Ireland asks Israel to allow ship to Gaza

[scipio337]

Fatah had just been voted out in what was universally recognised as a free and fair election, yet they refused to accept the result and leave office. What’s ‘lawful’ about that?

They weren’t “voted out”, but lost the majority. You’re in the U.K., and you don’t know how a parliamentary system works?

 

[Guyonthestreet]

They weren’t “voted out”, but lost the majority. You’re in the U.K., and you don’t know how a parliamentary system works?

6 of one, have a dozen of the other.

The BBC think it’s a perfectly acceptable expression, meaning to lose the majority.

At the 1979 election, **Labour was voted out **and Margaret Thatcher moved into Downing Street.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8536029.stm

 

[Kadaveri]

They weren’t “voted out”, but lost the majority. You’re in the U.K., and you don’t know how a parliamentary system works?

It seems you’re the one who doesn’t know how a parliamentary system works. If Party A has a majority in parliament and then there’s an election which results in Party B getting a majority of seats then Party A has been voted out. There’s nothing cosmic going on here.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Until one is willing to read both sides, it’s futile to engage in dialogue. I once was very pro-Israel as I go back many years and have followed this part of the world closely. However, in 1956 my deep faith in Israel was shaken, and I admired Ike when he told Israel to ‘get out’ once it had invaded Egypt. Wish we had a courageous president like Eisenhower now. They all have been afraid of AIPAC and its vengeance (and campaign money). ** It may be remembered that both Britain and France were involved in that “invasion” of Egypt. That’s when Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal in which both Britain and France felt they had a proprietary interest and which, of course, Nasser closed to Israel. Nobody, I guess, remembers that the major parties in that were Britain and France, but only resents Israel for it. Selective outrage.**

 I have recommended just one book, *The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy*, by two professors, one at Harvard and other at Chicago U. If you choose to avoid reading both sides I am wasting my time, so will sign off. We have been so subjected to pro-Israel propaganda for so long that millions of minds have been closed to the reality. What is that reality? There are two sides, both partly right and both partly wrong. The Jews needed a refuge after WWII. The Palestinians have been treated like dirt. If the USA had been genuinely sympathetic to both, this could and should have been worked out years and years ago. We likely could have escaped 9-11, as Muslim bitterness toward the USA was first triggered by our total support of Israel and the demonization of the Palestinian people. **I have read lots of books about all that. But I trust what responsible Palestinians say more. One book was recommended to me by a Palestinian, and it really was even-handed. But it also pointed out some of the cultural problems Arabs have which makes it awfully difficult for them to make peace. Again, blaming American support of Isreal for 911 is really off the mark, and, frankly, strikes me as jingoistic. Do people really think Muslims can't come up with their own reasons for doing things? Al Quaeda would be Al Quaeda if neither the U.S. or Israel existed. We're in Al Quaeda's way over there, interfering with their dreams of "the Caliphate" which they, of course, would run, and there is not a whole lot more to know about it. **

  On four occasions I have been to the Holy Land as a pilgrim. On each occasion I was subjected to guides who talked of Palestinians as bigoted Americans once spoke of Blacks. Some people didn't mind. They were convinced that God was deep into the real estate business and all of greater Israel belonged to the Jews. There are many reasons given in the Bible why this is not true, but my main reasons are two: (1) God believes in justice, mercy and peace, and Israel has not advanced these; and (2) Israel keeps shooting itself in the foot by alienating more and more of the world.

 A daughter of mine spent time in Europe, especially England. She reported back that the media there were far-more balanced, She also reported that the people over there were alienated from Israel because for decades it has planted more and more settlements on land that needs to be a refuge for the Palestinians. But who cares about the Palestinians in this country? I think more and more people do, and Israel needs to adjust accordingly before the American people no longer give them billions a year of our tax money and have our national interests undermined by our continual kowtowing to the Israeli state. ** And Chamberlin thought he had bought "peace in our time" by selling out the Sudetenland, and a lot of Brits believed it because they wanted to believe it. **

 To be wisely pro-Israel we must be also pro-Palestinian. ** Again, "Palestinian" is a tribal designation applied to those Arab tribes whose antecedents are traditionally considered to be of the area, including Jordan. "Palestinians" live all over the Middle East (not Iran) and most of them live in Jordan. Most Jordanians are Palestinians. Jordan IS a Palestinian state. So is Gaza.**

 Meanwhile, if you refuse to read material that presents the case of the Palestinians I have little respect for your opinion. You haven't been fair-minded in your asessment.** Well, I might have read more about it than you know. I know a few other things, too. Do you know any Palestinians who have had Yasser Arafat as his house guest, or who has stayed at the Royal Palace in Jordan, or who has stayed at the home of Mubarak, or whose "sub tribe" is the "official" go-between tribe in the area for business and politics, or who has had dinner with King Abdullah and Shimon Peres at the same table, or who was active in negotiating the Oslo Accords? I do. I listen to people like that because they know what's going on. I respect such people. You want to know what the people of consequence over there really think about Israelis? They'll tell you they can be arrogant, are hard bargainers, but are fundamentally straightforward and are as good as their word. They''ll also tell you pretty much everything I have said in this thread. They are people of realism, not romantics. Don't accuse me of not being fair-minded. **

 

[gnjsdad]

Ridgerunner:

"Palestinians" live all over the Middle East (not Iran) and most of them live in Jordan. Most Jordanians are Palestinians. Jordan IS a Palestinian state.

Partisans of Israel always make this claim, but there is no verification of it. If Palestinians are really Jordanians, then Jordan must be the only country in the world that is not looking for its “diaspora” to return and the “Jordanian diaspora” (Palestinians) show no desire to “return” to Jordan. Hmm… doesn’t pass the smell test.

Here are some basic population facts about Jordan from Encyclopedia Brittanica…

The overwhelming majority of the people are Arabs, principally Jordanians and Palestinians; there is also a significant minority of Bedouin, who were by far the largest indigenous group before the influx of Palestinians following the Arab-Israeli wars of 1948–49 and 1967. Jordanians of Bedouin heritage remain committed to the Hāshimite regime, which has ruled the country since 1923, despite having become a minority there. Although the Palestinian population is often critical of the monarchy, Jordan is the only Arab country to grant wide-scale citizenship to Palestinian refugees. Other minorities include a number of Iraqis who fled to Jordan as a result of the Persian Gulf War and Iraq War. There are also smaller Circassian (known locally as Cherkess or Jarkas) and Armenian communities. A small number of Turkmen (who speak either an ancient form of the Turkmen language or the Azeri language) also reside in Jordan.

About 30% of Jordan’s population is Palestinian refugees

I have highlighted the facts about the Palestinian population in Jordan. It is simply untrue that Jordan is a Palestinian country.

**

Ridgerunner:

So is Gaza.

**

It is ludicrous to claim that Gaza is a state. It has no armed forces, doesn’t control its own borders, doesn’t control its own economy and doesn’t control its own imports or exports. It has no ability to provide for the welfare of its people. It’s occupied territory, not a state.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Partisans of Israel always make this claim, but there is no verification of it. If Palestinians are really Jordanians, then Jordan must be the only country in the world that is not looking for its “diaspora” to return and the “Jordanian diaspora” (Palestinians) show no desire to “return” to Jordan. Hmm… doesn’t pass the smell test.

Here are some basic population facts about Jordan from Encyclopedia Brittanica…

The overwhelming majority of the people are Arabs, principally Jordanians and Palestinians; there is also a significant minority of Bedouin, who were by far the largest indigenous group before the influx of Palestinians following the Arab-Israeli wars of 1948–49 and 1967. Jordanians of Bedouin heritage remain committed to the Hāshimite regime, which has ruled the country since 1923, despite having become a minority there. Although the Palestinian population is often critical of the monarchy, Jordan is the only Arab country to grant wide-scale citizenship to Palestinian refugees. Other minorities include a number of Iraqis who fled to Jordan as a result of the Persian Gulf War and Iraq War. There are also smaller Circassian* (known locally as Cherkess or Jarkas) and Armenian communities. A small number of Turkmen (who speak either an ancient form of the Turkmen language or the Azeri language) also reside in Jordan.*

About 30% of Jordan’s population is Palestinian refugees

I have highlighted the facts about the Palestinian population in Jordan. It is simply untrue that Jordan is a Palestinian country.

---

It is ludicrous to claim that Gaza is a state. It has no armed forces, doesn’t control its own borders, doesn’t control its own economy and doesn’t control its own imports or exports. It has no ability to provide for the welfare of its people. It’s occupied territory, not a state.

A real Palestinian, who is not trying to play “fool the westerner” games with you, will tell you that the first loyalty is always to tribe. He will also tell you that Palestinians consider themselves simply “Arabs”. The difference between Bedouin and Palestinian is tribal, not national. It isn’t at all strange that Jordan admits Palestinians from anywhere into the country.

Gaza isn’t occupied by Israel. You know that. The reasons why Gaza has no economy are that Arafat stole the development project money; some of which was recovered from his widow by the PA, which Hamas threw out of Gaza after torturing and killing a number of its members, and because it is too small to have an autarkic economy, other than as an international welfare state. Gaza, Jordan, West Bank, Lebanon and Israel could be prosperous together as an economic zone. But that’s not what Hamas wants. I’m sure you have read Hamas’ charter. There are other Arabs in the region, though, who very much want it, and are working for it. Like it or not, responsible Arabs in the region are reconciled to the fact that Israel is an asset to the region, not a liability, and regard Hamas as a tool of Iran.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

I pray you are right.

And I’ll join you in that prayer.

But occasionally starting a thread criticising the other parties in the conflict might lend you more credibility.

To be fair, this forum, threads, and posts are awash with criticism of the other parties, no help needed from me.

But, I do have a credibility get-out-of-jail-free card like you would not believe!

 

[O_Duirnin]

(4) I have visited the Holy Land four times - on pilgrimages. I found the Christian Palestinians as critical of Israel as the Muslims. Sadly, because of the US favoritism of Israel Muslim nationalism has grown and some of it has been directed against Christians who often are misidentified with the USA.

One thing I’ve noticed during the various discussions we’ve had here on the Palestinian situation is an incredible ignorance of the position of Palestinian Christians. Ridgerunner’s little one sentence jibe in response to your contribution is very illustrative of this.

I’ve spoken on other threads about my experience with Christians in Palestine. A Melkite priest in Nablus spent a great deal of time telling us about the struggles he faced. He spoke of being unable to leave his house to open his Church for Morning Mass because of heavily armed Israeli soldiers on the Church steps. He told us about how he is regularly held for hours and subjected to intrusive searches at checkpoints while trying to visit outlying areas of his parish. Members from these areas are often unable to make it to the Church at all - or if they do, cannot leave the city boundaries again for several days. At the time of speaking he hadn’t seen his Bishop for several months - due to the near impossibility of travel to Jerusalem.

An Anglican priest discussed at length the problem of Christian emigration, but when asked what was to blame, exclaimed loudly, ‘the occupation, the occupation!’. All of the Christians agreed the there were no major tensions between Muslims and Christians in the city. One of the worst tragedies to affect the Christian community was the brutal 1979 murder of a Greek Orthodox priest within the holy sanctuary of Jacob’s Well, at Balata, on the edge of Nablus. Archimanidrite Philoumenos had refused to give in to demands from Israeli settlers to remove all Christian imagery from the Well and claim it as a Jewish holy place.

The so-called ‘attacks’ which took place against Churches in Nablus were no more than the actions of a few young hoodlums - such types exist in every country of the world. Within hours of the ‘attacks’, both the Fatah-affiliated Governor and the Hamas-affiliated Mayor met with leaders of the Christian community, expressing severe condemnation of the attacks. The Mayor himself, although Muslim, was educated at an Anglican school. He questioned how a large group of Western media had somehow managed to observe a fire which only lasted for ten minutes and had left nothing but a few scorch marks, before the police were even called to the scene. The Anglican priest agreed that the entire incident reeked of a set-up.

 

[Roy5]

O Duirnin
Great posting. Thank you. It's a tough job convincing 'true believers' that much of what they've been led to believe is not true. As I indicated, I hope and pray for a US policy that is intelligently pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, which seems unlikely as long as our Congress, Administrations and media are captives of AIPAC and its allies - largely because of intimidation and resulting fear. I hope it's not too late. Our policies keep strengthening radical Islamists and, in the long run, seriously hurt Israelis as well as Palestinians. It's as though we are determined to keep on walking blindly toward the abyss.

 

[Ridgerunner]

One thing I’ve noticed during the various discussions we’ve had here on the Palestinian situation is an incredible ignorance of the position of Palestinian Christians. Ridgerunner’s little one sentence jibe in response to your contribution is very illustrative of this.

I’ve spoken on other threads about my experience with Christians in Palestine. A Melkite priest in Nablus spent a great deal of time telling us about the struggles he faced. He spoke of being unable to leave his house to open his Church for Morning Mass because of heavily armed Israeli soldiers on the Church steps. He told us about how he is regularly held for hours and subjected to intrusive searches at checkpoints while trying to visit outlying areas of his parish. Members from these areas are often unable to make it to the Church at all - or if they do, cannot leave the city boundaries again for several days. At the time of speaking he hadn’t seen his Bishop for several months - due to the near impossibility of travel to Jerusalem.

An Anglican priest discussed at length the problem of Christian emigration, but when asked what was to blame, exclaimed loudly, ‘the occupation, the occupation!’. All of the Christians agreed the there were no major tensions between Muslims and Christians in the city. One of the worst tragedies to affect the Christian community was the brutal 1979 murder of a Greek Orthodox priest within the holy sanctuary of Jacob’s Well, at Balata, on the edge of Nablus. Archimanidrite Philoumenos had refused to give in to demands from Israeli settlers to remove all Christian imagery from the Well and claim it as a Jewish holy place.

The so-called ‘attacks’ which took place against Churches in Nablus were no more than the actions of a few young hoodlums - such types exist in every country of the world. Within hours of the ‘attacks’, both the Fatah-affiliated Governor and the Hamas-affiliated Mayor met with leaders of the Christian community, expressing severe condemnation of the attacks. The Mayor himself, although Muslim, was educated at an Anglican school. He questioned how a large group of Western media had somehow managed to observe a fire which only lasted for ten minutes and had left nothing but a few scorch marks, before the police were even called to the scene. The Anglican priest agreed that the entire incident reeked of a set-up.

Are you saying that Arab Christians in the West Bank are somehow treated more harshly by Isralis than are Arab Muslims, Druze or anybody else in the West Bank?

Christians are not treated too well by Muslims there either, and are leaving due to increasing Islamization.
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/christianme1.html

 

[donsnow]

It’s just not possible to engage in a contructive conversation or debate in which any form of legitmate criticism is construed as ‘‘hate’’.

With Israel’s national survival at stake, I think there’s no ‘legitimate’ criticism.

I’m well aware of both Israel’s and Hamas’ faults. Until there’s as great an outcry over the Palestinians allowing Hamas rockets as there are against Israeli’s right to survive, then the criticism of Israel leaves itself open to charges of hate speech.

 

[donsnow]

Pragmatically, the USofA needed the allies.

They needed to work from their bases for one thing.

For another, there was no appetite for war at the time, and in the States it was very much viewed as an Arab affair. The USofA also needed the allies because Bush was terrified of the US appearing to be a lone cowboy going guns ablaze into Arab territory on it’s own. It also didnt want to have to bear the costs of a war and the losses that entails, given there was little public stomach for such a war in August of '90.

Pragmatically, the USofA needed the Coalition.

It could have gone solo under Article 51, after all!

But it didn’t.

When Kuwait was liberated, there were those in the US military that wanted to finish Saddam off - even though this would have been in contravention to our mandate.

But we had fulfilled our UN Mandate and satisfied the relevant resolutions.

We, the Coalition, were having none of it.

And the USofA wouldn’t move without us.

Anyhow, this has nothing to do with the flotilla of the OP and the thread author has already said he/she would like this thread to stay on topic.

If you want to discuss America’s role in the gulf further Im happy to do so in another thread.

I don’t think you’re right.

When I do, I’ll have no problem saying so.

The considerations you list are mostly political and diplomatic (the sources of the problems that military is sent in to resolve), not pragmatic.

So, I was right. I did better at admitting where you’re right than you did at admitting where I’m right.

 

[donsnow]

Fatah had just been voted out in what was universally recognised as a free and fair election, yet they refused to accept the result and leave office. What’s ‘lawful’ about that?

First, the Hamas takeover was not universally recognized as a free and fair election and there remain to this date questions about that election which are swept under the international carpet.

For references: google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=Hamas+vs+Fatah+election&btnG=Google+Search
Pick any link.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

The considerations you list are mostly political and diplomatic (the sources of the problems that military is sent in to resolve), not pragmatic.

So, I was right. I did better at admitting where you’re right than you did at admitting where I’m right.

Pragmatic - giving rise to our ‘‘practical’’.

It wasn’t practical for the US to prosecute a war without the support of the coalition.

Like I said, for one thing, it needed our bases to work out of.

A practical consideration.

The US could have acted alone under Article 51.

For all sorts of practical reasons I outlined earlier, it didn’t.

Pragmatically, it needed to act in concert with a coalition.

So, as Ive already said, I don’t think you’re right.

And again, this has nothing to do with the OP. As I said earlier, if you want to continue the discussion, start another thread.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

donsnow:

With Israel’s national survival at stake, I think there’s no ‘legitimate’ criticism.

I think that’s an unbelievably dangerous point of view, not least for Israel itself

Are you saying that Israeli should be able to do anything it likes without fear of criticism?

If so, it will be the only country in the world that can claim such a right.

donsnow:

then the criticism of Israel leaves itself open to charges of hate speech.

This is in direct contradiction to what the moderaters of this site say:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6737235&postcount=26

For example, it is not anti-Semitic to disagree with the actions of the state of Israel.

 

[donsnow]

Pragmatic - giving rise to our ‘‘practical’’.

It wasn’t practical for the US to prosecute a war without the support of the coalition.

Like I said, for one thing, it needed our bases to work out of.

A practical consideration.

The US could have acted alone under Article 51.

For all sorts of practical reasons I outlined earlier, it didn’t.

Pragmatically, it needed to act in concert with a coalition.

So, as Ive already said, I don’t think you’re right.

And again, this has nothing to do with the OP. As I said earlier, if you want to continue the discussion, start another thread.

The quote of mine on your post was deleted by me just minutes after I posted it. You must have been sitting right on top of it, to catch it before I deleted it. So, disregard the quote and I disregard your reply to it.

 

[donsnow]

I think that’s an unbelievably dangerous point of view, not least for Israel itself

Are you saying that Israeli should be able to do anything it likes without fear of criticism?

If so, it will be the only country in the world that can claim such a right.

Haven’t you heard? It’s not a nation, but one of the world religions that can’t be criticized, upon punishment of imprisonment and/or death.

This is in direct contradiction to what the moderaters of this site say:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6737235&postcount=26

The state of Israel may be criticized, without charges of anti-Semiticism. Their right to survive as a nation is not open to any legitimate criticizement.

 

[donsnow]

I offer that Israel does have a right to blockade the Gaza strip. As far as the legalities go, legalities of Crown over Colonies sparked the American Revolution, and English law was put aside when we won. Legalities added fuel to the fire that roared into the American Civil War, and unjust slavery laws were cast aside when we won it. Legalities inspired the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement in America, and the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr led blacks and whites alike in non-violent civil disobedience to have those unjust laws struck down.

So, don’t tell me how lawful this or that is, when unjust laws are the problem. And, International and Sharia law are full of unjust laws when compared to our 1792 Constitution, and compared to a godly government.

Israel has the right to defend itself and it’s people. Anywhere.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

The state of Israel may be criticized, without charges of anti-Semiticism. Their right to survive as a nation is not open to any legitimate criticizement.

That’s a bit clearer - and quite different from what you said earlier:

donsnow:

criticism of Israel leaves itself open to charges of hate speech

So you agree that it is legitimate to criticize Israeli actions and to do so is not anti semitic. Which is also in line with this forums rules.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

I offer that Israel does have a right to blockade the Gaza strip.

Israel, or any other country for that matter, cannot operate a blocade that inflicts collective punishment on a civilian population.

That is why it is illegal.

As far as the legalities go, legalities of Crown over Colonies sparked the American Revolution, and English law was put aside when we won.

English Law forms the basis of the legal system of all previous colonies of the Crown. Including America. English law was never put aside by the States. It’s at the heart of the entire legal system.

Legalities inspired the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement in America, and the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr led blacks and whites alike in non-violent civil disobedience to have those unjust laws struck down.

And I hope the non violent actions of peace activists all over the world, and the worlds governments, will make Israel life it’s unjust and illegal impositions on the innocent civilians of Gaza.

So, don’t tell me how lawful this or that is, when unjust laws are the problem.

I agree, Israels unjust and illegal activity in Gaza is a big part of the problem.

Israel has the right to defend itself and it’s people.

I agree.

But all defensive actions must be proportionate, and comply with international humanitarian law and rules of engagement.

Anywhere.

No.

Israel does not have the right to forge foreign citizens passports, and murder a man in his hotel room, in a foreign country.

That is a clear breach of internation law, and a violation of the soverignty of other states.

Israel must be held accountable for that.

It cannot do as it pleases.

Furthermore, Israels actions do not comply with what the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines as Just:

From the Catechism of the Catholic church:

In this regard Just War doctrine gives certain conditions for the legitimate exercise of force, all of which must be met:

"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

1. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

1. there must be serious prospects of success;

1. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition" [CCC 2309].

The responsibility for determining whether these conditions are met belongs to “the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” The Church’s role consists in enunciating clearly the principles, in forming the consciences of men and in insisting on the moral exercise of just war.

The Church greatly respects those who have dedicated their lives to the defense of their nation. “If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace. [Cf. Gaudium et spes 79, 5]” However, she cautions combatants that not everything is licit in war. Actions which are forbidden, and which constitute morally unlawful orders that may not be followed, include:

• attacks against, and mistreatment of, non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners;

• genocide, whether of a people, nation or ethnic minorities;

• indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants.

Given the modern means of warfare, especially nuclear, biological and chemical, these crimes against humanity must be especially guarded against.

In the end it is not enough to wage war to achieve justice without treating the underlying causes. “Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war” [CCC 2317]. The Church has no illusions that true justice and peace can be attained before the Coming of the Lord. It is the duty of men of good will to work towards it, nonetheless. In the words of the spiritual dictum, we should work as if everything depended upon our efforts, and pray as if everything depended upon God.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm