3rd January – National Demonstration – Hands off Gaza: Stop the bombing: Free Palestine

December 31, 2008 at 3:34 pm (anonymous, Human rights, israel, palestine, voltairespriest)

Seeing as there appears to be some confusion amongst our denser commenters about the point, let me make clear that I agree with this demo and if you’re able to go to London on Saturday then I think you should attend. VP

Date: 03 January 2009
Time: 14:00 – 16:00
Location: Parliament Square, W1

Other demos :

OTHER DEMONSTRATIONS IN LONDON:

TUESDAY 30 DECEMBER, 2 – 4pm outside Israeli Embassy,
Kensington High Street, London, W4. Nearest tube
Kensingston High Street (turn right out of tube station and walk along the main road.

WEDNESDAY 31 DECEMBER, 2 – 4pm outside Israeli Embassy

THURSDAY 1 JANUARY, 2 – 4pm outside Israeli Embassy

FRIDAY 2 JANUARY 2 – 4 pm. Outside the Egyptian Embassy, .
26 South Street, London, W1K 1DW. Call for Egypt to open the border immediately.

*********************************
DEMONSTRATIONS ROUND THE COUNTRY

GLASGOW
Saturday 3 January 12 noon. Outside Lloyds TSB St Vincent Street then assemble for demo at Blytheswood Square 2pm

EDINBURGH
Saturday 3 January 12 noon. Foot of the Mound, Princes Street

BRISTOL
Centre, opposite the Hippodrome, Tuesday – Friday 5.00 – 6.00 and Saturday 3.00 – 4.00.

CARDIFF
Tuesday 30 December 12 to 1pm. outside Cardiff Market/ St John’s Church, the Hayes

Wednesday 31 December New Year Vigil. Nye Bevan Statue, Queen Street

NOTTINGHAM
Tuesday 30 December 12 noon, Market Square

SOUTHAMPTON
Tuesday 30 December 12 to 2pm, West Quay Entrance, High Street

PORTSMOUTH
Saturday 3 January 11am, Guildhall Square
Organised by Portsmouth Network for a Just Settlement of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, and Portsmouth Stop the War Coalition

HULL
Saturday 3 January, 11am. Queen Victoria Square.

UPDATE: also EXETER – Saturday 3rd January 12noon, Bedford Square, High Street. Cheers to Jim L in the comments.

81 Comments

  1. Jim L. said,

    Thanks for providing the list, please could you add:

    Exeter – Saturday 3rd January 12noon, Bedford Square, High Street.

  2. voltairespriest said,

    Sorted, no worries Jim!

  3. resistor said,

    http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1230743657.html

    For anyone in Leeds/Yorkshire etc.

    Dear All,
    there is another demonstration organised by Leeds Stop The War against the attacks in Gaza, latest figures are 360 dead, 1500 injured.

    Saturday 3rd Jan
    1pm
    Art Gallery, Headrow, Leeds.

  4. modernityblog said,

    obviously, for the sake of fairness could we have placards along the lines of “Stop Bombing Israel” too?

  5. tcd said,

    “obviously, for the sake of fairness could we have placards along the lines of “Stop Bombing Israel” too?”

    a nice equalisation of the occupier and the resistance to the occupation there.

  6. modernityblog said,

    yeah it would be rather radical, or even revolutionary, for some people to acknowledge the Israeli’s right to exist free from Hamas rockets

    to see Israelis, as people with all of their faults, contradictions, pluses and negative points is to admit they are the same as everyone else, Spaniards, Latinos, people from North, South and East, humans

    I can see that might be hard for the plain ignorant, or those people indoctrinated against Israelis, but that says more about their own psyche and prejudices rather than anything about the Israelis

  7. resistor said,

    Israel has no right to impunity while it occupies the land of others and rains death on the refugees from above.

  8. DJE said,

    “occupies the land of others”

    If it’s occupied land they are after, Hamas should go to the West Bank and shoot rockets at settlements there.

    What do Resistor’s Hamas buddies say about all of this?

    “the Jewish faith does not wish for peace nor stability, since it is a faith that is based on murder: ‘I kill, therefore I am'”

    “”The Jews: killed the prophets…slaughtered the innocent…imprisoned our pious… NO PEACE WITH THE MURDERERS.””

    “They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions.”

    “There was no war that broke out anywhere without their (Jews’) fingerprints on it.”

    “The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him…”

    “We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world – except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule, because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history. The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews – even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew.”

  9. johng said,

    Point of information on the Engage article about anti-semitism in a Greek newspaper. It has a circulation of about 2000. In terms of arguments about the demonstration condemning ‘both sides’, its worth stressing that this is simply a way to avoid recognising that this is a conflict in which issues to do with justice are at stake. Something that is anathama to those who instruct the airforce to bomb universities, terrorise what is left of Palestinian civil society and what is left of its civilian infrastructure. Since the Israeli State, backed up by the EU, the US and our own government, took the decision to destabilise the democratic process, and replaced the peace process with the strategy of waging war on the ‘extremists’ and favouring the ‘moderates’ (ie doing their level best to create civil war amongst their enemies) violence has been the result. There had been many voices backing negotiations with Hamas and warning of the consequences of this kind of an action inside Israel. The left should therefore not repeat the kind of propaganda which attempts to argue that this not a relation between oppresser and oppressed but simply an unfortunate tribal conflict, or on the other hand seek to raise supposedly profound point about the need to move beyond arguments about the oppressed and oppresser (unsuprisingly a crucial talking point for those who equivicate on the question of justice for Palestinians). The endless arguments about the moral complexity of the conflict (at the human level which are’nt?) are simply attempts to avoid discussing the conflict as being one about justice, and advertantly or inadvertantly, therefore supplies comfort for the Hawks in Israel.

  10. johng said,

    And if you want a symbol of the roots of the present conflict you could do no better then recall this interview with Dov Weisglass, Ariel Sharon’s foreign policy adviser at the time of the disengagement from Gaza:

    “When you freeze that process [i.e. the political process with the Palestinians], you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem…Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state . . . has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.”

    I think its an important quote to remember today.

  11. modernityblog said,

    JohnG,

    I posted this on the other thread, just in case you missed it:

    maybe you could clear something up?

    are there ANY circumstances that the SWP think it is legitimate for Israel to defend its citizens, from the threat of attack?

    if so, what are they ?

  12. Dr Paul said,

    Has anyone else thought that powerful forces within Israel actually prefer the Palestinians to have supported and voted in Hamas, at least in Gaza? Think about it: if the Palestinians back a group that is almost a chemically-pure example of Islamicist politics, obscurantist, anti-Jewish (as opposed to anti-Zionist), then it is easier to brand the Palestinians as an irrational, terroristic people, and therefore a legitimate target. It is also harder for the Palestinians to gain support outwith the Middle East when their political representatives are hard-line Islamicists (we can see this effect in many of the comments on this blog alone).

    Short of fully expelling the inhabitants of Gaza into Egypt, the Israeli state will not quell Palestinian resistance there. This current war will not destroy Hamas, it will strengthen it, and in a short time it will return. But then, wouldn’t that be in the interests of the hard-liners in the Israeli state and political establishment? After all, Israel did much to get Hamas going in the first place, undermining the more secular and modernising elements.

    Whether or not this current situation was the original intention of backing Hamas (as opposed merely to splitting the Palestinians politically), it’s worked out well for the Israeli hard-liners who want to keep the Palestinians terrorised and repressed and who do not want any other solution, not even a two-state one based on current boundaries.

  13. Voltaire's Priest said,

    Paul: that’s an extremely apposite comment and I totally agree. It’s one of the reasons why those on the left who allow themselves to be dragged into a dichotomous trench war where one either backs Kadima or Hamas, have gotten it totally wrong. Yet the screaming hysteria and bun-chucking that almost always dominates this debate seems to drown out reasonable points such as yours.

  14. johng said,

    Well this is all well and good but surely the political issue the is whether the Palestinians have the right to vote for who they like without having their society destroyed. And indeed whether they have a state (the whole point of the disengagement from Gaza having been to prevent negotiation on its achievement: this also explaining the political reasons why Hamas was voted in). Once again I am utterly baffled by Voltaires mocking of political solidarity with the Palestinians and reduction of such solidarity to ‘bun-chucking’ and hysteria. Presumably he finds Aronovich style world weariness and buck passing attractive. I am highly amused by modernities upside down world though. I wonder in what circumstances he would allow Palestinians to use violence against the Israeli state to defend themselves. Does he think that points been reached now? On the other hand I really don’t care. Its none of his business anyway. Thats a matter for the Palestinian people.

  15. modernityblog said,

    JohnG,

    this is a fair simple political question:

    are there ANY circumstances that the SWP think it is legitimate for Israel to defend its citizens, from the threat of attack?

    if so, what are they ?

  16. Voltaire's Priest said,

    That’s an outright lie, John. You know I wasn’t “mocking solidarity”.

  17. johng said,

    Socialists do not offer support to countries which militarily occupy an oppressed people, and nor do they recognise the right for such states to defend themselves against those who fight back against military occupation and oppression. There are no circumstances in which I would support Israel’s right to murder and maim those who it keeps it bondage: whether or not I approve of the methods they use to fight back against that bondage or not. What part of this do you (or the Israeli state) find so hard to understand?

  18. johng said,

    YES you were Voltaire. Just as Aronovich is (after borrowing arguments about the narrative of the conflict from those whom he is mocking). You are just wrong to be impressed by this crap.

  19. johng said,

    Note for instance Voltaire the way in which you used this argument to sidestep an argument about which party is actually responsible for the violence. Its actually what the kind of world weariness your embracing is for. As a socialist you must have come across people who say about troubles in the world ‘well they’re all the same’ or ‘same as it ever was’ and shrug their shoulders. I’m sure you’ve argued against this in your time. Whats being presented as wisdom and wiseness in the mainstream media about ‘hysteria’ and ‘bun-chucking’ is just a version of the same. And rather offensive in the present context.

  20. Voltaire's Priest said,

    Liar. Typical SWP smears at that – I thought you were above such cheap debating methods.

    Anyone can read what I’ve written here, and see quite clearly that you’re lying. I invite them to do so.

  21. johng said,

    So for example we now know that the footage the IDF have put up on youtube, and broadcast by the media, of a rocket launcher team being wiped out by guided missiles, was in fact civilians moving gas cannisters from a shop. It is not ‘bun-chucking’ or ‘hysteria’ to be extremely angry about all of this or to assign responsibility for these crimes to the people who are actually carrying them out.

  22. Voltaire's Priest said,

    I haven’t “sidestepped” any argument at all. Either you’ve been carrying on the New Year’s celebrations in style or you’re simply talking utter bollocks as a way of squirming around because you’ve been called out for telling an untruth.

  23. johng said,

    “liar”

    bun chucking?

    And modernity stop trying to change the subject and avoid the issue.

  24. Voltaire's Priest said,

    It is however bun-chucking hysteria to hurl accusations at those who happen to disagree with you (or indeed, more impressively, those who broadly do but who don’t follow your party line. You know perfectly well that my objection is to that, and not to Palestinian solidarity action. It really is pathetically dishonest for you to claim otherwise.

  25. johng said,

    I posted an extract from an interview with the Israeli foreign minister who supervised disengagement from Gaza who openly states (amongst other things) that disengagement from Gaza was deliberately done to end the peace process and make a Palestinian state impossible. This is what the person in charge of disengagement actually said at the time. You on the other hand talk about ‘bun chucking’ and hysteria in a post which seeks to obfuscate the politics of the conflict by suggesting that there is no right or wrong side of the conflict. Its bloody pathetic in the current context.

  26. Voltaire's Priest said,

    If you stop lying, I’ll stop calling you a liar.

    I would have thought you’d approve of my justifiable outrage seeing as you appear to be saying that blood and thunder rows are the proper way to conduct political debate around complex issues.

  27. maxdunbar said,

    John, if Voltaire is ‘mocking solidarity’ then why is he publicising this demo?

  28. modernityblog said,

    JohnG wrote:

    “There are no circumstances in which I would support Israel’s right to murder and maim those who it keeps it bondage: whether or not I approve of the methods they use to fight back against that bondage or not. What part of this do you (or the Israeli state) find so hard to understand?”

    that was NOT the question that I asked

    it was NOT the question, which was:

    “are there ANY circumstances that the SWP think it is legitimate for Israel to defend its citizens, from the threat of attack?”

    if so, what are they ?

  29. Voltaire's Priest said,

    I haven’t written any such post. Where, tell me, have I said that there’s no right or wrong in this conflict? You’re just telling outright untruths (yes, that is pretty hysterical), and that is pathetic.

  30. Voltaire's Priest said,

    #29 was to John btw.

  31. johng said,

    Modernity Israel has no right to self defence so long as the Palestinian question remains unresolved. Period. After that, we’ll talk.

    Voltaire your constant references to bun chucking and “hysteria” merely echo the points of a commentator like Aronovich.

  32. johng said,

    And modernity why don’t you answer the question. Do the Palestinians have a right to violence in their struggle against the Israeli state? Under what circumstances is this permitted and under what circumstances forbidden?

  33. tcd said,

    “yeah it would be rather radical, or even revolutionary, for some people to acknowledge the Israeli’s right to exist free from Hamas rockets

    to see Israelis, as people with all of their faults, contradictions, pluses and negative points is to admit they are the same as everyone else, Spaniards, Latinos, people from North, South and East, humans

    I can see that might be hard for the plain ignorant, or those people indoctrinated against Israelis, but that says more about their own psyche and prejudices rather than anything about the Israelis”

    actually the issue is very simple, as long as a state occupies another, any terrorism it or its citizens suffer in retaliation is purely the fault of that state, which is bringing death and destruction on its “own people” due to its terrorist policies abroad.

    the issue is not exceptionalising Israelis.Communists shouçld not condemen attacks by Muslims on London, Spain, Italy, the US, or any ooccu`pying coutnries in Iraq and Afhanistan. They should place the blame openly ont he state’s own imperialism and seek to turn the population’s anger ont he government. The same for attacks on Turkey by the Kurdish, or on any state which occupies another nation.

    This does not mean agreeing with the strategy of killing workers in another state by the resistances. this is because htose resistances are chauvinist and not internationalist, and stand in the way of working class unity in both the oppressed nation and the oppressor which is the onyl route to true liberty.

    But this is not the same as the reprehensible, cowardly argument of the left who “condemn” the terorrists for killing workers. These people only act as aposloists for the occupying state, diminishing its responsibility for all the hardships its population suffers as a result of living in an oppressor nation

    “Can a nation be free as long as it oppresses another nation? No, it cannot”

    VI Lenin.

  34. Voltaire's Priest said,

    John;

    Until you learn to debate in an honest manner, it doesn’t really seem worth having the discussion.

    Tcd;

    So, what for instance would have been you stance on the 7/7 Tube attacks in London?

  35. modernityblog said,

    er, Volty, see, trying to get a straight answer out of an SWPer is hard work, no wonder they are so small and getting smaller by the day.

    but taking JohnG’s eventual answer:

    thus, if Hamas or some one else launched 40,000 (instead of 4,000) rockets at Israel then the SWP’s position (based on the above) would be that Israel has NO right to defend its citizens

    further more, if Hamas or Islamic Jihad could launched 400,000 rockets at Israel citizens, then presumably that wouldn’t change the SWP’s view of things?

    so suppose that if some nation launched a nuke at Israel then the SWP’s position (taken from JohnG’s statement) probably would be “fine, at least that resolves the ‘Zionist’ question…now for those Zionists in New York and Hendon”

    now if that is NOT the case, and I have erroneously extrapolated the SWP’s arguments too far then please could an SWPer explain their reaction to attacks on Israeli civilians?

  36. MoreMediaNonsense said,

    Well indeed Mod, johng and his friends in the rapidly imploding SWP have no interest whatsoever in sensible rational discussion on the present conflict.

    What they love is the hatred of Israel and the West they can stir up via propaganda against “Zionists” and “imperialists”. It was just the same during the Lebanon war – I remember johng on HP lauding some speech by that great Left Wing hero Nasrallah – it was just sickening.

    I reckon this conflict will end with Hamas in a similarly neutered state as Hezbollah is now. Here’s hoping.

  37. tcd said,

    “So, what for instance would have been you stance on the 7/7 Tube attacks in London?”

    The British state brought it on itself and brought death to its citizens, who are being unjustly made to pay the price for their state’s terrorism. The correct response of the populace is to demand its state change its murderous foreign policy as well as its repression of workers strugles, attacks on the poor and minorities within Britain.

  38. modernityblog said,

    Tcd’s response was entirely predictable, not that he would EXAMINE, for a moment, the targets of the 7/7:

    a Tube station in a working class area, with a large ethnic minority population

    the bus which blew up next to a Doctor’s organisation and just up from a dole office…

    etc

    his views are not political

    they are mainly nihilistic and sociopathic, which probably explains his inability to connect, engage or otherwise honestly debate these issues

  39. voltairespriest said,

    So Tcd you don’t think that the British people who committed the attacks should be held responsible for the attacks, then? Or indeed that the attacks should be condemned?

  40. modernityblog said,

    MMN,

    well, for once, I was trying to give the SWP the benefit of the doubt, but it seems that the SWP’s position is, that Israel can’t legitimately defend its citizens under ANY circumstances

    and there are wider implications to that position, that ANYONE can attack the Israelis and they’ll have the support of the SWP, no matter what they do:

    car bombing, suicide bombs in Pizza parlours, shooting Israeli women in cars, killing kids in libraries, etc

    however vile and bloody those attacks on Israelis are, they’ll get the SWP’s tacit support?

    which brings the issue of, would the SWP actively support car bombing in London? or attacks on British civilians? unlikely

    that being the case, why are British civilians somehow privileged over Israelis, in the SWP’s eyes?

    or does the SWP support attacks on British civilians, on account of the crimes of British imperialism?

    if not, why not?

  41. tcd said,

    “So Tcd you don’t think that the British people who committed the attacks should be held responsible for the attacks, then?”

    I think the British state should be held responsible and we should not play their game by entering into the talk about terrorism.

    “Or indeed that the attacks should be condemned?”

    I think we should oppose them and call for those who want to resist imperialism to concentrate on mass action and building solidarity with workers in the imperialist countries, while using violence against the troops of the occupying army (wherever they are).

    It makes it harder to build solidarity, and strengthens the nationalists int he oppressed countries, when the left in the imperialist countries either equalises the resistance with the occupation by condemnign them as twin sins, or even worse if it actively supports the state in taking actions against the “terrorists” which are always used to strengthen oppression of oppressed groups and to justify further aggression against other nations.

    I think it is wrong that workers in any imperialist nation pay the price of their rulers crimes, but that is the way under capitalism, that the masses are always made to pay the price. I take the Bolshevik line that they need to fight for the defeat of their own side and fight to immediately end the war/occupation.

  42. resistor said,

    An Idiot writes,

    ‘“are there ANY circumstances that the SWP think it is legitimate for Israel to defend its citizens, from the threat of attack?”

    In ALL circumstances Israel can defend its citizens by obeying international law and

    1. Allowing refugees to return to their homes

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_194

    and

    2. Withdrawing from occupied territories

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

    Are there any circumstances that modblog will describe the mass murder of civilians by Israel to be mass murder of civilians? I doubt it.

  43. Voltaire's Priest said,

    Tcd: Precisely how were the British people who committed the 7/7 bombings (overwhelmingly working class victims, almost all civilians, a signigicant number from ethnic minorities and cultural groups including Muslims) “fighting imperialism”?

  44. tcd said,

    “Tcd: Precisely how were the British people who committed the 7/7 bombings (overwhelmingly working class victims, almost all civilians, a signigicant number from ethnic minorities and cultural groups including Muslims) “fighting imperialism”?”

    Well firstly I did not say *they* were, you are reading more into my words than I said. I believe that reactionary groups in oppressed countries and communities, who have no materialist criticism of what imperialism is, can gain the support and at times active participation of people who *do* want to fight against imperialist states like Britain.

    I do not think we should support terrorist states like Britain or Israel (current death toll in the recent Gaza massacre now over 400) in imposing draconian measures to fight the terrorism they themselves create. Also we should not, as modernity wants to, just oppose the retaliations by the state in a way that places stateless terrorism as equally to blame for the state of war, and calling that both sides must stop their actions for there to be peace (a line which equalises the occupation with the resistance, the terrorism of the oppressed with the terorrism of the oppressor).

    I take the Bolshevik line that the masses in the imperialist country must stand for the defeat of their state and for the immediate end to the oppression of other nations, as the only way to a world without terrorism or war between workers of different nations. That is internationalism.

  45. Voltaire's Priest said,

    Those statements are all unrelated to the question that I asked.

  46. maxdunbar said,

    TCD, you know one of the 7/7 victims was an Afghan Muslim refugee?

  47. johng said,

    Answer the question modernity. Do the Palestinian people have the right to violence to achieve national liberation and defend the security of their people? Yes or no. Its a simple question.

  48. modernityblog said,

    JohnG,

    please don’t be cheeky, I didn’t SEE your question, unlike you, my eyesight is not always perfect.

    but to answer your question:

    I don’t believe that meaningful “national liberation” comes through violence.

    I don’t believe that the Irish, Scots, Welsh, Palestinians OR Israelis, etc have a “right” to use violence, when political avenues are there.

    as for security, you’ll have to explain how Hamas deliberately firing rockets at Israeli civilians actually defends “the security of their people”?

    I can’t see it myself, but no doubt you’ll be able to rationalise it?

    I would have thought that consciously provoking Israel, as Hamas has done, does the opposite it endangers Palestinians

  49. johng said,

    The trouble is modernity that your account of the conflict (that hamas has been ‘provoking israel’) is not one that everyone accepts. I don’t think thats at all an even rational explanation of the conflict of the last few years. Israel made a decision to turn its back on the peace process many many years ago now, waging war first against Arafat and then against Hamas, as well as against the civilian population in an attempt to prevent palestinians having a nation state (involving in just the last five years or so the death of 5000 Palestinians). Secondly let me understand your position. You don’t support the use of violence in the course of national liberation struggles waged by those deprived of a state, but you do support the use of violence for the self defence of existing states? Would you defend a state which has removed the right to have a state from a people using violence against those people trying to get their rights to have one? Genuinely baffled by the normative implications of your position.

  50. johng said,

    Oh I just saw ‘political avenues’. What on earth are you talking about? Israel made a decision to destroy those avenues quite consiously as evidenced from the interview I posted above. One difficulty with this conflict for Israel, is that, as with the Lebanese invasion, stuff comes out, and the lies just don’t work anymore. Those who have been parading a left wing version of these lies are now in something of a pickle I imagine.

  51. resistor said,

    Why would Gazans aim rockets at those nice Israelis?

    http://www.cmep.org/newsletter/2005June.htm

    But Palestinian suspicion that Israeli peace gestures are little more than a carny’s slight-of-hand was provoked by the comments of Sharon’s aide Dov Weissglass last October; “The disengagement is actually formaldehyde; it supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.” He spoke of freezing the process to prevent “discussion on refugees, the border and Jerusalem.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/24/lifebehindthewire

    This is an expansion of an existing sanctions regime. One of the Israeli Prime Minister’s advisers, Dov Weissglass, chillingly described the Israeli policy a year ago: “It’s like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won’t die.”

    It was no joke. Since Weissglass’s comments after the Hamas election victory in 2006, Gazans have indeed learnt how to diet. The World Food Programme lists it as a global hunger hotspot. Out of its 1.5 million residents, 1.1 million have to survive on food handouts. The Israeli journalist, Amira Hass, describes Gazans as being imprisoned in “an enclosed space like battery hens”.

    The “moderate” Israeli vice-premier, Haim Ramon has pushed for this, describing it as cutting off the “infrastructural oxygen”. Imagine a Palestinian mother having to tell her children that there is no electricity because you are not allowed any infrastructural oxygen.

  52. resistor said,

    By the way, where is Jim Denham? Usually he’s beating the Israeli war drums at times like these.

  53. skidmarx said,

    Voltaire’s Priest – I found it a little difficult to work out what alleged lie of johng’s you wre complaining about. If you are going to jump up and down then you should be a little more precise, and not perhaps do it over such an anodyne suggestion that you were mocking solidarity (if that was your complaint).

    modernityblog – Maybe you should wait until Hamas has fired 400,000 rockets before making it the basis of your argument. Having seen a girl on TV released from the Gaza prison today talk about the terror of the Israeli raids, isn’t it reasonable to call what the Israelis have done terrorism, and find a milder phrase like “a-bit-scaryism” for Hamas’ military activities?[Leaving aside the question of who stole whose country]

    Actually I did think biggest whopper of the day on the news finally went to a non-Israeli: the man from the Association of Train Operating Companies who said “We have the same interests as passengers”.

  54. johng said,

  55. johng said,

    Re-reading Modernities bizarre whataboutism one has the sense of an argument which has had its day.

  56. modernityblog said,

    JohnG wrote:

    “The trouble is modernity that your account of the conflict (that hamas has been ‘provoking israel’) is not one that everyone accepts.”

    er, so what? I am not concerned with what everyone else accepts, I’ll make my own judgements based on the history of events and the evidence, as I see it.

    from Hamas’s surprised election win they have done NOTHING to resolve these issues politically, rather when given the chance they seek funding for rockets and armaments

    Had Hamas decided to negotiate in 2006, accepting previous PA agreements and Israel’s right to exist then matters might have turned out differently

    but in two years Hamas have achieved NOTHING for the Palestinians, rather by their actions they have worsen the situation and precipitated this recent conflict

    JohnG, I don’t expect you or the SWP to accept any of that, but that’s more to do with your cognitive reasoning problems than anything else

  57. modernityblog said,

    skidmarx, que?

  58. resistor said,

    Max Dunbar’s hero and dedicated follower of fascism, Chas Newkey-Burden calls the AWL ‘hypocrites’ for supporting tomorrow’s demonstration.

    Chas is also cheering on the Israeli bombers and describes the Islamic University of Gaza as a ‘university’. Palestinian civilians and children killed by the IDF are in Chas’ view, ‘civilians’ and ‘children’ .

    If you have a strong stomach, click here for the blog of this admirer of Begin, Sharon and Netanyahu.

    http://blog.newkey-burden.com/

  59. skidmarx said,

    57. Coming over all Manuel isn’t the greatest boon to communication. I think you have erroneously extrapolated too far.

    Had Israel decided to negotiate in 2006, accepting Hamas’ right to exist then matters might have turned out differently. Or am I wrong that it is Israel that has besieged Gaza for the last two years rather than the other way around?

  60. Lurker said,

    Max Dunbar’s hero and dedicated follower of fascism

    An admirer of Milošević, Mladic, and Karadžic is calling others fascists? That’s rich.

  61. maxdunbar said,

    Resistor, I haven’t looked at Chas’s blog in weeks.

    If you have an issue with it why not leave a comment? I think Chas has an open comment facility.

  62. modernityblog said,

    skidmarx,

    if you wish to engage people in an exchange of views then try being a bit clearer, your original point wasn’t too clear, that’s all.

  63. resistor said,

    Max writes

    ‘Resistor, I haven’t looked at Chas’s blog in weeks.’

    You have now, so what’s your excuse for not commenting on it?

    ‘If you have an issue with it why not leave a comment?’

    Obviously you don’t have an issue with it because you haven’t left a comment here or there.

    ‘ I think Chas has an open comment facility.’

    No he doesn’t. He deletes anything that refutes the nonsense he writes.

    Now perhaps you might like to explain why you don’t consider Begin, Sharon and Netanyahu to be fascists – despite all the evidence I provided for you to read. Maybe you consider Dov Weissglass who was an aide to Sharon to be a ‘liberal’.

  64. modernityblog said,

    Max,

    I suspect that resistor believes he can spout his racist filth at length, and when people delete it (as they did at Engage) he can’t see WHY they did it

    Hmm..

  65. maxdunbar said,

    I’m not responsible for what Chas does with his blog. I’m not his dad.

    If he’s deleting your comments then don’t come running to me.

    I didn’t leave a comment here or there because, for the last time, Israel/Palestine is not my issue.

    Now can you leave all the Julie Burchill stuff on your own Julie Burchill thread?

  66. resistor said,

    ‘I’m not responsible for what Chas does with his blog.’

    No, but you are responsible for the fawning praise you gave to his nasty little book.

    ‘for the last time, Israel/Palestine is not my issue’

    But it was an issue in his book and you promoted it

  67. Voltaire's Priest said,

    Actually, I’ve glanced through the book he wrote with Burchill in Waterstone’s. Strikes me it”s only peripherally about Israel-Palestine, and is mainly a lightweight sarky humour thing. Whether one finds it funny or not is another matter, but a giant paean to Likud it is not.

  68. Voltaire's Priest said,

    Skidmarx, no idea what you’re on about, it’s obvious what my issue with John’s comments was.

  69. Rukshana Begum said,

    salam, i would like to know which route the demeonstaration will take, as i will unfortunately need to go to work, but InshaAllah i will come around 2.30, so if you could please tell me where about you think the crowd maybe at that time, i would be very greatful. jazakAllah…

  70. Voltaire's Priest said,

    Hi Rukshana;

    I don’t know, but if you call the Stop the War Coalition on 0207 278 6694 or 07951 593 525 I would imagine they could tell you. :)

  71. maxdunbar said,

    Resistor – re Voltaire at 67 – as you’ve been told before, there’s only like one essay in the book about Israel.

    But then you haven’t even read it so what business do you have talking about it?

  72. tcd said,

    Voltaire’s Priest said,
    “January 2, 2009 at 9:07 am

    Those statements are all unrelated to the question that I asked.”

    No, they answered it.

    “maxdunbar said,
    January 2, 2009 at 10:33 am

    TCD, you know one of the 7/7 victims was an Afghan Muslim refugee?”

    I did not know that, but it does not surprise me that much, or change my argument.

    I do not support the 7/7 attacks or any acts of individual and indiscriminate terrorism, I argue to replace that with mass action.

    He was killed because he lived under an imperialist state. That was my point, Britain’s imperialist practices bring death on its people. The answer they should raise against terrorism is to fight against their own state’s terrorism which places them in the fighting lines and not to equalise this with the terrorism of the resistance, a line which only covers for the continues aggression of the imperialists who can use htis logic to point to the resistance and say “we stop when they do”. This is a sophism because the aggressor is asking the resistance to stop, as a condition of an end to their own aggression.

    That does not mean justifying the terrorist attacks on Britain. If someone distorts the words to say that I am arguing that then they only show their dishonesty to everyone.

  73. maxdunbar said,

    That is absolute duckspeak.

  74. tcd said,

    But I am not very worried about such an insult coming from someone who considered the current Israeli assault on Gaza to be self-defence against Hamas rocket attacks, and who justified it because Israel’s leaders are elected, and who has now hidden away from bringing up the subject at all.

    I think whatever “duck’s” speak is a lot more sense than our friend Max!

  75. Alan Laurence said,

    TCD
    You seem to think that people living in imperialist countries are responsible for the imperialism of that state. Or at least in some way deserve it when terrorists blow them up.
    Victims of contemporary terror do not die simply because they live in an imperialist country. They die because of a reactionary response to imperialism on the part of the terrorists.
    There is nothing progressive about Islamist terrorism – its certainly a movement of the oppressed – but its also reactionary to liberal democracy let alone the workers’ movement.

  76. tcd said,

    “Alan Laurence said,
    January 3, 2009 at 10:38 pm

    TCD
    You seem to think that people living in imperialist countries are responsible for the imperialism of that state. Or at least in some way deserve it when terrorists blow them up.
    Victims of contemporary terror do not die simply because they live in an imperialist country. They die because of a reactionary response to imperialism on the part of the terrorists.
    There is nothing progressive about Islamist terrorism – its certainly a movement of the oppressed – but its also reactionary to liberal democracy let alone the workers’ movement.”

    No you obviosuly did not read what I wrote. Let me quote myself this time with emphasis added:

    tcd said,
    January 2, 2009 at 12:47 am

    “So Tcd you don’t think that the British people who committed the attacks should be held responsible for the attacks, then?”

    I think the British state should be held responsible and we should not play their game by entering into the talk about terrorism.

    “Or indeed that the attacks should be condemned?”

    I think we should oppose them and call for those who want to resist imperialism to concentrate on mass action and building solidarity with workers in the imperialist countries, while using violence against the troops of the occupying army (wherever they are).

    It makes it harder to build solidarity, and strengthens the nationalists int he oppressed countries, when the left in the imperialist countries either equalises the resistance with the occupation by condemnign them as twin sins, or even worse if it actively supports the state in taking actions against the “terrorists” which are always used to strengthen oppression of oppressed groups and to justify further aggression against other nations.

    I think it is wrong that workers in any imperialist nation pay the price of their rulers crimes, but that is the way under capitalism, that the masses are always made to pay the price. I take the Bolshevik line that they need to fight for the defeat of their own side and fight to immediately end the war/occupation.”

    I think my position here is quite clear.

    regarding whether Islamic terrorism is progressive:

    tcd said,
    January 2, 2009 at 5:27 am

    “Well firstly I did not say *they* were, you are reading more into my words than I said. I believe that reactionary groups in oppressed countries and communities, who have no materialist criticism of what imperialism is, can gain the support and at times active participation of people who *do* want to fight against imperialist states like Britain ”

    I do not see your confusion, honestly.

  77. blog.talkingphilosophy.com » A Right to Self-Defence? said,

    [...] who is something to do with the Socialist Workers Party (a very small British Trotskyist party), makes this claim: Israel has no right to self defence so long as the Palestinian question remains unresolved. [...]

  78. tcd said,

    the SWP is 1.) not trotskyist at all, but radical-populist, as Tony Cliff rejected the transitional programme, the basis of trotskyism, as well as Lenin’s view of imperialism and of the vanguard party (and it rejects basic trotskyist principles like class independence, instead giving political support to as wide ranging forces as the muslim petit borugeosiie in Britain and the white landing oligarchy in Zimbabwe) and 2.) not that small…it is estimated to have around 600 active members, which is (sadly) not very small for the left on an international level (maybe “medium sized” is a better description) proportionally not so much smaller than the bolsheviks were in 1905.

  79. maxdunbar said,

    TCD

    ‘As he watched the eyeless face with the jaw moving rapidly up and down, Winston had a curious feeling that this was not a real human being but some kind of dummy. It was not the man’s brain that was speaking, it was his larynx. The stuff that was coming out of him consisted of words, but it was not speech in the true sense: it was a noise uttered in unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck.’

  80. Why the pro-faith left has done nothing for Palestine « Shiraz Socialist said,

    [...] carries an excellent piece by Sunny Hundal of Pickled Politics and Liberal Conspiracy. He went to Saturday’s London demo ‘to express solidarity with Palestinians and express my anger at Israel’s [...]

  81. Why the pro-faith left has done nothing for Palestine « Max Dunbar said,

    [...] carries an excellent piece by Sunny Hundal of Pickled Politics and Liberal Conspiracy. He went to Saturday’s London demo ‘to express solidarity with Palestinians and express my anger at Israel’s [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 473 other followers

%d bloggers like this: