Cowen snubs Israel

growler

Excerpt from report in English by Herb Keinon entitled: "Irish snub Sharon for Arafat", published by Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post web site on 25 June



Forced to choose between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian [National] Authority Chairman Yasir Arafat, Irish Foreign Minister Brian Cowen has opted for Arafat. Cowen is slated to arrive Wednesday night [25 June] and meet Thursday in Ramallah with Arafat, PNA Prime Minister Mahmud Abbas, and PNA Foreign Minister Nabil Sha'th.

Israeli diplomatic officials said that when it was made clear to the Irish that if Cowen meets Arafat, he will be unable to meet any Israeli officials, the Irish decided to forgo the meetings in Israel. "This is no small crisis, and unfortunately reflects Europe's position," one senior Foreign Ministry official said. The official said that Cowen's move is more representative of European sentiment than the recent visit of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who met Sharon and refused to meet Arafat. He, in turn, was snubbed by Abbas.

Although Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson and the foreign ministers of Denmark and Norway all recently postponed visits because they did not want to find themselves in a similar dilemma, Cowen is the first diplomat to have decided to bypass Israeli officials to pay what Philip Grant, an official at the Irish embassy in Tel Aviv, called a "courtesy call" to Arafat. Grant, referring to the Spanish precedent, said his government is trying to arrange another trip to Israel for Cowen for bilateral talks. [Passage omitted]

The US agrees with Israel about not meeting Arafat, and not only do its officials not do so, but Washington has also turned to the Europeans with formal requests not to meet Arafat. These requests, according to Israeli diplomatic officials, have been "tossed into the garbage." [Passage omitted]
END

I am amazed that the Irish government would actually do this and not take the easy option of visiting somewhere else that had nice beaches , hotels and other ways to waste our money on frivolous junkets. Is this a principled stance ? and if so is it a first for an irish government on such a contentious issue, does it fly in the face of our neutral position ?

The parallels between the "troubles" and the intifada have been debated to death here, but is this an official endoresement of the so-called ties with the Palestinian cause?
Wasn't it an Irish pub that was targetted in a suicide bombing not all that long ago?

Sparks

Wow. I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

Hobbes

It must be breaking news. I could only find two stories about it.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=6127

http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_News/news2003/2003-06/090.html

This is all I've seen on his reason.

"I am coming to the region to meet Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Palestinian leaders, Mr. Arafat and Mahmud Abbas (the prime minister) to be briefed on how Arabs see things," Cowen told reporters here.

"The Israeli government position is that they are not available to meet people like myself in the event of meeting Arafat," Cowen said after talks with Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa.

"We are available to meet our Israeli counterparts at any time and I could come back on any occasion," said Cowen.

"Arafat is the president of the Palestinian Authority. He has been the foremost figure of Palestinian politics for many years," Cowen said.

Although TBH he could probably of given Arafat a miss (Although IMHO Sharon is no better then Arafat).

Wasn't it an Irish pub that was targetted in a suicide bombing not all that long ago?

Linkage please.

growler

yes , it was an Irish bar (in name at least) , Mike's Place was the one the British Muslim's targetted in late April

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,949100,00.html

dathi1

endoresement of the so-called ties with the Palestinian cause?

I think he was elected president by the Palestinian people.

If he can meet Tony Blair and George Bush he sure as hell can meet Yasser

sceptre

So Cowen wants to meet Arafat, the Israelis say "oooh, if you do that, you can't meet Sharon"

Cowen's reply runs something like "er, that's OK, I'm really only here to meet Arafat so it works out surprisingly well for my timetable, that"

Sparks' comment: Nail, head, hit.

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by growler
I am amazed that the Irish government would actually do this and not take the easy option of visiting somewhere else that had nice beaches , hotels and other ways to waste our money on frivolous junkets. Is this a principled stance ? and if so is it a first for an irish government on such a contentious issue, does it fly in the face of our neutral position ?

Aren't you forgetting about a certain Cornoal Gadaffi having tea in a tent in the libyan desert with the then taoiseach Charles Haughey...?

Ireland always choose Palistaine over Israel as our support for Palistaine is in our economic interest(Beef Sales to Eygpt and the Middle East)..
I agree with it

Sparks

Aren't you forgetting about a certain Cornoal Gadaffi having tea in a tent in the libyan desert with the then taoiseach Charles Haughey...?

That was more a "birds of a feather" thing I think...

Hobbes

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
Ireland always choose Palistaine over Israel as our support for Palistaine is in our economic interest(Beef Sales to Eygpt and the Middle East)..
I agree with it

The tie in with the EU though. Hinting at EU policy? *Shrug* EU president doesn't mean the same thing as a countries president.

However if the EU did want to intervene, it would send different countries to see each side.

Victor

It's not a snub, it's out-manouevering the "I don't want to talk to you if you talk to him attitude".

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
Wow. I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

Originally posted by Sparks
Sparks' comment: Nail, head, hit.

Hmmm, I thought it was a bit of a throwaway remark. Like saying "I don't like this guy, so I'll assume this is accidental or he was forced into it because that way I don't have to adjust my views".

I'm not asking anyone to like Cowan, but credit where credit is due.

Here was a situation where Israel snubbed Ireland by refusing to see Cowen during his visit to Arafat (the article spins it the opposite way). I don't think it particularly surprising what Cowan did, but either you approve of his actions on this occasion or you don't.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Hobbes
The tie in with the EU though. Hinting at EU policy? *Shrug* EU president doesn't mean the same thing as a countries president.

However if the EU did want to intervene, it would send different countries to see each side.

It was an incredibly spun piece. On reading the article closely, you see that it is simply just Israel objecting to Ireland's right to visit Arafat (whether or not they also visit Sharon). The stuff about the EU is simply rubbish by the Israeli government. Why, if this is 'hinting at EU policy' did these other prime ministers and foreign ministers postpone visits? Why are they not 'hinting at EU policy'? Yet, the article has decided to single out Cowan's visit. It's just a load of diplomatic b****x spin.

Sand

It shows where the power lies though, doesnt it?

Cowen cant meet Sharon if he meets Arafat. He cant meet Abbas if he doesnt meet Arafat ( i.e. no way around awkward situation ). So he has to choose between meeting the Israelis or the Palestinian representitive, and he doesnt take the easy way out as have others - so he meets Arafat over the Israeli reps and our supposed neutrality.

Arafat is still the man to talk to if a cease fire is to be called and Abbas is just a figurehead installed by external pressure.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sand
So he has to choose between meeting the Israelis or the Palestinian representitive, and he doesnt take the easy way out as have others - so he meets Arafat over the Israeli reps and our supposed neutrality.

While it is not clear from the article exactly what Cowan's intentions were, if he had had not visited Sharon simply because Israel would not allow it during a visit which included Arafat, then I don't think there's great implications for Ireland's neutrality.

Cork

I'm not asking anyone to like Cowan, but credit where credit is due.

Here was a situation where Israel snubbed Ireland by refusing to see Cowen during his visit to Arafat (the article spins it the opposite way). I don't think it particularly surprising what Cowan did, but either you approve of his actions on this occasion or you don't.

I agree. Brian Cowen has much ability. Sure, he is not too pretty. He is not the most polished TD in the Dail. But all that said, He is one of the most capable politicians around today.

This situation was a snub by Israel. I think Cowen behaved well handling this situation.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Cork
I agree. Brian Cowen has much ability. Sure, he is not too pretty. He is not the most polished TD in the Dail. But all that said, He is one of the most capable politicians around today.

This situation was a snub by Israel. I think Cowen behaved well handling this situation.

A single incident alone would not fundamentally change my opinion on any politician. If Cowan is the topic under discussion, then all his actions need to be taken under consideration and everyone's entitled to their opinion. However in this case it is a particular event being discussed and personally I can't really fault Cowan's part in it.

swiss

Fair play to Brian Cowen, but I don't think his motives are as altruistic as people make them out to be. We have a fair amount of economic interest vested in Middle Eastern countries, for example as someone pointed out we have beef exports to Egypt. Furthurmore, according to Brian Cowen the whole purpose of the visit was to get the 'Arab perspective'. This appears to be a particularly sage piece of political wrangling.

The Israelis seem to want to isolate the Arab/Palestinian leadership politically as well as economically and militarily. Therefore it does so by exercising what diplomatic might it can - threaten those diplomatic relations should other nations 'consort with the enemy'. I'm delighted that this has backfired in this case - it is highly unfair that any one country should be marginalised simply because it is the wish of their enemy alone.

Whether this will be enough to make Israel drop it's childish 'If you talk to them we won't talk to you' stance is debatable. It remains to be seen whether other European nations will follow suit. If they do, then I can only imagine that this will furthur widen the diplomatic rift between Israel and western Europe. As the United States is a close supporter of Israel, this would conceivably have a knock on effect with regards to diplomatic relations with the United States.

If Brian Cowen had deferred to the requests of the Israeli government, then not only would he give the appearance of being malleable and consequently weak in the eyes of other nations, it could also conceivably damage our relations with Arab nations, many of whom have a vehement dislike of the oppression Israel represents towards certain Arab peoples.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by swiss
Fair play to Brian Cowen, but I don't think his motives are as altruistic as people make them out to be. We have a fair amount of economic interest vested in Middle Eastern countries, for example as someone pointed out we have beef exports to Egypt. Furthurmore, according to Brian Cowen the whole purpose of the visit was to get the 'Arab perspective'. This appears to be a particularly sage piece of political wrangling.

Most people would not approve of foreign visits like this if they were done mainly for 'altruistic' reasons. They have to be in some way in the national interest to justify them.

bonkey

Originally posted by swiss
Whether this will be enough to make Israel drop it's childish 'If you talk to them we won't talk to you' stance is debatable.

It is indeed debatable, but I'd put my two cents down right now and say that no...it won't.

I don't think that enough nations will take a stance of "you say we can only walk with you or them? Fair enough...I choose them...they, at least, aren't trying to suppress negotiation". Even Ireland backed down from making it that blunt....and gave more of a "well, we needed to talk to them. If that means we can't talk to you now...fine" stance.

I am glad to see that Cowen did this, but I don't honestly think we have enough international pull to make a difference by it.

jc

Biffa Bacon

Well I for one thought it was a disgrace. Can you imagine Cowen going to visit Osama bin Laden rather than George Bush? At least Berlusconi did the right thing and visited the Israelis.

And by the way, it's not a case of "us or them" - Israel is willing to negotiate with Abu Mazen, just not with Arafat who has proven himself a liar and an unreformable supporter of terrorism.

Sparks

Well I for one thought it was a disgrace.

You would Biffa, but your opinion is well-known.

Can you imagine Cowen going to visit Osama bin Laden rather than George Bush?

It would be a rather impressive act if he did so, since noone else seems to be able to find Bush....
A better comparison might be Hussein - after all, we did sign trade agreements with him.

At least Berlusconi did the right thing and visited the Israelis.

If the most blatently corrupt politician in continental europe is your moral meterstick, then Biffa you have serious ethical problems.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
And by the way, it's not a case of "us or them" - Israel is willing to negotiate with Abu Mazen, just not with Arafat who has proven himself a liar and an unreformable supporter of terrorism.

Since the visit was purportedly part of the peace process, those responcible for the conflict on both sides are precicely those that need to be met. That means Arafat and Sharon. Now the question is, if Sharon insists that he only be met on a different visit to that of Arafat, should Cowan have cancelled the visit? After all, a visit with Sharon can be done on another occasion.

My only real problem is with the article, which suggests that Ireland snubbed Isreal. I can't see how this is the case.

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
My only real problem is with the article, which suggests that Ireland snubbed Isreal. I can't see how this is the case.

Well, I guess its a matter of perspective. By making their stance clear in advance of the Irish visit, it was the Irish who decided who to visit and who to not visit. By this yardstick, the Irish snubbed the Israelis.

Conversely, the Irish were willing to meet the Israelis, but the Israeli's refused to meet them because of a decision that the Israeli's have made themselves about who they will agree to meet. By this yardstick, it is the Israeli's who snubbed the Irish.

As for Biffa's declaration of it being a disgrace....I agree fully that it is a disgrace - just not for the same reasons as Mr. Bacon. I think it is disgraceful that any potential avenues of finding a solution are closed off so willingly. Imagine, for example, where things would be in the North of Ireland if the unionists refused to discuss anything with anyone who also wanted to hold discussions with Adams or McGuinness.

jc