Direct action against Israeli attacks

this was said in relation to coffee machine saying this.

which was in turn in relation to Lazlo saying this.

So your criteria were clearly aimed at the stopping of military supplies going to Israel. They weren't in relation to some nice charicatured activisty action involved a d-lock and Mark and Spencers, but the very idea of "preventing military supplies going to Israel".

Now what i would like to know is what makes the Israeli arms any different to the arms headed for Iraq that the train drivers refused to move? Because as i have pointed it out, it fails on all your criteria laid out for the Israel example. I would like to know what magical property the Iraq action had that allows it to fail the three criteria you laid out for the Israel one, but yet still be worthwhile and valid.

At this stage may I suggest the value of it is in what I posted earlier. And further more i think that this holds true for workers doing a similar thing over Israeli military supplies.

It seems to me that having recoiled from your activist days and into the "concrete" struggles of everyday life, you have forgotten that everyday life and struggles are not mere cold calculations of self interest and "material gain" but infact are as dependent on things like "principles","hope" "symbolism" and even a touch of "idealism" the things that give colour to life and things any decent workers movement from the CNT to IWW has understood and had in abundance, infact taking pride in it, seeing it as something that marked them off from the other unions who cared only for short term material gains.

Hi

I’d be disappointed if you think that this is an adequate response to my challenge. Understand that I am not interested in changing your mind (any allusions to it should be regarded as cheeky humour), only to understand and consider your analysis.

Your flippant refutation is easily dismissed anyway, Israeli weapons exports do not preclude the potential for their self-sufficiency. Even if you’re able to stop the import of raw materials, Israel will use what resources it has to annex capital from the surrounding regions, furthermore such sanctions will provide it with extra leverage to do so.

Let me repeat my appeal…

But the specifics of whatever “Direct Action” you wish to take is merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the reactionary nature of what I suspect you’ve got planned. Please tell us what it is you want to achieve for the region and why it’s in your best interests to see it come about.

Love

LR

ahem, no jack i'm not being disingenous, as he was infact referring to my post, and therefore he would have only been talking about some twat d locking themselves to the deli section of Marks and Spencers if I had actually been referring to that. Now i'm no hardcore cartesian but i'm pretty certain I can know my own mind well enough to know that I wasn't referring to that.

Maybe you should think about things abit more before making knee jerk posts to assumptions that only exist in your somewhat limited mind.

you continously do this and then take up 3 pages of a thread in flux between defending your bullshit and staging a tactical retreat.

I think it says alot for you that on a thread trying to discuss the possibilities of anti militarist action that the only thing you have offered is a criticism of some phantastic activist action that haunts your psyche, I'm sure a psycho analyst would see something in that, but me being but a lay person just can't quite put it together.

Sorry jack this is absurd, as if you can just invent an action you "think" a poster would support and criticise this. Meanwhile the rest of the board is suppoused to have some sort of telepathic link with you, and therefore understand that you were actually criticising an imaginary action that you are assuming a poster would support?

Quite dear.

Obviously the rest of us were wrong to see it as a criticism of the possibility of useful anti militarist actions, you know the topic of the conversation at the point of your interjection.

On behalf of everyone who failed to understand where you were coming from, I sincerely apologise and we promise to make amends in the future. Needless to say we will be sure to imagine a lovely strawman for your cutting criticism to destroy in future.

We will also take a leaf out of your book and assume posters opinions on a thread on the basis of their percieved positions. As such everytime you talk about supporting a strike through solidarity action, I will picture you in a white body suit chopping down crops in a field, afterall if you are so generous to extend this previlege to coffeemachine, we should have the decency to return the favour.

nice post

revol, all jack was criticising was the type of "action" that was intended by that meeting - egging embassies/d-locking to marks + spencer or whatever.

I think he could've made that clearer, but still. Also, stop flaming jef in non-flaming forums.

The tone of debate here has definitely taken a turn for the worse again. Please sort it out.

that may or maynot be the case but it was you who played the useful idiot by a) not explaining any of this but rather mouthing off in your typical kneee jerk way and b) putting out cirticisms that would exclude almost any anti militarist action possible at this moment by workers or not.

So if coffeemachine was shitstirring he certainly won, because he lead you into the trap of dismissing the possibility of "anti militarist actions" rather than elaborating specific criticism of proposed "activist" actions.

So maybe just maybe you need to let us all into your head before making posts filled with so many assumed "givens", or failing the telepathic approach perhaps you could just explain such things in your post.

Your three criteria for dismissing an "action" are still bullshit though, for reasons I pointed out numerous times.

You reckon?

I mean it's not like he interjected his shite criticisms at a point in the debate where i was defended the possibility of "anti militarist" actions that went beyond A team activism.

Hi

Alright then comrade. Well have to agree to disagree. I tell you what, if in five years time you haven’t managed to collapse the Israeli economy, or if you have, it hasn’t improved the Palestinian condition, you can give me £1000, else I give you £1000. How does that sound?

Popular movements like Hezbullah, Hamas, Likud and Kadima. If you can think of any others, feel free to specify them.

Love

LR

Hi

Oh yeah. The recession really put us off the Falklands war in 1981, not to mention both sides during WW2. You might want to revise your thesis, coz it seems to assume that hardship quells nationalism rather than exacerbates it.

Love

LR

Hi

Rather than derail this thread, I’ll entertain for a moment that international macro economics and fiat money don’t render your analysis entirely abstract and meaningless. Instead, if the “help” of activists is not needed then they should not be encouraged to act. Perhaps you are trying to bring them out of the woodwork to make easier for them to be properly ridiculed.

Love

LR

Hi

As you say.

Please explain what conditions you wish to create, how each group you support is bringing them about, and how the activism you advocate supports those groups.

Love

LR

Hi

Ahhh bless. Cofe Anan wants peace too. You could get “peace” by allowing one side to eliminate the other. That would also have a positive impact on increasing class conflict on the winning side, with no war to worry about. So I suspect there must be more to it than that, please elaborate on which scenarios for peace are acceptable to you.

Bear in mind, you still haven’t shown us any evidence to support Hamas’s “near recognition” of Israel, which would be against their constitution. Here’s a story from the Telegraph if it helps…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/26/wmid26.xml

Note, this is for an Israel with 1967 UN Borders. Please confirm your support for a 1967 UN Border Israel…

Presumably your weapons embargo, if successful, would place Mr Abbas, the Palestinian President trying to broker a peace deal based on the 1967 borders, in danger.

Never heard of 'em. Please post a link so I can analyse their political agenda. In order to confirm their impartiality, please explain what they’re doing to disrupt arms shipments to Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Presumably you wish to disrupt arms shipments to Israel. If that’s to stop them from having weapons, then it won’t work, as already discussed. If it’s to wreck their economy, you’ve said that’s not what you want. If it’s to raise awareness of Israeli “injustice” then it’s a waste of time, everybody knows already.

Love

LR

Hi

Thanks Laz. We’ll wait and see if Hamas changes its constitution to support the 1967 UN Borders, as you seem to. I’m glad we’ve managed to nail down your position at last.

As you say, I agree that Israel likes provoking Hamas into extremism, and visa-versa. Anyway, from your source…

It would seem that sanctions against Palestine are more effective when it comes to advancing your agenda than protesting against Israel, UK and US foreign policy.

Now to CAN. Given the only relevant demand they seem to have here is “Israel out of Lebanon”, which the UN has sorted out for them, they must be happy. I assume they support the 1967 UN border as well, but they don’t seem to be too concerned with Hezbollah’s shelling of Israel, perhaps they ran out of room on their banner, or do they think Hezbollah are beneath their liberal humanist lobbying?

Supporting CAN here is much the same as sending a message of admiration to Cofe Anan, I can’t really see the point, unless there’s some more fantastic insight pending regarding another of their hobbyist crusades.

Let me break it down for you one more time….

1.
There’s no reason for assuming that stopping (or attempting to stop) weapons imports into Israel is going to further your agenda. Especially given the fact the Israel supplies weapons to the pro-1967 Border Palestinian Presidents’ guards in order to protect him from Islamicist extremists.

2.
Further, Israel has a stock pile of weapons large enough to keep itself going until it can manufacture its own from raw materials. Your only recourse will be general sanctions, and if that campaign pays off in any meaningful sense, Israel in poverty and crisis will simply nuke anybody it fancies off the planet altogether. Perhaps you would be interested in how Thatcher got the Exocet disablement codes from Mitterrand during the Falklands war.

3.
Repeated from my last post. You know as well as I do that you can’t hope to stop weapons imports to, or manufacture in Israel. Given you don’t want to wreck their economy either, all that could be achieved is to raise awareness of Israeli “injustice” which is a waste of time because everybody knows already.

Now your only valid counter is going to be take a stand against the Imprisoned Hamas Leadership’s proposal for a 1967 UN Border or refute one of the three points above. Otherwise you're going to have to withdraw your support for CAN and tell us what Israeli border you think is necessary for “peace”.

Love

LR

Hi

Oh I don't know. I mean we import coal, but we don't need that. It's all a bit of game really. Besides, as already stated, bringing discomfort to Israel hasn't furthered your cause of "peace", in fact its exacerbated war. I’m sure they’re more concerned with Hezbollah rocket attacks and Hamas suicide bombers than some UK hippies with a banner.

Please address the previous post as instructed.

Love

LR

Hi

Laz, work with me here. This is not a game of wits, but an honest enquiry into your political theory. The point is we have plenty of coal, but choose to import some for the sake of international financial arrangements. The same goes for Israel. They import weapons because it's cheaper for them to do so. You stop imports of this or that, cause them "discomfort", as you say, then it’ll exacerbate the war as it always does.

All the evidence points to sanctions against the Hamas government, not Israel, causing the imprisoned Hamas leadership advocating the 1967 UN border, so your efforts against Israel are misdirected if you truly want “peace”.

I take it from this personal attack that you’ve discovered you can’t address the post without either taking an irrational position or changing your opinion on some key point. Don’t worry comrade, you won’t be the first. It happens to us all eventually.

If you're struggling as to how to address the post, I suggest you take each sentence and if you agree with it say so, and if don’t then refute it using logic rather than pedantry. If you like I can give you an example of how one might do that, but it'll be a bit patronising and what remains of your reputation and credibility will be in tatters.

Love

LR

Hi

Actually Laz, the last paragraph of my post doesn’t make too much sense, although if you cut me a bit of slack I’m sure you could work out what I meant, here’s the post again, cleaned up a little to make it easier for you…

We’ll wait and see if Hamas changes its constitution to support the 1967 UN Borders. I take it your celebration of their moderation implies your acceptance of the 1967 UN Border also. I’m glad we’ve managed to nail down your position at last.

As you say, I agree that Israel likes provoking Hamas into extremism, and visa-versa. Anyway, from your source…

It would seem that sanctions against Palestine are more effective when it comes to advancing your agenda than protesting against Israel, UK and US foreign policy.

Now to CAN. Given the only relevant demand they seem to have here is “Israel out of Lebanon”, which the UN has sorted out for them, they must be happy. I assume they support the 1967 UN border as well. They don’t seem to be too concerned with Hezbollah’s shelling of Israel, perhaps they ran out of room on their banner, or maybe they think Hezbollah are beneath their liberal humanist lobbying.

Supporting CAN here is much the same as sending a message of admiration to Cofe Anan, there’s no point, unless there’s some more fantastic insight pending regarding another of their hobbyist crusades.

Let me break it down for you one more time….

1.
There’s no reason for assuming that stopping (or attempting to stop) weapons imports into Israel is going to further your agenda. Especially given the fact the Israel supplies weapons to the pro-1967 Border Palestinian Presidents’ guards in order to protect him from Islamicist extremists.

2.
Further, Israel has a stock pile of weapons large enough to keep itself going until it can manufacture its own from raw materials. Your only recourse will be general sanctions, and if that campaign pays off in any meaningful sense, Israel in poverty and crisis will simply nuke anybody it fancies off the planet altogether. Perhaps you would be interested in how Thatcher got the Exocet disablement codes from Mitterrand during the Falklands war.

3.
Repeated from my last post. You know as well as I do that you can’t hope to stop weapons imports to, or manufacture in Israel. Given you don’t want to wreck their economy either, all that could be achieved is to raise awareness of Israeli “injustice” which is a waste of time because everybody knows already.

Now one valid counter is going to be take a stand against the Imprisoned Hamas Leadership’s proposal for a 1967 UN Border, in which case you’ll have to tell us what Israeli border you think is acceptable for “peace”. Another valid counter will be to refute any of the three points above, otherwise your support for CAN’s political aims are unfounded as they do not lead to “peace”.

Love

LR

Hi

No problem at all, Laz, always a pleasure.

I get that impression. I have to say I sympathise with your perspective.

Ho ho. You’ve changed your tune. Weren’t they on the verge of recognising them earlier? I can’t find where you asserted it, so I’ll have to let it go. Still, nice one.

For the love of all that’s holy, do you want to rephrase that? It sounds like you support an organisation that sends it members over the border to suicide bomb busses on the grounds that it seems to be moving towards the de facto recognition of the country it’s bombing, despite not changing its constitution to reflect it.

Agreed. But I can’t see how what you’re advocating is going to reduce Hamas’ attacks, instead they seek to justify and encourage them by casting Israel as the greater of two evils.

Concede to the Islamist military and they’ll stop blowing Jews up and kidnapping them, because really they just want peaceful coexistence around the 1967 border. It didn’t work in Lebanon, Laz. You’d better remind us of events leading up to Israel’s Lebanese incursion, and in so doing demonstrate the consequences leaving your borders exposed to Islamic fundamentalists.

Fair enough. However, by concentrating your opposition towards the Israeli position you exacerbate racist tension between the working class in Palestine and Israel by painting one side as more righteous than the other, when in fact one of them is just less able militarily.

Ho ho. You’ve changed your tune again. It’s poor taste to endorse an organisation whose aims you can’t speak for, but each to their own I suppose.

Thanks for setting your thoughts out on this. It’s given me a valuable insight into your perspective.

Cheers

LR

this is beginning to be your fundamental hang up, and not only is it based on a media falsehood that implies but never quite says that the rocket attacks caused the crisis. The rocket attacks on Israeli towns began after the bombing of Lebanon, and numerous times during the "war" Hezbullah said it would stop all rocket attacks on Israeli towns in return for the ending of IAF bombing raids.

you have a very short memory Lazy, Hezbullah are in the South Lebanon because the Israeli's invaded and occupied South Lebanon for over a decade. It has been Israels antics in the pursuit of "security" that created Hezbullah and Hamas (infact the israeli's help set up Hamas). It's also dishonest and actually pretty racist to describe Hezbullah as Islamo fascist, a term more suited to ole Georgey Bush's remake of the Crusades than to people wish to actually understand the dynamics of the region. Most hezbullah fighters are religious in the way your average Catholic provo was and their support comes more from their ability to resist Israeli incursion and occupation, coupled with providing a social infastructure than any desire for an Islamic state. But if it suits your agenda to tie them up with the Taliban and Al Qaeda then go for it, afterall they are all funny brown people.

Hi

You might have a point there. I’ll keep this in mind.

You might be right here aswell. I’m even prepared to entertain the notion that Hezbollah are staffed mostly by Mossad agents, whatever you like. The point that I’m trying to make is that holding up one side as being more righteous than the other is divisive and speculative. And as for what the media does and does not say, well, neither of us are going to be swayed by layer upon layer of conspiracy theories that simply paint a rosier picture of one side over another.

Couldn’t agree more. Whoever did that, you’d better cite them and condemn them immediately.

I can easily believe that too. Interestingly, and don’t take this as provocation please, I tend to look suspiciously upon criticisms of the Provos (from 1969 onwards) as religiously sectarian. I hope you'll confirm that I’m right to do so.

I assume that’s sarcasm. Anyway thanks for the opportunity to make my thoughts clear on this.

Cheers

LR

Hi

It's all in your mind. Although this kind of victim mentality does account for identity politics in general.

Love

LR