Anti-War Network Press Statement on Lebanon Ceasefire & Irish Troops

by Concerned Citizen Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:56

Good statement - sound politics.
Can we have a bit more info on the Anti war network please

by pat c Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:10

Israel accused over 'war crimes'

Amnesty International has accused Israel of committing war crimes by deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure in Lebanon. The human rights group says attacks on homes, bridges, roads and water and fuel plants were an "integral part" of Israel's strategy in the recent war.

The group also calls for a UN investigation into whether both Israel and Hezbollah broke humanitarian law.

by terrorists Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:16

Hezbollah violates international law as a modus vivende and Israel is doing so only under duress.

Dont ever ever forget that!!!!

by pat c Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:19

They haven't gone away you know. The Israelis are still attacking Gaza.

pat c

Israeli strike on Gaza militant

Israeli aircraft have destroyed a house in the Gaza Strip belonging to a member of the Islamic Jihad militant group. Two people were lightly wounded in the missile strike, medical officials have said, but no one was killed.

The Israeli military had warned the militant and his family their house in Jabaliya was to be attacked, saying the house was being used to store weapons.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Aug 23, 2006 13:13

Thanks patc for the messages. Now another aspect of the situation in Israel that we're not likely to see in the papers.

Israeli President Moshe Katsav is being grilled by police over sexual harassment allegations in the latest scandal to hit the leadership, already reeling over failures in the Lebanon war. Allegations of sexual shenanigans and that his office granted unlawful pardons may cost the Iranian-born head of state his job, which could make him Israel's second consecutive president to resign amid scandal.
....
One woman, a former senior employee in Katsav's office, has testified to being coerced into sex with the president after he hinted she would otherwise lose her job, the newspaper Maariv reported. She was also reported to have passed a lie-detector test.

Katsav also faces allegations that his office granted illegal pardons to prisoners at the request of associates, local media reported.

......
Scandal forced his predecessor, the late Ezer Weizman, to resign after revelations that he received around 450,000 dollars as "gifts" from French millionaire Edouard Saroussi in the 1980s, when Weizman was an MP and minister.

A string of contemporary scandals, also implicating Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, tarnished the credibility of the government already weathering stormy waters over public anger at perceived mismanagement of the Lebanon war.

Justice Minister Haim Ramon resigned on Sunday after the attorney general decided to indict him over sexual harassment accusations from a woman soldier.

Tzahi Hanegbi, another senior member of Olmert's Kadima party and chairman of parliament's foreign affairs and defense committee, is under investigation for fraud, perjury and breach of trust as environment minister three years ago.

Olmert, who has seen his approval ratings plummet in the three months since he took office, also faces a possible property deal probe.

I wonder how long before some troll comes along in this gig and accuses me of being either an anti-Semite or an 'Israel - hater".....

by me Wed Aug 23, 2006 13:31

What happened to the reports from the Anti-War Network meetings? These were regularly posted on indymedia after the first few meetings but have disappeared in recent times. They were good for giving a flavour of the attendance and discussion.

So what up with them?

by goddamn Wed Aug 23, 2006 13:31

Michaely

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the arabs treat women better?

ROFL, you need to open your eyes kid

FFs Irish politicians get in more strife woman wise than the Israelis

Im sure the arab women would disagree with their leaders, if they actually had a right to vote..

lol

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Aug 23, 2006 13:46

To goddamn

Presuming you can read, and understand what you're reading, please note that I have not made any comments about Arabs.
My comments were specific to how the upper echelons of the Israeli ruling class treats its subordinate women.....and gets found out....and they resign....and they get prosecuted!!
Now if your point is that the Israeli society is as bad as other Arab societies in its attitude and treatment of women - it's a point that can be discussed. That's what I suppose you meant/implied by using the word 'better'....!! Please clarify. And I must say I love your handle---goddamn...so elegant and full of hidden meaning!

To me further above

Minutes and reports of the Anti War Network meetings are continuing to be circulated to participants of the AWN on a regular basis. If you want to get your hands on one, contact somebody you know who is a participant or post an email address and I'll send you a copy of our latest meeting that took place last Saturday.

by anon Wed Aug 23, 2006 15:24

The AWN was supposed to be a that a network, nay a place for networking, at what point was it it cognitively decided to start producing press releases by itself? And no I don't mean it decided between u 3... you just ruined what you MichaelY 'said' were trying to create.

by me Wed Aug 23, 2006 15:38

Surely I don't have to be on an email list to read what happened. Why can't you just do what was done before: publish a report. Why the secrecy?

Oh never mind.

by Tank Girl Wed Aug 23, 2006 15:47

This time its definitely farce. You have to be on the lists. When was it decided that decisions would be made on lists instead of at open activist meetings? This is just the way the IAWM degenerated in the first place. Congrats Michael you have just destroyed the credibility of the AWN.

by MichaelY - iawm (per cap) Wed Aug 23, 2006 17:43

It's great to see that the AWN Press Statement gets questions and press coverage on the one hand + some commentary from Indymedia regulars on the other.

The AWN continues to be an open network of a number of anti-war organisations (AWI, Cosantoiri Siochana, the Unmanageables, the Belfast Peace and Justice Group, the IPSC and the IAWM but unfortunately not all - yet) and a growing number of anti-war activists who are NOT members of any organisation. Its meetings are openly advertised [next Plenary on Sept 16th, 14.30 Teachers Club], its activities open to all. Minutes of each Plenary are available for all participants. And the Press Sattement above reflects accurately the whole drift and content of the discussion last Saturday. [Before I forget or be accused of something or other, members of the Green Party, Sinn Fein, PANA and the WSM have come to some or most meetings as well].

AWN decisions are not made "on lists" as 'Tank Girl' suggests above but only in open Plenary Meetings [thanks for the congrats btw - coming from you it's an honour]. Finally the decision to draft, discuss and distribute a statement was taken in last Saturday's Plenary. All present there felt the situation in Lebanon, the fragility of the ceasefire, the contradictions in Resolution 1701 and the likelihood of Irish soldiers being sent there to play ball with imperialism forced on us an obligation to articulate how we felt. Thus the Release above. As for the credibility of the Anti war Network - we'll have to wait and see on that one - time will tell.

If certain friends believe that a network is a body that has or should have no voice, or that its voice must necessarily come through and be vehiculed through its constituent parts, they can argue that position in the next Plenary. Incidentally the AWN Network had already issued a very clear statement in support of the Ploughshares, before their acquittal.....so it's not the first time it finds that it has a voice. And it's not the last time I hope. Watch this space.

by curious Wed Aug 23, 2006 17:50

How come you're suddenly writing 'personal capacity' after IAWM? Somebody give you a ticking off? Are you on the way out? Don't forget to keep us updated.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Aug 23, 2006 17:57

Very perceptive 'curious' - I am touched for I sensed that there was a tinge of care [or glee?] in the statement.
To be frank, I used per cap because I was responding above as a participant of the AWN - and the issues we were discussing did not have much to do with IAWM matters - not directly anyway. And you know yourself how sensitive anon and Tank Girl and me and all the other friends can be on such areas. Hope this clears the fog. Lol.

by Tank Girl Wed Aug 23, 2006 18:01

"Israeli President Moshe Katsav is being grilled by police over sexual harassment allegations in the latest scandal to hit the leadership, "

This wasn't exactly your finest hour Michael. Its a terrible thing to sexually harass a woman, to coerce her into having sex. But this pales in comparison to how women are treated in Iran. Sexual harrassment is not the same as being stoned to death or hanged.

Get a sense of perspective and attack the relevant aspects of Israeli society.

by Tank Girl Wed Aug 23, 2006 18:10

The death toll in Lebanon is still rising. More will likely die over the coming weeks, months and even years as thousands of unexploded Israeli shells and bombs lie across Lebanon.

TG

______________________________________________________

Lebanese soldiers die clearing Israeli shells
Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:14am ET

By Laila Bassam

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Three Lebanese soldiers were killed on Wednesday while clearing unexploded Israeli shells in southern Lebanon, underscoring the dangers of a region awaiting the deployment of thousands of U.N. peacekeepers.

The three men were the first Lebanese troops to die since the army began moving south last Thursday to bolster a U.N.-backed truce that halted a 34-day war between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas.

The Lebanese are due to send around 15,000 soldiers to the area to work alongside a similar number of U.N. troops.

______________________________________________________

Link here to the rest of the story:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=new...One-5

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Aug 23, 2006 18:12

Tank Girl,

As mentioned above, in a similar response about Arab countries, I wasn't comparing the treatment of women by some of Israel's top leaders with the treatment and condition of women either in Arab countries or, as you suggest with what goes on in Iran. Your message baffles me though - don't you want these facts to be known about the Israeli President and his shananigans or those of his predecessor? Facts very little known here and never covered in the media?

Or are you suggesting that because the Iranian mullahs have instituted a barbaric anti-women/anti-gay system in Iran that this somehow atones what the Israeli heads are doing? That's not like you....You forget yourself - I never was and I am not in the SWP or any other similar organisation/ party. We have argued these issues before in this gig so lets keep the thread going on the AWN and Lebanon and the position of the Irish Government. Please.

by Sinéad Ní Bhroin Wed Aug 23, 2006 18:17

Mo chara,

This kind of baiting of a comrade as Tank Girl et al are illustrating above in their exchanges with Michael are really quite despicable. We are fellow travellers & I believe considering the struggle we are engaged in it would do us all good to remember that.

A couple of points of clarification…

The last Anti War Network meeting agreed to issue a press statement, the fruits of which you see above. Michael & Coilín were charged with the task by the network. The statement was circulated to full network list for amendments/observations etc. Amendments were made as suggested by people including myself & the statement completed as you see it. In my view a very democratic process was adhered.

With regard to the circulation of the meetings minutes I would argue that such information should never be uploaded onto a website. These meeting discuss & agree tactics & strategies. Indymedia & other such sites are regularly viewed by the state. If you wish to be included in the list I suggest you make contact with one of the anti war groups involved & ask to be included. I think this is a transparent way of doing business.

Sinéad

by Tank Girl Wed Aug 23, 2006 18:20

I just think you set up a man of straw. Its Islamic countries where there is a real problem regarding womens rights and gay rights. I dont think you are in the SWP.

"so lets keep the thread going on the AWN and Lebanon and the position of the Irish Government. Please."

You brought in the sexual pecadillos of the Israeli President, so you cant blame me for responding. I'm happy to leave it at this.

by Coilín Wed Aug 23, 2006 20:27

Thanks to Michael for posting the press statement here on behalf of the Anti-War Network, and for replying to critical comments and questions.

As Concerned Citizen's comment shows - and as I believe coverage in the traditional media will demonstrate - our press statement has made a constructive impression, which may help to broaden our support base and promote the activities of the network. Thanks for that, kind Citizen!

Unfortunately, however, as Sinéad suggests, some of the comments coming from anonymous or pseudonymous critics have been unkind and unfair. Rather than thanking Michael for the time and effort he has put in on an assignment delegated to us by the network, some people have chosen to snipe at him for imaginary crimes - and haven't even had the good grace to endorse their own comments with their names.

I am left in doubt as to whether the anonymous nobodies, "anon" and "me", are somewhat thoughtless members of the network, or malicious outsiders trying to stir up ill sentiment between us? Envious of the already strong and steadily growing solidarity between us, perhaps? Or worried that the network and the anti-war movement in general is becoming stronger?

But in case any actual members of the network are confused, let me reiterate a few points:

1. Re the decision to issue a collective statement:
This decision was made without dissent at the meeting on Saturday. I note that the nobody who posted the question about this has nothing positive to say about the network, so this poster could be Michael McDowell for all I know.

2. Re reports from the network meetings:
While I think this is a good idea, I am not aware that the network has taken a decision to the effect that a report must be posted to Indymedia after each meeting.

I note that the poster who asked "Why the secrecy?" identified him/herself only as "me". Very droll! This poster could be Willie O'Dea for all I know.

It was very kind of Fintan to post his own, personal reports from a few of the early meetings, but I would suggest that anybody who was present could have posted a report, and nobody who was absent has any right to complain. If everybody had Fintan's enthusiasm, we could make great progress.

The network could perhaps take a binding decision to publish a report from each subsequent meeting, particularly if participants agreed to take turns to write these reports. Sinéad's reservation about publishing reports on strategic decisions is well noted, but perhaps we could report on matters that we need to publicise anyway? We could report re proposed meetings to plan the forthcoming day of action on 23 September, for example.

3. Re dissatisfaction with anything at all:
If you don't like the way something has been done, then please come to the next meeting and address the matter there.

As Michael has said, the next plenary meeting is at 14.30 on 16 September in the Teachers' Club.

Mind you, I wouldn't say that the plenary meetings of the network are open to all. Its activities, meaning public demos and debates, yes, but the meetings are only for people who are committed to constructive communication and collaboration within the anti-war movement. I would only welcome McDowell and O'Dea if they promised to turn over a new leaf.

Best,
Coilín.

by PaddyK Wed Aug 23, 2006 22:17

MicaelY,

Some people really are full of nonsense. and hysteria.

I agree with your strategy of highlighting the moral weaknesses in the Israeli government.
If Bush was caught fondling some woman it would be a great chance to get him out. I know the Israeli president has no real power, but it is still important that we are reminded of the corruption that is attendant in these rogue governments. Israeli leaders have touted self righteousness and heavenly destiny like an exclusive membership card for decades. Sometimes its easy to forget that among the makers of all these courageous decisions to bomb and kill defenseless families there dwells at least as many thieves and pervs as in any other government or institution.
Imagine the field day that Mossad of CIA would have if Ahmadinejad was caught pinching boys bums. They'd be looking for his head, literally.

I think the IAWN statement is a good statement , well balanced and reasoned.

One sentence sticks out like a sore thumb to me , however. :

"The conflict cannot be resolved by the identification of terrorist enemies and the use of military force against them; throughout the Middle East, this approach has provoked an ever more powerful reaction, and is thus a self-defeating strategy."

The way this reads, you seem to have afforded some legitimacy to the so-called War on Terror. You have given some credence to the poisonous fabrication that we (democratic society) are trying to defeat a "terrorist enemy" that is not part of that democratic society but that using Military means to do so is self defeating. This is not the case. Democratic society itself has been hijacked by the chief terrorists and the military force is their end product being deployed against the structures of society. They attack social values at home by promoting Islamophobia (as seen above) and by trying to engage a broad section of the youth directly in killing bogus "terrorist enemies" , as in the US Army. Then they attack the fabric of other societies by deploying military murder against them and their civilsation. War is the end result they seek, keeping people afraid of each other. They are achieving their goals in this.
In the language of that sentence I think you have let the murderers in British and American government away far too lightly, as flawed rather than guilty. I dont think I'm splitting hairs here, as language is a powerful weapon when wielded deftly but as the Israelis have proven time and again it is a demagog's playground when deployed vaguely.

Just a point, Thanks.

by Sinéad Ní Bhroin Wed Aug 23, 2006 22:59

Very good point Paddy, thanks for elaborating. I think, now that you point it out, it is misplaced within the overall sentiment & politics of the statement.

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Aug 24, 2006 00:36

There were three anti-war meets tonight in Dublin - one in the City centre one in Inchicore and one in Dunlaoghaire. Comrades from the IAWM, the IPSC and a few from the AWN were there....many non-alignd people were there...I even noted two Councillors.....discussion was far reaching, decisions made, we talked about Lebanon, Iran, the September 23 National demonstration, boycott of Israeli goods.
And back to Indymedia, before hitting the pilow, surprise.....the AWN Statement has produced what we had hoped it would. A feeling of unity, a sense of togetherness, a climate of constructive political debate and criticism. I am grateful to Sinead and Coilin and Paddy K for their comments. By entering the fray and arguing in an honest way what they know, feel and want to express....they silenced the cynics and the sceptics and the anonymistas....little I care on whether that lot are genuinely disgruntled activists, armchair soldiers or what Coilin called Government trolls in disguise.
To anon and me and that horrendous goddamn - let you be clear: The more you attack the stronger we will get. The anti-war movement in Ireland, and I believe in Britain, in the US and inside Israel is getting stronger! Despite your nonsense.
As a dear comrade put it on the way home tonight "We will not stop the war - the people fighting the Empire with arms will....but we will make the Empire's and our Government's collaboration a bit more obvious...a bit less palatable for our people.....we will weaken it...and we may even have an effect on the forthcoming elections". Well said.

by Coilín Thu Aug 24, 2006 02:42

Thanks for your kind comments about the press statement, Paddy. They are greatly appreciated.

However, you may ultimately be pleased to know that I don't necessarily accept your interpretation of the sentence you mention, as it is not the simplest interpretation.

The sentence does NOT say that "The conflict CAN be resolved by the identification of terrorist enemies, BUT NOT by using military force against them". There is no CAN, and no BUT in the sentence. Both processes are erroneous and self-defeating.

The sentence rejects the noxious fabrication that there exists a well-defined "terrorist enemy" out there which we can find and eradicate, hints that a phantom enemy has been created by identifying some people as terrorists, and states that using military means against this phantom enemy is self-defeating, a bit like shooting at our shadows. Our darkest demons are defeated not by shooting at them, but by shining a light on them - in this case by dispelling ignorance, renouncing prejudice and rejecting the "terrorist" label.

Perhaps it might have been clearer if I had written the following:
"The conflict cannot be resolved by labelling certain civilians - individuals or groups - as terrorists and attacking them with guns and bombs ...."
- but that might have been a bit blunt for the tastes of the intended recipients.

As an example of the kind of civilian groups I was thinking about when I wrote that, I might mention the thousands of civilians who could not or would not leave their homes in Fallujah before US forces attacked them with weapons of mass destruction in November 2004. Even merely labelling them as terrorists or potential terrorists was part of a self-defeating strategy.

A good strategy for the United States right now, and one which has a good chance of relieving conflict in the Middle East, might be bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, stop threatening to attack Iran and spend your billions on healthcare and education instead of wasting them on futile military ventures.

I hope this is not too vague for you!

BTW, if we must abbreviate the Anti-War Network, I propose we call it simply the AWN without an I at the start, so as to distinguish it from the IAWM.

Thanks again for your constructive comments.

Best,
Coilín.

by ostrich Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:28

The sentence rejects the noxious fabrication that there exists a well-defined "terrorist enemy" out there

Yep its all a figment of imaginations then, all those bombings and indeed those kidnappings in gaza city the other day just did not happen!! the ramblings of cave dweller osama, the affiliated network of muslim brotherhood organisations promoting death to christians and westerners around the globe is a figment of everyones imagionation

JIHAD! perhaps you can promote that at you rallies, a few of ya support it after all, but alas as perople of the west you may find yourself getting beaten to death if you ever ventured out of your western areas into say afghanistan, s. Arabia et al

by Tank Girl Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:07

Once again you have made your contempt for women and gays quite obvious. The Iranian "President" hasnt just been caught "pinching boys bums", in Iran gays are hanged, stoned to death or thrown from a height. Women are hanged or stoned to death for adultery. How is it Islamophobic to point this out?

I am a supporter of the Palestinian and Lebanese people against Zionism. That doesn't mean that I have to ignore how women are treated in Islamist societies. I also support the Iranian people against US & Zionist agression and against the attacks of the Islamist Regime. All socialists should support the progressive forces who are fighting to overthrow the Iranian Theocratic Regime.

This Islamophobic smear is only believed in by a small section of the Anti War Movement in Ireland. Only the SWP, some of the IPSC, a few Stalinists and a few independents believe that Islam is above criticism and support the Iranian Regime. The SP, SY, SF, OSF, WSM, ISN, LP, LY, AWI all support Womens and LGBT rights in Islamic societies.

Why are Paddy K and Michael Y determined to divide the Anti War Movement in Ireland? You shout loud but you only represent the views of a tiny few. Do you think that the Iranian Communists are Islamophobes? Do you support the Mullahs or do you support the Resistance?

International campaign for the defense of Women's Right in Iran
http://www.irandwr.org/english/index.htm

International Labour Solidarity Page of the Worker-communist Party of Iran
http://www.kargaran.org/_main-eng.htm

Worker-communist Party of Iran (WPI)
http://www.wpiran.org/English/english.htm

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:36

Dear Tank Girl,

From above,

"....are you suggesting that because the Iranian mullahs have instituted a barbaric anti-women/anti-gay system in Iran that this somehow atones what the Israeli heads are doing?

My comment above re:the Iranian theocracy shows, I hope you agree, where I stand. Paddy K and others can answer for themselves. And, again, if there are issues and political points that divide us, let us argue + debate in a civil and polite way...but, to use your expression, setting straw men/women as enemies, and attacking serves no purpose.
There is one issue I want to draw to your attention: You seem to be pre-occupied with division - I am sure you do know that multiplication is the other side of the same coin....and that's my pre-occupation. How to make the anti-war movement grow, how to build bridges, how to overcome deep seated wounds, how to get people to work together. This is the view that prevails inside the Anti-War Network - certainly since we began our process about 6 months ago. This is what Sinead and Coilin are talking about in their message above. This is what we'll try to do with the National demonstration on Sept. 23rd.

Then, there are others who are suspicious about this process....some inside the organisation I am part of - the IAWM, many more outside. They don't like this coalescence of forces - it goes against their sectarian grain. They snipe....they imagine conspiracies...they attack individuals and groups that are active.

What I would like to know Tank Girl is where you stand.....

by Tony Thu Aug 24, 2006 13:43

Tank Girl seems to think you build an anti-war movement by attacking the religion of the people you want to join the movement. The fact is, of course, that if people like Tank Girl (what an appropriate name she's chosen) get their way, the anti-war movement will be a tiny group of sectarians turning away anyone who doesn't meet her standards.
Of course some Muslim-majority countries (but not all) have regimes which repress women. However you need to acknowledge that the vast majority of the women in Muslim countries who oppose repression of women are themselves Muslim. Screaming at them that their religion is to blame gets you nowhere.
A simple example from my own experience in a Muslim country - Indonesia.
Women are told that they are unclean when menstruating (though it's worthwhile pointing out that the Hindu majority in the province of Bali believe exactly the same thing).
People like Tank Girl can only offer denunciations. However the women in one factory in Java were much more creative. They turned the belief against the company - by demanding paid time off work when they were "unclean". And they won.
Tank Girl also has some very restricted ideas about women's rights. So she appears to believe that it really only matters if they are killed BECAUSE they are women. This neatly lets the Israelis off the hook so far as killing Lebanese women is comcerned. After all they weren't targeted because they are women. The Zionists kill anybody. Not much consolation for the dead women, in my opinion.
She also says:
"Its Islamic countries where there is a real problem regarding womens rights and gay rights". Oh get real. Everything is hunky dorey for women in, say, the US! And those American soldiers who raped and killed an Iraqui girl - well, they must have been Muslims, eh?
Tank Girl also attacks parts of the left:
"Only the SWP, some of the IPSC, a few Stalinists and a few independents believe that Islam is above criticism and support the Iranian Regime"
Sorry - that's just a slanderous lie. I've never heard of IPSC (I live in Australia), but I've read what the SWP has to say. It's a complete fabrication to claim that they " believe that Islam is above criticism and support the Iranian Regime"
Building an effective anti-war movement requires you to work alongside a wide range of people, many of whom disagree with you about your own politics. The way to win them from what you believe are mistaken ideas is work with them on the things you DO agree about, while arguing in a comradely way about where they are mistaken.
Of course you have to draw the line, and it's obvious that Tank Girl can never be a useful partner in a real movement.

by PaddyK Thu Aug 24, 2006 21:06

OK Coilin,

You're the one doing the work and the statement is good and you are correct when you say that the simplest reading of your words is the truest. I totally agree with that.
But (please let me have one but) I think you may have pulled your punch a little and the ones who are doing the damage and covering their tracks with anti-terrorist propaganda and lies never take the simplest meaning from anything and always use ambigutiy to protect themsleves and harm others. The truth is that the military attacks are the root cause of the terrorism both in the first instance and in the ensuing reaction. We know who the chief terrorists are.
Thats all I'll say

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:28

Further to the debate above, and the Anti War Network Statement posted, we hear today that Israel has just purchased two German-made Dolphin submarines capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The submarines will be ready, according to reports, "in the next few weeks". You know 'Vorsprung dunch Technik'.

The new submarines, built at a cost of $1.3 billion, with Germany footing one-third of the bill, have diesel-electric propulsion systems that allow them to remain submerged for longer periods of time than the three nuclear arms-capable submarines already in Israel's fleet. [3+2=5]

The latest submarines not only would be able to carry out a first strike should Israel choose to do so, but they also would provide Israel with crucial second-strike capabilities. Israel is already believed to have that ability in the form of the Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, which are buried so far underground they would survive a nuclear strike.

A few queries:

One, how long will it be before some anonymista comes into this thread and argues succintly that these submarines are 'defensive weapons'? Against you know who.....
Two, why is the German Government footing €435 million of this bill? Guilt money or a straight capitalist desire to promote its own armaments/nuclear industry or both?
Three, AOB?

Our watchword in both the IAWM and AWN is 'Watch what they're planning against Iran'....the crucial time is around the US mid-term elections....November!

by outofdate Fri Aug 25, 2006 14:15

we hear today that Israel has just purchased two German-made Dolphin submarines capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The submarines will be ready, according to reports, "in the next few weeks". You know 'Vorsprung dunch Technik'.

ITS OLD OLD NEWS
DOH!!! get the correct story without the hogwash --follow the link

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/11/germany-may...x.php

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Aug 25, 2006 15:03

It's great for us in the Anti-War Movement, who are usually so out-of-date and behind the times, to have a confirmation that these submarines, actually ordered last November, are ready to go into operation "over the next few weeks" ! The price for them has since gone up slightly but that's to be expected with inflation and wars and oil issues - is it not?
What's a bit of a billion here and there.....when a whole country's security and defence is in question!

by list it all Fri Aug 25, 2006 15:29

Indeed shure saudia arabia has just purchased 74 eurofighters and Iran got a few more subs off the russians as well, it also got more missiles off of china recently,

if you were to run a list of arms flow it would encompass most countries in the world--even Ireland recently boosted with an order

so whats so special about Israels subs?

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Aug 25, 2006 15:42

From above:

One, how long will it be before some anonymista comes into this thread and argues succintly that these submarines are 'defensive weapons'? Against you know who.....
Two, why is the German Government footing €435 million of this bill? Guilt money or a straight capitalist desire to promote its own armaments/nuclear industry or both?
Three, AOB?

Under AOB - nothing special.

Except, of course, none of these mentioned countries invaded only a couple of weeks ago a neighbour and killed over 1,200 civilians, wounded tens of thousands, destroyed bridges, roads, schools, ports, airports, occupies Palestinian and Syrian land and holds thousands of prisoners without trial.
And, as the anti-war movement, we are against the proliferation of arms, of all types but especially nuclear arms - and we would like to see the money spent on arms spent on eradicating disease and poverty.

Apart from those two insignificant footnotes nothing special about Israel buying two nuclear submarines from an EU country.

by well Fri Aug 25, 2006 15:56

Tis at this very moment invading northern Iraq and exthinguishing the kurdish poulation(with the blessing of the great satan the usa), also shelling the crap out of them with turkey, both of which recently purchased arms---in Irans case russian **nuclear capable** subs

also Iranian troops were/are also in lebanon so you could hardly claim that the israelis are the only ones militarily active, but this selective processing as per usual

by indeed well Fri Aug 25, 2006 16:00

IRAN: TURKISH JOURNALIST WITH KURD AGENCY KILLED
Tehran, 11 August (AKI) - Aifar Sursu, a Turkish journalist with Kurdish news agency Firat Habar Ajenci, has been killed in Iranian Azerbaijan, along the border with Iraq. Official Iranian sources said on Friday that Sursu was wounded during an exchange of fire between Iranian soldiers and Kurdish militants from Pejak, a radical group close to the separatist Kurdish Workers Party (PKK). According to Firat, however, the journalist was murdered by Iranian soldiers because she had witnessed a clash during which Iranian troops crossed the border with Iraq.

Aifar Sursu had been in Iran several times in the past few months to report on a number of issues including the rising number of suicides among young Kurdish Iranian women

by pat c Fri Aug 25, 2006 16:02

I condemn the attacks by the Iranian Regime on the Kurdish people. There should be no weasel words from any socialists about this. If you are against the US and Israel then you should also oppose Iranian aggression against the Kurds.

"also Iranian troops were/are also in lebanon "

Where? There were claims by the Israelis about this but proof was ever produced. Its not as if the Hezbullah need fighters from the outside.

by Sacco Fri Aug 25, 2006 16:15

Lessons for the anarchist movement of the Israeli-Lebanese War
by Wayne Price

drwdprice@aol.com

The Anarchist Debate About National Liberation

The war between Israel and Hezballah is temporarily over. The left has taken a range of positions on the Israeli-Lebanese war. Anarchists have opposed the U.S.-Israeli aggression, pointing out the reactionary nature of both sides in the war. However, many have tended to equate the two sides, to treat them as equally bad, and to call for opposing the war on both sides. While there is a good deal of confusion on this issue among anarchists, it is my impression that most have failed to support the oppressed against the oppressor in this war.

by PaddyK Fri Aug 25, 2006 21:52

From an American perspective the Kurdish picture bares a striking resemblence to the Hizbollah presence in Lebanon. A highly organised military organisation/ terrorist organisation enjoying a state sponsored safe haven whilst mounting military attacks against a neighbouring state.
In fact I would be inclined to say that under Americas "entiltled to defend herself" stance regarding Israel's slaughter in Lebanon that they are on very shaky ground telling Turkey to keep out of Northern Iraq.
In fact the Turkish commandos caught by American forces in Kirkuk whilst on an assassination mission against Kurdish leaders should have been dealt with in the same way as the numerous Israeli assassinations in Lebanon and Palestine, that is a pat on the back and some more weapons and elevaiton to the status of defenders of democracy.
More evident hipocracy and double standard in Americas bogus democratisation plans for the middle East.

by Coilín Sat Aug 26, 2006 13:12

Thanks for your well-considered comments, Paddy. I agree with you on most points, but I have a slightly different perspective, coming from past dealings with the old media.

It may be useful to "speak softly but carry a big stick". In other words, we can also use ambiguity to our own advantage, e.g. to break through in the traditional media with a statement that politely condemns the so-called war on terrorism.

It is in the follow-up that we can get more explicit, as I did when you questioned the sentence in question. This might have further practical relevance at some point: for example, if I were invited to participate in a radio debate to discuss a press statement of this kind.

Mind you, I will concede that there is a risk that the too-soft statement may be abused. That's an important consideration when making statements and thinking about an ongoing debate.

On another point:
I think the military attacks - e.g. on Fallujah - could themselves be described as terrorism, but are not the root cause of terrorism, because I wouldn't call the ensuing reaction "terrorism". If Iraqis join a militia to fight the forces that killed men, women and children in Fallujah with weapons of mass destruction, including white phosphorus fired at their apartment buildings, then I would call that "resistance".

Having designated this reaction appropriately, people can then debate for themselves whether they consider it right or wrong to participate in armed resistance, but a close comparison may be made with the Danish resistance movement from the time of the Nazi German invasion, some of whom I have met in my travels.

Thanks again for your well-considered contributions to a polite and constructive debate.

Best,
Coilín.

by MichaelY - iawm Sun Aug 27, 2006 13:12

Israeli aircraft fired two missiles early this morning at an armoured car belonging to the Reuters news agency, wounding five people, including two cameramen. The airstrike on the journalists' car came as Israeli soldiers backed by two dozen tanks, two bulldozers, helicopters and drone planes moved into an area just inside the Gaza Strip near the Karni crossing.

The Reuters cameraman, Fadel Shama'a, 23, and Sabah Hamida, 25, who worked for a local television company, had the doors open and were about to get out of the armored vehicle in the nearby Shajaiyeh neighborhood to film the raid when it was struck by the missiles, according to Shamas Odeh, chief of Reuters TV in Gaza. The cameramen, along with three bystanders, were injured with shrapnel wounds and all five were to undergo surgery.

The front seats of the car were covered in blood and shrapnel had ripped up much of the inside of the vehicle. One of the bulletproof windows was completely destroyed.

The white sport utility vehicle was emblazoned with the Reuters logo and had "TV" and "Press" written on it in English, Arabic and Hebrew. "This is a cold-blooded crime," said Mohammed Dawdi, head of the local journalists union.

Capt. Noa Meir, an army spokeswoman, said the vehicle was the only one in the combat area, was driving suspiciously and came near Israeli forces during the nighttime raid. "That's why it was targeted. It was seen as a threat," she said. "There were no clear TV marks (on the car). At least we didn't see one." "It's unfortunate when journalists get hurt, but that is not the intention," Meir added.

by PaddyK Sun Aug 27, 2006 14:32

From the AWN Statement :

"The Anti-War Network opposes any plan to send Irish troops into Lebanon to police an ambiguous UN resolution...........Troops from a neutral country, such as Ireland, should play no role in policing a UN resolution that the US and Israel are likely to use to justify another war in a few months' time."

How about it AWN ? Couldn't you endorse the sending of all the bomb disposal expertise and equipment in this country to South Lebanon to alleviate the horriffic situation desribed by Caoimhe Butterly in her Democracy Now Interview. Unexploded Bombs in peoples gardens, roofs, kitchens. They would not be engaged in disarming Hezzies, not be stopping bullets from Israelis and would be immeidiately saving lives whilst acting in a truly neutral capacity. This is Ireland , disarming bombs should be like knittig Aran Sweaters for us, surely we must have tons of equipment and some of the best experts in the world.

Would the AWN support sending out a mission like this to South Lebanon?

by MichaelY - iawm (per cap) Mon Aug 28, 2006 16:20

PaddyK,

It's a great idea - a suggestion:

The next Anti War Network Plenary is set for Saturday Sept 16, 14.30 in Parnell Square's Teachers Club (Dublin). Could you make it yourself, meet us all, and put the suggestion to the meeting. Alternatively, if you cannot be there, formulate a specific proposal, with wording and all, post it here and I will circulate it to the AWN list before the Plenary

Solidarity my friend and great to see your contributions in all the relevant threads

MichaelY

by Anarko Mon Aug 28, 2006 16:53

"Solidarity my friend and great to see your contributions in all the relevant threads

MichaelY"

Are you really happy to see his contributions wherby anyone who defends womens rights in Islamic Societies is an Islamophobe? Restrain your joy a little. How can you work with someone who thinks you are an Islamophobe. It is the equivalent of being called an Anti-Semite.

On the question of Irish troops being sent to the Lebanon I wonder if there would be an agreement of the diverse groups which make up the AWN.

Some would see any involvement in Lebanon as supporting Imperialism ie the real role of the buffer force would be to keep Hezbollah down and back from the border. But the force would never be strong enough to resist an Israeli onslaught; they would not be provided with the necessary airpower.

Others would see the UN as being incapable of playing the role of an honest broker. I think it would be fair to include the SWP, SP, Organise and WSM in this camp.

Still others might support the idea of sending bomb disposal units.

Still, nothing wrong with debate. It would be a good idea to circulate proposals in advance.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Aug 28, 2006 18:42

Tried to answer your point above in the other thread re:Lebanon. Let us continue the discussion, if you wish it that is, in the other thread where we have some very interesting company.

Warm regards

by Anarko Mon Aug 28, 2006 20:09

Its a bit more peaceful over here. The likes of Anorak and Paddy K (possibly the same person) have an agenda and funnily enough it fits in with that of the SWP. Womens right are ok (for the time being) in Ireland. But its Islamophobic to look for such rights in Iran, Palestine or Iraq. Some day the SWP may decide to link up with the Catholic Church, then it will be bye bye womens rights in Ireland. The SWP sisters would of course parrot that it would be Catholophobic to demand womens rights.

Why are these people so intent on allying themselves with most backward elements of Islamic society? There are plenty of secular muslims out there.

by pat c Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:25

the idea of irish troops participating in Lebanon seems to be a contentious one. reading in the IT yesterday, RBB on behalf of IAWM (& presumably SWP) said that no Western troops should be involved. PANA were also opposed to Irish participation. SF were in favour but thought the troops should be patrolling both sides of the Israel/Occupied Palestine and Lebanese border.

If the Irish contingent were purely on a humantarian mission then I dont think it should be opposed. Surely mine and bomb clearing would count as humanitarian work?

Oh, and if you want to read the views of the International Communist Party: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78115

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Aug 29, 2006 16:13

Hi Patc,

Thanks for the kind message - as you note, the issue of Irish troops is a contentious one - not only among anti-war activists and the Left but within the State Parties. I hear, for example, that there are at least three positions within the Labour Party - with Labour Youth arguing NO TROOPS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES !
The idea of Irish troops being deployed on humanitarian operations alone is attractive - in principle. It can, of course, be discussed but its practicality, seems to me, is very much in question. Reading carefully Resolution 1701, for example, it doesn't seem to be accommodated within it. And if one judges the reaction Annan got in Beirut yesterday, after he called for the freeing of the two Israeli prisoners without any mention of the thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian hostages...things are not looking very hot on that front.
Richard's position, quoted in IT, is the collectively agreed IAWM position - along with the PANA and NGO Alliance who are the co-organisers of the Sept. 23 demonstration. As you probably know, the Anti War Network has also decided to work with the three and the meeting to decide final format is taking place over the next couple of days.

by PaddyK Tue Aug 29, 2006 19:48

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=111037

I condemn the attacks by the Kurdish Terrorist Regime on the Turkish people. There should be no weasel words from any socialites about this. If you are against the Iranians agression against Kurds then you should also oppose Kurdish aggression against the Turks and Iranians.

by pat c Wed Aug 30, 2006 14:23

"If you are against the Iranians agression against Kurds then you should also oppose Kurdish aggression against the Turks and Iranians."

Only if you are a supporter of Imperialism. The Turk area of Kurdistan is occupied by the Turkish military, Iranian area of Kurdistan is occupied by the Iranian military. You can check out the atrocities carried out by the military on the Amnesty and HRW sites.

The Kurds are entitled to Self Determination, just as the Irish or Poles are. It would probably be more appropriate to compare them to the Poles because for a long time Poland was only a state of mind and was divided between 3 empires. A bit like the way Kurdistan is now.

Paddy K, you are a funny type. You give uncritical support to the Palestinians but you support Imperialists against the Kurds.The Kurds are carrying wars of national liberation which should be supported by all anti imperialists.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Aug 30, 2006 14:51

PatC is absolutely right on this last message PaddyK. The struggle of the Kurdish nation for self-determination is not a debate issue for anti-imperialists. Their land where they lived for millenia, divided and fragmented by the Great Powers, between Turkey, Iraq and Iran, they have been fighting for autonomy and self-government for many many years now. They were attacked and slaughtered by Saddam's regime and the Turkish militarists have been waging war against the Kurdish people since WWII. They are not allowed to speak or learn their language and their vanguard organisations, particularly the PKK and their leadership have been under constant oppression.

As many nations, they are riveted by class ruptures and left/right divisions....the latter aligned themselves with the US invasion of Iraq on the, mistaken in my view, belief that my enemy's enemy is my friend.....be that as it may, your message re:the Kurds and their resistance against Turkish militarism is not admissible.....

Let us debate this issue if you wish but I hope you will retract some of the off the wall stuff about it above.

by PaddyK Wed Aug 30, 2006 16:11

The "off the wall stuff" I posted above is a parody, taken basically word for word, from an earlier post by PatC relating to the Shelling by Iran of Kurdish positions in Northern Iraq. Having said that, I don't have a problem with what I posted. The threats by the Kurdish Falcons, thought to actually be the PKK, to turn Turkey into Hell and their cold blooded murder of 3 innocent civilans and the maiming of tens more is raw terrorism.
I support the right of the Palestinian people to a just outcome to their National predicament but unreservedly exclude suicide bombings or terrorist attacks on random civilian targets as legitimate methods that this may be achieved.
The Kurdish liberation movement PJAK is highly active in Iran and openly challenges the Iranian government to warfare and engages in military attacks against Iran's military, something I dont have a problem with, but Iran cannot be expected to sit on it's hands and do nothing as cannot Turkey. The fact that the Kurds have long now enjoyed a favoured status with US military strategists and continue to conduct military and terrorist attacks with impunity from this Hegemonic Patron who similtaneously threatens Iran with a possible nuclear obliteration gives Iran a very clear reason to be highly paranoid about letting Kurdish militants flourish within it's own border, albeit its Kurdish region.
The point about the Kurds having sided with the enemies enemy in the past will ring very true for the paranoid Iranian regime and the Kurds are a warrior people who know how to pick a fight on others and on each other.
I hope the Kurds also get a just solution to their national predicament as they have suffered greatly in the past and suffer now in both Turkey and Iran, but I thought we were all in agreement on the fact that terrorist attacks of random civilian targets is always unnacceptable. In my post, which as I said is a parody of an earlier one by PatC, it is this that is condemned and not Kurdish national aspirations.

Also, if it ever comes to open warfare and the Iranians are shelling Kurdish military units, which undoubtedly will be armed, financed and trained by the US and Iran's arch-enemy Israel I wont be condemning that either. Thats war. Lets not forget that Iran has a painful history of being attacked by proxy America, vis a vis the recently deposed butcher of Bagdhad who wreaked havoc on the young soldiers of Iran with a hail of vile chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.
I dont support the Extremists of Iran, Im just being realistic. If Texas decided to split from the US and to do so planted bombs all over Florida and started shooting US soldiers in Dallas, would you all say the US should roll over? Get real.

The way to independence for Kurdistan is through political activism(preferably) or legitimate warfare, with the international community punishing warcrimes by either side, and with Turkey trying to get into the EU, we may have plenty of influence there.
However to reiterate my main point, terrorism is terrorism and should be reviled, even when it is the beloved Kurdish Altarboys Association.

by pat c Wed Aug 30, 2006 16:27

"The threats by the Kurdish Falcons, thought to actually be the PKK, to turn Turkey into Hell"

Thought by who? You and the Turkish Military?

"Also, if it ever comes to open warfare and the Iranians are shelling Kurdish military units, which undoubtedly will be armed, financed and trained by the US and Iran's arch-enemy Israel I wont be condemning that either. "

So you presume the Kurds will be armed by the US and Israel. No evidence, I guess you dont need it. Its quite clear that you will be on the side of the Iranian Regime no matter what happens.

"Lets not forget that Iran has a painful history of being attacked by proxy America, vis a vis the recently deposed butcher of Bagdhad who wreaked havoc on the young soldiers of Iran with a hail of vile chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war."

What has that got to do with the Kurds right to sef determination?

"However to reiterate my main point, terrorism is terrorism "

Attacks by the Kurds on Iranian & Turkish military and government targets are not terrorism.

by Tony Wed Aug 30, 2006 16:31

Define terrorism, without framing your definition fit your political predilections.
How about "the use of terror to achieve political objectives"?
If not, why not?

by pat c Wed Aug 30, 2006 16:35

"the use of terror to achieve political objectives"

thats a much better expression to use than terrorism. The US, Israel, Turkey, Iran all practise "the use of terror to achieve political objectives".

Why should it be denied to Freedom Fighters?

by Anorak Wed Aug 30, 2006 19:02

PatC made it clear that it was under the aegis of the right-to-self-determination (which is I think a basic right) that the Kurds were entitled to seceed from both Iranian and Turkish occupation of the areas where the Kurdish people are, and historically have been, in a minority.

by pat c Wed Aug 30, 2006 19:20

"But that is not the issue here, The Kurdish Hawks are attacking and threatening civilians and tourists which is terrorism. Also it is war crimes to destroy civil infrastructure such as schools, water/food facilities, power plants etc. So he is inciting terrorism and war crimes."

I dont support attacks on civilian targets. I have made that clear. I have not incited war crimes.

"In refusing to recognise the military and strategic support that America has lent the Kurds"

Where did I deny that the US have aided Iraqi Kurds? I think the Iraqi Kurds are wrong to sup with the devil.

"he also denies Iran's historical prerogative to fear a proxy war waged by America through the Kurds as was previously done through Saddam with chemical weapons with horrific effect."

It was Saddam who used chemical warfare against the Kurds. What planet are you living on? PLease give any evidence of US military support for Iranian Kurds.

"Apparently Iran has no right to defend itself because the Kurds are the Darlings of the Left.|"

It has no right to defend itself afaiac because it is a dictatorship that denies the right of self determination to the Kurds. It also denies democratic rights to all of its citizens.

"Also the allegation that I support the Iranian regime over the Kurds is boloney as can clearly be seen in my post above."

Its not clear to me. On the pretext of opposing the US you give full support to the Iranian Regime.

by PaddyK Wed Aug 30, 2006 20:48

Our messages crossed over, but I see that you have finally managed to sum up a general statement opposing attacks on civilians.
If you care to look at the post where I "condemned" the Kurdish attack on civilians in Turkey using your previous wording, you will see that I attached an article relating to the terrorist attack in Turkey by the Kurdish Hawks. You decided to twist this into an allegation that I support the Iranian regime. How weird.
You still have not made a specific comment about the tragic attack in Turkey like you did when the Iranians shelled a mountain range known to have militant Kurdish bases. How sad.
Yes, Saddam gassed the Kurds and Saddam gassed the Iranian army. In fact, physically collected evidence at a "battlefieled" strongly indicates that in one single attack by chemical warfare against the Iranian army at least 4700 soldiers were killed. In Iraqi official state speak of the day : the waves of insects wiped out by iraqi pesticides.
Now What planet do you live on?

by pat c Wed Aug 30, 2006 20:56

"You still have not made a specific comment about the tragic attack in Turkey like you did when the Iranians shelled a mountain range known to have militant Kurdish bases. How sad. "

Known by who? Known by the Iranian armY? Just like the IDF know that Hezbollah are in a house and ends up killing 20 children.

I have made it clear that I condemn attacks on civilian targets. What part of that do you not understand?
Bye now I'm off home to Pluto. It will always be a Planet to me.

by omg Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:52

PatC made it clear that it was under the aegis of the right-to-self-determination (which is I think a basic right) that the Kurds were entitled to seceed from both Iranian and Turkish occupation of the areas where the Kurdish people are, and historically have been, in a minority.

err no they are actually a majority in those areas, what you fail to get is that say in Turkey they make up 30-40% of the TOTAL population, 15-20% in Syria, 15-20% in Iran, 15-20% in Iraq. As all these countries are absolutely rotten to the core with corruption and zero democracy(if you wanna call Turkey a democracy go ahead..lol). When the Iraq war kicked off the Kurds organised in Iraq and merged there 2 main areas to create effectively an area that they controlled and therefore brought political clout to them in Iraq

they are now trying to extrapolate that to the kurdish areas in each of the above countries, however these are countries with appalling records of human rights abuses

Its funny from a political perspective(also very tragic) that while the freeing say of the shites in Iraq gains Iran great power in the area, they(the coalition) have also freed the Kurds, although the US/EU etc have them outlawed as terrorists you can expect the kurds to increase their attacks on the turks, iranians et all as that is where they have massive population belts also

so it is interesting to see what these countries will respond with, as per usual for these countries, torture and massive violation of human rights is actually the norm(not the exception like the west) so i would expect them to be in the news much much more as the kurds up their campaign and in return the countries under attack return to the brutal savagery that they regularily dish out to the kurds(their methods make Israel look saintly)

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:21

The Anti War Network statement on the invasion of Lebanon by Israel and the ensuing issues was posted here just over a week ago. 19 people responded with 62 comments - the last one a few minutes ago.
About half of the respondents were not really concerned with the contents of the statement - produced by three AWN participants. They brought up a number of questions of process, of identity, of what is the AWN...
The other 10 engaged very seriously. I want to thank omg,Sacco, PatC, Tank Girl, Tony, Anarko, Paddy K [in no particular order] and, of course, my comrades Sinead and Coilin for investing their time and energy to discuss and debate many issues - most of them not covered by the statement itself but certainly related to what is going on, and likely to happen, in the wider Middle East area. But this is the nature of Indymedia and of our politics 'in gestation' so to speak - and it's great. I have learnt a lot from this debate. Long may it continue.

Now where?

Two points: the AWN, in its last Plenary, decided to support the Sept 23rd demonstration, initially organised by the 'troika' of PANA, the NGO Alliance and the IAWM (with a host of affiliated organisations such as SIPTU, the ATGWU, the IPSC and most of the opposition parties). Organisations such as AWI/WSM, Cosantoiri Siochana, the Belfast Peace + Justice Group and the Unamanageables are currently discussing all aspects of the Sept 23rd initiative with the 'troika'. This is a very hopeful sign and, if successful, likely to produce a big, large, vibrant, colourful show of force of a united anti-war movement. Watch this space.
The second point is an attempt by a number of us to organise a serious public debate, on the evening of Wednesday 20th, in the Royal Dublin Hotel. The theme of the debate will be 'What Happened in Lebanon - why was Lebanon Invaded?'. This will be a 3 v 3 debate with each speaker having 7 minutes to develop their argument. A very interesting and articulate set of speakers are being lined up to argue both sides of the issue. There are only 300 seats in the function room so please let your friends know - and come early. I would be particularly delighted to see and get to meet some of the comrades, mentioned above, who contributed to this debate.

All comments welcome

by Anti-War Irelander Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:53

Michael refers to "AWI/WSM". Is this tit for tat because the IAWM has become popularly known as IAWM/SWP? It won't work, though, because Anti-War Ireland is far, far broader than the IAWM in terms of its composition. Cheap shot.

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Aug 31, 2006 13:13

I am delighted to hear that AWI is far wider than the IAWM "in its composition". This is another indication that the anti-war movement in our country is growing by leaps and bounds.

As for my use of the AWI/WSM above - I am personally overjoyed to see a serious and large anarchist organisation joining forces with the AWI.

Far from it being either "a cheap shot" or "tit for tat" - as I am accused of - it was a statement of fact reflected by my keyboard. I only heard that the two have been working together a couple of days ago, from the horse's mouth so to speak, and it was most certainly not my intention to either attack or criticise. Or to suggest that one of the two manipulates the other. In fact, as I said above I am glad - it's a good sign of unity. An example to follow.

Incidentally, for many of us who are, and working very hard, in the IAWM without being members or close to the SWP - you now know how we feel when the Paisleyite acronym is used by our 'fans'.

by PKWatch Thu Aug 31, 2006 14:50

I think Paddy doesnt just see the big picture hes sent on here by someone to distort it. I've put together a selection from his comments. You will see that he supports Iseaeli attacks on Hizbollah and he seems to think that the Israelis can attacj wiith pinpoint accuracy. He also supports the Turkish and the Iranians against the Kurds. He bizarrely claims that the Kurds were acting with Saddam against Iran. He now thinks that the Yanks are arming the Kurds against Iran.

Paddy K has a serious phobia about Kurds. Anyway watch him.

"Nor could I rightly pour scorn on a well aimed Israeli shell taking out the hideout of a suicide bomber operation and saving tens of its own unarmed civilians by terror attack."

"Apparently Iran has no right to defend itself because the Kurds are the Darlings of the Left."

"In refusing to recognise the military and strategic support that America has lent the Kurds he also denies Iran's historical prerogative to fear a proxy war waged by America through the Kurds as was previously done through Saddam with chemical weapons with horrific effect."

"Iran cannot be expected to sit on it's hands and do nothing as cannot Turkey."

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Aug 31, 2006 15:41

"Paddy K has a serious phobia about Kurds. Anyway watch him".

Thank you for the useful advice ever-watching friend. I have been reading carefully PaddyK's various contributions about Iran, the mullahs, Islam, more recently the Kurds too. I studied him with interest when he argued against PatC and Tank Girl....at one instance I told him his comments about the Kurds were "off the wall" - he didn't flinch - he explained. In my opinion, he doesn't know and he doesn't understand the Kurdish nation - but then how many of us here in Ireland really do?

You must admit there is so much nonsense thrown around in this gig that it's hard to fathom who is genuine, who is a plant, who is a troll and who is a paid soldier of the Empire. There are message scribblers like Felix Quigley, and the so-called 'Pragmatist' who, like shooting stars come in, attack everything and everybody who utters an anti-imperialist word and then disappear for a few days. Then back again. I am not a graphologist but you learn to recognise the style. That's why I asked earlier to stick to political issues in this thread at least and leave the personal/organisational invective aside.

The constant gibberish about the SWP, however deserving that organisation may be of political critcism, doesn't help either. We need to work together and build a strong united anti-war movement. Many in the SWP, the AWN and the IAWM will be with us...some of them, a small number methinks won't be, however, because they suffer from a deep-seated sectarian cancer. No drugs no therapy for that I'm afraid.

Anyway, as you said, I don't know who PaddyK is...as far as I am concerned, he will continue regaling us with his views and we, as much as you, will be reading and watching with care. OK PaddyK? Keep it up -

by hugh o'donnell Thu Aug 31, 2006 23:23

How about you do something practical to help people of Palestine. See opinion column below by Hermann Kelly calling for boycott of Israeli goods in support of Palestinians.
Email your reaction to column to Examiner letter page : letters@examiner.ie
It's time to oppose Israeli intransigence and work for peace

Opinion Column for The Irish Examiner, Thursday Aug 31, 2006
Why it's time for Ireland to boycott Israeli goods and impose sanctions
by Hermann Kelly

At the start of the latest conflict in Lebanon, I was going to write an article supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, and the danger of the rise of fanatical Islamic jihadism, but now, as the fire embers are turned over, and the bodies of innocents are laid to rest, I think it’s time to deal with the root causes of conflict in the Middle East - the activities of Israel, and the ideology of Zionism.
France’s President Chirac was spot on, saying on Monday that the various crises afflicting the Middle East are all interlinked, and "the interminable Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is at the heart of the problem.
Apologists for the actions of Israel often point out, quite correctly, that they are a response to provocation, that it is a matter of tit for tat, of like for like. This is true to some extent. Yes, Arabs have killed Israelis and vice versa. During the recent Lebanese/ Israeli conflict, 10 Arabs were killed for every Israeli. Not quite equal batting. However the Palestinians have never done to the Israelis, what Zionists have done to the Palestinian people.
What happened in 1948, was that 700,000 Palestinian people were violently expelled, in more modern parlance, ‘ethnically cleansed’ from their own land, and supplanted by Zionist settlers.
This is the original sin, the monumental crime and grave injustice which festers at the heart of the Middle East conflict. If peace is ever to come about, this injustice must be made good.

To further aggravate this violent expulsion, the Israeli government’s “Right of Return Law” since 1950 has barred the Palestinian people, both Muslim and Christian from returning to their homeland, and refused any compensation. A UN resolution of 1974 (3236): "Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return." Israel of course, has absolutely no intention of allowing this to happen.

Even today, many resident Arabs are discriminated against in a despicable fashion. It is not without reason therefore that the United Nations General Assembly in 1975 adopted Resolution 3379, which states as its conclusion: Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination. This was rescinded in 1991 as an Israeli condition before entering the Madrid Peace talks.
But surely, the actions of Zionists cannot be equated with ideas of racial superiority? If we look at the way in which the Palestinian people are currently treated by the Israeli government, our suspicions may be aroused that they are not treated with full human rights.
But how about the Palestinians in the land occupied by Israel after the “Six Day War” in 1967? Perhaps they are being well treated at present? Sadly no.
If people don’t believe that Israel is an apartheid state, they should examine not only the laws of return but also the corralling of Palestinians in the West Bank into swathes of land completed ringed by 25 foot concrete walls, enclosed areas in which Israeli security forces decide who may enter and who may leave. For the Palestinian people who live there, it is little better than an open-air prison.
Two years ago, after much deliberation, and listening to all sides, the International Court of Justice in The Hague declared the Israeli construction of these concrete separation barriers to be against international law, and called for them to be taken down. What is Israel’s response? - to keeping on building. If there ever was an obstacle to peace, the wall is it.
The people of the world look on in amazement as this concrete “separation barrier” or ‘apartheid wall’ grows by the day. What the wall does is squeeze the Palestinians into small, economically deprived and disconnected segments of land. In many ways, they resemble a ‘bantustan’ from the South African apartheid regime.
If it sounds as though I’m pushing the argument a bit far, it was Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Dayan, who in 1967 publicly called for the creation of "a sort of Arab 'Bantustan'" in the West Bank similar to the nominally independent ‘homelands’ established in South Africa.
Going one step further, John Dugard, a South African professor, serving as the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine in 2004 described the situation in the West Bank as "an apartheid regime ... worse than the one that existed in South Africa."
Well, if international sanctions could be brought to bear on apartheid-South Africa, then why not present-day Israel?
Israel needs to be pressured in order to act justly, and comply with accepted international law. It is time, I believe, to carry out a boycott of Israeli goods, and encourage the Irish Government to divest in Israel and impose sanctions against this runaway state.
The recent Lebanese conflict has shown up the myth of the Israeli army’s invincibility for what it was; a myth. The military confidence of the country has been weakened. It is now in their own best interests that the Israeli’s make peace with their neighbours, as, demographically time is not on their side. Sanctions may also, perhaps, concentrate their mind on the benefits of peace for the whole Middle East region.
Post reaction to letters@examiner.ie

by Paul Keane Fri Sep 01, 2006 22:43

Hermann Kelly is right on here about Israel. The best is not only way for ordinary working class people to do anything about the tyranny that is going on in Palestine is to boycott their goods. Its about time someone shouted stop. I'm glad someone has the balls to stand up and say this in the national media. it's about time. Bang off a letter to the paper if you're smart enough. Keep an eye on the Examiner letter page for next week . Should be interesting.

by antiwar Fri Sep 01, 2006 23:07

The letters page of the Examiner has been buzzing with debate about Israel for the past two or three weeks. Seven letters from Anti-War Ireland members have been published as well as one or two others from people appalled at Israel's behaviour. The response has been a steady barrage of apologist letters from the pro-Israel lobby - these letters have been fired off from as far afield as Haifa and New York, where, as everyone knows, the Irish Examiner is widely read!!

by Paul Keane Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:34

Yes, it's true, there have been many anti-war letters in the Examiner the last few weeks, and it's a bit funny that the pro-Israeli letters come from the Munster strongholds of Haifa and New York. That makes it all the more neceesary to consolidate and support the bunker-buster of an article by Hermann Kelly on what is going on in Palestine and what ordinary people can do about it. A copy of hIs whole article appears on the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign website www.ipsc.ie. Read it, and reply to the Examiner letter page - Letters to Editor, The Irish Examiner, Academy Street, Cork or letters@examiner.ie

by indy trawler Mon Sep 04, 2006 17:19

MichaelY tries to equate the AWI with the IAWM/SWP by associating it in some way with one of the groups involved in AWI, the WSM, thus we get his AWI/WSM snide remark. As has already been said, this is a cheap shot but is also completely wrong as a trawl through recent postings regarding AWI public meetings and statements on indymedia will demonstrate.

Check out the IAWM and we keep getting the same public speaker and name on all their public statements: Richard Boyd Barrett of the SWP. That's it.

Check out Anti-War Ireland and here's what a trawl uncovers. I have added the individuals political affiliations if known, in the interests of fairness. These people have publicly identified themselves in recent weeks as spokespersons for Anti-War Ireland:

Prof. John Maguire (no party)

Dominic Carroll (no party)

Harry Browne (no party)

Fintan Lane (Irish Socialist Network)

Colin Coulter (no party)

Deirdre Clancy (no party)

John Jefferies (Workers Party)

Colm Breathnach (Irish Socialist Network)

AWI a front for the WSM? ? ? Huh?

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Sep 04, 2006 17:52

For those who can read - and having read can understand plain talk - including 'indytrawler'

From my message above:

Far from AWI/WSM being either "a cheap shot" or "tit for tat" - as I am accused of - it was a statement of fact reflected by my keyboard. I only heard that the two have been working closely together a couple of days ago, from the horse's mouth so to speak, and it was most certainly not my intention to either attack or criticise. Or to suggest that one of the two manipulates the other. In fact, as I said above I am glad - it's a good sign of unity. An example to follow.

As for the iawm, the 24 people who have joined us around here in Dublin over the past five weeks are, quite obviously, stupid, moronic, ignorant, incapable of taking initiatives, love to be politically manipulated and, incomprehensibly all of them, partially or a few totally blind! They include a few non-Irish activists as well but they don't count - do they trawler?

Happy ....my anonymous friend? You can quote me if you wish.