End siege of Gaza

clonycavanman

In 2004 Palestinian tradeunionists and academics called for an international boycott until occupation of the West Bank and Gaza ended.
In 2006 the EU gave it's reply; it would apply a boycott ...of aid to the Palestinian Authority.
The conditions set for the lifting of the boycott were delivered in such a manner ( a pre-emptive, non-negotiable ultimatum, before the elected Party even took office) as if to ensure a response of rejection. GCHQ read that one correctly. The demands are made upon a political party, not any institution.
The logic of the boycott was unconvincing; no-one had reason to believe that Hamas would be easily intimidated. The 'conditions' demanded applied to one side only, demanded saintly self-abnegation, or were uninterpretable.
They included; Hamas has to 'accept previous agreements'. Why shouldn't they be renegotiated? They have hardly been of great value. They certainly have not brought peace . Hamas doesn't negotiate for the Palestinian people anyway. That is the role of the PLO , which includes representation from the 4 million exiles as well as the 5 million living in varying legal status in Palestine.

Hamas must 'renounce violence'. Let's all support that. But the quartet is morally holed beneath the water line on that one. Britain and America are quartet members who actually launched aggressive war against Iraq and daily boast of their kills there.Cant is an English word that Gazans must come to know. Uninterpretable; under UN charter everyone has a natural right to self-defence; and no-one could deny that Palestinians are in need of self-defence.

The EU did not take responsible action when the occupying power (still surrouding Gaza) added to the boycott a much more damaging trade embargo.
Last week UNRWA announced that the last of Gaza's 600 garment factories had ceased production-unable to import or export goods. This crushing economic victory is nothing to celebrate.
How can Ireland be a party to this? Ireland has suffered more than most european countries from annexation,internal displacement, unrest fostered by settlements and religious discrimination. Surely Ireland has an entitlement to tell EU partners, 'You are wrong'.
'Previous agreements' include the right (currently not respected) of the occupied territories to trade with the EU. Irish diplomacy could start there- working with Egypt and within the EU ,to establish freedom for Gazan trade.

eoin5

If Irelands diplomats said "were against this" it could be bad for Ireland and our betters are all about whats best for Ireland, as youd expect. The only way to mobilise our betters is to protest at such a level as though it would be bad for them not to. At the moment thats basically impossible.

Moriarty

Cutting off aid to a country who elected an organisation which has as one of its stated aims the destruction of one of your regional allies doesn't seem so strange to me.

The palestinian people elected Hamas into office. A certain level of responsibility therefore lies at their own feet for the current hardships they're facing.

Sand

How can Ireland be a party to this?

Because were part of the EU and thus an EU sanctions programme implies we should follow the terms of those sanctions.

Those sanctions were brought into place because a terrorist organisation was elected to run a state. Finanacial or other support of that state would fund the terrorist activities of that organisation, which as Moriarty has stated has the stated aim of destroying one of its neighbours, Israel - and probably the genocide or expulsion of any Israeli jews who survived.

Hamas have already demonstrated their views by conducting a savage terrorist campaign of attacks against Israeli civillians. Ireland and the EU should not be a party to funding state terrorism - Id thought youd agree with this given the complaints about US military aid to Israel?