Israel/Palestine: New booklet on Anarchists Against the Wall

by :-) Mon Oct 18, 2004 20:59

and publishing it with the clear and meaningful title "anarchists against the wall".
And then a few days later someone in the comments pointed out that this really clear and meaningful title is sort of ironically hilarious.
Yes. We are "against the wall". Israel should take it down.
No. don't you ever put us up "against the wall" and shoot us again.

anyway. follow the link to see the old joke in its natural setting, and read some Edward Said a now dead palestinian philosopher who had lost of interesting stuff to say about the "state" problem.

by avi15 Wed Oct 20, 2004 07:22

No terror=no fence

by ;-) Wed Oct 20, 2004 18:33

"anarchists against terror as well as being against the bloody wall and the fecking fence".
Could you put that on a bumper sticker Avi?

by Ali H. Wed Oct 20, 2004 19:20

No zionists = no fence

by avi H Wed Oct 20, 2004 21:48

Translation: Jews have no right to live in Israel.

Palestinian Arabs won't let Jews live among them.

Life expectancy of a Jew wearing a skullcap walking along the street in downtown Ramallah: 5 minutes, max.

by hs - sp Wed Oct 20, 2004 22:10

is it just me or does that sound to anyone like an unfortunate fuck up in translation!!! It's kronsdat all over again : )

by hs - sp Wed Oct 20, 2004 22:16

i should have read the comments first! now I do feel stupid!!! oh well, incidently it is a translation fuck up, they translated the italian literaly, probably "Anarchists oppsed to the wall" is better as "contro" only has one meaning in eyetalian.

"Anarchici contro il Muro"

by Ali H. Thu Oct 21, 2004 09:56

Jews and Christians lived side-by-side with Muslims for thousands of years until the arrivial of the Zionists who adopted a policy of ethnic cleansing against Muslim and Christian Palestinians to make room for waves of white European colonists.

This is attested to by the fact that 10% of the population of Palestine in the 1920s before Zionist mass colonisation and ethnic cleansing

Hardly surprising then that since the arrivial of expansionist Zionism relations have continued to deteriorate between the oppressed Palestinian population and their Zionist occupiers.

As for assertion that Jews cannot visit Ramallah tTHIS IS A LIE as numerous Israelis involved in the ISM, medical and charitable efforts to the benefit of the Palestinian people operate freely in the occupied territories as far as the Palestinians are concerned, although the same cannot be said of the Israeli government and Zionists.

This is obviously in stark contrast to the welcome that awaits gun toting, skullcap wearing Zionist "settlers" and the IDF, surprise, surprise.

by FTF Thu Oct 21, 2004 15:16

Everything you post may be factual but even if one accepts the premise that the Zionist movement shouldn’t have been allowed populate the middle –east with Jews.



The world is still left with the question of what to do now. Many on the “pro-Palestinian camp” are out spoken on what the Israelis do but are vague when dealing with the future.

So do you see ethnic cleansing and only ethnic cleansing as the solution? And if you don’t , but merely want the destruction of the State of Israel, could you guarantee the safety of the existing Jewish population.


If you couldn’t then how can you criticise them for resisting? unless, of course, your whole case really is based on jew-hate/ racism/secarianism?

by avi H. Fri Oct 22, 2004 00:12

It is a fiction that Jews have been able to live unmolested in muslim lands: Muslims have been maltreating Jews for hundreds of years.

It is also fiction that Jews are safe in Palestinian territories. Just look at what happened to two Israeli reservists who took a wrong turning and got lost in Ramallah two years ago. A large crowd turned out to murder them in the local police station, and then paraded their body parts around the streets.

Anti-semitism is real: the only difference with holocaust is that now the victims are defending themselves.

by Ali H. Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:44

Israel has no moral high ground to stand on with regard to their treatment of the Palestinians. The ethnic cleansing has been carried out by Zionists in the drive to found their state, and the existance of Israel has been almost universally acknowledged, even by some of her former enemies such as Jordan and Egypt. What is at issue here is not whether Israel has the right to exist or not (it has).

The issue is over the geographical extent of Israel beyond the green-line which is accepted by the vast majority of the world's population as Israel's border. Israel had no right to settle in the occupied territories and certainly has no right to mistreat the residents of these same territories. Israel is a nuclear armed power so there is no need for buffer zones as a pretext for continued occupation.

As for people taking wrong turns and getting lynched I'd remind Avi that exactly the same thing happened in Belfast in 1987 to 2 British undercover soldiers. The fact remains that those Israelis who help the Palestinians are welcome in the occupied territories whereas armed settlers who kill and oppress Palestinians and the IDF presence put in place to legitimise their land theft are not.

Security will be guaranteed by a FAIR settlement with your neighbours not by force majeure. The solution, get out of the occupied territories and defend yourselves from within the green-line. I don't think anybody has a problem with that.

As for the problem of the right to return for the 500,000 Palestinians ethnically cleansed from their homes in 1948 this could be solved by the payment of compensation by the Israelis and/or their American backers. This issue must be addressed as this is what will cause relations to fester otherwise even if there is a fully independent Palestinian state.

by nestor Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:14

Hi hs-sp,

You said: "incidently it is a translation fuck up, they translated the italian literaly, probably 'Anarchists oppsed to the wall' is better as "contro" only has one meaning in eyetalian."

Actually it's not translated from Italian, but from Hebrew "Anarkhistim neged hahoma" = "Anarchists (who are) in opposition to the wall". But it was the Israeli anarchists themselves who translated it into English and I can see no good reason to correct it. Besides, they are well aware of the pun.

As for being "up against the wall", please remember that these Israeli anarchists have been shot at, also with live ammunition, by the Israeli "defence forces".

Unfortunately, there is at present no English-language site dedicated to the sraeli "Anarchists against the Wall", but you can find pretty well all the available information about them in the PDF booklet (see above).

nestor
(fdca-personal capacity)

by avi H. Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:31

Those who refuse to listen to the Jewish side of the story with an open mind - this is racist prejudice. Moreover, millions of people can be prejudiced in that way. Just look at Nazi Germany or the Arab countries. Remember that no matter how many people repeat a lie or a series of lies, whether in the media or on the streets, that does not turn it into truth.

by Ali H. Fri Oct 22, 2004 13:12

Those who refuse to listen to the Palestinian side of the story with an open mind - this is racist prejudice. Moreover, millions of people can be prejudiced in that way. Just look at Israel and see how it discriminates against its own Muslim minority. Remember that no matter how many people repeat a lie or a series of lies, whether in the media or on the streets, that does not turn it into truth.

The issue here by the way is not anti-semitism but the continued Israeli illegal and unwarranted occupation of territories outside the green-line in violation of just about every international law you can name. Internationnally there are numerous laws to protect Jews and other minorties from persecution (and rightly so).

The Palestinians on the other hand have effectively been deprived of all their rights and taken outside the rule of international law by Israel with the overriding excuse of Israeli national security which is no no way enhanced by the actions of the Israeli government and its agents. If it were otherwise and the Israeli governments policies actually worked, violence would not be continuing today after 37 years of occupation by Israel.

For Zionists to shoot and kill you with no fear of sanction of any kind it is enough that you be against them, this goes for peaceful Palestinian protestors and people going about their daily lives, ISM protesters, journalists and Israeli anarchists. This is not the behaviour of a civilised democracy and is a path which leads nowhere.

by By Any Means Necessary Fri Oct 22, 2004 13:29

The mantra of the Zionists has always been that anti-semitism equals criticism of Isreal.

The policy of the Isreali government is one of genocide and ethnic cleansing, this state sponsored terrorism has rightfully been opposed.

Let us banish once and for all the myth that criticism of Isreali terror equals anti-jewish politics...

by Noel Fri Oct 22, 2004 13:57

Criticising Israeli policy or action does not equal anti-Semitism.
Once criticism is comparative and fair it should be encouraged.

Thomas Friedman wrote 'Criticising Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest.'

by Ali H. Fri Oct 22, 2004 17:40

that Israel which is a "democracy" and signatory to a host of international agreements should be subjected to higher standards than 3rd world dictatorships, especially when Israel is so vocal about non compliance by others.

Seeking to compare yourself to democracies in terms of standards and morality on the one hand, but to be compared with 3rd world dictatorships in terms of your actual record is hypocritical at best.

This in no way means that equivalent behaviour by third world dictatorships should be ignored and they should not be spared any criticism. It is however much more likely that Israel will take such criticism more seriously as the Zionist backlash confirms.

In this respect, and this respect only Israel is in a better position than her neighbours in that at least some form of debate is permitted although it more often than not runs into the quicksand of Zionist nationalism and national security which silences opponents as quickly as they can raise issues.

by FTF Fri Oct 22, 2004 17:46

“The issue here by the way is not anti-semitism but the continued Israeli illegal and unwarranted occupation of territories outside the green-line in violation of just about every international law you can name. Internationally there are numerous laws to protect Jews and other minorties from persecution (and rightly so)”

Firstly I give you credit for clarifying your position on the situation. I agree on the whole it has reasonable, if not necessarily undisputable, aspects. The main problem is can you or any other ‘peace activist’ guarantee that if Israel were to accede to these demands that 1) she would not more vulnerable to attacks. 2) That jewish rights, although guaranteed on paper, could be safe guarded when you consider the degree of hostility there is to any Jewish presence in the middle-east and seeing also the growth of Islamist violence?
I don’t doubt that there is many acting in good faith on the Palestinian side but unfortunately for everyone there are those who aren’t (many informed views include Arafat in that category).
Therein lies the problem, any Israeli government is bound to act in the interests of the people’s defense. I have little doubt I that in a healthier climate of trust and goodwill that many of the outstanding issues, like some of which you have raised, could be dealt with but only when Israel can be confident of her security and be sure of the goodwill of the Palestinian leadership – currently this doesn’t seem possible .