Palestine Solidarity Society disrupts Law lecture at Queens University, Belfast

From The Gown:

The Palestinian Solidarity Society today disrupted a lecture by Solon Solomon, former member of the Israeli Parliament’s legal department, on Israel’s right to self-defence. Entering the lecture, members of the society heckled the lecturer forcing it to be brought to a close after seven minutes. Members of the panel had to be removed from the room by security in the interests of their own safety to calls of “Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio.” The PSS was apparently videoing the lecture without permission.

Read the rest of the article here.

93 Responses to “Palestine Solidarity Society disrupts Law lecture at Queens University, Belfast”

  1. Brian Goldfarb Says:

    It is interesting (but probably fruitless) to speculate what the reaction of the PSS (or any PSC anywhere) might be were one of _their_ meetings to be brought to an equally rapid end. One might imagine that they would protest vigorously and vociferously about the breach of _their_ right of free speech. Funny how they don’t apply that to others, isn’t it.

    It is also interesting to note that the Head of Department said that “Solomon…was speaking at a weekly lunchtime academic seminar on the topic of international law…She [the HoD] also pointed out that Solomon openly criticised Israel in the time he was allowed to speak.” This, however, may not only have escaped the protestors notice, they quite possibly wouldn’t have cared had they noticed.

    Also, umm, “interesting” is this comment: “Megan Fearon of Ógra Sinn Féin, who was attending the event, pointed out the notable Sinn Féin presence at the protest and said, “It’s a disgrace we invited a war criminal, there was meant to be a debate but they only invited one side.” Given that this was a “a weekly lunchtime academic seminar on the topic of international law”, why on earth should there be “two (or more) sides” represented? As a seminar, it wasn’t meant to be a debate, but (from experience) a presentation and then a testing (in the academic sense) of that presentation. It does suggest that some people have a decidedly loose grip on the notion of what academic life is supposed to be about.

    The real worry is that some of these people have influence on the notion of what academic life should be about.

    Censorship, anyone?

    On that last topic, some months ago, I was asked to sign an online petition (by someone I usually trust in these matters) to try and get some odious organisation (I think it might have been “Jew Watch” – and they _are_ odious) off some server or search engine. I refused on the grounds that if they weren’t breaking the law, then they were, however regrettable this might be, entitled – and anyway, I don’t believe in censorship.

  2. azazel Says:

    “War criminal?” What war has this Solomon fought in? What crimes has he been accused of? Or is that simply Sinn Fein shorthand for “Israeli?”

  3. conchovor Says:

    I’ve had words with the PSS leader, Gary Speddin, studying Zoology, I think, at Belfast, before.

    You can enjoy some of his comments on this Belfast Telegraph thread on the cancellation of Alderman’s partaking at that Belfast Conference.

    The most interesting ones are in the one with 105 replies to one Alderman comment:

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/jewish-professor-lsquooutraged-and-saddenedrsquo-by-queens-university-snub-14980418.html

    Gary Spedding claimed to be a born again Palestinian Arab Orthodox Christian (actually, he got so carried away on Facebook that he claimed to have been born in Bethlehem, but I can’t find the link again). So far as I can gather, he is of Anglo-Australian extraction, but was raised in Qatar, and has had some very interesting views on Islam:

    ‘No it wouldnt be better to just focus on wahhabists, Whether you like it or not islam’s instructions to its followers is clear, Only islam is acceptable, House of War, and the House of islam, islam divides the world into two groups, Those believing and those not, of those that are not they should be heavily punished if not killed in this world and the next!.

    Vast contradictiosn in their entire religion. and regardless of this there will always be wahhabists because of the interpretations of the Quran. All muslims want to convert others to be islamic. They secretly want the whole world to be enslaved to Allah and a caliphate to rule the world.’

    ‘Yes, in recent years many muslims have taken the approach of putting on a mask (no pun intended there girls) of claiming their religion is “Peace” and what not…. those muslims are secretly hiding their agenda of converting the world…. and enslaving us all to Allah who is the pagan deity of the quraysh tribe i might add that was islamised by mohammed a very clever and manipulative man.’

    ‘perhaps you should go live in africa where muslims run around with machete and kill none muslims? or perhaps you should witness muslims in thailand calling buddha a fat mand on a stool before they hack to peices buddhist monks who believe in none violence by the way……’

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0jzAus9GDDsJ:beyondyourken.com/phoenix/Pages/83238-1.html+gary+spedding+islam&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk

    It is the same person: when the forum was up, this Gary Spedding said he had lived in Qatar for years, and knew well, he said, what such a society was. He is an Anglo-Australian, by birth, he told me on the Belfast Telegraph thread, and became very upset when I started showing him some of his earlier self. On this thread he also confirms it:

    ‘First of all as this is my first post allow me to just introduce myself my name is Mr Gary Spedding I am a Dual nationale of Australia and the United Kingdom who Currently Lives in the Honourable State of Qatar and have done for many years. Islam and the Culture is a point of study for me in the hope to understand your noble Religion further and also enjoy the valuable lessons and cultural richness of the Muslim world! I Respect and admire many world Religions, However as i live in Qatar i have found that i love the Culture here which is Obviously heavily influenced by Islam. I love living here and i also am fascinated by the wonderfull culture not just Islamic but also the Qatari culture.’

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vkH_eOIy8KIJ:beyondyourken.com/phoenix/Pages/82902-24.html+gary+spedding+live+qatar&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk

    On Jewish propaganda:

    ‘Perhaps the history is being corrected to the TRUE and FACTUAL events rather than the American and Jewish propaganda spouted out from them since the time when they needed to legitimise and excuse what they have done to the land of palestine.

    I have debated many many zionists and apologists for murder and ethnic cleansing. I have spent years listening to both sides of the arguement gathering evidences, reading and studying the british mandate and also looking at vitally important statistics.

    The Evidence sides with the palestinian version of events more and more and jews and what not totally hate that.’

    The forums have now been deleted, so only available in cache. But I doubt Gary would like his 2009 views on Islam known to his other PSS members.

    More info:

    Wobbling in Islam as the ‘noble religion':

    ‘You can also look at it this way, I am a British man who has no ties to palestine or israel or anything middle eastern what so ever in regards to loyalties or bias opinions the only thing which you could possibly have against me is that i live in Qatar. The point i am making here is that i have no reason to lie about or fabricate anything, i have no reason to be bias or choose a side to support in this conflict based on loyalty issues or religious issues. The only reason infact i support the human rights of palestinians is because of the FACTs as i have discovered them. Many years ago i was 100% in support of israel however research has shown me the error of my original thoughts much the same as it has done regarding my ideas about the religion of islam which i even once called a “Noble religion” over 10 years ago before i educated myself and did the relevant research.’

    ‘Just because i am against islam does not mean i have to be Pro-Israel which is an equally oppressive and disgusting regime as an islamic state in some cases.’

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UDiMZh6PXZEJ:indonesian.faithfreedom.org/~faithfre/forum09/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D7%26t%3D5607%26start%3D20+gary+spedding+live+qatar&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk

    • Gary Spedding Says:

      Well Well Well this is certainly interesting.

      “I’ve had words with the PSS leader, Gary Speddin, studying Zoology, I think, at Belfast, before. ”

      You clearly have not or you would know a great deal more about me.

      “Gary Spedding claimed to be a born again Palestinian Arab Orthodox Christian (actually, he got so carried away on Facebook that he claimed to have been born in Bethlehem, but I can’t find the link again).”

      Never have i claimed to be actually Born in Bethlehem the disadvantage of being so open with my personal information is that people find it easy to make copy accounts.

      I am an Orthodox Christian always have been however. Please find that link it would be very interesting to see the truth of the matter!

      You also do not become “born Again” with the eastern Orthodox Church to my knowledge there for your lie is easily spotted.

      I have never been a member of any online forum discussing Islam it is very interesting to see someone 2 year’s ago using my name to discredit me even though i was not even in the UK nor was i using such internet website’s. I find nothing more abhorrent than the views shown in my name in that regard.

      Either i have multiple personalities or somebody is playing a very strange and weird game here.

      None of those quote’s belong to me the only one that is me is the Belfast Telegraph. I find it very strange indeed it is also rather amusing to see somebody taking such an intense interest in me to actually google me…. i suppose you were trying to find out if i am a Muslim right? At least i now know who was using the search tool on my own wordpress blog to search for myself with the word Islam behind it.

      • conchovor Says:

        Hi Gary.

        I said I couldn’t find the link, it’s lost in the midst of time on a facebook thread somewhere. But you did say you had been born in Bethlehem.

        In retrospect, it is clear you had got somewhat carried away in talking about a spiritual experience.

        Of course you can be re-born in Orthodox Christianity. You can be re-born through conversion. That is the essence of conversion in Christianity: Unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God, Jn 3.3; Unless a man be born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’.

        Didn’t they teach you that?

        This is you, Gary:

        ‘I happen to be Arab Orthodox Baptised in Bethlehem and i happen to hold a Palestinian Passport which does make me a Palestinian Christian.’

        Baptism is conversion and acceptance into the church, reception of the spirit. It is to be born again.

        You clearly have been born again into a new aspect or facet of the Orthodox church. Perhaps from Greek into Arab Orthodox. Perhaps you come from an Orthodox background. In which case you have returned to it in some sense, otherwise you wouldn’t require baptism.

        In addition to a spiritual experience (except you seem to have forgotten about that), it clearly is a nationalist one for you. Hence you have also become a Palestinian, perhaps even a Palestinian Arab.

        All of which is your right and prerogative.

        It is odd that someone impersonated you so closely, said they were British and were from Qatar. I mean you could have said it was just someone who happened to have the same name and coincidentally had lived in Qatar.

        But, no. They were actually impersonating you. It is weird.

        But I fully accept that, even if these were your views in the past, they aren’t now. You’ve been re-born, after all.

        • Gary Spedding Says:

          “I said I couldn’t find the link, it’s lost in the midst of time on a facebook thread somewhere. But you did say you had been born in Bethlehem.”

          I most certainly did not at any point say such a thing. It is amusing when Zionist’s have nothing else to get you with they resort to some flim flam that they cannot even prove but are some how able to cleverly market in a way that cast’s aspertions about a person.

          “In retrospect, it is clear you had got somewhat carried away in talking about a spiritual experience.”

          Not really, I may be an Eastern Orthodox Christian (The word’s Greek, Arab, Eastern are all interchangable by the way) but Im not particularly big on religion although i do read and study it a great deal.

          “Of course you can be re-born in Orthodox Christianity. You can be re-born through conversion.”

          The ideology of being a ‘Born again christian’ Is one which is found in evangelical circles. In the Orthodox church we do not call it being ‘Born again’ it is not tradition what is more there is much more to it than just being baptised i had to go through month’s of hard study before even being accepted into the church then I was baptised and Chrismated which are two different things.

          It entirely depend’s on the interpretation and i see it very differently. I am not here to debate or discuss christianity however.

          “That is the essence of conversion in Christianity: Unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God, Jn 3.3; Unless a man be born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’.

          Didn’t they teach you that?”

          It is a great deal more complex and also a great deal more than just as you quote. What is more the english translation of the bible is not one that I follow as it is filled with inaccuracies. Again something i am not here to debate.

          The rest of your post is filled with assumption’s and also a lack of understanding of the fact that being an Orthodox Christian or a member of the Orthodox Church is completely irelevant i am not debating religion here. You also have a lack of understanding that greek orthodox, arab orthodox, eastern orthodox are the same thing per say.

          My Palestinian passport is nothing to do with Religion.

          “It is odd that someone impersonated you so closely, said they were British and were from Qatar.”

          It is not odd at all, i do not hide my personal detail’s because i do not feel the need to or at least i did not in the past. I have not really been very active on the internet much specifically on forum’s or chat room’s because i havent the time to be involved in such diatrab. What is odd is that the person impersonated me not just to attack Jew’s and Judaism but also Islam and Muslim’s which unfortunately for yourself is completely out of character given my personality and my beliefs and principles which thousand’s of people can attest to world wide.

          “I mean you could have said it was just someone who happened to have the same name and coincidentally had lived in Qatar.”

          I could have but that would have been lieing wouldn’t it. Im not into this game of ‘Deny everything’ kind of thing if i know something about it i will give information i am on the whole a truthful and polite person. The truth is somebody rather unbalanced it would seem impersonated me for almost an entire 6 month’s on the internet which i find very worrying indeed. Like i said it is unfortunate for people like yourself that i have been so sensible about this all, launching complaint’s to the proper people and also because it is so out of character for me to have said such thing’s given my history and all my past statements.

          “But, no. They were actually impersonating you. It is weird.”

          Again not really people impersonate other’s all the time for various reason’s.

          “But I fully accept that, even if these were your views in the past, they aren’t now. You’ve been re-born, after all.”

          I have had the same views, values and principles that i have now for many year’s now since the 2006 lebanon war actually so i can say quite confidently that those views expressed in my name are not my own. It has nothing to do with religion by the way although i can see how you would like to continue approaching this given the amount of time you spent searching for ‘dirt’ on me. Fortunately nothing you do or say can impact upon me neither religiously or on my views of human rights or anything else.

          I do not know what else to say to you except good luck trying to attack me and my character it wont work because i have done so much work for human rights that accusation’s made against me fall on deaf ears except those who already support your viewpoints and stances.

          You can neither attack me as a person

        • conchovor Says:

          ‘I most certainly did not at any point say such a thing. It is amusing when Zionist’s have nothing else to get you with they resort to some flim flam that they cannot even prove but are some how able to cleverly market in a way that cast’s aspertions about a person.’

          I cannot help what I remember: I remember what I remember reading. But I also accept I have no proof for it. So it won’t hold up in a court of law, so to speak.

          But, clearly, you were reborn in Bethlehem, in some sense, because you were baptised.

          ‘“In retrospect, it is clear you had got somewhat carried away in talking about a spiritual experience.”

          Not really, I may be an Eastern Orthodox Christian (The word’s Greek, Arab, Eastern are all interchangable by the way) but Im not particularly big on religion although i do read and study it a great deal.

          “Of course you can be re-born in Orthodox Christianity. You can be re-born through conversion.”

          The ideology of being a ‘Born again christian’ Is one which is found in evangelical circles. In the Orthodox church we do not call it being ‘Born again’ it is not tradition what is more there is much more to it than just being baptised i had to go through month’s of hard study before even being accepted into the church then I was baptised and Chrismated which are two different things.’

          OK. Baptism is being born of water and the spirit. Whatever branch of Christianity you are in. If you felt no spiritual aspect, clearly it was chiefly a ethno-national cultural experience for you. Which is fine. But, like I said, is part of your being re-born as a Palestinian.

          ‘It entirely depend’s on the interpretation and i see it very differently. I am not here to debate or discuss christianity however.’

          Whatever interpretation, it is a re-birth: either spiritual, ethno-national cultural, or both.

          ‘That is the essence of conversion in Christianity: Unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God, Jn 3.3; Unless a man be born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’.

          Didn’t they teach you that?”

          It is a great deal more complex and also a great deal more than just as you quote.’

          i.e. I am right.

          ‘What is more the english translation of the bible is not one that I follow as it is filled with inaccuracies. Again something i am not here to debate.’

          Whatever translation, Greek, Syriac, Arabic, it’s about being born again.

          ‘The rest of your post is filled with assumption’s and also a lack of understanding of the fact that being an Orthodox Christian or a member of the Orthodox Church is completely irelevant i am not debating religion here.’

          No. More religion as ethno-national cultural identity. I agree.

          ‘You also have a lack of understanding that greek orthodox, arab orthodox, eastern orthodox are the same thing per say.’

          Same religion. Different ethno-national cultural group. Which is why you went from one to the other.

          ‘My Palestinian passport is nothing to do with Religion.’

          No. But your baptism as a form of ethno-national acculturation is. You are the one who originally associated them.

          ‘“It is odd that someone impersonated you so closely, said they were British and were from Qatar.”

          It is not odd at all,’

          That’s funny. A few posts ago you said it was ‘strange and weird’

          ‘i do not hide my personal detail’s because i do not feel the need to or at least i did not in the past. I have not really been very active on the internet much specifically on forum’s or chat room’s because i havent the time to be involved in such diatrab. What is odd is that the person impersonated me not just to attack Jew’s and Judaism but also Islam and Muslim’s which unfortunately for yourself is completely out of character given my personality and my beliefs and principles which thousand’s of people can attest to world wide.’

          I fully accept you do not hold these views. Even if you did, you have been re-born, with a clean slate.

          “I mean you could have said it was just someone who happened to have the same name and coincidentally had lived in Qatar.”

          ‘I could have but that would have been lieing wouldn’t it.’
          Why a ‘lie’? How could you possibly have known for sure there wasn’t another Gary Spedding in the middle east?

          ‘Im not into this game of ‘Deny everything’ kind of thing if i know something about it i will give information i am on the whole a truthful and polite person. The truth is somebody rather unbalanced it would seem impersonated me for almost an entire 6 month’s on the internet which i find very worrying indeed. Like i said it is unfortunate for people like yourself’

          Not unfortunate. I wrote from the beginning that Gary Spedding ‘has had’ these views. I know they are not his currents one.

          ‘that i have been so sensible about this all, launching complaint’s to the proper people and also because it is so out of character for me to have said such thing’s given my history and all my past statements.’

          I know they are not your current views.

          “But, no. They were actually impersonating you. It is weird.”

          Again not really’

          But you said it was.

          ‘people impersonate other’s all the time for various reason’s.’

          I must say, this kind of sustained and earnest impersonation, 6 months you say, is not that usual. I’ve never come across personally. But I take you at your word that it happened in your case.

          “But I fully accept that, even if these were your views in the past, they aren’t now. You’ve been re-born, after all.”

          ‘I have had the same views, values and principles that i have now for many year’s now since the 2006 lebanon war’

          If you say so.

          ‘actually so i can say quite confidently that those views expressed in my name are not my own.’

          Those views weren’t incompatible with objection to the Lebanon war. The person said he had revises his views of Israel as much as his views of Islam, no longer regarding it as the ‘noble religion':

          ‘Many years ago i was 100% in support of israel however research has shown me the error of my original thoughts much the same as it has done regarding my ideas about the religion of islam which i even once called a “Noble religion” over 10 years ago before i educated myself and did the relevant research.’

          And he was very pro-Christian, in the sense that persecution of Christians in Islamic countries concerned him.

          ‘It has nothing to do with religion by the way although i can see how you would like to continue approaching this given the amount of time you spent searching for ‘dirt’ on me.’

          You say ‘dirt’.

          You’re the one who said you were baptised/re-born as a Palestinian Arab Orthodox Christian in Bethlehem, a re-birth with only ethno-national cultural, not spiritual, significance.

          ‘Fortunately nothing you do or say can impact upon me neither religiously or on my views of human rights or anything else.’

          OK.

          ‘I do not know what else to say to you except good luck trying to attack me and my character it wont work because i have done so much work for human rights that accusation’s made against me fall on deaf ears except those who already support your viewpoints and stances.’

          All I have said for sure about you, is that you were re-born/baptised as a Palestinian Arab Orthodox Christian, nationally, not spiritually.

          The views attributed to you were already in the past, not your ones now. And I accept you may have been impersonated.

          On the Belfast Telegraph thread, you said you were a Palestinian Christian, as though you had been born, rather than become such (rather recently?). All the while attacking Jews for becoming Israeli.

          ‘You can neither attack me as a person’

          I don’t think I am.

  4. conchovor Says:

    This is curious: in her Queens University website picture, Beverley Milton Edwards, who pressured Alderman’s being disinvited, stands before some pro-Palestinian graffiti. Wholly in view is ‘Make Love not War’, with a Palestinian flag:

    http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofPoliticsInte

    The other side, which she partly obscures, has the other or related part of the message. I think it says:

    ‘They don’t let Jews like Jesus into the Knesset’.

    Admittedly that is only a guess. But Spedding’s reaction confirms it and is of further interest:

    ‘No i am infact a well educated greek orthodox christian and i happen to know fine well that the Jews killed Jesus does that mean i must hate Jews? clearly not. The point i was making which you clearly cannot counter is that the Prof. Beverley Milton-Edwards should not be attacked based on a picture of her standing infront of the apartheid wall as if the picture is meant as a specific attack on Jews based on the half obscured writing. I know fine well you werent attacking Jesus i was mentioning that on the other side of this wall and all over Jerusalem written in Hebrew you will find Jewish writings insulting christianity, insulting islam and attacking specific groups of people racially. The strong republican element has nothing to do with this at all if the republican movement was that strong then they would have denied an invite to the pro zionist guy in the first place…’

    To iterate, Gary Spedding thinks:

    ‘I am a Palestinian Christian’

    ‘I happen to be Arab Orthodox Baptised in Bethlehem and i happen to hold a Palestinian Passport which does make me a Palestinian Christian.’

    ‘No i am not a Torah observant Jew and i have never claimed to be although with my knowledge of the Torah if i wished to convert to Judaism it would be pretty damn easy’

    ‘Not true at all as an Arab (Greek) Orthodox christian i can tell you that we do not regard jews as an ethno-national group and never have done. This is not about religion this is about the idea that jews are a superior race and have some how got a right to ethnically cleanse palestine because of this strange right they have’

    ”Islamic states are not apartheid states and i would challenge you to show how they fit into the legal status of Apartheid.’

    ‘The Jews in Iraq etc who were expelled from Arab countries were not “Arab Jews” they were Jews.’

    ‘ Jews tried to ethnically cleanse jerusalem in 1929 as well to which the result was a massacre in Hebron to remove Jews from Hebron by Arab’s’

    ”when Jews suffered horrific persecution based on prejudice towards judaism. They were then defined as a racial group (the only religious group in history to have been given this priviledge)’

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/jewish-professor-lsquooutraged-and-saddenedrsquo-by-queens-university-snub-14980418.html

    • Gary Spedding Says:

      Well done i must congratulate you on your keen and quite scary obsession with myself. You have far too much time on your hands picking and choosing out of context quotes from the Belfast Telegraph which when read as you have presented them seem rather different to the well thought out responses.

      I can clarify all of the above statement’s if required giving indepth explanation and analysis of them.

      The thing is this is much more than just random comment’s which you can collect together to try and launch an attack against me. I am currently bored so i suppose i will reply properly to you:

      “‘No i am infact a well educated greek orthodox christian and i happen to know fine well that the Jews killed Jesus does that mean i must hate Jews? clearly not.”

      I cannot be bothered to look up the context of this comment if i am honest but to clarify the bible is quite clear on the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ Death. I really do not like all the hate that comes from this though i seriously doubt that such was the plan upon crucifixtion for hate to come from it which is why it should be made clear that people alive today are not the same as people who lived thousand’s of year’s ago and it is ridiculous to blame people who are of the same religious group for things that happened in the past.

      Jew’s alive today are about as to blame for the actions of Jews 2000 year’s ago as I am to blame for the actions of English people 2000 years ago or whatever and it is that key principle of knowing not to generalize that is important in not descriminating or hating people just because of their religion or ethnicity.

      “‘I am a Palestinian Christian’”

      I practice my faith according to the same Tradition’s as the Palestinian family i live with in Bethlehem so i see nothing wrong with that description.

      “‘I happen to be Arab Orthodox Baptised in Bethlehem and i happen to hold a Palestinian Passport which does make me a Palestinian Christian.’”

      I think that it is important to clarify here that being Palestinian is not a racial adherent it is a national identity. The same as being Israeli is a Nationality not a racial or religious thing. Arab Orthodoxy is the same as Greek Orthodoxy by the way.

      Are you upset that i was baptised in Bethlehem?

      “‘No i am not a Torah observant Jew and i have never claimed to be although with my knowledge of the Torah if i wished to convert to Judaism it would be pretty damn easy’”

      I remember this comment quite well :). It’s true if i wanted to convert to Judaism i could do so with ease. That would most likely make a huge problem for someone such as yourself who’s clear mission is to claim i am an anti-semite or something as ridiculous. I have hundreds of Jewish friends, I enjoy so much of Jewish culture when i am in the state of israel in historic palestine it truly is Amazing and beautiful. Do you really think that out of context comment’s are going to win over anyone who has the ability to actually get in touch with me and ask me questions?

      “‘Not true at all as an Arab (Greek) Orthodox christian i can tell you that we do not regard jews as an ethno-national group and never have done. This is not about religion this is about the idea that jews are a superior race and have some how got a right to ethnically cleanse palestine because of this strange right they have’”

      Is it a crime to have a different view as to what a Jew is religiously? Im quite sure that orthodox Jew’s do not believe that Secular Jew’s are really “Jewish”. It is also clear that many people believe that Jew’s are superior when in actual fact Jewish people are the same or should i say Equal to everyone else nobody is either better or worse we are all human being’s and we are all equal and share equal rights and human rights.

      I also believe that this comment was in context to discussing religiously not racially or politically etc perhaps it would be best to tell your readers that?

      “”Islamic states are not apartheid states and i would challenge you to show how they fit into the legal status of Apartheid.’”

      Still waiting for someone to show me where an Islamic state enact’s Apartheid.

      “‘The Jews in Iraq etc who were expelled from Arab countries were not “Arab Jews” they were Jews.’”

      Having spent the past 6 month’s researching with an Iraqi Jewish friend of mine it would be appropriate for me to state that Jew’s were not neccesarily expelled from Iraq and infact Iraq wanted to keep it’s Jews. It would also be appropriate of me to clarify that the view of Arab’s were that they were Jew’s rather than “Arab – Jews” it is not my own view as research often clarifies a great deal of things in certain regards the fact is they were viewed by other Arab’s who weren ot Jew’s as something not of arab origin after the rise of Zionism this is a descrimination which the Arab world should deeply regret.

      “‘ Jews tried to ethnically cleanse jerusalem in 1929 as well to which the result was a massacre in Hebron to remove Jews from Hebron by Arab’s’”

      I can if you would like attach a list of attack’s by the Haganah and the Irgun and the plan’s of Ben Gurion and other Zionist leaders at the time. Ben Gurion used the word Tifsir in english it mean’s to Cleanse…. when refering to the much ignored “Arab problem”.

      “”when Jews suffered horrific persecution based on prejudice towards judaism. They were then defined as a racial group (the only religious group in history to have been given this priviledge)’ ”

      It is unfortunate that it was mostly the Western Superior power’s which found label’s for people… It was the British who first defined people of different skin colours into other categories etc etc. However Jew’s were persecuted throughout earlier history for their religious practices not their racial or cultural traits all you have to do is look at biblical history for that. Such descrimination is deplorable and disgusting which is why we must learn from it to make sure it never happens to anyone ever again.

      I hope this clarifies my thoughts and also clarifies what i meant by some of those comments (I.E the ones i actually did make).

      • conchovor Says:

        ‘I think that it is important to clarify here that being Palestinian is not a racial adherent it is a national identity. The same as being Israeli is a Nationality not a racial or religious thing. Arab Orthodoxy is the same as Greek Orthodoxy by the way.’

        That’s a load of baloney, isn’t it?

        Part of your becoming a Palestinian is your being re-born as Palestinian Arab Greek Orthodox Christian.

        ‘I think that it is important to clarify here that being Palestinian is not a racial adherent it is a national identity. The same as being Israeli is a Nationality not a racial or religious thing. Arab Orthodoxy is the same as Greek Orthodoxy by the way.’

        It is the same religiously, technically. It is not the same ethno-nationally. Which is how it comprises part of your ‘conversion’ ethno-nationally religiously.

        Clearly your baptism only had ethno-national significance for you, since were completely unaware at the time of its spiritual significance.

        “‘Not true at all as an Arab (Greek) Orthodox christian i can tell you that we do not regard jews as an ethno-national group and never have done.’

        You’re just ignorant.

        The Greek Orthodox church has most definitely regarded the Jews as ethno-national group for most of its history. Actually, for most of its history, Greeks have called themselves ‘Romaioi’, ‘Romans’, which is why the original Arabic for Christian in the Quran is ‘Rumi’. This remained the case until the fall of Constantinople in the 15th century.

        In any case. Jews were never ‘Helleneis’ or ‘Romaioi’, ever. They were always ‘Ioudaioi’. Always, and had been from antiquity. Gary clearly knows nothing of Greek Orthodox Christian history in this regard.

        It is still quite difficult to get Greek citizenship under the law of return if you are not Greek Orthodox.

        The very first Christian in history to say he comes from a place called ‘Palestine’, Justin Martyr, a Greco-Roman citizen of the colony of Flavia Neapolis (‘Nablus’), and thus the first true Palestinian Christian in the historical record, indeed the first Palestinian Church Father, believes Jews to be not only a nation, but a nation dispossessed for their rejection of Jesus, and to be kept dispossessed by pagan imperial Rome, as he tells the emperor Antoninus Pius himself

        Jus. I Apol. 47:

        That the land of the Jews, then, was to be laid waste, hear what was said by the Spirit of prophecy. And the words were spoken as if from the person of the people wondering at what had happened. They are these: “Sion is a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation. The house of our sanctuary has become a curse, and the glory which our fathers blessed is burned up with fire, and all its glorious things are laid waste: and Thou refrainest Thyself at these things, and hast held Thy peace, and hast humbled us very sore.” And ye are convinced that Jerusalem has been laid waste, as was predicted. And concerning its desolation, and that no one should be permitted to inhabit it, there was the following prophecy by Isaiah: “Their land is desolate, their enemies consume it before them, and none of them shall dwell therein.” And that it is guarded by you lest any one dwell in it, and that death is decreed against a Jew apprehended entering it, you (emperor Antoninus Pius) know very well.’

        The very traditional Palestinian Christian belief that Jews are punished with dispossession for their rejection of Jesus and the prophets:

        Just. Dial. Tryph. 16:

        For the circumcision according to the flesh, which is from Abraham, was given for a sign; that you may be separated from other nations, and from us; and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer; and that your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem.’ For you are not recognised among the rest of men by any other mark than your fleshly circumcision…Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him.

        The very traditional Palestinian Christian belief that, not only are the Jews an ethno-national group, they are among the most wicked of ethno-national groups:

        Just. Dial. Tryph. 17:

        ‘”For other nations have not inflicted on us and on Christ this wrong to such an extent as you have, who in very deed are the authors of the wicked prejudice against the Just One, and us who hold by Him.”

        Among the church fathers, Greek and Latin, these views are quite normative, and have been for most of Catholic and Orthodox Christian history.

        ‘Jew’s alive today are about as to blame for the actions of Jews 2000 year’s ago as I am to blame for the actions of English people 2000 years ago’

        That’s nice. It doesn’t quite explain why the Arab Catholic churches were so resistant to absolving the Jews for Christicide:

        “The Arab lobbyists had argued that to ban the word deicide would tend to legitimate the Zionist state, with adverse political consequences for the Catholic church in the Middle East; the bishops from the area had suggested that there might be fears for the safety of Arab Christians if this happened.”

        Nicholls commented that the Document did not mention the need for repentance for past oppression and mass murders of Jews by the Church. It does not ask Jews for forgiveness. Nicholls writes that this is a glaring error because other Vatican II documents:

        “do ask forgiveness for the Church from Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Muslims. This is perhaps the greatest weakness of the statement. Perhaps it would not have passed the council if it had [been included].” 7

        William Nicholls, “Christian Antisemitism: A history of hate,” Jason Aronson Inc., (1995), Pages 363 & 364.

        The most influential Arab Orthodox Christian of the Mandate Period was Khalil Sakakini. He was fully conversant with the surrounding Muslim society, could equate the Zionist enterprise with the crucifixion of Jesus – and also float the newer stereotype of Jewish domination of the great powers, whether the Romans at the time of Jesus or, now, the British. “There is little doubt that the British government is (morally and politically) bankrupt,” Sakakini wrote in the 1930s “Who can have high regard for a government which is totally under the Jewish sway, like a slave?”

        He also had no problem reconciling his Christianity with Nietzche and Nazism. His views were by no means atypical of Palestinian Arab Orthodox at the time.

        Unfortunately for Khalil’s reverence for the Niezchean super man, his son turned out to be gay and in love with a Jew.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalil_al-Sakakini

        • Gary Spedding Says:

          “That’s a load of baloney, isn’t it?”

          No it isn’t just because you do not like my reply does not mean its a load….

          “Part of your becoming a Palestinian is your being re-born as Palestinian Arab Greek Orthodox Christian.”

          No…. part of me gaining Palestinian nationality involved me filling out a form, handing in 4 passport sized photo’s and recieving a Palestinian passport. It has nothing to do with religion.

          “It is the same religiously, technically. It is not the same ethno-nationally. Which is how it comprises part of your ‘conversion’ ethno-nationally religiously.

          Clearly your baptism only had ethno-national significance for you, since were completely unaware at the time of its spiritual significance.”

          You have absolutely no knowledge of what my views are religiously. Clearly you are trying to debate me on point’s of religion here it is laughable. If you wish to ask question’s about Christianity in the Holy Land i can forward you on to a very good Bible college. Me and my religion i will say again have nothing to do with it except when i decide to tell people about it thus dispelling the idiotic notion that all palestinians are Muslims and reminding people that the only indigenous christian population in the world to Bethlehem is under threat of extinction because of Israeli occupation.

          “You’re just ignorant. ”

          No im not and you hate the fact i am not.

          The rest of your assertion’s and misconception’s most of which are mass copy and paste’s are not at all accurate. You have clearly never been to Palestine and met the Christian community or the Christian church leaders. Perhap’s you should have taken the opportunity to do so when they were here a few month’s ago……

          The claim that all Palestinian Christian’s believe exactly the way in which you have depicted is ridiculous.

          I do not know what you expect me to respond to in your mass copy and paste’s i could not disagree more with the diatrab you have came out with the churches we attend in Bethlehem do not hold those views of people who follow Judaism.

          It would be interesting mind you for you to find out which other churches have or had hatred for Jew’s based on religious ideology….

          Also what is more this event at the university, the situation in Palestine it has nothing to do with religion so pull the other one will you :]

        • conchovor Says:

          ‘“That’s a load of baloney, isn’t it?”No it isn’t just because you do not like my reply does not mean its a load….’

          No. It’s baloney for the reasons I outlay below.

          “Part of your becoming a Palestinian is your being re-born as Palestinian Arab Greek Orthodox Christian.” No…. part of me gaining Palestinian nationality involved me filling out a form, handing in 4 passport sized photo’s and recieving a Palestinian passport. It has nothing to do with religion.’

          Yes, but your baptism was clearly chiefly a form of ethno-national acculturation, how you become more ‘Palestinian’. It wasn’t spiritual rebirth, for instance.

          ‘“It is the same religiously, technically. It is not the same ethno-nationally. Which is how it comprises part of your ‘conversion’ ethno-nationally religiously. Clearly your baptism only had ethno-national significance for you, since were completely unaware at the time of its spiritual significance.” You have absolutely no knowledge of what my views are religiously.’

          I have some, because you have said them.

          ‘Clearly you are trying to debate me on point’s of religion here it is laughable. If you wish to ask question’s about Christianity in the Holy Land i can forward you on to a very good Bible college. Me and my religion i will say again have nothing to do with it’

          Clearly it has has, ethno-nationally culturally.

          ‘except when i decide to tell people about it thus dispelling the idiotic notion that all palestinians are Muslims’

          Not mine.

          ‘and reminding people that the only indigenous christian population in the world to Bethlehem is under threat of extinction because of Israeli occupation.’

          Clearly your conversion is meant in some measure to thwart or prevent that.

          ‘“You’re just ignorant. ” No im not and you hate the fact i am not.’

          I beg to differ, on both counts.

          ‘The rest of your assertion’s and misconception’s most of which are mass copy and paste’s are not at all accurate. You have clearly never been to Palestine and met the Christian community or the Christian church leaders. Perhap’s you should have taken the opportunity to do so when they were here a few month’s ago……’

          Well, for matters of the historical record, one doesn’t really have to. And there is plenty out there of contemporary Palestinian Christian views.

          ‘The claim that all Palestinian Christian’s believe exactly the way in which you have depicted is ridiculous.’

          And it isn’t mine.

          ‘I do not know what you expect me to respond to in your mass copy and paste’s’

          Hardly ‘mass': three short paragraphs from the first Palestinian church father.

          ‘i could not disagree more with the diatrab you have came out with’

          Mine or Justin’s?

          ‘ the churches we attend in Bethlehem do not hold those views of people who follow Judaism.’

          Fine. But you said Palestinian Christians had never held such beliefs, which is baloney. Actually they have been fairly normative and traditional.

          Even you refer in the Belfast Thread to some kind of exile or dispossession of the Jews as punishment for their rejection of Jesus, although I cannot access it right now.

          ‘It would be interesting mind you for you to find out which other churches have or had hatred for Jew’s based on religious ideology….’

          OK. This has been traditional and normative Catholic and Orthodox belief for most of Catholic and Orthodox history.

          ‘Also what is more this event at the university, the situation in Palestine it has nothing to do with religion so pull the other one will you :]’

          You were the one who adduced in your argument, without qualification, the fact that were ‘a Palestinian Christian’. And your comments on that thread are infused with matters of religion.

    • conchovor Says:

      ‘ It would also be appropriate of me to clarify that the view of Arab’s were that they were Jew’s rather than “Arab – Jews”’

      Absolutely fascinating.

      You personally do not classify Arab Jews as Arabs, and presumably neither did most Iraqis, yet you also maintain

      ‘Jew’s were not neccesarily expelled from Iraq and infact Iraq wanted to keep it’s Jews.’

      Despite that not being how most Iraqi Jews feel about the matter, as well as their having felt that they were nationally Arab, and not felt to be as unwelcome in Iraq as they were.

      All this learned opinion from Anglo-Australian Born-Again Palestinian Arab Greek Orthodox Christian!

  5. conchovor Says:

    ‘The strong republican element has nothing to do with this at all if the republican movement was that strong then they would have denied an invite to the pro zionist guy in the first place…’

  6. vildechaye Says:

    RE: I’ve had words with the PSS leader, Gary Speddin, studying Zoology

    Sounds to me like he’s studying Ziology — and isn’t doing too well.

  7. Brian Goldfarb Says:

    If one chooses to click on the highlighted blue of “Gary Spedding”, above, what appears is: “christmasoccupation.wordpress.com is no longer available.”

    That being the case, how can anyone check whether Mr Spedding is relating what passes for the truth here? What we have is a set of claims and counter-claims about Gary Spedding, Chair of PSS, Queens University, Belfast. They may or may not be true.

    However, what is really important is the apparent lack of desire, on the part, inter alia, of the Palestine Solidarity Society (PSS) for a situation of open and free speech at Queens, a lack plainly expressed by the PSS and Mr Spedding. Gary Spedding would do better explaining what PSS thought they were doing, disrupting an academic seminar on university premises.

    I posed what I thought was likely to be a hypothetical question above in my first posting. Perhaps Gary Spedding would care to answer it, as he has found his way here. I must say, that as I grow older and more cynical about anti-zionists, I don’t expect an open and honest answer, however unfair that might be of me.

    I am forced to repeat myself: a attack on academic freedom anywhere is an attack on it everywhere. Not that I expect Gary Spedding, Queens University, Belfast, PSS or any other PSC anywhere, to acknowledge this. That would demand a degree of commitment to academic freedom which they appear to be most reluctant to concede.

    • Gary Spedding Says:

      “If one chooses to click on the highlighted blue of “Gary Spedding”, above, what appears is: “christmasoccupation.wordpress.com is no longer available.””

      Try this one i have no idea why the blue name still links to the Christmas Occupation blog which i ran over christmas but had to cancel due to not being able to reach bethlehem due to the weather in Belfast for 5 days which is why it is Deleted.

      My perminent blog is here (It is rather new):

      http://abureesh.wordpress.com/

      “That being the case, how can anyone check whether Mr Spedding is relating what passes for the truth here?”

      Attacking me on an irelevant issue to claim that i cannot relate what passes for truth is highly immature of you.

      “What we have is a set of claims and counter-claims about Gary Spedding, Chair of PSS, Queens University, Belfast. They may or may not be true. ”

      If i am honest i have voiced myself, offered the alternative claim and argument it is up to everyone else whether or not to accept it or not. I have no interest in winning the mind’s of people who are determined to cast a poor picture of me no matter what take for example the person who spent so much time researching me on google.

      It’s also not ‘Chair’ im the President of the society.

      “However, what is really important is the apparent lack of desire, on the part, inter alia, of the Palestine Solidarity Society (PSS) for a situation of open and free speech at Queens”

      Such a claim is entirely unfounded given the Societies many press releases stating the complete opposite. Free speech is not the issue here, Solon Solomon was given his free speech nobody prevented him from his free speech he could have continued his seminar if you read the account’s from independant witnesses not part of the society and thus not bias it is clearly stated that we allowed Mr Solomon to speak. What is amusing about the Gown’s article and narrative, the pro-israeli narrative and the pro-law school narrative in all this is that several different version’s have appeared even reaching as far as Israeli News papers all rather contradictory of eachother whilst our version of event’s and the independant parties involved who have no reason to be bias’ version’s remain the same.

      I released in fact a press statement clarifying practicall all your question’s i will post it for you if you like?

      “a lack plainly expressed by the PSS and Mr Spedding. Gary Spedding would do better explaining what PSS thought they were doing, disrupting an academic seminar on university premises.”

      This is our university, we are the student’s of this university and as such we have a democratic voice and a right to freedom of speech including a right to object to a speaker who not only has a political agenda but a plain bias from speaking at the university unchallenged. Not that you can call asking a legitimate question (Even if it was poorly timed) an entire disruption, there is a video recording of me asking this question the entire room was silent apart from my voice interupting Mr Solomon’s nobody heckled or threatened in anyway.

      “I posed what I thought was likely to be a hypothetical question above in my first posting. Perhaps Gary Spedding would care to answer it, as he has found his way here.”

      Not a problem.

      The reason there should be two side’s is plainly outlined in my press release. By the way Ogra sinn fein do not represent myself or the society so it would be disingenous of you to take their quotes as representative of myself or the society.

      Im very interested in learning more about the ‘Jew watch’ Thing it is a website/organization that very much worries me and disgust’s me I might add. The key thing about freedom of speech is that people have the right to say things even if they are offensive but it becomes illegal the moment it becomes insightful i believe organization’s such as ‘Jew watch’ do indeed insight hatred and should be stopped. Perhap’s more research on such a matter needs more indepth research there are many outlet’s on the internet that i would recommend are a danger because of the insightful idea’s they propose especially genuinely anti-semitic ones which offend me the most.

      “I must say, that as I grow older and more cynical about anti-zionists, I don’t expect an open and honest answer, however unfair that might be of me.”

      I bet you would love my Jewish friend’s in Jerusalem then they are all anti-zionist.

      “I am forced to repeat myself: a attack on academic freedom anywhere is an attack on it everywhere.”

      Nobody attacked Academic freedom.

      “Not that I expect Gary Spedding, Queens University, Belfast, PSS or any other PSC anywhere, to acknowledge this.”

      Of course when a legitimate attack on academic freedom occurs it should be condemned.

      “That would demand a degree of commitment to academic freedom which they appear to be most reluctant to concede.”

      I am all for giving academic freedom the difficulty is when controversial topic’s come up they deserve to be ‘academically’ fair and thus more than one side presented.

      It disturb’s me the most that Israeli propagandist’s and apologists who find loop holes in international law for Israel to utilize i.e. solon solomon and his attempts to justify the apartheid wall and the bombing/collective punishment of the people in Gaza can get away with hiding under the guise of Academia and continue to be allowed to get away with spreading pro-israeli propaganda. He was torn apart at UCL and LSE in london by Baristers with degree’s in international law. His so called thesis is only accepted within israel itself…..

      People who hide their agenda deserve to be ousted

      • Gary Spedding Says:

        Press release:

        Queen’s University Belfast Palestine Solidarity Society

        RE: Solon Solomon lecture disruption

        It is very clear and apparent that today’s Solon Solomon lecture and events during and after it have caused quite a stir, especially with the Gown Newspaper. In light of this Queen’s Palestinian Solidarity Society would like to clarify a number of issues.

        Today’s lecture was supposedly on ‘Israel’s right to self-defence’ and was organised by the School of Law in conjunction with Northern Ireland Friends of Israel. As a society we wish to make it clear we did not object to this lecture taking place and that we respect the right of freedom of speech and support robust academic debate, nevertheless we are of the opinion that freedom of speech is not, nor cannot be allowed to become, the freedom to express controversial views unchallenged. That indeed was the main reason for our attendance today.

        Queen’s Palestine Solidarity Society also hold as core values the principles of nonviolence, dialogue and reconciliation, indeed, we are fully committed to the achievement of justice based on respect for the human rights of everyone, Israeli and Palestinian. Indeed, it is because of the Israeli state’s comprehensively documented abuses of basic human rights – the right to self-determination, the right of return for refugees, the right to life, and so forth – that involved we stand in solidarity with Palestinians and Israeli peace and human rights activists. Regardless of how desirable it may be to be balanced, one must always recall that the situation is not balanced; that it is Palestinians, not Israelis, who live under occupation, that are being blockaded and whose land is being colonised.

        With regard to today, our society’s aims in attending the lecture were to challenge Solon Solomon on his book, “The Justiciability of International Disputes,” and numerous past statements he has made with regard to the conflict and the legal issues surrounding it, especially his attempts to justify the illegal wall being built on Palestinian land and his defence of the Mavi Marmara massacre. Furthermore, through engaging him in debate we also sought to make clear to the event’s organisers that we as a student body are opposed to allowing tendentious interpretations of law pass as objective and disinterested analysis. Certainly in a matter of such sensitivity and importance as this we feel it would have been more appropriate for Queen’s to counterbalance Mr Solomon’s analysis with that of an expert without links to the Israeli government. Only in a forum such as this do we feel it would have been possible to judge the validity of Professor Wheeler’s assertion that international law is apolitical. Nevertheless, whilst we are opposed to apologists for widespread, systematic and institutionalised human rights abuses speaking at Queen’s, we reiterate again, our intention was neither to intimidate nor cause the abandonment of Mr Solomon’s lecture.

        Regarding the events that occurred after the abandonment of the lecture Queen’s Palestine Solidarity Society firmly rejects any association between itself and the actions of individuals who are not members of our society. We would like it noted for the record that we are committed to non-violence and that our focus is on the promotion of human rights and international law as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant, the rulings of the ICJ and UN bodies and the Fourth Geneva Convention. Furthermore, as a society we also make it very clear that we do not hold or endorse links to any external political body, but rather that we are a diverse society composed of individuals drawn from many different backgrounds and we are not DUP, UUP, Socialist, Sinn Fein, Republican or Loyalist. We furthermore do not hold any radical views and we unequivocally denounce extreme and violent acts – acts that in our view are detrimental to the achievement of human rights for both Israelis and Palestinians.

        Regarding the events that occurred when Mr Solomon attempted to leave the building we insist that it is important to differentiate between members of our society, all of whom fully agree with its non-violent principles, and those who are not members and whom we are not responsible for in any way. Certainly we are not responsible for the violent or intimidatory actions of the person who allegedly hit the window of Mr Solomon’s taxi or the person who shouted when the same taxi ran over his foot – neither of those people are members of the PSS.

        Finally, as a society we would like it noted that we are dismayed at the actions of others who may have caused distress to Mr Solomon, however we stand by our valid objections to Mr Solomon being allowed a platform unchallenged and regards our own actions we reject the assertion that we were in any way intimidating or heckling. The truth is that the simple message we were trying to get across was that here at Queen’s we support human rights not excuses for human rights abuses. In this context then we believe that we were absolutely correct to voice concern about the aggressive and violent policies of the Israeli state and this is why the PSS attended this lecture.

        • conchovor Says:

          ‘Finally, as a society we would like it noted that we are dismayed at the actions of others who may have caused distress to Mr Solomon, however we stand by our valid objections to Mr Solomon being allowed a platform unchallenged ‘

          You didn’t allow him any platform to challenge you wretched hypocrites!

          You didn’t allow him to make a case to answer in the first place!

        • conchovor Says:

          ‘As a society we wish to make it clear we did not object to this lecture taking place and that we respect the right of freedom of speech and support robust academic debate, nevertheless we are of the opinion that freedom of speech is not, nor cannot be allowed to become, the freedom to express controversial views unchallenged.’

          You didn’t ‘challenge’ him, you made it impossible to speak at all. You weren’t there to ‘debate'; you were there to silence and drive him out!

        • Gary Spedding Says:

          Conchover since you have made it impossible for me to click a reply button to reply to you directly it is not possible to continue a flowing debate with you on anything you are bringing up.

          “You didn’t allow him any platform to challenge you wretched hypocrites!”

          I think you will find that i allowed him a platform not only this but we listened to him speaking.

          “You didn’t allow him to make a case to answer in the first place!”

          He already tried making a case in the first 10 minutes of his 20 minute long lecture. He also has been taken apart by lawyer’s and academic’s in many UK universities on his sponsored speaking tour designed to drum up support for Israel’s illegal actions.

          “You didn’t ‘challenge’ him, you made it impossible to speak at all. You weren’t there to ‘debate’; you were there to silence and drive him out!”

          The evidence unfortunately proves you entirely wrong. The video’s of the lecture where people are listening to him speak, the video of me calmly asking a question to him etc etc. It was not impossible for him to speak at all thus your premise is completely fraudulant.

        • conchovor Says:

          ‘Conchover since you have made it impossible for me to click a reply button to reply to you directly it is not possible to continue a flowing debate with you on anything you are bringing up’

          ?

          Just click on ‘reply’ above.

      • conchovor Says:

        ‘Not that you can call asking a legitimate question (Even if it was poorly timed) an entire disruption, there is a video recording of me asking this question the entire room was silent apart from my voice interupting Mr Solomon’s nobody heckled or threatened in anyway.’

        That’s not what Wheeler says:

        ‘She stated that international law is “steadfastly apolitical” and was “surprised [the visit] caused so much excitement.” Wheeler went on to say, “It’s very sad really, I suppose in twenty-five years as an academic I’ve never seen anyone shouted down after five minutes speaking.”

        • Gary Spedding Says:

          What Wheeler say’s is an entire contradiction it was all recorded and is being reviewed by the University. The idea that it is apolitical has been proven false.

          Wheeler’s other statement’s have also been proven wrong and I am awaiting an apology from her in writing given that independent people present who were there for academic reason’s gave their version of event’s which proved our version of event’s were correct.

  8. Law 101 Says:

    The almost completely incoherent Gary Spedding presents an equally incoherent argument.

    Apparently, for Gary Spedding there are not two sides to a legal issue which lawyers will discuss and which they will argue so as to convince others (i.e. a judge or jury).

    Rather, for Gary Spedding, there is only one side to a legal issue and with those who oppose that “one side” being nothing more than “apologists” and “propogandists” whose sole rationale, in typically “lawyerly” fashion, is to “find loop holes” and who sole purpose is to “justify apartheid” etc. etc. etc.)

    I find it somewhat “amusing” that Gary Spedding’s view of the law shares so much in common with current right-wing thinking who (also) view human rights arguments as nothing more than a “get out of jail” card for people who “we” “know” are guilty and would be serving time if not for lawyers “finding loopholes” and justifying and apologising for their terrorist acts.

    Perhaps Gary Spedding should review the legal history of the North of Ireland and see how his view of legal opinions with which he disagrees played itself out at the hands of the English judiciary; Diplock courts, internment, restriction of access to lawyers, etc. etc. all in the name of fighting law and lawyers that they argued was and is no more than a system abused by those acting as apologist for “terror” and for a United Ireland. He might also look at the politics of those who get angry and want to change the legal process every time someone is released through a “technicality” i.e. a right a defendant has to expect and demand due process.

    And Gary Spedding speaks about human rights abuses and democracy – ha, bloody, ha.
    “we are opposed to apologists for widespread, systematic and institutionalised human rights abuses speaking at Queen’s, ”

    “It disturb’s me the most that Israeli propagandist’s and apologists who find loop holes in international law for Israel to utilize i.e. solon solomon and his attempts to justify the apartheid wall and the bombing/collective punishment of the people in Gaza can get away with hiding under the guise of Academia and continue to be allowed to get away with spreading pro-israeli propaganda. He was torn apart at UCL and LSE in london by Baristers with degree’s in international law. His so called thesis is only accepted within israel itself…..”

    • Gary Spedding Says:

      “The almost completely incoherent Gary Spedding presents an equally incoherent argument.”

      How do you find me incoherent? Also how do you find my arguement incoherent?

      “Apparently, for Gary Spedding there are not two sides to a legal issue which lawyers will discuss and which they will argue so as to convince others (i.e. a judge or jury).”

      The lawyer’s did already discuss it they ruled the wall, the gaza massacre and everything else Solon Solomon tries to justify by misinterpreting international law for Israel’s benefit is illegal. There are two sides to many legal issues for example a case where two people are making claim’s against eachother. However if a country murder’s 1400 people there are no two sides about it you cannot justify the death’s overwhelmingly civilian’s using Solon Solomon’s poor excuse for a thesis.

      “Rather, for Gary Spedding, there is only one side to a legal issue and with those who oppose that “one side” being nothing more than “apologists” and “propogandists” whose sole rationale, in typically “lawyerly” fashion, is to “find loop holes” and who sole purpose is to “justify apartheid” etc. etc. etc.)”

      What amuses me the most is that you suppose to state what i am thinking and believe for me which is an incredibly big mistake on your part. There are many sides’ to the legal issue’s but what there is no two sides about is where the international court, the UN and the various human right’s agencies have given ruling’s and submitted opinions on things already. Do you accept the international court (The highest court in the world) and its advisory opinions and ruling’s? or do you prefer to follow a man who’s thesis was entirely based on finding a way to justify the construction of the apartheid wall on another people’s land…..

      The man’s thesis has been disproved by so many people and academic’s i dont even understand how you can have the nerve to debate it or try and cast aspersions about me and what you think i believe/follow in this matter. There are many sides like i said to a legal issue depending on the legal issue but when you ignore all the fact’s presented and push your own ideology as if it is factual it becomes ridiculous. The thing’s solon solomon talk’s about already have ruling’s made on them, the only country in the world to accept his thesis is israel….

      “I find it somewhat “amusing” that Gary Spedding’s view of the law shares so much in common with current right-wing thinking who (also) view human rights arguments as nothing more than a “get out of jail” card for people who “we” “know” are guilty and would be serving time if not for lawyers “finding loopholes” and justifying and apologising for their terrorist acts. ”

      My view of the law is that it must be followed not misinterpreted to allow criminals to get away with things. It’s also a huge inaccuracy to put me in the same label as the ‘Right wing’. Human right’s is the very basis of my action’s and being I also do not like where this is going im going to guess you are one of those people who try to tie in the occurances over here with the thing’s in the middle east nothing could be more ridiculous the two situation’s are not even comparable nor do they share any similarities.

      “Perhaps Gary Spedding should review the legal history of the North of Ireland and see how his view of legal opinions with which he disagrees played itself out at the hands of the English judiciary; Diplock courts, internment, restriction of access to lawyers, etc. etc. all in the name of fighting law and lawyers that they argued was and is no more than a system abused by those acting as apologist for “terror” and for a United Ireland. He might also look at the politics of those who get angry and want to change the legal process every time someone is released through a “technicality” i.e. a right a defendant has to expect and demand due process.”

      You seem to be confusing me with someone who actually is from Ireland or Northern Ireland i dont know anything about the stuff that happened here except what i have learned on the belfast bus tour. You also seem to be confusing law which is for civilian’s and that of the international law there is a huge difference there’s also a difference in that Palestinians in the occupied territories live under military law not civilian law. Whatever the horrific tragedies in Ireland’s history or the injustices done here it is not something that i am campaigning on.

      “And Gary Spedding speaks about human rights abuses and democracy – ha, bloody, ha.
      “we are opposed to apologists for widespread, systematic and institutionalised human rights abuses speaking at Queen’s, ””

      Human Right’s abuses which occur on a daily basis in Israel/Palestine are hugely concerning the obvious lack of democracy is also hugely concerning.

      Clearly you dont know anything about international law or the situation in israel/palestine. You also clearly know nothing about me and do not presume to know what my thoughts are on ANYTHING in such an arrogant and sarcastic way.

      • conchovor Says:

        ‘ There are two sides to many legal issues for example a case where two people are making claim’s against eachother. However if a country murder’s 1400 people there are no two sides about it you cannot justify the death’s overwhelmingly civilian’s using Solon Solomon’s poor excuse for a thesis.’

        I do not know precisely what Solon was trying to argue or how, but if it is impossible to justify that operation, why were you so afraid Solon might?

        Surely if it was impossible, you could have disposed of his argument with a question or two at the end?

        • Gary Spedding Says:

          “I do not know precisely what Solon was trying to argue or how, but if it is impossible to justify that operation, why were you so afraid Solon might?”

          He was there giving his thesis which is also part of his book where he provides attempted justification for Israeli crimes. If you dont even know what he was trying to argue then why are you commenting on the event’s without fully understanding them?

          Im not frightened of Solon Solomon, im not frightened of any Israeli propagandist. The only concern he provides for me is the possibility of being more recognizable by the IDF in future since my name is plastered all over israeli news papers many of which printed my version of events :)

          “Surely if it was impossible, you could have disposed of his argument with a question or two at the end?”

          I disposed of his arguement’s by a question in the middle of the talk it is not a crime to interupt someone who you feel is presenting factually ignorant information.

        • conchovor Says:

          ‘ If you dont even know what he was trying to argue then why are you commenting on the event’s without fully understanding them?’

          I understand you were trying to shut him up!

          ‘I disposed of his arguement’s by a question in the middle of the talk it is not a crime to interupt someone who you feel is presenting factually ignorant information.’

          It’s not a crime. But if you force the talk to an end, if you prevent some one’s speaking, you are shutting them up.

        • conchovor Says:

          ‘I disposed of his arguement’s by a question in the middle of the talk it is not a crime to interupt someone who you feel is presenting factually ignorant information.’

          It’s not a crime, but it’s rather infantile behaviour. And it could be a crime, technically, a breach of the peace, if your intention is to prevent a legal talk’s taking place.

        • Gary Spedding Says:

          “I understand you were trying to shut him up!”

          Clearly i was not though so there you go. All the evidence proves you wrong on that point.

          “It’s not a crime. But if you force the talk to an end, if you prevent some one’s speaking, you are shutting them up.”

          If you want an example of a group forcing a talk to end i suggest you look up the Edinburgh university Student’s for Justice in Palestine group who shut down a talk by a senior israeli official through means much more than what i used in merely asking a question.

          “It’s not a crime, but it’s rather infantile behaviour. And it could be a crime, technically, a breach of the peace, if your intention is to prevent a legal talk’s taking place.”

          Do you mean infantile in the sense of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians right? The Palestinian people who have been silenced? the 11,000 political prisoner’s not given a voice…..

          Breach of the peace dont make me laugh. My intention was to engage in debate and make sure Mr Solomon was aware his view’s are not shared at an establishment that refuses to be brainwashed by israeli propaganda.

        • conchovor Says:

          ‘“I understand you were trying to shut him up!”
          Clearly i was not though so there you go. All the evidence proves you wrong on that point.’

          Yeah, but your pals were, and they were doing of what you approved anyway. You have already admitted that shutting him up was at least half of what you wanted anyway.

          ‘“It’s not a crime. But if you force the talk to an end, if you prevent some one’s speaking, you are shutting them up.”

          ‘If you want an example of a group forcing a talk to end i suggest you look up the Edinburgh university Student’s for Justice in Palestine group who shut down a talk by a senior israeli official through means much more than what i used in merely asking a question.’

          Which was the model used by your pals, as they cheered Solomon’s leaving with ‘Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio’.

          “It’s not a crime, but it’s rather infantile behaviour. And it could be a crime, technically, a breach of the peace, if your intention is to prevent a legal talk’s taking place.”

          ‘Do you mean infantile in the sense of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians right?’

          Do you mean infantile in the sens of Hamas’s profession of eternal dedication of itself, the people of Gaza and Palestine to jihad until Israel’s extinction?

          ‘The Palestinian people who have been silenced?’

          The Israeli and Palestinian Jews whom Palestinian and other Arabs, Muslim and Christian, have been trying to silence since the beginning of their modern nationalism? They failed, fortunately, but not for want of trying.

          ‘the 11,000 political prisoner’s not given a voice…..’

          They are not merely ‘political’ prisoners. Most are in prison for acts of violence.

          Actually, they do have a voice. They can write, speak. Tell their story. And there are plenty of Palestinians not in prison who can speak and do so. a

          The only reason there are less Israeli Jews in captivity, is because Israel beat all her Palestinian and other Arab enemies in war. The same reason as Israeli Jews have killed more Palestinian and other Arabs than vice versa.

          A moral and ethical Christian, as opposed to a merely nationalist one, like yourself, would acknowledge that.

          ‘Breach of the peace dont make me laugh.’

          But it was.

          ‘My intention was to engage in debate and make sure Mr Solomon was aware his view’s are not shared at an establishment that refuses to be brainwashed by israeli propaganda.’

          a) your professed ‘intention’ is belied by your admission of ambivalent about Solomon’s being heckled into silence i.e. it was half what you wanted to happen anyway. A bit like your ambivalence about violence.

          b) your pals executed their intention.

      • conchovor Says:

        ‘Clearly you dont know anything about international law or the situation in israel/palestine.’

        I suspect Solon did. So why did you shut him up?

        • Gary Spedding Says:

          Did i really shut him up though? i mean really? I seriously doubt my voice is strong enough to shut someone up just by asking a question….

        • conchovor Says:

          Yes. Your crowd forced the talk to stop.

        • conchovor Says:

          Says Gary Spedding:

          ‘Thing’s got heated due to several factor’s including an unnecessary security presence, lack of proper planning on my part (I need to give a nonviolence lecture and also show some example’s of what i envisioned for such an event) and inflaming from an irate member of the school of law and influence from Northern Ireland Friend’s of Israel.’

          http://www.thegown.org.uk/2011/02/23/news-palestine-solidarity-society-disrupt-law-lecture/#more-3793

          I.e. your lot drowned him out i.e. shut him up.

        • conchovor Says:

          ‘That being said the entire lecture was giving NIFI the opportunity to learn yet more propaganda and justification for Israel’s case as is found in the email they sent out about solon solomon speaking…..’

          i.e, you were perfectly happy, at least, that Solomon was shut up.

          Isn’t hypocrisy still a sin in Christianity? Or is your knowledge as to what has normatively constituted a sin in Christianity as dubious as to what has actually constituted normative Christian tradition with regard to Jews for most of Christian history?

        • Gary Spedding Says:

          “Yes. Your crowd forced the talk to stop.”

          My society did nothing of the sort as is proved through the video’s and eye witness accounts.

        • Gary Spedding Says:

          “Says Gary Spedding:

          ‘Thing’s got heated due to several factor’s including an unnecessary security presence, lack of proper planning on my part (I need to give a nonviolence lecture and also show some example’s of what i envisioned for such an event) and inflaming from an irate member of the school of law and influence from Northern Ireland Friend’s of Israel.’

          http://www.thegown.org.uk/2011/02/23/news-palestine-solidarity-society-disrupt-law-lecture/#more-3793

          I.e. your lot drowned him out i.e. shut him up.”

          No, what that is discussing is the event’s after Solomon had left along with the NIFI cronies. Why don’t you go and quote one of the people who provided their eye witness account’s? say for example the man who was there for Academic reason’s and said that there is no two way’s about it nobody shouted him down or drowned him out to shut him up. The video of this show’s clearly that only i spoke in a polite and calm voice asking a question nobody else spoke.

          “‘That being said the entire lecture was giving NIFI the opportunity to learn yet more propaganda and justification for Israel’s case as is found in the email they sent out about solon solomon speaking…..’

          i.e, you were perfectly happy, at least, that Solomon was shut up.

          Isn’t hypocrisy still a sin in Christianity? Or is your knowledge as to what has normatively constituted a sin in Christianity as dubious as to what has actually constituted normative Christian tradition with regard to Jews for most of Christian history?”

          Im not a hypocrite and i love how you are still approaching this from a religious angle still…..
          My knowledge on both those subjects are perfectly fine this is not about christianity so please wise up.

        • conchovor Says:

          ‘No, what that is discussing is the event’s after Solomon had left along with the NIFI cronies. Why don’t you go and quote one of the people who provided their eye witness account’s? say for example the man who was there for Academic reason’s and said that there is no two way’s about it nobody shouted him down or drowned him out to shut him up. The video of this show’s clearly that only i spoke in a polite and calm voice asking a question nobody else spoke.’

          Here’s an eyewitness: Gary Spedding, telling Ben Finch that his article in The Gown is ‘fair':

          ‘Firstly, Ben i would like to clarify for everyone that you are indeed telling the truth in that i stated it was a fair article.’

          which was in reply to the reporter Ben Finch’s comment, below his article:

          ‘Haha, don’t worry, it is indeed me. I’ve been speaking to Gary about it over Facebook and in person, which is where that quote comes from.
          I am confident that I reported the facts, there was certainly heckling going on and I was told that’s why they were removed. There’s no reportage of people leaving their seats or threatening gestures.
          I do feel it’s balanced and there was no intention whatsoever of serving one side. You may disagree, but then you do appear to be biased ‘

          http://www.thegown.org.uk/2011/02/23/news-palestine-solidarity-society-disrupt-law-lecture/

      • conchovor Says:

        ‘f you want an example of a group forcing a talk to end i suggest you look up the Edinburgh university Student’s for Justice in Palestine group who shut down a talk by a senior israeli official through means much more than what i used in merely asking a question.’

        a) it was a section 5 breach of the peace, according to my lawyer friend David T., it just wasn’t prosecuted.

        b) you reveal that you knew what had happened at Edinburgh, and it looks a lot like what happened was what was intended.

        Ben Finch reports the chant ‘Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio’, exactly as chanted SPSC and EU SJP at the Edinburgh disruption:

        http://www.scottishpsc.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3583:edinburgh-students-stop-israels-racist-tours&catid=582:news&Itemid=200587

        Hypocrisy is still a sin in Christianity, and you are full of it, since admit you are ambivalent about violence:

        “‘my society doesn’t condone violence.’ He also said that he didn’t necessarily disagree with it at the same time.”

        http://www.thegown.org.uk/

        and

        ‘we are opposed to apologists for widespread, systematic and institutionalised human rights abuses speaking at Queen’s’

        i.e. you didn’t want Solomon to speak and you managed to make sure he didn’t, merely coincidentally you now allege.

        • Gary Spedding Says:

          “a) it was a section 5 breach of the peace, according to my lawyer friend David T., it just wasn’t prosecuted.”

          I would love your lawyer friend to even try taking me to court… i can have a Rabbi lawyer here prepped to defend me within 8 hours… someone who actually knows about the law instead of your clearly unlearned friend.

          “b) you reveal that you knew what had happened at Edinburgh, and it looks a lot like what happened was what was intended.”

          I know what happened at Edinburgh because my friend lives there and goes to university there and i voiced my complete condemnation of it and then spoke to my society stating i do not want what happened at edinburgh to happen here.

          “Ben Finch reports the chant ‘Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio’, exactly as chanted SPSC and EU SJP at the Edinburgh disruption:”

          What sinn fein do is completely up to them they are not part of my organization and i am in the process of seeking legal action against numerous republican group’s who keep reposting my event’s and things such as those idiots over at eireggi or however you spell it the entire sectarianism thing over here disgusts me.

          “Hypocrisy is still a sin in Christianity, and you are full of it, since admit you are ambivalent about violence:

          “‘my society doesn’t condone violence.’ He also said that he didn’t necessarily disagree with it at the same time.””

          I dont give a damn what it is in any religion because im not a hypocrite. Ben Finch is in the process of withdrawing that particular point notice the quotation marks around the first part but lack of around the second part i did not say it and if you review the email i sent out the night before the seminar i specifically demanded no violence or disruption from my society members as posted by Gavin Mcmurray on the Gown article. I actually dont mind your posting the link’s to the Gown because it means people can go and read for themselves which just proves you wrong as opposed to making me look bad.

          “i.e. you didn’t want Solomon to speak and you managed to make sure he didn’t, merely coincidentally you now allege.”

          Please quote the proper and full in context quote if your going to make a point such as that:

          “Nevertheless, whilst we are opposed to apologists for widespread, systematic and institutionalised human rights abuses speaking at Queen’s, we reiterate again, our intention was neither to intimidate nor cause the abandonment of Mr Solomon’s lecture.”

          Further to that please review:

          “Certainly in a matter of such sensitivity and importance as this we feel it would have been more appropriate for Queen’s to counterbalance Mr Solomon’s analysis with that of an expert without links to the Israeli government. Only in a forum such as this do we feel it would have been possible to judge the validity of Professor Wheeler’s assertion that international law is apolitical.”

          So when read in context it is clear to what the press release is saying. Which is little more or less than demanding a counter argument be provided thus balancing the entire talk.

        • conchovor Says:

          “a) it was a section 5 breach of the peace, according to my lawyer friend David T., it just wasn’t prosecuted.”

          ‘I would love your lawyer friend to even try taking me to court… ‘

          He said the Edinburgh incident was a breach of the peace, but the university was extremely unlikely to have the will to prosecute it.

          ‘ can have a Rabbi lawyer here prepped to defend me within 8 hours… someone who actually knows about the law instead of your clearly unlearned friend.’

          Again, prosecution where students are concerned is very unlikely. And the testimony of a rabbi qua rabbi is irrelevant.

          ‘“b) you reveal that you knew what had happened at Edinburgh, and it looks a lot like what happened was what was intended.” I know what happened at Edinburgh because my friend lives there and goes to university there and i voiced my complete condemnation of it and then spoke to my society stating i do not want what happened at edinburgh to happen here.’

          OK. But it still did.

          ‘“Ben Finch reports the chant ‘Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio’, exactly as chanted SPSC and EU SJP at the Edinburgh disruption:” What sinn fein do is completely up to them they are not part of my organization and i am in the process of seeking legal action against numerous republican group’s who keep reposting my event’s and things such as those idiots over at eireggi or however you spell it the entire sectarianism thing over here disgusts me.’

          OK. That may be the case. But it still happened, didn’t it?

          You can’t keep complaining that other people complain that it happened. You keep attacking them for believing what Ben Finch and The Gown reported.

          ‘“Hypocrisy is still a sin in Christianity, and you are full of it, since admit you are ambivalent about violence:

          “‘my society doesn’t condone violence.’ He also said that he didn’t necessarily disagree with it at the same time.””

          I dont give a damn what it is in any religion because im not a hypocrite.’

          Just a national, rather than an ethical, Christian.

          ”Ben Finch is in the process of withdrawing that particular point notice the quotation marks around the first part but lack of around the second part i did not say it and if you review the email i sent out the night before the seminar i specifically demanded no violence or disruption from my society members as posted by Gavin Mcmurray on the Gown article.’

          I know it isn’t quoted. But it suggests that you expressed ambivalence about violence in others.

          You certainly seem to let the Hamas government off the hook for its eternal jihad against Israel, and complain bitterly in its behalf when Israel takes them and their actions seriously.

          ‘I actually dont mind your posting the link’s to the Gown because it means people can go and read for themselves which just proves you wrong as opposed to making me look bad.’

          How does it prove me wrong? You mean The Gown is factually correct? OK, so what’s your beef with me?

          ‘“i.e. you didn’t want Solomon to speak and you managed to make sure he didn’t, merely coincidentally you now allege.” Please quote the proper and full in context quote if your going to make a point such as that: “Nevertheless, whilst we are opposed to apologists for widespread, systematic and institutionalised human rights abuses speaking at Queen’s, we reiterate again, our intention was neither to intimidate nor cause the abandonment of Mr Solomon’s lecture.”

          That’s still ambivalent: you are expressing two, contradictory wishes/intentions. It’s called Having your Cake and Eating it.

          ‘Further to that please review: “Certainly in a matter of such sensitivity and importance as this we feel it would have been more appropriate for Queen’s to counterbalance Mr Solomon’s analysis with that of an expert without links to the Israeli government.’

          i.e. you DID object to Solomon’s appearance alone. You DIDN’T want him to speak alone, for any period of time, it seems. As you had to interrupt him after seven minutes.

          Even if there is an opposing speaker. They DON’T interrupt the other speaker before they finish.

          ‘Only in a forum such as this do we feel it would have been possible to judge the validity of Professor Wheeler’s assertion that international law is apolitical.”

          Exactly, you were unhappy about Solomon speaking for more the seven minutes without challenge, which is tantamount to being unhappy about him speaking AT ALL.

          ‘So when read in context it is clear to what the press release is saying. Which is little more or less than demanding a counter argument be provided thus balancing the entire talk.’

          A counter argument you could have put briefly at the end.

          You were unhappy about him speaking more the seven minutes uninterrupted. Even an opposing speaker would not have done that.

          You say you didn’t want a repeat of Edinburgh, but that is exactly the model you followed. You and your pals wanted to shut him up, to stop him putting Israel’s case.

          And you did.

  9. Law 101 Says:

    From Gary’s first line,

    “The lawyer’s did already discuss it they ruled…….”

    I find it “amusing” that Gary Spedding, apparently so knowledgable about law, domestic and international, , should actually have written this in defence of his own expertise in such areas.

    It truly beggars belief.

    The rest of his comments is just as nonsensical.

    But, then again, he is not the first barrack room lawyer to appear on these pages.

    Gary, you are at one of the finest universities in Europe, if not the world. It has a respected law school and a law library to match. Spend some time in it. I should imagine there are many basic law primer’s in their collection.
    Read them – and when you do, then maybe, just maybe, you will have somethng sensible to say.

    Til then, you are frankly showing yourself to be a complete and utter idiot. Surely the Palestinians deserve better.

    • Gary Spedding Says:

      Do you really want me to quote the ICJ ruling’s or can you google them yourself and save me the trouble? the court ruled 15 to 0 and 14 to 1 on every single count…..

      I do regularly access the law school and its vast collection of book’s as well as my own vast collection of books on the subject.

      But i trust more the Rabbinical lawyer’s which i speak to often in Jerusalem.

  10. Law 101 Says:

    Gary, would that be the judges or the lawyers who made the ruling?

    Does that mean that once a decision has been reached on a given issue then anyone who disagrees with that ruling is automatically to be libelled as an “apologist” and a “propogandist”?

    Do you really believe that law has “one right answer” and whoever has a different opinion is an “apologist” and a “propoganist”?

    Does that mean that once a ruling has been reached on one issue then that decision can be applied without further and better for any alleged offence commited by that country?

    Does that mean that this ruling applies to the war in Gaza? Does that mean that the ruling applies to the events on the Gaza Flotilla and “everything else”?

    Does that mean that whover expresses a legal opinion with which you disagree is a sham, a liar, a propoganist and deserves to be silenced?

    Or are you simply using a single decision to shut people up with whom you disagree?

    • Gary Spedding Says:

      The ICJ is made up of 15 Judge’s and countless lawyer’s all of which prepared the case for the advisory and the rulings.

      “Does that mean that once a decision has been reached on a given issue then anyone who disagrees with that ruling is automatically to be libelled as an “apologist” and a “propogandist”?”

      What it mean’s is that when International law clearly state’s something which Mr Solomon tries to contradict or tries to loop hole in order to find a way for Israel to justify what it does to the Palestinians that he is an apologist and propagandist who was doing talk’s all over the UK in an attempt to drum up support for his version of interpretation in international law. He failed miserably and was picked apart not only by myself but by people at almost every university he visited. People are allowed to disagree with a ruling and challenge it by official channel’s but when a person goes around flouting international law and trying to propagate a factually inaccurate alternative then I will use my right to label that individual in that specific case a propagandist and apologist.

      If you dont like people being found out for what they are then dont follow them and believe everything they say….

      “Do you really believe that law has “one right answer” and whoever has a different opinion is an “apologist” and a “propoganist”?”

      It depend’s entirely on the case at hand. In regard’s to the ICJ’s ruling’s, the finding’s of the Goldstone report and other report’s and the UN and Geneva convention i believe that they are entirely accurate when it comes to Israel. You are either on the right side or the wrong side where the law is concerned it is not a difficult concept. Either you are breaking the law or you are not.

      “Does that mean that once a ruling has been reached on one issue then that decision can be applied without further and better for any alleged offence commited by that country?”

      Ruling’s occur on specific issue’s and cases. Every case is individual and looked at individually. Offences comitted by Israel are very length its list of UN ressolution breaches reaches into the hundreds. like i said EVERY CASE and EVERY RULING is different what is not different or has not been since the deffinition’s were accepted are thing’s such as Apartheid or the building of a wall on other people’s property.

      “Does that mean that this ruling applies to the war in Gaza? Does that mean that the ruling applies to the events on the Gaza Flotilla and “everything else”?”

      That is exactly what Solon Solomon’s argument was in that he tried to claim that the rule’s of war apply in these situation’s thus giving israel its ‘right to defend itself’ when in actuality the Mavi Marmara massacre of innocent humanitarian aid workers was a clearly pre-planned and thought out assault in international waters.

      The Gaza war also was a pre-planned assault which there is evidence you simply have to look at who broke the ceasefire to see this. You must also remember this is not a war it is an occupation there are no two government’s fighting eachother only Israel occupying another national group/people.

      “Does that mean that whover expresses a legal opinion with which you disagree is a sham, a liar, a propoganist and deserves to be silenced?”

      No but it does mean that where i have spent 2 whole year’s researching Mr Solomon and his thesis that i am fully qualified to call him such in this situation.

      “Or are you simply using a single decision to shut people up with whom you disagree?”

      I spend the majority of my day listening to people with whom i disagree, i go as far as to visit illegal settlement’s to try and understand the ‘mind of the illegal settler’ i have no desire to shut anybody up.

    • conchovor Says:

      ‘What it mean’s is that when International law clearly state’s something which Mr Solomon tries to contradict’

      That is your interpretation. It still doesn’t entitle you to interrupt. That is the behaviour of an infant (or Nigel Molesworth), who is afraid to let an opponent finish speaking, when you may have your opportunity to put your question.

      You are as complicit in what happened as your friends.

      • Gary Spedding Says:

        “You are as complicit in what happened as your friends.”

        Complicit in interupting him yes….

        Complicit in cancelling the lecture clearly not as i do not have any friends who teach at the school of law…..

  11. Brian Goldfarb Says:

    I am accused of immaturity through raising all sorts of irrelevancies, when I make it clear that the real meat of the issue is further down my comment. That Gary Spedding prefers to take time out to dispute the early part of my comment, the bit before I say “However, what is really important…” demonstrates just who is demonstrating what Mr Spedding describes as “immaturity”. And, by the way, highlighted in blue Gary Spedding still takes us to the closed blog, in fact all the way to the end of these comments. Why bother? Why not replace it with a direct link to the current blog? Could it be because the current active blog isn’t as revealing as he would have us believe? I really don’t care what his religious or ethnic identity is: I prefer to deal in logic, rationality and evidence.

    Then we have this: “It’s also not ‘Chair’ im the President of the society.” So, go blame the newspaper reporter, not us. Frankly, the distinction is academic, which is more than the PSS is being. It is interesting that he says “Such a claim is entirely unfounded given the Societies many press releases stating the complete opposite. Free speech is not the issue here, Solon Solomon was given his free speech nobody prevented him from his free speech he could have continued his seminar if you read the account’s from independant witnesses not part of the society and thus not bias it is clearly stated that we allowed Mr Solomon to speak.” Funny, that not what the Head of Department remembers happening, and given that it was an academic seminar (not an open public meeting), she should know. She clearly state that he was shouted down 5 minutes into his presentation. Funny how perception is always turned to suit one’s own ideology.

    At best, Gary Spedding is being disingenuous, and it won’t wash here, as all those comments above mine demonstrate. I’ll leave it them to tackle what they see as inconsistencies, errors and plain wrong statements: they’re doing a great job.

    However, some matters, addressed specifically to me, I can’t let go. There’s this, for a start: “a lack plainly expressed by the PSS and Mr Spedding. Gary Spedding would do better explaining what PSS thought they were doing, disrupting an academic seminar on university premises.” In neither of my comments did I say this; someone else may have done, but not me, so an apology for presenting it in quotation marks is required. Putting words in someone else’s mouth as a means of opposing their argument (and avoiding your own answer) is an egregious fault.

    Must you really be so silly as to post the following as though addressed to you? “The reason there should be two side’s is plainly outlined in my press release. By the way Ogra sinn fein do not represent myself or the society so it would be disingenous of you to take their quotes as representative of myself or the society.” I clearly didn’t address it you but to Sinn Fein, and you are again treading on linguistically dangerous ground. If you expect to be taken seriously, then a further apology is in order.

    And where does one begin with the following nonsense?: “This is our university, we are the student’s of this university and as such we have a democratic voice and a right to freedom of speech including a right to object to a speaker who not only has a political agenda but a plain bias from speaking at the university unchallenged.” Actually, no it’s not _your_ university: you have been permitted to enter the portals in order to study certain subjects. This carries with it certain obligations and duties, as well as rights. Among these are the right of others to freely express opinions that do not break the law, threaten other people in any way, and similar related topics. This the PSS clearly feels does not apply to them: they feel they have the right to stop someone who they don’t like (but who breaks no law nor threatens anyone) speaking in an academic context.

    Further, if you really think that “Nobody attacked Academic freedom,” then you know not of what of you speak, and you plainly wouldn’t recognise an attack on academic freedom from a slap round the face with a wet fish.

    Comments like Gary Spedding’s are a disgrace to the academic sphere and bring it into disrepute.

  12. Law 101 Says:

    “a person goes around flouting international law and trying to propagate a factually inaccurate alternative”

    So, for Gary Spedding, being an Israeli and being someone with a differing legal opinion is now to be defined as “a person flouting international law” and therefore can be called all the names under the sun.

    Anyone who disagrees with Gary and or the ICJ is a war criminal!!

    And this is a person who screams freedom of speech whilst silencing as a war criminal anyone with whom he disagrees.

    Looks like Gary’s democratic mask has slipped and his totalitarian sentiments exposed.

    Disagreement = war criminal!! A true disciple of Gadaffi, Berlosconi, Maburak and Liberman

    He sure does find himself in good company!

    • Gary Spedding Says:

      “So, for Gary Spedding, being an Israeli and being someone with a differing legal opinion is now to be defined as “a person flouting international law” and therefore can be called all the names under the sun.”

      It has nothing to do with his nationality. He could be from the south pole for all that kind of stuff matters…. he is actually a greek national according to our school of law… born and grew up in greece for most of his life.

      Having different legal opinion is different to someone providing a conclusion based on a very narrow view of interpretation in international law and presenting it as ‘factual’. He deserves the accusation’s which I have repeated which have not been made from me but others.

      “Anyone who disagrees with Gary and or the ICJ is a war criminal!!”

      Anyone who disagree’s with me is perfectly fine…. if someone is however in contravention of international law and in disagreement with the ICJ they clearly need to be held to account and punished.

      “And this is a person who screams freedom of speech whilst silencing as a war criminal anyone with whom he disagrees.”

      Clearly you cannot believe that is what happened? I dont silence anyone.

      “Looks like Gary’s democratic mask has slipped and his totalitarian sentiments exposed.”

      Point to any totalitarian sentiment’s please i would love to have you for defamation or slander.

      “Disagreement = war criminal!! A true disciple of Gadaffi, Berlosconi, Maburak and Liberman”

      Or perhap’s a disciple of Binyamin Netanyahu and the Zionist government of Israel :]

      “He sure does find himself in good company!”

      My company includes some of the best peace activists in the world…..

  13. Brian Goldfarb Says:

    This from Gary Spedding: “I am awaiting an apology from her (Dr Wheeler) in writing…”

    That’s rich, given all the evidence of other matters. This is a prime example of sleight of hand.

    And we’re expected to take him seriously!

  14. conchovor Says:

    ‘The ICJ is made up of 15 Judge’’

    Including one from China. That doesn’t mean that an Israeli judge can’t talk at QU without your crowd bullying him into silence.

    • Gary Spedding Says:

      “Including one from China. That doesn’t mean that an Israeli judge can’t talk at QU without your crowd bullying him into silence.”

      What is that meant to mean? Do you count someone who is Chinese lesser because of their race? thats very disgusting of you.

      Nobody is saying an Israeli law maker or whatever you want to call him (He isnt a Judge) can’t talk at QU. However when one who is talking and spreading israeli propaganda comes along he or she will be challenged and the University asked as to why they did not invite a speaker with a counter argument for balance.

      Again nobody bullied him into silence, nobody bullied him at all.

      • conchovor Says:

        ‘What is that meant to mean? Do you count someone who is Chinese lesser because of their race? thats very disgusting of you.’

        No. Because China is a tyranny, that has done to the Tibetans much worse that Israel to the Palestinians, with considerably less justification.

        ‘Nobody is saying an Israeli law maker or whatever you want to call him (He isnt a Judge[you're right, my error]) can’t talk at QU.]

        No. You just won’t let him speak for more than 7 minutes.

        ‘However when one who is talking and spreading israeli propaganda comes along he or she will be challenged and the University asked as to why they did not invite a speaker with a counter argument for balance.’

        i.e. you and your pals won’t let him speak for more than 7 minutes i.e. you’ll shut them up.

        ‘Again nobody bullied him into silence, nobody bullied him at all.’

        No, you and your pals heckled him into silence.

  15. conchovor Says:

    ‘That is exactly what Solon Solomon’s argument was in that he tried to claim that the rule’s of war apply in these situation’s thus giving israel its ‘right to defend itself’ when in actuality the Mavi Marmara massacre of innocent humanitarian aid workers was a clearly pre-planned and thought out assault in international waters.’

    And you are entitled to your opinion and, at the QandA at the end, to put your question.

    Instead you acted in a highly puerile manner, and your friends then did about which you felt ambivalent to start with: bullied Solomon into silence.

    • Gary Spedding Says:

      “And you are entitled to your opinion and, at the QandA at the end, to put your question.

      Instead you acted in a highly puerile manner, and your friends then did about which you felt ambivalent to start with: bullied Solomon into silence.”

      I can put my question whenever i choose that is MY right.

      I acted in a calm and polite manner the law school did not have to shut down his talk and cancel it.

      Like i said nobody bullied solomon there is no evidence of this.

      • Richard Gold Says:

        “I can put my question whenever i choose that is MY right.”

        So i take it that it would be OK if 100 zionists came to one of your meetings and put their questions when they wanted then ? That’s if you accord them the same right as you claim for yourself.

      • conchovor Says:

        ‘Like i said nobody bullied solomon there is no evidence of this.’

        No, you and your pals heckled him into silence.

        You’re already admitted The Gown report was ‘fair’.

    • conchovor Says:

      ‘Like i said nobody bullied solomon there is no evidence of this.’

      Your lot heckled him into silence, Mr. Non-Violence!

  16. conchovor Says:

    ‘The Gaza war also was a pre-planned assault which there is evidence you simply have to look at who broke the ceasefire to see this. You must also remember this is not a war it is an occupation there are no two government’s fighting eachother only Israel occupying another national group/people.’

    Again, your opinion. That doesn’t mean you are entitled to bully Solomon into silence. He can put his view, without your friends shutting him up.

    • Gary Spedding Says:

      “Again, your opinion. That doesn’t mean you are entitled to bully Solomon into silence. He can put his view, without your friends shutting him up.”

      Not merely my opinion i have on my computer right now around 37 report’s concerning the Gaza war and opperation cast lead. I have invested in a great amount of time and research into this subject.

      Nobody bullied solon solomon into silence.

  17. vildechaye Says:

    Bottom line: He only believes in free speech for himself and those who think like him. The Zionists, being evil, have no expectation of free speech. Which is why he can disrupt speeches and when challenged, has the chutzpah to complain that his free speech to “object” has been violated, never mind the speaker whom he shouted down. Of course, this is the same technique used by all anti-democrats — Communists, fascists, Nazis, and so-called pro-Palestinians. He is not worth engaging. Best to simply ignore the ignoramus.

    • Gary Spedding Says:

      “Bottom line: He only believes in free speech for himself and those who think like him.”

      That isn’t true at all nor do any of the fact’s point to that.

      “The Zionists, being evil, have no expectation of free speech.”

      The majority of my friend’s are Zionist’s they are not evil, i may not agree with their ideology but it is always fun to debate what is more fun is watching the realization when some of my zionist friends become anti-zionist after finding out the truth of their beliefs.

      “Which is why he can disrupt speeches and when challenged, has the chutzpah to complain that his free speech to “object” has been violated, never mind the speaker whom he shouted down.”

      What you are stating is beyond Chutzpah and quite ridiculous. Nobody shouted the speaker down and im not even complaining about my own free speech i have no need to complain about it while in Belfast it is only in Israel that my free speech is restricted usually by the steel batton of an IDF soldier.

      “Of course, this is the same technique used by all anti-democrats — Communists, fascists, Nazis, and so-called pro-Palestinians.”

      Of course the fact i am a moderate democrat counts for nothing here at all. I despise the ideology of Communism, facism and please do not even sicken me with the ideology of Nazism which is quite purile and just well sickening. There is however nothing wrong with being pro-palestinian.

      “He is not worth engaging. Best to simply ignore the ignoramus.”

      Why? Frightened you might learn the truth?

  18. conchovor Says:

    Incidentally, here some other statements that a Gary Spedding A from Qatar most definitely did make, in January 2010, :

    ‘‘You can also look at it this way, I am a British man who has no ties to palestine or israel or anything middle eastern what so ever in regards to loyalties or bias opinions the only thing which you could possibly have against me is that i live in Qatar. The point i am making here is that i have no reason to lie about or fabricate anything, i have no reason to be bias or choose a side to support in this conflict based on loyalty issues or religious issues. The only reason infact i support the human rights of palestinians is because of the FACTs as i have discovered them. Many years ago i was 100% in support of israel however research has shown me the error of my original thoughts much the same as it has done regarding my ideas about the religion of islam which i even once called a “Noble religion” over 10 years ago before i educated myself and did the relevant research.’

    ‘I am not paranoid in my attack on israel i am simply telling the truth and speaking my mind. Just because i am against islam does not mean i have to be Pro-Israel which is an equally oppressive and disgusting regime as an islamic state in some cases.’

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UDiMZh6PXZEJ:indonesian.faithfreedom.org/~faithfre/forum09/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D7%26t%3D5607%26start%3D20+gary+spedding+live+qatar&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk

    But which another Gary Spedding B, allegedly, from Qatar subsequently denied having made because he found them embarrassing.

    The lost post of Gary Spedding A nicely answers the later challenge of Gary Spedding B:

    ”Islamic states are not apartheid states and i would challenge you to show how they fit into the legal status of Apartheid.’

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/jewish-professor-lsquooutraged-and-saddenedrsquo-by-queens-university-snub-14980418.html

    Gary Spedding B seems very unfortunate. He gets impersonated from at least May 2009-January 2010. He gets baptised/re-born in Bethlehem as Palestinian Arab Orthodox Christian, but with no spiritual, only ethno-national cultural, implications; he opposes an Israeli lawyer speaking at Queens, but when he and his associates heckle him into silence, it is merely a coincidence that that happens.

    Gary Spedding B is a very unfortunately fellow indeed.

  19. Brian Goldfarb Says:

    This is actually a very involved point presented as a matter of simple fact by Gary Spedding, in this case referring to Operation Cast Lead:

    “The Gaza war also was a pre-planned assault which there is evidence you simply have to look at who broke the ceasefire to see this. You must also remember this is not a war it is an occupation there are no two government’s fighting eachother only Israel occupying another national group/people.”

    There was a very long debate about this on this site on more than one occasion, and I recommend that Gary Spedding seeks it out through this site’s internal links and searches.

    Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza (and could be argued as the de jure but dispossessed government of the whole of the West Bank/Gaza, as they won the last election there: they were driven from office on the West Bank). It was argued by one Philip Blue that Hamas had proclaimed and held to a truce or hudna. This, note, was at the time that 3000 or, according to some 30000, rockets were being launched into Israel from Gaza. So Gaza was hardly occupied and can be argued as committing acts of aggression against a sovereign state, which is entitled, by international law (which Gary Spedding knows so much about), to defend itself and its citizens. To arrive at his point Gary Spedding has to ignore the inconvenient fact that Israel had evacuated Gaza some months before Operation Cast Lead. Why am I not surprised at his failure to note facts.

    Was the assault pre-planned? To the extent that Israel had warned Hamas numerous times what would happen if the rocket launches continued.

    What all this adds up to is that, as other commenters are saying, in detail, that Gary Spedding doesn’t know what he’s talking about, doesn’t respond to particular points or questions directed to him, and keeps proclaiming a spurious knowledge of the workings of the law, as Conchover and Law 101 are demonstrating. And he still hasn’t answered the point I directed to him in my first comment at the very start of this thread about his response to a similar disruption to one the PSS’s own meetings. I noted that I thought it was a futile hope. It clearly was and is. Typical of his ilk.

    • Gary Spedding Says:

      “There was a very long debate about this on this site on more than one occasion, and I recommend that Gary Spedding seeks it out through this site’s internal links and searches. ”

      Not to seem rude but i get my information from the top human rights organizations in Israel as well as from the top journalist’s and academic’s around the world. Debates on your website do not really interest me except when they are about me. There has been around 15 posts since this morning and i cannot be bothered to reply to the nonsense in all of them.

      “Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza (and could be argued as the de jure but dispossessed government of the whole of the West Bank/Gaza, as they won the last election there: they were driven from office on the West Bank). It was argued by one Philip Blue that Hamas had proclaimed and held to a truce or hudna. This, note, was at the time that 3000 or, according to some 30000, rockets were being launched into Israel from Gaza. So Gaza was hardly occupied and can be argued as committing acts of aggression against a sovereign state, which is entitled, by international law (which Gary Spedding knows so much about), to defend itself and its citizens.”

      Hamas’ status as the de-facto government of Gaza is a none issue it is completely irelevant which pseudo bantustan government rules the gaza strip when Israel still has full control over the borders and full control over the civilian population of Gaza. There are several report’s and human right’s documents which i am going to quote however i very much would like you to pay close attention to one Mark Regev who even admitted that there were NO Hamas rocket’s fired during the period of the declared Ceasefire what so ever with as little as 3 rocket’s fired by Islamic Jihad (A totally different group in Gaza which refuses to take part in any kind of democracy or negotiations what so ever) and in the period leading up to the Israeli Breach of the ceasefire which as i said was pre-planned as a strike to cause ‘intimidation’ where they striked at a civilian population and i quote from Gush Shalom one of the many Israeli peace organization’s im affiliated with:
      “The escalation towards war could and should have been avoided. It was the State of Israel which broke the truce, in the ‘ticking tunnel’ raid on the night of the US elections two months ago. Since then the army went on stoking the fires of escalation with calculated raids and killings, whenever the shooting of missiles on Israel decreased.”

      Collective punishment according to B’tselem the Jewish human rights group in Israel: “In June 2007, after Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip, Israel further tightened its control of the crossings. Since then, it has been almost impossible for Palestinians to enter or leave the Strip, or to export or import goods. Three months after the Hamas takeover, in response to the ongoing firing of Qassam rockets at Israel, Israel’s security cabinet declared the Strip a “hostile entity” and decided on collective punitive measures, including reducing the supply of electricity and fuel to the Strip.”

      More from the Same B’tselem summary: “Contrary to Israel’s contention that, following the disengagement, it is no longer obligated to care for the safety and welfare of Gaza residents, international law imposes certain obligations. Under human rights law, Israel is required to respect the rights of Gaza residents in matters in which control remains in its hands. These obligations result from the scope of actual control over major facets of the residents’ lives that Israel continued to hold after the disengagement, and from the almost total dependence of the Strip’s economy on the Israeli economy, a result of the prolonged occupation.

      When an armed conflict is taking place in the Gaza Strip, Israel is also bound by the provisions of international humanitarian law, under which civilians must remain outside the cycle of the hostilities. Two fundamental principles – distinction and proportionality – are intended to ensure this. Under these principles, it is absolutely forbidden to intentionally attack civilians, and when an attack is aimed at a military object, the anticipated harm to civilians may not be excessive in comparison with the direct military advantage anticipated. In addition, during the hostilities, Israel must provide special protection to certain groups, among them the sick, the wounded, and children, and must enable medicines and necessary foodstuffs to feely enter the area and medical teams to treat the sick and wounded.”

      From SOAS london: “Principle Six is ambiguous: it
      refers to the termination of Israel’s
      responsibility for the population
      of Gaza but says nothing about
      the status of the territory itself. In
      the initial draft of this plan, it was
      expressly stated that withdrawal
      would terminate Israel’s occupation
      of Gaza. This language was removed
      from the final and definitive plan.
      The test employed by international
      law to decide whether territory is
      occupied by an adverse party is
      contained in Article 42 of the 1907
      Hague Regulations Respecting the
      Laws and Customs of War on Land.
      It is essentially a question of ‘effective
      control’. If an invader intends to
      retain control of hostile territory, at
      least temporarily, then that territory is
      occupied. Traditionally, this required
      the occupant to create some kind of
      administration. In December 2005,
      however, the International Court
      of Justice ruled that a Ugandan
      occupation of Congolese territory
      would be established if its forces “had
      substituted their own authority for
      that of the Congolese Government”,
      and that it was irrelevant “whether
      or not Uganda had established a
      structured military administration
      of the territory occupied.”
      The Hague Regulations link
      occupation to the law of land warfare,
      and thus it has been argued that
      occupation requires the physical
      presence of troops in the territory.
      These Regulations, however, were
      adopted before the first flight of the
      Wright brothers. Today, air power and
      aerial surveillance are paramount.
      As Major General Amos Yadlin,
      an Israeli air force officer, noted:
      “Our vision of air control zeroes
      in on the notion of control. We’re
      looking at how you control a city or
      a territory from the air when it’s no
      longer legitimate to hold or occupy
      that territory on the ground.”
      The ‘effective control’ test has been
      interpreted by various courts. In 1983,
      the Israel Supreme Court decided
      the Tsemel case which arose during
      the occupation of southern Lebanon.
      It ruled that occupation forces do
      not need to be in actual control of
      all the territory and population,
      but simply have the potential
      capability to do so. This ruling is in
      accordance with decisions of other
      courts, including the Naletili and
      Martinovi case in which the Yugoslav
      Tribunal referred to an occupant
      having “a sufficient force present, or
      the capacity to send troops within a
      reasonable time to make the authority
      of the occupying power felt.”
      Under the Disengagement Plan,
      Israel retains absolute authority over
      Gaza’s airspace and territorial sea. It
      is manifestly exercising governmental
      authority in these areas. When we
      also take into account the views
      that have been expressed on control
      of the territory from the air, it is
      clear that Israeli withdrawal of land
      forces did not terminate occupation.
      This view is only reinforced by the
      ease with which Israeli land forces
      re-entered Gaza in June 2006.
      Iain Scobbie is the Sir Joseph Hotung
      Research Professor in Law, Human
      Rights and Peace Building in the
      Middle East at the School of Oriental
      and African Studies, University
      of London.”

      From John Dugard: “Gaza remained under occupation despite the withdrawal of settlers in 2005. “In effect, following Israel’s withdrawal, Gaza became a sealed-off, imprisoned and occupied territory,” he said.

      Prof Dugard said his mandate was solely to report on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories and he described as a violation of international humanitarian law the firing of rockets by Palestinians from Gaza into Israel. “Such actions cannot be condoned and clearly constitute a war crime,” he said. “Nevertheless, Israel’s response has been grossly disproportionate and indiscriminate and resulted in the commission of multiple war crimes.””

      There is in fact a whole plethora of human rights report’s and international Court of Justice rulings on this matter:

      http://www.alhaq.org/pdfs/Gaza%20still%20occupied%20and%20under%20attack.pdf

      An interesting look at the Casualties by B’tselem: http://www.btselem.org/English/statistics/Casualties.asp

      Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza: http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/Reports/English/pdf_annual/PCHR%20Annual-Eng-09.pdf

      http://www.carewbg.org/Failing-Gaza.pdf

      My friends at Rabbi’s for Human Rights letter to Binyamin Netanyahu: http://www.rhr.org.il/page.php?name=human_rights_in_the_occupied_territories&id=59&language=en

      You can talk about the number of home made rocket’s in the Gaza strip as much as you like but the fact’s in the report’s all of which i have read including the UN report which was over 700 pages long and the Goldstone report along with the russel tribunal say otherwise and that your number’s are false. Wikipedia has a more even view of the rocket’s fired for goodness sake try pulling the other one with the propaganda please?

      As is proved Gaza is still very much occupied and Israel is very much responsible for the Gaza strip as is clear under international law. One group is comitting acts of aggression also cannot be classified as the entire gaza strip comitting acts of aggression against a sovereign state. Further to that in order to have a ‘war’ international law states two sovereign states must be comitted where as in the case of Gaza it is not a sovereign state nor does it even have a recognized government or borders as it is still occupied. Under international law Israel is indeed entitled to defend itself however so is the Gaza Strip entitled to defend against an occupying power further to that Israel does NOT have a right to collectively punish the people of the Gaza strip overwhelmingly those killed under such collective punishment strikes are Children.

      “To arrive at his point Gary Spedding has to ignore the inconvenient fact that Israel had evacuated Gaza some months before Operation Cast Lead. Why am I not surprised at his failure to note facts.”

      I have friend’s who served in the Gaza war 2009 and also friend’s who took part in the evacuation of the Gaza strip so i know full well about the fact israel evacuated the settlements the military outpost’s however still very much remain i mean i was there in Sderot just a few month’s ago and i saw the border and then i saw sitting in the north Gaza strip an israeli army base ready to go and kill more innocent civilians. An israeli evacuation of the settlement’s does not mean that the occupation is over. Instead of such we now have an occupation and a crippling siege as my above human right’s report’s prove and the quotes again prove.

      It is not my failure to note facts but your failure to note human rights abuses which is specifically troubling and surprising.

      “Was the assault pre-planned? To the extent that Israel had warned Hamas numerous times what would happen if the rocket launches continued. ”

      There were no rocket launches as is proved even in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixrYv5pUzps&feature=player_embedded

      Israel broke the ceasefire killing people.

      “What all this adds up to is that, as other commenters are saying, in detail, that Gary Spedding doesn’t know what he’s talking about, doesn’t respond to particular points or questions directed to him, and keeps proclaiming a spurious knowledge of the workings of the law, as Conchover and Law 101 are demonstrating. And he still hasn’t answered the point I directed to him in my first comment at the very start of this thread about his response to a similar disruption to one the PSS’s own meetings. I noted that I thought it was a futile hope. It clearly was and is. Typical of his ilk.”

      I did respond to you. If someone disrupt’s or attempt’s to disrupt a talk that i am doing i would not abandon it i would wait for the situation to finish then continue my talk.

      As for your other assertions i mean really? I think that what worries you all is the fact i do know what i am talking about and that i do understand fully the international law’s surrounding the Gaza Crisis. I respond to every single point made and will never cease responding while people are prepared to attack me in an ad-hominem attack rather than discuss the fact’s i am presenting. Try reading some book’s perhaps ‘Gaza in crisis’ released by illan pappe and Noam Chomsky…. You simply cannot ignore the mounting evidence or the finding’s of the goldstone report or various other reports.

      • conchovor Says:

        ‘Further to that in order to have a ‘war’ international law states two sovereign states must be comitted where as in the case of Gaza it is not a sovereign state nor does it even have a recognized government or borders as it is still occupied.’

        Horsemanure.

        a) Hamas was very much democratically elected.

        b) Hamas considers itself very much the government of a de facto independent Palestinian state entity, utterly independent of Israel or the P.A.

        c) it is dedicated, to jihad until the end of any Israel and, so,

        d) is a de facto state at war with Israel.

        End of.

      • conchovor Says:

        ‘You can talk about the number of home made rocket’s in the Gaza strip as much as you like but the fact’s in the report’s all of which i have read including the UN report which was over 700 pages long and the Goldstone report along with the russel tribunal say otherwise and that your number’s are false.’

        Fine you and they are entitled to their view.

        That doesn’t mean you are entitled to heckle Solon Solomon into silence, Mr. Non-Violence.

      • conchovor Says:

        BTW. who’s Mr. Copy and Paste now?

      • conchovor Says:

        ‘I did respond to you. If someone disrupt’s or attempt’s to disrupt a talk that i am doing i would not abandon it i would wait for the situation to finish then continue my talk.’

        What if the situation didn’t finish?

        What if the heckling didn’t stop?

        This witness, Chang, who was at the event, says

        The opportunity was there to listen to Solomon and then calmly and coolly pick holes in his argument. That’s why I and I’m sure many others attended. The PSS ensured this didn’t happen, their arrogance beggars belief and they’ve done their cause more harm than good’

        http://www.thegown.org.uk/2011/02/23/news-palestine-solidarity-society-disrupt-law-lecture/

        This was your piece of sophistry (didn’t know that was Christian), Gary, that you were entitled to ‘debate’ right in the middle of Solomon’s talking, after a mere seven minutes:

        ‘The time for proper discussion is something which is open to debate, there are those myself included who argue that my interuption to ask a legitimate question and make a legitimate point however of course there are those who argue against such what it really come’s down to is the fundamental fact’s…. My right to express myself and express my dissaproval and the other’s right to speak. Neither of our right’s were superceded in anyway at all and my interuption did not take his right away from him it merely allowed me my right’

        http://www.thegown.org.uk/2011/02/23/news-palestine-solidarity-society-disrupt-law-lecture/

        ‘The time for discussion is open to debate’!

        Not according to you!

        In a debate, one side speaks, then the other. They NEVER interrupt.

        • conchovor Says:

          Here is you according that everything should be a free for all:

          ‘That’s the funny thing about right’s especially human right’s they apply to everyone and everyone is equal under them nobodies right is better or more than any other person’s that is what i believe and that is what i stick to.’

          So you had as much right to speak as Solomon, at the same time, even though at least some people had come to hear Solomon, not you?

          You’re an infant, Gary.

          Maybe you were Re-Born Yesterday.

        • conchovor Says:

          ‘there are those myself included who argue that my interuption to ask a legitimate question and make a legitimate point however of course there are those who argue against such what it really come’s down to is the fundamental fact’s’

          Not the clause which begins ‘what it really comes down to’ i.e. ‘there is no debate, I was right, Solomon was wrong, I was entitled to interrupt him’,

          which led to further heckling and Solomon’s talk to end.

          I must say, this does look a bit like Hamas democracy at work.

      • conchovor Says:

        ‘Hamas’ status as the de-facto government of Gaza is a none issue it is completely irelevant which pseudo bantustan government rules the gaza strip when Israel still has full control over the borders and full control over the civilian population of Gaza.’

        Again, Horsemanure.

        Hamas professes dedication to no permanent peace with or recognition of Israel ever.

        Israel is not obliged to surrender control of its borders to that, Mr. Non-Violence. Or to let it import what it wants to prosecute its jihad, Mr. Against Violence in Some Cases but Not Necessarily in Others.

        As Ben Finch FAIRLY said.

    • conchovor Says:

      ‘Israel broke the ceasefire killing people.’

      Hamas was digging a tunnel under the Gaza-Israel border, for the purpose of kidnapping or killing Israeli soldiers, as it repeatedly said it would do.

      Digging tunnels under any border of a state with you are in eliminationist war is an act of aggression, and a de facto breach of cease fire.

      Hamas could have refrained from digging their tunnel. They made a choice, and they knew if Israel found out their would likely be repercussions.

      If you are dedicated to eternal jihad until the extinction of any Israel, don’t dig tunnels under the border.

      Otherwise expect the consequence.

  20. Richard Gold Says:

    Gary incase you missed my comment (due to how wordpress lists comments and replies).

    You say : “I can put my question whenever i choose that is MY right.”

    So i take it that it would be OK if 100 zionists came to one of your meetings and put their questions when they wanted then ? That’s if you accord them the same right as you claim for yourself.

    • Gary Spedding Says:

      “So i take it that it would be OK if 100 zionists came to one of your meetings and put their questions when they wanted then ? That’s if you accord them the same right as you claim for yourself.”

      I would actually pay you to try and find 100 Zionist’s in Belfast…. but to put thing’s in perspective for you i have spoken in places where the majority of the audience were Zionist mostly in Israel and they did interupt and ask questions and heckle and i handled it professionally and well…. you see if someone interupt’s me i usually have the ability to accept they interupt me because they have reason to or else they wouldnt interupt and thus i give them their right to pose a question they feel important…..

      That being said i can see this straight away turning into a childish game where NIFI start turning up to my event’s specifically trying to cause disruption which will be amusing.

      I accord everyone equal rights…

      • conchovor Says:

        ‘I would actually pay you to try and find 100 Zionist’s in Belfast’

        What a creepy thing to say. Yes, the Belfast Jewish community may be less than 100, but why crow about it?

  21. Richard Gold Says:

    Gary “The majority of my friend’s are Zionist’s they are not evil”

    Ok we know, some of your best friends are Jewish (yawn)

    • Gary Spedding Says:

      I dont mind telling people who my friend’s are if it bother’s you i have Jewish friends clearly you are anti-semitic.

  22. Richard Gold Says:

    ” i can have a Rabbi lawyer here prepped to defend me within 8 hours”

    Gary, it’s a pleasure to read comments from somebody as intelligent as yourself, but please no more of the “some of my best friends are Jewish” shtick because it’s really corny (though i bet you’ve got some great chat up lines)

    • Gary Spedding Says:

      Im not actually that intelligent really and i also know your probably being sarcastic.

      My chat up lines are very good actually they work in Tel Aviv nightclubs all the time :]

  23. Richard Gold Says:

    Gary “I dont mind telling people who my friend’s are if it bother’s you i have Jewish friends clearly you are anti-semitic.”

    Do you collect them Gary ?

    Anyway please feel free to comment some more as it gives other readers a better idea of your character.

    • Richard Gold Says:

      Though i guess i should try and find out if this really is Gary, or somebody pretending to be Gary.

      • Gary Spedding Says:

        Considering the plethora of comment’s left by another user here with the specific intent of trying to find some way of attacking my character you are undoubtedly and understandably unsure as to who i am that is to be expected.

        I don’t really know what else to say to you like i said im done here i am not some pet project for you to drag a conversation out with for the benefit of your ‘readers’.

    • Gary Spedding Says:

      “Do you collect them Gary ?”

      Is this actually a serious question or just a rhetorical one?

      I dont even have a response to that it is so cringe worthy i mean who ‘collects’ friends? because i certainly do not.

      “Anyway please feel free to comment some more as it gives other readers a better idea of your character.”

      I am actually done commenting here i have said what needed to be said and i will from now on refrain from posting here i have other thing’s to be doing not that i do not enjoy the brain excerise i mean i havent debated the Gaza war for example in months…..

  24. Brian Goldfarb Says:

    Gary Spedding: “Debates on your website do not really interest me except when they are about me.”

    Says it all really: how solipsistic can you get? Clearly, very. And this man is an undergraduate at Queens Belfast: how on earth can he expect to succeed at the task if he is so self-centred? No wonder he disrupts meetings: if he’s not talking, nothing important is being said. He aslo clearly, until pushed, believes that if he says something, it needs no further support, as it’s taken him ages to start citing evidence in support of his assertions. He then writes at such absurd length (how does he find time to pursue his academic strudies?) as to attempt to bore those who disagree with him into submission.

    He clearly believes that the academic process of debate via the citing of evidence and then reasoned argument based on that is beneath him. He is also clearly not prepared to examine and refure evidence which he _knows_ in advance will undermine his case. Thus, ” Debates on your website do not really interest me except when they are about me.”
    That is, because it will undermine my case, I refuse to look at it.

    Given all that has been put his way, the long list of references are a little late in the day, and suggest that he only resorted to them because he is not being taken seriously. Well, if he can’t be bothered to critically examine my evidence, why should I bother to give him the time of day, when it has all been done before, but he is too lazy or self-centred to consider it?

    Then, to cap it all, he says this to Richard Gold: “Im not actually that intelligent really…” Yes, we had noticed,and you keep demonstrating the fact.

    Finally, he writes: “I am actually done commenting here i have said what needed to be said and i will from now on refrain from posting here i have other thing’s to be doing not that i do not enjoy the brain excerise i mean i havent debated the Gaza war for example in months…..

    Is that a promise? Or is a retreat from a situation in which he is being outmanouvred all the time and can’t find any more to say? Because if he thinks that he is signing off haven’t “beaten” us, then he has truly failed to read the comments directed at him. And he never did answer the point directed at him in my first comment at the very start of this thread. But I said then that I didn’t expect a reply, and in that, at least, I heven’t been disappointed, especially given that his supposed answer to me is actually a non-answer: yet again, it doesn’t actually say anything.

  25. Brian Goldfarb Says:

    I said “And we are expected to take him (Gary Spedding) seriously?” Gary Spedding replied:

    “Not really given the mass of evidence which proves my version of event’s is correct.”

    Trouble is, he doesn’t cite any evidence in his support, in this case over waiting for an apology from Dr Wheeler.

    Evidence would be good here, as opposed to the continued assertion posing as evidence.

  26. Brian Goldfarb Says:

    Again, this from Gary Spedding: “The majority of my friend’s are Zionist’s…” Sounds remarkably like Owl/Minerva (remember her, folks?) who then denied that she’d said anything like “some of my best friends are Jewish”. Bit more difficult for Gary Spedding.

    But anyway, so what? That hardly makes him right or even sensible, let alone an advocate for free speech (other than those who agree with him, that is).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 132 other followers

%d bloggers like this: