VIVA PALESTINA CONVOY CHANGES COURSE
Gaza aid convoy to change course from Al jazeera
Organisers of Viva Palestina aid convoy, which is trying to reach the Gaza Strip, have now agreed to go via Syria en route to Egypt.
The agreement came after a Turkish mediator reached a deal with the Egyptian consul in Jordan’s Red Sea port of Aqaba.
The convoy will now head to the Syrian port of Latakia to sail from there to the Egyptian port of El Arish, and then to Gaza.
The Viva Palestina convoy, which has been stranded in Aqaba for the past five days, is led by George Galloway, a British MP.
Turkey dispatched an official on Saturday to try convince the Egyptians to allow the convoy to go through the Red Sea port of Nuweiba, the most direct route to Gaza after Egypt insisted that the convoy can only enter through El-Arish, on its Mediterranean coast.
Viva Palestina and another convoy, The Gaza Freedom March, were planning to arrive on Sunday to commemorate the first anniversary of Israel’s war on Gaza that killed 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis.
Meanwhile, at least 300 French participants of the Gaza Freedom March spent the night camped out in front of their embassy in Cairo, bringing a major road in the Egyptian capital to a halt as riot police wielding plexiglass shields surrounded them.
Egypt angry
Hossam Zaki, an Egyptian foreign ministry spokesman, accused the French protesters of lying and trying to embarrass Egypt.
“They claimed they had aid to carry to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, which is a lie,” the MENA news agency quoted Zaki as saying.
“They want media exposure and to pressure and embarrass Egypt,” he said.
On Sunday, police briefly detained 38 international participants in the Sinai town of El-Arish, organisers said.
“At noon (1000 GMT) on December 27, Egyptian security forces detained a group of 30 activists in their hotel in El-Arish as they prepared to leave for Gaza, placing them under house arrest.
“Another group of eight people, including American, British, Spanish, Japanese and Greek citizens, were detained at the bus station of El-Arish in the afternoon of December 27,” they said.
On Sunday, Egyptian police also stopped some 200 protesters from renting boats on the Nile to hold a procession to commemorate those who died in the Gaza war.
On December 31, participants are hoping to join Palestinians “in a non-violent march from northern Gaza to the Erez-Israeli border,” the organisers said.
Good news,
Comment by Derek Wall — 28 December, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
good to hear some progress is being made
please circulate details of the next London protest
news Forwarded from Stop the War
The Egyptian government is preventing the Viva Palestina aid convoy from
entering Gaza. A delegation is handing in a letter of protest at the
Egyptian embassy tomorrow. Anyone who can join is very welcome. If you can’t
please send messages of protest to the embassy and to the British government
at the addresses below.
PROTEST DELEGATION AT THE EGYPTIAN EMBASSY
******************************************
South Street London W1 (off Park Lane, Marble Arch or Hyde Park Corner tubes)
10am Tuesday 29th
The contact details for the Egyptian Embassy in London: 0044-20-7499-3304 /
eg.emb_london@mfa.gov.eg (Consulate: consulate.london@mfa.gov.eg )
Your local MP: http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/
David Miliband (Foreign Secretary) milibandd@parliament.uk - (0191) 456 8910
Nick Clegg (Leader of Lib Dems) - nickclegg@sheffieldhallam.org.uk
cleggn@parliament.uk
British Embassy in Egypt Tel: +(20)(2)27916000 information.cairo@fco.gov.uk
Comment by sylvia ebberly — 28 December, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
Remind me again - is this charity or is it politics?
Comment by Anonymous — 28 December, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
#3
It is politics giving practical solidarity.
the UK Charity Commission made a unilateral decision to categorise Viva Palestina as a charity
Comment by Andy Newman — 28 December, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
http://islamic-intelligence.blogspot.com/2009/12/fighting-to-break-gaza-siege-galloway.html
3 Comment by Anonymous FUCK YOU!
Comment by carole — 28 December, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8433010.stm
Comment by Anonymous — 28 December, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
Limitations on any potential Obama adventure due to International and American balance of class forces!
American Imperialism is working to undermine the Iranian Bourgeoisie’s influence within the Middle East. This is why the Yemini government armd forces; the Saudi Air Force; and American air forces are carrying out airstrikes on various rebels in northern and eastern Yemen. That is very dangerous because the Iranian Bourgeoisie has strategic interests in these parts of Yemen which they warned Saudi Arabia not to undermine when they initiated airstrikes two or three months ago. In the last fortnight the Houti rebels in northern Yemen have claimed that American bombers bombed 25 targets (sorties) in a few hours of air strikes. US’s Imperialisms’ strategic objectives is to dominate the Middle East and the Horn of Africa. There are vital natural resources which they want increased ownership of.
As I noted nearly a year ago in polemicising against those on the left who broke principles of class independence from Bourgeois politicians by advocating a vote for Obama that due to the worse crisis of American Capitalism/Imperialism it could not be ruled out further military adventures. A qualifcation which I stated then limiting their ability to do this is that the Neo-Cons had done so much damage to Capitalism that it played into the hands of a rising world revolution and rapid radicalisation within the Imperialist countries. It will take time for Liberal Bourgeois elements in America to reverse this damage.
The dialetics of history with abrupt changes in history surprises even farseeing Marxists. It is absolutely increditable that with the extreme racism of American Capitalism that a radicalisation the biggest since the Roosevelt era would throw up a Afro American Bourgeois Populist to contain it. Astute Liberal Bourgeois strategists used Roosevelt and Obama to contain two major radicalisation within the confines of Bourgeois politics. One major difference between these Liberal Bourgeois Populists is that American Imperialism is at a different stage of development. Roosevelt represented the rise of American Imperialism as a major power despite the threat of Socialist revolution due to the hardships of 1930s depression. By salvaging American Capitalism until World War 2 he helped them to develop as a citidal of world Capitalism. This laid the basis for the 1948-1973 boom which enabled American Capitalism to buy off large numbers of American workers off.
Obama represents the decline of American Imperialism as Capitalism begins to enter its worse crisis. The decline of American Imperialism started with losing a war in Vietnam. American Imperialism failed to restore Capitalism in Russia with Yeltsin losing out in 2000. Trotsky’s analysis of how unstable the Russian Bureaucracy is as a caste can be seen by changes in personell at the top even now. Putin and Medivev represents different Bureaucratic factions. One thing is sure the Bureaucrats opposed to Capitalist restoration will not tolerate from Medivev what they out of weakness accepted from Yeltsin. The failure to restore Capitalism in Russia was decisive in influncing Eastern Europe. If Russia had gone Capitalist, it would probally led to a similar development very quickly in those countries as well. Compounding that defeat American Imperialism was losing two major wars under Bush and a depression began a year or 18 months before Obama came to power.
Losing these two wars; the beginning of a depression; and the human right abuses which exposed American Imperialism for what it was really like caused one of the biggest radicalisations in American history. One major domestic refom Obama has conceded to mass pressures is the beginning of a very limited health service. There are paraells with this and the 1906 reforms forced out of a Liberal party government when they won a landslide general election victory. Both Trotsky and a Tory Prime Minister Arthur Balfour agreed this landslide was caused by a revolutionary upheaval spreading westwards from a revolution during 1905 within Russia. The purpose of Liberal reforms was to stop the Labour Party formed in 1906 from growing, and to contain any revolutionary threat. That Liberal Bourgeois strategy failed due to World War 1 horrors, and the impact of Russia’s October 1917 revolution which saw Social Democratic governments in Britain for the first time. Those reforms from 1906 the British Ruling Class were forced to deepen after Labour’s 1945 landslide victory to contain a revolutionary threat. Trotsky’s statements during 1938 that the workers organisational break from Bourgeois politics may bypass a mass Social Democratic party straight to a mass revolutionary party which overthrows Capitalism is possible due to a similar acute Capitalist crisis.
Obama is going to find it hard to repair the damage to the global image of American Imperialism due to the crude barabarism of the Neo-Cons crimes! This is why American Imperialism is making concessions to the Russian and Chinese Bureaucracies in order to contain revolutionary challenges threatening world Capitalism. Last September I failed to realise this would slow down Cold War tensions because until a deal was made on American missiles not being located in Poland and the Czech republic was done to incorporate them to stop the rise of world revolution it seemed tennsions were rising. If Obama carries out any adventures in Latin America or Iran this could sharpen up tensions with these two Workers’ states again which could escalate. This could be a pretext for hardline Stalinists to purge Medievev.
Obama has repeated Bush’s mistakes in encircling Venezulea and Cuba. This could deepen the revolutionary process in Latin America as it is harder for American Imperialism to make deals with Bourgeois Nationalists; Social Democrats; and elements of Castroism. The pro-Imperialist regime in Yemen is being threatend by three different rebel groups from three major regions of that country. That is why the Saudi and American air forces are bombing two lots of rebels in northern and eastern Yemen in an attempt to prop that regime up. There are elements within the American ruling class who believe this can only happen by them stepping up this bombing. If there is any danger of this happening it is vital the anti-war movement organises mass protests because a war could lead to two regional wars involving Iran to Eritera in the Horn of Africa; against Saudi Arabia. If two regional wars fuse this is the most serious threat to world peace since 1945. Any deepening of a American Imperialist adventure in Yemen the pro-Imperialist regime there could be overthrown and the Saudi monaracy could also suffer a similar fate. This is indicated by the Houtas gaining Saudi terriotory. Once the American masses have been broken in illusions in Obama Trotskyists should start a camapign for him to resign.
Comment by Anthony Brain — 28 December, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
You crazy bastard
Comment by Jota — 28 December, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
There ain’t half been some clever bastards.
Comment by jock mctrousers — 28 December, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
But George says that it isn’t charity. He also asked to be taken to court last time he was in Gaza.
Comment by Anonymous — 28 December, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
a bad translation
Sadly there were 1400 men women and children
murdered with cast lead attack on Palestine by
the Zionist Israel.
So if someone who has the time to give up there
Christian Christmas celebrations to sit in a 100
degree car park to deliver medicine to children
who are dying from starvation with no electric
no fresh water no parents no future destined
to a life in poverty and all you can say is spreading
contempt for a person of Mr Galloway’s caliber my
God you would never be good enough to wipe the
floor he walks upon you are one sick individual and
you will rot in hell or your slanderous innuendos
full of contempt
Comment by anon — 29 December, 2009 @ 12:32 am
DELETED
Comment by Mick — 29 December, 2009 @ 1:21 am
Fuck off back to Harry’s Place you pricks.
Comment by jock mctrousers — 29 December, 2009 @ 1:48 am
To anonymous, or is that Gutless, @ no 13
I was there in the square in Gaza city when George handed over his own personal money to the elected representatives of the Palestinian people, and that’s the point. They are the elected representatives, funny old thing democracy.
Yes, its was done as publically as possible, and yes, he invited the authorities to take him to court. There’s no secret about this. Still no court date, though I believe the Canadian Government made it an issue.
I was extremely proud to be there at the time of the handover.
Glad to have been part of Viva Palestina. In fact I stood on a chair to get the best shot of the moment, so instead of you having to provide a link. Here’s my photo
http://www.vivapalestina.org/galleries/gaza_100309.htm
NJOI
Comment by Richard Searle — 29 December, 2009 @ 2:12 am
Richard Searle:
“I was there in the square in Gaza city when George handed over his own personal money to the elected representatives of the Palestinian people, and that’s the point. They are the elected representatives, funny old thing democracy.”
So, do you agree that all of Israel is Palestine and that it should be reconquered through Jihad and the imposition of Islamic Law?
Comment by Mick — 29 December, 2009 @ 2:34 am
To mick and anonymous, two cheeks of the same arse.
I wasn’t aware that the 29th December was National Idiots Day.
Derr..like you want a rational debate..
If there’s anything else I can do to annoy you, please let me know,
otherwise, I’ll be doing want I can to support the Gaza Freedom March and Viva Palestina
Comment by Richard Searle — 29 December, 2009 @ 2:49 am
DELETED
Comment by Anonymous — 29 December, 2009 @ 2:59 am
So what is new, politics and money, hand washing hand.What is new though, is the importance of getting this aid through,and if it is done with the aid of a oppertunistic politician to garner support for his party or feed his ego so what, i say good on him for his tanacity.As for his politics, come polling day the people will have their say.
Timothy,i do admire your staunch belief in Trotskyism,but have you ever heard of Timothy Leary.
Comment by howard — 29 December, 2009 @ 3:29 am
DELETED
Comment by Anonymous — 29 December, 2009 @ 3:36 am
One would hope that the delegation would ensure it arrived at those in need.
Comment by howard — 29 December, 2009 @ 4:45 am
Ignoring the trolls - who didn’t give a fuck where Israel’s missiles landed in Gaza and have nothing to say about rebuilding the place, but seem to care an awful lot about accountancy - the point about the charity status is that in the UK, you can be declared a charity against your will. We all think Viva Palestina is a political solidarity and aid movement, but the Charities Commission decided otherwise.
I was also in Gaza City when the money was handed over, and maybe the only thing that matters is that the people of Gaza knew that this was about solidarity and politics as much as it was about aid. The guy who came up to me and told me that his son had been killed at home by a missile - he knew that no amount of aid could ever compare to the fact that hundreds of people had travelled thousands of miles to deliver it.
All of this, of course, doesn’t matter to the sort of people above, who can call Hamas a “violent, militant group” yet wouldn’t dare utter the same words against the thugs who murdered 1400 people only a year ago.
Comment by tony collins — 29 December, 2009 @ 8:53 am
I think the real question is, who paid for Richard Searle’s chair? Zionists, who wanted a good picture of Galloway handing cash to the Hamas government, or Hamas members, who wanted a good picture of Galloway handing cash to the Hamas government?
Comment by tony collins — 29 December, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
Tell me, if the Palestinian’s “enemies” were not the Jews (or say the “Zionists”), would you than put in scene all these “solidarity campaigns”? Galloway’s gestures than move me to tears - of compassion with such a wicked hypocrite.
Comment by Gwunderi — 29 December, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
#23Tell me, if Galloway was showing solidarity with someone other than the victims of zionists would you be having a go at him for that?
Palestines enemies are the zionists, not the Jews as a people. Why the inverted commas for zionists, thats one of the things they call themselves?
Btw do you think the Nazis were “enemies” of the Jews,the Poles etc, or were they their enemies?
Your answers will allow me to judge whether you are a “wicked hypocrite”.
Comment by armchair — 29 December, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
http://swanseaactionforpalestine.blogspot.com/2009/12/swansea-media-coverage-of-convoy.html
Comment by anon — 29 December, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
«Palestines enemies are the zionists, not the Jews as a people.»
So all Zionists are enemies of the Palestinians? Since when? Than I’m an enemy of them too? beeing a Christian Zionist (but not for theological means at all).
Well, than let me re-formulate my question: If the Palestinian’s “enemies” were not Zionists (and 99% of the Zionists are Jews or friends of the Jews, and that is what counts) - would you than put in scene all these “solidarity campaigns”?
I let “enemies” because fighting for self-defense is far away from the enmity nazis had against the Jews (as you want to complicate the matter).
Comment by Gwunderi — 29 December, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
Gwunderi - I would support Viva Palestina and oppose the people killing them and building wall around their livelyhoods and families no matter what race or religion they were. Get over yourself and your desperate attempts to smear people as racist.
Comment by ben — 29 December, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
‘99% of the Zionists are Jews or friends of the Jews.’
This is merely racist crap.
The most powerful Zionists in the world are not Jews. Countless US presidents, heads of state and parliamentarians in Europe and around the world, and representatives of Western capital, are overwhelmingly not Jewish or have any affinity with Judaism or Jewish culture and tradition.
The occupation of Palestine by Israel is not a religious matter.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 29 December, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
So? Than can you tell me why the few “pro-Palestinians” I know personnally can’t stand the Arabs/Muslims in general and didn’t spend one word about the genocide in Darfur, but shed (crocodile) tears over the Palestinians? Well, I don’t want to generalize: only 95% of the pro-Palestinians are camouflaged anti-Semites.
Comment by Gwunderi — 29 December, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
You seem to have accidentally deleted my posts - I don’t think I said anything offensive, did I? I mean, someone told me to, quote “Fuck off”, unquote, and I haven’t been rude to anyone or anything.
Comment by Anonymous — 29 December, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
as Dozy Mick posits the question @ 15
“all of Israel is Palestine and that it should be reconquered through Jihad and the imposition of Islamic Law?”
What about most of Palestine currently being conquered by Illegal settlements, a number run by religious fanatics who believe God gave them the land,
evictions of Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem,
annexations of land by the aparthied wall.
It wouldn’t need ‘re-conquering’ if it wasn’t being conquered.
What about one single state where there were no walls, borders, and equal rights were guaranteed for all, socially, religiously and economic.
Comment by Richard Searle — 29 December, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
#28- People have different political priorities in what they campaign on. we can’t all campaign on everything we care about.
There are many people who purely focus on what is going on in Darfur, are they now racist towards Palestinians as they don’t defend them?
I think it is just and right that people campaign against Israel government actions and I really don’t give a shit what their state religion is.
Comment by ben — 29 December, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
Richard Searle
“What about one single state where there were no walls, borders, and equal rights were guaranteed for all, socially, religiously and economic.”
Are you sitting at a computer keyboard or a white piano? I suggest you read what Hamas actually says it will do, rather than infer their policy from a John Lennon song.
Comment by Boab — 29 December, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
I know Boab! If we’re not careful, we could end up with a state in the region that fires missiles into residential areas, schools, religious establishments, hospitals etc., that shoots up graveyards as it leaves an area, that destroys sewage networks, that starves people, that refuses to allow people out for medical treatment, that won’t allow aid in, that uses the most horrendous weaponry, that orders civilians to evacuate and then fires on them as they do so!
We’d best be vigilant.
Comment by tony collins — 29 December, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
What is enourmously disgraceful about the kinds of arguments put foward by Boab and HP generally, is the absence of any condemnation of a blockade which means that even the most elementry re-construction for the civilians following the war crimes committed by Israel last year are impossible. The blockade is in itself a war crime.
Comment by johng — 29 December, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
Well it would be really nice to argue the issues and I’m sure we’d all learn somethign if real debate was permitted, sadly my elementary points and facts about George’s strange approach to humanitarian aid seem to have been deleted for some reason - it’s almost as if you want things to remain on a “fuck you, they did this, the other lot did that” level rather than establish the facts.
Have fun now!
Comment by Anonymous — 29 December, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
johng
But is it not incredible that in all the time Hamas was unable to get the most basic of medicines, and no building material it did manage to get enough material for around 10,000 122 mm Grad rockets and enough concrete to build a bunker - tunnel network. And in such an impoverished area with no work or employment a fraudulent tunnel scheme managed to raise 200 million dollars investment from ordinary citizens.
and Tony…
that description also fits Hamas.
Comment by Boab — 29 December, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
DELETED
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
The tunnels are the only way in which people in Gaza stay alive. The attempt to shut them is a warcrime.
Comment by johng — 29 December, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
DELETED
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
“The tunnels are the only way in which people in Gaza stay alive. The attempt to shut them is a warcrime”
Then why use them to smuggle in material to build rockets ?
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
I have a question for Andy Newmann. Hypothetical but i think important all the same.
Andy constnatly deletes comments from “zionists”. He deletes comments which are not abusive and purely because he disagrees with them politically. So i know it’s never going to happen but if Respect ever won a general election and took power , what would Andy and co. do when large numbers of the British Jewish community complained about Respect’s policy towards Israel and Hamas ? Would he silence people and if so then how ?
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
Bennet a deeply incisive set of emails. You have given everyone here pause for thought. So insightful and above all, humane and intelligent.
Comment by johng — 29 December, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
Thanks John G. Your comment was like being savaged by a dead sheep.
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
Your witticisms are as original as your anti-palestinian spamming bennett.
Comment by johng — 29 December, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
No spamming and nothing anti-palestinian John. It’s easy behind a computer screen isn’t it John ?
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
John , just out of interest , what exactly is anti-palestinian about my comments ? Do you agree with using tunnels to smuggle in rockets and material for building rockets ?
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
Bennett, are you arguing that Hamas should be allowed, as Israel is, to buy weapons from other countries, develop its own weapons openly etc., so it no longer has to use tunnels to smuggle weapons in?
I think you should be clear in your call there.
For me, I think that if people bleat about plucky little Israel having the right to self-defence, they should at least accept that the government of Gaza has the same right.
(And that’s putting aside conversations both me and Richard had in Gaza with doctors who are having to smuggle medical equipment through the tunnels because Israel and Egypt won’t allow it in)
Comment by tony collins — 29 December, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
Tony - how was shooting rockets after Israel withdrew (and before any siege began) an act of self-defense ?
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
Tony , if Hamas cared about it’s civilian population it would - recognise Israel, declare a final peace based on 2 states , full dismantling of settlements. 2 states.
Oh and not some Hudna which means nothing. There have been signs of this but also the opposite total rtejection of 2 states. Everybody knows that’s the end result so you should encourage them to do so. BTW - If you don’t support a 2states then we’ve nothing to talk as it doesn’t matter to you whatever the Israeli state does.
I mkust say that Respect and co will be pretty much knackered if there’s ever a peaceful settlement because it will loose them one of their main campaigns. Still they’ve always got MAB and the Muslim Brotherhood to pander to so i guess they’ll still carry on in some way.
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
#48
Like a typical apologist for settler colonialism, ethnic cleansing and apartheid, Bennett attempts to protray brave, plucky little Israel as victim. Of course the fact that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land since 1948 means nothing. This is what comes under manifest destiny, white man’s burden, and the entire panoply of anodyne justification for invading, killing, and expropriating the land and resources of ‘inferior’ peoples.
Oppression breeds resistance. It’s as true now as it was under the ancient Greek, Roman, and every colonial empire and occupation there has ever been.
Bennett chooses to ignore this simple causation for the simple fact that he is at bottom a racist.
Comment by Anonymous — 29 December, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
BTW Tony , i don’t believe the current Israeli government will accept what i’ve suggested but until Hamas do so they’re just the excuse the Israeli right need.
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
Hamas has offered Israel a 20 year truce, as I’m sure you know. Moreover, Israel has scuppered, broken, and violated every peace initiative agreed from Camp David to Oslo to Madrid and more in between.
It is not Hamas that is the problem as far as Israel is concerned, it is the continued presence of the Palestinian people on land they covet for themselves, in line with their desire for a Greater Israel. Israel has no intention of allowing the emergence of a viable Palestinian state with control of its own borders, resources, economy, and air space. It is only interested in breaking the will to resist of the Palestinians.
Comment by Anonymous — 29 December, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
A Hudna is a waste of time , it’s just a tactic to re-arm and wait for a possibility to take up the “armed struggle” and total rejection of Israel again sometime in the future. Why twenty years ? Why not 500 ?
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
How is creating an open air prison, blockading it economically, building illegal settlements throughout in defiance of international law and a series of UN resolutions and bombing civilians an act of self-defence?
How is building a state in a region in which Zionists had little historical interest (note that Uganda was agreed with the British government as a Zionist homeland before Balfour) then militarizing it and terrorizing Arabs in the region an act of self-defence?
How is perpetuating an economy that has no independent viability of its own and relies on US financial aid (just as Egypt does) constitute an act of independence?
Bennett has a gift for putting a foot in his/her mouth.
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 29 December, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
DELETED
Comment by Anonymous — 29 December, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
How did it become Muslim land?
Comment by Boab — 29 December, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
Bennett, if Israel wanted a peaceful settlement based on two states, they could quite easily make moves towards it by offering a complete withdrawal from all the occupied territories, recognising the right of the Palestinians to control their own borders (including airspace and sea) etc, there is no indication at all that this is on Israels agenda, indeed the only reason that Israel withdrew from Gaza (whilst maintaining a stranglehold over it) was to concentrate on expanding and maintaining the illegal settlements on the West Bank. Israel has quite simply never made any meaningful moves towards a peaceful and just settlement with the Palestinians.
As for Hamas for all their faults they in fact have said for the moment they are prepared to accept the existance of Israel in return for a withdrawal from Palestinian lands, and Hamas has only been in office for a few short years, I don’t recall a different attitude towards a meaningful settlement from the Israelis beforehand?
Comment by Graham — 29 December, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
Well said Graham #59. Bennett and co. seem to forget how much devastation was wrought upon the Palestinian Authority ( and the Palestinians of the West Bank)in the months(and years) leading up to Arafat’s death a few years back. Talk of any “solution” to the problem by Israel is window dressing for their real aim which is the removal of Palestinians from the land of their birth.
Comment by Omar — 29 December, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
59 “As for Hamas for all their faults they in fact have said for the moment they are prepared to accept the existance of Israel in return for a withdrawal from Palestinian lands, and Hamas has only been in office for a few short years, I don’t recall a different attitude towards a meaningful settlement from the Israelis beforehand?”
Can you tell me when Hamas said this ? Also what is your definition of “Palestinian Lands” ?
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
Omar - well i don’t agree with the current Israeli government (as i indicated uptop). But if Israel offered 2 states based along the Green Line , and full dismantling of settlements then would you support this a a final peace ? Is it what you call for ? I do by the way.
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
There can be no real peace without justice, which would mean redistribution of resources. A federal Israel/Palestine with equal access to resources is the only way forward. Stuff the racists and bigots on both sides.
Comment by ecolefty — 29 December, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
A single state solution offered by Hamas.
“The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinct Palestinian Movement which owes its loyalty to Allah, derives from Islam its way of life and strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.
Only under the shadow of Islam could the members of all regions coexist in safety and security for their lives, properties and rights.
In the absence of Islam, conflict arises, oppression reigns, corruption is rampant and struggles and wars prevail.”
Comment by Boab — 29 December, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
no 32.
“I suggest you read what Hamas actually says”
I did one better Boab the Bore.
I spent a couple of nights staying at the house of the Gaza foreign minister , and had breakfast with him, where we discussed everything from Obama’s election, two states, the journalism of Robert Fisk
I spent the evening of my 46th birthday in the company of the Hamas MP for Gaza City, (they baked me a cake and sang me Happy Birthday in English and Arabic)
Whereas you’ve had a discussion with how many members of Hamas.. and therefore be able to make a much more educated statement..
Comment by Richard Searle — 29 December, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
Re- Bennet at 59, see
http://theimpudentobserver.com/world-news/hamas-accepts-1967-israel-border/,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24235665
By Palestinian lands I was referring to The West Bank and Gaza Strip, i.e the lands that would form any part of a viable Palestinian statelet, as for Boab at 62, so what to be honest, Hamas do not have the ability to carry out such an aim regardless of their aspirations which is all that is, they have said they are prepared to put that to one side in exchange for Israeli recognition of the 67 borders.
Comment by Graham — 29 December, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
“But if Israel offered 2 states based along the Green Line , and full dismantling of settlements then would you support this a a final peace ?”
Along with reparations for confiscated Palestinian land and the full right of return, it might just be acceptable but I don’t believe most Israelis would accept it.
Comment by Omar — 29 December, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
“Whereas you’ve had a discussion with how many members of Hamas.. ”
I have met several members of Hamas, and interviewed the Libyan and Syrian heads of the MB. They said that they see the re-conquest of Palestine as a religious duty and it does not matter if it takes twenty or two hundred years. Kemal Helbaway said the same thing a year or so beforehand. Any peace settlement would by only a stepping stone. He added that the Palestine problem was both a curse and a blessing. The pain of loss was great, but this issue has united the Ummah like no other in recent years.
It is quite surprising just how many senior members of this movement hang around ELM.
Comment by Boab — 29 December, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
with all this claimed experience
why the collection of profoundly crass statements, unless you’re some Murdoch Hack,
on the CIA payroll, or in some other nefarious employment
Comment by Richard Searle — 29 December, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
Hi Graham. We can both google and we can find Hamas talk about 2 states but then we can also find Hamas leaders saying they will never accept 2 states. I’m about to watch a film but if you think i’m wrong then i’ll find some links tomorrow. But an official declaration by Hamas would make it firm.
There’s a problem that Hamas supporters and some anti-zionists say that it doesn’t matter what Hamas say because Israel will never accept a real and viable two states. On the other hand i know many Jewish friends who support Israel and say it doesn’t matter what Israel does because Hamas will never accept 2 states. So the extremists on both sides use the other sides intransigence as an excuse for moving more to the extreme on their own side. I prefer to argue what i wish to see which is a real 2 states along the Green Line and full dismantling of settlements and all settlers to leave the WB. This doesn’t go down well with Respect supporters or right wing zionists. But it’s what i believe and i stand by what i believe.
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
#68
“I prefer to argue what i wish to see which is a real 2 states along the Green Line and full dismantling of settlements and all settlers to leave the WB. “
This would also need to return East Jeruslam, give the palestinian authority control of its own borders, and uninhibited traffic and commerce between the West bank and gaza.
This would require a big scale removal of 500000 settlers from the West bank
But on that basis a permanent peace could probably be secured.
However, it is not the palestinians acting as an obstacle to such a solution but the Israelis - it was the failure of Israel to implement their side of oslo that discredited Fatah in the eyes of so many palestinians and alowed hamas to win the election. It is Israel who continues with the illegal settlements, and the segmentation of the West bank with the walls.
So how come you spend all your time criticing the palestinians, and not the Israelis?
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 December, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
But Bennet the difference fundamentally is that Israel is the only side that can make those moves, it is Israel that would have dismantle the settlements, remove the embargo on Gaza and the restrictions on Palestinian movement.
As Andy says just above if you want a two state solution why concentrate your arguments on the side that is the actual obstacle to that.
Also in terms of Hamas you asked me when they had said that they were prepared to accept the existance of Israel in the here and now, the links provided show that, however as I said earlier in real terms Hamas simply do not provide a real threat to Israel in any way do they?
Comment by Graham — 29 December, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
#71
Correct. Objectively, the biggest obstacle to any lasting and meaningful peace are the settlers. They have already shown a willingness to use violence to prevent any encroachment on what they see as their divine right to settle the land (the religious settlers, that is), and the Israeli govt thus far has shown a marked reluctance to bear down on them in any way shape or form. As Andy says, there are 500,000 of them living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They carry huge political and moral weight within Israeli society. They will have to be dealt with if there can be a lasting peace, however.
Comment by John — 29 December, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
There are of course also around 500000 non Jewish citizens of Israel, the so called Israeli Arabs, economically and socially discriminated against within their own country; and who for some generations have had little or no commerce or interaction with the Palestinians. BUt the privatisation of the Israeli economy, and the introduction of tens of thousands of migrant workers to replace Arab labour has hit them hard, and many live on wages under subsistence level.
Taken as a whole the Jewish and non Jewish populations of the whole gaza, Israel, West bank, Golan Heights territory is roughly half and half.
So the danger for the right wing Zionists is that if they continually thwart a two state solution, then they polarise a full 50% of the population in the territories they effectively control into opposition to Israel; then their prefered solution of Zionist hegemony over a subordinated Arab population may become simply too unstable to provide economic and physicial security.
The expected demographic shift could make the Jewish citizens a minority within our lifetime.
In which case a one state solution, may be the only viable end game; but if that happens in a situation of political and economic instablity and therefore disinvestment, a one state solution may not be on terms to their advantage.
It is very surprising that friends of Israel do not point out to them the deangerous game they are playing.
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 December, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
Andy “So how come you spend all your time criticing the palestinians, and not the Israelis?”
Firstly i’m criticising Hamas and not the palestinians. Andy , you , Galloway and Respect are pro-Hamas. So on this site i point out why you are wrong. When i’m debating with right wing Israeli supporters i spend all my time criticising the settlers and the Israeli government. And it’s funny because they say that i never criticise the Palestinians.
As i’ve said already i support the removal of all settlers. I don’t shrill for the Israeli governement and you can check any of my comments to see this. I have no problem with dividing Jerusalem. SO by all means criticise Israel for the settlements but it doesn’t mean you have to be lackeys for Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood. Viva Palestina is working with some really dodgey groups and yet you seem to ignore this. I think your playing with fire , i think that your so desperate for a constituency that you are using the issue of Palestine / Israel as a form of recruiting and by working with groups such as MAB you are allying yourselves with real reactionaries. You don’t see the Soc Party doing this. But for Respect it’s central.
BTW - i remember speaking to a guy i knew when Respect first started, he even chaired a meeting for Respect. He was quite pro-Respect and said that as Muslims were one of the most oppressed sections in Britain that the link up with MAB etc was correct. After a couple of years he’d changed his mind and saw Respect as having sacrificed socialism and replaced it with support for right wing Islamism. I’m afraid Andy that you know that you’ve put all your eggs in the Respect basket and that’s why you’ve got no choice but to continue working with reactionaries. SA failed , COTL was a non starter and you’ve nothing left.
I think you’ll see Respect disintegrate after the next election or simply be based around Salma and George. ANd i think that the Soc Party will continue to grow as it keeps away from MAB type politics.
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
Yes i agree , the settlers and their supporters may end up doing the work of the one staters.
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
Richard Searle boasts on this thread about kipping at the Hamas foreign minister’s house. Which proves my point.
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
You have a point ??
you seem more confused, and…
you had a friend, who said something once, now he’s changed his mind.
Blimey, I had a friend like that as well
and you have evidence of GG being pro-Hamas, which is strange, since George has always stated that he is a follower of the late Yasser Arafat, and not a supporter of Hamas, but he, unlike you respects the wishes of the Palestinian people to elect their own representatives. Plenty of YouTube clips to back that up
Comment by Richard Searle — 29 December, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
Say, if you don’t want people to argue with you, can you just print the party line and the parameters beyond which we’re not allowed to deviate in your masthead? It would be a lot easier than trying to argue with you guys.
Comment by Anonymous — 29 December, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
Grow up Richard.
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
Question for Richard Searle. Are you a supporter of Hamas ?
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
Question for bennett. Are you a supporter of democracy?
If so then Hamas must be recognised as the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinians. This means that contrary to what you have stated, in an attempt to appear balanced, your problem is not with Hamas but with the Palestinians who elected them.
Why did they elect Hamas? Because they are not corrupt, because they provide social services, hospitals, schools. Because they refuse to give up Palestinian rights as Fatah did at Oslo.
But what has been missing from your comments is one simple fact. The Palestinians are the ones who’ve been wronged. It is they whose land has been expropriated, who’ve been ethnically cleansed, occupied, dehumanised, imprisoned without due process, seen their culture and their history under sustained attack.
Only the strong can compromise and only equals can reach agreement. Hamas are neither. They are a product of Israel’s decades policy towards the Palestinians.
The most dangerous extremist organisation in the Middle East, based on all the empirical evidence of war, occupation, and militarism, is the Israeli govt. It is they who need to compromise, not Hamas. They have zero to compromise with.
Comment by John — 29 December, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
John , yes i am a supporter of democrcacy but it doesn’t mean i have to give support to a party just because it won an election. Do i need to give examples ?
John - perhaps if they’d accepted 2 states over 60 years ago things would be different. It must really rub you that the Palestinian Jews won in 48 and weren’t defeated.
In a way some of the commenters on Su are a bit like the Arab states and Palestinian leadership in 1948 - great at giving it the verbal but that’s about all.
Comment by bennett — 29 December, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
“Question for bennett. Are you a supporter of democracy?
If so then Hamas must be recognised as the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinians. ”
Does that mean that if I don’t support Gordon Brown then I’m an enemy of democracy?
Comment by Anonymous — 29 December, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
Thanks John, that would have been my question.
But to answer the question am I a supporter of Hamas ?
Unconditional but critical support, (and we’ve not debated that for while)
Standing alongside the victims of imperialism, defending their right to resist, while disagreeing with their politics.
I don’t get to pick the politics of those who resist, should I only support the victims of imperialism when they’re signed up to my particular brand of socialist politics, and they then become worthy of my support.
Lenin took that view of the Easter Rising in Dublin, the best of the left has followed that same principle in the Algerian war for independence, the Vietnam war
What surprised me in conversations with Hamas members is how much more moderate they were than my expectations.
Comment by Richard Searle — 29 December, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
By the same token you could argue that the Michigan Militia are “victims of imperialism” (Working class Americans have indeed been screwed pretty badly) and that therefore you support them unconditionally in their attacks on the borgeous Zionist one world government… In fact your position demands that you support every two-bit Nazi in the West - after all, you don’t pick the politics of those who resist, right?
Comment by Anonymous — 30 December, 2009 @ 12:06 am
Go on then, using the marxist method argue why the Michigan Militia are victims of imperialism
You get 1 point for putting your name down correctly on the paper,
Comment by Richard Searle — 30 December, 2009 @ 12:16 am
You can turn over your paper and start anytime…
Comment by Richard Searle — 30 December, 2009 @ 12:18 am
Pencil or crayon
Comment by Richard Searle — 30 December, 2009 @ 12:19 am
I’ve decided that the Michigan Militia consist of Working class Americans. Wages for this social group have not risen in real terms since the 70s and in fact fell by a noticable amount in this time. This is all because of the imperialistic US system of outsourcing jobs to the developing world, where people are exploited by US imperialism.
Surely, comrade, we must support the working class whereever they are oppressed and marginalised by imperialism? Even if we don’t agree with their politics at least we can say that, for instance the Branch Davidians were resisting US imperialist rule over Waco?? And so it is with the Michigan Militia. That bomber who attacked the federal building in Oklahoma, another classic act of resistance against the imperialist US government which drives down the living standards of the worers and oppresses the weak….! Why do you support Hamas but not these heroes of the American working class movement? Just because their politics are a bit different…!
Comment by Anonymous — 30 December, 2009 @ 12:21 am
You must be a member of the AWL
Comment by Richard Searle — 30 December, 2009 @ 12:25 am
Richard I am sure you have better things to do with your time than debate with the AWL at 12.30.
I know I have.
Comment by Derek Wall — 30 December, 2009 @ 12:26 am
Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot, the actual working class are out of fashion among “socialists” these days. As is any mention of capitalism.
So why don’t you support the well known British resistance organisation that is the BNP? Just because they’re a bunch of fascists who stand against everything you believe in doesn’t mean they’re not the elected representatives of Barking and Dagenham, North West England and so on. After all you have to support the people’s elected representatives wherever they are to be found even if you disagree with everything they have ever said or you hate democracy, innit?
Anyway, you don’t get to pick the politics of those who resist, even if they’re resisting something completely different - should you only support the victims of capitalism when they’re signed up to your particular brand of socialist politics??
etc, etc, etc
Comment by Anonymous — 30 December, 2009 @ 12:35 am
“Unconditional but critical support, (and we’ve not debated that for while)”
SO what’s the critical bit Richard ?
Comment by bennett — 30 December, 2009 @ 12:47 am
“Anyway, you don’t get to pick the politics of those who resist, even if they’re resisting something completely different - should you only support the victims of capitalism when they’re signed up to your particular brand of socialist politics??”
The fatal flaw in your ointment, to mix metaphores, is that you Zionists use the same argument to defend so-called “plucky little” Israel. So if we follow your ill-thought through logic you should be defending Hamas. Don’t you argue that they want a religious state just like you? As you believe you share so much in common it’s a bit hypocritical of you not to support them. Oh wait a minute, you did until they got elected. But since when have the Zionist supported democracy.
Q: How do Zionists spell ‘democracy’?
A: ‘a-p-a-r-t-h-e-i-d’.
Comment by Ray — 30 December, 2009 @ 1:28 am
But I’m not a Zionist and I’m not defending Israel. I’m just very sceptical about this whole palestine thing.
Comment by Anonymous — 30 December, 2009 @ 1:53 am
“But I’m not a Zionist and I’m not defending Israel. I’m just very sceptical about this whole palestine thing.”
Pull the other one…
Comment by Ray — 30 December, 2009 @ 5:01 am
no 91. thanks derek, I did realise that I had better things to do, precisely at 12.30
Comment by Richard Searle — 30 December, 2009 @ 9:04 am
‘John - perhaps if they’d accepted 2 states over 60 years ago things would be different. It must really rub you that the Palestinian Jews won in 48 and weren’t defeated.’
So here we get to the heart of bennett’s views on the issue. For all he attempted to keep up the appearance of being balanced and reasonable on the issue, the mask finally slips here.
He fails to recognise the deep injustice inflicted on a people whose only crime is and was back in 48 the fact they lived on a land coveted by at the time European settlers. He refuses to acknowledge the fact that they were condemned to pay the price by the major powers for a Nazi holocuast in which they played no part. Instead he posits the view that a war was fought in which the Palestinians were defeated and therefore what happened next was justified - i.e. might is right.
Well, bennett, all I can say is that with this opinion you are putting forward the perpetual war for perpetual peace theory of politics.
Why should the Palestinians have agreed to losing more than half their land to a minority of European settlers back in 1948? Would we in the UK agree to such a thing? WOuld any people?
But you expect the Palestinians to.
The point is however that we’re now approaching 2010 and are no nearer to a viable settlement than we’ve ever been.
You said you don’t support Hamas. Again, though, what about those Palestinians that voted for them? Are they to be punished? Do they deserve everything they get? Was Cast Lead a case of punishing the Indians?
Comment by John — 30 December, 2009 @ 9:49 am
“The point is however that we’re now approaching 2010 and are no nearer to a viable settlement than we’ve ever been.”
We’re a lot further away than we were in the 1990s. Why don’t you support the peace process instead of Hamas? What you’re doing is like if one of our HP friends loudly and consistently supported a the right wing Israeli government and then said “oh well they are democratically elected” and “peace is never going to happen anyway”. It is daft.
Stop being daft. You are a socialist, socialists don’t support ruling classes and ruling parties, so your position makes no sense. Please make sense. I can haz sense tiems nao plz?
Comment by Anonymous — 30 December, 2009 @ 2:01 pm