Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1135
June 21, 2018
June 20, 2018
A Return To The Streets
Jacqueline O’Reilly with a statement in response to claims made recently on social media by Bloody Sunday March for Justice Committee members and their supporters.
Not being one who uses nor indeed even understands facebooks fascination to some keyboard warriors (I have only ever issued on statement in my life) I was shocked to be shown a series of statements and responses on a facebook page purporting to represent the thinking and position of those involved in the organisation of the current Bloody Sunday March and some of their supporters.
The history of the Bloody Sunday families and of this city’s campaign for truth and justice and the sustained, courageous and ongoing commitment and support both nationally and internationally for the families campaign is well documented and does not need to be patronisingly explained to us.
Our family in common with many others have taken part in every meeting, event, march or demonstration since they first began and, no doubt in common with many others, we will never let our voices go unheard nor the memory of Bloody Sunday be forgotten. Therefore, any suggestion that those thousands of people, including family members who decided after years of campaigning that they would not take part in this year’s march, have become agents of MI5 or supporters of British soldiers or wish to prevent justice for those who have suffered from British atrocities not only insults all of us who have fought for justice consistently over the past 46 years, not just the past seven, is nothing short of arrogance and ego on the part of those wishing to portray themselves as latter day Martin Luther Kings.
For any sensible observer it has become obvious over the past number of years that differences as to strategy and perhaps political allegiances have caused many, both family members and public supporters, to adopt different approaches as to the best way to progress the campaign and to commemorate the event.
As a family whose relative was shot on that day we took our own decision to support the continuation of the march which inevitably conflicted with others who chose differently.
However, despite our differences we will never forget the friendships and determination, even in the darkest of times of all those family members and their supporters who over all the years never wavered in their determination to seek justice.
When I read statements about who has stood up for justice and who hasn’t, or who has the right to speak for all those affected by Bloody Sunday and who hasn’t, or who considers themselves as the only true representatives of decency, republicanism, democracy, justice etc, I can’t help but seethe at the hypocrisy of the ‘holier than thou brigade’ who consider themselves to be without sin and are prepared to throw the first stone, regardless of the hurt it causes when it strikes.
I do not wish to revisit previous disputed events but the refusal of this committee to allow other family members to participate followed by the refusal to allow Tony Taylor’s wife access to the platform, the blatant linking of the Bloody Sunday facebook page and the March to one political party and finally the production of that disgraceful poster led our family along with thousands to refuse to participate in this year’s march.
Let there be no mistake about this, our decision not to participate caused us a great deal of heartache and pain and was only taken after much soul searching. To be clear our decision not to march in no way represents a desire to see the march ended. In fact we as a family pledge to do all we can to see the Bloody Sunday March returned to the streets in the proud tradition with which it was established.
To this end we call for open and honest debate amongst all those who have the cause of Truth and Justice at heart and an end to mud-slinging, untruths or innuendos which do nothing but assist our enemies.
In May of this year the communication below was sent forward to the current march committee in response to their call for communication via their chosen mediator contrary to claims that this was bullying or something untoward. The mediator, a highly respected republican and trade unionist will confirm this. The paper is representative of the views of a broad range of people inclusive of Bloody Sunday family members, political groupings and social justice activists. Please click the link below to read the paper.
Marching For Justice
➤ Jacqueline O’Reilly is a Bloody Sunday Family Member.
June 19, 2018
The Siamese Twins
The Uri Avnery Column recalls Yitzkah Rabin.
Let me state right from the beginning: I liked the man.
He was a man after my own heart: honest, logical, straightforward, to the point.
No nonsense, no small talk. You entered his room, he poured you a straight whisky (seemed to me he detested water), got you seated, and asked a question that compelled you to come straight to the point.
How refreshing, compared to other politicians. But Rabin was no real politician. He was a military man through and through. He was also the man who could have changed the history of Israel.
That is why he was murdered.
The salient fact of his life was that, at the age of 70, he completely changed his basic outlook.
He was not born a man of peace. Far from it.
He was as orthodox a Zionist as they come. He fought Israel's wars, justified and unjustified, without asking questions. Some of his actions were brutal, some very brutal. During the first intifada in the Gaza Strip, he said "break their bones", and some soldiers took this literally.
So how did this man come to recognize the Palestinian people (whose very identity was denied), negotiate with the Palestinian "terrorist" leadership and sign the Oslo agreement?
I have the singular luck of being, perhaps, the only person in the world who has heard from the two main protagonists of the Oslo drama how they reached that turning point in their lives - and the lives of their two nations. They told me themselves (on different occasions, of course).
Rabin's account went more or less like this: After the 1967 war, I believed in the Jordanian Option, as did almost everybody else. Since nobody believed at the time that we would be allowed to keep the occupied territories, we wanted to return them to King Hussein, provided he let us keep East Jerusalem.
One day, the King announced that he was washing his hands of the West Bank. So the Option died. One of our experts advocated setting up "Village Leagues" in the West Bank and negotiating with them. The leagues soon collapsed.
In 1993 an Israeli-Arab peace conference was convened in Madrid. Since Israel did not recognize the Palestinians, the Palestinian representatives from the occupied territories were included in the Jordanian delegation. But when the discussion reached the Palestinian issue, the Jordanians got up and left the room, leaving the Israelis face to face with the Palestinians.
Every evening the Palestinians told the Israelis: now we must call Tunis and get instructions from Yasser Arafat. This was ridiculous. So, when I became Prime Minister again, I decided that we had better talk with Arafat himself.
(Arafat's story was similar: We started the armed struggle. It did not defeat Israel. Then we got the Arab armies to attack. At the start of the October War the Arabs indeed gained a brilliant victory, but they lost the war nevertheless. I realized that we could not defeat Israel, so I decided to make peace with Israel.)
In His chapter about Rabin, Drucker paints a picture that – I believe – was not accurate.
According to him, Rabin was a weak person, who almost had to be dragged to Oslo by Shimon Peres, then the Foreign Minister. As an eyewitness, I must testify that this is quite wrong.
I met Rabin for the first time at the swimming pool. I was chatting with Ezer Weizmann, the commander of the Air Force, who had angered Ben-Gurion with his highly offensive jokes. Rabin appeared, clad like us in a bathing suit. He ignored me and turned straight to Ezer: "Don't you have enough troubles already without speaking in public with Uri Avnery?"
The next time I met him was in 1969, when he was ambassador in Washington. We had a long talk, in which I argued that the only way to safeguard the future of Israel was to make peace with the Palestinian people under the leadership of Arafat. Rabin was completely opposed to this opinion.
From then on, we met many times. A friend of mine, the sculptress Ilana Goor, was obsessed with the idea of getting us to talk with each other. So she threw frequent parties at her studio in Jaffa, the real purpose of which was to get us together. We generally met at the bar, and after everybody else had gone home we sat and talked, often with Ariel Sharon. What about? The Palestinian question, of course.
When I started my secret talks with the delegates of Arafat, first with Said Hamami and later with Issam Sartawi, I went to see Rabin in the Prime Minister's office and told him about it. Rabin's response was typical: "I don't agree with you, but I don't forbid your meetings. And if you hear something that you believe the Prime Minister of Israel should know about, my door is open."
After that I brought him several messages from Arafat, all of which he ignored. They concerned minor initiatives, but Rabin said: "If we start down this road, it will inevitably lead to a Palestinian state, which I don't want."
Arafat obviously wanted to establish contact with Rabin. I believe that this was Arafat's main purpose when he first received me in besieged West Beirut. (I was the first Israeli he ever met.)
I wish I could say that I honestly believe that it was I who convinced Rabin to change his outlook completely and make a deal with the Palestinians, but I do not believe it. Rabin was convinced by Rabin, by his own logic.
Rabin's historic mistake was that, after achieving the breakthrough in Oslo, he did not rush ahead and make peace. He was too slow and cautious. I have often compared him to a general who has broken through the enemy lines, and instead of throwing all his forces into the breach, hesitates and stops. That cost him his life.
This was a recurring fault. On the eve of the 6-day war, when he was Chief of Staff, the prolonged wait – or his compulsive smoking – caused him a breakdown. He was immobilized for 24 hours at the climax of the tension, during which time his deputy, Ezer Weizmann, took over command.
This did not prevent Rabin from achieving the historic victory in the war, under the best General Staff the Israeli army ever had. It had been put together by Rabin patiently for the time of need.
Years later, when Rabin was chosen Prime Minister, Ezer publicly warned the public that Rabin was not up to the job. In a memorable scene, Ariel Sharon shut himself in a public phone booth, with a heap of tokens in front of him, and phoned every newspaper editor in the country to assure them that Rabin was fit for the job.
I believe that in his plodding way, Rabin would eventually have made peace with the Palestinian people and helped to set up a Palestinian state. His initial dislike of Arafat gave way to mutual respect. Arafat visited him secretly at his home.
The Main subject in Drucker's film was the proverbial enmity between Rabin and Peres. They hated each other's guts, but could not get rid of each other. I likened them to Siamese twins who hated each other.
It started right from the beginning. Rabin gave up his higher studies (agriculture) in order to join the Palmach, the field force of our underground army. When the ‘48 war broke out, he became a field commander.
Peres did not join the army at all. Ben-Gurion sent him abroad to buy arms. That was surely an important task – but it could have been accomplished by a 60-year-old. Peres was 24 – two weeks older than I.
Since then, all my generation hated him. The stigma never left him. That was one reason for the fact that Peres never won an election in all his life. But he was a master of intrigue. Rabin, who had a sharp tongue, famously called him "the untiring intriguer".
At the end, the outstanding bone of contention was the Oslo breakthrough. Peres, as Foreign Minister, claimed the credit.
One day I had a weird experience. I received a call that Peres wanted to see me. Since we were sworn enemies, that was strange. When I arrived, Peres gave me an hour's concentrated lecture on why it was important to make peace with the Palestinians. Since this has been the central theme of my life for many decades, while he had always adamantly opposed it, this was rather surrealistic. I listened and wondered what it was all about.
Soon after, when the Oslo agreement became public, I understood the scene: it was part of Peres' effort to claim the credit.
But it was Rabin, the Prime Minister, who made the decision and took the responsibility. Because of this he was murdered.
The final scene: the assassin stood at the foot of the stairs, the pistol in his hand, waiting for Rabin to come down. But first came Peres.
The murderer let him pass unharmed – the ultimate insult.
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist.
He writes @ Gush Shalom
Let me state right from the beginning: I liked the man.
He was a man after my own heart: honest, logical, straightforward, to the point.
No nonsense, no small talk. You entered his room, he poured you a straight whisky (seemed to me he detested water), got you seated, and asked a question that compelled you to come straight to the point.
How refreshing, compared to other politicians. But Rabin was no real politician. He was a military man through and through. He was also the man who could have changed the history of Israel.
That is why he was murdered.
The salient fact of his life was that, at the age of 70, he completely changed his basic outlook.
He was not born a man of peace. Far from it.
He was as orthodox a Zionist as they come. He fought Israel's wars, justified and unjustified, without asking questions. Some of his actions were brutal, some very brutal. During the first intifada in the Gaza Strip, he said "break their bones", and some soldiers took this literally.
So how did this man come to recognize the Palestinian people (whose very identity was denied), negotiate with the Palestinian "terrorist" leadership and sign the Oslo agreement?
I have the singular luck of being, perhaps, the only person in the world who has heard from the two main protagonists of the Oslo drama how they reached that turning point in their lives - and the lives of their two nations. They told me themselves (on different occasions, of course).
Rabin's account went more or less like this: After the 1967 war, I believed in the Jordanian Option, as did almost everybody else. Since nobody believed at the time that we would be allowed to keep the occupied territories, we wanted to return them to King Hussein, provided he let us keep East Jerusalem.
One day, the King announced that he was washing his hands of the West Bank. So the Option died. One of our experts advocated setting up "Village Leagues" in the West Bank and negotiating with them. The leagues soon collapsed.
In 1993 an Israeli-Arab peace conference was convened in Madrid. Since Israel did not recognize the Palestinians, the Palestinian representatives from the occupied territories were included in the Jordanian delegation. But when the discussion reached the Palestinian issue, the Jordanians got up and left the room, leaving the Israelis face to face with the Palestinians.
Every evening the Palestinians told the Israelis: now we must call Tunis and get instructions from Yasser Arafat. This was ridiculous. So, when I became Prime Minister again, I decided that we had better talk with Arafat himself.
(Arafat's story was similar: We started the armed struggle. It did not defeat Israel. Then we got the Arab armies to attack. At the start of the October War the Arabs indeed gained a brilliant victory, but they lost the war nevertheless. I realized that we could not defeat Israel, so I decided to make peace with Israel.)
In His chapter about Rabin, Drucker paints a picture that – I believe – was not accurate.
According to him, Rabin was a weak person, who almost had to be dragged to Oslo by Shimon Peres, then the Foreign Minister. As an eyewitness, I must testify that this is quite wrong.
I met Rabin for the first time at the swimming pool. I was chatting with Ezer Weizmann, the commander of the Air Force, who had angered Ben-Gurion with his highly offensive jokes. Rabin appeared, clad like us in a bathing suit. He ignored me and turned straight to Ezer: "Don't you have enough troubles already without speaking in public with Uri Avnery?"
The next time I met him was in 1969, when he was ambassador in Washington. We had a long talk, in which I argued that the only way to safeguard the future of Israel was to make peace with the Palestinian people under the leadership of Arafat. Rabin was completely opposed to this opinion.
From then on, we met many times. A friend of mine, the sculptress Ilana Goor, was obsessed with the idea of getting us to talk with each other. So she threw frequent parties at her studio in Jaffa, the real purpose of which was to get us together. We generally met at the bar, and after everybody else had gone home we sat and talked, often with Ariel Sharon. What about? The Palestinian question, of course.
When I started my secret talks with the delegates of Arafat, first with Said Hamami and later with Issam Sartawi, I went to see Rabin in the Prime Minister's office and told him about it. Rabin's response was typical: "I don't agree with you, but I don't forbid your meetings. And if you hear something that you believe the Prime Minister of Israel should know about, my door is open."
After that I brought him several messages from Arafat, all of which he ignored. They concerned minor initiatives, but Rabin said: "If we start down this road, it will inevitably lead to a Palestinian state, which I don't want."
Arafat obviously wanted to establish contact with Rabin. I believe that this was Arafat's main purpose when he first received me in besieged West Beirut. (I was the first Israeli he ever met.)
I wish I could say that I honestly believe that it was I who convinced Rabin to change his outlook completely and make a deal with the Palestinians, but I do not believe it. Rabin was convinced by Rabin, by his own logic.
Rabin's historic mistake was that, after achieving the breakthrough in Oslo, he did not rush ahead and make peace. He was too slow and cautious. I have often compared him to a general who has broken through the enemy lines, and instead of throwing all his forces into the breach, hesitates and stops. That cost him his life.
This was a recurring fault. On the eve of the 6-day war, when he was Chief of Staff, the prolonged wait – or his compulsive smoking – caused him a breakdown. He was immobilized for 24 hours at the climax of the tension, during which time his deputy, Ezer Weizmann, took over command.
This did not prevent Rabin from achieving the historic victory in the war, under the best General Staff the Israeli army ever had. It had been put together by Rabin patiently for the time of need.
Years later, when Rabin was chosen Prime Minister, Ezer publicly warned the public that Rabin was not up to the job. In a memorable scene, Ariel Sharon shut himself in a public phone booth, with a heap of tokens in front of him, and phoned every newspaper editor in the country to assure them that Rabin was fit for the job.
I believe that in his plodding way, Rabin would eventually have made peace with the Palestinian people and helped to set up a Palestinian state. His initial dislike of Arafat gave way to mutual respect. Arafat visited him secretly at his home.
The Main subject in Drucker's film was the proverbial enmity between Rabin and Peres. They hated each other's guts, but could not get rid of each other. I likened them to Siamese twins who hated each other.
It started right from the beginning. Rabin gave up his higher studies (agriculture) in order to join the Palmach, the field force of our underground army. When the ‘48 war broke out, he became a field commander.
Peres did not join the army at all. Ben-Gurion sent him abroad to buy arms. That was surely an important task – but it could have been accomplished by a 60-year-old. Peres was 24 – two weeks older than I.
Since then, all my generation hated him. The stigma never left him. That was one reason for the fact that Peres never won an election in all his life. But he was a master of intrigue. Rabin, who had a sharp tongue, famously called him "the untiring intriguer".
At the end, the outstanding bone of contention was the Oslo breakthrough. Peres, as Foreign Minister, claimed the credit.
One day I had a weird experience. I received a call that Peres wanted to see me. Since we were sworn enemies, that was strange. When I arrived, Peres gave me an hour's concentrated lecture on why it was important to make peace with the Palestinians. Since this has been the central theme of my life for many decades, while he had always adamantly opposed it, this was rather surrealistic. I listened and wondered what it was all about.
Soon after, when the Oslo agreement became public, I understood the scene: it was part of Peres' effort to claim the credit.
But it was Rabin, the Prime Minister, who made the decision and took the responsibility. Because of this he was murdered.
The final scene: the assassin stood at the foot of the stairs, the pistol in his hand, waiting for Rabin to come down. But first came Peres.
The murderer let him pass unharmed – the ultimate insult.
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist.
He writes @ Gush Shalom
Questions For Legacy Consultation
In a letter published in the Irish News earlier this month Martin Galvin challenges the British state's Northern Secretary.
In her Forward to the Consultation Paper, British colonial secretary Karen Bradley wrote legacy mechanisms "must seek to meet the needs of victims" and "must be fully consistent with the rule of law". She then saluted British crown forces, pledging to "reject any attempts to rewrite the history of the past" or "displace responsibility from the people who perpetrated acts of terrorism." What happens when such lofty aspirations collide?
The Ballymurphy Massacre illustrates the point. These victims and survivors need truth. They believe British troopers 'protected' Ballymurphy by murdering 11 residents, including a Catholic priest and mother of eight. The British then "displaced responsibility", blaming the victims. Requests for inquest funding met with hurtful dismissals. References to "innocent victims", implied that Ballymurphy Massacre victims were not among the "innocent."
These families fought a heartbreaking legal battle to get truth. They believe an inquest with eyewitness testimony under the rule of law can deliver it. What does Bradley do if these victims are right?
Bradley says her Tory regime will reject any attempt to rewrite history. If the evidence proves that the 11 killings were murders, how can she reject rewriting history with truth? Does Bradley simply ignore inconvenient facts, like Theresa May seemed to ignore Ivor Bell, Gerry McGeough and Seamus Kearney, asserting only British forces get investigated for the past? How would Bradley escape shifting blame from exonerated "innocent victims" back onto British troops for murder and smearing the dead?
What about collusion? The law holds those who pay for, direct, procure weapons, identify targets, cover-up ,or otherwise conspire in murders, are jointly criminally responsible for these murders. What if new legacy mechanisms confirm that Glenanne Gang and other murders claimed by loyalists should be counted jointly as British state collusion murders?
How does Bradley "displace responsibility" from British crown forces for their role in such acts of terrorism or reject recording the truth? Can Britain bury such crimes in a national security pit?
Bradley also wants legacy proposals to "reflect a broad political consensus and be balanced, fair, equitable and crucially, proportionate".
"Political consensus" has been the pretext for a DUP clamp on funding needed to give nationalists their chance for justice. Because crown forces only admit to ten percent of "Troubles" killings, "balanced and proportionate" have become code words for a quota on investigations of British crown killings which ignores collusion and state cover-ups.
Too many promises of legacy justice have been broken. Victims must get more than broken promises and stonewalling. It may be their last chance.
Martin Galvin is a US Attorney-At-Law.
In her Forward to the Consultation Paper, British colonial secretary Karen Bradley wrote legacy mechanisms "must seek to meet the needs of victims" and "must be fully consistent with the rule of law". She then saluted British crown forces, pledging to "reject any attempts to rewrite the history of the past" or "displace responsibility from the people who perpetrated acts of terrorism." What happens when such lofty aspirations collide?
The Ballymurphy Massacre illustrates the point. These victims and survivors need truth. They believe British troopers 'protected' Ballymurphy by murdering 11 residents, including a Catholic priest and mother of eight. The British then "displaced responsibility", blaming the victims. Requests for inquest funding met with hurtful dismissals. References to "innocent victims", implied that Ballymurphy Massacre victims were not among the "innocent."
These families fought a heartbreaking legal battle to get truth. They believe an inquest with eyewitness testimony under the rule of law can deliver it. What does Bradley do if these victims are right?
Bradley says her Tory regime will reject any attempt to rewrite history. If the evidence proves that the 11 killings were murders, how can she reject rewriting history with truth? Does Bradley simply ignore inconvenient facts, like Theresa May seemed to ignore Ivor Bell, Gerry McGeough and Seamus Kearney, asserting only British forces get investigated for the past? How would Bradley escape shifting blame from exonerated "innocent victims" back onto British troops for murder and smearing the dead?
What about collusion? The law holds those who pay for, direct, procure weapons, identify targets, cover-up ,or otherwise conspire in murders, are jointly criminally responsible for these murders. What if new legacy mechanisms confirm that Glenanne Gang and other murders claimed by loyalists should be counted jointly as British state collusion murders?
How does Bradley "displace responsibility" from British crown forces for their role in such acts of terrorism or reject recording the truth? Can Britain bury such crimes in a national security pit?
Bradley also wants legacy proposals to "reflect a broad political consensus and be balanced, fair, equitable and crucially, proportionate".
"Political consensus" has been the pretext for a DUP clamp on funding needed to give nationalists their chance for justice. Because crown forces only admit to ten percent of "Troubles" killings, "balanced and proportionate" have become code words for a quota on investigations of British crown killings which ignores collusion and state cover-ups.
Too many promises of legacy justice have been broken. Victims must get more than broken promises and stonewalling. It may be their last chance.
Martin Galvin is a US Attorney-At-Law.
June 18, 2018
The Mind Boggles
A short piece from Thomas Dixie Elliot suggests that Sinn Fein is taking its electorate for granted.
Here's a point which seems to have gone over the heads of the Sinn Fein leadership...
I've often cited the fate of the Green Party, the PDs and Labour after terms in coalition. They all but disappeared.
However well before the next election the Shinners have openly said they'd form a coalition with Fine Gael.
Is this not utter madness? The support Sinn Fein have down South comes from voters who were disillusioned with the two main parties yet they openly court Fine Gael before the election thus risking what support they already have before the polling stations open.
They are surely risking the voters who came to them through disillusionment going over to Fianna Fáil just to ensure that Fine Gael doesn't get into government?
The mind boggles...
Thomas Dixie Elliot is a Derry artist and a former H Block Blanketman.
Follow Dixie Elliot on Twitter @IsMise_Dixie
Here's a point which seems to have gone over the heads of the Sinn Fein leadership...
I've often cited the fate of the Green Party, the PDs and Labour after terms in coalition. They all but disappeared.
However well before the next election the Shinners have openly said they'd form a coalition with Fine Gael.
Is this not utter madness? The support Sinn Fein have down South comes from voters who were disillusioned with the two main parties yet they openly court Fine Gael before the election thus risking what support they already have before the polling stations open.
They are surely risking the voters who came to them through disillusionment going over to Fianna Fáil just to ensure that Fine Gael doesn't get into government?
The mind boggles...
Thomas Dixie Elliot is a Derry artist and a former H Block Blanketman.Follow Dixie Elliot on Twitter @IsMise_Dixie
Anthony McIntyre's Blog
- Anthony McIntyre's profile
- 2 followers
Anthony McIntyre isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
