IPSC : "Israeli Blood Diamonds are forever ... on your conscience"

by TD - IPSC Sun Mar 25, 2007 16:12

5!

by TD - IPSC Sun Mar 25, 2007 16:15

1 !

by Lucy in -the Sky- with Diamonds Sun Mar 25, 2007 16:34

Oh Yeah, people that are into buying diamonds are going to care for social issues, not to mind Palestine. Get real and focus on things people can engage with, you're only wasting your energies. Boycotting what everyone buys, like common supermarket products, would make much more sense, wouldn't it? Do you really think that diamond buyers are moved by street protests? Now, that's a funny one.

Get down from your high horse and walk among real people, you might get them then.

by Richey Sun Mar 25, 2007 16:46

Alternatively, they can also try and use their brains and get to diamond buyers in a way that will be more likely to reach them. How does a diamond buyer think? (If I new it I'd be quite worried for my own mental health and sense of morality). If you have a fur coat you may have an idea, put it on and 'think'. An 'I-have-money' hat will do as well.

by Irish Jew Tue Mar 27, 2007 20:46

This is naked anti-Semitism on a par with 1930s Germany

Diamond polishing is renowned as one of the few trades that Jews could enter . Today it is specifically Orthodox Jews who engage in this trade,

Antwerp, Hatton Garden and Diamond District Manhatten as well as Ramat Gan are the main diamond centres. All are frequented by thre forementioned black hatted orthodox Jews.

Shame on you.

Lets hope you are exposed for what youse really are!

by Irish Jew Tue Mar 27, 2007 21:10

Unfortunately Israeli diamonds are blood diamonds in the sense of being conflict diamonds.

Israel is driving anti semitiosm around the world

by David L - IPSC Wed Mar 28, 2007 09:23

The vehemence of the reaction to the campaign might indicate that it touches a sore spot – a vulnerable part of the Israeli economy. There also might be some genuine confusion. So here’s a post to deal with some of them

Antisemitism of campaign
Funnily enough when we decided on this campaign, one of our members said, ‘Well, at least they can’t accuse us of antisemitism on this!’ Wishful thinking, since supporters of Israel can accuse pro-Palestinian activists of antisemitism on anything – anything to divert attention from Palestinians and what Israel is doing to them. We’ve even been accused of antisemitism for selling Christmas cards, for god’s sake!

It is, in a way, pointless to point out that we are not conducting a boycott of Jewish diamond dealers in Amsterdam, or that we find the idea reprehensible - the accusation of antisemitism is levelled at all activities trying to help Palestinians. This is truly unfortunate, since there is actual real antisemitism and other racism in this world, which is trivialised by accusing human rights activists of antisemitism. However the accusation can’t be taken seriously.

Isolation of campaign
Part of the accusation is the assertion that the IPSC (or ISPC!) is isolated from the anti-war movement. This seems to be deduced – since all that motivates Palestinian solidarity activists is antisemitism, why would they ally with other solidarity movements? It also betrays profound ignorance of the movement, our affiliation to both AWI and IAWM, our participation in anti-war actions, and our good relations with other solidarity groups such as LASC. Unlike 'helena' we do see ourselves as part of the international solidarity network in Ireland, and act accordingly.

Irrelevance of campaign.
While it might not be PC to work from the assumption that middle-class people have consciences too when it comes to buying stuff, it's fair to say that many many people at one point in their lives buy, or consider buying a diamond – when they are getting married.

A focus on diamonds does initially seem counter-intuitive, but the success of the blood diamonds campaign shows that it is a fruitful site for consumer activism. We are not asking people to boycott diamonds after all, merely to ask that the one time in their life they buy a diamond, a precious meaningful purchase that most diamond buyers think long and hard about – that they do so ethically. That they ask for non-Israeli diamonds.

Diamonds are an important part of the Israeli economy, and we (and other international activists) feel it is vulnerable to a consumer boycott.

If you have any other questions on this and are in Dublin, you can come to our stall in Grafton Street this Saturday. Alternatively you can come to our picket of Atlantic Homecare (for selling Israeli products) in Liffey Valley shopping centre.

by redjade Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:10

A couple issues with this campaign. I could list more but I do not have the time to write them all at the moment....

1) This Campaign uses a jewish stereotype to promote its agenda. This should have been acknowledged by ISPC from the start and then dealt with rather than going through weeks of this Q&A process and avoiding the issue.

It sounds as if IPSC is saying 'Boycott Israel' and with that also boycott some of these diamonds - that's a bit confusing. Would you suggest that people buy 'conflict diamonds' not funneled through Israel, instead?

In other words, is IPSC really against Conflict Diamonds or just against Israel?

2) This campaign hijacks the world Anti-Blood Diamonds campaign. ISPC's focus seems to be solely based on Israel - where are the signs and agitprop that promote the rights of the Sierra Leoneans and Congolese that suffer in the mines and are victimised by the Wars that Conflict Diamonds promote? Nowhere to be found, if one can judge by looking at the photos.

ISPC is obviously focused on Israel, but if you are going to 'link issues' the very least you can do is focus on the victims in Africa and not only on the claimed victimisers in Israel. The immediate and most affected victims of these Israeli connected diamonds are Africans, not the Palestinians.

In googling around on this issue I have seen only a few examples anywhere in the world where 'Conflict Diamonds'/'Blood Diamonds' activists have used the Israel connection to promote the Anti Blood Diamond cause.

3) Quote: ''one of our members said, ‘Well, at least they can’t accuse us of antisemitism on this!’''

What this tells me is that your campaign needs to educate itself about the realities of Anti-Semitism and the holocaust, its history and its semiotics.

This debate about this campaign has continued now for weeks - at this point it is hard to claim that ISPC's members and supporters are somehow naive that people see them as using jewish stereotypes to promote their politics.

by David L - IPSC Wed Mar 28, 2007 15:55

Hi Redjade, I admit I feel your criticism is a bit unfair – though accept you’re writing in good faith (sorry, but there’s so much incivility on this issue, that you have to have a preamble like this). The unfairness comes when you accuse us of using antisemitic stereotypes. We really don’t – the diamond industry was chosen simply because it is an important yet vulnerable part of the Israeli economy, unlike say electronics.

To say that this ignores or even ‘plays on’ antisemitic stereotypes of diamond-dealing Jews (and I bet most people, including myself were unaware that there were such stereotypes, which belies the idea that they have much power) is a bit beside the point. In fact, it is a bit like saying you can’t highlight the killing of Palestinian kids by Israel because this deliberately plays on stereotypes of child-killing Jews. I chose the latter example simply because this has been argued, not just by right-wing loonies but by purportedly moderate and left-wing Zionists such as those in Engage.

I feel you have to deal with the question that if all Palestinian solidarity activities are called antisemitic, why should we really take this criticism seriously, when we know ourselves that it is wrong?

IPSC members are motivated by a lot of different things – some are Palestinian, some Jewish, most are neither – just people touched by the plight of Palestinians. But generally it’s fair to say we are all motivated by human rights concerns, and by horror at what is happening to Palestinians, not by bizarre racist theories.

There are other, not-quite related issues

You mention the Africa campaign; our point is that this campaign has largely succeeded -according to RJI 98% of diamonds here aren’t blood diamonds. This is great news – it is time now to expand the definition of blood diamonds. Is this hijacking, or is it smart activism?

You also point out that this campaign coming as part of a ‘boycott Israel’ campaign could be misinterpreted as a ‘boycott diamonds’ campaign. This, I agree, is a fair point, and we should work to ensure it doesn’t happen.

by concerned Wed Mar 28, 2007 16:44

As a former IPSC member, I have to agree with some of what Redjade is talking about.

I agree that the message being given out is that boycott Israeli diamonds by buying other diamonds. The reality is that the diamond industry is very murky and covered in blood. Is it ok to buy blodd diamonds from elsewhere so long as they are not Israeli !!!!!!!!! If this is true then I can see where an anti-semitic argument can be made.

I do feel some people in the IPSC are anti-semitic whether they ever realise it or not, I have heard in the past comments such as "they are all alike (jews)" and "all jews are zionists" etc etc. I have seen people with a huge aversion to giving voice to Jewish and Israeli people,

Pro-palestinian activists are often branded as anti semitic but too often groups like the IPSC do not do enough to counter this and the argument of "We are not anti-semitic so we wont even debate that" is ridiculous.

I for one see this particular campaign as being far removed from "ordinary" people and ridiculous and as has been mentioned targets a trade and occupation that has and is traditionally been seen as being Jewish.

by David L - IPSC Wed Mar 28, 2007 17:56

The message seems to be that the IPSC is antisemitic because we focus on Israeli crimes. Antisemitic because we find the accusation of antisemitism ridiculous, tiresome and trivialising genuine antisemitism. Antisemitic because we accept that in 98% of cases the Kimberly process is followed (and are happy about the fact) and therefore are not advocating boycotting all diamonds, but only diamonds crafted in Israel.

How are we to take comments like ‘the diamond industry is very murky ’ seriously? So, for instance is the beef industry – if we advocate boycotting Israeli beefburgers will we be taken to task for not focussing on the deplorable conditions in the Brazilian beef industry? Will we be called antisemitic for pretending we’re interested in issues of universal rights, yet failing to link up with animal rights activists? Will we be told we are drawing on ‘obvious’ antisemitic stereotypes, because we are deliberately drawing attention to particular Jewish kosher customs and asserting that somehow Jewish meat is unclean? Will we be accused of profound ignorance of the semiotics of the Holocaust? … Judging by the comments here, the answer is yes.

Perhaps you can see why IPSC members find it very hard to take this criticism seriously. As a group we are not really interested in anti-Jewish conspiracy theories but promoting the rights of Palestinians.

Incidentally, as a Jew, I have never experienced such outrageous behaviour from other members which ‘concerned’ complains about. I can only talk about my own experience of course, but remain deeply unconvinced.

Since ‘concerned’ seems to want the IPSC to target ordinary people in our campaign – I’ll accept a level of good faith in her/his points. So to try and get it back onto a constructive level, can ‘concerned’ and redjade suggest campaigns for the IPSC which will forward our support for the Palestinian struggle for their rights and which they think will be free of any antisemitic tinge? We’re open to constructive ideas.

by concerned Wed Mar 28, 2007 18:08

David L, the comments in question can be attricuted to people high up in the IPSC, do not fool yourself, I am not saying all members are anti-semitic i am saying you are follsh to think there is no anti-semitic element to IPSC members

by Lucy in -the Sky- with Diamonds Wed Mar 28, 2007 19:51

Concern, if you want to say there are 'idiots' in the IPSC, say so, but not that we are 'anti-Semitic'. We are people from all walks of life and different approaches to things, some may have more drive than brain power, granted, high up in the ranks, granted, but we are all motivated by a deep solidarity with a people that are suffering great injustice TODAY, the Palestinians.

I invite you, please, to reflect for a minute on this: do you feel there is anti-Semitism in the IPSC, or idiocy? These concepts are not the same. I concur there may be some of the latter, but joining Zionists in claiming the IPSC is anti-Semitic doesn't seem very productive to me for the overall cause.

I personally find hard to believe that if David L., who claims to be Jewish, hasn't experienced anti-Semitism in the campaign, there is any. The times we have had Ilan Pappe for talks in Ireland, for instance, I have always appreciated a general feeling of warm welcome toward him by everyone in the campaign.
Now, yeah, idiocy, like I said, yes, there may be quite a bit in some selected members, which unfortunately is a common thing to many organisations.

by Atheist and proud Wed Mar 28, 2007 20:49

Dave claims to be Jewish. Dave's myspace says he's an atheist.
Not odd for a swp member to claim to be one thing and then to see something different written else where.
For the record I was baptised a catholic. I'd never claim to be still one.

by Irish Jew Wed Mar 28, 2007 22:44

A Jew is someone who, as well as having a Jewish mother, has a Jewish Soul
We are only a small comunity here and I for one have never come across David L in any shape manner or form

I feel in your case it is very much a label of convenience
much like Mary Robinson at Durban a couple of years ago

by Someone Thu Mar 29, 2007 01:19

There are also what is called 'secular Jews'.
In fact religious orthodox Jewish organizations like Neturei Karta claim that Zionism and Judaism are not compatible. Basically, their definition of what is it to be a Jew includes religion and excludes ethnicity and indeed Zionism. Another example of this is Yakov Rabkin, history profesor at the University of Montreal (who advocates for a single state), and anti-Zionist human rights activist. He claims that Judaism is not compatible with Zionism.
And my understanding is that the main movers of the Zionist project are precisely secular Jews.
I have seen an obsessive Jewish Zionist Canadian at a conference goblying down breakfast oily pork sausages like there was no tomorrow (pork is unwelcome by religious Jews) , and believe me, even the Israeli speakers where heard complaining they couldn't put up with her pressurizing them to speak up for Israel. And I must add, this lady was as rude as f... she only had manners for those she believed were Jewish (and is not like she was interested in the form of their prayers!), and the point I am making is basically she defined herself as Jewish.
You have many secular Jews that don't give a toss for religion of any form, yet they do identify as Jewish.
Another example, commendable Gilad Atzmon, wonderful jazz musician who defines himself as Jewish and Israeli (though he also adds 'unfortunately' after the latter), and is not religious.

Soooo, mhh, may be a discussion of what is it to be Jewish could be quite productive to dismantle the joke of a denominational state in this day an age, nothing to do with democracy indeed.

by Irish Jew Thu Mar 29, 2007 08:36

someone is a jumping to conclusions here

reread my last post! - there is no mention of practising or secular

1. if Mr L is in fact Jewish on a technicality, it is very sad as he then obviously is an"end of line Jew".
5000 years of his family lineage down the swanee i.e obviously there no chance of his kids being Jewish either secular or practising

2. anyone with any knowledge of 5000 years of Jewish history will be well aware that some of the most evil anti--Semites in history claimed to be or indeed were jews

3. Next - on the subject of Rabkin, can anyone explain to me how, during the course of his trip (Rabkin's) to Dublin, the infiltration of a so called leader of the ISPC (definately not Jewish) into a Dublin synagogue helps the cause of the Palestinans

4.Why did mr L not accompany the aforemention to the synagogue instead?

5. Finally since you are all so delighted with yourselves that you have 'found' extremist turncoats like Pappe and Rabkin, try Googling 'Walid Shoebat" , "Wafa Sultan", "Brigitte Gabrielle" to mention a few

2 can play at your game!

by Noel Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:00

David L claims all members of IPSC are simply concerned for the plight of Palestinians.
When can we expect an outcry against the honor killings or the inter party murders?
How about the preference to buy arms leading to the shocking neglect of infrastructure which caused the sewage flood this week?
I await his response. Though I suspect Israel will be the villain of the piece.

by David L - IPSC Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:32

The IPSC has been accused of antisemitism by posters on this site. Yesterday, I sent a lengthy email ('Constructive Comments?')explaining why IPSC members find it hard to take these charges seriously. As I wanted to be constructive, I asked for suggestions for campaigns which these accusers feel would be free of the taint of antisemitism. In the course of the email, I mentioned I was Jewish.

So far, no suggestions. No constructive comments. Instead, a singleminded – and for me vaguely threatening - focus on the fact I am Jewish, with posters trying to show that I am not ‘really’ Jewish. While some of these posts are simply strange (I don’t, by the way, have a myspace site. David is a common name, I suppose) I find the concentration on Jewishness truly disturbing.

I can assure you that if my IPSC comrades showed such a rabid interest in Jews and Jewishness as those here who regularly accuse them of antisemitism do, I would have left long ago. They don’t find it of huge interest. Instead they focus on that which is important – the situation in Palestine (and yes, Noel, Israel as the occupying power is responsible for the infrastructure of the Occupied Territories).

IPSC members don’t seem to find it incomprehensible that Jews are as capable of supporting human rights as non-Jews. Possibly this is because they are aware of the growing number of diaspora Jews who do support the Palestinian cause.

Indeed, as Lucy in -the Sky- with Diamonds points out, the reaction to Israeli supporters of Palestinian rights is usually extremely warm, because it confirms the view that this conflict is solvable. That it is not about eternal conflict between ‘Jewish souls’ and ‘the Arab mind’ but how all people in Israel/Palestine – Jewish, Christian, Muslim, none of the above – can live in peace and freedom.

The contrast with some of the posters on this site is stark. These posters don’t appear to think that helping end the racist regime in Israel/Palestine is particularly important. They do think that focussing on Jewishness is. Fair enough, I know who I – as a Jew, as a human being - want to have nothing to do with.

by Noel Thu Mar 29, 2007 16:24

'Israel as the occupying power is responsible for the infrastructure of the Occupied Territories'

Israel does not occupy the Gaza Strip.
Israel is not responsible for the infrastructure of the Gaza Strip.

Is it possible for the IPSC to admit that Palestinians are killing Palestinians?
By internecine fighting, by honour murders, by neglect of sewage works in favour of arms procurement?
If the IPSC is so concerned for the average Palestinian, where's the outrage against their greatest foe - fellow Palestinians.

by Irish Jew Thu Mar 29, 2007 17:17

I have just returned from a visit to the traveller encampment located at the side of the road near the Poolbeg power station in Dublin 4

Even in Gaza, which I visited some years ago, I have never seen such squalor and hideous living conditons. Bare feeted ill kids are running around in the garbage infested mud. There is no running water or sanitation facilities.

It is totally beyond comprehension that peole are 'living' in such conditions in this day and age>

MAY I USE THIS FORUM TO FORM A NEW GROUP

ITSC _ Irish Travellers Solidarity Campaign where we ALL -- Jew and non-Jew alike can campaign for a serious Human Rights problem right on our doorstep

any takers?

by Proinsiais Fri Mar 30, 2007 00:16

While you are all bickering with all your childish internecine arguments how many more people have died in Darfur ?
-or how many more Sunnnis and Shias have killed each other ?

Where do these diamonds come from any way - I thought it was Africa ?

What is up with the ISPC anyway ?

Did I miss a big fall out somewhere along the way ?

by Fred (not FJ) Fri Mar 30, 2007 00:22

Mar. 28, 2007 21:07 | Updated Mar. 28, 2007 23:52
Arab lesbians hold conference in Haifa ISRAEL
By ASSOCIATED PRESS

Arab lesbians gathered Wednesday in Haifa at a rare public event, quietly defying protests from Islamists and a taboo in their own society.

So strong is the antipathy toward homosexuality in their communities that only few of the Arab women in the crowd of about 250 were gay - a sign of how much Arab women feared being identified as lesbians, said Samira, 31, a conference organizer, who came with her Jewish Israeli girlfriend.

"We'd like all women to come out of the closet - that's our role. We work for them," said Samira, who battled her own family when they found out she was a lesbian.

Among Israel's Arab citizens, who make up 20 percent of the country's population, homosexuality is taboo to most.

Homosexuality is strictly forbidden by Islam, and a statement issued by a large Muslim group in Israel described it as a "cancer" in the Arab community.

Driven deep underground for the most part, only 10 to 20 Arab lesbians attended the conference, organizers said, and most blended in with their Israeli counterparts and Arab backers without making their presence known.

Poetry readings, music and Arab women rappers entertained the conference, called "Home and Exile in Queer Experience," organized by Aswat, an organization for Arab lesbians, with members in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

"We are here to say they (Arab lesbians) are not alone," said Rawda Morcos, Aswat's spokeswoman, one of a tiny minority of Arab women who are openly gay.

Some related painful experiences.

Samira, who has a dozen brothers and sisters, said she told a sibling she was gay two years ago. The news quickly spread among the family, and her 70-year-old mother fell into a depression, begging her daughter to change her ways.

But she eventually accepted her daughter's homosexuality "in her own way," by packing large boxes of food for Samira whenever she came to visit.

"My mother said, 'take the food, for you and your girlfriend'," Samira recalled, agreeing to be identified only by her first name for fear of reprisals.

Some of her family never came around. A pregnant sister told Samira she would "never touch her children."

Rawda Morcos, Aswat's spokeswoman, said she had her car smashed up regularly for months and received threatening phone calls at her family home when her village in northern Israel found out she was a lesbian.

Many of the attendees said they were sad that the only place safe enough to hold a conference for gay Arab women was in a Jewish area of Haifa, which has a mixed Arab-Jewish population.

"This conference is being held, somehow, in exile, even though it's our country ... but it's not being held in Nazareth or Umm el-Fahm (two large Israeli Arab towns)," said Yussef Abu Warda, a playwright.

Outside the conference hall, 20 women protesters in headscarves and long, loose robes held up signs reading, "God, we ask you to guide these lesbians to the true path." Khadijeh Daher, 35, described lesbianism as a "sickness."

Security was tight. Attendance was by invitation only, and reporters were not allowed to take photographs, use tape recorders or identify people.

Even rapper Nahwa Abdul Aal, who performed for the gathering, didn't support the gays. "Being at this conference hasn't changed my mind," she said. "I still think it's wrong."

by Sean Og Fri Mar 30, 2007 00:39

There really is something pathetically childish about the way the IPSC clowns continously call Israel Apartheid Israel as if the old Nazi trick of telling a lie often enough will give it credibility .
Time and again it has benn shown -ven by the recent postiong about Arab Lesbians in Haifa they israel is the most free society anywhere in the world
The situation which has been developed over the years is one of sadness and is more serious than name calling and boycotts will do justice to - but it is one which could easily have been settled years ago if one side had agreed to let the other side livein peace .
Just look at all the trouble sopts in the World today and there is one common denominator
We have all come to realuise that Islam wants to be a dominent religion and way of life everywhere in the world . One only has to watch a recent TV programme about the end of the Raj to understand about the partition of India in 1947 because the Moslems wanted their own Islamic state - the one that gave us crooked polticians and cricketers and a murdered cricket coach .
What alove ly country and Bangla desh is no better
If it was OK for Moslems to have Pakistan in 1947 why didnt the Arabs agree to the Jews having Israel in 1948 .
It now seems that Moslems want to reserve the right to live anywhere and everywhere in the world - West Bank / East Bank , Sudan Somalia Africa , here , Europe , USA --but would deny the right of others to have the same rights .

So IPSC clowns and Clones - get Real ISRAEL is REAL

by Babs Fri Mar 30, 2007 00:57

This gives us some more context -about the hypocrisy of the " World " and the IPSC doesnt it ?

Testimony at the UN
Human Rights Nightmare

Speech before UN Human Rights Council 4th Session
23 March 2007

Delivered by Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch

Mr. President,

Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, Réné Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created the Commission on Human Rights. Today, we ask: What has become of their noble dream?

In this session we see the answer. Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the Council pronounced, and what has it decided?

Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.

One might say, in Harry Truman’s words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council.

But that would be inaccurate. This Council has, after all, done something.

It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements—and there will be three more this session—Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. The entire rest of the world—millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries—continue to go ignored.

So yes, this Council is doing something. And the Middle East dictators who orchestrate this campaign will tell you it is a very good thing. That they seek to protect human rights, Palestinian rights.

So too, the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.

But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?

Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces.

This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions in July and November.

Yet the champions of Palestinian rights—Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugard—they say nothing.

Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh’s troops.

Why has this Council chosen silence?

Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the dictators who run this Council couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.

They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else: to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights.

You ask: What has become of the founders’ dream? With terrible lies and moral inversion, it is being turned into a nightmare.

Thank you, Mr. President.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by lack of knowledge Mon Apr 02, 2007 16:29

Sean Og wrote:

"If it was OK for Moslems to have Pakistan in 1947 why didnt the Arabs agree to the Jews having Israel in 1948"

Any reader of history would know that the majoirty population of Pakistan at the time was Muslim, they gained their independence from the british Empire, it was appalling the war that was fought there but this was between muslim pakistan and hindu India.

the reason for Arab feeling towards Israel is that leading upto the creation of the state of israel some 750,000 people at least were forcibly kicked out of their homes, their land was stolen and they were sold into a lifetime of refugee camps etc etc.

As I said, lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing-Sean og get your facts right cos u only show your own ignorance

by curious in Limerick Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:51

The thread says the portests were in Galway and Limerick.

Where are the pics of Limerick? It looks good in galway but people shouldnt say there was a similar event in Limerick and then have nothing to prove it, Limerick could have been one person standaing in the street for one minute.

Dont go telling people that something happened when it didnt

by Fred Johnston Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:23 sylfredcar at iolfree dot ie

A lot of very demented comments have been posted, under false names, on the 'Aosdána' comments thread. We know who this poster is and Indymedia have been informed that at least one of the threads is libellous. Apart from the fact that the intention of the comments is to deflect from the real debate.

by Noeleen Tue Apr 03, 2007 14:55

"If the IPSC is so concerned for the average Palestinian, where's the outrage against their greatest foe - fellow Palestinians."

Nope Noel, I'd say their greatest foe is the state that has occupied their land, killed thousands of their people, deliberately and systematically destroyed their infrastructure and terrorised them for decades. But of course as a proven racist fanatic who celebrates massacres of civilians, you wouldn't like to admit that.

by Noel Wed Apr 04, 2007 00:20

'But of course as a proven racist fanatic who celebrates massacres of civilians, you wouldn't like to admit that.'
Got a link to that proof, Noeleen?

by Noeleen Wed Apr 04, 2007 13:18

Anyone who follows Indymedia regularly will be familiar with your racist bilge, celebrating mass murderers like Sharon as heroes of Israel and gloating over the killing of Palestinian civilians by the IDF. Your use of the term "Pali", which is only favoured by racist Zionists, is another giveaway

by Noel Wed Apr 04, 2007 15:53

No link to that proof then, Noeleen?

by Sean Og Wed Apr 04, 2007 23:57

" lack of knowledge " indeed -thats a great name for you .

The point was that if the Arabs in 1937 or even as late as 1947 had agreed to any size Jewish state -they would have been saved 60 years of turmoil .

They deny to others what they want for themselves .

by Sean Og Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:59

My point Sean og, is why should the "Arabs" as you call them have agreed to someone else taking up their own land, in essence you are saying its their own fault they have been occupied and brutalised, I suppose its the Iraqi peoples fault likewise, the Tibetans, our own country for 800 years, are you saying well people should just agree to giving up their lands to solve someone elses problem

by Noeleen Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:17

Anyone who's curious can trawl thru the Indymedia archives, see any stories involving Israel, and find the racist poison you post in a pathetic attempt to rile people up. I'm not going to waste my time digging up your filth. You're a hateful racist fanatic and people who follow Indymedia regularly know that, so stop pretending to be an innocent little lamb. You celebrate the massacre of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli state.

by Noel Thu Apr 05, 2007 13:59

I'll take that as a no then, Noeleen.
I suppose an apology is out of the question?

by Sean Og Fri Apr 06, 2007 00:04

It was and is a question of sharing -and give and take

in India , here in the Six Counties and in formerly controlled Ottoman Syria / Palestine / Israel

Everyone has to understand the others point of view
-In 2000 Arafart should have learned from Gerry A and Michael Mc G how much he could have gained
-instead as his distant relative the Muftti of the 30 s and 40s Husseini had , he refused to compromise on anything important and lost it all .
Think what has been going on here since 1916 and what might have been if each side had seen the others point of view earlier [e.g if Home Rule had come in 1914 for the 32 counties ]

Happy Easter