July 2010

The six counties ombudsman has temporarily pulled his report on the 1971 bombing of McGurks bar because he feels that he has not given the relatives a fair hearing. this is to be welcomed. Hopefully now he will give some consideration to the fact that the police did not fully investigate the bombing as it was their own agents and state assets that carried out the bombing with the full knowledge and approval of the crown forces.

Had the RUC investigated the bombing properly, then they would have discovered that it was in fact their own members (most of the b specials were members of the Orange Lodge,  the UVF and the UPV but it was by no means just the b specials, senior RUC members were also senior members of the UVF) and members of the occupying army who colluded to aid the UVF to carry out the bombing. It was too easy to blame the IRA, as the UVF intended, for they had carried out bombings for years, with the full knowledge of Ian Paisley and his UPV, for that purpose and to destabilise the Stormont Government. The UPV and the UVF had a large percentage of cross membership. It is infeasible that Paisley was not aware of these actions. By 1969, the IRA had not yet carried out an operation, much less a bombing since the border campaign had ended. They didn’t even have any arms to speak of.

So for the RUC to dismiss the McGurk bombing as an IRA bomb that went off by accident is nothing short of a blatant cover up perpetuated by the very people who were complicit in the crime.

In the years of Apartheid in South Africa it became common practice to boycott South African goods, sport and basically anything that came from South Africa. Those companies that broke the boycott were picketed until it became financially non-viable to stock South African goods. Sports teams, most notably the Springbok rugby team, were heavily obstructed from playing anywhere outside SA. Direct action among other tactics to stop matches going ahead were employed. The worst that happened was that the match might manage to go ahead but with huge media coverage of the protests that at the very least helped to highlight the issue. The best that might happen would be some volatile and violent encounters with those charged with the job of protecting the renegade events. In my opinion, more could have been done, such as using explosives or incendiary devices to flatten the proposed venue before the event could even start. Always hit them in the pocket, that’s where it hurts these people most. Apartheid in South Africa could have been brought to an end much sooner had more militant action been used to enforce the boycott. That’s why boycotts do work and direct action against those that might try to break the boycott is not only acceptable, it is necessary to make it work. It should be noted that if Apartheid was in some way acceptable, then boycotts would never have worked no matter how militant the the tactics used to uphold the boycott were. Take for example the embargo the US has employed against Cuba. They have failed in their aim to cripple Cuba for over five decades. Tactics have included invasion, CIA assassination and support for Anti Cuban terrorism as well as blackmailing other nations into backing the embargo. Still Cuba survives and the US are now realising the futility of their petulant embargo. That’s because of the fundamental right of Cuba to assert themselves among the nations of the world.

With this in mind, it’s a good idea for anyone who has worked out that the illegal and anti-humanitarian Israeli occupation of Palestine is immoral and must be opposed by any means and at every opportunity possible not to discount any actions. No action can be off-limits. We must make sure it’s not profitable for companies in our countries or wherever we are to stock Israeli goods. Wherever their sports teams play throughout the world, they must be, if not stopped, made most unwelcome. Remember, almost every citizen of Israel is at the very least a reservist soldier for the IDF. I find that throwing eggs and flour is not quite effective. Petrol bombs are far more effective. Guns and mortar bombs should not be dismissed. All options must be given careful consideration.

Some people may think that I am advocating violence against boycott breakers and indeed sports players and other performers. Well that’s not the case. I am merely saying what I believe is the only effective way to make the boycott work. Now the boycott started it’s humble beginnings in Ireland…

I quote from Wikipedia because it’s correct:

The word boycott entered the English language during the Irish “Land War” and is derived from the name of Captain Charles Boycott, the estate agent of an absentee landlord, the Earl Erne, who lived in Lough Mask House, in County Mayo, Ireland, who was subject to social ostracism organized by the Irish Land League in 1880. In September of that year, protesting tenants demanded from Boycott a substantial reduction in their rents. He not only refused, but also evicted them from the land. Charles Stewart Parnell, in a speech in Ennis proposed that, rather than resorting to violence, everyone in the locality should refuse to deal with Boycott. Despite the short-term economic hardship to those undertaking this action, Boycott soon found himself isolated — his workers stopped work in the fields and stables, as well as in his house. Local businessmen stopped trading with him, and the local postman refused to deliver mail.

The concerted action taken against him meant that Boycott was unable to hire anyone to harvest the crops in his charge. Eventually 50 Orangemen from Cavan and Monaghan volunteered to harvest his crops. They were escorted to and from Claremorris by one thousand policemen and soldiers—this despite the fact that Boycott’s complete social ostracism meant that he was actually in no danger of being harmed [Well there’s no proof of that to be honest]. Moreover, this protection ended up costing far more than the harvest was worth. After the harvest, the “boycott” was successfully continued. Within weeks Boycott’s name was everywhere. It was used by The Times in November 1880 as a term for organized isolation. According to an account in the book “The Fall of Feudalism in Ireland” by Michael Davitt, the term was coined by Fr. John O’Malley of County Mayo to “signify ostracism applied to a landlord or agent like Boycott”. The Times first reported on November 20, 1880: “The people of New Pallas have resolved to ‘boycott’ them and refused to supply them with food or drink.” The Daily News wrote on December 13, 1880: “Already the stoutest-hearted are yielding on every side to the dread of being ‘Boycotted’.” By January of the following year, the word was being used figuratively: “Dame Nature arose…. She ‘Boycotted’ London from Kew to Mile End” (The Spectator, January 22, 1881).

Clearly as the name came from this episode, then a boycott is considered a last option before ultimately resorting to a more direct and militant approach, if it were to fail. As I understand it, those that did deal with the thoroughly despicable Earl Erne and his overseer, Captain Boycott extended the Boycott to those that dealt with them. No one broke the Boycott and it was a success.

In the case of Israel, we are not dealing with one or two individuals, we are dealing with a very powerful country operating beyond it’s means. They are able to do this because of financial and other more sinister aid being given by mainly the US but backed by many western states that have been engaged in a war against democracy for the last 50 years. (In fact, Israel was so supported that they were able to defy the boycott of South Africa by giving it nuclear and other military help.) It’s no surprise that they [US] generally only give aid to non democratic states in the Middle East (Iraq before GWI, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, Pre 9/11 Afghanistan,  Jordan and Pakistan as long as they stay allies. Forget the rhetoric that comes from some of these states. They have been bought. The US have been shovelling aid to ultra right-wing regimes in South America and they have funded right-wing military coups since before the United States were united and certain right-wing governments in Africa, but only if they were good old-fashioned dictatorships. A clear example of their war on democracy is their embargo against Cuba. Their hatred of democracy went so far as accepting Cuban criminals as refugees and giving gangsters and criminals shelter from justice just so they could use them as a publicity stunt to show how evil democratic Socialism is.

In the face of this onslaught on human rights, however indirectly, it’s not by any means extreme to suggest that direct militant activism is a justifiable response to it. That must start by boycotting Israeli produce, especially that which they produce in illegal Zionist settlements. It must also be backed up with the boycotting of any countries that seek to break the boycott. If that includes your own country, as a duty, who must boycott your own countries goods.

An idea of what to boycott will be found here. This must only be considered a starting point. If you see Israeli goods being sold in your local shops and supermarkets, then a letter telling them of their actions amounting to being an accomplice to crimes against humanity, is the first step with as much signatories as possible. If that fails then phase one of direct action must be put into place. That is picketing and publicising the issue. If that fails then you have to decide the best course of action for phase three. It will be different for each occasion but will most likely need to involve militant direct action aimed at making it impractical, economically, to continue to aid rogue states in their crimes against humanity.

Boycott Israeli Goods Image

End Apartheid