'To debate with Dan Shaham?' discussion

Discussion re public debate with Dan Shaham

earliest first: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

(Previous emails to group 11/12/04 21/12/04)

Sent : 30 December 2004 21:32:35

Suzanne Shallis

To group Subject : Re: Public Affairs

Hi, everyone, here is a message from Steve and myself …

We have been amazed by the breadth of the discussion and the passion with which it has been communicated. I have begun formulating a contribution several times only to discover that it had been rendered obsolete by the latest missive before I could hit the send button.

In the interest of brevity I write our viewpoint without going too far into our reasons and the experiences that have helped to form it. Namely:

I would appreciate attending a well managed and diciplined meeting with Dan Shaham in order to discover his / The Israeli Governments latest declared stance on key issues. My reason is that I believe that it might help me to become a more effective campaigner. I would not be in favour of a public meeting for the reasons stated by Roy - The public meeting I attended decended into a slanging match from the floor - without Suzanne's committment and encouragement I would have walked away convinced that a solution was impossible.

I believe that if we are looking for a way to attract more people from outside (who currently do not know what is going on in Palestine) to become actively involved, as well as galvanising into active participation more of those we have already made contact with through the checkpoint simulations, then Dave's and others idea of a well known and well respected speaker would probably be more effective. Especially if backed up with a mailing.

More important for me however, has been Helen's reminder of the PSC mission and all the things we can and should be doing; a) to encorage people to help the Palestinians directly, b) help people here to appreciate Palestinian art and products, and c) get more people to put more pressure on our own Government and the E.U.

Regards

Steve

Sent : 30 December 2004 13:29:42

David Halpin To : Chris Marsh < Subject : The olive branch

*Friday Dec. 31 Israeli peace activists to demonstrate against creation of new settlement north of Qalqilia, West Bank. "Gaza Disengagement plan: smokescreen for accelerated settlement building on the West Bank." Together with Palestinian villagers they will plant olive trees to replace those uprooted by the settlers.*

At 11.00 am on the morning of Friday, December 31, hundreds of Israeli peace activists will hold a joint demonstration with inhabitants of Jayyous village to protest the creation of a new Israeli settlement on village lands north of Qauaqilia on the West Bank. Protesters will plant new olive trees to repalce those uprooted and sold by the settletrs. About a year ago, the Sharon Government erected a section of the so-called Seperation Fence, cutting the Jayyous villagers off from their land. At the time, this was expalined as a security need, but it is obvious that the true purpose was confiscating land for a new settlement. The Friday action was initiated be The Palestinian-Israeli Committee of Jayyous, Gush Shalom (the Israeli Peace Bloc), Taayush (Arab-Jewish Partnership), ICAHD, and Anarchists against the Fence.

The village of Jayyous already lost over two thirds of its lands to the Separation Fence. Now the purpose of this confiscation is becoming evident: on the lands of Jayyous are sprouting new settlements. These settlements, New Zufin and Nofey Zufin are presented as an extension of the existing settlement Zufin, but in fact they are totally new settlements, and larger by far than the original one. Also planned in this seam zone is a new industrial zone (for the Alfey Menasheh settlement) below the Fence, and the paving of a new road to link the various settlements.

When the building is completed, the inhabitants of Jayyous will lose what remains of their lands beyond the Fence. On Dec. 12, bulldozers of a company owned by the settlers , named Geulat Haaretz (i.d. Redemption of the Land, i.e. redeeeming the land from its Palestinian owners and passing it toJewsih ownership) uprooted approximately 300 olive trees in the land of Jayyous inhabitant Tawfiq Hassan Salim. A week later (Dec. 19) the villagers of Jayyous blocked the bulldozers that entered their lands. Today (Wed., Dec. 29) Israeli activists visting the site found the settlers back at their work, digging out the olive trees with their roots so as to sell thwm in Israel and make an additional profit.

This accelerated settelement drive at Jayyous is not an isolated event. These days a new wave of settlements is taking place in the West Bank. It is especially evident in the area near the Green Line (pre-67 order) along a line running from the settlements of Elkana and Oranit, via Zufin, east of Zur Yigal, and all the way to Reihan in the north. Thousands of housing units are built, in order to blur the Green Line, and annex de-facto all the areas to which the Palestinian owners access is limited by the Fence.

It seems that Prime Minster Sharon is compensating for the planned exit from Gaza by renewing and accelerating the settlement process on another front.

For further details:

Adam +972-3-5565804, +972-50-6709603

Adar +972-52-5444866

Khulood +972-54-7469738

Nadav +972-3-52-8512831

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friends of Al Aqsa is a voluntary organisation concerned with the defence of

Al Aqsa Haram Sharif and the protection of Palestinian Human Rights.

www.aqsa.org.uk

Contact:

P.O. Box 5127, Leicester. LE2 0WU. England.

Tel 077 11 823 524

Fax ++ 44 [116] 253 7575

Sent : 30 December 2004 13:25:31

David Halpin To : Chris Marsh Subject : Re: Elections without Democracy (but where is the 'demos' the 'people' in the US and UK)

Chris,

Some information, part of which will certainly interest David - the EU bit.

12 More Palestinian's Killed In Less Than A Week :

Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) have killed 12 Palestinians in less than a week, including a 7-year old child, 4 extra-judicially executed, and 4 died in sporadic tank shelling inside their homes

http://www.palestine-pmc.com/details.asp?cat=1&id=763

And here is the letter. How does pacifism deal with Halutz's view of other humans and ther little worth? I have seen the human wreckage and see my two dear little grandchildren lying torn apart in the rubble. There is no debate: *it must stop ie the brutal occupation.* Love David.

Forgive me writing to you directly. I saw you interviewed with the Islamic representative on Newsnight last evening.

Yourself and others have called for the expulsion of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi because he has justified 'suicide bombing' of civilian victims in the exceptional circumstances of the brutal and illegal occupation of what remains of Palestine. I condemn the killing of civilians but I am not a Palestinian. I recognise the right of Palestinian men to use force against the IDF. International law supports that.

What concerns me is that one seldom hears condemnation of the killing of Palestinian civilians by friends of Israel such as yourself. It would give me some hope if you would do just that. I attach an example of such killing on Monday.

A Sleeping Palestinian Child Killed by Israeli Shelling in Khan Yunis

July 5, 2004 Palestinian Centre for Human Rights

On Monday evening, 5 July 2004, Israeli troops shelled Palestinian residential areas in Khan Yunis. A Palestinian child was killed by a heavy caliber bullet while he was sleeping inside his house.

According to PCHR's preliminary investigations, at approximately 22:00 on Monday, Israeli troops positioned in military posts in the vicinity of "Gadid" settlement, west of Khan Yunis, shelled Palestinian houses in Baten al-Samin area, nearly 700 meters to the east. Two artillery shells and several live bullets hit the western and southern façades of Hamada Mohammed al-Sha'er's house. One heavy caliber bullet penetrated the southern wall of a hall on the first floor of the house and hit the owner's son, 'Aala' in the head. The live bullet smashed the skull and settled in the chest. The child was sleeping in his bed when he was hit by the bullet. PCHR's field worker in Khan Yunis who went to the place of the incident reported that the child's bed was covered with his blood. The child's family was not able to evacuate him to the hospital for at least one hour due to the Israeli intense gunfire.

Thus, the number of Palestinian children killed in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (oPt) by Israeli troops since the beginning of the current Intifada in September 2000 has mounted to nearly 540, including about 280 killed in the Gaza Strip. At least 170 of these children have been killed by Israeli shelling that targeted civilian residential areas.

PCHR strongly condemns this attack, which is a further indication of the IOF disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians. PCHR reiterates its calls for the international community to effectively intervene to stop crimes perpetrated by Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians in the oPt, especially against children.

Finally, I attach part of my correspondence with Michael Rosen at the Israeli Embassy which expresses my feelings with some force. These resilient people are often demonised within Israel where there is ignorance of their continued and terrible suffering.

*From:* David Halpin [mailto:dsh@kilnshotts.co.uk]

*Sent:* Friday, May 21, 2004 4:41 PM

*To:* info1

*Subject:* Re: Illegal occupation and its consequences

Dear Mr Rosen,

Thank you for replying. Any discussion we might have will not be helped if there is partisan selection of facts. As a surgeon I am only used to repairing injured tissue and in relieving pain. I have no religious belief but consider all life to be precious and especially the lives of children. When I hear of a 'suicide' bomb against Israeli civilians I shudder. That is mostly for the victims but I wish to know about the cause for the desperation of the bomber.

You speak of protecting Israeli citizens from these abhorrent attacks and abhorrent they certainly are. But you fail to mention the acts of state terrorism carried out by the IDF. We will pass by the assassinations without identification, charge and hearing. We will also pass by the many innocents like the young man who was shot in the back in Gaza. You will remember. The family house had been 'requisitioned' and he and his father had been bidding goodbye to a UN team who had been recording the confiscation of their land etc. An officer shot him in the back rendering him paraplegic. He was transferred to Israel for treatment.

We go back to 22-07-02 and the launching of a 1000 kg bomb from an F16 in to a Gaza apartment block to 'take out' (using the barbaric modern US parlance) an Hamas leader. 13 others were killed including 9 children, and about 100 were injured. Early that morning, Mr Sharon was reported as saying 'I call this a great success'. I know that was later withdrawn but such words can not be unsaid. This atrocity was raised at the examination of a 'refusenik' helicopter pilot. Air Marshal Dan Halutz was asked what he should feel as a pilot knowing that such civilian casualties were likely. He replied that all one should feel is the lift of the plane as the bomb leaves it. He was at one with his PM.

I regard this latter act and others as being several degrees worse than a 'suicide bombing'. Firstly it is planned and carried out by an elected government. Secondly it does not have the potential justification that it is carried out by a people who have been driven from almost all their land by terror (as recorded by Benny Morris and Prof. Pappe). The survival of the pilot as against the certain death of the 'suicide bomber' is another matter.

Yours sincerely David Halpin FRCS

Chris Marsh wrote:

Hi David,

I would go and see for myself as you keep urging but we have taken a no-flying pledge (there are other big issues to be concerned about), I've discussed with my daughter who's travelled in the region how to get there over land and sea and I may do that. But I do know what's going on and I do appreciate how awful it is...

There have been so many emails from you in this discussion and I couldn't find the particular bit about Air Marshal Dan Halutz's statement, so I looked him up on google and found the attached article. What do you expect me to say? I may no longer be a Quaker but I'm still a pacifist - have been since childhood - and consider that violence never solves anything, even when it can seem to be justified; when the battle is 'won' and killing and destruction pauses, people have to talk and rebuild, so better to seek every opportunity to talk however futile that may seem.

I do not understand the military mind. Maybe my friend Tom Welch can help; he used to be a tank commander. Tom, I have been playing devil's advocate in a discussion within Exeter Palestine Solidarity Campaign which addresses such difficult and complex issues and it is so hard to listen to each other fully with emails buzzing to and fro. I can fill you in if this interests you.

love, Chris

Sent : 30 December 2004 09:27:00

Helen Chessum To : " 'Chris Marsh'" Subject : RE: Public Affairs

Dear Everyone,

I joined this group to campaign and raise awareness of the injustice done to the Palestinians. This is where I want to focus my energy. The aims of the PSC are clear and written in every edition of Palestine News:

“campaigning against the oppression and dispossession suffered by the Palestinian people”

“opposing Israel’s occupation and its aggression against neighbouring states”

“opposing anti-semitism and racism, including the apartheid and Zionist nature of the Israeli state”

If we want to discuss how we present the national PSC position to the wider public I’m happy to do that. That internal debate started with our first workshop. We are planning another within the simulation sub-group to which all members are invited.

I will not be there for the next meeting but I would like my position to be taken into consideration, namely I think we should not organise a meeting with Mr Shaham. Instead let’s organize a more positive fruitful meeting inviting someone from Jews for Justice for Palestinians, let’s take up Clare’s suggestion of inviting William Dalrymple, let’s support the Palestinian theatre group from the Balata refugee camp in their summer tour of the UK, let’s have a Palestine Night with music to introduce people to the cultural heritage of Palestine, let’s all get out there and sell more Palestinian goods, let’s talk to people in the High St, and let’s keep going with the pressure around suspension of EU Trade Agreement with Israel. There are so many positive things we can put our energy into to help the Palestinians.

Happy New year to everyone and I look forward to working with you all in 2005.

Love Helen

Sent : 29 December 2004 23:40:47

Fuad Al-Tawil To : " 'Chris Marsh'" Subject : RE: Public Affairs

Chris,

You seem to come to some interesting conclusions about what is being discussed here. I note in particular that you have not addressed the key point already made by several people, namely the discriminatory nature of Zionism and the state of Israel. If you believe that all people are equal, and you feel strongly enough about this, then the PSC as a campaigning group is a good forum for doing something about this.

I can only echo what others in the group have already written.

Best wishes,

Fuad

-----Original Message-----

From: Chris Marsh To: fuadaltawil@onetel.com Subject: RE: Public Affairs

Hi Fuad,

I note you've made up your mind about the 'should we or not set up a public debate with Dan Shaham?' question; previously you saw it as 'an interesting proposition'. I haven't made up my mind on that, but I am glad we're having this discussion - pity we couldn't have used Dale's discussion forum but last time I looked nobody but we three had signed up; copying everybody can get annoying and confusing. The alternative is copying just Dave C, as chair of the discussion, and he sends out synopses at intervals - which works but would make work for him.

What worries me now is this 'what we should be against' stuff. Having read more about Zionism, I'm no happier about being 'anti-Zionist' than I was about being anti-(some)Jews, in fact the latter is better because I can be against Sharon and other Israeli state leaders. I would want to be careful about declaring - in a Saturday stall discussion, say - that we as a group are anti-Zionist. As I've said, I'm not even happy about being pro-Palestinians, if that means excusing terrorist acts - one can understand the desperation and acknowledge the 'right to oppose/resist occupation', but still deplore attacks on the innocent. Does this mean I should not belong to a Palestine Solidarity Campaign? And might that title actually deter people from getting involved? It might also explain why the long supporters list is largely inactive and unresponsive: people will sign a petition out of sympathy to the particular circumstance - the Wall, say - but they are uneasy about taking sides.

Assuming you're not going to turf me out for being less than committed, I suggest we give some priority to having another internal workshop. But meanwhile also think about the feelings and hurt behind the issues, beliefs, events and actions, and try to see if we couldn't speak and listen to a 'career Zionist' or any other human being to build bridges, seek reconciliation. My friend Jean likened this to child abuse, where the abused becomes the abuser in an endless chain until the hurt is revealed and healed. And there are depths of hurt here that are unbearable even second hand - that report about killed and wounded children that Mohamed Salah sent round, and David H's report about the 13 year-old girl with shrapnel wounds, but there must be equally dreadful accounts from the 'other side'.

I have to go and reupholster an armchair... Life seems unreal sometimes.

love, Chris

Sent : 29 December 2004 20:00:51

Roy Ratcliffe To : fuadaltawil@onetel.com Subject : RE: Public Affairs

Attachment : THEPARALLELSBETWEENFASCISMANDZIONISM.doc (0.05 MB)

Hi everyone,

It seems the discussion opened up about a proposed

public meeting has begun to polarize some people and

is already being met with calls for additional

workshops to discuss issues. The problem with all this

is that we currently have more than enough work to do

to keep up the initiatives we are already committed

too.

One clear way to make sure we do nothing very well is

to take on even more tasks with the same people, when

we scarecly have enough people to staff a checkpoint

once per month.

I am not against discussion and clarification as I

hope will be remembered, but I would invite people to

be wary of taking up time-consuming discussions which

undermine the very basis of our Palestinian Solidarity

work. Our organisation is part of a national

organisation which pre-supposes we agree to a clear

set of principles in our solidarity work, which

includes for example a right to return for

Palestinians. This is a position completely

unacceptable to most Zionists, but one I do accept

along with all the others.

I note that the project of a return to Zion is being

promoted as containing something positive within our

ranks so I have appended as an attachment some notes I

made recently concerning the parallels between Zionism

and Fascism. The fact that some forms of Zionist

aspirations, based upon a scriptural text,which not

everyone (even believers) accept as 'gospel' does not

negate the fact that Zionism (ala Herzl)is the

fundamental philosophy and political doctrine of the

Istraeli state.

I hope also that since we are all on the same side we

can avoid descending into point scoring and

sectarian-like selection of bits of a contrary

contribution, which distorts the general drift of that

the contribution. There is no better way of pissing

people off united solidarity work than this. (On this

note Manfred I didn't equate the BNP as an

organisation with that of the Israeli state as you

seem to unfairly imply in dismissing my point. My

reasoning, in this brief response, may have not been

been the sharpest possible, but the general drift of

my contribution was, I suggest, positive for our work

of solidarity within the Exeter PSC.)

Best regards,

Roy

Sent : 29 December 2004 17:55:43

David Halpin To : Chris Marsh Subject : Elections without Democracy (but where is the 'demos' the 'people' in the US and UK)

Dear Chris,

I cannot continue the 'debate' re. Palestine. The solution is to see the whole brutal picture for one self. It is far worse than what was SA apartheid - as Tutu has said. This article is an excellent summary of one of the many traps that have been set for these people. Liberal folk will be pontificating about a 'window of oppoprtunity for peace' etc. The e-mail was delayed by about 1 hour in its passage. The origin will have caused it to have been read on its way here - and its intended recipients listed. This is all part of that glorious democracy which we wish to foist on all and sundry.

I should be most grateful for your comments re. Air Marshal Dan Halutz' statement that I quoted in my letter to Ellman.

Love. David.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sam Bahour and Todd May, /The Electronic Intifada,/ 28 December 2004

During the 1970's, the apartheid government of South Africa sought to bolster its claims to legitimacy by allowing elections in the Bantustans - the equivalent to today's walled in Palestinian communities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The thought was that if people elected local officials, even to hold largely ceremonial offices, then the rest of the world would stop whining about how undemocratic and illegal apartheid was.

There were two problems with this strategy. First, the world understood that ceremonial elections do not make a democracy. Second, the major candidate in any election that would be endorsed by black South Africans-Nelson Mandela-was being held in a South African prison. Instead, black South Africans were being offered collaborator candidates that were chosen by the white South African government.

Through its policy of "constructive engagement," however, the Reagan administration tacitly endorsed this strategy, even w hen Congress resisted by passing the Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986.

How little has changed. Except for the lack of Congressional resistance, the situation in the Israeli-occupied territories mirrors that of apartheid South Africa. Palestinians are being forced, either by choice or fate, to agree to "acceptable" candidates for elections to offices that will have only as much power as the Israeli government, underwritten by the Bush administration, grants.

Consider the ceremonial character of the offices for which any Palestinian would be running. The Palestinian infrastructure has been decimated by thirty-seven years of military occupation and, more recently, the Israeli invasion of 2002 and subsequent military incursions. Palestinians do not control the resources that lie on their land. Their streets are patrolled by a foreign army and their movements limited by humiliating checkpoints. There are not even recognized borders for this land over which the legislators will hav e no legislative control. In short, for those who would receive the honor of being elected to a Palestinian democratic institution, there will be nothing to legislate, nothing to be legislated over, and no resources with which to legislate. This is the democracy Palestinians are being offered.

And there is more. Not only was the last elected president of the Palestinian people forced to languish until his death under permanent house arrest, two current Palestinian Legislative Council members, who were supposed to be immune from Israeli interference, currently reside in Israeli jails for their political leadership. Along with these two political prisoners, over 7,000 Palestinian prisoners remain detained by Israel, many of them leaders of their communities.

Say what one will, both apartheid South Africa and Israel have recognized leaders when they have seen them.

Eventually, South Africa stopped the bloodshed on its land by reversing the historic injustice cause d to blacks in South Africa. Israel, on the other hand, seems not only blind to the future Palestinian leaders, but has refused even to acknowledge the growing number of its own citizens who are choosing to be jailed instead of serving the Israeli occupation.

Calls for democratization among the Palestinians serve the wider purposes of the Sharon and Bush administrations. Such calls hint that the problem lies not in the occupation of Palestinian land but in the political character of the Palestinian people. If we are not ready for democracy, as defined by our occupier and its funder, then perhaps, they reason, the occupation can justifiably continue.

However, the Palestinian people, and much of the world besides, understand the difference between an empty democracy and the real thing. If Palestinians have been so slow to ratify the institutional trappings that have recently been offered to them, if they seem to balk at the 'generosity' shown by the Israelis and the Ameri cans, perhaps the fault does not lie solely with the Palestinians themselves. Perhaps it is because what Palestinians seek is true independence on their own land over which they have effective control. In other words, a democracy.

From: <newsletter@aqsa.org.uk>

To: <dsh@kilnshotts.co.uk>

Subject: Elections without Democracy

Sent: 29 December 2004 16:50:39

Sam Bahour and Todd May, The Electronic Intifada, 28 December 2004

Through its policy of "constructive engagement," however, the Reagan administration tacitly endorsed this strategy, even w hen Congress resisted by passing the Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986.

Say what one will, both apartheid South Africa and Israel have recognized leaders when they have seen them.

Sam Bahour (SBAHOUR@palnet.com) is a Palestinian-American living in Ramallah and Todd May (TKDRJMAY@aol.com) is a Professor of Philosophy at Clemson University (Institution given for identification purposes only).

Sent : 29 December 2004 10:25:43

Fuad Al-Tawil To : "Dave Chappell" Subject : RE: Public Affairs

Dave,

From the replies I’ve seen so far, it looks like most have reservations about giving a platform for someone representing the Zionist ideology. Our time may therefore be better spent organising the events/campaigns we have already discussed/planned which includes a follow-up internal workshop. If this does come up on the 4th, my vote would be not to give any platform, especially public, to Dan Shaham.

However, I would be interested in a private meeting with an Israeli representative to find out “how they would deal with the central issue of injustice/discrimination”. This may help David H. in responding to the offer of a meeting and avoid any loss of face by declining.

My biggest worry is some of the e-mails I’ve seen and heard about regarding the terms “Jews” and “Zionism”. We had an excellent talk by Amal at our first internal workshop which explained how Zionism came about and what it is, I believe this version picked up on the essential element, namely that Zionism is racist, discriminatory and exclusive.

Of course Jewish people have justifiable claims to Palestine, but so do other people. I’m afraid that putting forward an argument that we should consider the legitimate right of the Zionist cause because it is Jewish misses the point completely. In fact I believe that anyone making a link between Zionism and the Jewish religion needs to be well informed and clear about where they stand. If not, the discussion can very quickly turn into justifying what is being done to the Palestinians or at least putting doubt into someone’s mind.

David H. makes the same point in one of his e-mails, “There are many people like myself, who are much less concerned by religious/ethnic/racial attachments but who instead look at a man and simply see what he stands for and how he treats his fellow

beings -especially the most disadvantaged.”

“PS, I’ve included a few more e-mail names in the list of those who are regular participants of our group”. A little plea; if we use the Reply To All button/option we make sure everyone is included in this discussion.

Best wishes,

Fuad

-----Original Message-----

From: Chris Marsh [mailto:chris_e_marsh@hotmail.com]

Sent: 28 December 2004 21:01To: group Subject: RE: Public Affairs

Hi all,

I discussed with a friend who came to lunch today our current dilemma: should we or should we not set up a public debate with this 'career Zionist'? Her suggestion was that a head-level debate would just result in verbal conflict, that we need to set up an opportunity to engage with our feelings about the Palestine situation, and (Jean and I were both Quakers some years ago) consider how to work for common understanding and reconciliation. So maybe we need a workshop for supporters (as well as and in preparation for this debate?).

Fuad said some of us should speak to Dan Shaham before we commit to a public meeting. Quakers have a tradition of 'speaking truth to power' and I wonder how I would handle speaking/listening to this man, and what we might get from the encounter.

Helen said it is Zionism we are against, not (some) Jews, so with understanding in mind I googled 'Zionism' and this was the first hit:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/palalt.html

Could the Zionists Have Chosen Another Country Besides Palestine?

By Mitchell Bard

In the late 19th century, the rise of religious and racist anti-Semitism led to a resurgence of pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe, shattering promises of equality and tolerance. This stimulated Jewish immigration to Palestine from Europe.

Simultaneously, a wave of Jews immigrated to Palestine from Yemen, Morocco, Iraq and Turkey. These Jews were unaware of Theodor Herzl's political Zionism or of European pogroms. They were motivated by the centuries-old dream of the “Return to Zion” and a fear of intolerance. Upon hearing that the gates of Palestine were open, they braved the hardships of travel and went to the “ Land of Israel.”

The Zionist ideal of a return to Israel has profound religious roots. Many Jewish prayers speak of Jerusalem, Zion and the Land of Israel. The injunction not to forget Jerusalem, the site of the Temple, is a major tenet of Judaism. The Hebrew language, the Torah, laws in the Talmud, the Jewish calendar and Jewish holidays and festivals such as Shavuot all originated in Israel and revolve around its seasons and conditions. Jews pray toward Jerusalem and recite the words “next year in Jerusalem” every Passover. Jewish religion, culture and history make clear that it is only in the land of Israel that the Jewish commonwealth can be built.

In 1897, Jewish leaders formally organized the Zionist movement, calling for the restoration of the Jewish national home in Palestine, where Jews could find sanctuary and self-determination, and work for the renascence of their civilization and culture.

Makes you think, no?

love, Chris

Sent : 28 December 2004 23:08:58

David Halpin To : Chris Marsh Subject : There is much to absorb

This caught my eye on ICH tonight

Zionists Do Not Represent Jews:

From the inception of the Zionist State and particularly in recent times, the impression has been created in the World that there is some connection between the State, which falsely calls itself Israel, and the Jewish people as a whole.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/notjews.cfm

Sent : 28 December 2004 18:26:13

David Halpin To : Chris Marsh Subject : Re: FW: man from Israeli Embassy

Dear Chris,

Absence of my usual farewell was due to being short of time (and patience if I am honest) and not fully fit. Also a family matter is pressing. The discussion is useful and I would like to pursue your thoughts for longer. If Martians with green ears had set up an exclusive 'state' based on greenishness and then supplanted a native race by terror and force, I would speak against them. I am moved to speak out because the brutality and injustice is such that no one and no country should stay silent. It happens that a Zionist 'state' is/hasbeen perpetrating this. Zionism now has more non-Jewish supporters (between 40 to 70 million in the US alone). Many Jews, observant and otherwise are repulsed by the actions and policies of the Zionist state. There are many people like myself, who are much less concerned by religious/ethnic/racial attachments but who instead look at a man and simply see what he stands for and how he treats his fellow beings -especially the most disadvantaged.

Read my letter to Ellman again and linger on the words of Air Marshal Dan Halutz. They represent real terrorism (if the word has any meaning, and again it was first coined I read in the Third Reich) and chilling inhumanity. They symbolise a widespread and induced attitude of mind ie that there are others, especially Arabs and more so Palestinians, who are a sub-species. They are of lesser worth and much can be done to them which should not be done in reverse. Sadly, some justification for this is found within the Torah. The Gentiles, the Goyam, are worth less but I will not go on. It becomes very morbid and I find the whole thing crackpot at least and at worst, deeply evil.

Love. David.

Chris Marsh wrote:

Hi David,

I think this discussion could be good for us, maybe clear the air, but also be painful. I shall

start with a confession. For as long as I can remember I have had a prejudice against Jews - not towards any other racial group, just Jews, and I've no idea where it came from, although I can say what it is I dislike about Jews as a group, and what I admire in the many creative, intelligent etc. Jewish individuals I've known and known of. I did a consultancy stint at M&S HO in Baker Street years ago and hated the culture so much I gave my fee away to Friends of the Earth - how weird is that! I had a Jewish lover once and experienced first hand how they use women. I could go on. I struggle against that prejudice, I condemn prejudice in myself and others. But we are all human. I understand people needing to belong, to look after their own, eliminate threats, seek revenge even. So from that position, how do I handle belonging to a group which is against (some) Jews? It isn't easy, but from that position I have an understanding of how many others must find this subject particularly difficult.

Shall I send this?

love, Chris

PS There was no 'love' with your last message; you seemed to be scolding and instructing me.

Sent : 28 December 2004 12:10:55

David Chappell to group Subject : Public Affairs

Dear all,

I have been away from my computer for a few days, being ill again (boring! [and sorry, Helen and Fuad, for not contacting you, but this was also down to me being poorly]), then struggling in to work (also boring!), so I have just started to pick up on the fascinating debate generated by the suggestion for a meeting with the Israeli Embassy Director of Public Affairs. I welcome this debate, for I certainly don't think we should deal with the issue mechanistically, i.e. just treat it as another psc event to be ticked off our long list of things to do. I appreciate the frankness of views; this seems to me a very healthy thing (though, speaking as a 'sickie', like all healthy things it needs to be nourished and nurtured!).

I can see both points of view on this issue, and understand the concern as to whether it's worth us using our resources (and, speaking as the treasurer, including our precious funds!) to give a platform to the Israeli state, so to me the key question is what Chris has said about whether we will attract people who would want to hear both sides, thereby helping make their minds up to get involved in the Palestinian cause. This would be a gamble, and would probably depend on us attracting enough of the undecided to the meeting to make it worthwhile. From having been through this sort of event before, at a SW TUC meeting where Michael Rosen and Husam Zomlot spoke, I can say that with the right people there, we should have no fears of the Palestinian argument not being put well. Yes, there are certainly dangers with such passionate and polarised points of view about the desperate situation in Palestine, and Israel, but I don't think we should be afraid to debate with supporters of the current Israeli position, because, even if we don't convince everyone, the willingness to try and engage in dialogue must surely be a valuable thing to demonstrate? I therefore tend to think the possible advantages outweigh the possible disadvantages, though, if we were give the alternative option of a big name speaker by national psc then that might be more useful to us practically in the immediate future.

Given the different views on this issue, I suggest we discuss it in more detail at the next meeting on 4/1. I appreciate some are away, and we should therefore make sure we take all views into account. In the meantime I will try and contact national psc to see if there are speakers available.

Love and kisses (actually hold the kisses, you don't want my germs!),

Dave C

Sent : 28 December 2004 11:34:40

Helen Chessum To : " 'Chris Marsh'" Subject : RE: FW: man from Israeli Embassy

Dear Chris

I agree with you that we all hold deep prejudices against different groups from personal experience, family, society, other groups we belong to. I used to work in a Women’s Aid refuge many years ago and experienced so much hatred and violence towards women that it has coloured my attitude towards men to this day. I have to tackle that within myself and force myself to overcome this automatic prejudice I have.

What I’m not sure I can agree with is the idea that you belong to a group which is against (some) Jews. I’m assuming by this you mean our PSC group. I don’t have this feeling about our group at all. On the contrary I feel we make every effort to represent a Jewish/Israeli voice in our presentations and materials. What I hope we are against is Zionism which is a racist/political ideology to which both some Jews and non-Jews subscribe. Zionism is the problem not Jews. Inevitably by focusing on the plight of the Palestinians some people will feel we are against Jews/Israelis but this is not true at all. The Zionist lobby would like to catch us out and trip us up in this way with accusations of Anti-Semitism. The Palestinians have suffered for years from such tactics. We must state and re-state our commitment against racism of all kinds from whatever quarter until we’re blue in the face. The national PSC founding statement has this at its core – against Zionism and Anti-Semitism.

Love

Helen

Sent : 27 December 2004 19:51:23

David Halpin ToHelen Subject : Re: FW: man from Israeli Embassy

Very much my gut reaction. Sent my response to Chris M to Fuad. I am not well tuned to e-mail lists. It is likely though that Dan Shaham (I am no friend please note) has reckoned on a 'no-show'. David.

Sent : 27 December 2004 12:34:29

Helen Chessum To Dave Chappell Subject : FW: man from Israeli Embassy

Dear Dave

We’re off to Berlin for New Year and won’t be back until the 7th and will miss the next meeting. So I’m sending my reaction to your idea via e-mail.

I had a very strong anti reaction to the idea as I personally would not be keen to hear what the Israeli Public Affairs person has to say to be honest. I know it would only wind me up to greater incandescence and would simply be counter-productive for my spirit and energy. I’m not really sure what we would gain by such a meeting, either internal or public. I’d be interested to hear what you think the benefits of this could be.

My other concern about either an internal or public meeting is that it would degenerate into mud-slinging which would not help either our cause or our hearts. The whole thing could backfire on us, I fear.

I’d much prefer to organise a different type of meeting with a positive focus (some people have already suggested William Dalrymple or Ghada Karmi or Ahdaf Souief) Let’s by all means get someone from Jews for Justice/ ICAHD etc about how to answer the Jewish/Israeli counter claims and arguments. I think if we do decide as a group to go ahead with meeting Mr Shaham we should try and get a representative of a progressive Jewish group to be there anyway.

All the best for the fight ahead in 2005.

Love Helen

Sent : 27 December 2004 10:30:13

Fuad Al-Tawil To : "'David Chappell'" Subject : RE: Meeting Israeli public affairs spokesperson

Dave,

Sounds like an interesting proposition. I’m sure that, individually, we would have different objectives for such a meeting. I’m therefore glad that we have the opportunity to discuss this beforehand.

My personal objective for such a meeting would be to improve my arguments when raising awareness with the general public (the main objective of our group). The opportunity to debate what a representative of the Israeli government has to say and how they would deal with the central issue of injustice/discrimination would be ideal.

If we decide to organise a meeting on behalf of our group, I’d like us to agree the purpose of such a meeting and assign someone to chair it so that it does not end up in a slanging match. The risks and negative publicity of a slanging match, especially at a public meeting, are great. I would feel very uncomfortable if we went ahead without some of us first having a face-face meeting with Dan Shaham to assess the risks before any public debate/meeting.

PS, I’ve included a few more e-mail names in the list of those who are regular participants of our group

Best wishes,

Fuad

Sent : 27 December 2004 19:42:53

David Halpin To : Chris Marsh Subject : Re: Meeting Israeli public affairs spokesperson

I think Ghada would be excellent. She keeps her cool and is not strident. Would avoid Y-R for this. He has been supportive but he is a liberal and such folk have remained silent throughout the nakba for 55 years whilst the suffering and ethnic cleansing have continued unabated. I do not think seconders are necessary. Questions should be given to speakers before hand and tabled. Do not forget he has not answered my three questions; he has avoided that by bluster and then by the offer of debate. I have grave doubts about giving a Zionist room for debate but was encouraged by others to bring this offer forward. Does one also offer a place for the BNP to debate a racist policy? I would not stop them uttering it but not stick them up on a stage.

David

Chris Marsh wrote:

Dan Shaham is going to be a formidable speaker/debater, very well armed with 'evidence' to back his position - see eg http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/979_israel_embassy_respo.htm . We need an equally well-prepared speaker for Palestine. As Shaham is a diplomat, he may have a very cool style, so we don't want a ranter or blusterer - Ghada can be very strident? (or am I thinking of someone else?) We're also going to need an expert chairperson. This is tricky; we must get it right or risk damaging our cause. It might spread the risk to have a panel of speakers, rather than a debate between 2 main speakers. That is also some insurance against Shaham backing out at last minute. We'd need another pro-Israel speaker.

Richard Younger-Ross ( yrossr@parliament.uk <mailto: yrossr@parliament.uk>), as a local MP, might attract interest. He's a member of the Britain-Palestine All Party Parliamentary Group & signed an EDM calling for the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement in May 2004. Don't know what kind of speaker he is, or he may be able to suggest a suitable speaker or chair.

Sent : 26 December 2004 20:39:31

David Halpin To : Chris Marsh Subject : EU/Israel 'Association' and ? Chris Marsh for fifth trustee Dove and Dolphin

Dear Chris,

For brevity, please pass this snippet over to David. It comes from the lawyer I have instructed. I told him that his finding was no surprise to me. As we said the other day, the EU must be fully signed up to thge Zionist project, because a. they signed the agreement in 2000 knowing about decades of human right violations of the most grotesque type b. the absence of the word 'Palestinian' in the agreement.

In addition, I can report that I have dug up a huge amount of information on the EU-Israel Association Agreement, whose Council had its fifth annual meeting in Brussels on 13th December 2004. There is no official communiqué yet, but the reports I have seen are sickening: closer ties and even fewer EU 'strings attached'...

Chris,

Would you consider being a fifth trustee? Others are Sue, Yousef Zawahreh PhD (in Ontario doing research but we are in constant communication), John Hingley -trawler skipper (came on the ship to Gaza) and myself. The charity is small but growing in its ambit. It is_ making a difference_. But I am the first to say that charity is not the answer. Instead, justice is the answer. Peace and prosperity will follow. We meet about 4 times a year at present and each brings his/her skills to bear between times. I had asked Helen C but she felt she had too much on as no doubt have you. The more I have thought about it, the more I feel you are the person for the task. I look after the day to day running. It is ideas/support/propriety that the trustees bring to the Dove and the Dolphin Charity. Have a look at our web-site which needs updating (will try doing that tomorrow - our 2 grand-children were here and computer connection corrupted again - fixed it myself - triumph) and let me know. I hope your response is in the positive.

www.doveanddolphin.com I have attached our aims for your convenience.

David.

Sent : 26 December 2004 20:01:46

David Halpin To : Israeli Embassy - Director Public Affairs <dpa@LONDON.mfa.gov.il>

Subject : Meeting

Dear Dan,

I have brought your proposal for an open meeting on the subject of the occupation of Palestine to the Exeter PSC group. They are meeting to discuss it on the 4th of January. Contact will be made with you after that (I am going away for a holiday in January).

Shalom. David.

Sent : 26 December 2004 19:56:20

David Halpin To : David Chappell Subject : Re: Meeting Israeli public affairs spokesperson

Good Dave. Or Ghada Karmi? She is excellent - eloquent and a *fine debater*. She has an attachment to the Islamic institute. She is more likely to attract a larger audience. Its about time we had big political meetings again - as Tony Benn keeps calling for. ?St Georges Hall.

It is probably best that I introduce you to Shaham , who is the Director of Public Affairs. You will need to get a firm commitment from him to speak on a date before you make a complete commitment because Bill S thinks he will turn tail at the last minute. I will send him a line to tell him that the group is meeting on the 4th and that it will discuss the meeting/come back to him in any event.

David.

for ref - dpa@LONDON.mfa.gov.il

Sent : 26 December 2004 13:22:46

David Chappell to group Subject : Meeting Israeli public affairs spokesperson

Hi all, and season's greetings,

David Halpin talked to me at the psc social gathering about a guy from the Israel Embassy Public affairs department - Dan Shaham - who has offered a meeting on the conflict, to try and put us all straight. I am keen to pursue this idea of a meeting, and would like to suggest we invite Husam Zomlot from the UK Palestinian delegation to come and put the Palestinian view (Husam has said before he is keen to come and meet our group). The question is how we should promote this - just for the group, or for the wider public? My view is it should be held as a public meeting, but the question then is how many people do we think we will attract without 'big name' speakers? I still think we should do this, and perhaps hope to get 50 or so people there.

I suggest we discuss this idea amongst group members by e-mail in the run up to the psc on 4/1, and if there is agreement then try and set something up for the end of January / early February. How does that sound to you all? I do not have an e-mail contact for Dan Shaham yet, but I'm sure David H can oblige here.

Hope you all have a good new year,

Love Dave (C)

Sent : 23 December 2004 14:52:56

David Halpin To : Chris Marsh Subject : Re: Debate with a stone viper

Agree with your analysis re. sham. Heard a bit of Blair in answer to fairly blunt question from Marr on World Service at 2am Blair'e response was that of a blind madman.

Nabil Sha'ath on C4 was awful. I tolm a lawyer in the PA how bad were their spokesmen are on the world stage and how intelligent eloquent young me and women were needed. He agreed but you can imagine the difficulty.

Kelly ye still involved but I have nor put myself forward for interview this time.

Shaham. Exeter PSC must continue to keep the ball rolling if it wants to set up a meeting. Because of other commitments/being away , I cannot get involved. Dave was keen. No reply from H/F or Amal!!

Love. David.

Chris Marsh wrote:

Hi David,

Good to see you and Sue too on Saturday.

I was actually quite thrilled to read this exchange of emails. It seems you have made a chink in the Zionist ideological armour; we must keep that open if we can.

I’ve been seething at the media coverage, especially on BBC, of the Blair peace-broking farce. On Newsnight last night an articulate and hard-hitting spokesman for Palestine was allowed, but right at the end of the piece, with no challenge passed back to an Israeli equivalent so no dialogue, no debate. Plus that contribution received no comment from the presenter and the programme went straight on to how problematic Islam is in Thailand… Deliberate juxtaposition, I wonder? The message put out by the media is ‘leave it to Blair’, the matter is in hand, all will be well, be patient, do nothing – and, of course, the responsibility for a peaceful solution to this most Blair-worrying issue is firmly with the Palestinians; they must toe the Bush/Sharon/Blair line, embrace democracy and reign in the terrorists; if they succeed in that then they will earn the privilege of getting back to the bloody roadmap. End of rant, sorry.

Anyway, what do we - ExeterPSC - have to do to get this meeting with Dan Shaham to happen? We mustn’t let the opportunity slip away.

love, Chris

PS There was an item on BBC4 news yesterday about re-opening the Dr David Kelly enquiry because of new evidence from paramedics. Were you involved in that?

Sent : 21 December 2004 16:55:41

David Halpin

To : dave chappell & chris marsh Subject : Debate with a stone viper

Good to see you plus partners in theWetherspoon Imperium. If only 10% of the profits there were going to our charity ..if only.

You expressed interest in this Dave. I need to reply to Dan Shaham but I am certainly not getting involved with arranging an open meeting myself. I seem to spend at least 7 hours a day on Palestinian matters and the holiday in Cuba beckons on the 12th (I think). I have not had a reply yet from chairman Amal or from Haccombe. If you let me know the response of the Exeter PSC asap I will write to DS and then pass over the further business to Amal if the group wants to proceed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Amal and Helen/Fuad,

You received a copy of this letter below to the Israeli embassy:- *

To the Department of Public Affairs,

Israeli Embassy,

London.

Dear Michael Rosen,

We corresponded following the killing by the IDF of unarmed civilians, including children, in Rafah. In October, I was able to see at first hand some of the devastation that was done in several invasions in the north of the Gaza strip. Some of my observations were contained in a newspaper article -

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ARTICLE7200.htm

which was published very widely in spite of efforts to suppress it (the e-mail from Gaza never reached the UK and the account was later found to have been wiped clean).

The press here and abroad is giving an optimistic picture as to how the Israeli state is adopting a more peaceful and legal stance towards the Palestinian people who now reside on 10% of historic Palestine. Along with many others, I know differently. For instance, I know that over 2000 houses in Bethlehem and its environs are 'slated' for demolition. I know that the ground is being taken from beneath their feet - literally. I have just received this report of one such demolition.

ISRAEL TEACHES DHEISHEH'S CHILDREN

A LESSON THEY WILL NOT FORGET

Ziad Abbas, Live from Palestine, 3 December 2004

1 December 2004 -- At a quarter to four this morning the

Hamash family building was demolished with explosives by

the Israeli Army. At least 12 Israeli military jeeps

invaded Dheisheh refugee camp and surrounded the families'

homes, as well as Ibdaa Cultural Center's kindergarten,

which shares the same building. The Army ordered Musa

Hamash, Aziz Hamash, Ahmed Hamash, and their families

outside into the damp and chilly morning air. They were

given 30 minutes to remove as many of their belongings as

possible before the bombing.

http://electronicIntifada.net/v2/article3398.shtml

I should be grateful to know

*a*. why you have demolished this home for three families and a kindergarten (which I have visited)

*b*. what you think of the manner in which the families were driven out of their homes in the dead of night and of the time given to remove their belongings (I imagine you would need more than 30 minutes to remove the contents of your house) and

*c*. how the world sees this act of great brutality against the memory of the great brutality suffered by Jewish folk at the hands of the Nazis. It is inconceivable to many that your state should be doing this and I know that feeling is shared by many Jewish people.

I should be grateful for a prompt reply. I am speaking about Palestine tomorrow and I shall be reading out this report from Dheisha.

Yours sincerely David Halpin FRCS

copy to Mr Richard Younger-Ross MP

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*This is the futher correspondence which was stimulated by Bill Stevens and others:- *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

David,

I prefer the second option.

Dan

-----Original Message-----

From: David Halpin [mailto:davidhalpin.2003@virgin.net]

Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:17 PM

To: Israeli Embassy - Director Public Affairs

Subject: Re: No law, no morality. The powerful own the law.

Dear Dan,

Thanks. Yes I live about 20 miles from Exeter. There is a good service from Paddington and a fast train takes 2 hours or less.

When you say open then I understand you a group. There is an active and very well informed Exeter Palestine Solidarity Group. I am sure that at least 20 members would come to listen to you. Given the depth of concern, passions run high so to be entirely fair to a speaker for Israel it would be necessary to have a chairman/lady who was accomplished in the task.

The alternative is to arrange an advertised and completely open meeting with another speaker chosen for their knowledge of the /nakba, /and again a good chairman. I have not got sufficient time to organise the latter but others might be found for that job. Let me know what you think.

Shalom. David.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israeli Embassy - Director Public Affairs wrote:

Dear David,

If I am right you live in Devon.

Maybe this time we can arrange a meeting there and I will come to you and have an open meeting. What do you think?

Dan

-----Original Message-----

From: David Halpin [mailto:davidhalpin.2003@virgin.net]

Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 10:47 PM

To: Israeli Embassy - Director Public Affairs

Subject: Re: No law, no morality. The powerful own the law.

Dear Mr Shaham (or Dan which I prefer because we have corresponded in first name terms from before the voyage),

My analysis and stance derive from a good deal of study and experience so it is unlikely that they will be much changed by dialogue. But I believe that almost all differences in human affairs should be resolved by dialogue - except when defending ones own country from armed force as my father's generation did in WW11. I should therefore be grateful to take up your offer of dialogue. It would be more fruitful if I could come to the meeting with one or other of the ladies who speak with me for justice for the Palestinians.

Shalom. David.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israeli Embassy - Director Public Affairs wrote:

Dear Mr. Halpin,

You have included many unfounded allegations in your email which vilify us without even trying to balance it one bit.

How do you want to go further? I can send you a similar email blaming the Palestinian and Arabs in everything Israel suffered. Will it help the situation?

Is that what you believe the British role should be - taking the "under dog" side?

If you are truely interested in dialogue I would be more than happy to come to you and have an open discussion about the middle east today.

Dan Shaham Director of Public affairs

Embassy of Israel

London

-----Original Message-----

From: David Halpin [mailto:davidhalpin.2003@virgin.net]

Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 6:47 PM

To: Israeli Embassy - Director Public Affairs

Subject: No law, no morality. The powerful own the law.

To the Department of Public Affairs,

*------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there any point in having an open meeting with Dan Shaham given 1. his position 2. his likely unshakeable belief in the Zionist 'project' 3. His likely determination to see it succeed in every respect? I am sceptical and I am not up for arranging an open meeting with the likely aggressive Zionist attendees. They make me sick in heart.

Salaam. David.

Bill Stevens view was encouraging and hence this further correspondence with the Embassy. Part of the game one might say. My 3 questions remain unanswered.

David Halpin wrote:

Dear Bill, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I was draughting a response in my mind which would substantiate each point I had made but I feel pressed for time and there is that feeling that one is trying to count eels with a blindfold. Oddly, another correspondent has suggested that I meet him for tea! I will probably offer to meet him but will stick to the agenda of my original letter.

Any chance of the doctor visiting the ragged patient, the Windows patient that is, over the next few days. The disc should finally be here tomorrow and Roy said he would talk through its installation.

Salaam. David.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Webmaster wrote:

Hi David,

Several interesting points to this chain of Emails. The most pertinent, is that a high level official from the israeli embassy has offered a personal, face to face meeting, signifying your position as more than a minor irritation.

You mentioned that you will not correspond any further with them (him). I wondered whether it might be wiser, in a political gamesmanship sense, to reconsider this. As you know, the israelis are very good at gamesmanship, and will always draw opponents into this territory, leaving the opponent disadvantaged or mired in endless rhetoric.

However, not engaging in this process does leave one open to criticism and dismissal. In this particular instance,

you maybe handing them a stick to beat you with in any future issue. They can easily accuse you of not wanting to participate in dialogue. A accusation you could not refute, and which of course would be delivered complete with all the obvious cheap rhetorical parallels.

It is a difficult decision, one which I do not envy.

Best Wishes,

Bill.