Blog Feeds

Spirit of Contradiction

offsite link The Party and the Ballot Box Sun Jul 14, 2019 22:24 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

offsite link On The Decline and Fall of The American Empire and Socialism Sat Jan 26, 2019 01:52 | S. Duncan

offsite link What is Dogmatism and Why Does It Matter? Wed Mar 21, 2018 08:10 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link The Case of Comrade Dallas Mon Mar 19, 2018 19:44 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link Review: Do Religions Evolve? Mon Aug 14, 2017 19:54 | Dara McHugh

Spirit of Contradiction >>

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link Public Services Card: Some still forced to comply

offsite link Catholic Church: Dark influence still active Anthony

offsite link Tom Parlon launches new career in comedy Anthony

offsite link Presumption of innocence does not universally apply in Ireland Anthony

offsite link The poor standard of Irish political journalism Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link Released Lula in for greatest fight of his life Mon Nov 11, 2019 18:26 | amarynth
By Pepe Escobar – Posted with permission Better not mess with the former Brazilian president; Putin and Xi are his real top allies in the Global Left He?s back. With

offsite link The neo-colonial corruption of Christian extremists and bankers in Lebanon (2/2) Fri Nov 08, 2019 17:36 | The Saker
By Ramin Mazaheri for the Saker Blog (cross-posted with Press-TV) (Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has

offsite link Moveable Feast Cafe 2019/11/08 ? Open Thread Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:30 | Herb Swanson
2019/11/08 12:30:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of

offsite link A blue dot barely visible from New Silk Roads Thu Nov 07, 2019 22:41 | amarynth
by Pepe Escobar : posted with permission US-Australia-Japan alternative to Belt and Road helps explain why the US sent a junior delegation to Thailand and why India opted out of

offsite link Deconstructing Islamophobia Thu Nov 07, 2019 13:29 | The Saker
[this article was written for the Unz Review] Introduction: a short survey of the cuckoo’s nest My initial idea was to begin with a definition of “Islamophobia” but after looking

The Saker >>

Opening of new Woodie's DIY store in Limerick hijacked by IPSC protestors

category limerick | rights, freedoms and repression | news report author Thursday July 26, 2007 17:15author by Sean Clinton - Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign Report this post to the editors

Grafton Group plc red-faced over trade with Apartheid Israel

The Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign is pleased to announce that this morning's opening of new Woodie's DIY store in Limerick was hijacked by its activists.
ipscwoodies8.jpg

All of the razzamatazz, live music blaring out over the crowded car park, clowns and give-away goodie bags for the hordes queuing for the official opening of the new Woodie's DIY store in Limerick could not hide the fact that Grafton Group plc are profiteering from trade with Apartheid Israel. Red-faced store managers and security personnel scurried frantically as activists from the Limerick and Galway branches of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) and noted anti war activist, Edward Horgan, appeared carrying large placards and handing out fliers to the crowds waiting for the opening. A photographer snapped pictures as the shoppers, bemused by the embarrassment of the store management, snatched the fliers to find out what the fuss was all about.

The demonstrators were asked to leave by the store manager but they refused and maintained a highly visible presence at the entrance to the store for over an hour. Before ending the protest, one of the IPSC members met with the manager to explain that Grafton Group plc is one of Ireland's largest stockists of goods manufactured in Apartheid Israel and that the company's policy of profiteering from apartheid contravenes the groups corporate social responsibility policy outlined on their own web site.
Grafton Group plc can expect more of the same actions in the months ahead as the global campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Apartheid Israel gathers pace.

Related Link: http://www.ipsc.ie

ipscwoodies6.jpg

ipscwoodies11.jpg

ipscwoodies10.jpg

ipscwoodies2.jpg

author by Brian Luxpublication date Fri Jul 27, 2007 17:40author email brian at luxb dot freeserve dot co dot ukauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Protesters should consult the Oxford English Dictionary when describing Israel as 'Apartheid.' It says:' the official system of segregation or discrimination on racial grounds.' Muslims worship freely in Israel, with their mosques safe, unlike the West Bank where there are attacks on Christians, forcing them to flee, and the Church of the Nativity was desecrated by PA gunmen. There are no Jews in their University unlike Israel where Jew,Arab and Chrisitian mix freely in all academic courses. Israeli hospitals treat the gun victims of internecene gun fights between Hamas and Fatah. And unlike the Palestinians, no Israeli would have tried to enter a Palestinian hospital and blow themselves up as Wafa Al-Biss in 2005, stopped on her way to a suicide mission in Israel. I suggest the term 'Apartheid' is rightfully applied to the Muslims of the West Bank and Gaza

author by JJGreenpublication date Fri Jul 27, 2007 18:42author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The most ironic thing about these protestors is that their posters were probably created using a computer with software developed in Israel. Windows, Linux and OSX all contain a lot of software developed in Israel. Thus the protestors are contributing to the economy of their arch enemy. Well done lads. You really thought ahead there!

author by Sean Clinton - Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaignpublication date Fri Jul 27, 2007 21:19author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Anyone who needs to consult a dictionary to recognise Apatheid would probably also need to check out the words Human and Rights. When they are sure they fully understand these words they could really go for it and look up the following phrases and words: ethnic cleansing, genocide, international law, civilised behaviour, democracy, decency, arrogance, humanity, inhumanity, ownership, truth, compassion, justice, conscience, greed, and hubris.

And if you don't have immediate access to a dictionary always remember - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then chances are ....IT'S A DUCK.

When devoid of any credible arguments those who try to defend the indefensible often succumb to childish ranting about the trinkets eminating from the pariah state.

author by kintamapublication date Fri Jul 27, 2007 23:04author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Archbishop Desmond Tutu is a learned man and he decribed conditions in the Occupied Territories as reminding him so much of aparheid South Africa.

A boycott is a reasonable demonstration against Israeli agression and the flouting of Iinternational law.

author by publopublication date Sat Jul 28, 2007 08:54author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Great stuff by the IPSC! As for suggestions that 'apartheid' is an incorrect, or exaggerated term to describe Israel's policies in occupied Palestine, please consult the report (one of many) by John Dugard, the UN's Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the oPts, mentioned in the article from Israeli newspaper Haaretz below.

As for discrimination between christian and muslim in the West bank and Gaza, thats well inaccuarate. Both communities (and there are several christian communities including Quaker, Armenian, Greek-Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran etc) have lived together as one nation for centuries in Palestine, respecting each others traditions. In fact, Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian, continuously express dismay and amazement at the divisions between catholic and protestant in Ireland. Jewish Palestinians , the small samaritan community, still live near Nablus in the West Bank, refusing to accept the legitimacy of the Jewish State of Israel.

That is not to say that the Christian community in the West Bank is not under pressure. Over recent years the christian population has fallen due to people fleeing the occupation to North America in particular. This is not a result of Islamic pressure however, but rather of the economic destruction of the Palestinian economy and the violence of the occupation.

UN agent: Apartheid regime in territories worse than S. Africa (2004)
By Aluf Benn

South African law professor Prof. John Dugard, the special rapporteur for the United Nations on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, has written in a report to the UN General Assembly that there is "an apartheid regime" in the territories "worse than the one that existed in South Africa."

Related Link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=468456
author by Frank Adam - private citizenpublication date Sat Jul 28, 2007 19:53author email FrrankAdam at aol dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

If Ireland had let in as many Jewish refugees in the forties, as there are now Moslems in Ireland there might not have been a need for Israel. However Ireland preferred to give asylum to a clutch of Belgian ex-SS and other Nazis prefferring correligonist solidarity to justice.

Israel has every right to exist as a haven for Jews pursued by the daft, the misinformed, the jealous and the vicious. List why Pakistan and Ireland are independent, and you have the reasons why Israel is.

Meanwhile remember that if war exists along Israel's borders it is because the Arabs of Palestine refused to abide by UN two state policy since 1947. Violence breeds violence; and as peoples get the Jews - and trade unions - they deserve.

author by Monty Ross - Nonepublication date Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:15author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It does seem strange that a country where an Arab doctor has recently been appointed head of a State run hospital and where the Christian population has grown tenfold and where 20% of the population is Muslim and where there is freedom of expression and movement, should be described as Apartheid.Even more strange is the fact that of all the countries in the Middle East , Israel is the only country where such conditions exist. I think that Martin Luther King probably put it very well wheen he wrote" Make no mistake about it, my friend, "Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism". I read recently that their are 3 elemants to the Christian Church's creation of Anti-Semitism. First is demonisation. I think that this element is well covered in the rantings of the Palestinian solidarity group. The second is isolation which is again well evidenced by the demands for Boycott. The third and most important one is elimination. Perhaps the group could give us some hints as to how they will tackle this one.

author by Nodinpublication date Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:39author address author phone Report this post to the editors


Picking out selective samples of what goes on in Israel while ignoring what happens in the Occupied territories is a bad bad habit, and one far too common amongst supposed supporters of Israel.
It is primarily in the territories that the activities which lead to the charge of Apartheid occur - everything from direct annexation of land and "settler only" areas to the two-tier Justice system. Denying these facts does Israel no favours in the long run.

author by questionpublication date Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:59author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This article does not outline who the grafton group are (presuming that they own woodies) or what specifically their economic ties with israel are - it would be helpful in deciding whether or not to shop there if there were some more detail about what it is exactly they have done.

author by Monty Ross - Nonepublication date Tue Jul 31, 2007 00:54author address author phone Report this post to the editors

When your correspondents use the word annexation they are sure that they know what they are talking about. In fact they are totally ignorant of the real facts. The West Bank was annexed by Jordan in 1948 and it was captured by israel in a defensive war in 1967. The area had never been developed as a Palestinian State. Israel offered to return it to Jordan in return for a peace treaty which offer was rejected.Equally they offered to return Gaza to Egypt who had annexed it also in 1948. The economy of the West Bank was transformed by Israel and until the first Intafada the standard of living of the occupants was 300% better than their counterparts in the surrounding States. It might also interest your correpondents to know that the Mandated area for a Jewish Homeland, set up by the League of Nations, comprised both sides of the Jordan. The State of Jordan was set up by the British in defiance of their Mandate, in 1920. What eventually became Israel was no more than 20% of the original Mandate.This all occured after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Anything that has happened in that area of the Middle East since that time has not been caused by Israeli action who have only reacted to events thrust upon them. I do realise that most of the people who criticise Israel are really not interested in the facts and I must stand by my previous comments.

author by publopublication date Tue Jul 31, 2007 07:58author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Monty Ross. Although I do not accept the figures and supposed peace offers you refer to above, in essence I think they are irrelevant. Both and all sides can continue arguing about who offered what, when and what was the role of everyone from the Ottamans to the Brits to Arafat, we could discuss the sheer nerve of Israeli leaders who sold Oslo as a step towards a Palestinian state etc but probably to very little avail for anyone.

What needs to occur is that every individual and community living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean (and everywhere else for that matter) can be assured of their basic rights and ability to participate in a representative democracy. Given the intertwining of settlements and Palestinian urban areas in the West Bank, as well as Israel's refusal to end the occupation, what remains is the one-state solution, Israel-Palestine, with equal rights for all, and where all can remain in the area.

This would of course soon lead to a state where Jews would not be in the majority, but does not preclude the jewish nature of such a state being respected and celebrated. Palestinians of various religions, including Jews, have lived together in harmony for centuries, prior to modern attempts to cut the land into random, and untenable partitions, and need to do so again.

Until such time as such a solution is seriously discussed it is incumbent on the international community to act in solidarity, through actions such as boycotts etc, with Isralies and Palestinians who are fighting for justice and against the occupation.

author by Nodinpublication date Tue Jul 31, 2007 11:29author address author phone Report this post to the editors


It is a fact that Israel is building settlements outside its internationally recognised borders, both in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. These settlements are illegal and they are being built with the intention of annexing large sections of the land. Your bringing up British activities in 1920 is a strawman, which doesn't relate to whats happening there now. Other states are expected to keep within their boundaries - I see no reason why Israel should be the exception. You also fail to address the two tier legal system in the OT, and the creation of "settler only" roads and areas.

author by JohnHMpublication date Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:15author address author phone Report this post to the editors

NODIN

The borders were NEVER EVER internationally recognised -certainly not by any Arab

IN 1949 Armistice lines were drawn up - not borders

so all of Western Palestine [from the Med to the Jordan ] known in French as Cis -Jordan

as distinct from Trans- Jordan , is in dispute

From 1948 until 1967 constant cross border raids similar to last years raids
[soldiers killed inside Israel and others abducted ]
from Gaza and Lebanon by Hams and Hizbollah respectively which started the
War iin Lebanon .

When there is peace and security for all , surely Arabs can live wherever they want as they do now

and Jews should be able to live wherever they want without being called "illegal "

Ironically in Biblical times the Jews lived in the Hill Country of Judea Ephraim and Samaria

- that why some like to live there now

and the Philistines occupied the coastal areas [Gaza , Ekron , Ashdod Gath Ashkelon etc ]

author by Nodinpublication date Tue Jul 31, 2007 13:16author address author phone Report this post to the editors

You'll find that Israels borders are defined by the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, and the treaty signed with Jordan. They do not include the West Bank or Arab East Jerusalem. As for "'When there is peace and security for all , surely Arabs can live wherever they want as they do now " I suggest that an Arab family trying to cross the border into Israel to establish a 'settlement' would be facing a hard and rough road indeed - now or any time. You are obviously unaqquainted with the treatment of the Arab population in the occupied territories.

"From 1948 until 1967 constant cross border raids similar to last years raids"

Both sides made cross border raids. Ariel Sharons rise to notoriety began with his part in reprisal raids in this period. And this still doesn't touch on the issues I pointed out earlier.

author by Brian Luxpublication date Tue Jul 31, 2007 18:05author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Having stirred a hornet's nest! can we please calm down a little? J.J.Green mentioned the technological achievments of Israel's Universities, and recently the medical world praised the University of Jerusalem for a breakthrough in the treatment of allergies. What has come out of the University in Ramallah apart from rhetoric against Israel and trying to attract more suicide bombers? The suggestion that because Jews andMuslims used tolivein a (fragile) peace before 1948 does not hold water today when Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organisations are determined to wipe all Jewish prescence from the area....and Christianity next. Is President Abass really bent on a two State solution? I don't think so, as he promised, when elected President, to uphold Arafat's legacy. And that monster said: 'I tell you this, that we plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State.' Now I am not saying everything in Israel is 'kosher' but it is-surely- hard to be expected to talk peace with those who want you wiped out? I guess if the Holocaust had never happened (and Hamas say it didn't), there would not havebeen the same urgency for a Jewish national home. After all, they were in Germany for centuries, and fought against us in WW1, many reaching high rank in the German Army. So,please, folks, kill that nacent anti-Semitism, and work for a two State solution, with viable, defensible borders for Israel, and a cessation of the daily rocket attacks from Gaza, which has been going on for 5 years. Brian.

author by JohnHMpublication date Tue Jul 31, 2007 18:44author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Arabs live freely in Israel and those who dont engage in terror live wherever they want in the West Bank

Cross border raids by Israel were only a response 1947--1967

author by Feyadeenpublication date Tue Jul 31, 2007 20:12author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I'm afraid you're dodging the question John, which is this - if a group of Arabs marched into Israel from the West Bank and built a settlement (no doubt taking land owned by Israelis and demolishing their homes), would they be left unmolested by the Israel state? If you claim the answer is "yes", you obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about.

And there's the old tired excuse - they were only responding to the other side when they launched cross-border raids. Well, I'm afraid the Palestinian guerrillas mounting those raids were only responding to what happened in 1947-8, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven off their land by violence and the threat of violence. And before you come out with the usual claim that Israel was responding to aggression, the massacres of Arab civilians began well before the half-hearted attack by Arab armies that were out-numbered and out-gunned by the Israel army and spear-headed by a state (Jordan) whose leader had already struck a secret deal with Israel to carve up Palestinian land between them.

author by Monty Ross - Nonepublication date Wed Aug 01, 2007 01:43author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Your correspondent who signs himself " Pubio" proves my previous point that most of those who comment on this particular subject do so from predetermined bias and ignorance. To say that the fall of the Ottoman Empire less than 100 years ago has no bearing on the hoistory of the Middle East is equal to saying that the history of Ireland for the last 800 years had no bearing on what happened here for the last 40 years. It is interesting to note that during the time , from 1948 to 1967, there was no demand for a Palestinian State from either Jordan or Egypt who had annexed he West Bank and Gaza. I know that " Pubio" will not believe me when I draw the attention of your readers that circa 1960 the King of Jordan set his army on Arafat and his gang and drove tthem out of the West Bank, killing thousands of them in the course of the action. Does it not seem strange that during the time that their fellow Arabs had control of the area that the State that is now desirable was not created. This is not to say that I would not be delighted to see a solution accepted by all concerned but I have to doubt the sincerity of the Arab protagonists when they failed to crteate their stated desires when they were in full control of the situation. I also wish that the people like " Pubio" would familiarise themselves with the comparatively recent history of the region before making statements that only serve to exacerbate a situation that has brought pain and suffering to all involved.

author by Monty Ross - Nonepublication date Wed Aug 01, 2007 09:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I must acknowledge my error in stating that the Jordanian attack on the P.L.O happened circa 1960. It was of courrse 1970 and led to the emergence of another terrorist group known as Black September

author by Publopublication date Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:30author address author phone Report this post to the editors

With regards comments on the actions - or non-actions - of arab states in relation to the occupied Palestinian territories, I agree with the comments above that those arab states, namely Jordan, Egypt and the rest of the Gulf dictatorships being armed alongside Israel by the USA have in no way sought to genuinely allievate the suffering of the Palestinian people, nor indeed have they done much to guarantee basic human rights either to their own populations, nor indeed to immigrant workers such as those in the UAE etc.

Arab states have engaged in military action against Palestinian actors since 1948 in one way shape or form or another and have persistently discriminated against Palestinian refugees.

Although I am aware of Black September, those events being a precursor to the Lebanese civil war (encompassing the founding of Hizbullah, the massacres at Sabra and Shatila, and actions and reactions leading on to last summer's war), the reason I initially suggested shifting the debate away from historical events, and the accuracy or otherwise of the records thereof, is that unless a major step forward into the future is taken soon the suffering of all sides in the middle east will inevitably continue.

The situation in the North as of today has very little to do with 800 years of history, and more to do with the past twenty years of negotiations between governments and 'terrorists' which led to a peace agreement premised on justice and equality for all in a jurisdiction which guarantees fair and adequate representation for all its constituents. I am not suggesting we forget or ignore history, besides offering vaulable guidance as to the future, history is far too interesting to dismiss. it does however present the danger of becoming less a tool of guidance to the way forwards, but more a part of the present, suffocating the future.

It is in this regards that I made my earlier suggestions, the essential aspect of which was the call for a single state Israel-Palestine in which all are guaranteed equal rights and where the language, religion, culture and so forth of each community is celebrated, protected, and allowed to develop in a free and fair society. It is on this call that I would rather continue discussions, to try and create something positive and useful rather than harry each other on the newswire.

author by Nodinpublication date Wed Aug 01, 2007 20:36author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Arabs live freely in Israel and those who dont engage in terror live wherever they want in the West Bank "

If thats what you genuinely believe, then I suggest you educate yourself on the subject. There are a number of Israeli organisations who document what happens in the West Bank, as well as UN bodies. In truth, I hope you know better and are just taking the piss.

"To say that the fall of the Ottoman Empire less than 100 years ago has no bearing on the hoistory of the Middle East is equal to saying that the history of Ireland for the last 800 years had no bearing on what happened here for the last 40 years. It is interesting to note that during the time , from 1948 to 1967 (snipped,)...."

...none of which excuses the building of settlements and expropriation of land for that purpose today. Constant rehashing of the past is all well and good, but is far too often used to divert away attention from the events of now. While some may enjoy dragging out the old favourites (misquoting Mark Twain, 'there was only desert here before.....', 'there was no expulsion, they all fled on orders from the Mufti', and how Arafat owns three quarters of Italy), I would personally like to see an end to the building of colonies and the Apartheid regime within the Territories. Talking about the acheivements of Israeli universities is all well and good, but it doesnt make the brutality happening across the "green line" any more acceptable.

author by JohnHMpublication date Wed Aug 01, 2007 22:29author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Someone else wrote this and sent it to me -which makes more sense than all the Original Sin of Israel rhetoric we have been subjected to on this thread --
remembering that India and Pakistan are " CELEBRATING "
60 years of PARTITION and INDEPENDENCE 1947 ---2007

Write out the reasons for the split of Pakistan from a single successor to British India; and the reasons for Israeli independence from the Arab World will stare at you.

Zionism is no more odd- ball nor nasty than any other independence movement.
The really interesting question is why did the Palestine Arabs fail to create - or fight for - their own government in 1947 - 1967?

The Arab war on Israel, which is why the Israelis are in Hebron, Nablus and Golan, arose from Arab refusal to accept the UN two state partition policy which was and is UN policy both in 1947 and now.
If you bullyingly pick a fight, you have to take the consequences [and cut your losses].
Now why did the Arabs of Palestine NOT cut their losses in 1949? and NOT erect their own state then?

If Egypt could get back its British border just by recognising Israeli Jewish self-determination; why can not Syria do likewise and retrieve the 1923 Franco - British frontier?
What have Egypt and Syria gained by their adventure in Palestine? and why do they not let Lebanon sign a peace with Israel, which would calm the area several degrees?
For that matter why does Syria not recognise Leabanon's self-determination and independence?

Finally do Palestinians really want a state? or just to bash Israel?

Either way why not ask to be Jordanian citizens so promptly re-entering a Sunni Moslem Arabic speaking ready made state?
Which could negotiate a frontier of amendments along the Green line subject to future first refusals on any land which Israel may wish to give up.

author by Nodinpublication date Thu Aug 02, 2007 09:38author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Land that Israel wants to give up"?

Its not Israels to give, legally speaking. Were it not for the US veto they'd be under sanctions.

Considering that the mass of Palestinians who were expelled and fled in 1948 were largely civillians, they could hardly be expected to take on Jordan/Egypt. They presumed that they would soon return to their homes.

Why do you continue to avoid the subject of the settlements?

author by JohnHMpublication date Fri Aug 03, 2007 00:21author address author phone Report this post to the editors

WHY IS EVERYWHERE WHERE JEWS LIVE

CALLED A SETTLEMENT ?

author by Brian Luxpublication date Fri Aug 03, 2007 01:07author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I have done some research into the so-called acceptance of other faiths by Muslim countries, as so many here suggest it is Israel (aka Jews) who persecute. A report just out from the Hudson Institute in Washington, cites that Bethlehem was 80% Christian in 1948, but today is barely 12%. I do know that whereas there were 5 mosquues in 1948, by 2004 there were 55, and rising. The Christian population in the whole of the West Bank and Gaza is only 2%: Christians are leaving in droves; it has NOTHING to do with Israel but an ethnic cleansing by fundamental Islam. The Associated Press (AP) cited a Catholic convent was ransacked in Gaza during the Hamas takeover (we never read that in our national newspapers did we?) As there are only 3000 Christians left in Gaza, they are very worried about their safety now. WorldNet Daily news corporation has revealed that the Egyptian Education Authority demands children take-and pass- a test on Islam to get higher school education. As there is a strong Christian Coptic prescence in that country, this is another form of apartheid. I can give more examples, but hope this is enough to make all Israel's detractors realise there are two sides to most stories, and tolerance of other religions is not in the Muslim mind set. Brian Lux

author by Feyadeenpublication date Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:09author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Nice attempt to DIVERT THE ARGUMENT, John. As you well know, we are talking about illegals settlements on stolen land in the West Bank. Nobody has said in any shape or form that anywhere Jews live is a "settlement". You are making that up. Just like you've made up a lot of stuff on this thread and others.

author by Nodinpublication date Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:14author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Thanks for the caps there John, it helps underline your hysterical tone. It is the first time you've mentioned "settlement" outright, so I suppose its some form of progress......

As for the last authors statement of toleration not being in the muslim mind set, one wonders how the christians and Jews of the region were there before the British, as the area was held by the Ottomans for some centuries. Nevertheless there is a pattern of increasing radicilsation in the area, a consequence of the failure of both left and right to help resolve the conflict.

author by Frank Adam - private citizenpublication date Fri Aug 03, 2007 17:51author email FrrankAdam at aol dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

One problem in this discussion is the refusal to recognise that "borders" is generic and fluffy round the edges, while "frontiers" like "marriage" is a word with legal edges & baggage.

The frontiers of Israel and Egypt, and Israel and Jordan were set by the British and re-accepted by the peace treaties between those countries. There is a recognised 1923 Franco-British frontier between the two governments in respect of Israel for one party, and Lebanon and Syria for the others.

A vast amount of the troubles of the area hang from the refusal of the Syrian government to accept the 1923 frontier and to let Lebanon sign a peace accepting its 1923 frontier with Israel. So much for the fallacy that the war is caused by Israel being out of its international frontiers.

Syria is a vicious dictatorial imperialist which has never hiden that it wants to annex: Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon and Israel. If you really want peace in te Levant throw some criticism at Syria. At least Egypt and Jordan have recognised that their attempt to grab chunks of Palestine in 1948 brought nothing, trouble , expense -and they are well out of it.

The border between Israel and the Gaza Strip and ex - West Bank of Jordan (Why was she there anyway?) are not frontiers and therefore not actual legalities as they are only the cease fire lines of the 1949 armistice, and the 1967 UN 242 allows for their amendment. Again Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 border in respect of Gaza has not reinforced peace, which again proves the dispute is not about borders, but about mutual recognitions of self-determinations - a matter that the PLO and Hamas Covenants are very short on.

Meanwhile, just because a lot of people amuse themselves - and even earn their bread - by impersonating Marilyn Monroe or Elvis Presley, does not mean that those impersonators are their subjects. Similarly apartheid was an internal South African problem while the Palestine problem stems from two nations seeking to be themselves externally and avoid the other. Quite a lot of bedouin and other Arabs have infiltrated Israeli borders and settled especially in Galilee and the Negev, in villages that are illegal because created without planning permission and then insolently take your subscribers for a sob story that they are not provided for - well pay taxes and obey regulations first! All of them!

Finally before calling Israel or admiring Palestine Arabs as plaster saints - or even Garibaldi's Redshirts - do look at how the Arab World treats its Christians eg the Ctholics i Gaza last month, because that is how they intend to treat you as soon as they feel strong enough to do so. They did so in Spain and the Balkans. North Africa was so imperialised and acculturated it has never returned to a mutual Mediterranean commonality. Like all religious extremists from the Inquisition to Hitler, jihadis have no humour and like the Bourbons, learn nothing, and forget nothing.

author by Nodinpublication date Fri Aug 03, 2007 21:12author address author phone Report this post to the editors

You already posted that in the article on the Galway protest Frank. Spreading around the muck may be apt, but hardly appropriate.

author by Brian Luxpublication date Sat Aug 04, 2007 00:04author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Folks, As I suspected, this is gettingout of hand and-sadly- person bashing is to the fore. It is obvious that the anti-Israel lobby has entrenched views and will not listen to any opposing viewpoint. I did comment in all the national press (and believe a few published) that if the poor bullock had been a religious icon of the Muslim faith, the Welsh Assembly would not have dared to have him destroyed. There would have been violence: just recall the reaction to the Mohammed cartoons. I have said my piece so am bowing out, but hope to return when a new interesting topic is aired for coments. Best Wishes everyone. Brian.

Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2019 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy