Nice one

its SJP by the way

i think it will eventually get through and produce good work in the long run. We need to know palestinian society. There are students there with aspirations, we have an oppurtunity to provide palestinian students with the opportunity to study at Imperial. its not a big deal really, but it helps to be a legitimate SCC entity, i wish people wouldnt whinge so much.

We could also help them out with books, asylum, careers advice and even arrange for electives for our beloved medic community.

The SCC is democratic, it votes according to its members perceived self interest.

I beleive this is democracy in action. It sounds as if the article has been written because not all (13 votes in total, certainly not all of SCC) of the societies had voted and that maybe there was some slant put on the bringing this club to the SCC meeting (don't know, wasn't there, not my CSC) So perhaps that could be perceived as undemocratic. However the Union regulations on froming a club or society quite clearly state that the club may only be allowed to exist provided that no other such club already serves that purpose/activity. It seems to me that two of them do. These rules were democratically voted for sometime ago in a council or some such other democratic meeting. So go join the other two clubs (both of them, you don't have to be islamic to be a member of the islamic society under all the equal opps etc.) and bring your issues to the front of their attention - after all that's what they're there for. Clubs that double over, eg Choir and Medics Choir, are an example of clubs existing pre-merger or the fact that they're based at a far flung campus such as Wye or Silwood. Just because you don't like the result, doesn't mean it was unfair - So stop confusing your age with your shoe size.

The Regulation is the "Clubs and Socs policy" proposed by me, an inordinately long time ago. It states roughly what Starbuck says, but the thing is it also states something else.

The DP(C&S) is the arbiter of whether a club is different to all others. (Exec is the appeal panel) So the fact that this club proposal got to an SCC says either:

1. The DPCS didn't pre-approve it... a breach of policy.
2. The DPCS approved it, in which case the argument of duplication is not a good reason to vote down the club.

With respect to the author, he has missed the key point - The Justice for Palestine Society was vetoed because it's representative failed to prove that her organisation was separate from ' Justice for Palestine Societies ' that exist outside of Imperial and have (for example at LSE) called for a ban on all Israeli goods, and who have harassed Jewish students (at UCL) - the representative even went so far as to say that the document of ' aims and objectives ' which they submitted to all members of the SCC was the same as that used by the student groups at UCL and the LSE...

As regards the other points that you raised in your report - I would like to make it clear that I understand just how serious the situation in Palestine is - and I accept that it is vital that attention is drawn to the issue, and I would be fully supportive of any initiative to create for example a group who's aim was to draw attention to the plight of people in Palestine or indeed Kashmir - but what as a member of the SCC I could not allow for was the creation of a society who's very existence would directly endanger the safety and well being of students at imperial - and I have absolutely no regrets about the decision that was made.

Actually that is true isn't it, Sam. But don't the CSC also have to vote as to whether or not this new club can be a part of their CSC and that if a club doesn't have CSC it can't be a club or something along those lines. But it would be interesting to know whether or not Nona had approved it.

Actually, the SCC does have the right to act as a judge of student needs - that's what its there for (partly, at least). And there are always other CSCs/FSAs or appeals to SAC...

Why didn't the club simply call itself Palestinian Soc?

Arguments such as, "it's representative failed to prove that her organisation was separate from ' Justice for Palestine Societies '" or "a society who's very existence would directly endanger the safety and well being of students at imperial" would be even sillier!

How the 'very existence' of a society can injure me in any way is mind-boggling. Previously, I naively assumed someone has to physically do something to me in order to hurt me. Thanks to SCC I now know that political thought (especially at a university!!) is also very dangerous to one's health.

We're an international community. The last thing I want is to see mini versions of the worlds problems staged between groups of students.

"it's representative failed to prove that her organisation was separate from ' Justice for Palestine Societies ' " Whatever happened to the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy that this democratic country allegedally has? It's SCC's job to prove them guilty not their job to prove their innocence.

Obviously harassment of Jewish people (or anybody else) by an ICU society would be absolutely intolerable and would be a strong reason to cease ICU support of such a society. This however has not happened in connection with JPS. To make such pre-emtive accusations on the basis of the similarity to the name of another society(or was there more to it?) is ludicrous.

Give JPS a chance. To not do so is a violation of democracy.

"We're an international community. The last thing I want is to see mini versions of the worlds problems staged between groups of students."

Of course. We wouldn't want subversive views and political thought brewing amongst university students through debate. We should do everything in out power to stomp any attempts at student activism. It's evil.

If the Society's aims and objects and constitution are "in line with" the Union's and you feal aggrevied take it to the next ICU Council and let them decide?

After all, it is democracy, isn't it? Or is it only when you win?

Nia - it isn't "innocent until proven guilty". The onus is on the proposers to prove that the club should be created, not the other way round.

And once again the main point and stands alone to stop this society being created: there are other societies that could already serve this purpose. Does anyone actually know if Nona approved the club? If not they are not acting "lawfully" anyhow.

And labour and conservative socs are not the same thing. They exist for people that have political views that generally ally with those of those two political parties. They are not what sounds like an action group. And their sole purpose is not of any particular political action. It is to put like minded people in touch. I beleive simply from the name of "justice for palestine society" that that is not their intention at all.

The existance of the club harms no one! However there are rules and regulations in place that MUST be followed. Not be changed because a bunch of jumped up reactionaries can't get their own way. Use the system in place for once. You won't get union funding for something that clearly has a political backing, it contravenes the regulations. Politics will only get money thrown behind it if it concerns all the students of this university eg tuition fees. It's not a violation of democracy. These are rules that have been democratically decided. If you want to represent the cause, then there are lots of means for doing that inside of london alone.

If this society is allowed to exist then I'm going to find 20 members of JSOC and start a justice for israel society. And then a justice for chechnya. And then.........

Good grief a society being turned down by SCC!!

If those behind JPS are truely serious about the society my suggestion would be to bring a coalition of current clubs together (the Islamic societies, Amnesty, SWSS, any other) and under an unbrella of 'Justice for Palestine' do activities/campaigns/debates etc

thought i'd wade into this debate!

starbuck, you are clearly against any sort of recognition of the palestinian problem, and to suggest that reactionaries want to change the rules because they made a case for forming a new society is preposterous.

To suggest that you could canvass round JSOC and form a justice for Israel society, having previously ruled out any sort of political backing as contra-regulations, is also quite ridiculous. Are ConSoc and LabSoc politically impartial? Or has this country's politics been deemed to affect the student, whilst the aggravated threat of terrorism from foreign countries against the UK (in particular London) affects none of us?

I for one would happily accept a Justice for Israel Soc., though quite what they'd be campaigning for I'm not sure. More Apache gunships from the US, perhaps? </tongue in cheek>

Well, I wasn't even aware such a society was in the forming, as I'm not actually up-to-date on anything ICU does.

All I can say is, while I would never join Islamic society (being a fundamentalist atheist as I am) and have little interest in Amnesty International Society, I would have seriously considered joining a Freedom for Palestine Society (provided, of course, it didn't cost too much membership fee).

And to claim that a society that does not exist yet would result in harassment and violence is ludicrous (unless the proposed society statute suggests so directly, which I doubt)

If democracy means suppressing the minority viewpoint, then it is failing. I would never join Conservative Society, disagree with anything the Conservative party in England stands for, yet if it were to be formed at IC today, I would not oppose it (or even be shocked if it were prevented from starting simply because their viewpoint is unpopular)

Best Regards from a shocked IC student

I agree with Stef,if you can't create a society to do it there is nothing to stop you running events under existing societies. Islamic Soc has run many successful events not directly related to Islam. Maybe they would be interested in this.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. The society duplicates the purpose of existing societes at IC. N/a, if you would join SJPsoc but say you wouldn't join Amnesty, then I think that is a little inconsistent at least. Secondly, from what I have heard, the society was presented as a confrontational one-issue setup. Look what happened to Secular Soc. - do we really want more of those.

What I want to know is, why did the SCC see fit to call an emergency meeting to debate this? And did noone think to check the date? Although the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is much more than Jews vs. Muslims, does it strike anyone else as monumentally insensitive to debate the formation of such a confrontational society on Holocaust Memorial Day?

One of the primary reasons why politically active clubs and societies are not allowed to be formed is protection of the student body. Some might claim that the activities of one group of students carries no threat to others. In an ideal world, this would be true.

Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. Tensions are of a huge scale in the area in question. Fanatics, while not sanctioned, approved, or in any way encouraged by either side exist, and while a minority, they still pose a risk to anyone who takes a side in this argument.

I have no objection to people at IC sticking their necks out for something they believe in - but don't put mine on the line at the same time. Fanatics aren't known for their clarity of thought, and just because you might 'know' that you hold different views from the majority of Imperial, the point remains that you are associated with them.

Call me uninformed, racist, happily ignorant - I just don't want to know, be involved or be associated with a university whose student union has active political groups. It's detrimental to the student body, and as such should not, in my mind, be financed by the union. It's bad enough that I should have to work here for four years, to die, be injured or intimidated here for a cause I cannot pretend to understand would be rather unfortunate.

As a side note; if the major powers in the world have been unable to peacefully resolve the situation in the area for going on the past 35 years, what makes you think a small student body is going to make a difference?

"Fanatics aren't known for their clarity of thought"

"Call me uninformed, racist, happily ignorant - I just don't want to know, be involved or be associated with a university whose student union has active political groups."

These are two statements from an anonymous contributor pseudonym punter, in whose ideal world the pubs would be open 24/7 and everything woudl be done by robots. It appears shocking to him that there are people out there who realise that getting stuff done is a much better way of proceeding than just ignoring the problem.

Furthermore, how does forming a society put his neck on the line?

in short, wake up, get out of your shell, and start realising that we're all in this together. You may think as a priviledged IC student that you have no obligation to humanity, no need to be interested in things around you. Just so long as you can still take the Tube each morning....

Every choice you take is a political one, everything you do has a political edge because you live in a democracy - so stop leaving everyone else to deal with stuff so you

"should have to work here for four years"

By way of clarification:

" I would like to make it clear that I understand just how serious the situation in Palestine is - and I accept that it is vital that attention is drawn to the issue, and I would be fully supportive of any initiative to create for example a group who's aim was to draw attention to the plight of people in Palestine or indeed Kashmir "

The simple fact is that the ' Justice for Palestine Society ' stated in their aims and objectives that they wished to work in association with other JPS in London - in other words it appeared that they were a franchise of the organisations that already exist at UCL and LSE, and when confronted with this the representative of the organisation failed to prove otherwise... and this was ultimately crucial when deciding whether or not to veto the society.

Further I would like to add that the idea of a ' Justice for Palestine Society ' existing as a working partnership with either the Islamic society or Amnesty was proposed at the meeting. The idea being that amnesty has a national infrastructure and in terms of the experience and advice that it could offer - it would mean that were JPS to associate with them - their chances of making a big impact on campus would be greatly increased. It would also serve to put members of the SCC at ease - as IC Amnesty and / or the Islamic society would be able to act as a regulatory body.

However the representative from the JPS was not enthusiastic about this - and did not modify their proposal prior to the vote - and had she done so I think the outcome would have been different...

"It would also serve to put members of the SCC at ease - as IC Amnesty and / or the Islamic society would be able to act as a regulatory body."

It seemed to me that neither Amnesty nor Islamic Soc were willing to use their resources to 'act as a regulatory body': the proposer of the society, in fact, is a member of Amnesty, as far as I know!

On the contrary, Tom, I fully recongnise the palestine problem. Forming a Palestinain Society is even fine by me. That is one that is for the appreciation of the culture thereof etc. However I do also recognise the union regulations, the purpose of my ranting in this particular case. Now before you reply in any way shape or form, take a deep breath, step back and read everything again.

I said if SJPSoc is allowed to exist then in the interestes of fairness and clearly as politics is no longer a relevant issue as the JPS would have been approved, I could start a Justice for whatever soc (could even be a new fad.) Proposterous or equal opportunites? I'll think you find the Union in general is pushing quite firmly on equal opportunities.

Also, as mentioned quite a lot, there are other societies that the whole problem could be addressed by. If the proposer of SJP is not getting attention from either isalmic or amnesty or funding, then he clearly needs to improve his diplomacy. Perhaps these two societies don't agree with the actions propsed, erm.....democracy I beleive.

Jumped up reactionaries? Well let's face it, how often do SCC meetings get published on Live! Step outside the ring and look in rather than being inside looking out.

Further to this, I am not a member of Amnesty Soc or Islamic Soc. However I am a member of Amnesty outside of university and I beleive very strongly that issues concerning human rights should be taken very seriously. I also beleive that union rules should be followed. Questions were asked - a vote was taken - you don't like the result - Tough S*** That's democracy. Bring it back at the next meeting having reassessed the proposal and try for a different result - that's democracy too.

Starbuck,

Small tip, before preaching Union regulations read them first.

1. The DPCS's verdict on whether a society provides duplication is not definitive. It is merely advice that the CSC Chair should seek and report to the CSC. The CSC is well within their rights to ignore it (and the DPCS to moan bitterly and appeal at SAC).

2. There is nothing in the Union regulations to say that societies (or the Union itself) cannot be political. How is a campaign against tuition fees non-political???

3. The Consitution prevents the Union from "affiliating to organisiations of a political or religious nature ... but Clubs and Societies are free to do so."

4. There are plenty of ICU societies will Aims and Objectives that can be classed as 'political'.

5. Poltiical (or indeed any) activities that do not directly affect/benefit students fall fould of ultra-vires laws. That doesn't mean the society cannot exist, or have a budget. It just means that those specific activities will not be allocated any funding.

Enough of that. I do agree that under union rules a club/society should not be formed if it largely duplicates an existing one with no apparent justification.

As a member of Islamic Society, I don't really think it overlaps with us. Sure, many of our members will want to get involved in such activity. However, we are a religious society. We do not want our aims and objectives compromised by an activity that brings in lots of new members who have no interest in Islam whatsoever. Similarly, while membership is open I suspect students with no interest in Islam would be wary of joining us.

As for Amnesty, as a member of the organisation yourself you shoudl be aware that it is more than just campaigning about human rights abuses. Membership of Amnesty demonstrates that one subscribes to a particular world-view. Again, not everyone who wishes to campaign on this issue may want to adopt that world-view.

Furthermore, if you are really sad and look in the minutes, you will that we (ICU) used to have a long-standing "Friends of Palestine" society. It was wound up in the mid-1990s, after the signing of the Oslo Accords. Now that the Middle East peace process has fallen apart, it's not exactly surprising that there is demand to revive such a society.

I wasn't at the SCC meeting and don't know much of the details so can't comment on the reasoning for their decision - although there do seem to be many confused arguments. I am particularly concerned about this notion that the proposed society was "unable to prove" that it was innocent of some allegation. As Nia put it, whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

I'm also concerned about this "we don't want political societies" business. We already have many - there is much more to politics than party politics. Sure, some students will feel that they are not interested in politics and don't want Union money spent on it. But there are also students who are not interested in sport and don't see why the sports clubs should get comparatively large budgets. There are those who think the arts should not be subsidised. I believe that a student union should attempt cater for the needs of all its students and all the activities they are interested in (within the law!) - which is precisely what is stated in the Union's Aims and Objectives.

I would be willing to accept this decision if it weren't for some of the arguments heard in this thread - notably that "labour and conservative socs are not [...] what sounds like an action group. And their sole purpose is not of any particular political action. It is to put like minded people in touch."

Yeah, I can just imagine their meetings. A bunch of Tory Boys playing monopoly, organizing field trips to the museums and socializing with "like-minded" girls. Who could possibly think that a club called Conservative (or Labour) Soc is political?!

Yet another extraordinary argument was presented: "does it strike anyone else as monumentally insensitive to debate the formation of such a confrontational society on Holocaust Memorial Day?"

What the he*l does the Holocaust have to do with the Palestinian cause? Are you saying that JPS (or Palestinians in general) are somehow related to Hitler's concetration camps? Other than that, there can be no other reason why you would consider it disrespectful to hold the vote on that day. This is equivalent to condemning the formation of a future Palestinian state, because of the Holocaust (as if one has anything to do with the other).

I am not adamant about what happened in the discussion. However, the arguments heard here are worrying to say the least. If this is what some of the SCC members had in mind, then we're in trouble.

Finally, why couldn't they just call it Palestinian Soc? The Cyprus Socs all over the country regularly campaign for demilitarization and unification of the island without calling themselves 'Justice for Cyprus Soc'...

Just to clear a few things up:

Mustafa, point taken, I shall read the regulations thoroughly before giving out sermons. Apologies. However, for all my misguided ranting, "Poltiical (or indeed any) activities that do not directly affect/benefit students fall fould of ultra-vires laws. That doesn't mean the society cannot exist, or have a budget. It just means that those specific activities will not be allocated any funding." Right, so why therefore apply to start this club? Presumably the want to secure some funding that apparently Amnesty took no interest in. Actions usually costs a little even if its only for photocopying of leaflets. So therefore the club can be created with zero union funding provided it can find a CSC that it can be part of. I wasn't at the SCC meeting, so I don't know the arguments raised, could probably find them minuted somewhere. I'm under the impression this club (to be) was asking for funding. I may be wrong and will happily stand corrected. But the idea that leaps to mind is funding for political action. These actions are not exactly beneficial to all i.e. JSoc. Would it not be wrong of the Union to fund something that may directly harm/offend other members of the union. Hence zero funding. Also action groups don't need to be a club/soc. Tuition fees presumably falls under the union's education and welfare and budget. So my ranting may have not been precise according to the "rules" but i was by and large on the right track.

Stefanos: "ICU Labour Society (a.k.a. 'Labsoc') is a social club that provides a political education for our members." taken from their website (which is a little out of date and also there seems to be no link to ConSoc's web site, or I'm looking at the wrong union website possibly) If you read through the rest of what is written on their info page, it seems there is a distinction between their objectives/policies and the possible ideas that a society called "Justice for Palestine" conjurs up.

Call SJPSoc something else or call it the same thing, but I urge the proposers to bring it back to the next meeting with perhaps amendments to their proposals and answers for the questions that will be asked. Or to think of an alternate strategy.

To clear one final thing up: my use of the term reactonary. The reaction I was describing was being defeated by the SCC and making a song and dance, not actually on the issue of the "Palestinian Problem." Don't give up boys and girls. One obstacle shouldn't stop you from getting from A to B in the long run if you've got enough motivation.

It worries me a lot, Starbuck, that most of your (and other people's on this page) arguments seem to be based on the prejudiced "possible ideas that a society called "Justice for Palestine" conjurs up." as opposed to the actual proposal in hand.

(I use 'prejudiced' in its literal sense - to "pre-judge" as opposed to any other connotations that the word might imply)

True - I am pre-judging. If someone would send me minutes of the meeting, I shall stop pre-judging. However the SCC doesn't seem to have a website and no on-line minutes. Worrying perhaps? Yes. True but then Justice and Peace are two words that have very different connotations.

"Every choice you take is a political one, everything you do has a political edge because you live in a democracy " how true and that is the main reason why I voted against the creation of this society: the representative would not admit that this is a political issue (even if it's not PARTY political) and such an explosive subject needs to be in the hands of someone more...awake? I mean get real, who are you going to send your petitions to, Father Christmas?

On another point, I disagree with Mustafa about the idea that this can't be covered by Amnesty-it is one of many subjects covered byt eh organisation and if people at Imperial want to concentrate on this issue then they should-even if they don't adhere fully to the organisation's other views. It would be quite scary if everyone always followed their group's policy without debate/disagreement-and if I had to follow the Party line?!

And would someone please take note of what Sheraz Q was saying-the reason why they are not calling themselves Palestinian Soc is because they wish to work in conjunction with other JPS' and these have a track record of aggressivity and unacceptable behaviour. Palestinians may need our support but it shouldn't be at the cost of the safetyof us all at Imperial.

ESoc collaborated with other 'green' societies throughout London in the past - no-one ever seemed to think that collaboration was a problem.

Why shouldn't JPS collaborate with others - to get bigger and more effective actions, for example.

Banning the formation of JPS on the basis that they might not abide by regs when they said they would is ridiculous - just because another unconnected group at a different Uni had a racist member, or at another a ban on goods was called for as a measure of showing distaste/disgust, does NOT mean that students at IC are automatically 'bad eggs'. That is classic prejudice, and I expect there are rules in the constitution banning that.... which brings me on to: Union disciplinary procedures exist for 'bad eggs' - and can be used.

In the meantime, Scc, sort it out! after all, you had to fight (but not unreasonably) to get your clubs going as well, didn't you??

This is way too complex for me. From where I see it, it's all in the name. Why give your society the same name as societies with bad reputations if you don't want to be associated with them? Change it. Without "Justice" in the title I don't think there would have been a problem. First impressions count. Why ask for trouble?

Maybe regulations said one thing, but I'm guessing there is some room for interpretation.

So you can talk about them all you like, but for most people here, I imagine the idea of people trying to get justice for palestine conjures up images of buses blowing up. That's what we've grown up seeing. It makes people uncomfortable and noone is going to be happy if the idea makes them feel uncomfortable, which is going to affect the way the regulations are interpreted. So this is a kind of justifiable prejudice. Not necessarily right, but justifiable. It's human nature. (read Jane Austen!)

Starbuck - Do you ever do any work?

1. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY - The JPS's representative said at the meeting that the document of Aims and Objectives that it submitted via email to all members of the SCC before hand was taken from the same template as those groups that exist at UCL and the LSE. Secondly, the JPS's aims and objectives stated that they were going to work in conjunction with other JPS groups that existed outside of imperial.

Proof (for me at least) that it was part of the same franchise that was responsible for causing trouble at LSE and UCL, and that were we to allow the society to exist the potential danger to students (of Jewish origin in particular) would be to great to justify the creation of the society.

2. A REGULATORY BODY - However recognising just how vital it is that the plight of the Palestinian people is fairly represented on campus - members of the SCC suggested working in conjunction with either Islamic soc or IC Amnesty - and to directly counter Mustafa's point - having a representative from either of the above two mentioned societies working in a supervisory capacity in a ' working partnership' is an entirely viable proposition... all that I had in mind (and I am not sure if this was what fellow members of the SCC envisaged) was that a trusted representative from either IC amnesty or Islamic Soc took on a regulatory role within the JPS. This would have the effect of setting members of the SCC minds at ease - and the JPS would benefit from having someone on board with a vast array of contacts at Imperial and access to national organisations who could help in terms of resource provision and general advice. In other words the ' aims and objectives ' of both societies would defiantly not be compromised.

NB: Do infer from this that members of the SCC want for the society to exist - and that they are not therefore prejudice and that all we want to do is to take measures to ensure students at imperial are not harmed in anyway - and I have stated an alternative that i feel would allow for the JPS to be created - and the onus is now on JPS to amend its proposal

3. THE NEW FAD - I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who supports the idea that JPS should not be created because it would leed to the creation of a multitude of humanitarian societies - the only basis that this argument has relates to the division of resources and it is entirely selfish when we consider just how vital the causes in question actually are.

SECTION 4 - I would like to make it clear that I respect everybody on campus's right to freedom of speech and expression - but that is not the central issue here.

Tom said that " Banning the formation of JPS on the basis that they might not abide by regs when they said they would is ridiculous " well the point is I have already signposted the evidence that strongly suggests JPS would not abide by the regulations - and on the basis of that I still feel that it was not appropriate for the SCC to sanction the creation of a society on that occasion.

But note: Nobody is doubting just how vital it is for the plight of the Palestinian people to be recognised on campus - but all I am saying - and I am not the voice of the SCC, merely a member - is that certain measures must be taken before hand to ensure the well being of people on campus.

I think it is time we set up a Students for justice in Ireland Society. We shall talk about the British genocide of the Catholics, we shall send our support (and union funds) to our friends in Derry and we shall organise outings to Canary Wharf to see the achievements of our brothers. Our society would also be able to help Students for the PLO as indeed we have historically had good relationships with other such societies. Indeed we even used to have many such ties in the 1980's as some of you will be aware. I wonder also if my dear friend stefanos would be intersted in setting up a Students for justice in Turkish Cyprus society?

Stefanos is so right, I mean how can setting up a society that believes in the destruction of a country and the ethnic cleansing of millions of Jews be dangerous to students at IC? Indeed you are right that democracy is the key, I for example believe in the setting up a Students for Justice in Britain Society that will talk abou the terrible foreign settlers in this country...

We could abbreviate our name to the Big News Platform BNP and we would have open and frank discussions about repatriation of all foreigners. We of course would represnt no threat at all to any students (well at least those who are male white and protestant) by our vicious rhetoric and our lies and distortions. We would actually be a service to all students. Indeed Stefanos is right, why should we care if Students who support homicide bombers should be set up on Holocaust day - in fact that is the very day that I wish to form my new society...

Tom,

"That is classic prejudice, and I expect there are rules in the constitution banning that.... which brings me on to: Union disciplinary procedures exist for 'bad eggs' - and can be used."

eh?

I didnt think you liked that sort of thing? least thats not what i heard anyway.....

Nick's comments are -at best- those of a City University student, so they're better left unanswered. So much for ICs entry standards...

Gerry, OF COURSE I would support a Justice for Turkish Cyprus Society. Although we are getting side-tracked here, I might as well clear up a few things.

I am guessing you brought up Cyprus in the hope that I would be contradicted in some way. Do you actually think there is violent conflict in Cyprus right now? But even if there was, what makes you think I would be against a society promoting the interests of Turkish-Cypriots (or Turks for that matter)? As long as they don't go around beating up or harassing other students, it's THEIR RIGHT to exist. Even if they hated my guts, I have no right to tell them they can't fight for their rights. The point here is that I don't ASSUME that they will harm anyone before they are formed. Pre-emptive action seems to be the buzzword these days.

Now for a tutorial on Cyprus.

Cyprus is joining the EU with or without the occupied part. It makes no difference! Their economy is booming and the standard of living is high. I happen to believe that it would be unfair for the Turkish-Cypriots not to reap the benefits of EU membership. Unless the island is re-unified, this will never happen and they will be left in limbo (recognized only by Turkey - as it stands today). They will either be incorporated into Turkey, or establish a (UN recognized) sovereign nation. Either way, their socio-economic situation will not improve. I would like the Turkish part of Cyprus to join with the rest, but I think this will be very hard to achieve. The Turkish-Cypriots (not the settlers who have been given land from ousted Greek-Cypriots) want re-unification, and that is why 60 000 (more than HALF the Turkis- Cypriot population) demonstrated in the streets recently, against their leader, Denktash. In this sense, not only would I support a Justice for Turkish Cyprus Society, I would ALSO JOIN IT. Re-unification and EQUAL rights for the Turkish Cypriots in a unified state - Perfect.

You see, the division of Cyprus was a combined effort of the CIA-backed Greek military junta, the Turkish government, and a certain Henry Kissinger. Although I wasn't alive then, there were Greek nationalists suported by the military regime that carried out Turkish Cypriot massacres. The same is true of the Turkish extremist paramilitary group, the name of which I can't remember right now. In any case, I am against such brutal action - it's against my principles. It is nationalism that caused the Cypriot split in the first place.

I am anti-nationalist, anti-war, and I have made dozens of Turkish friends in the UK. Turks and Greeks (and Cypriots, both Turkish and Greek) have so much in common culturally, you would wonder why there was so much conflict in the PAST. Nowadays this has changed a lot- in the recent Copenhagen summit, Greece was virtually alone in arguing FOR Turkey to join the EU. A position not shared by the vast majority of the traditional EU powers.

I hope this answers your question, dear Gerry. I would support ANY such society, as long as it does not hurt others (and I wouldn't assume it would beforehand).

After writing for 20 minutes, I realized I was answering people with fake emails. Guys, use your real names and emails, we are civilized people here having a civilized discussion on an important issue.

So now this discussion has been going for nearly four days - does anyone actually know if the original proposers of the society are going to bring this proposal back amended or try a different route?

My email address is real, I may not check it so often as my ic, sorry imperial one, but it is real.

Do I ever do any work, becky..........erm..........

I have always assumed that the purpose of this site is so that i can say things and dissuss important issues as an anonymous person. If I wanted to put my name to stuff i would go to meetings. If random people can say random thing, important and sensible things without worrying about it haunting them in another guise, then that's a good thing. Who needs proper names for a sensible discussion?

Yes, but becky, if I were to always contribute anonymously, then instances of blatant hypocrisy as highlighted by little birdy *holds hands up* would go unnoticed - to the detriment of actual democracy and sense. If you have an opinion - which is perfectly reasonable in itself - why should you not attach that opinion to your true identity?

Maybe fears of not being able to stand up to closer scrutiny in light of your comments scares people??

Ms. birdy - In defence thereof: IMHO making ruddreless union more rudderless not useful. Hypothetically, condemning racism if it occurs is more important, is it not, in terms of protecting the student body...

Tom,

"Ms. birdy"

Last time i checked i was a "Mr."

I thought your reasoning was "boredom"

Next time the Turks massacre a few thousand or so Greeks, Stefanos don't complain, after all they are only good Muslims fighting the infidels on "their" land, they are only taking a leaf out of the book of their brothers in the PLO...

As to the one who thinks Justice for Israel is about helicopters, perhaps he should consider that Justice for Israel will come when Jewish men,women and children stopped being brutally murdered in their own land, perhaps justice for Israel will come when the 22 Arab states with their hundreds of billions of petrodollars stop funding murder, inciting genocide and inciting against the Israeli people's unquestionable right to their homeland.Perhaps justice for Israel will only come when the myth of Palestine (a country that has never existed, and is simply a tool for continuing the Arab version of the Final solution)is dispelled. Perhaps justice will come to the Middle East when European antisemites cease their centuries old hatred- typified here by such people as stefanos...

Starbuck, of course I didn't mean you! I meant the two posts by "Nick" and "Gerry" (they may even be the same person).

I was even going to praise your posts (I forgot) for not being hateful and inflammatory, in contrast to the those of the trolls.

Yehoshua - I have jewish, mulsim and christian friends. Unlike yourself, religion isn't an issue for me.

Becky,

Obviously I don't mind that you don't use your real email - you're making your points without attacking anyone.

But "Nick", "Gerry" and Yehoshua are hardly stating "important and sensible things".

If you're going to make a ridiculous and unfounded attack by calling someone an anti-semite, at least have the balls to do it with your real identity...

i support the freedom of speech of the sjp.

i have made a poem to motivate the palestinian people at this time

o palestine

you are mine

in tel aviv and haifa

i have 2 wife

look birdface

How can I tell what frikkin sex you are when you refuse to put a name to your 'insightful' comments??

Quit this damned anonymity c***, please, or are you in flight of the IRA or something??

tom, male, 23, wears a hat

Yehoshua

'after all they are only good Muslims fighting the infidels on "their" land, they are only taking a leaf out of the book of their brothers in the PLO...'

spot the difference:

'after all they are only good Jews fighting the infidels on "their" land, they are only taking a leaf out of the book of their brothers in the USA...'

this is why we continually get gridlock in the peace process

I was at the SCC meeting where the decision that sparked this debate was made. What alarmed me most was the series of completely illogical accusations that were made by a member of the faith group that felt 'most threatened' by the SJP Soc implying that the formation of such a Soc would lead to the incitement of Islamic fanaticism (he used the term repeatedly while accusing the new soc of being anti-semitic!) which would lead to the establishment of an Al-Qaeda cell at IC which would threaten the lives of all 'peace loving people', particularly his faith!

And such a ridiculous argument was swallowed by quite a few members of the meeting, and then issues were raised abt the security fears etc.

In addition other ridiculous points were made such as the fact that the soc could be infiltrated by block-voting Islamic fundamentalists which it was clearly pointed out cld happen to any soc anyway- comes with being democratic and respecting individual freedoms and all that.

Regarding the Islamic and Amnesty socs being able to handle the issues, the Islamic soc rep clearly made the point that it was tough enough for them to cater for the welfare of their members, which is their primary aim, and he would welcome an SJP. Amnesty soc has abt 20 members and the rep when asked if they wld ever be able to give the issue of Palestine justice replied in the negative.

In the end what happened was that most of the SCC were afraid to support freedom of expression and just vote in a perfectly legit soc based on the absurd and misplaced fears of a minority. So what if lots of other little 'political' socs are formed? everyone should have the right to express their views provided they aren't offensive (which the SCC chairs can moderate anyway- they do operate on a democratic basis). Isn't uni the place where one explores his/her principles and values? Isn't that part of yr education? At least it would mean IC students being active and taking an interest in something apart from their next c'work or interview with a strategic marketing consulting company - What do they do anyway?

i think you all need to go and dry off in the sun, i really don't want you here in the flat any more. eveything that happened between us last night turned suddenly to be bad. i thought it would be like the garden of eden. you thought that you'd caught a wave. we had a brief love, but you became a source of sorrow. yalla, go home matthew, thanks and good bye, and please don't call me, i won't answer. if you call me from down below, i'll cal the police. so get a life coz you have no choice.

much as i empathise with the poetry of the last submitter, please could people only enter sensible entries, god willing.

[Quotation from a deleted post.]

Poorly spelt, juvenile caricatures of posters put up by unknown parties in their names.

OK, any of you guys from the israelinsider talkboards? You seem so familiar.

J.

yes,

i am from the israelinsider talk board. how did you break my cover?

The SJP society was vetoed for the following reasons:

1. All the honest people at the meeting could see that it was just a front for The Islamic Soc extreme elements- they hadn't even bothered to change the constitution properly!

2. The manifesto spread by the society was a tissue of lies and obnoxious anti-semitic diatribe-eg "Israel is carrying out genocide"

3. The representative when confronted with the inflammatory nature and wild accusations contained in the aforementioned document was unable to give a credible response.

4. The representative present was herself an executive for Amnesty and it was clear that both Amnesty and Islamic soc Spend most of their time attacking Israel and spreading the obnoxious Arab propaganda line that it was unneccessary to start up yet another society.Indeed Hindu and Sikh Soc drew attention to Islamic terror in other parts of the world and promised to form a cascade of claims for such one issue societies if the PLO soc was approved.

All of the Arab apologists on this forum talk about democracy yet bemoan the fact that SJP, with its racist edge and inflammatory slur was democraticall(and rightfully)thrown out by the SCC.

5. Jewish students have indeed been physically abused and one was even stabbed by such thugs stirred up by the rhetoric of similar SJP societies at other universities- I know tasp does not care- I mean what's the safety of a minority "faith group" to you!

OK now for some facts- esp to you tasp (or should i say tasteless) and steffy driss.

1. The land of Israel- later called "Palestine" in 1917 when the British took over composes modern day Israel(20%) and Jordan (80%).

2.there has never been a self governing country called "palestine" and their never has been such a people as "palestinians" in fact the term was coined by the British to describe the Hebrew people living under the mandate!

3. There are 5 million jews in Israel a country the size of Wales fighting 280 million Arabs with 500 times the land,75% of the world's oil-

4. the PLO is a terrorist organisation ressponsible for the murder of thousands of men women and children-

5. The Palestinians have given the world hijacking and suicide bombings and were and continue to support and collaborate with Alqaeda

6. Al qaeda terrorists/supporters have been recruited from th campuses of london universites.

abu hamza is wrong. we all know that sharon is commiting genocide. genocide, as defined by internation law is (basically) killing with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. sharon said he would do this in his manifesto and if we don't stop him by setting up the sjp he will succeed. we must stop this madness. sharon could never invade the west bank in london. he could never close an naja university if we had swapped students with them. therefore we must all go to nablus to swap with the an najah students and they can come here and learn engineering. then we can hold a forum to discuss our psychological issues.

whoa whoa whoa valentina

I beleive this debate is about the formation of a society that is part of Imperial College Union. Your debate isn't. So kindly don't post it in this forum. Write a separate article or something if you wish to discuss it.

Wow, this is all awfully interesting stuff, just perfect for procrastination.

I'd like to reply to the few correspondents who seem to be suggesting that this society seems to be supporting terrorism. Unless (and I very much doubt this) there was any clause in the aims of the society to take part in such highly illegal activity, this implies that you feel it's not possible to be in support of a peaceful road to self-determination.

As a pacifist I want both Palestinans and Israelis to be happy and live in peace. Yet I'd certainly join SJP. Why? Because I feel that the onus is on the Israelis to act to stop the situation in Palestine being such that Palestinian terrorism is effectively inevitable.

Is that an anti-semitic view? Does that make me a supporter of bin Laden? Of course not.

And as for the "overlapping with other societies", it's worth noting that Amnesty (according to the Amnesty UK website) " does not support or oppose any government or political system." So what about those people (and there must be a few) who could not take part in any group activities due to their fears that they'd be putting too much of a specific slant on things. Islamic Soc is a religious society, I thought- forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't taking a particular view for the (eventual) purposes of securing world peace transcend religious boundaries. The idea of having such a rule of societies aims not being the same should surely not be used to make it difficult for students to take part in student activities. SJP would increase the range and volume of activities that students can take part in.

Hmm, that was fun. I love student politix.

Starbuck - I think you missed Valentina's sarcasm!

Xhris- "the onus is on Israel"

why?

The Arabs have huge lands and money (you know the billions of petrodollars that abu hamza talks aboout)

and are the perpretators of thousands of terrorist atrocities-surely only when they stop their genocidal moves ("we will throw the Jews into the Sea" etc..)

then there is a chance of peace. I too believe in helping the Palestinian Arabs but this will not be achieved by encouraging terrorism, by setting up support groups for the PLO -which as the biggest terror organization is responsible for most of their suffering. There are in fact 280 million Arabs all of whom live under dictators who suppress them. The lebanese have been under Syrian occupation for 20 years- 200 000 lebanese christians were murdered by the muslims, the Algerian wars have claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, the Saudi governmentopresses women (they aren't even allowed to drive) and continues to ban the pratice of any other religion than islam in their country, the Sudanese Arabs continue to enslave over 100 000 black christians amd then there is Saddam...

It therefore strikes me as rather strange why the only Arabs they want to help are those who live in the land of Israel- the only free democratic nation in the middle east-particularly when their conditions of health ,wealth and standard of living is the highest in the middle east.

SJP was rejected, partially at least, because we could see through its hypocrisy- they didn't even bother to temper down their manifesto-and we saw them for what they were -namely an activist group dedicated to furthering the terrorist propaganda line including some of the most despicable racist slurs.

No - i didn't miss the sarcasm. You've missed my argument. Read all the above , if you have time, and you may understand.

how dare people tell me, an opressed palestinian woman, what i should and shouldn't say.

before i came to imperial i lived daily under the israeli occupation. whenever we try to get into israel to work etc they ask for our papers. do you know how humiliating this is? they search everyone, whether they were terrorists or not. it's like going to an airport and suddenly being asked for your passport. this is so humiliating and it would never happen in england. the likud party (which means "hurt the enemy now" in israeli)wants to make sure there will be no palestinian state. this is why when Barak offered us one we called his bluff by refusing to show that we know what he's really up to.

if it is legal for an israeli to travel freely in tel aviv, why not for a palestinian too? this injustice must stop. we must sing a song for peace.

people ask why there are suicide bombs but you must understand that if the israeli army has weapons, so should the palestinians. you can not tell an opressed nation how to resist. sharon has a plan to invade jordan, libya and egypt and to annex them and to expel their populations. the west bank is just the forst stage. i know this because it was on the likud party website.here is the song for peace i wrote,

i want peace, a piece of this and a piece of that, i want to carry my gun in the street without being arrested. i want to use my fredom of speech to educate my children that the jews have no rights to israel and that they made up all that stuff about their history and their past without being called a racist.

i want to live, to cry, to laugh in the land of my fathers, tel aviv had 3 000 000 arabs living in it till they were expelled in 1948, and now we want to go back, to live in peace, with just this piece and that piece and maybe a bit more

did anyone know that arabs in israel cant vote, and it is even ilegal for them to drive cars on the right hand side of the road. they have to drive on the left which is really dangerous.

this is why we need the sjp, to campaign for all of this and to get peace in the middle east.

I WANT THE freedom to experiment with whatever chemicals i like in my home without the israeli army coming round to stop me,

Benny- "Xhris- "the onus is on Israel"

why?"

Because it's so much easier to expect Israel- a sovereign state with a proper democratic (except within Palestine) structure- to respect the right of people within it's current boundaries and treat them at least partly as equals, than for Palestinians who live under the conditions Valentina describes to just sit back and obey Israel. Under the current situation can anybody be surprised that there's a "catch-22" circle of violence. Only Israel can act to stop that and they don't seem to want to. Once that's happened we can begin the harder task of trying to decide which land should go to whom.

if xhris is suggesting that israel should simply not react to terror attacks it has done this repeatedly and the attacks just keep on coming. israel has been facing terror since its birth in 1948

[Quote from deleted post discarded - Ed.]

...and another one- for Christ's sake grow up people, if you disagree with Fuad or any of us at least have the decency to debate like an adult.

And all these trolls only appeared the minute we started discussing Palestine. What a bizarre coincidence...

J.

A fraudulent post has been deleted from this discussion thread.

While Live! encourages and supports free speech we do not tolerate false impersonation of other students.

It's worth noting that if Britain had responded to terrorism by extreeme Jewish factions in mandated palestine the way that Israel responds to terrorism, then there wouldn't be an Israeli state.

The actions of the Stern gang, to name one action, would under Sharon doctrine, surely allow for the imposition of curfews, road blocks etc.

Yes, by any fair judgement, Israel is allowed to protect itself from terrorism. But does that extend to denying an entire people self determination? Look at it this way, should the RIRA's actions justify a military crackdown on Northern Ireland and the revocation of civil liberties for Northern Irish? Granted the RIRA's actions are nothing like as severe as the Al-Aqsa brigades, but on the other hand when Edward Heath suspended home rule, the situation in Northern Ireland was comparable to the early stages of the current infatadeh. The very justification for imposing rule from Westminster was because the Northern Irish Parliament was using the IRA as a pretext for a general crackdown on Irish Catholics.

It's all well for Flamenka to make sarcastic posts demanding for Palestinians to have the right to walk freely in Tel-a-viv, but what about being able to walk freely across the entire west bank?

Seb you clearly need to learn a bit more histroy. The lehi "stern Gang" were treated abominablby by the british who hung tens of Jewish freedom fighters.The British subjected them to inhumane treatment (including denial of Kosher food) and solitary confinement. The British did not put any limits on Arab immigration (in fact most of the "palestinians" arrivd during this period of Zionist revival)but limited Jewish immigration to a mere 70,000 during the entire second world war- thereby committing to death millions of Jews fleeing Nazi persecution who were barred from returning to their homeland!

Israel has never executed a single terrorist (unfortunately) and acts in self defense against beasts who blow themselves and women and children up. When the Arabs complain about the roadblocks etc no one ever mentions the fact that the WHOLE WORLD has to go through time delaying and expensive security check EVERY TIME YOU GO TO THE AIRPORT something that only arose due to the "palestinan" Arab terorists who invented hijacking and suicide bombing well before 9/11.

It takes Britain and the mighty USA and their dozen allies months and months to build up their preparations against 1 arab country - Iraq- yet Israel a country of 5 million has daily to defend herself from 22 such Arab states hell bent on her destruction and therefore those who describe Israel as the aggressor have serious moral and reasoning deficiencies.

Seb talks about the Palestinian Arabs right to self determination but any honest writer should know 1. they already have a state in 80% of pre-state Israel- namely Jordanand that thy have another 21 states to call home. and 2. They have NO RIGHT to commit genocide and replace The free Hebrew state of Israel with yet another totalitarian Arab regime.

do not call me flamenka. i am valentina flamenka. i DO think palestinians should be allowed freedom of movement in the west bank. before 1948 there were

21 000 000 palestinians living in jerusalem and now they can't even go there without passing through checkpoints.m only a few terrorists a day would try and pass through the checkpoints. that's not a reason for having them - we're not all terrorists. in israel it is ilegal for an arab to wear blue or red or to speal hebrew with an israeli accent lest people think he's jewish. my family were some of the

123 000 000 palestinians living in palestine who were driven out in 1948 and told by the israelis to go to australia or alaska.

why cant i go back to tel aviv? why is that sarcastic?

love and peace to me and my friends, valentina

Wow, Zionism is alive and well!!! Suddenly Arabs have no right (in capitals) to live where they were living before 1948, because a book written 2000+ years ago, which has been translated and open to spurious interpretation hundreds of times, says (without including a map) that only Jews should live there!!! Right on!!

on a more technical point - Israel is currently in breach of UN resolutions - exactly the reason why the USA and her poodle (I can't think of any other allies I'm afraid) want to attack Iraq.

Exactly why should Palestinians not fight for the right to live on land that is rightfully theirs, even after 1948?? I'd be pretty pissed off if some chap kicked me out of the house I'm living in now, because his great great great great great great great etc grandmother might have lived in that house a long time ago.

Finally: 'those who describe Israel as the aggressor have serious moral and reasoning deficiencies'. Are you trying to say that those who believe that the state of Israel, pre-1965 or 63, was being totally non-aggressive by invading neighbouring palestinian lands are quite correct, and anyone who begs to differ is deficient??

what, really!!

And furthermore, Israel is one of only three countries which hasn't signed the Non Proliferation treaty, designed to reduce the number of nukes (or WMD as they're now known) around by obliging countries to decommission. Even the USofA has signed it (though no action seems to have been taken yet...) I wonder why palestinians feel threatened!

I think you mean 1967 - tom t . Indeed ignorance runs right through your little piece. One Israel never threw anybody out in 1948 -6 arab armies invaded Israel and told their Arab brethren to leave so that they could finish off the Jews unhindered- fortunately they lost.

In fact the only people expelled from their Ancestral homes were the Jews from the Arab countries some 1 million in total (4 times the numbere of Arab "palestinans" who left israel). They were indeed thrown out because of some dubious religious text...

Today over 50 % of Israeli jews are children,grandchildren and great grandchildren of Jews expelled from the Arab lands.

Again you missed the most obvios point and are indeed morally deficient in that respect- namely that Israel a ciuntry the size of Wales(tiny) is surrounded by 22 hostile Arab dictatorships who wish to destroy her. These Arab states have 75% of the World's oil and 500 times the land. they also have the support of another bilion muslims and loads of European antisemites like yourself! Of course Israel needs Nuclear weapons you fool!

"Of course Israel needs Nuclear weapons you fool!"

So do you think we should all be affected by Israel's problems when the weapons Israels so desperately need are used?

by that logic the UK shouldn't have any nuclear weapons either (on case others are affected if we ever have to use them)

I agree with you. I'm all for getting rid of nuclear weapons from any state which may become unstable

i am augustina flamenka, valentina flamenka's cousin. i'm not actually a student at imperial (i'm at ucl) so i hope it's ok to post on this forum. some people do not agree with valentina. that is ok - but you can not say that she is wrong or mistaken. in 1948 my grandparents were among 43 000 000 palestinians put on ships by israel and made to leave haifa by the israeli government. they said that israel would be a state for the jews and that they dodn't care that the other arab countries with little land and already overcrowded with the

12 000 000 refugees from the 1892 war of zion that the zionists caused by trying to invade iran, iraq and cyprus, would have to take them. israel is by far the richest nation in the world and much of its money was earned because it is still legal in israel to have arab slaves and pay them £4 a week to feed their families whilst the average israeli, who controls the international media, earns around

£100 000 A YEAR. this must stop. we need the sjp to represent these students,

everyone of us must make a human chain arounf the whole m25 in protest at the israeli governments agressio in the face of yaasser arafat's peaceful policies

Make a chain around the M25? That's only going to annoy the commuters to London. Look at how the fire fighters are doing with their strike. I think you should have mentioned that after the society is [possibly] formed because I don't think IC want to be associated with irritating the commuters to London.

Not to mention that it's illegal to be a pedestrian on the M25

Abu:

"The lehi "stern Gang" were treated abominablby by the british who hung tens of Jewish freedom fighters."

Jewish freedom fighters that targeted civilians.

Yes, they hung people, after a trial. But then at least that was the same punishment meeted out to Murderers in Britain, where as Israeli Settlers get a substantialy different set of penalties compared to Palestinians.

"and solitary confinement."

what? Like whistleblowers on Israels nuklear programme get?

"The British did not put any limits on Arab immigration (in fact most of the "palestinians" arrivd during this period of Zionist revival)but limited Jewish immigration to a mere 70,000 during the entire second world war- thereby committing to death millions of Jews fleeing Nazi persecution who were barred from returning to their homeland!"

Their homeland? So these people were born in Israel, went to Germany, were persecuted by the NAZI's and wished to return? That's a rather flexible definition of homeland, one that certainly can apply to many people living in refugee camps today.

"Israel has never executed a single terrorist (unfortunately)"

Save extrajudicialy.

"When the Arabs complain about the roadblocks etc no one ever mentions the fact that the WHOLE WORLD has to go through time delaying and expensive security check EVERY TIME YOU GO TO THE AIRPORT"

Except of course, when I go to the airport I cross an international boundary, whereas there are hundreds of checkpoints dividing Palestinian towns on the west bank from other palestinian towns on the west bank.

"Arab terorists who invented hijacking and suicide bombing well before 9/11."

Arabs didn't invent either, and passports are older than the middle east issue.

"yet Israel a country of 5 million has daily to defend herself from 22 such Arab states hell bent on her destruction"

Egypt has signed a peace treaty, Jordan has agreed to a peace treaty. The only Arab states that present any real threat to Israel are Syria and Iraq. Less hyperbole please.

"1. they already have a state in 80% of pre-state Israel- namely Jordanand that thy have another 21 states to call home."

Right, so on that basis there should only be one state for caucasians? You know how Jordan treats Palestinians as well as I do. You also know that the West Bank was not part of Israel as declared by it's founders, but was subsequently captured. Are you trying to tell me that conquest of land should be deemed acceptable because the occupants belong to an ethnic group that has lots of land?

"They have NO RIGHT to commit genocide and replace The free Hebrew state of Israel with yet another totalitarian Arab regime."

The West Bank isn't part of the Israeli state. If it was, then perhaps the Israelis would see fit to supply gas masks to Palestinians in the west bank who are as much at risk to any last ditch use of biochemical weapons by Saddam.

"One Israel never threw anybody out in 1948 -6 arab armies invaded Israel and told their Arab brethren to leave so that they could finish off the Jews unhindered- fortunately they lost."

Not even Israel seriously takes that stance anymore.

There is an overwhelming amount of documented evidence that precisely the opposite happened. The Arab Legion specificaly demanded that Arab Palestinians remain, as a large flood of refugees would hinder the movement of their forces and make it hard to move forward. And what about Deir Yassin? All a lie, despite having plenty of Israelis willing to testify what happened there.

Anyway, I've been involved in far too many discussions on the Israel/Palestine issue, with people who can make a much better case than you can. I find the issue deeply teedious.

Tom t:

On a technical point, there are no chapter 7 SCR's against Israel (i.e. none of the resolutions are binding under threat of sanction), whereas Saddam is in breach of chapter 7 SCR's.

Now just why it should be that there is no binding resolution has ever been passed by the UN security council on Israel is another matter entirely. Certainly, such resolutions have in the past been tabled...

but we MUST make a road block round the m25 to show people that we are serious.

israel has murdered 34 000 000 palestinians in one week in retaliation for the injury of a jewish child in a car crash and no one said anything. maybe if we surround the m25 THEN people will notice. ariel sharon once killed 345 men with his bare hands in one afternoon, and people say that he kept the remains in a glass closit in his negev ranch which is surrounded by a fence he made from cat's teeth that he extracted. arabs are not allowed to elect members to the israli parliament and if they do then the members are only allowed to speak on tuesday morning and if they speak on wednesday then they are fined a months salary but the salary for arabs is 6% of the jewish salary - what kind of democracy is this?

Seb

What you don't seem to grasp is that the whole concept of "palestinans" as being a separate nation is all part of the greater arab myth to denigrate Israel . An arab who lives in Ramallah speaks the same language, prays to the same god and has the same culture as an Arab living west of the Jordan in say amman. The West Bank (ie the Hebrew territories of Judea and Samria - where in fact the namne Jewish comes from) were disputed territory- they indeed were ocuppied but not by Israel but by Israel but By Jordan in the first war of Arab aggression in 1948. They were then liberated by Israel in 1967 after yet another Arab initated war "to throw the Jews into the Sea". It is important to note that during all of that time between 1948 and 1967 did the "palestinans" call for an independent state in the West Bank . Indeed the PLO was founded in 1964 3 years before the territories were liberated by Israel. The very purpose of the organisation (as remains today) was to destroy Israel by stages through a bloody terrorist warfare- purposely targetting women and children- does anyone remember the 17 schoolchildren murderd in Maalot?The PLO did not care that the west bank was ruled by Jordan because for them Jordan was palestine and their goal and desire was to make the middle East Judenrein (free from Jews)as infidels cannot rule any territory in the middle east.

The "palestinians" love to have their cake and eat it;on the one hand Israel is an evil regime trying to commit genocide(!) and so they ask their goodl old friend Uncle Saddam to bomb Israel in her name and in the other hand they expect Israel to supply them with Gas masks. On the one hand they can murder and maim Israelis on adaily basis but on the other they must be allowed to enter Israel as they please without security checks so that they can earn money of the Israelis!

On the one hand they want peace(!) but on the other they call Israelis living on their own land "settlers" and believe in the ethnic cleansing of half a million or so such civillians!

As to Egypt's peace- they got Sinai on a paltter from Israel(with all its oil and tourism money)and billions of dollars in US aid. But what did Israel get- acountry that contiues to incite the most vicious antiIsraeli propaganda daily throgh its state owned media, a country that smuggles weapons through tunnels in Gaza,that builds up its forces in Sinai to levels above and beyond the peace treaty and which has even recalledits ambassador to Israel.With peace like that I'd rather have the Sinai back and a cold war anyday!

As to the Nuclear traitor- most other countries would have hanged him!

By the way the LEHI "stern gang" NEVER targetted civillians. They only targetted british military and government installations that were responsible for the anti Jewish policies of the mandate government. Indee the King David hotel was the headquarters of the british military administration. the LEHI infact gave 3 telephone warnings before they blew up the hotel-which the arrogant British commander ignored.You will find that in fact the british record in the land of Israel was pretty disgraceful. Indeed it was the british who first helped sow the seeds of the cancer that is Arab nationalism.

Besides all of this is unneccessary as there were a few such underground groups figting a colonial power and cannot be compared to the murderous Islamists who blow up planes,buses and twin towers.

I have had to delete another impersonating post.

"Jacob" from "Israel Insider" (and Jesus College, Cambridge). Your contributions under multiple 'identities' are beginning to annoy us.

Abu:

Government administrators are, in fact, civilians. Or was the assassinated Israeli tourism minster a legitament target for freedom fighters? I think not.

Telephone warnings do not justify acts of terrorism.

As for nuclear treachery,

1. We havn't hung our nucler traitors? I didn't see norwood swinging from a yard arm.

2. That is the point though isn't it? If you would hang nuclear traitors, wouldn't you also hang murderers and terrorists?

Your denial of a groups national identity is, frankly, deeply racist and rather disgusting. But of course you are right. There are no palestinians. All people who claim to be palestinians are in fact, lying. Frankly, I feel the same way about the wogs and the paki's... they are all the same. <That is sarcasm by the way, for those who havn't spotted that yet>

"They were then liberated by Israel in 1967 after yet another Arab initated war "to throw the Jews into the Sea"."

Right, so you accept that the west bank was occupied by Jordan. In that case, you can hardly claim that the Palestinians are complicit in the war.

And in any case, this brings us the fundemental point: The west bank was conquered in 1967. It was not part of the land assigned to Israel or claimed by it in it's decleration of existance. It was populated almost exclusively by Arabs. Furthermore, International law forbids the aquisition of land by conquest. There is no justifiable claim to retain that land in perpetuity.

There may have been no claims to seperate the west bank from Jordan, but there was however revolts at Jordan's regime, who have always treated Palestinians (as we now call them) as second class citizens. You claim uniformity of Arabs from the Mediterranian through to the Euphrates, but that's no more true than to say all Europeans, by virtue of being white and christian, or indeed, that Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, America, Canada and England are all the same by virtue of being white, english speaking states with broadly christian populations.

"Besides all of this is unneccessary as there were a few such underground groups figting a colonial power and cannot be compared to the murderous Islamists who blow up planes,buses and twin towers."

The PLO isn't islamist, it's nationalist.

Hi Seb,

Good post - very enlightening. Somehow your arguments just hold more water that Mr. Hamza's. One small, anal, pernickety(?) point. Yard arms were only generally used to hang people from at sea, most normally being used to hang a square sail from.

Gibbets are what are needed if you want to hang a man in a landlocked country, or indeed in the UK! Coombe Hill still retains an example.

taraaa

tom

I think the whole Arab-Israeli situation is wrong. To the settle the situation, i think we should nuke the WHOLE damn place and then start ALL over again so the rest of the world does not have to listen to ISRAELI defensive measure c**p/bulls**t nor vote for JUSTICE for PALESTINE society. Infact, I think holocaust should be revived and instead of JEWS we should have all israelis and palestinians put into one massive concentration camp to battle it all out. Its like spanish bullfighting. you know the bulls are gonna die so might as well entertain yourself while killing them . hehe! oh and nuke is a bad idea....i think chemical warfare is far superior...u just send VX in..kill everyone and then take over the infrastructure. :)

anyway, PEACE OUT ...!

ironically, i believe in WORLD PEACE but frankly , this is the ideal scenario in my mind.

Tom t:

I couldn't remember the word for a land bassed yard arm... gibbet. Must remember.

Anyway, I didn't mean to be pedantic, it's just not very widely reported that the resolutions Israel is in breach of are non-binding (i.e. no coercive measures attatched to them) so I tend to say it whenver the opertunity arrises.

isn't it ironic how the Islamic soc, environmental soc, Amnesty and Arab soc have all held Anti - Israel events in the last few weeks since SJP was vetoed?

This just confirmss the scc decison was right!

Those events aren't Anti-Israel, they are Anti-Israeli-Policy.

Sorry to be pedantic, but most people don't attack the existence of Israel, they attack Israel's Policies. To be honest, I care very little about whether Israel exists or not, or how it was founded. I do however care about human rights... I am not an Anti-Semite, and I am definitely not Anti-Israel, i do however disagree with their occupation and treatment of Palestine.

Yes that's right, only the other day we held the 'Why Israel should be dug up and thrown into the Med' event, which was a great success and attended by hundreds of terrorists, and soon we're doing a workshop on 'How to murder Israelis on campus' - ALL WELCOME!! Martine, look forward to meeting you there?!

Sam, you should know better by now. ANY criticism of the Israeli government is anti-semitism. If you say "settlements", they will reply, "holocaust".

Seriously though, the anti-semitism card is used so often that it has lost all meaning. I used to get upset when someone called me anti-semitic for wanting Palestinians to have their own nation, but now I just shrug it off. It doesn't matter - they will say it as long as you don't agree with Sharon et al.

Stefanos: all very well but the vast majority of people around the world who rant away against Israel and/or Israeli policies (as pursued by its democratically-elected government) are certainly anti-semitic. The remainder who are simply anti-Israeli-policy do themselves no favours by allying with those who actively seek the destruction of Israel or the end of a Jewish State. Examples of this include attempts to explain the behaviour of terrorists and suicide bombers by blaming Israel for "bringing it all on to itself" etc etc.

Sunil:

There is nothing wrong with explaining terrorists behaviour. It's irritiaing that we should have to pretend that anything bad is also "mad". It is impossible to reconcile any conflict like Palestine, or for that matter Ireland, by refusing to adress the route cause of the problem. The route cause of the problem in the middle east is that the Israelis do not feel secure, and the Palestinians do not feel free. The Palestinians do not feel free because Israel has decided the only way it can be secure is to retain a degree of controll over the West Bank that no nation would tollerate.

Various reasons I have heard, over the year, of people arguing pro-Israeli policy have included things like "strategic depth", i.e. that without the west bank it is a half hour drive from Jordan to Tel-a-viv. This echos with Stalins "need" for a bufferzone between the west and Russia for fear of a resurgent Germany. Hardly a convincing argument for the partition and occupation of East Europe.

Anyway, this is turning into a ramble. To criticise Israel is not to ally yourself with fundementalists. If this is the perception, then I would sugest that there is no particular need for the critics to proove their non-anti-semitic credentials any more than a critic of, say, Thatcher or Heaths policy in Northern Ireland should have to proove that they are not out to murder protestants.

Israel perpetuates the current situation as much as the Palestinians, just as for a long time, Britain helped to perpetuate the conflict in Northern Ireland.

Seb:

What Israel is doing to prolong its conflict is neither here nor there.

The charge of anti-semitism being applied to those protesting against Israel might be unfair in many cases. Still, the facts are:

• these protesters are happy to march alongside known anti-semitic groups whose avowed aim is the destruction of the state of Israel as we know it, clearly without any distaste or revulsion.
• these protesters refuse to condemn the acts of terrorism Israel is being subjected to with anything approaching the same kind of ferocity. This is plainly unfair.
• ultimately, Israel is a democratic state and it can be safely assumed that anything Israel does, it does with the tacit approval of the majority of its citizens. Saying "I have nothing against Jews but I hate/oppose Israel" is then essentially an expression of dislike or distaste directed against the world's largest Jewish community. Such criticism can come dangerously close to being genuinely anti-semitic.

For historical reasons, the charge of anti-semitism is not a light one to bear in the western world. Protesters would be able to get their message across far more effectively if they were to rid themselves of every hint of any association with anti-semitism as best as they could.

As for resolution of the conflict, realistically the only hope is if the terrorist organisations acting against Israel call halt to their actions unilaterally and enter peace talks to broker a deal for a better future. As is happening in Sri Lanka right now with the LTTE (inventors of the sucide bombing technique).

oooh,

so i'm antisemitic because i refuse to condemn anti-israeli terrorism...

rubbish! that terrorism is itself anti-israeli, not anti-semitic. I would never ally myself with any terrorists, however arguing that by not condemning them i condone them is a little harsh.

I don't condone terrorism, whether state sponsored or not. I see no difference between Israeli foreign policy and Palestinian Terrorism, however there are many speakers against the latter, but very few for the former. All i do is add balance to the argument.

It all comes down to one thing. I do not believe the Israeli occupation of Palestine is just, therefore i condemn it; just as i condemn war against Iraq, and many other western sponsored wars in the past.

If a conflict is not "Just" it is wrong, and here is my fairly strict definition of just:

Criteria for a Just War: 1) The war must have a just cause, 2) It must be waged by a legitimate authority, 3) It must be formally declared 4) It must be fought with a peaceful intention, 5) It must be a last resort, 6) There must be a reasonable hope of success, 7) The means used must possess proportionality to the ends sought 8) Noncombatants must be given immunity, 9) Prisoners must be treated humanely, 10) International treaties and conventions must be honored.

come back when you've fulfilled all my criteria guys...

Democracy in the Middle East

Scorecard: Israel 1, Arab States 0. That about sums it up.

Israel just had elections recently and three Arab-led parties won 9 seats in the Knesset - Israel´s parliament. Democracy, I was told when I was growing up, was majority rule with respect for minority rights. Israel, more or less qualifies. Let´s take a look at a few other examples.

Iraq not too long ago had elections and guess what, Saddam Hussein - running unopposed- was elected by 100% of the electorate. Even people in the hospital, ´deep in coma´ came out to vote for him. Same thing for Syria´s Hafez Assad a few years ago, running unopposed, he garnered 99% of the vote. Gee, they sure love those Arab despots, don´t they?

Take Lebanon for example. Poor thing, they ´invited´ Syria in to ´help´ them during the civil war in 1976, and it never left. Sort of like an obnoxious guest who overstays his visit, not sensing when its time to leave. The Christians in Lebanon feel that way. That´s Syria, well-known ´champion of democracy´, respected member of the UN Security Council, and rapacious occupier of Lebanon in violation of UN Resolution 520 (telling them to get out, I might add).

Syria, that´s that country run by the Alawis (a heretical offshoot of S**te Islam), of which Bashir and the rest of the Assad clan are members. Although they make up only 10-12% of the population, about the same amount as Christians, and far fewer than the about 75% Sunni Muslim majority, they rule with an ´iron fist´