An Irish blog defending and affirming the merit of Western values (of various persuasions) with an emphasis on defending the right to legitimately criticise faiths on ideological grounds as a right of free speech, and to defend Israel against the intensive campaign to demonise and destroy the State. No religion or nation should be above criticism but neither should any state or people be subjected to sustained abusive condemnation with a destructive intent that clearly exceeds what is evidential
Carlos Latuff is known for displaying an overt hatred of Jews but it would seem he also deals in risible stereotyping when it comes to his ideological friends too!
On the 19th of September an Irish parliamentary committee recommended a complete ban on imports from supposedly “illegal” West Bank Jewish settlements.
The committee will make the proposal to Eamon Gilmore, Tánaiste (second to the Prime Minister) and Foreign Affairs Minister. It would seem this process is merely a formality because Eamon Gilmore is very much behind the idea of boycotting Jewish settlements, even to the point of banning the entry of settlers into Europe!
All members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade were supportive of a submission today from the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel(EAPPI), a human rights observer organisation, calling for such a ban.
In reality this “human rights observer organisation” is in fact an extreme anti-Israeli group that has the singular propagandistic purpose of bringing Christians to the West Bank, to turn them into agents with the intent of demonising the Jewish State back home.
Both houses of the Irish parliament have been strongly pro-Palestinian for several decades. However, that bias should not have precluded professional politicians from at least providing a modest semblance of balance by engaging a group to represent Israel’s interests before recommending such drastic action.
Tell a fib often enough…
During the committee meeting EAPPI asserted the pro-Palestinian claim that Jewish settlements are the chief issue preventing peace:
Joe O’Brien, advocacy co-ordinator with EAPPI said the illegal Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank had “long been recognised by the UN, the US and the EU as the biggest barrier to peace” in the region.
The idea Jewish settlements somehow impede peace does not stand up to scrutiny either. Arafat walked out of the Camp David peace talks, chiefly over the proposal of shared sovereignty of the Temple Mount (Haram), Abbas dropped peace talks with Olmert in 2008 despite being offered almost 100% of territorial claims. Since then, Abbas has been running scared by putting the cart (settlements) before the horse (peace talks). He refused to meet Netanyahu until the very end of an ten month settlement freeze only to demand another before continuing.
Earlier this year, a senior representative of Netanyahu’s was regularly talking with PA representatives in Jordan in an attempt to restart talks. Unsurprisingly the talks-about-talks approach failed. As Ron Prosor, Israel’s Representative to the United Nations, said:
Direct negotiations are the only tool, the only way and the only path to create two-states for two peoples. Last January, Israel offered a clear proposal in Amman for restarting direct negotiations. We presented the Palestinian delegation with negotiating positions on every major issue separating the parties.
That proposal – filled with Israel’s vision for peace – continues to gather dust, as Palestinian leaders continue to pile up new pre-conditions for sitting with Israel. They are everywhere except the negotiating table.
In the summer Abbas indefinitely postponed a most unpopular meeting with a senior Israeli politician, the first such meeting in two years that had intended to be a starting point for resuming talks.
Why is Abbas unwilling to even meet? It could be said that the obsessive condemnation of Israel by the international community discourages the Palestinians from making the slightest compromise for peace. Settlements take up just 2% of the West Bank. Are certain committees and their ilk as blameworthy?
Broader motives behind the committee meeting
Whilst an Irish boycott of Jewish settlements is serious, the implications of the committee meeting can also be understood at a broader level since Ireland will be taking the rotating EU presidency in January.
Eric Byrne, TD, (Labour), said the Government should take a lead in Europe by instituting such a ban and should champion an EU-wide ban during Ireland’s presidency next year.
This perspective is in line with policy in the European Union, which has long adopted an antagonistic political stance on Israel.
The EU has trade agreements with Israel but refuses to offer the same benefit to goods from settlement areas. Yet the status quo may be tenuous. For example, the first step of a prospective pharmacological trade agreement, which would benefit EU citizens significantly, only scraped through due to two abstentions.
The prospect of an EU wide boycott may have motivated the EAPPI submission. Joe O’Brien asserted:
Ireland could take a powerfully symbolic and moral stance by banning produce from illegal Israeli settlements from the Irish market. […]
Though the value of products from the illegal settlements is small here - about €7 to €8 million a year, he said the move would be internationally very important.
Indeed, Omar Barghouti, a likely racist who is a founding member of the pro-boycott organisation PACBI, and the face of the BDS Movement today, stated:
This new Irish parliamentary move should become a model to be emulated by all European lawmakers who claim to care about human rights and international law
A deck stacked toward extremism and hypocrisy?
As has been stated by commentators previously, such a boycott is not so much an attack on settlements as an attack on Israel itself, and indeed committee member Senator Jim Walsh (Fianna Fáil party) suggested:
In the background we shouldn’t rule out banning all Israeli products.
Walsh is one of the numerous politicians (mainly IRA linked Sein Fein party members) that signed a statement demanding an end to the blockade of Gaza. He also put his name to a petition demanding the immediate release of Palestinian prisoners on hunger-strike, despite a number of them being associated with terrorism.
However, many of those reasonably familiar with the broad attitude of the Irish Parliament toward Israel would consider Walsh’s views to be relatively normal for that venue, and his anti-Israel actions to be unremarkable. This is perhaps the most worrying aspect of the issue, the fact that hardly anyone batted an eyelid. It was merely a foreseeable conclusion to decades of demonising anti-Israeli rhetoric.
It seems the committee was little more than a charade to lend their recommendations some credibility. Pat Breen was the Committee Chairman, an MP who held the honour of being Chairman of the Oireachtas Friends of Palestine group. Also present was Gerald Nash, present chairman of the same group, who has promoted the EAPPI. Other members, such as David Norris were also present. Norris is known for coming remarkably close to defending Hamas:
My colleague, Deputy Eric Byrne, raised the question of the murder of Hamas officials. I do not have much time for Hamas but it was democratically elected. We cannot subvert democracy by murdering them.
Thus, it would be undemocratic to kill Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a senior Hamas military commander assassinated in Dubai, even while in an effective state of war with the group now ruling a defacto state!
Non-members of Oireachtas Friends of Palestine also present have similarly extreme opinions, e.g. MP Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Sein Fein), who sounds more like a representative of the Iranian Embassy:
In 2005 Iran brought forward a proposition to allow co-operation with external public or private interests, moving beyond a responsibility to allow monitoring. This issue can be resolved, as neither Iran nor any neighbouring state wants to imagine a conflict based on the use of nuclear weapons. However, Iran has its back against the wall in defending itself. The international community must engage with in on the proposition made in 2005.
Mac Lochlainn frequently calls for sanctions against Israel to force it to give up its nuclear arsenal. Thus, he wants to punish a State that has never threatened another with annihilation, whilst defending a major terrorist sponsor! Little wonder he also whitewashes and supports Palestinian violence:
Does the Tánaiste understand why young people on the West Bank consider it necessary to lift stones, their only weapon of resistance…
Ironically, at a time when representatives of Irish State have been increasingly speaking of boycotting Israel, they have been making strenuous efforts to improve business ties with China, including lucrative tax arrangements and investment schemes. Could it be that the Irish State thinks economic superpowers are not subject to any moral imperative, while a small state struggling for survival ought to be isolated and delegitimised whenever possible? Probably, for as the Mayor of Athlone stated in February:
Ireland has not been preaching to the Chinese about human rights.
Eamon Gilmore speaking with a pro-Palestinian demonstrator.
Eamon Gilmore, Ireland’s foreign minister, said recently he shall seek a boycott of Jewish West Bank settlements throughout the European Union:
Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore has said Ireland may push for the EU to ban goods from Israeli settlements if Israel does not quickly change its settlements policy in Palestinian territories.
Furthermore, Gilmore also seeks the banning of some Jewish settlers from entering the EU due to “violence”:
Mr Gilmore has also said the Government may seek to have certain extremist settlers banned from the EU if they do not stop their violence in settlement areas. […]
“I think at that stage if there isn’t a change in Israeli policy in relation to settlements in particular, I think we may have to look at some additional measures,” the Tánaiste said.
These “additional measures” are largely left unsaid but if he wishes to censure settler communities then it is possible they will be treated in a similar fashion to terrorist organisations. He may suggest proscribing settler advocacy groups, individuals convicted of violence against Palestinians, and even those associated with activism. Somewhat similar ideas were proposed by EU diplomats in an official report last year, concerning “settlers” in East Jerusalem.
The statement is of note as Gilmore said he spoke for the Government, and their policy will be pursued further when Ireland gets the rotating EU presidency next January. Additionally, Gilmore holds more than the foreign ministry. By possessing the role of Tánaiste (deputy prime minister) in the current government, he stands as the second most senior politician in Ireland. He is also the leader of the Labour Party, partners in the two-party coalition government.
The EU’s frequent criticism of the Jewish State attempts to appease the Arab-Islamic world. It is also an opportunity to appear holier than thou, and to date Europe’s hostility toward Israel has resulted in a substantive amount of prejudicial hot air over human rights, which has contributed in a gradual albeit very significant way to Israel’s delegitimisation.
However, the present boycott proposal should be deemed a more intensive immediate threat, judging by overall trends in EU policy toward Israel, and European trends at a more national level, such as with the UK and Denmark, to isolate produce associated with Jewish settlements. Goods produced in the settlements have no entitlement to any EU import exemptions, unlike the rest of Israel.
The timing of Gilmore’s proposal
Gilmore announced his boycott proposal on May 14th, immediately after a meeting with his European ministerial counterparts, where he may have discussed the idea. The meeting led to the issuing of a particularly antagonistic statement on Jewish settlements in the West Bank, where the EU effectively accused Israel of ethnic cleansing, especially in relation to the small Palestinian minority in Area C, which represents a few percent of its West Bank populace.
The EU threatened Israel’s authority by refusing to accept Israeli planning law in relation to Area C of the contested West Bank, asserting the legitimacy of illegal Palestinian development. Area C is under Israel’s control via the Oslo treaty, until a peace deal is signed. This was done whilst reiterating the common EU claim that all Jewish settlement is illegal in Area C. The EU also substantially increased Palestinian developmental funding in the latter part of 2011.
Coinciding with Gilmore’s proposal, the ministers issued their communiqué on the eve of Naqba Day, a day commonly seen as a protest against Israel’s very creation in 1948. The date seems unduly coincidential, especially when considering it was the eve of the first anniversary of Naqba Day 2011, notable for causing the worst violence of the conflict the year previously. Thus, its issuing was in part likely to be a detrimental gesture of appeasement.
Context surrounding the proposal
Gilmore’s proposal appears to be an expansion of a prior report issued in 2011. Consular officials heading the EU diplomatic missions in Jerusalem and Ramallah issued a report calling for East Jerusalem to be treated as the capital of a Palestinian state. They made a significant number of unprecedented proposals, such as boycotting Israeli produce originating in East Jerusalem, and discussed EU nations banning “violent settlers in East Jerusalem.”
The report recommends that EU officials and politicians refuse to visit government offices located beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines, and decline any Israeli security in East Jerusalem. The document proposes that visiting EU officials should not avail of any Israeli businesses that operate in East Jerusalem, nor archaeological sites operated by “pro-settler organizations.” The diplomats suggest raising public awareness about settlement products, and for citizens to be informed “of the financial risks involved in purchasing property in occupied East Jerusalem.” It advocates an EU presence at house evacuations and demolitions, court hearings, and to “ensure EU intervention when Palestinians are arrested or intimidated by Israeli authorities for peaceful cultural, social or political activities in East Jerusalem.”
Some commentators felt the severity of the report, including its focus on practical overtly intrusive actions harmful to the State, represented the first concrete steps toward the EU instituting sanctions against Israel in its entirety.
During a recent session in the Irish parliament Gilmore stated:
We all want to see meaningful talks resuming between Israel and Palestine, with a view to putting in place the two-state solution. It is not realistic to have that, however, in circumstances where settlement activity is taking place. As President Abbas said, one cannot talk about a state for Palestine if one continues to build on it.
It would seem that Gilmore has accepted Abbas’ excuses for not coming to the peace table, by exaggerating rather absurdly the scale of the settlements, which merely represent around 2% of the West Bank. The EU criticised Israel for not extending Netanyahu’s settlement freeze even though the Palestinians refused to talk til the very end of the freeze! Northern-Ireland peacemaker George Mitchell said of that very process:
…the Israeli leaders agreed to halt new housing in the West Bank for 10 months. It was much less than what we asked for but more than anyone else had done. The Palestinians rejected it as worse than useless. They were strongly opposed to it. Then nine months on, there were negotiations for a couple of weeks that were discontinued by the Palestinians on the grounds that Israel wouldn’t continue the settlement freeze. What had been less than worthless a few months earlier became indispensable to continue negotiations.
Thus, the Palestinians are simply play-acting, using the settlement issue as little more than a ruse to avoid talking peace. Gilmore, and his ilk in Europe, should be reminded of the fact that Israel continued the Oslo talks during the mid-1990’s, when some of the most debased terrorist attacks, with co-operation from the PLO, took place on its soil.
Are Jewish settlements illegal?
Ronald S. Lauder, the head of the World Jewish Congress, reacted strongly to Gilmore’s proposal stating “the West Bank territories are legally disputed and not illegally occupied.”
The words “contested” or “disputed” are more appropriate than “occupied” because there was no prior legitimate sovereignty that the occupier ousted, and indeed Jordan gave up its claim over the West Bank in 1988. Additionally, the 1949 Armistice lines were explicitly designated as being temporary boundaries.
The legal status of the settlements is actually far more complex than Gilmore et al allow. Article Six of the British Mandate established the legal precedent for permitting close Jewish settlement Eastward to the Jordan River but the mandated administration never properly discharged its mission. Moreover, the UN is not entitled to declare settlements illegal. Article 80 of the Charter prevents prior international bodies being overruled.
Furthermore, Israel and the PLO both signed binding agreements. With Oslo II the settlement and border issues were to be decided in a final status agreement. Thus, the continued presence of settlements in Area C is not illegitimate.
Moreover, land swaps between Israel and the Palestinians have repeatedly been accepted by the PA. It is understood that some settlements near the Green line will be incorporated into Israel, in return for largely Arab areas in Israel.
Eamon Gilmore’s hypocrisy
For a time it seemed that Ireland might have been willing to foster a closer relationship with Israel. Eamon Gilmore visited Israel and the Palestinian territories in January. This came after Reuven Rivlin, the parliamentary speaker of Israel’s Knesset, visited Ireland in an official capacity, the first such visit by invite from the Irish State in almost thirty years.
However, cordial relations would only go so far. It was a portent of things to come when Gilmore met Netanyahu. While in front of news cameras, Netanyahu asked Gilmore at considerable length to criticise Palestinian incitement. Gilmore, who has been intensely vocal about Jewish settlements for a long time, pointedly failed to even briefly mention the issue of incitement, nor the then recent glorification of the killers of the Fogel family on PA television.
Gilmore often asserts that he is not anti-Israeli, that he merely speaks up for Palestinian rights. However, he cannot have it both ways. Anyone who advocates a boycott against Israeli settlers is anti-Israeli, even if they draw a sharp distinction with an overall boycott and seek a two-state solution, if they do not seek censure of the Palestinian side as well. Their stance places absolute blame on Israel for not seeking or obtaining peace, with seemingly no censure for continual Palestinian intransigence. The view is in stark contrast to the facts. Israel has repeatedly offered the PA the vast majority of the territory featuring settlements, virtually 100% of Palestinian territorial demands during the 2007/8 Olmert-Abbas talks, in exchange for peace.
And what of settler violence? Actually, when considering the scale of such an ugly conflict, a surprisingly modest number of Palestinians have been killed by settlers since 2000, numbering seventeen, according to anti-Israeli NGO B’Tselem, an organisation prone to exaggeration, and indeed a number of those Palestinians killed were actually engaged in violent acts against settlers.
Gilmore asserted that his stance represents that of the broader Irish government. For Irish politicians to try to isolate settlers over notions of humanitarianism, when the Irish State is bending over backwards to facilitate stronger bi-lateral ties with the Chinese in an effort to gain better access to its markets, when there are graver human rights concerns over the most basic freedoms in China, as well as the ongoing suppression of protest in occupied Tibet, surely represent a real contender in the moral hypocrisy stakes!
It should be said that Gilmore hasn’t expressed views that could be considered anti-Semitic, and he spoke against the bullying of a band intending to visit Israel, albeit after others in the government and opposition took a lead.
The EU’s manifest hatred of the Jewish State
A boycott would obviously cause a dramatic escalation in tensions between the EU and Israel but sanity may not necessarily prevail. Such a move would be popular in Europe, during the present climate where anti-Semitism has repeatedly been shown to be on the rise, even in the more sensitised German populace, and is strongly associated with populist intensely negative anti-Israeli sentiment.
The EU/EEC has been hostile to Israel for decades. Their stance has been defined by self-interest, rather than any concerns over humanitarianism. Initially, fears over oil security, particularly after the OPEC crisis, were intensified by a keener hostility from the French and Irish, both of which desired to court the Arab world economically. Since 9/11, oil security melded with a great concern over Islamism, due to an ever-increasing Muslim presence in Europe.
The EU issue frequent reports, which are derived from sources known to be highly prejudicial, that perpetuate many untruths about the conflict. It displays a shockingly lax attitude toward terrorism and the incitement of violence.
It has often been stated that ceaselessly condemning one side will not achieve peace when both need to compromise meaningfully. This is an obvious point that experienced politicians would understand, and while not all within the EU adopt such a hostile position, the most Israel can ever hope for in terms of balance is vague and infrequent words about terrorism.
In 2010 twenty six European leaders, including high-level former EU leaders, such as Javier Solana, issued a letter calling for boycotts and sanctions targeting Israel over settlement construction. They called for the EU to stop the importation of settlement products, and demanded that Israel fund the bulk of aid to Palestinians. They demanded that the EU reiterate its position that it will not recognise any changes to the June 1967 Israeli boundaries, that a Palestinian state must be “territory equivalent to 100% of the territory occupied in 1967”, its capital East Jerusalem. They wanted the EU to give Israel an ultimatum that if their demands were not met in six months, the EU would seek an end to the US peace process in favour of a UN solution!
This oddly pugnacious attitude toward Israel stands in stark contrast to its soft approach to that of other conflicts, the only exception being the present civil war in Syria, albeit a conflict on a very different scale, where at least 10,000 civilians have been killed, 65,000+ are missing, and 200,000+ imprisoned, a toll caused by civilian protest against the Assad regime, rather than defensive necessity! Not surprisingly, the EU speaks in harmony with the UN and the Arab League on this issue, as they do regarding Israel.
Is the EU’s stance merely a result of ignorance about the malignancy of the intent of the Arab-Islamic world toward Israel? Well perhaps not! The EU’s High Representative, Catherine Ashton, effectively compared the murder of Jewish children by an Islamic terrorist in Toulouse, with the death of children due to a defensive conflict against Hamas in Gaza, thus echoing the views of the terrorist himself, and of similar killers in the past. Thus, there seems to be a tacit understanding of terrorism against Israel.
Indeed, the EU has for a long time displayed a bizarrely disinterested attitude with regard to its funding. Of the enormous sums it sends to the PA, it has been noted for some time that a very substantial portion goes to terrorists and the families of "martyrs".
Neither is it unprecedented to express sympathy over the death of Hamas operatives. One EU member threatened to prosecute a number of political and military leaders over the killing of leading terrorist Salah Shehadeh, suggesting some see Hamas as a legitimate organisation.
At a political level, the EU’s shift to an ever-hardening stance was illustrated when they expressed the intent to fund Hamas in a unity government, and the terrorist group is also reputed to be holding talks with five EU countries at present. Thus, it can be said that the very last of the EU’s scruples are being eroded away, and sooner or later the political entity shall act on in a far more concrete fashion against Israel.
Although Hamas is an EU proscribed organisation, it is notable that many individuals closely associated with the group freely advocate for Hamas in Europe, a situation contrasting with the US. Interestingly, the EU was reluctant to proscribe Hamas, and seemingly little has been done to stop the extensive funding network that exists in Europe.
Potential consequences, and a petition for change
A developing boycott would be extremely dangerous to Israel not only because it would substantially worsen the perception of its already compromised legitimacy. It would cross a psychological barrier in the West if such a major entity as the EU was to boycott settlements, and single out settlers for legal censure. It can easily be envisaged that individual states would go further in this boycott since the mechanism would have been legitimised by the EU itself.
Reputedly, concerns have been expressed in Israel that the debate over exports from settlements will in turn have a bearing on all their exports to Europe. Indeed there is likely to be some rippling effect after the first stone is cast.
With Israel unable to even talk peace with an intransigent Palestinian Authority, which is well aware that Israel’s demonisation is sapping its maneuverability, the door will then open for a boycott of settlers and non-settlers alike.
A boycott may in time spread to Western nations outside the EU, becoming a normative feature of foreign policy.
One of the few active pro-Israel campaigners in Ireland started a petition, hosted by Avaaz. It proved popular but Avaaz deleted it without warning. They claimed it broke their “community standards” without citing any specific rules. Avaaz has intensively supported the Palestinian cause since its founding.
The organiser of the deleted petition has started up another. Although starting at a disadvantage, support by pro-Israel advocates, through social media etc., will greatly aid the regaining momentum.
Conclusion
The EU’s extraordinary behaviour toward Israel could be characterised as if they see the Jewish State as a wayward colony, over which they have some sort of entitlement, It manifests as an arrogance that often crosses into bullying.
What does it say about self-appointed peace-makers, when they are unwilling to even briefly speak in public about Palestinian incitement, an immense problem that has pervaded Palestinian culture for decades? The answer has to be none too flattering, and the irony is increased a notch with Gilmore proposing legal censure against Jewish settlers.
Eamon Gilmore is right to be concerned about the continued viability of a two-state solution over the conflict but it needs to be pointed out that the grievance felt by many Palestinian Arabs is not driven by the settlement issue. It has been shown repeatedly, such as in polls, that a majority do not seek a long-term peaceful co-existence with Israeli’s.
This conflict is not about the settlements. It is about Israel’s existence in Dar al-Islam. The flat denial that Islamism is the true force behind the violence against Israel, when we see the effects of it blighting Africa and Asia on a daily basis in the news, is an affront to the truth. Why is the West willing to hand it over, akin to Czechoslovakia in 1938?
It is an effort to isolate Israel from the Greater Western sphere, an effort by Europeans to shield themselves from the Islamism that threatens them due to an ever-growing Muslim populace. The only peace that could ever be achieved by their approach is a Carthaginian peace, where Israel is forced into the role of sacrificial lamb but one that will not satisfy since it has little to do with the recent Middle-East upheavals, nor the conflict between Sunni and Shi’ite.
The popular Israeli blog Anne's Opinions features a synopsis of the above article, and offers further analysis, such as the way in which the EU’s funding is used.
The Knesset speaker’s visit to Ireland, Irish F.M. Eamon Gilmore’s visit to Gaza, and the looming visit of an anti-Israeli Irish President
Minister Eamon Gilmore with UNRWA commissioner-general Filippo Grandi in Gaza.
Reuven Rivlin, the parliamentary speaker of Israel’s Knesset, recently visited Ireland in an official capacity. The visit was of significance because the two nations have had a difficult relationship for a long time, largely due to persistent Irish criticism of the Jewish State over the previous decades. Some background to the visit is dealt with in an earlier article.
There were some predictions that the visit could be a difficult ride for Mr. Rivlin, as was suggested in the press release on the Knesset website:
This week Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin leaves for an official reciprocal visit to Ireland, despite the shadow of critical and even hostile attitudes towards Israel prevailing in Irish media and public opinion.
The opinion was understandable. There is a genuine and sometimes baffling hostility expressed by a significant number of Irish people toward Israel. This even includes a substantial contingent of the Irish parliament itself. Surprisingly however, the visit has been portrayed as a positive experience, and has yielded a number of developments! The visit’s status was upgraded. Mr. Rivlin stayed in the official guesthouse for visiting dignitaries, and unexpectedly he also met with President Michael D. Higgins.
Rivlin met with the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade on January the 18th. It was apparently a polite affair, despite the presence of Israeli bashers like Senator David Norris. Mr. Rivlin also invited a delegation from the Committee to visit Israel to continue discussion on the Middle-East peace process!
Some unsurprising hostility
Regrettably, the visit was not all sweetness and light. That same day Rivlin was forced to enter through the back door of the Irish Parliament out of fear for his safety, due to a relatively aggressive pro-Palestinian protest, where one Martin O’Quigley of the IPSC stated: “We are here to protest the presence in Dail Eireann of an Israeli Paramilitary delegation.” A remarkable assertion considering Israel has been a democratic sovereign nation for six decades! It is as if Mr. Quigley had just emerged from a time machine that jumped from 1947! He may have meant to say "parliamentary" but probably not because his statement reflects the IPSC’s unwillingness to accept Israel’s actual existence as exemplified by their conduct at the Israeli Film Festival last November when they chanted “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, and intimidated visitors.
Yet such protests were to be expected, and the stance of the IPSC was just as predictable, citing some common pro-Palestinian tales. They claimed the blockade of Gaza was a “siege” but no siege would include the transportation of massive amounts of aid through its borders by an opponent. They claimed erroneously that Israel wasn’t allowing construction materials into Gaza, and blamed Israel for a failure to provide clean water, when Hamas has repeatedly declined Israeli offers to repair said infrastructure. They complained about “peaceful” Palestinian protestors being tear gassed etc., by the Israeli forces on a weekly basis, perhaps in reference to the mythically peaceful protests at Bil’in which always result in significant violence usually initiated by Palestinian youths. Quigley stated “Also in the West Bank Israeli settlements are continuing to expand taking Palestinian land.” It is an outright lie to suggest Israeli settlements are taking in more land, in fact Israel has not recognised a new settlement since the mid 1990’s, and dismantles settlement outposts. They need to freshen up such well-worn propaganda.
Sein Fein, the most intensely pro-Palestinian of the large parties in the Irish Parliament, expressed some hostility to Rivlin’s presence, with their Foreign Affairs spokesman, Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, absurdly claiming to speak for the Irish people in this respect. A symbolic gesture was made when party leader Gerry Adams and a coterie of his TD’s and Senators met the Palestinian emissary to Ireland. Nonetheless Adams uttered words of welcome to Rivlin at the Dail.
How pro-Palestinian are the Irish?
During Rivlin’s visit he stated, “In Israel, we get the impression that Ireland is constantly denouncing us.” Indeed Ireland is among the leading pro-Palestinian voices in the West. It consistently votes against Israel’s interests at EU forums and at the UN. Similarly Irish pro-Palestinian activism is particularly intensive. The Irish presence on blockade-breaking flotillas is always substantial, an odd fact considering the small national populace.
Rivlin noted that Israel enjoys some sympathy for its positions although “the criticism towards Israel from Ireland is very severe.”
It seems Rivlin discovered some subtleties. Whilst the pro-Palestinian movement leads any debate by being the most organised and shouting the loudest, believing its hype will make Ireland appear to be an intimidating anti-Semitic cesspool on a par with the likes of Norway and Sweden. The truth is that the vast majority of people just follow what is said in the media. Ireland is a fairly distant nation, and most people are not invested to any extent in the conflict, despite the intensive coverage it gets in the news.
The reality is that while Ireland is anti-Israel, and a segment of the populace is motivated by anti-Semitism, most people just don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other, and know relatively little about the issue. They simply accept the word of the media and associated pundits, who tend to be anti-Israel, sometimes virulently. Of course there are other elements to consider but this rather banal explanation addresses to a significant degree the Irish take on Israel.
Oddly enough, Rivlin’s relatively positive visit received surprisingly little coverage in the mainstream Irish media even though it was the most important Israeli visit since Belfast born Chaim Herzog, then president of Israel, came over in the Summer of ‘85.
Some background, and the shift to “a historical closeness.”
Despite the aforementioned hostility, the Irish administration made an effort to be polite, as the wording on the Presidential website indicated: “President receives H.E. Mr. Reuven Rivlin, M.K. Speaker of the Knesset on a courtesy call”.
As the Knesset press-release noted, Rivlin was the highest Israeli politician invited to Ireland for an official visit in over two decades, and it also quoted the Irish Foreign Ministry as stating the visit would mark “a historical closeness.”
This thawing of relations may in part be due to a recent change in governance, after a devastating general election, in which the predominant role (since the 1930’s) of the Fianna Fail party evaporated, due to their disastrous handling of the economy. The present coalition government comprises of the centrist party Fine Gael, which is perhaps the least antagonistic political party toward the Jewish state, and Labour, which being a leftist party, is a mixture of members who are hostile and others far less so.
The ill-intent toward Israel may be in part due to an undercurrent of post-Holocaust anti-Semitism which survived in Ireland, perhaps because it was uniquely isolated as a neutral state on the periphery of Europe during World War II. Ireland never had anything more than a very small Jewish community, which would have altered the balance of discourse on such topics. Thus a silent anti-Semitism survived in a form intermingled with Catholicism and Irish Republicanism. It led to a near-absolute acceptance of pro-Palestinianism amongst the political elites, especially Fianna Fail, which is an offshoot of the Original IRA/Sein Fein, and the more radical left, which includes Sein Fein today. Indeed Fianna Fail and Sein Fein representatives made up part of the Irish flotilla contingent. Today there is no effective dissenting voice in Ireland.
Late last year a minor squabble broke out when an unnamed Israeli diplomatic official stated “The Irish government is feeding its people with anti-Israel hatred.” The article made a number of errors and the stance of the Israeli official was unjustified. He should have been directing his criticism of the Irish parliament as a whole because it features an increasing hard-left contingent, and the coalition government was continually attacked on all sides of the political establishment for not being aggressive enough with Israel when fourteen Irish citizens were detained in November, after another Gaza bound flotilla attempted to break the blockade.
The prospective visit of the Irish anti-Israeli President
Perhaps the most surprising development is the news that the President of Ireland, Michael D. Higgins, may be invited to visit Israel. Apparently such executive decisions have to be made by Israeli President Shimon Peres. This development comes after Reuven Rivlin was surprised to obtain an invite to meet with Mr. Higgins, possibly suggesting the Irish President was initially reluctant to do so.
Mr. Rivlin said he asked the President if he would like to visit Israel: “You can meet everyone in our neighbourhood”. Apparently he would also be welcome to meet Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, in the West Bank, and a visit to Gaza may also possible, allowing for considerations over security.
Rivlin stated that Higgins told him he was not anti-Israel! However, Higgins, a senior politician in the Labour party, has been one of Ireland’s most intense critics of Israel for years. His hectoring tone remained a near-constant until he ran for the office of president last year so there is little evidence his attitude has changed to any extent.
Higgins advanced repeatedly a stance of boycott against Israel, whilst not affording any significant criticism toward the Palestinian opposition. In fact he went as far as to defend Hamas as being Gaza’s the legitimate democratic representatives
The Labour Party has consistently condemned attacks on civilian targets in Israel, but it has to be acknowledged that Hamas is the democratically elected administration in Gaza.
Higgins has often displayed a highly prejudicial view of the conflict. For example, one parliamentary debate after the 2010 Gaza flotilla confrontation, illustrates a starkly belligerent attitude toward Israel:
In his speech he asserted that the children of Gaza were starving, which has clearly been proven to be an untruth. He continually attacked Israel as no respecter of international law. A blockade is legal when it has been shown that those being blockaded pose a serious military risk, which a given blockade can minimise, as the Palmer report asserted. The flotillas had intended to break the blockade, which can only be maintained legally if it is enforced effectively.
Higgins also cited as illegal the collective punishment of civilians. The people of Gaza effectively brought Hamas to power on a mandate of further conflict, and whilst collective punishment should be avoided, military action in a populated region, especially where the relevant military organisation is embedded in densely populated areas, will inevitably lead to civilian losses. When facing rocket attacks with a renewed vigour, the Israeli State had little option but to respond after the populace near Gaza had put up with attacks for years, leading to a substantial loss of the population of Sderot, for example.
Higgins also claimed that Israel made no distinction between the civilian and military. Yet Hamas themselves admitted in September 2010 that at least half the losses in Gaza were their own, which coincides with Israel’s estimates rather than those of pro-Palestinian NGO’s and the UN. Faced with conflict in a region with a high population density of around 4,000 per square mile, it is actually a testament to Israel’s care that half or less of the total deaths were militants. Whilst briefly mentioning the rockets in Sderot perhaps in an attempt to appear balanced, he otherwise attacked Israel continually.
Absurdly Higgins separated Hamas’ political wing from its military wing. There is no real distinction, with supposed moderates like Ismail Haniyeh calling for blood. Clearly Higgins creates a false dichotomy that suits an agenda. All members of Hamas subscribe to the same charter, of which Chapter Seven calls for the genocide of the Jewish populace the world over, and the destruction of Israel. Higgins has called for the removal of Hamas from the EU proscription list, and sought communication between Hamas and the Irish State.
Higgins’ remarkably pugnacious attitude was evident when he stated that he was particularly outraged that those who advocate bringing Hamas in from the cold could be considered supporters of terrorism! He was also very angry that there should be any question about the intent of those on board the flotilla ships, a remarkable stance when the only serious violence occurred on the Mavi Mariner, a ship owned by the IHH, a group shown to have links with terrorist organisations. He even wanted an end to what he claimed was the “blackening” of the reputation of Gaza UNRWA head John Ging. Ging is notoriously one-sided in his exclusive condemnation of Israel. Despite trumpeting democratic values by reminding us that Hamas were democratically elected, it would seem Higgins is no respecter of free speech, the cornerstone of democracy, as he wants an absolute end to all dissenting opinion on pro-Palestinianism!
Higgins’ anti-American views led to the courting of individuals like Nicaraguan dictator Daniel Ortega who aided terrorists in the past, and a disturbing stance regarding 9/11. On a programme called Ireland AM (TV3), just one day after 9/11 itself, Higgins was extremely critical of US foreign policy. He came uncomfortably close to justifying the act at a time when it was thought up to 50,000 could have died!
In 2007 Higgins was to stand on the same platform as Ibrahim Mousawi, then head of Hizbullah’s Al Manar TV, which numerous Western countries have banned due to its intensive anti-Semitic content. Mousawi has referred to Jews as “a lesion on the forehead of history”, and other niceties.
As a result, the fact that Michael D. Higgins reputedly expressed a desire to visit Israel, and speak in the Knesset, may be a puzzling one, and should be met with some reservations. Considering his past conduct, it is legitimate to query whether or not he is a suitable figure to address the Knesset itself.
The Foreign Minister’s visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories
The week following Mr. Rivlin’s visit, Eamon Gilmore, Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Tanaiste (deputy prime-minister), and leader of the Labour Party, visited the region. He began his visit in Gaza on January the 27th. Like Higgins, Gilmore has been strongly critical of Israel for some time although his stance is not as thoroughly one-sided.
During his time in Gaza, Gilmore reiterated his call for Israel to end the blockade of Gaza. He met Palestinian NGOs, UN representatives including the head of UNRWA, and UN operated schools and projects. He did not meet Hamas representatives, which Israel requests of visiting dignitaries due to worries over legitimisation. Significantly, Gilmore was scheduled to stay at a hotel in East Jerusalem for one night of his four-day tour. Nonetheless his criticism of Israel’s approach to Gaza was harsh:
It is dispiriting to see how little real change there has been in Gaza since the end of the Israeli military operation against Gaza three years ago.
What I have seen today has reinforced my belief that it is utterly unjust as well as counterproductive to subject Gaza to these restrictions, to choke off its economy, and to reduce its people to a state of complete dependency.
Gilmore didn’t seem to quite grasp the true motives of the Gaza blockade-busting flotilla exercises due to his description of their behaviour: "Flotilla is a voluntary activity by individuals and organisations -- they do that obviously in response to the blockade." Indeed their response is partly due to the blockade but their intent is clearly to provoke a confrontation with Israel, which would of course cause an international furore, in a further effort to demonise and delegitimise the Jewish State. Their humanitarian stance, expressed as a wish to deliver small amounts of aid of often dubious quality, when other avenues are open to them, tends to be accepted without question by Irish politicians, and the mainstream media, even though it stretches credulity to breaking point.
The following day Gilmore travelled to Ramallah where he met Mahmoud Abbas and other members of the Palestinian Authority. On Sunday he visited Israel, to speak with Binyamin Netanyahu and foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman. He raised his concerns about Gaza, and advocated confidence building measures. Lieberman asserted that he wants a breakthrough but it must be a sustained effort without the PA constantly seeking excuses to pull out.
The contrasting approaches toward incitement and settlement
When Gilmore met Netanyahu, in front of the cameras, prior to proper discussions, both gave short speeches in the form of a sort of slightly uncomfortable dialogue. Netanyahu spoke first and pointedly asked Gilmore about the incitement to hatred forwarded by the Palestinian Authorities. He specifically cited the glorification of the killers of the Fogel family on PA television, and the recent incitement to kill Jews by the Mufti of Jerusalem:
I hope you demand that condemnation [presumably from the Irish State] because the only way to move to peace is to prepare our people for peace and not for brutal terror. We hope that these talks will continue. We're prepared to continue these talks, we hope the Palestinian Authority decides to resume the talks and back away from terror and glorification of killers. This is our hope. I hope you can help us with that.
Unfortunately Gilmore didn’t address or even allude to that point at all. At the end of his three-day visit, Gilmore stated:
I’m aware that Ireland has been characterised in the Israeli press as the most anti-Israel member of the EU but I don’t think this is accurate. There is a great deal of goodwill in Ireland for Israel. Ireland’s support for Palestinian self-determination shouldn’t be interpreted as hostility to the state of Israel.
Whilst it is fair to suggest that Ireland is not the most anti-Israeli nation in the EU, Ireland has still had a constant policy of criticism toward Israel for decades, with Irish politicians having an inability to take seriously the grave threats the Jewish State faces. One such example is the Bahrain Declaration of 1980 which was forged between Irish and Bahraini politicians. The text demanded that Israel return to the 1967 borders with no explicit corresponding demands made on the then highly destructive PLO.
In the same vein, Gilmore criticised Israel again for the continued development of north-east Jerusalem, after he personally went to visit a site referred to as the East 1 or E1 project.
E1 is intended to make the Israeli city of Ma'ale Adumim part of a contiguous Israeli territory. Although the strip of land is largely uninhabited, located very close to the 1949 Armistice Line, and Ma'ale Adumim is specified as staying in Israeli hands in the two-state peace plans, such as the Clinton Plan of 2000, the international community still gets up in arms about work on a piece of territory that is likely to remain in Israeli hands anyway, come a two-state peace settlement. Work on the territory is legitimate because it comes under the remit of Israel under Oslo II (Area C relating to Jewish settlement), and a solution to the issue of settlements is explicitly specified as a part of the final status negotiations. Remarkably the international community even lambasts Israel over the removal of unauthorised Palestinian construction on the area.
Meanwhile the International Community remains resoundingly silent about the extreme incitements to violence, as Gilmore was when asked at length about the issue. Considering such starkly contrasting approaches to both parties in the conflict, it should not be difficult to understand why many in Israel view Ireland, and broadly the International community, with a level of concern and even suspicion.
Some conclusions, and the prospect of peace
It is difficult to determine where these visits will lead. They may well herald a new era of diplomacy thanks in part to the visit of Irish parliamentary speaker, Sean Barrett, in 2011. However, this increased diplomatic contact is likely to pose significant challenges, which could worsen the relationship between the two states in the long run.
When Chaim Herzog visited in the Summer of 1985, he was met with protests, and was heard to utter the words “Clear up your own backyard first” in Cork at the time. This was in reference to the conflict in Northern Ireland, which has been resolved to a significant extent. This success seems to influence the confidence of Irish peacemakers, to some degree, when it comes to the conflict in the Middle East.
Prior to Eamon Gilmore’s visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories, he set out his vision of what a successful peace process would look like:
I accord a high priority to the resolution of the conflict in the Middle East. I will continue to do all I can to support and encourage both Israelis and Palestinians to work actively to achieve this, and this will be a key feature of my intended visit to the region later this month. I will also continue to urge a stronger involvement by the EU, the Quartet and other parties. The extent to which progress is made will of course depend on the strength of engagement by the international community as a whole…
There is no reason to doubt Gilmore’s sincerity, and perhaps this renewed effort at better diplomatic relations with Israel is part of an idealistic effort to achieve peace. However, the problem with Gilmore’s approach is illustrated by history. The international community made great efforts, such as with Oslo and Camp David. Making even more of an effort won’t necessarily yield positive results.
Rivlin pointedly told Gilmore that Ireland should not support the Palestinian right of return, which would “de facto negate the right of the Jewish State to exist.” Gilmore replied by saying that Ireland experienced conflict between two populations, and eventually came to an agreement. Apparently Gilmore stated “If we can reach an agreement, so can you.” If he made such an assertion, it illustrates a deep misunderstanding.
It is all too easy to draw parallels between the two conflicts but in truth one cannot be transposed on the other. Since sectarian conflict broke out in the 1960’s, the level of demonisation and dehumanisation of the opposing sides in the Irish conflict was not remotely as intensive as it has been in the Middle-East since the foundation of Israel. Such dehumanisation, at a racial and religious level, has led to frequent mass celebrations of the most grossly debased acts of Palestinian-Arab terrorism that took innocent civilian life. Violent conflict was of course celebrated during the troubles in Northern Ireland but it was not remotely an analogue of the depravity exhibited continually in the Middle East.
For those that may think such an assertion untrue, it should be pointed out that while the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland were very nasty, Sein Fein/IRA were not the most popular Republican party until the turn of the Millennium, after the peace process was very well established. Rather, the pro-peace SDLP were the predominant party. Thus a majority in the Catholic community did not agree with the IRA’s violence, even if many disliked the heavy British presence. Similarly, cross community relations were often quite positive including at a religious level. Thus a very large proportion of Catholics and Protestants displayed a significant level of tolerance toward each other during the conflict, and during this era, tensions between Catholics and Protestants in the South did not worsen. In fact they improved! By contrast Islamic leaders are a great source of incitement. Thus Gilmore’s confidence is unjustified.
Ireland’s only Jewish member of Parliament, Alan Shatter, who is currently Minister for Justice, spoke at the opening of ‘The Shoah in Europe’ exhibition in Dublin recently. His words included concern about Ireland’s approach toward Israel:
When viewing this exhibition no one should assume that what happened in the past cannot be repeated in the future. The truth is we should pay greater attention to the dead. We must never forget the lessons of the past when we make, or urge others to make, decisions which impact on the future.
Reuven Rivlin, a member of Likud, and the speaker of Israel’s unicameral parliament, has begun an official visit to Ireland today at the invitation of his Irish counterpart, Sean Barrett, the speaker of Dáil Eireann, who Mr. Rivlin had previously hosted in Israel. The visit is bound to cause controversy.
Ireland and Israel have had a less than harmonious relationship over the years so the significance of Mr. Rivlin’s visit has been highlighted by Israeli officials, noting that high-level bilateral contact between Ireland and Israel are relatively rare. The visit was upgraded in terms of status, and he is being hosted in the official guesthouse where British Monarch Queen Elizabeth II, and United States President Barack Obama, stayed last year.
Mr Rivlin will meet recently elected Irish President Michael D. Higgins. The meeting may be a frosty one since Mr. Higgins is avowedly anti-Israel, going as far as to speak forcefully in defence of Hamas and some four years ago was to stand on the same platform as Ibrahim Mousawi, then head of Hizbullah’s notoriously anti-Semitic “Al Manar TV”. The significance of the meeting is purely diplomatic as role of President is largely a ceremonial affair.
Perhaps more significantly Mr. Rivlin will also meet Eamon Gilmore, Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Tanaiste (second to the Taoiseach or prime-minister), and the leader of the Labour Party. Mr. Gilmore is also due to visit Israel next week. Mr. Gilmore, has also been strongly critical of Israel but his stance does not appear to be as one-sided as some, for example he visited the Israeli film festival last November that was subjected to an ugly intimidation campaign by the PSC.
Mr. Rivlin will also attend sessions of the Dáil and the Seannad (the respective lower and upper houses of Parliament). His presence is bound to generate a good deal of hostility given the powerful and highly vocal pro-Palestinian contingent in both chambers, which most recently caused a lot of noise over the detention of Irish citizens sailing on the Gaza flotilla late last year, even though no serious harm came to any of them during capture by Israeli forces or through the subsequent days of detention in Israel.
Hard-left Dail TDs from the United Left Alliance were especially critical. Joe Higgins, Socialist Party leader, was particularly aggressive in one speech where he lambasted Eamon Gilmore repeatedly for apparently not doing enough, asserted that Israel had “humiliated” Ireland, whilst repeatedly demanding the expulsion of the Israeli Ambassador. This was an extremist stance to adopt since it was widely reported at the time that impartial members of the Irish Embassy in Tel Aviv had met the “activists” each day, and affirmed they were being treated well.
There was uproar in the Seannad for several days during the detention of the members of the flotilla. The hysterical attitude of some senators could be fairly described as comical. Terry Leyden, leader of the pro-Palestinian parliamentary group, demanded that Eamon Gilmore fly to Israel in the government jet to bring the fourteen on board the flotilla home. Senator Tom Sheahan appeared to call for military intervention by the EU and UN against Israel! Thus it won’t be an easy visit for Mr. Rivlin.
“Until both peoples come to the realisation that peace is a mutual interest, there will be no peace”
The reception may be particularly unwelcome because Mr. Rivlin is broadly considered to be a right wing politician. He is a member of the dreaded “Likud”, currently the largest party in a government coalition, and oft described as hawkish in the media. He criticised Sharon’s decision to withdraw from Gaza in 2005, which was an appropriate move in the absence of a peace agreement. Mr. Rivlin spoke to the Irish Times ahead of his visit, giving some insight into his opposition toward concessions on Jewish settlement prior to talks:
First of all you need agreement between the two peoples, not just between the two governments. This would mean that the other side recognises Israel as a fact. Unfortunately, there is a rejection from the Palestinian side, or should I say from the Islamic side, to accept this. The Knesset endorsed the Oslo peace accords and even prime minister Netanyahu accepted the two-state solution. But, from the other side, there is no acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state, and that by creating two states we would be bringing an end to the conflict. Until both peoples come to the realisation that peace is a mutual interest, there will be no peace. Only when the Palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish state will we have peace.
One of the great problems in the international community is the abject failure to confront the extensive intolerance commonly displayed toward the Jewish State by the Palestinian side, whether it be Hamas, Hizbullah or even the supposedly moderate Fatah/PLO. However, Mr. Rivlin’s view on reconciliation between peoples, and the acknowledgement of differing needs was also a valuable lesson during the Northern Irish peace process. It may be one aspect the Irish officials will come to appreciate.
Importantly, he affirmed the need for a principally Jewish state, which is particularly relevant at a time of increasing intolerance world-wide, whilst also affirming the need for both peoples to live together:
We are destined to live together. We have to have a state that remains a safe haven for Jews worldwide, with a law of return permitting Jews to immigrate.
When asked “What do you hope to achieve from your trip to Ireland?”, Mr. Rivlin replied:
I have always admired the Irish people and we have a lot in common. Both our nations fought against imperialism for the right to self-determination. I know there is widespread support in Ireland for the Palestinian cause. We would like the Irish to understand that among friends we can agree to disagree. It is legitimate to criticise us but first you must know the facts. They must understand that if a future Palestinian state could threaten the very existence of the state of Israel then we must tread very carefully.
The response denotes acknowledgement that Ireland is one of the most pro-Palestinian nations in the West. It seems probable that the objectives of the visit will be quite modest. Mr. Rivlin strikes a careful balance between acknowledging that criticism of Israel is legitimate in itself but implies that the sort of black-and-white pro-Palestinian advocacy which only blames Israel, whilst excusing or completely ignoring the threats Israel faces, is unjust. This seems to be the message he will push during the visit.
An Extremely biased article by the Irish Examiner appeared on Monday the 7th of November entitled "Gaza flotilla takeover ‘put lives at risk’". The article was by one Ann Cahill, their "Europe Correspondent". It gave free rein to the statements of dishonest anti-Israeli demagogues Fintan Lane and Paul Murphy, whilst failing to even briefly mention that the Irish consular assistance from the Embassy in Tel Aviv affirmed they were in good health. The Irish Examiner has been notably pro-Palestinian in its coverage for some time, and has crossed an ethical line, such as with active promotion of pro-Palestinian events. The article prompted Dermot Meleady to write a strongly worded email to Ms. Cahill on the day of publication:
--------
From: Dermot Meleady To: news@examiner.ie Sent: Monday, 7 November 2011, 20:44:01 Subject: For attention of Ann Cahill Dear Ms. Cahill Your article in Monday's Irish Examiner on the intercepted Gaza flotilla makes me wonder what has happened to journalistic standards. There are several interesting aspects to this story, aspects in which the facts are contested. First, there is the question of aid. The organisers had said there would be $30,000 worth of aid on board the ships. Yet on the Israeli navy video, we can hear the activists say they have no cargo, and the Israelis say they found no aid (or weapons) on board when the ships docked at Ashdod. What is the truth? It's important to know, since we have Micheal Martin and other calling the flotilla a 'humanitarian aid' convoy, while the Israelis call it simply a provocation. Second, there is the conflict between what the Irish consul said at Ashdod -- that all the activists were in good health -- and the allegations made by Messrs. Lane, Murphy et al that they were maltreated by the Israeli authorities. The suggestion by the activists that a water hose could start a fire on board the Saoirse might have been expected to generate some scepticism, but none was evident in the article. Third, the incongruity of the activists claiming to have been 'kidnapped', yet resisting being sent home from a country they profess to hate might have incurred comment, but there was none. Fourth, there is the conflict between the measured tone of Eamon Gilmore's statement about the safety of the Irish citizens on board and your presentation of this as 'condemnation'. Fifth, you seem to accept at face value the claim of the activists that the flotilla's problems in making the journey to Gaza in July were the result of 'sabotage', despite an assertion to the contrary by the Turkish Government. Again, it would have been nice to have heard both sides reported at least. And surely it would have added to the enlightenment of readers to have been told that 7 of the 14 Irish activists are members of Sinn Fein including former members of the IRA -- i.e. hardly 'humanitarians' of unblemished record. I thought it was a journalist's function to be curious, ask questions, try to find the truth. Instead the readers were served with a reprint of a propaganda release by the Palestinian Solidarity movement, with a little added gloss. If you are really a campaigner with a specific political agenda to push, and not a serious journalist willing to let readers make up their own minds based on the facts, perhaps in future you might preface your reports with this information for the benefit of readers? Yours sincerely Dermot Meleady.
