israel ~ you are not alone
By ATWadmin On June 10th, 2007Jerusalem Post: London anti Israel rally fails to draw big crowd. Speakers at the rally included Azzam Tamimi from the Muslim Association of Britain which is part of the Muslim Brotherhood.
"Those who attended the ‘Dayenu’ area were friendly and dignified unlike the person on the ‘Enough’ march who gave the Nazi salute"
"It would appear that the ‘Enough’ demonstration did not meet its target numbers despite support from many organisations and that the ‘Dayenu’ counter demonstration exceeded its own expectations. Overall, ours was a successful event and a way of showing the support of many in Britain for the state of Israel which it both needs and deserves"
"Slowly but surely, it would appear that the tide is turning".
Well done to those that went along ~ Hat tip BeernSandwiches
Haha Alison,
I was one of the many thousands on the main march, your counter demo numbered maybe a hundred, mainly middle-aged women.
Strange how some of your number accused us of anti-semitism, just because we don’t agree with 40 years of illegal occupation by the state of Israel, when there were many more Jewish people marching with us in solidarity with the people of Israel.
From what I saw your crowd were mainly ignored. I doubt anyone would have been so crass to have "sieg heiled" and had they done it near me they would have been made very unwelcome as there were a number of anti-fascist activists who would have told them so in no uncertain terms!
Whoops I meant many Jewish people marched with us in solidarity with the people of Palestine.
Ed. please be kind enough to amend that for me, thanks.
Good to see they pissed you off! You said you’d be 10 000, you numbered less than 2,000 – if that and no MSM coverage yesterday – boo hoo!
And since this is the first anti demo and they were expecting 50, thanks for confirming they numbered 100! Always good to get eye witness confirmation.
Daithi,
The one in Dublin was a great success and we got a glorious day.
http://www.formal.ie/palestine/content/
Unfortunately there was no counter demo to make us all laugh.
Palis uber alles in Dublin – right? Now there’s pluralism for you. Mind you, given that Ireland gives sanctuary to Pali terrorists, maybe it wouldn’t have been safe!
The Palis have the distinction of at least living in the land under discussion. The state of israel was created primarily from Ashkenazi jews – ie people whose descendants had been living in Europe for at least a thousand years.
I can appreciate after the Shoah there was a strong moral case for a jewish homeland – although it is no solution to simply take land of people coming out of a few hundred years of Ottoman opression.
Some of my ancestors came over with the Normans in 1066 – does this entitle me to some land in France?
Alison,
I’d still like to hear your comments about the fact that there were hundreds more Jews opposong the occupation than there were supporting Israel.
Don’t you see that as significant, and ironic therefore, that some of your mob had banners accusing us of anti-semitism?
The one in Dublin was a great success and we got a glorious day.
I passed by this JG.There was a fair enough turn out.
The reality is though, that the a major stumbling block to a Palestinian state at the moment is the Palestinians themselves. Israel seems agreeable to a Palestinian state, its representatives have said so before. Pretty much the whole of the world community favours this approach, however, the Palestinians seem so fractured at the moment, that they cannot present a unified front in their dealings with Israel.
If the Palestinians were to get their own state tomorrow, can you see this as solving or even beginning to solve all of their problems. I doubt it. its more likely that it would kick off many years of civil war with a scramble for power.
What the Palestinians need now is for a real leadership to emerge. One that can confront and convince the Palestinian people that their best hope of a state, is through accepting the existence of Israel and accepting that by targeting Israel they are not helping their cause in anyway.
So all those marches that occur, really should be directing as much pressure on the Palestinians themselves as on the Israelis.
Israel seems agreeable to a Palestinian state, its representatives have said so before.
ROFL. That’s why they’ve been colonizing the West Bank for the last 40 years, is it?
That’s why they’ve been colonizing the West Bank for the last 40 years, is it?
Didnt realise Israel had the same government for the last 40 years!!
Seems to me that I saw an Israeli government knocking settlements not too long ago
Didnt realise Israel had the same government for the last 40 years!!
Ok, then name me the last Israeli PM in power when the settler population actually fell.
Seems to me that I saw an Israeli government knocking settlements not too long ago
Yeah, in Gaza, which is expendable since it doesn’t have the water resources to be found in, say, the West Bank. So, are there more settlers or fewer on Palestinian land now than ‘not too long ago’?
So, are there more settlers or fewer on Palestinian land now than ‘not too long ago’?
There are more and more settlers attempting to setup on the west bank. However, the Israeli government will need to tackle these as their part of any agreement.
There are more and more settlers attempting to setup on the west bank. However, the Israeli government will need to tackle these as their part of any agreement.
And what evidence is there that it is willing to do so, not to mention the disbandment of the existing settlements? Moreover, do you not think that the settlements are a ‘major stumbling block to peace’?
Hugh,
The settlers are only one part of the bigger problem. The lack of Palestinian unity and stability surely cannot be ignored as posing major problems to any settlement.
And what evidence is there that it is willing to do so, not to mention the disbandment of the existing settlements?
Does the fact that they did this in Gaza not indicate a willingness to confront settlers, or are you saying its a more strategic issue in the west bank ?
Moreover, do you not think that the settlements are a ‘major stumbling block to peace’?
It needs to be dealt with in the negotiations, most definitely. But as it now appears, the longer a deal is held off, the more settled these settlers become and the harder it is to remove them. I believe that the lack of a solid Palestinian front is the major problem at the moment.
The lack of Palestinian unity and stability surely cannot be ignored as posing major problems to any settlement.
So, what do you think is necessary for Palestinian ‘unity and stability’ to happen, beyond mere platitudes about ‘real leadership’? You appear to be under the impression that there has to be some sort of ‘settlement’ in order for the occupation to end. There doesn’t: the Israelis have no right to be there, and they must leave. Unless you acknowledge this, I fail to see how you have no right to make demands of the Palestinians. It is like demanding that a homeowner must come to some sort of settlement with the burglar who is ransacking his house.
Hell Hugh – the majority in NI were forced to make an accomodation with the "terrorist burglars" in our state.
Hell Hugh – the majority in NI were forced to make an accomodation with the "terrorist burglars" in our state.
Not sure where this one is leading MR. There doesn’t seem to be any instructive comparison to be made between the two situations. Perhaps you could provide one?
So, what do you think is necessary for Palestinian ‘unity and stability’ to happen, beyond mere platitudes about ‘real leadership’?
Without a leadership which can claim to be negotiating for the majority of Palestinians, then the Israelis have no one to negotiate with.
I dont believe that the Israeli government will concede any movement on the West bank settlements until it can see a deal on security in the offing.
Hugh – you wrote "It is like demanding that a homeowner must come to some sort of settlement with the burglar who is ransacking his house." as if that was something so ridiculous that it could never happen – yet it is in effect what happened here with IRA terrorists forced into government.
Without a leadership which can claim to be negotiating for the majority of Palestinians, then the Israelis have no one to negotiate with.
Whom exactly do you have in mind here? It seems to me that the Palestinian unity government was in a reasonably good position to negotiate for the majority of Palestinians.
I dont believe that the Israeli government will concede any movement on the West bank settlements until it can see a deal on security in the offing.
Again, you seem to be placing the onus on the Palestinians to provide security, yet it is Israel who is illegally occupying and colonizing the West Bank with the aid of tanks and fighter jets. So why do you consider the security of Israelis more important than that of Palestinians? (This may not be what you actually believe, but it is a logical outworking of your position).
as if that was something so ridiculous that it could never happen – yet it is in effect what happened here with IRA terrorists forced into government.
Well, it seems to me more a question of principle than possibility. But I am sure that may people saw the Northern Ireland peace process in these terms, and I do have some sympathy for the view. However, there is a different dynamic operating in Israel/Palestine, and I just think that in terms of scale and intensity of oppression and dispossession, there’s no useful comparison to be drawn between the NI majority and the Palestinians under occupation.
Whom exactly do you have in mind here
Thats my point exactly. No proper stability exists yet and this fact is a blocker.
It seems to me that the Palestinian unity government was in a reasonably good position to negotiate for the majority of Palestinians.
The Unity government is a start, but its hardly the most stable government now is it. Up until recently either side was trying to kill each other.
Again, you seem to be placing the onus on the Palestinians to provide security, yet it is Israel who is illegally occupying and colonizing the West Bank with the aid of tanks and fighter jets.
Looking at the realities here. Israel has the upper hand what ever way you look at this. It has the military and economic upper hand. It can sit and wait, meanwhile Palestinians are suffering in appalling conditions.
A deal, if its to be done, will be with Israel. In the same way SF eventually realised that they had to start accepting the existence of consent with Unionists for a deal to be done, the Palestinians will at some stage need to acknowledge that they will a Palestinian state will need to exist not as a threat to Israel but as a neighbour. Israel aint going to agree to a Palestinian state only for it to become an instrument in which to further threaten Israeli citizens.
So why do you consider the security of Israelis more important than that of Palestinians?
I consider the security of Israelis equally important to those of Palestinians. Hey, im not here defending Isreal, Im looking at this from a reality perspective. People might think that walking through the streets of Dublin helps the Palestinians in some small way, but in reality it doesnt. Why, because Israel couldnt give a fiddlers about these protests. Thats just a reality. The only thing the protests do is show solidarity.
Good points on both sides.
Successive governments have encouraged settlements – simply storing up trouble for later.
However, the reaction of the palestinians to gaza withdrawal – essentially civic breakdown and continued attacks against Israeli civilians, will hardly persuade the Israeli governemnt they should withdraw further.
Israel should have negotiated directly with Hamas (for practical not moral reasons) however the Palis need to get their act together.
They need only look at the Lebanese to see how they effectively forced the Israelis to concede occupied territory.
Kloot,
You are demanding stability, but you do not seem to have any idea of the conditions necessary for this to come about. This is not ‘looking at the realities’; it is pie in the sky.
the Palestinians will at some stage need to acknowledge that they will a Palestinian state will need to exist not as a threat to Israel but as a neighbour.
I take it you do not seriously believe that whatever the Israelis decided to give back to the Palestinians in order to allow them form a Palestinian state would be a ‘threat to Israel’. It appears to me that what you are asking here is that the Palestinians accept whatever conditions are being laid down for them by the illegally occupying military power. Is this accurate? You note yourself that Israel has the upper hand militarily and economically.
Israel aint going to agree to a Palestinian state only for it to become an instrument in which to further threaten Israeli citizens.
So the Israeli state occupies Palestine militarily, and colonizes it, and dispossesses Palestinians, yet it is the Palestinians who must provide assurances that their state will not ‘further threaten’ Israeil citizens.
But you seem to think that Palestinians should recognise an Israeli state which threatens Palestinians daily with guns and tanks. And it should do so, apparently, because Israel has the upper hand militarily and economically (i.e. it has the guns and the money to pummel them further if they don’t accept.).
The only thing the protests do is show solidarity.
I disagree, but even if this were true, then it would be better than nothing.
Hugh
Mate I agree with where you’re coming from – but, what to do?
Israel has air and naval superiority, nuclear weapons, an extremely effective intelligence service and the pretty much unequivocal backing of the world’s only super-power.
The Palestinians approach to this isn’t a nuanced analysis of their enemies strengths and weaknesses but an almost nihilistic attempt at continued resistance.
What have all the qassam rockets achieved? Or the suicide-bombings against civilian targets?
Absolutely nothing. In fact a negative amount as they have helped Israeli propaganda efforts.
They have to work with the Israelis and accept a two state solution.
Daithio – the opposing ‘lot’ werent rent-a-mob. They only ever advised they expected 50 people. So the turnout was double. Good for them. Its a first so it shows you people have had enough of the one sided argument. Its a bit childish to call them all sorts of names because you didnt make it into the MSM in a major fashion. Are you so convinced you are right that you arent prepared to even ALLOW for another point of view in the form of a counter protest – never mind a debate? What good are these rallies to the people there anyway except to stoke the heat and shed no light.
Israel gets an unprecedented amount of bashing. I welcome the change of focus from a one sided argument all-the-time.
What have all the qassam rockets achieved? Or the suicide-bombings against civilian targets?
Absolutely nothing. In fact a negative amount as they have helped Israeli propaganda efforts.
I agree 100%.
They have to work with the Israelis and accept a two state solution.
Andy, I can’t see any evidence that Israel would be willing to accept a two-state solution in any sense that would lead to a viable Palestinian state. You have Ehud Olmert saying things like Judea and Samaria are part of ‘our historic homeland’, and he’s supposedly on the side that favours some sort of settlement. Then you have Netanyahu who will probably replace him, who will be worse, but at least transparently so.
Given this, I honestly don’t know what the solution is. I personally favour liberal democratic states, and that would mean a one-state solution of some form. That is, there is really only one state in Palestine at the moment, and the point would be to make it a state for all its citizens. The only problem is that this would get zero point zero percent support in Israel.
Well, Israel is probably the most liberally democratic state in the region (outside of occupied territories).
I don’t think Palestinians would opt for an one state solution (ie an ethnically Jewish state with liberal laws). Something about preferring your own incompetent rulers etc..
I think Moshe Dayan tried to get the occupied territores to have more buy-in to Israel but with limited success.
I take your point about the public pronouncements of ISraeli politicians but they would bite the bullet eventually – c/f witness the statements about not withdrawing from Lebanon and Barak’s eventual withdrawal.
(BTw – i do appreciate the difference between Lebanon and the other occupied territories).
Alison – I would actually agree that Israel does get some unjustified criticism. Its good to have a debate about these issues. I don’t think it helps anything to pretend Israel is the most evil state in the world or the Palis are all ungovernable animals.
Hugh,
You are demanding stability, but you do not seem to have any idea of the conditions necessary for this to come about. This is not ‘looking at the realities’; it is pie in the sky.
Either a settlement will happen or the current situation will continue endlessly. If a settlement occurs it will occur through negotiation. Do you agree ?
These negotiations will need to resolve certain issues.
1. Acceptance of Israel’s right to exist.
2. Agreement on the internal security of Palestine, and yes, this means that the Israelis will need to be confident that the Palestinians will tackle any subversive elements within its boundaries.
3. Agreement on the boundaries of the new state, which will require the Israelis to tackle any subversive elements within its boundaries.
If these negotiations ever take place, they will between the recognised representatives of the Israelis and of the Palestinians surely.
My whole point on this is that for these negations to take place the Palestinians will need to have formed a strong negotiation team with clear goals in mind.
I do not believe that such an agreed front exists at this moment and all im saying is that they need to get their act together to try and form such a front.
Im not sure who they will go about this. Maybe they could hold a national convention with an aim to establishing agreed goals to achieve from any negotiations.
You say that you dont see parallels with NI, whereas I definitely to. Both sides had to move from their long held positions before negotiations could even begin let alone accept the final outcome.
Im not disputing the legality of the occupation of the west bank, all im stating is the reality on the ground which is that its the Israelis that have the upper hand. Its them that have the key to its resolution not the international community and not solidarity groups across the world. I just cannot see the Israelis dealing with the west bank outsides any comprehensive negotiations
Kloot.
If a settlement occurs it will occur through negotiation. Do you agree ?
Yes.
1. Acceptance of Israel’s right to exist.
Acceptance of Israel’s ‘right to exist’ is really a nonsensical non-starter. No state can have a right to exist, since people have rights, not states. If you mean by this ‘recognition of Israel’, well, recognition in diplomatic terms can only occur between states. So unless there’s a Palestinian state, there can be no recognition of Israel. Then the question arises: how should Israel be recognised? What are its borders (it hasn’t declared them yet, you know)? Should Palestinians go as far as recognise the state that is occupying the West Bank?
On a broader point, I think you should bear in mind -when thinking about the negotiators- the substantial support in the Palestinian population for Hamas, and the fact that Israel refuses to negotiate with Hamas, and that both the EU and the US are enforcing sanctions against the Palestinians for having elected Hamas.
the reality on the ground which is that its the Israelis that have the upper hand. Its them that have the key to its resolution not the international community and not solidarity groups across the world. I just cannot see the Israelis dealing with the west bank outsides any comprehensive negotiations
Yes, so why should Israel need to enter comprehensive negotiations? If the point of negotiation is to disband settlements and give back land, why should they do so, thus going back on a programme that has been ongoing for decades? Remember, during the ‘peace process’ years, Israel continued to expand its settlements. It is here that international influence can be brought to bear, I think.
Alison: "Are you so convinced you are right that you arent prepared to even ALLOW for another point of view in the form of a counter protest – never mind a debate? "
I’m sure I am right but i’m always prepared to listen to the opposite viewpoint, that’s why i come here to ATW as I find it futile arguing my point with people who already agree with me. So that answers the debate question too! So let’s debate…
I was disappointed you didn’t address my points about your counter demonstrators holding banners suggesting we are anti-semitic when there were hundreds more jewish people in our number. Also I was curious to see any proof that someone on the enough march mad a nazi salute, becuawse that would really have surprised me.
I always liked Roseanne:
‘ROSEANNE BARR: Hi everybody. This is Roseanne Barr. And I’m here to add my voice to all of your voices. I’m here speaking as a citizen of the world, as an American, as a Jew and as a grandmother. All of us who gather here today are united in our desire to seek a just peace in the Middle East, instead of the vicious cycle of revenge and recriminations that benefit only those who profit from a distance. They never actually themselves experience the violence and terror and suffering inflicted upon those human beings who pay the actual price in terms of their family’s lives. Those people who do pay that price want change, as well as all of us here who care about them. That change starts with our calling for the end of the American taxpayer support of, as well as the United States government’s support of, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. All of us, regardless of our nationalities or our religious affiliations seek a new policy in the Middle East based on equal rights for all. Thank you.’
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/08/1512231
If you mean by this ‘recognition of Israel’, well, recognition in diplomatic terms can only occur between states.
What I meant here is that as part of the negotiations, the Palestinians will give a commitment, upon the establishment of their state, to fully recognise Israel.
Then the question arises: how should Israel be recognised? What are its borders
Those agreed during the negotiations
Got to run to a meeting now, but ill try address the other points later
Alison,
Are you going to address the points I raised?