Israel Refuses Minister Martin access to visit Gaza.

Overheal

Oh at the very worst its conniving but its not blind.

As for EU fear of the US? Where does that hold basis? Aside from Freed Fries :rolleyes: when has the US Govt or its people done anything to 'Punish' the European Union?

edit: I get the feeling its been discussed before, but what about a UN controlled border, similar to the Korean Armistice Line?

dlofnep

Overheal wrote: »

As for EU fear of the US? Where does that hold basis?

The EU as a whole doesn't - but individual countries on their own might. America has alot of leeway and control over the policies of independent countries.

Overheal wrote: »

Aside from Freed Fries :rolleyes: when has the US Govt or its people done anything to 'Punish' the European Union?

It doesn't punish, and couldn't punish the European Union. It doesn't have that pulling power - but it certainly does against individual countries. Not on all issues, but certainly some.

Why do you feel that the majority of EU countries abstained from voting? DO you think that the US even played a small role in it? Because I do.

Overheal wrote: »

edit: I get the feeling its been discussed before, but what about a UN controlled border, similar to the Korean Armistice Line?

I think it would be a good idea, and yes - it's been suggested before. Probably the only real plausible solution to be honest.

Overheal

Id just like some specifics though, on how the US might have intimidated or coerced individual european countries into abstaining their vote?

fischer

paulaa wrote: »

Israel and the US armed and supported Hamas against the PLO and Arafat. When it suits them Hamas are terrorists.

To be fair, Hamas are unquestionably terrorists. Armed and supported by various states, yes. Do I think Isreal and US foreign policy is above arming terrorists when it suits them? No.

paulaa wrote: »

If Israel hadn't completely undermined Abbas there would have been a good chance that Hamas wouldn't have won the election. The Palestinians felt that they had no one to look out for their interests.They had nothing to lose as settlements were being built all over stolen land that was earmarked for the Palestinian State. The daily ill treatment and humiliations meted out to them was bound to have an effect after so many years.

I almost completely agree - you'll not find me supporting every act of Israel. But it was a foolish choice - Hamas cannot beat Israel by military means.

paulaa wrote: »

As to Fatah being corrupt, yes they are, just like their neighbours. How many Israeli ministers and Prime Ministers are being investigated for corruption and illegal activities ? The Moldovan bouncer/ Israeli foreign minister is being investigated for some fairly substantial dodgy financial dealings. Former Prime Minister Olmert has been to court several times and is not finished yet. Another senior minister has been accused and charged with rape and sexual harrassment by several women in his office. Those are only a few I can think of atm.

Once again with the agreement. But whose populace comes off worse?

Would the Palestinians population be better off surrendering completely to Israels conditions? And if yes but they don't, what does this tell you about their leadership? That they place honour/principle/belief ahead of their peoples wellbeing? And if that leadership gets popular support for these policies, does Ireland get a say?

Isreal may well be evil in many peoples eyes - the Palestinians may well be blameless, oppressed and brutalised. But Palestinians will continue to have far more misery until they stop fighting Isreal. Maybe then they will be able to realise a state, however small or far from their proclaimed rights, and begin building on that.

Fischer.

Overheal

Would the Palestinians population be better off surrendering completely to Israels conditions?

Unconditional surrender? No. But Palestine must cease any violent action outside of direct defense: and that includes retaliatory attacks.

Though that leads to the need for a persistent, independent set of observers on either side, which I respect thats what the Minister says he was trying do to, but The Minister of Foreign Affairs should at the very least accept Israel's implied gesture and visit as close to Gaza as he can probably get: The Blockade Line, on the Israeli side of the border. But further to that I'm unclear as to why he cant enter Gaza via Rafah, Egypt.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

Unconditional surrender? No. But Palestine must cease any violent action outside of direct defense: and that includes retaliatory attacks.

During every cease fire, or diminishment of violence, settlement building increases. There is therefore no argument for but every argument against. There has to be an agreement on both sides that will be enforced on both sides, with consequences for either if its breached- not just the Palestinians.

paulaa

fischer wrote: »

To be fair, Hamas are unquestionably terrorists. Armed and supported by various states, yes. Do I think Isreal and US foreign policy is above arming terrorists when it suits them? No.

Hi Fischer, I agree with you to a point. Hamas are in the same position that Ben Gurion and his militias were in in the 40's. They too were called "terrorists" by the British Mandate. The difference is that now Hamas are ruling their own people by fear and terror in Gaza and they are enforcing a particularly vicious brand of Sharia law in the strip.The moderates have no chance.

fischer wrote: »

I almost completely agree - you'll not find me supporting every act of Israel. But it was a foolish choice - Hamas cannot beat Israel by military means.

I think they are smart enough to know that but it won't stop them.

fischer wrote: »

Once again with the agreement. But whose populace comes off worse?

Would the Palestinians population be better off surrendering completely to Israels conditions? And if yes but they don't, what does this tell you about their leadership? That they place honour/principle/belief ahead of their peoples wellbeing? And if that leadership gets popular support for these policies, does Ireland get a say?

As a member of the UN Ireland would have some say imo. Our own constitution says in Article 29.1 "Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality".

You know, I am coming around more and more to the idea that maybe a one-state solution is the answer to this problem. That is the way Israel is heading atm because with the settlements, the wall etc they are making any future state of Palestine an impractical possibility.

How would Israeli's feel about being a minority population in their own country in a few years time ? Would they be happy to afford full citizenship and all the privileges that come with it to the new Palestinian Israeli citizens ?

fischer wrote: »

Israel may well be evil in many peoples eyes - the Palestinians may well be blameless, oppressed and brutalised. But Palestinians will continue to have far more misery until they stop fighting Isreal. Maybe then they will be able to realise a state, however small or far from their proclaimed rights, and begin building on that.

Fischer.

I don't believe that Israel is "evil". I think they have lost their way as a democracy and have allowed the extremist settlers and religious to take over the country.

As to the Palestinians, their leadership has left much to be desired over the years and like Israel, the extremists have led these people into an abyss. The rest of the world must share the blame for the situation too because they turned a blind eye for years to the growing atrocities on both sides. They should have intervened, not taken sides and enforced the various resolutions that were passed in the UN.

I have lived through nearly 40 years of Israeli history and have been very disappointed to see a country that could have been an example to the theocracies and dictatorships of the Middle East become one of them.

I don't know if there will be a solution to this but I am very pessimistic that anything will happen without more bloodshed. I hope I'm wrong.

Manic Moran

dlofnep wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that Israel rejected his request for entry, does it?

No. But the question of whether or not Gaza's current economic situation is entirely Israel's fault is also somewhat detached from the Minister's request to enter Gaza. I was addressing an erroneous thread diversion.

Out of interest, would there be any support on this board for Israel allowing the Minister to enter Gaza, but not allowing him a visa to exit Gaza?

NTM

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

Out of interest, would there be any support on this board for Israel allowing the Minister to enter Gaza, but not allowing him a visa to exit Gaza?

I'm sure some on here would love to see Mícheál Martin trapped in Gaza. I'm not one of them.

Manic Moran

Firstly, it allows him to examine the situation first-hand for himself. That subsequently allows him to write a report an issue an official statement on the matter. Moreover, when discussing the said issue with other European colleagues, he can bring an eye witness account of the situation there - which is worth 100 opinion pieces.

No, it wouldn't. Well, he can write a report, I guess, but that wouldn't make it any more accurate than what he'd write if he just read the online blogs. A government official going on a tour of a place (particularly a place in conflict) has about as much accuracy to it as an American soldier saying "I've been to Ireland, it's a wonderful place. Very friendly people, green fields, good alcohol", when in reality, they got off the airplane at Shannon and checked out the Duty Free without leaving the terminal. You will never get an accurate impression on a flying visit, the things are purely photo-ops. Things are staged, he tends to see what people want him to see, and, of course, any time there is a whiff of something not being safe, his security detail goes ape and whisks him away.

Not that I'm cynical or anything, I've just seen a lot of these 'fact-finding tours'. (From both sides of the equation)

Move it forward at EU level I'd imagine. Put pressure on the American Government to lessen their blind support for Israel.

Agreed, if the intent of the move was to see if Israel would let him in. If the intent was to go on the dog-and-pony in Gaza, the next move would be to try crossing at the Egyptian border.

NTM