IFPAL member arrested over "offensive" No To Lisbon sign outside Israeli Embassy.

by Kev Fri Sep 18, 2009 18:52

Hi, can some kind indymediaer please change the second pic above to this one thanks.

by Donagh Fri Sep 18, 2009 19:27

If the Galway and Dublin arrests are taken together, it seems clear that there is an unspoken agreement that any Israeli protest of whatever kind is to be judged as carrying significant legal weight as to merit the immediate arrest of the person complained of. This is tantamount to the Israeli government running its own police force in Ireland. Now none of this, as we know, can happen on the judgement of one Garda.

This policy - and it is beginning to look like that - has to be nodded through higher up. It would seem to be part, furthermore, of a policy to arrest demonstrators of any hue: witness the Rossport events, witness the Thomas Cooke Affair in Dublin. Is there more to all of this than meets the eye? And if the Israeli government can have a demonstrator arrested here for bearing or putting up a placard protesting against what are now identified as Israeli war crimes, why can't our Gardaí arrest any Israeli leaving the Embassy on the grounds that he is a functionary in a governmental system which commits war crimes?

by Howard Crane - e-Gypt Media Fri Sep 18, 2009 23:20 creativedoom at gmail dot com

I feel very much as the last first commenter. I'm enraged about this. Continuing arrests, British invasions... it's all weaving together for me.. and it doesn't look pretty.

They took his photo, yeah? They have a lot of our photos. This is blatant profiling. Outright Nazi tactics.

by NoGodsOrMasters Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:56

I'm sorry to hear about how badly you were treated by the DCC / state goons who seem to pay only lip service to the law of the land and democracy, and might as well just work directly for big business / foreign powers considering how they respond. In fact maybe big business and foreign powers SHOULD pay their wages directly. At least it would save our economy a decent amount of money while they tug their forelocks for Israelis, shell and their ilk. And the way the gardai operate, it might as well be out in the open who they work for and at least save us some money.

it is insulting not only to be treated in this way when you protest, but also to have to pay them for the privilege. I've even had my small table and stand on a pedestrianised street corner in galway charged to move on under the road traffic of all things. I'm sure that was what it was meant to do when it was originally drafted!!

I hope you are aware that many Irish people are inspired and encouraged by principled stands such as yours. Thanks again.

by Angry Man Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:39

I am very upset about what happened to Mr. Clinton in Dublin, it is a clear violation of his rights of free speech. I am concerned that this pattern of unlawful arrest has been seen many times recently, in Galway with Mr. Donnellan and with the protests of Thomas Cook. I wonder is there any way to obtain some legal advise on the actions of the Gardai in Donybrook station and legally question their behaviour ??

Please keep up the good work, Sean and all IFPAL members.

by old codger - pensioner Sat Sep 19, 2009 14:04

All campaigners must realise that Ireland is corrupt.
The gardai like all state bodies are under Fianna Fail controll and are free to make their own laws to suit any situation. This has been happening for years in Rossport, Shannon and Tara and the use of Fianna Fail judges to administer law is commonplace hence the repeated jailings of Shell to Sea campaigners.
Cowan, Aherne and their cronies are selling us all to vested interests that is why we have to vote again on the Lisbon treaty. Europe does not like to be challenged on their Israeli position or on the Lisbon treaty.
SCREW THEM ALL VOTE NO AGAIN
The fight against these scumbags has to be increased we all need to combine forces, somebody needs to organise a way to combine and stategise bigger and better protests
Corruption will continue untill we get rid of it whatever it takes we must do it.

by Sean Clinton - IFPAL Sun Sep 20, 2009 21:10

Apart from this abuse of power by Gardai from Donnybrook when they arrested me without due cause I discovered yesterday morning that they failed to return a memory stick I had in my pocket which they took from me before locking me in a cell . I didn't miss it when they returned my other possessions before releasing me without charge. I only noticed that it was missing early on Saturday morning. I immediately went back to Donnybrook Station about 8:30 am and asked to see the list of items taken from me and it didn't include the memory stick. The one item they failed to record was the one item they failed to return to me. They have no record of it and found no trace of it when I asked them to look for it.

by Fred Johnston Mon Sep 21, 2009 03:00

Laugh and mock all you like, folks, but while President Obama makes shapes about talk with Israel over a peace settlement with the Palestinians, he's sending missiles to Israel. On the site Press.TV, the following is reported, of a piece in The Jerusalem Post:

"It also quoted a 'senior Israeli defense official' as saying that the likelihood was "being discussed in unofficial channels" for the US to equip Israel with the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. The US military is slated to ship the highly-dependable defensive gear to Israel for the October joint exercises with the Israeli Air Force (IAF). Though rating the possibility as 'strong', the officials noted that "the United States has not made an official request to deploy the systems here." The US has already installed a powerful missile defense radar in the southern Israeli Negev desert to 'enhance and extend' Tel Aviv's missile deterrence capabilities. "

So out of Poland and into Israel with the 'defensive' shield? This is about making Iran quake and, of course, it is a veiled threat. Israel will no doubt act as the proxy attack-dog against Iran and, in case there are retaliations - that is, in case Iranians defend themselves - Washington is making sure the country can be obliterated. The Palestinians do not count regarding US interests and there is probably no chance that they will ever have an independent State - to the great humanitarian shame of the world.

by Eamonn a' Chnoic Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:41

Mr. Johnston,

Which part of 'missile defense' is not understood? Where in the report quoted is there a single reference to missiles per se? I wonder why Israel might be seeking protection against enemy missiles? Could it possibly have anything to do with repeated statements of Iranian leaders, from Ayatollah Khomeini to Mr. Ahmadinejad, saying in 47 different ways -- they can't all have been mistranslated from the Farsi -- that Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth.

And why aren't IPSC folk appaluding these statements instead of denying them? If Israel really is the genocidal apartheid child-murdering international law-defying rogue state of some demented imaginations, why not cheer at the sight of Shahab-3 rockets drawn through Teheran streets with banners inscribed 'Death to Israel'?

Not that Israel shouldn't have the latest missiles also as a deterrent -- defensive measures are never enough in themselves. But as for making Iran 'quake'? Has anyone looked at an atlas lately? Last time I did Iran was 80 times bigger in land area than Israel, and 12 times bigger in population. In any nuclear exchange, there is no doubt who would come off worse. This is the scenario Israel will have to face, and avoid, if Obama doesn't get real very soon about Iran.

by David L - IPSC (pers cap) Mon Sep 21, 2009 13:42

Odd comments there by Eamon. Firstly, in any nuclear confrontation between Israel and Iran it is somewhat obvious that Iran would come off worse as they don't posess nukes but Israel does. Indeed Israel's repeated threats to achieve Iranian 'regime change' and attack Iran with all its power is received with genuine fear within Iran. The threat of Israeli nuclear attack is a strong motivator for Iran to develop its own nuclear arsenal. However, Iran has long called for a nuclear-free middle-east, declaring its willingness to be subject to international inspection from the IAEA so long as Israel does so too. Israel (supported by the EU and Ireland) has opposed any such international monitoring of its nuclear arsenal.

Secondly, Israel is a child-killing (300 kids murdered in Gaza in January), apartheid (check out Jonathon Cook's latest book or Susan Nathan's), state that defies international law (innumerable UN resolutions, Geneva conventions etc etc). I wish it was all in our demented imaginations, but unfortunately it is Israel's demented actions that lead us to say so.

Thirdly, since the IPSC opposes wholesale murder of Palestinians, we obviously don't support wholesale murder of Israelis either, but a solution in accordance with justice and international law. is that too hard to understand?

by Eamonn a' Chnoic Mon Sep 21, 2009 15:17

If Iran doesn't possess nukes, how could it be a 'nuclear confrontation'? Rafsanjani, 'a moderate' Iranian leader, has spoken of the likelihood that a single nuclear strike would be enough to destroy Israel, while Iran could sustain much greater nuclear damage and still survive. Looks like he has a greater grip on reality than most IPSC folk.

Does David L seriously -- I mean honestly, all propaganda hyperbole aside, deep down in his soul -- believe that Israel would carry out a first nuclear strike against Iran merely to change the regime there? Democracies don't work that way, and Israeli public opinion does count for something.

The attempt to portray Iran as David in this stand-off against an Israeli Goliath, while it carries out its policy of encirclement of Israel -- it has resupplied Hizbullah on Israel's northern border with twice as many rockets as it possessed before the 2006 war, and also supplies Hamas with much of its war materials -- involves a bizarre inversion of the known facts. All the threatening for the past 30 years, since the Islamic Revolution took power, has been in one direction only -- and please don't equate threats of self-defence or retaliation with the initial threat of extermination.

But hey, this fence-sitting won't do. How can you get rid of such an evil state as Israel without killing thousands of Israelis? They will defend themselves you know -- for some strange reason they feel this attachment to their homeland -- and their army is a true 'people's army'. If you're going to stand with Iran on its right to threaten Israel with nuclear extermination, why not have the guts to face up to the likely consequences?

by Fedayeen Mon Sep 21, 2009 15:56

"its policy of encirclement of Israel -- it has resupplied Hizbullah on Israel's northern border with twice as many rockets as it possessed before the 2006 war, and also supplies Hamas with much of its war materials -- involves a bizarre inversion of the known facts."

Indeed, a "bizarre inversion of the known facts". Hizbullah only began firing rockets into Israel in 2006 when the Israeli army and air force began targeting the civilian population of Lebanon and killing hundreds of civilians (whatever the western supporters of Israel may have claimed, Israeli government ministers themselves were absolutely clear that the civilian population was the intended target of their missiles and bombs). If Israel acted the same way, no doubt you would see it as an act of self-defence. Israel has enough firepower to exterminate the entire population of Lebanon several times over, and has launched several fullscale attacks on Lebanon in the last thirty years, so it takes some brass neck to denounce Hizbullah's possession of a much smaller arsenal as a monstrous threat to the existence of the Israeli people.

by Eamonn a' Chnoic Mon Sep 21, 2009 16:51

Fedayeen,
If you're going to quote, please quote the full sentence: it is the attempt to portray Iran as the threatened party that involves a bizarre inversion etc.
It is accepted by all reputable sources that Israel's attacks on Hizbullah positions in Lebanon began after the latter's incursion into northern Israel that killed five soldiers and wounded two more, and was accompanied by the firing of rockets into israel.

When did Israeli leaders make 'absolutely clear that the civilian population was the intended target of their missiles and bombs'? Verbatim quotes please. There is all the moral difference in the world between the unfortunate but unavoidable killing of civilians in military action carried out against a military enemy and the intended targeting of civilians. More French civilians were killed accidentally by Allied forces after the 1944 Normandy invasions than the total of French troops killed by German forces in the war.

Of course Israel has enough firepower to exterminate the entire population of Lebanon several times over -- and so has every state in the region. They're states for God's sake! The question is how Israel uses that power. If it really wanted to murder Lebanese civilians in some mysterious outburst of murderous ill-will, and it has such firepower, why did it stop at a mere thousand victims? All of Israel's attacks in Lebanon have been responses to the unfortunate weakness of Lebanon as a state which allowed external forces to take over parts of its territory from which to launch attacks on Israel. Don't take my word as to the size of Hizbullah's arsenal -- check the statements of Hassan Nasrallah - Hizbullah glories in having evaded UN Resolution 1701!

by Fred Johnston Mon Sep 21, 2009 19:18

Wow! Hizbullah 'evaded' one UN resolution. Clearly Israel is the winner in those particular stakes - how many did they 'evade!'

by Shane - Anti-Tidy Towns Cliques Mon Sep 21, 2009 21:25

This is just further evidence that we are living in a police state. Also worth noting here is the fact "Tidy Towns Committees" are used as a means to stop democracy for example in Greystones County Wicklow (no working class allowed), they don't allow No posters yet allow Yes posters from IBEC-Check it out if you don't believe me. Tidy Towns Committees and other BUSY-BODY CLIQUES have no right to suppress the democratic process and posters in a democracy should be put up anywhere. The corrrruption is so deep but must vote NO again

by Paul Mon Sep 21, 2009 21:48

What happened to Sean was a disgrace and a violation of his right to free speech but that sign is way too big to put over a sign providing information to motorists.

They should have let him put up a smaller sign or put it up somewhere in the vicinity but DCC are right that it's a distraction to motorists. The way they and the guards handled it is shocking though.

by Shane Mon Sep 21, 2009 22:07

Paul-what will even be more shocking to Motorists is the crazy motor tax and ripp off in this country. Do not separate the Gardai from Politicians. In this corrupt system the guards seem to be linked with organisations like the church. I am a driver and would not describe the sign as a distraction. The real problems on the road are speeding, drink-driving and use of mobile phones so I do take exception with your "but" Paul. By separating out the various components, you will never win your fight against corruption-the internet is a great tool so let's use it for our freedom and post on sites like this and others such as rateyoursolicitor.com and clerical whispers.

by Yank. Sun Sep 27, 2009 08:10

Dragging Israel and Palestine into the Lisbon debate helps to give a "shoe-in" to the Yes people.

The EU is trying to help to sort out the middle east.

The EU is not trying to conquer Israel or Palestine or Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran.

Who in their right minds would bother trying to conquer such unpleasant places?

The Brits and the Yanks are trying to arrange a dignified retreat.

by Sean Clinton - IFPAL Mon Sep 28, 2009 09:03

Minister Dermot Ahern, speaking on RTE’s Saturday View programme, mentioned how difficult it was to get the Council of Foreign Ministers to agree to even call for a ceasefire as Israel bombarded Lebanon in 2006.

His comments confirm what IFPAL (Irish Friends of Palestine Against Lisbon) say about EU foreign policy sheltering Israel regardless of its gross human rights violations. The EU’s Common Foreign Policy - now Irish Foreign Policy - does not have to conform to international humanitarian law, the UN Charter, not even the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Only foreign policy legislation has to abide by these standards.

Foreign policy, given direction by the European Council, is at the discretion of the Council of Foreign Ministers which decides policy in conclave, remote from any public scrutiny. EU foreign policy is manipulated by a well-funded Israeli lobby active in Britain, Germany and France, states with domineering economic, political and voting leverage. As a result, the EU is incapable of agreeing actions that would in any way sanction Israel for its human rights abuses, as evidenced by the difficulty referred to by Minister Ahern. Britain’s fulsome support for Israel was clear when it facilitated its rapid re-arming with American supplied bombs knowing they were for use against civilians and civilian infrastructure in Lebanon.

The hypocrisy of claims by proponents of the Lisbon Treaty that the EU’s actions are guided by the values, human dignity, liberty, the rule of law, democracy and respect for human rights is exposed when examined against its record of support for the belligerent Israeli state. EU policy facilitates what Jewish Israeli historian and author Professor Ilan Pappe described to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs in February as the “genocidal policies” of the Israeli state. The decision of the Council to upgrade relations with Israel in June 2008 after it killed over 380 Palestinians, including 60 children, gave Israel the green light for its assault on Gaza earlier this year, killing 1417 Palestinians including over 300 children. Despite this, the EU refused to impose sanctions, suspend the EU-Israel Trade Agreement, seek reparations or demand an end to the ongoing siege of Gaza.

The Lisbon Treaty will exacerbate and set in stone this system of governance that gives a handful of people free rein to decide foreign policy for 500 million people without any legally defined criteria and no independent oversight. Ireland presently has a veto over foreign policy but our existing government, to its shame, failed to use it to block decisions that facilitated Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza. The Lisbon Treaty allows the European Council to change foreign policy decisions from unanimity to qualified majority vote, removing Ireland’s veto and giving others the power to decide Irish foreign policy.

Proponents of the Treaty say no Irish government would ever agree to this change, but they can not know that. If it would never be agreed then why enshrine this ticking bomb into a legally binding Treaty?

It was hardly for this that past generations of Irish people sacrificed so much to win our right to espouse our own foreign policy, free from coercion by others. It would be folly in the extreme for this generation to give up that right in a moment of economic crisis and fear brought on by the neoliberal policies promoted by the architects of the Trojan Horse Lisbon Treaty.

by Frank Adam - privae citizen Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:42 frrankadam at aol dot com

One of the oddities about the initiating discussion over improvised ie unofficial & non-traffic guidance, road signs put up in the traffic stream is that nobody has referred to the Highways' Acts and the regulations about signage and advertising. Given that this side of the water we have seen randy adverts of Ms Herzegovina and the bra, and Ms Dahl and the perfume, removed from otherwise legit hoardings because their distraction has caused accidents - or offended the Moslem inhabitants of certain districts; I can easily understand that putting up controversial adverts in traffic junctions could equally cause distractions best hung elsewhere.

Then the juxtoposition of €U electioneering and the Gaza Campaign is entirely non sequitur and diversionary from the €U referendum premises which equally has sweet nothings to do with the Hamas Islamist campaign againsty Israel's existence. What the link and pertinence between the two might be is fog and farrago and does nothing to clarify either argument nor what to do about each - but that is par for the Palestine lobby which still has to click that they could have had everything they want if their Arab principals had not kicked over UN 181 in 1947-48 when the Arabs set a dreadful precedent tha thas rebounded under an international variant of advantage ruling refereeing.

Meanwhile could the Palestine lobby read the text of the PLO and Hamas charters before mounting high horses of indignation over Israel's measures to survive since 1947. I am old enough to remember as a witness that BEFORE 1967 the Arab parties were as hostile as ever about Israel's existence, would not even let the name Israel pass their lips and did not create an Arab state in Palestine despite holding the entire West Bank [of Jordan] contiguously - including East Jerusalem.

by Sean Og Tue Sep 29, 2009 13:59

Meanwhile while Fred and Clinton and others pontificate from the west

A short while ago, an Israel Air Force air-craft targeted and identified hitting a rocket launcher ready to be fired at Israel.

Approximately 55 rockets and mortar shells were launched at Israel during the last three months, icluding 3 last Sunday just gone
totaling more than 250 since the end of Operation Cast Lead and more than 750 in 2009.

Throughout 2008, over 3300 rockets and mortars were fired from the Gaza Strip at Israel.

All to do with Lisbon ?

by Fred Johnston Tue Sep 29, 2009 20:56

This is an easy one. How many Palestinians did the IDF kill during the invasion of Gaza? The argument about how many rockets the Palestinians lobbed etc etc is old and dusty now. How about the Israelis using phosphorous bombs in civilian targets? Or locking them up in a house which is then subsequently shelled? Again - how many Palestinian civilians did the Israelis murder in Gaza?

by Sean Clinton - IFPAL Tue Oct 06, 2009 18:04

Last Friday I discovered the missing memory stick. It was in back section of my wallet where cash is usually stored. I placed it on a table in the Garda station along with the other contents of my pockets before I was taken to a different room to be searched. It must of been put into the wallet before the items were recorded.

by Fred Johnston Tue Oct 06, 2009 18:54

Just in case anyone has the least doubt about where the US stands on human rights,r emember that Hilary Clinton told the Chinese on her visit there that human rights did not matter when trade discussions came into it. Today, Barak Obama becomes the first US President ever to refuse an invitation from the Dalai Lama because the Chinese pressured him for 'political reasons,' ie, human rights reasons. Do you really believe for a second that Obama is going to hurt the Israelis who, only this afternoon, are reported to be scrambling aircraft to scare the Iranians? Or worse? Pbama would do well in Fianna Fáil, where wink-and-nod is a political philosophy.