Anti-War Alliance

by Fintan Lane - Anti-War Ireland Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:43

This meeting tomorrow is the fourth in a series of open gatherings of anti-war groups and activists. The purpose is to facilitate coordination and cooperation between the different strands of the anti-war movement, and the bigger the turnout, the more that will be achieved. Please be there if at all possible!

by Fintan Lane - Anti-War Ireland Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:46

P.S. It actually begins at 2.30pm rather than 2pm.

Deirdre Clancy of the Pitstop Ploughshares and AWI will facilitate.

by Emily Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:06

Deirdre will facillitate? Brilliant. I was a bit worried when I saw that the notice for the meeting had been posted by the IAWM.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Jun 09, 2006 13:50

Hey Emily (whoever you are!)

Thank you for acknowledging the fact that the notice of the meeting was posted in Indymedia by me three-four days ago...main reason was that nobody else had and I thought it was important for people to know....
I am also glad, that as agreed during the last plenary (were you there?), and following the decision that the facilitation of the meetings would be shared by members of the Alliance, you are delighted that DC will facilitate tomorrow's plenary. I am sure she will do a fine job!
One kind word of advice though: as what we are trying to build is an anti-war/peace alliance, made up of groups with diverse activities and possibly a variety of political/strategic goals, we would all have to be a bit more patient and slightly more understanding of other friends in the Alliance. Castigating organisations and/or its members out of hand would lead directly to the alliance breaking up in competing/opposing factions. We had a slight taste of that over the last couple of weeks in a rather confusing process of emails/counter emails involving a number of people - none of them members of the IAWM to my knowledge.
We are trying to get over the fragmentation of the anti-war movement...not exacerbate it. I hope you agree. See you at the plenary tomorrow.

by Emily Fri Jun 09, 2006 14:00

You know well why some have suspicions regarding the IAWM, its because of the SWP. I believed that you held a position that differed from the SWP and that you were prepared to criticise Islamists. You certainly suggested so on Indymedia in so far as Iran was concerned. You stated that you were prepared to support opposition to the Iranian Regime.

But it is reported that at an IPSC meeting on Tuesday you criticised David Norris because he mentioned that a sixteen year old gay boy had been hung in Iran. Does it truly mean nothing to you that a teenager was hung? That you think this should not be mentioned? It seems to me that like the SWP you will countenance no criticism of Islamic Fundamentalism.

I want to build a broad Anti War Movement. But I will not make common cause with those who stay silent about the murder of women and gays by Islamists. If you are not prepared to speak out against this then I have no desire to work with you.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Jun 09, 2006 14:31

Emily,

This thread is not about you, your views about other people and whether you are prepared to work with this person or that person...these are matters of concern to yourself.
However, as you have mentioned David, a person who has a considerable public standing and has been of significant help to the Palestinian resistance, I feel I must respond with some facts. David made a whole set of statements in the Palestine meeting the other night; he criticised the chair and the Israeli speaker, he stood up and after a rather heated exchange left the room in a huff. Among the points he made was one that stated that the issue of the treatment of gay and lesbian people and the execution of a young person in Iran were key issues.....
To my knowledge nobody - n o b o d y - from the audience made any statement after he left on this issue...all of us were amazed by the manner of his departure, somewhat theatrical we all thought, but then David is David and he knows what he's doing.
At no point, did I speak on the issue of either David or his comments...so your 'rapporteur' is either confusing me with somebody else (difficult for nobody spoke on the issue), or is telling you a fib or.....who knows?
Seeing that you have an idea of who I am and are in favourable position for I can't place you - unless you are the young woman who made a number of very pertinent points about the struggle of Palestine and then left the meeting - you can talk to me personally and learn about my views about Islamic fundamentalism, Iraq and Iran.....if you care that is. No need to bore Indymedia users here. One final word: have a look at the details of the Iranian feminist whom we have invited to speak on Iran in the countrywide meetings next week. It will give an idea of the type of politics the IAWM and I support....

by Emily Fri Jun 09, 2006 15:00

My views are as relevant as yours. Both are the opinions of one person. If you think that the rights of women and gays are irrelevant in the Anti War struggle then in my opinion you are mistaken. The views you espouse are those of the SWP, some Stalinists and a few individuals. They would not sem to be the views of AWI, WSM, AY, SP, SY or LY. This is all just in my opinion and based on discussions with members of those groups and their published writings.

by lurker Fri Jun 09, 2006 15:14

"Castigating organisations and/or its members out of hand would lead directly to the alliance breaking up in competing/opposing factions. We had a slight taste of that over the last couple of weeks in a rather confusing process of emails/counter emails involving a number of people - none of them members of the IAWM to my knowledge."

I'm on the Cosantori list where this discussion occurred and YOU (MichaelY) were one of the people who mailed into the discussion with your own strongly worded comments. Aren't you in the IAWM? It's a bit rich of you to put yourself on the 'high moral ground' when you were a participant. At any rate, the discussion was about fairly important procedural issues and imo had to be had. It's a bit much for you to characterize it as squabbling between the other antiwar groups. That's not a very good way of forging an alliance, is it?

by pat c Fri Jun 09, 2006 15:51

I was at the meeting. i was accused (not by you) of raising Red Herrings because I had mentioned Gay & Womens rights in Palestine. I resent this, I have a track record of defending Palestine which stretchs back over 20 years. If you dont react to human rights breaches in Palestine by Hamas or the PA then you will be seen as hypocritical if you are raising Israeli Human rights breachs.

I was in the row in front of you and you certainly raised David Norris' remarks abouting the hanging of a gay man in Iran. You seemed rather dismissive of it and I gathered you saw it as a diversion.

Palestinian Women and Gays are entitled to the same Human Rights as Europeans.

And I do support the armed struggle against the occupation. In the Occupied Territories if a Hamas Militant was confronting a Lesbian member of the IDF, I would be on the side of Hamas.

by John G. Keeney Sat Jun 10, 2006 09:54

Wow. I really do not know how the hanging/murder of a kid in Iran could be a point of debate (correct that it was brought up for discussion but how can there be any disagreement about it?) - or for that matter how the treatment of women in Islamo/fascist societies could be a point of contention. All of it IS just wrong. But certain individuals will just not condemn any of it because Iran is an enemy of the United States. In the eyes of some, it's OK for the Iranian regime to conduct themselves that way (or at least it won't be criticized) because at the end of the day, Iran has been at odds (to put it lightly) with the U.S. for many years.

That said, it's good to see that some people condemn what is wrong, irregardless of political alliances.

Emily, I commend you for speaking out against hypocrisy and being consistent. I know that you and I would definitely wind up on opposite sides of the political spectrum in many different ways, but it appears to me that you lend credibility to this (and I would imagine other), thread(s), and are therefore a credit to the anti-war movement in general and Indymedia in particular (if indeed you are an active participant.).

John

by MichaelY - iawm Sat Jun 10, 2006 13:59

The Anti-War/Peace alliance will be having its fourth plenary in a couple of hours. It's been an arduous and at times exhausting process of getting here....deep differences and divisions existed (and continue to exist) between active components of the anti-war movement. Splits have occurred in the past, people left groups.others were 'expelled'....but, crucially, anti-war work continued. It's encouraging to witness alliance members taking on pro-US apologists in many threads in Indymedia - about Shannon, about the transport of Apache helicopters, about Palestine and, most recently, about Iran. And activity is growing: Meetings on Gunatanamo all over the country, pickets, demonstrations, street theatre, now meetings on Iran. The movement is growing - slowly, gradually but perceptibly.
The Alliance Plenaries are a collective effort to work together in this context...not by forgetting our differences, but by incorporating them + linking them in a wider strategy of concerted action around a specific theme: The Irish Government's collaboration and collusion with the Empire's war of aggression.
There are many in the periphery, and some inside, who consider such an effort illusory....too many hotheads and too many deep divisions they say...we respond that this may be so but we'll try....we will move the process nationally, we will work together.....it may not give the result we want at the end but it will be worth trying.
And then, and this is important, there will be those in whose active interest is to see the Alliance flounder....these will be people who will create further division, deepen wounds, 'support' one 'side' over another.....hawkish individuals who will indirectly attack while ' agreeing' with one argument against another. [See the message above coming, supposedly, from across the ocean].
To them our message in the Alliance is clear: Buzz off! Anti-war activists in Ireland, and elsewhere, are too mature and too perceptive to be taken in by such 'divide + rule' tactics. Our foreparents confronted that strategy of the Empire for generations....it won't work now.

by pat c Sat Jun 10, 2006 14:36

i am not going to buzz off. i am going to contnue to expose hypocrisy whereever it stems from.

i oppose the US occupation of Iraq and I oppose any US aggression towards Iran. but i will not reamain silent about Islamofascism.

Women in Iraq and in Iran and in Palestine are also entitled to rights. the same goes for gays. as has been pointed out above, socialist feminists in iran, iraq and palestine are fighting for these rights. I am not going to stay quiet about that.

neither am i going to be driven out of campaigning against the war by an arrivisté like you.

by pat c Sat Jun 10, 2006 14:46

Is Michael Y speaking for the Alliance in his comment above? Do the Alliance to a Woman and a Man believe that no questions shouldf be raised about Womens Rights or Gay Rights? Is only one party line allowed in the Alliance? How can a broad campaign br built on this basis?

When did the Alliance adopt this Strategy and appoint Michael Y to speak on behalf of the Alliance?

Is there no one in the Alliance who supports the Iranian Socialist Resistance against the Iranian Islamist Regime?

Is there no one in the Alliance who thinks that the hanging of Gays in Iran is wrong?

by MichaelY - iawm Sun Jun 11, 2006 00:52

The Anti-War Network had its fourth Plenary today. A number of constituent groups of the Network, among them the Unamanageables, Anti-War Ireland, the Ploughshares, IAWM, Cosantoirir Siochana, and a number of the network sub-groups reported on their activities....minutes of the meting will be forthcoming. This was the theme of the thread I started last week...and this remains the theme.

In the meantime, a number of people I personally do not recognise as members of the Network, among them PatC, started a debate of themes that appeared to be of major concern to them. Below some of the comments posted:

"I was in the row in front of you and you certainly raised David Norris' remarks abouting the hanging of a gay man in Iran. You seemed rather dismissive of it and I gathered you saw it as a diversion [PatC re: last week's IPSC meeting]"

"i oppose the US occupation of Iraq and I oppose any US aggression towards Iran. but i will not reamain silent about Islamofascism.....neither am i going to be driven out of campaigning against the war by an arrivisté like you[PatC about himself - the 'arriviste' slur I suppose it's towards me!]"

"When did the Alliance adopt this Strategy and appoint Michael Y to speak on behalf of the Alliance? Is there no one in the Alliance who supports the Iranian Socialist Resistance against the Iranian Islamist Regime? Is there no one in the Alliance who thinks that the hanging of Gays in Iran is wrong?" [PatC again]".

These extraordinary remarks come from a person who as far as I know has never come into a Anti-War Network meeting....don't even know if Patc is a member of a constituent group....There is no shred of evidence that I, or anybody else I know, was speaking/commetning on the issues of concern to Patc C from the Network or on behalf of the Network. For the very simple reason that these issues, i.e Women Rights, Gay Rights or Iran and political groups in Iran have not as yet been discussed in the four Plenaries.

Perhaps they should be in the future and the participants will have the opportunity to share their views...in the meantime Patc should do better to stick to things he knows about, people whose views he knows about, quit attacking individuals and personalising debates......he, of course, I am sure would be very welcome to join the Anti-War Network and find some answers to his questions. Until then - his aggressive remarks will not be responded by me.....they're not worth it.

by barry Sun Jun 11, 2006 03:16

Michael, et al,

as someone who participated in earlier meetings of the anti-war network, and in the earlier days of the Irish anti-war movement (only one capital letter), it is unfortunate that you expend so much energy in defending a group which experience has shown to be more concerned with political gain than human loss. i know Pat C by deed as well as reputation and he has been consistant in decrying hypocricy when it infects debate or (in)action. i do not know emily but her points and views are shared by a majority and match my own general experiences.

i fully understand and appreciate the need for continuity and unanimity in opposing the actions of warmongers, profiteers and apologists, but sometimes it is necessary to burn bridges and tear down rotten structures,

ps, does RBB still hold that "a long and protracted war will give us a greater opportunity to build the movement" (anti-war meeting, aston hotel dublin, jan 21 2003)

by pat c Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:38

You dont exactly make the meetings sound inviting. Do you really think the numbers who turn up are representative of those who turn up at demos and direct action? My point is though that your views on Womens and gay rights as being diversions are your own and would only be shared by the swp, a few stalinists and some "independents". As Emily observed, your anti woman and anti gay views would not be supported by the WSM, SY, AY, SP, LY.

yes you are an arriveste. you arrive in ireland and within a couple of months you act as if you are the IAWM now you think you speak for the Alliance as well. At the IPSC meeting you said "Iam the Anti War Movement", a Freudian slip if ever there was one.

At the IPSC meeting you also beliitled David Norris' comments about Iran and the fact that 16 year old gays were hanged. You might consider this a diversion but I dont. I think you will find that the ordinary people of Ireland wont laugh at teenagers being hanged either.

If you dont like aggressive comments then you should try to be a little less aggressive yourself.

by MichaelY - iawm Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:42

Barry,

Thanks for the kind and sensitive response. I am glad you think :
"I know Pat C by deed as well as reputation and he has been consistant in decrying hypocricy when it infects debate or (in)action. ...."

In this context the fact that he has a few things upside down appears even more perplexing. I don't know if he's thinking of another person but, for example, when he says I have just arrived in Ireland....I did arrive here in 1974....just? Then he goes on and on about "diversion"....It is not my intention to blow trumpets here but let him ask around and find out about the role played in the First Abortion Amendment Campaign...in the Divorce campaign.....about our co-operation with the first Gay Collective in the early Temple Bar days....PatC has never spoken to me and he has never heard me make any comments, of whatever sort, about womens rights or gay rights....He hasn't got the faintest idea.
At best he's imagining things - at worst.......I am talking to him through you in case you have some comradely influence to advise him to calm down and get his facts right.....he's not doing himself, or anybody else, any favours by taking his paranoia as reality!

Now, on the issue of whether the increasing number of those who turn up to the Anti-War Network meetings "represent" or not the entire strength of the anti-war movement in Ireland....the real question is how many people those who don't turn up reflect and represent? And what is the degree, amplitude, extent and effect of their regular anti-war activity?

Let us debate these real issues and leave fantasy land aside........

by pat c Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:57

"n this context the fact that he has a few things upside down appears even more perplexing. I don't know if he's thinking of another person but, for example, when he says I have just arrived in Ireland....I did arrive here in 1974...."

Now you are being somewhat disingenuous here. You vanished for a long time. Perhaps you became a hermit. You returned to "active service", a few months back.

"Then he goes on and on about "diversion"..."

Yes. you described David Norris's raising of gays in iran as a diversion.

".It is not my intention to blow trumpets here but let him ask around and find out about the role played in the First Abortion Amendment Campaign..."

So was I, that was in 1982-3.

"in the Divorce campaign.."

Yes, so was I in 1986. You werent around for the 1995 campaign (maybe thats why we won. joke)

..".about our co-operation with the first Gay Collective in the early Temple Bar days."

Yes, yes, a long time ago.

.".PatC has never spoken to me and he has never heard me make any comments, of whatever sort, about womens rights or gay rights....He hasn't got the faintest idea."

i have actually. You certainly sneered at David Norris comments at the IPSC meeting.

"At best he's imagining things - at worst.......I am talking to him through you in case you have some comradely influence to advise him to calm down and get his facts right.....he's not doing himself, or anybody else, any favours by taking his paranoia as reality!"

No paranoia on my part. as for your positions, all people have to do is scroll back up and read your previous comments.

"Now, on the issue of whether the increasing number of those who turn up to the Anti-War Network meetings "represent" or not the entire strength of the anti-war movement in Ireland....the real question is how many people those who don't turn up reflect and represent? And what is the degree, amplitude, extent and effect of their regular anti-war activity?"

so you now think the small numberrs who attend represent the masses?! would call call you an irrelevance but the trouble is you are a disruptive influence.

"Let us debate these real issues and leave fantasy land aside......."

You are well situated in fantasy land.

by RSwatch Sun Jun 11, 2006 13:36

Where o where was our bould Mick the Greek? For twenty years he abandoned us. We even managed to win a few campaigns and referendums while he was sailing the seven seas. Now hes back and with a vengenance. In six months he has surged ike a mighty wave sowing division and despair where he goes. Its like the old days when I wondered what the real purpose of RS was. To whose agenda were they working and where did Mick the Greek come from. This is not idle gossip. When Mick first arrived in 1974 he claimed to be a Chilean refugee. The CP used their international contacts to disprove this story. But then the story kept changing. He was a Turk, a Bulgarian, he was Greek. What is his current nationality or more to the point where does he say hes from?

I know where Pat C has been for the past twenty years and I know what hes been active in. Saddly he has abandoned Leninism and become a Republican/Anarchist hybrid but thats what Trotskyism does to you. But in any case he has been around and mostly fighting the good fight. But where was Mick the Greek who claims to have been in Ireland since1974?

by MichaelY - iawm Sun Jun 11, 2006 14:01

As from above,

And then..... there will be those in whose active interest is to see the Alliance, the Anti-War Network flounder....people who will try to create further division, deepen wounds, 'support' one 'side' over another.....hawkish individuals who will indirectly attack while ' agreeing' with one argument against another. Anonymous 'experts', historians of the gutter -

To them the message, from me, and I hope from the Anti-war network is clear: Buzz off! Anti-war activists in Ireland, and elsewhere, are too mature and too perceptive to be taken in by such 'divide + rule' tactics. It's been tried before....lots of us lost jobs, got family situation engendered, became guests of a variety of prisons. The Minister of Injustice is continuing to use the same stuff as the last message...Chile, Columbia, IRA, Bulgaria, North Korea, Communist Party,....it won't work!!

by RSwatch - SMERSH Sun Jun 11, 2006 17:30

You are in no position to end any discussion and it is also clear to the rationalamongst us that you do not speak for either the IAWM or the AWN. You have made claims about your activities including the assertion that you have been in Ireland since 1974. You are being economical with the truth.

There is a 20 year gap which you have not acounted for. Now you might say that this is your own business and in normal circumstances I would agree with you. But these are extraordinary circumstances and anyone who is going to be involved in anti-State activity does need to give an account of their movements. Especially when there is a twenty year hiatus in their activities.

So what were you up to? If you were in Ireland you most certainly were not politically active. If you were in Ireland at all then you must have maintained an extremely low profile. I am starting toenjoy this exchange.

by Another Sun Jun 11, 2006 17:47

Perhaps if you think activists giving an account of their life is so important you might be so good as to identify yourself and give an account of your activity.
I don't expect you will cos you're obviously only interested in throwing mud around.
Reading you and PatC and others you get the impression that they are a select band and nobody has a right to join in who hasn't satisfied them of their credentials. Talk about small group mentality

by em Mon Jun 12, 2006 02:49

I think what is obvious from this discussion (I nearly used the word debate) is the level of distrust that cannot be ignored between two elements of the same diverse movement that are claiming to work towards the same objective yet see very very different methods and policies of accountability to achieve their aims,

Some people deal with people others deal with power, some people use other people to acquire power leaving less and less space for real people to achieve real and long lasing peace, I am sorry to say this but the IAWM's policies, politics and attitudes leaves me with such strong emotions that I for one will not be attending and discussions facilitated or dictated by them, I don’t respond to their megaphones I wont read their propaganda (especially while they refuse to be responsible for the recycling issues they create with all the discarded papers that litter the post protest landscape).

Sorry to be so negative but when your dealing with such negativity it becomes contagious and sometimes the only way to cure it is disassociation, for me at least this is the case.

by Claire Posavec - World Spirit Youth Council Tue Jun 20, 2006 22:33 cheemyeyes255 at yahoo dot com

Dear Peace representataives,
i appreciate all of your concerns nd positive thoughts about peace.. just remember they'll help the world and use them in your own lives and teaching, especially. Also i am part of an organization- The World Spirit Youth Council. Right now we are thinking of connecting all of the organizations around the world interested in peace. We realize there are SO many people out there trying to help, but for some reason we mostly still feel alone and unaccomplished. We want to link all of the people in the word, especially the lights who really shine and ARE peace. During your discussion maybe one or two of you can bring up our name and our cause. We now have around 20 youth who are involved in outside organbizations- and we'd love to connect with others to be known. we start by BEING the change. So if you're interested we could combine ideas or send somebody interested email me back at Cheemyeyes255@yahoo.com. Thank you soo much,
Claire Posavec