact no such conversation is necessary, murder against a populous or individuals is what it is, a heinous crime.

It is akin to a Nazi Minister defending himself against murder insisting on discussing the Treaty of Versailles for atrocities committed against the German nation, or to say German children must also be held accountable for his crimes by the reasoning they are of German decent, it has no validity. So while the wider history of the region is an important discussion in my view, to understanding the conflict and will obviously play a vital role in bringing peace to the region and finding an equitable solution to all sides it has no relevance when discussing clear and gross violations of human rights, such as what happened recently in Gaza.

Frank your use of language as you do and your insistence on having the wider discussion in discussing clear crimes where no such wider discussion is necessary makes you an apologist in my opinion.

Someone trying these tactics to justify violence on Israeli innocents, would garner the same response from me.

You say

“Second as a child of first generation immigrants and a success in the "career open to talents" as the French Revolutionaries' Rights of Man put it; I have great personal and public interest not to indulge any racism whatsoever out of professional necessity, enlightened self interest, and to sleep well o'nights”

I don't know, but maybe exposure to violence as a child in Israel has left you with a deep contempt and hatred for “Arabs”, maybe even understandably, but if this contempt is not clear for you to see, it seems obvious to me.

Yours Sincerely

by Tom Thu Jun 18, 2009 13:54

Well said Anon. 'Frank' posts racist comments regulary. Everybody else can see it.

by Greg T - IPSC-personal capacity Thu Jun 18, 2009 14:53

BTW, to help dispel some of the stereotypes here's an interesting article I found today:
http://www.advocate.com/letters_detail_ektid80712.asp

by Frank Adam - private citizen Sat Jun 20, 2009 23:41

How does one refer to 'Arabs' other than as 'Arabs' especially when they refer to themselves as Arabs? As with pre -unification Germans and Italians or partitioned Poland this is a nation or culture zone that sees itself in a social unity despite being administered by several states. Conversely the UK sees itself as a federation of nations within a single state as does Switzerland and the former Tsar of ALL the Russias. In 1917 - '47 the Jews of Palestine were 'Palestinians' while the Arabs did not use the term till since late 1968.

The Palestine Arabs did not commit the Holocaust in Europe but enough of them drop enough remarks from time to time wishing Hitler - whom they admired openly till 1945 if not since - "had finished the job," yet denying the Holocaust in other contexts. What is witnessed is that Arab rioters in 1920, '21, '29, '36-'38 and since are reported as shouting, "Death to the Jews," or, "Kill the Jews," depending whether you prefer idiom or exact translation. Thanks to modern electronics the BBC presented us with clips of Arabs screaming, "Itihad al Yahud " quite distinctly in both intifadas. Whatever their reasons it is visible that as much before1948 as since, the Arabs of Palestine - who do speak Arabic and call themselves Arabs - have murderous intent towards the Jewish residents and citizens of the region and of ethnic cleansing of any survivors - as I once heard an Arab student on campus comment the Jews can pray elsewhere [than at the Western Wall] - well why not the Arabs in reference to El Aqsa etc. Do read the PLO and Hamas charters - even on line - and see that what is said about the politics of the Arabs in Palestine is not entirely made up.

In 1948 the Arabs were the aggressors by rejecting UN 181 as promised since mid -1947 and if they collected a bloody nose as Israel fought to survive they deserved it as the Germans got drubbed for invading the Soviet Union, something they also have been slow to admit as cause for their sufferings flowing from their own misbehaviour. In 1948 the Arabs of Palestine were generally a hostile population that when the war turned against them in large part ran away - quite sensibly as civilians do get off battlefields witness the French in 1914 and 1940 or the Moslems and Hindus - also 1947 so why no fuss about return of refugees there? All armies clear fire-zones and demolish cover as part of their operations.

Anon has used the words 'race, racism & racist' in the slippery pre- dritten, or rather drecken, Reich usage as interchangeable with "nation" or "a people" from the social Darwinists till 1945. Since then the race/racist verbiage has been either a euphemism for the colour bar and that ancient legalism "corruption of the blood" which Spanish "limpieza de sangre" laws specialised in; or slightly more broadly as imputing moral or social qualities to physical features or heredity - a mode of thought overflowing with non-sequiturs and lazy or non -observation of all the factors in a social context: cum hoc ergo propter hoc, to amend a phrase.

As Anon has so carefully quoted my previous contributions it is plain that though I have spoken in general terms of a tightly identified group - the Palestine Arabs and Arab states - in a tightly limited context of their dispute with Israel in and over Palestine - I have not attributed to them anything as depending on their genetic, physical or inherited attributes nor have I damned the rest of the Arab World on account of themselves but on what they have actually done, as in any court for that matter.
What I have noticed since I first met Arab individuals and their pamphlets nearly fifty years ago before 1967, is that they do train themselves to stuff their sentences with insulting adjectives which does screen weakness of argument from the passing well intended and unread, a practice they still perform in most television clips.

The Nazis who lasted barely a dozen years, are in some ways irrelevant except as practical proof that the Jewish people need a nation state as any other people. As the US poet Robert Frost put it , "Home is where they have to take you in when nobody else will have you." That was already clear when the Germans, Tsarist Russians and most of the other nations of Eastern Europe refused to disregard religion and treat their Jews as part of "We the people of..." Zionism started well before the Nazis; Israel was never a gift of atonement from the victorious Allies even if Arab authors claim so as part of their defamation and delegitimisation of Jewish identity and self-determination because it is easier for their denials thereby to see Israel as somebody elses's agent rather than as an equal somebody in their own right.

In contrast we are now in the fourth generation of Arab hatred of Israel and their prolongation of the war while teaching hate in their school books and You Tube clips. Do note that in 1921, the Zionists agreed partition as in1937. Zionists were willing to compromise a partition as in 1947 and since excepting the Begin years between 1977 and '94; but the every attempt to broker a peace in a difficult situation has tripped on intransigeance from Arab politicians and their constituencies so understandably as people get the Jews and trade-unions they deserve, why should Arabs be any different?

Meanwhile before writing over-nice distinctions of attribution do check over the spots in this web site for some woolly edged emotions even as the UK press got very worked up about IRA bombs but turn pompously over righteous about Israel - which did suffer 8 000 rockets from the Gaza Strip before going in because the UN and everybody else true to form as in 1950 - '56 or the early '60's Syrian disruption of the Jordan Waters Scheme was unable to tell, and make the Arab authorities in the case keep to elementary international behaviour.

Finally one does not have to have come from Israel to be the child of immigrants. The million born- in- Ireland are still the largest immigrant community in Britain. Anon's inference is typical of the lack of reading by not a few. If you want to end the Arab War on Israel start by proving why evacuating Jews from the ex-Jordanian West Bank now, will result in a peace when in 1949 - 67 when there were no Jews in the Jordanian West Bank all Arabs concerned refused to make a peace with Israel. In fact before1967 I witnessed that Arabs on Campus would not even use the word 'Israel' but in defiance of their UN membership mealy mouthed, "Zionist Entity."