Yesterday afternoon alongside my wife I sauntered into town and crossed the footbridge at the River Boyne outside Scotch Hall Mall. Once we had secured a spot at the bridge’s northern end where no one coming in our direction could avoid us – they had to reach us before they could either turn left or right prior to exiting the bridge – we set up our vigil on behalf of the residents of Gaza who are being subjected to merciless slaughter by the Israeli murder machine.

The night previous, resolve fortified by an ample glass of poteen supplied by my buddy Alfie Gallagher, I had said to my wife that I was going to go down on my own even, just to give some visibility to the issue. Across the country, from Derry to Cork, people were turning out to stand in solidarity with the besieged citizens of Gaza. But nothing seemingly in Drogheda. Sometime in the middle of the night my wife awoke me and showed me the posters she had made. I muttered my appreciation but inwardly groaned. The effects of the poteen had waned and my splendid isolation stance no longer seemed as appealing: maybe better that we get numbers.

When the morning came I told my wife I wasn’t sure that going down was such a good idea: I would look like serial lone protester Cedric Wilson, the focus would be on the headcase standing on the bridge and not on what the actual stand was about. She told me she would be going with me. I sent a Facebook message to someone I had done previous vigils with in Drogheda about miscarriages of justice in the North but he seemed not to have been online. I told my wife it would make the event lack gravitas if only we turned up. She countered ‘better to do something than do nothing. Better two than none.’ I delayed and dallied before deciding to go down. Once the decision was taken, that was it. We had no flags but my wife has a few Palestinian type scarves. So equipped with those and the posters we were on our way.

On the bridge we were at first treated indifferently, then with curiosity before eventually getting the thumbs-up, kind words, inquiries about petitions, and people reaching into their wallets and purses to make donations. We explained that we belonged to no organisation, had no fact sheets or flyers, were not asking for signatures and could under no circumstances accept donations. We were merely there to remind people of an ongoing man-made disaster where children and non-combatants were the victims. Objects were raining down from the sky but only the Israeli terror lobby would see it as manna from heaven.

During the entire vigil we got one negative shake of the head, no explanation offered. My wife jokingly said we might get attacked to which my response was something along the lines that our attackers might hope they can swim as I would endeavour to toss them straight into the Boyne if they tried physically assaulting us. Truth to be told however I really would have felt nervous and ready to swim had we been standing there holding an Israeli flag. The public mood is one of anger that despite all the lessons of history, the sieges of Leningrad and Stalingrad imposed by Nazi armies that the world stamped as “never again” events, here we have it happening again. The enemy of humanity is standing at the gates of Gaza and our governments are silent.

At one point a woman from Croatia joined us along with her son. They took our posters and held them across their chests. She told us that in the midst of these horror situations people ask ‘does anybody outside even know?’

In terms of a vigil it was very much a low key affair. But for every person – the many hundreds that crossed that bridge while we were there - that saw our posters, witnessed us standing quietly, engaged in conversation with us, a sediment of the terrible injustice done to people in Gaza was deposited in their minds, maybe only temporarily, hopefully for longer. It is not as much as we can do but it is something. As I commented to some of the by-passers, it is crucial that citizens like ourselves do something because our government is doing nothing. They agreed.

The Gazans should not be left hanging as proof of the Lily Tomlin maxim Remember we're all in this alone. As the great British journalist Jon Snow says, without in the slightest making it sound a vacuous truism or cliché, ‘together we can do something.’


Friends on the Footbridge - Enemy at the Gates

Yesterday afternoon alongside my wife I sauntered into town and crossed the footbridge at the River Boyne outside Scotch Hall Mall. Once we had secured a spot at the bridge’s northern end where no one coming in our direction could avoid us – they had to reach us before they could either turn left or right prior to exiting the bridge – we set up our vigil on behalf of the residents of Gaza who are being subjected to merciless slaughter by the Israeli murder machine.

The night previous, resolve fortified by an ample glass of poteen supplied by my buddy Alfie Gallagher, I had said to my wife that I was going to go down on my own even, just to give some visibility to the issue. Across the country, from Derry to Cork, people were turning out to stand in solidarity with the besieged citizens of Gaza. But nothing seemingly in Drogheda. Sometime in the middle of the night my wife awoke me and showed me the posters she had made. I muttered my appreciation but inwardly groaned. The effects of the poteen had waned and my splendid isolation stance no longer seemed as appealing: maybe better that we get numbers.

When the morning came I told my wife I wasn’t sure that going down was such a good idea: I would look like serial lone protester Cedric Wilson, the focus would be on the headcase standing on the bridge and not on what the actual stand was about. She told me she would be going with me. I sent a Facebook message to someone I had done previous vigils with in Drogheda about miscarriages of justice in the North but he seemed not to have been online. I told my wife it would make the event lack gravitas if only we turned up. She countered ‘better to do something than do nothing. Better two than none.’ I delayed and dallied before deciding to go down. Once the decision was taken, that was it. We had no flags but my wife has a few Palestinian type scarves. So equipped with those and the posters we were on our way.

On the bridge we were at first treated indifferently, then with curiosity before eventually getting the thumbs-up, kind words, inquiries about petitions, and people reaching into their wallets and purses to make donations. We explained that we belonged to no organisation, had no fact sheets or flyers, were not asking for signatures and could under no circumstances accept donations. We were merely there to remind people of an ongoing man-made disaster where children and non-combatants were the victims. Objects were raining down from the sky but only the Israeli terror lobby would see it as manna from heaven.

During the entire vigil we got one negative shake of the head, no explanation offered. My wife jokingly said we might get attacked to which my response was something along the lines that our attackers might hope they can swim as I would endeavour to toss them straight into the Boyne if they tried physically assaulting us. Truth to be told however I really would have felt nervous and ready to swim had we been standing there holding an Israeli flag. The public mood is one of anger that despite all the lessons of history, the sieges of Leningrad and Stalingrad imposed by Nazi armies that the world stamped as “never again” events, here we have it happening again. The enemy of humanity is standing at the gates of Gaza and our governments are silent.

At one point a woman from Croatia joined us along with her son. They took our posters and held them across their chests. She told us that in the midst of these horror situations people ask ‘does anybody outside even know?’

In terms of a vigil it was very much a low key affair. But for every person – the many hundreds that crossed that bridge while we were there - that saw our posters, witnessed us standing quietly, engaged in conversation with us, a sediment of the terrible injustice done to people in Gaza was deposited in their minds, maybe only temporarily, hopefully for longer. It is not as much as we can do but it is something. As I commented to some of the by-passers, it is crucial that citizens like ourselves do something because our government is doing nothing. They agreed.

The Gazans should not be left hanging as proof of the Lily Tomlin maxim Remember we're all in this alone. As the great British journalist Jon Snow says, without in the slightest making it sound a vacuous truism or cliché, ‘together we can do something.’


26 comments:

  1. Mackers,
    For once, I can't think of anything to say. You two should be extremely proud!
    It's the most touching thing I've read in a long, long time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good on you a cara,anything that keeps the ongoing genocide in Gaza on peoples minds is no bad thing,in fact it really is as Martin Niemoller said "first they came," when we turn a blind to to situations like Gaza we are infact sowing the seeds of our own destruction,its a sad indictment on society that this type of atrocity can happen in this day and age without reproach from the world powers,any voice no matter how lonely is better than none ,good on both of you .p.s you have a bottle of brandy poteen waiting on you here .

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anthony, would you tell me how you think the Israeli/Palestinian conflict should be resolved? I've read a lot on both sides concerning on-going incidents of violence and oppression, but it seems to me all those are symptoms of the problem rather than the cause.

    As I see it, the cause is the existence of two nations in one land, or rather their failure to agree on the rights of the other to have an agreed part of the land.

    Do you hold that Israel ought not to exist as a State? Or do you merely hold that it has failed to give the Palestinians their fair share of the land?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wolfsbane,

    I do not know how it will be resolved. I think the international community has behaved disgracefully by not stepping in and stopping the slaughter. Not even a question of stepping in to take sides but just to halt the slaughter that Israel is perpetrating on Gaza and the associated warfare.

    I don't get ideologically purist about the outcome, longing just for an end to the slaughter and the brutal repression. Two states or one state is a question the people of the affected land will need to sort out. I think a one state solution is more just but don't see it as being likely to happen. John V. Kelleher in 1954 wrote that that a political problem is rarely solved by those who ‘tend to see it as it first existed and not as time and society continually refashion it … the history of the problem is nearly irrelevant to its solution.…’There is probably much to be said for that in terms of how it is to be resolved. I think both Hamas and Fatah have long pulled back from the one state solution and favour something based on the situation as it was in 1967.


    I was impressed by Shira Lipkin, an American Jew, who wrote about being at a service in her synagogue on Friday. She said:

    I hoped fervently that it would not happen, but it did – the rabbi spoke of those who hate Israel and hate the Jews, but did not speak of the Israeli army, which is burning children alive; did not condemn the hate of Israelis for Palestinians. He spoke of peace, but he spoke of peace as a thing to force on the Gaza strip, not a thing for both sides to work toward. I clutched my daughter’s hand, trying not to cry, thinking but we are killing children. Where is the peace in that action?





    ReplyDelete
  5. The smaller in scale the protest the harder it is to do. Well done.

    There is comfort and courage with numbers and less vulnerability.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nuala, Marty, Simon,

    thanks

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nice gesture...at least you did more than any of the Western Governments...also, good way to cure a hangover by being out in the fresh air!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anthony,

    Thank you. I appreciate your concern for the innocents suffering in Gaza.

    However, I doubt a UN force intervening to stop Israeli action would be acceptable to Hamas, never mind the Israelis. Why? Because the UN would be obliged to stop Hamas' attacks on Israel too - the very condition Israel has for calling off its campaign.

    I'm sure you are not suggesting the UN allow Hamas to continue its campaign, but stopping Israel from going after them.

    Urban war is always going to be brutal for non-combatants. Berlin in WWII or Gaza today, lots of innocents are going to suffer.

    The moral responsibility lies with the combatants - their failure to do all in their power to reach a just settlement rather than a mere victory for themselves.

    Here's how I see that, from an email I sent to a Christian Palestinian friend:
    'I see the Gaza War as a straight war - many civilians are going to suffer when a war has to be fought. Israel cannot just allow Hamas to wage war on them and do nothing about it. The answer is to stop attacking Israel from Gaza.
    The big issue, as I see it, is the hard-liners in Israel pushing settlements in the Occupied Territories. That is as unjust as the Hamas desire to liquidate Israel. Both want it ALL. The just solution must be an agreed division of Palestine, as was aimed at in the formation of the Israeli State. Things have changed since then and security may require a bigger border than 1948 - but one that still gives most land to the Palestinian people.
    Two nations, one land; an agreed partition with proper compensation to the displaced, and mutual respect and neighbourly co-operation. That surely is the only solution.'

    All of the people of Israel/Palestine who want a just solution deserve our support.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wolfsbane,

    I don't think NATO bombing the Serbs was acceptabe to the Seebs but it was supposedly done on the grounds of humanitarian intervention which few believe it was. If The West can find it fit to move against Serbia or Libya to supposedly prevent massacres of civilian populations then unless it is demonstrably racist the same grounds exist here. Have the people of Gaza not the same rights to be protected from massacre?

    I imagine the international commiunity stopping Israeli slaughter would be very appealing to Hamas.

    Hamas out of common sense alone should stop attacking Israeli civilians. It achieves nothing and violates the rule of war that civilians should not be attacked. It is legitimate for it to attack IDF invaders just as it was slegitimate for the Red Army to attack Wehrmacht troops in the Soviet Union. If the international community bring the invasion to an end there will be no IDF in Gaza to be attacked.

    The responsibility here lies with the war criminals: the greater the war crimes inflicted the greater the responsibility. Hamas actions pale compared against Israel on that score.

    I found your attempt to explore an end to it all with your Palestinian Christian friend interesting, admirable but not without complications. Some of your suggestions would get you tortured in an Israeli jail. But this notion that Israel has to be allowed to defend itself against a Hamas waged war does not bear scrutiny. My reading of it from looking at the patterns of activity is that Israel pursues a tension escalation strategy which leads to a response from Hamas which is then used by the Israelis for all out war. Palestine needs defended from Israel more than the other way around. The Palestinian people need protected from the war on Gaza. That is the most important matter that needs addressed.

    My own personal revulsion at war crimes and crimes against humanity was forged in reading about what happened to the Jews during the Nazi holocaust back in the 80s: which stripped away from me any anti-Semitism that I had. I was steeped in literature about it. I don't see what grounds I would have for maintaining an abhorrence of what the Nazis inflicted on the Jews were I not to feel the very same abhorrence for what the Israelis are inflicting on the Palestinians.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anthony

    'Palestine needs defended from Israel more than the other way around. The Palestinian people need protected from the war on Gaza. That is the most important matter that needs addressed.'

    To be just, it would require the interveners to protect both sides - and that would be to impose a Two-State Settlement. Are you in favour of that? Do you think Hamas would agree to it?

    'My own personal revulsion at war crimes and crimes against humanity was forged in reading about what happened to the Jews during the Nazi holocaust back in the 80s: which stripped away from me any anti-Semitism that I had. I was steeped in literature about it. I don't see what grounds I would have for maintaining an abhorrence of what the Nazis inflicted on the Jews were I not to feel the very same abhorrence for what the Israelis are inflicting on the Palestinians.'

    Had the Jews been waging a war to exterminate Germany's existence, the war crimes would have had to dealt with on both sides. And the analogy fails to recognise the difference between even reckless co-lateral slaughter in attacking combatants and the deliberate selection of innocents for execution.

    I fear meddling with the symptoms will only make matters worse - the causes need to be dealt with.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anthony

    Sorry, the first bit of my reply did not go.

    Here's it again:
    'I don't think NATO bombing the Serbs was acceptabe to the Seebs but it was supposedly done on the grounds of humanitarian intervention which few believe it was. If The West can find it fit to move against Serbia or Libya to supposedly prevent massacres of civilian populations then unless it is demonstrably racist the same grounds exist here. Have the people of Gaza not the same rights to be protected from massacre?'

    The analogy breaks down when we ask if Bosnia had been waging war on Serbia to eliminate the Serbian State - would NATO been able to sell intervention against the Serbs on that basis? Would they not have had to stop the Bosnians also?

    'Hamas out of common sense alone should stop attacking Israeli civilians. It achieves nothing and violates the rule of war that civilians should not be attacked.'

    Correct - but Hamas is ideologically committed to a total war, and civilians are therefore regarded by them as legitimate targets.

    'It is legitimate for it to attack IDF invaders just as it was slegitimate for the Red Army to attack Wehrmacht troops in the Soviet Union. If the international community bring the invasion to an end there will be no IDF in Gaza to be attacked.'

    Hamas is not at war with Israel because Israel is invading either Gaza or the West Bank - it is at war because Israel exists. They make that quite clear.

    'The responsibility here lies with the war criminals: the greater the war crimes inflicted the greater the responsibility. Hamas actions pale compared against Israel on that score.'

    Israel cannot engage in a war of attrition with a massively larger population (the Arabs). Slicing of a bit of the Israeli population week by week will bring eventual success to Hamas - therefore the Israelis must stop them. They cannot afford to hunker down and fight only on their own soil.

    'I found your attempt to explore an end to it all with your Palestinian Christian friend interesting, admirable but not without complications. Some of your suggestions would get you tortured in an Israeli jail. But this notion that Israel has to be allowed to defend itself against a Hamas waged war does not bear scrutiny. My reading of it from looking at the patterns of activity is that Israel pursues a tension escalation strategy which leads to a response from Hamas which is then used by the Israelis for all out war.'

    No doubt the Israeli government plays games in its wish for even more land - but the bottom line remains Hamas' stated intention to remove Israel from ANY part of the Middle East.

    If the Palestinians want to expose Israel as a greedy bully, all they have to do is mark out the borders of an Israeli State they will accept, and call Israel on it.



    ReplyDelete
  12. Wolfsbane,


    To be just, it would require the interveners to protect both sides - and that would be to impose a Two-State Settlement. Are you in favour of that? Do you think Hamas would agree to it?

    I don’t believe Israel is in need of that much protection from Hamas. I think the pressing urgency is to stop Israel massacring Palestinians. When the Jewish kids were butchered in Toulouse
    Israel didn’t bomb France.

    But there is no way we can expect international intervention that would allow one side to attack the other. The problem at the minute the international community by refusing to call a halt to is allowing that to happen.

    Do I favour the two state solution? No. I favour a multi-ethnic single state. Would I campaign against a two state solution? No. Would Hamas accept a two state solution? All the evidence suggests that Hamas and Fatah despite a lot of ideological posturing are willing to accept it.

    And the analogy fails to recognise the difference between even reckless co-lateral slaughter in attacking combatants and the deliberate selection of innocents for execution.

    You seem to suggest that the widespread massacres of noncombatants in Gaza is sort of an unintended consequence. I simply refuse to accept that. Too much has come to light as to why such an interpretation is groundless.

    I fear meddling with the symptoms will only make matters worse - the causes need to be dealt with.

    The Israeli occupation of another’s land. I guess had the British offer of part of Uganda in 1903 been workable the Israelis today would be slaughtering Africans in defence of ‘their’ homeland. The sheer brass neck of the British. Why part of Uganda and not Leeds?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anthony said:
    'When the Jewish kids were butchered in Toulouse
    Israel didn’t bomb France.'

    It was not the French government who ordered the killings.

    'But there is no way we can expect international intervention that would allow one side to attack the other. The problem at the minute the international community by refusing to call a halt to is allowing that to happen.'

    OK - so you are in favour of a UN force stopping Israel attacking Gaza and stopping Hamas attacking Israel?

    Do you think Hamas would accept that? Would it not end their declared purpose?

    'Do I favour the two state solution? No. I favour a multi-ethnic single state.'

    Like the one in Israel at the moment? Or do you mean one that has an Arab majority?

    'Would I campaign against a two state solution? No. Would Hamas accept a two state solution? All the evidence suggests that Hamas and Fatah despite a lot of ideological posturing are willing to accept it.'

    I see some evidence that Abbas and others would accept it - but nothing from Hamas to suggest it. Have you refs. I could look up?

    'You seem to suggest that the widespread massacres of noncombatants in Gaza is sort of an unintended consequence. I simply refuse to accept that. Too much has come to light as to why such an interpretation is groundless.'

    I've heard rumours and allegations of deliberate targeting of civilians by Israel, but no clear evidence. I've seen evidence that Hamas are using civilians as shields. And of course Hamas admits to deliberately targeting Israeli civilians.

    '[I fear meddling with the symptoms will only make matters worse - the causes need to be dealt with.]
    The Israeli occupation of another’s land. I guess had the British offer of part of Uganda in 1903 been workable the Israelis today would be slaughtering Africans in defence of ‘their’ homeland.'

    So you hold the Jews have no right a State of their own in their historic homeland. That they should still be a stateless people at the mercy of whatever nation they are dispersed in.

    I see it that history warranted a homeland for the Jews, and where better than their historic home?

    The Arabs were not the inhabitants of Palestine until well after the Roman Empire's exile of the Jews.

    But we can't unscramble eggs, so we ought to accept the interests of both Jew and Arab to Palestine. An agreed division with proper compensation would have been the way to go.

    'The sheer brass neck of the British. Why part of Uganda and not Leeds?'

    I agree - British Imperialism took many liberties with other people's lands. But that's the way of the world for millennia. Big guys deal out little guy's goods. Little guys become big guys and do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wolfsbane,

    has left a new comment on your post "Friends on the Footbridge - Enemy at the Gates":

    It was not the French government who ordered the killings.

    So very true. Just as it was not the Hamas government who ordered the killings of the Israeli teenagers. That much at least seems accepted, even by Micky Rosenberg of the Israeli police. And they knew it at the time but placed a news blackout on it.

    OK - so you are in favour of a UN force stopping Israel attacking Gaza and stopping Hamas attacking Israel? Do you think Hamas would accept that? Would it not end their declared purpose?

    I think they would. Their evolution appears to have taken them to that position

    I do not believe there is a multi-ethnic state in Israel at the moment. The Arabs are so heavily discriminated against. Netanyahu claims Arabs in Israel have civil rights (a dubious assertion on its own) but not national rights? How that is supposed to be multi-ethnic I do not know.

    I have no preference for an Arab majority or an Israeli one. Whatever the electorate decides. A secular majority is my preferred outcome.


    I see some evidence that Abbas and others would accept it - but nothing from Hamas to suggest it. Have you refs. I could look up?

    Read Norman Finkelstein for a start. His book This Time We Went Too Far you might find helpful.


    I've heard rumours and allegations of deliberate targeting of civilians by Israel, but no clear evidence. I've seen evidence that Hamas are using civilians as shields. And of course Hamas admits to deliberately targeting Israeli civilians.

    This seems more propaganda than factual although I don’t get the feeling that you are trying to propagandise for Israel but are the recipient of it. Take a look at the Hamas inflicted casualties compared against the Israeli inflicted casualties.

    So you hold the Jews have no right a State of their own in their historic homeland. That they should still be a stateless people at the mercy of whatever nation they are dispersed in.

    Their historic homeland is in my view another nation building myth. Many of these people are converts to Judaism, and came in from Russia and elsewhere. What possible historic homeland could they have? Should the Catholics of the world have a state of their own (or the Protestants)? As adherents of a religion they can live like the rest of us in whatever state. But under no circumstances should they be left at the ‘mercy’ of others. They must have the same rights and never be treated as they have treated the Palestinians.

    But we can't unscramble eggs

    So true.

    Little guys become big guys and do the same.

    The problem with revolution and revolutionaries from time began.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anthony,

    I think this rightly belongs on this thread. It is good to see your stance on the bridge prompted this.

    AM said...
    As reported in Drogheda Lifetoday.

    "Drogheda Sinn Féin members and supporters are planning to hold a public demonstration in West Street on Friday to show their support for and solidarity with the people of Gaza.

    They have asked for as many people as possible to join them at 1.00 pm at the Tholsel on Friday 1st August.

    “We are asking as many as possible to attend” said a spokesperson, “bring any flags, posters etc with you. Everyone is welcome; please show your support for the people of Gaza.”
    2:57 PM, July 30, 2014

    Fair play to them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anthony said:

    [It was not the French government who ordered the killings]
    'So very true. Just as it was not the Hamas government who ordered the killings of the Israeli teenagers. That much at least seems accepted, even by Micky Rosenberg of the Israeli police. And they knew it at the time but placed a news blackout on it.'

    Possibly - but the Gaza assault was not predicated primarily on those killings anyway. They were just one more example of the on-going war.


    [OK - so you are in favour of a UN force stopping Israel attacking Gaza and stopping Hamas attacking Israel? Do you think Hamas would accept that? Would it not end their declared purpose?]
    'I think they would. Their evolution appears to have taken them to that position'

    But they openly say the opposite! Why do you think they are secretly prepared to compromise? These are not Irish secularists like SF, but Islamic imperialists, believing in the ultimate victory of Islam in the world and willing to be martyrs in the process.

    'I do not believe there is a multi-ethnic state in Israel at the moment. The Arabs are so heavily discriminated against. Netanyahu claims Arabs in Israel have civil rights (a dubious assertion on its own) but not national rights? How that is supposed to be multi-ethnic I do not know.'

    Israeli Arabs have the same voting rights as Israeli Jews, do they not? The only limitation is their parties must accept Israel as a Jewish State. That is open to challenge as democratic - but some would say any nation has the right to keep itself from being removed by demography. If your hoped-for United Ireland had a large British minority that one day became the majority, would you accept the Irish State being made a British one?

    'I have no preference for an Arab majority or an Israeli one. Whatever the electorate decides. A secular majority is my preferred outcome.'

    So an Israeli State that had a large Jewish majority but operated as a secular state would be OK with you?

    'This seems more propaganda than factual although I don’t get the feeling that you are trying to propagandise for Israel but are the recipient of it. Take a look at the Hamas inflicted casualties compared against the Israeli inflicted casualties.'

    All that shows is the ability of Israel to intercept the rockets, and Hamas' willingness to use their population as shields - as well as Israeli willingness to strike in spite of the shields.

    'Their historic homeland is in my view another nation building myth. Many of these people are converts to Judaism, and came in from Russia and elsewhere. What possible historic homeland could they have?'

    Even allowing for a large element of historic conversions, that still leaves an actual nation that was in exile.

    'Should the Catholics of the world have a state of their own (or the Protestants)?'

    No - for those religions were not based on blood relationship. Judaism was/is. The Old Testament is the record of that religion being formed solely in an ethnic group - the sons of Jacob/Israel.

    'As adherents of a religion they can live like the rest of us in whatever state.'

    They are more than a religion - indeed, their ethnicity is overwhelmingly more important to them than their religion, as most Israelis are secularists.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anthony,
    Unfortunately I was away last weekend when you and your good wife were doing what many others in Ireland should be doing and I commend you's for your action in highlighting the slaughter of so many innocent civilians.
    Thankfully myself and two comrades from Duleek were able to join you today in another day of action. Hope to do the same again shortly.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Good man - it was good to see people turnout today and it was great to be with you and the boys from Duleek. Fair play to every single person who turned up today.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Wolfsbane,

    Apologies for the delayed response. Other things took over.


    the Gaza assault was not predicated primarily on those killings anyway.

    We agree on that. Israel was preparing the ground to pound Gaza for quite some time. And it is one more example of Israel’s war on Gaza.


    The Israelis themselves demonstrate awareness that they don’t believe Hamas is committed to its ideological position of destroying Israel. Hamas’s own critics internally have a go at it for this reason.


    Arabs are heavily discriminated against within Israeli borders. Having ‘the same voting rights as Israeli Jews’ matters only in a formal sense if they are denied material substance of equality in their daily existence.

    some would say any nation has the right to keep itself from being removed by demography.

    Something like partition you mean? I think we can only take the nationalist argument so far. A nationalism that is not democratic is pretty much like a theocracy. I am not much of a nationalist in any event. I have problems with obligatory nationalism. It invariably ends up with a small clique using it to define what the obligations are.

    If your hoped-for United Ireland had a large British minority that one day became the majority, would you accept the Irish State being made a British one?

    I might not like it, would not subscribe to it as being good but as Brecht once said ‘the people have voted, the bastards.’ Would I wage war against it? Not at all. For the same reasons as I don’t wage war against the current arrangement.

    So an Israeli State that had a large Jewish majority but operated as a secular state would be OK with you?

    I don’t see why not.

    All that shows is the ability of Israel to intercept the rockets, and Hamas' willingness to use their population as shields - as well as Israeli willingness to strike in spite of the shields.

    It shows more. It shows that Israel has an effective alternative to its disproportionate war on Gaza. If you believe the IDF, yes Hamas use civilians as human shields. If you believe Amnesty International, no Hamas have not used civilians (in earlier Israeli wars) as human shields but the IDF did. Given that there is not the slightest reason to believe the IDF I think the Amnesty International account is more plausible.

    ReplyDelete
  20. AM said:
    'Apologies for the delayed response. Other things took over.'

    No problem - glad to have your response whenever possible.

    'Israel was preparing the ground to pound Gaza for quite some time. And it is one more example of Israel’s war on Gaza.'

    Yes, but was that not because they knew Hamas was preparing something big, rather than Israel just looking to destroy Gaza?

    'The Israelis themselves demonstrate awareness that they don’t believe Hamas is committed to its ideological position of destroying Israel. Hamas’s own critics internally have a go at it for this reason.'

    I'm not aware of the secret stuff - I'm depending on the statements from Hamas and the Israelis. If the latter know the former will settle for a Two State solution, why would they try to break Hamas power? Because Israel does not want a Two State solution? Possibly.

    But also possible is that they know Hamas cannot be seen to come to the table and agree without a lot of damage first. Or Israel knows those who would agree are not those who will call the shots.

    'Arabs are heavily discriminated against within Israeli borders. Having ‘the same voting rights as Israeli Jews’ matters only in a formal sense if they are denied material substance of equality in their daily existence.'

    I'm not aware of differing social security arrangements for Arab and Jewish Israelis. Can you document that?

    [some would say any nation has the right to keep itself from being removed by demography]
    'Something like partition you mean?'

    No - partition would not remove a nation, just alter its territory.

    'I think we can only take the nationalist argument so far. A nationalism that is not democratic is pretty much like a theocracy. I am not much of a nationalist in any event. I have problems with obligatory nationalism. It invariably ends up with a small clique using it to define what the obligations are.'

    I think nationalism belongs to a nation, not to two nations in one land. Each of those nations should love its own people. But they may properly decide to co-exist in co-operation, or merge their nations into a new nation - or partition the land between the two nations. The idea that the bigger nation ought to take it all is a distortion of democracy, and immoral.

    [If your hoped-for United Ireland had a large British minority that one day became the majority, would you accept the Irish State being made a British one?]
    'I might not like it, would not subscribe to it as being good but as Brecht once said ‘the people have voted, the bastards.’'

    So the larger nation should be allowed to take it all? That if Britain had put in enough planters, the Irish nation would have had no right to their own territory? I can't see how that is a just settlement.

    ReplyDelete
  21. AM said:
    'Would I wage war against it? Not at all. For the same reasons as I don’t wage war against the current arrangement.'

    Yes, waging war to achieve justice is not always the best option. Sometimes we just have to let it go and leave it to God to punish. (I assume the atheist just has to accept the wicked do get away with it).

    [So an Israeli State that had a large Jewish majority but operated as a secular state would be OK with you?]
    'I don’t see why not.'

    Seeing most Jews are not religious, the problem must be with nationalism. Though of course the Arabs have a definite religious problem too.

    'It shows that Israel has an effective alternative to its disproportionate war on Gaza.'

    Are you saying Israel can afford to just keep intercepting most rockets and accept the effects on their people and economy?

    'If you believe the IDF, yes Hamas use civilians as human shields. If you believe Amnesty International, no Hamas have not used civilians (in earlier Israeli wars) as human shields but the IDF did. Given that there is not the slightest reason to believe the IDF I think the Amnesty International account is more plausible.'

    I don't know about earlier wars, but I've seen and heard Hamas boasting of their use of human shields in this war. Here's an Israeli clip, but note the Hamas guy speaking for himself:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giJlG3KXq8c&feature=share

    ReplyDelete
  22. Wolfsbane,

    the first half of the response to you got lost due to a glitch. It will have to be recomposed. Frustrating but ...

    No - partition would not remove a nation, just alter its territory.

    Same principle – disruption of a national territory by removal, rupturing or redefining.

    I think nationalism belongs to a nation, not to two nations in one land. Each of those nations should love its own people. But they may properly decide to co-exist in co-operation, or merge their nations into a new nation - or partition the land between the two nations. The idea that the bigger nation ought to take it all is a distortion of democracy, and immoral.

    Which is what Israel is doing through its frequent land grabs, although you have been critical of that elsewhere.

    So the larger nation should be allowed to take it all? That if Britain had put in enough planters, the Irish nation would have had no right to their own territory? I can't see how that is a just settlement.

    Nor I, but I did not argue that. A planter in my mind is different from a ‘natural’ citizen. But I fail to see how the people born into a situation not of their own making should be punished for the transgressions of a previous generation? Dynamics and facts on the ground change. As you suggested earlier the unscrambling eggs solution is often worse than the problem of having scrambled them in the first place.

    People’s rights to determine their own future free from coercion has to be a healthier principle than obligatory nationalism. We will move away from nation states at some point as the principle of geographical political organisation. Nations were not always here and will not always be here, no matter how stridently the foundational myths bang their drum and try to call us all into line. I would not identify with the fascist nation of Ireland in opposition to the democratic nation of England if that was the choice on offer. I would prefer English democracy to Irish fascism. Nationalism has no more purchase on my allegiance than Catholicism. And if every person on the islands of Ireland and England decided that it is better for the citizens of both that the two countries unite and form a republic of whatever, would I be right in trying to prevent it on the grounds of some nationalist sentiment? I am free to express my dissent but hardly to coerce the lot of them. Why would nationalism trump democracy as an organising principle?

    Concepts of God and divine punishment mean nothing to me. The wicked do get away it unfortunately.

    I had not seen that video before and first impressions are that people rallied around to prevent Israeli attacks on the homes of neighbours. It seemed an act of incredible courage and while they might have all been coerced into it there is no evidence to show that. Unless I have missed the point completely, this was not a strong example of Hamas coercing people into being human shields. In fact it is the same thing many Westerners used to do to protect Palestinians from Israeli attack. I think Rachel Corrie was murdered by the IDF while carrying out such an action.

    So, rather than rely on propaganda from either of the armed participants, we should look at something more credible and I suggest Amnesty International is more reliable. It found (previous Israeli wars on Gaza) the IDF coercing Palestinians into functioning as human shields, not Hamas doing so. UN investigators also dismissed the human shield charge when Israel cited it in defence of its 2009 war crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Wolfsbane,

    but was that not because they knew Hamas was preparing something big, rather than Israel just looking to destroy Gaza?

    Given the serious limitations on Hamas as a military threat what “big” could it manufacture that Israel would not be able to deal with?


    I'm not aware of the secret stuff - I'm depending on the statements from Hamas and the Israelis. If the latter know the former will settle for a Two State solution, why would they try to break Hamas power? Because Israel does not want a Two State solution? Possibly.

    You seem to have answered your own question – Israel possibly not wanting a two state solution.

    Nor is it secret. See Jerome Slater or Ephraim Levy the former head of Mossad as quoted in Norman Finkelstein This Time We Went Too Far making the following statement: 'The Hamas leadership has recognised that its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future ...they are ready ad willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian borders in the temporary borders of 1967 ... they know that the moment a Palestinian state is established with their cooperation they will be obligated to change the rules of the game: they will have to dadopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals.’


    I'm not aware of differing social security arrangements for Arab and Jewish Israelis. Can you document that?

    Nor am I, but I am aware of discrimination against Arabs in Israel. Here are a few links casually pulled from the web but you can find the matter treated much more substantively if you are so inclined.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/racist-attacks-against-arabs-increase-in-israel-a-903529.html

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/un-israel-must-stop-discrimination-against-arabs-palestinians-1.215158

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/01/08/yes-there-is-apartheid-in-israel/

    http://www.amnesty.org.uk/discrimination-against-palestinians-israel#.U-kiotgg-dI


    Are you saying Israel can afford to just keep intercepting most rockets and accept the effects on their people and economy?

    To quote you: ‘waging war to achieve justice is not always the best option.’

    War crimes, child massacres, unalloyed state terrorism, crimes against humanity, systematic torture, deprivation etc being the cost of stopping rockets that have been likened to firecrackers and roman candles given the limited capacity they possess, it is a much better idea not to use a grossly disproportionate war strategy.

    I also think Philip Slater helped clarify the rocket issue with his comment ‘The Gaza strip is little more than a large Israeli concentration camp, in which Palestinians are attacked at will, starved of food, fuel, energy--even deprived of hospital supplies. They cannot come and go freely, and have to build tunnels to smuggle in the necessities of life. It would be difficult to have any respect for them if they didn't fire a few rockets back.'

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anthony said:
    [I'm not aware of differing social security arrangements for Arab and Jewish Israelis. Can you document that?]
    'Nor am I, but I am aware of discrimination against Arabs in Israel. Here are a few links casually pulled from the web but you can find the matter treated much more substantively if you are so inclined.
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/racist-attacks-against-arabs-increase-in-israel-a-903529.html

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/un-israel-must-stop-discrimination-against-arabs-palestinians-1.215158
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/01/08/yes-there-is-apartheid-in-israel/
    http://www.amnesty.org.uk/discrimination-against-palestinians-israel#.U-kiotgg-dI'

    Thank you for those. I sent them to an Israeli Christian who lives near Tel Aviv and asked for his comment.

    He replied, 'The article on expressions of racism in Israel reports a sporadic yet shameful reality, rejected by the majority and prosecuted by the State.
    The articles from Ha’Aretz and CounterPunch regarding roadblocks and so on in the West Bank is from 2007. 1. The roadblocks were necessitated by Palestinian abuse of freedom of movement to perpetuate attacks in Israel. 2. With the reduction of such attempts, most of the roadblocks and other measures were removed. 3. The purportedly denied “Right of Return” in this case has to do, again, with anti-terroristic measures. 3. Excavations under the Dome of the Rock has NOT in any way damaged the Dome, while Muslim construction on the Temple Mound (in one case, for a football field) has destroyed archeological structures. 4. Palestinians are not subject to Israel’s civil courts but to the military, and these tend to mete out severer punishments than do the civil courts, regardless of whether the defendant is Jewish or Arab.
    The article by Amnesty refers to an ongoing conflict between Bedouin tribes who lay claim to large tracts of land, in most cases undocumented claim, and who construct houses in disputed territory without a building license. Israeli Authorities are in conversation with Bedouin representatives in an effort to resolve the dispute. Repeated appeals to Israel’s famously objective Courts have not led to rulings the Bedouin are willing to accept.'

    I can see how discrimination and hatred and suspicion against Palestinians can arise - all men react against threats to their existence (we Unionists in Northern Ireland had our share of reaction to Irish Nationalist attempts to destroy us). I see such injustices as symptoms of the war, symptoms that increase the problem, but are not the problem itself. The problem is the existence of the State of Israel and the opposition to it. If that were subject to agreement, the other injustices would go.

    Or rather, the unjust reactions based on provocation would no longer have any sympathy. Any remaining oppression would be clearly seen as land-grabbing and ethnic cleansing.

    Again I say, terror and counter-terror may be just a symptom of the problem. Making an offer of a just solution to the problem would expose those who reject it as the real bad guys. It's up to both sides to make that offer.

    BTW, I agree that the Israelis are as guilty as the Palestinians of terrorism, before and after the foundation of the State of Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anthony said:
    [but was that not because they knew Hamas was preparing something big, rather than Israel just looking to destroy Gaza?]
    'Given the serious limitations on Hamas as a military threat what “big” could it manufacture that Israel would not be able to deal with?'

    I gather the main threat was perceived to be from surprise incursions across the border, launched from the Hamas tunnels. Obviously not an overwhelming military attack - but one sufficient to destabilise Israel. Al la the aims of the Tet Offensive. Lots of soldiers and civilians killed, villages burned, etc. Not a military victory, but a psychological one - a disaster for Israeli society.


    [I'm not aware of the secret stuff - I'm depending on the statements from Hamas and the Israelis. If the latter know the former will settle for a Two State solution, why would they try to break Hamas power? Because Israel does not want a Two State solution? Possibly.]
    'You seem to have answered your own question – Israel possibly not wanting a two state solution.'

    Yes, it is possible the present Israeli government does not want anything other than a Jewish State in all of Palestine. We must bear the words of several of their leaders in mind, not just the official line. For some of those guys, Hamas is a gift from above! Keeping Hamas to an acceptable level of violence would be much better to them than defeating it.

    'Nor is it secret. See Jerome Slater or Ephraim Levy the former head of Mossad as quoted in Norman Finkelstein This Time We Went Too Far making the following statement: 'The Hamas leadership has recognised that its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future ...they are ready ad willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian borders in the temporary borders of 1967 ... they know that the moment a Palestinian state is established with their cooperation they will be obligated to change the rules of the game: they will have to dadopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals.’'

    Maybe. Hamas might just be a bunch of politicos like SF and other ideological militants in the past. When they see the reality of life, they adapt to it. But it's relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood suggests a long-term belief and commitment to Islamic victory. Compromise in such a case would be apostasy, a rejection of the most basic and important things in one's conscience. We shall see.

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4609/supporting-hamas-antisemitic


    ReplyDelete
  26. Anthony said:
    'I would not identify with the fascist nation of Ireland in opposition to the democratic nation of England if that was the choice on offer. I would prefer English democracy to Irish fascism. Nationalism has no more purchase on my allegiance than Catholicism. And if every person on the islands of Ireland and England decided that it is better for the citizens of both that the two countries unite and form a republic of whatever, would I be right in trying to prevent it on the grounds of some nationalist sentiment? I am free to express my dissent but hardly to coerce the lot of them. Why would nationalism trump democracy as an organising principle?'

    I completely agree. What the people decide, not the basis of it (nationalism, democracy, etc.), is the legitimising factor.

    My preferences are much like yours - the democratic freedoms. If a UI offered me those and the UK retreated into Islamic or other forms of fascism, I would vote for a UI everytime.

    ReplyDelete