Friday, July 07, 2006

Could Labour and Sinn Fein join up.

There has been much talk of late of Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail getting in bed together. But what of the more obvious join up of Sinn Fein and Labour they both already agree in awarding terrorism.

Recently Labour brought forward a motion.

That Seanad √Čireann,

—noting with alarm the deteriorating relations between Israel and the Palestinian people,

—convinced that violence in this situation is both morally unjustified and politically counter productive,

—nevertheless recognises the disproportionate burden of suffering inflicted on the Palestinian people by the actions of the Government and armed forces of Israel and the clear signs that the democratically elected government of the Palestinian territories has made considerable concessions to Israel and therefore calls for:

1) an immediate relaxation of the EU embargo on dealing with the democratically elected government of Palestinian Territories or failing that, the application of appropriate sanctions against Israel in the light of its repeated and persistent defiance of UN resolutions and breaches of international law,

2) an immediate and unequivocal cease fire by all parties to the conflict, and

3) immediate negotiations between Israel and the democratically elected government of the Palestinian Territories leading to an internationally recognised Palestinian State on the entire territory occupied in 1967 with its capital in Jerusalem.”

SO lets look at this motion. Firstly the noting with alarm bit. What started all this in Palestine? Islamic terrorists kidnapping an Israeli solider. Now does anyone notice that when Labour talk about America kidnapping people to render them to Gitmo. It is wrong (and it is) yet when it is carried out by a terrorist group that targets civilians. (The fact that this guy was a solider is a bit of unusual for Hamas) they believe they should be rewarded.

Firstly the embargo was put on Hamas because they are a terrorist organisation they agree with killing people. They now agree with kidnapping someone. Or to put it in terms that might make Labour angry. Hamas approve of rendereding a prisoner. So basically a group carries out a terrorist act and Labour believes they should get what they want. That certainly is one area that Labour and Sinn Fein can agree on.

On point two I have no problem with unless of course the return of the solider is part of that agreement which seemingly happened after the motion.

On point 3 I have to say this is very funny. “negotiations between Israel and the democratically elected government of the Palestinian Territories” excellent stuff couldn’t agree more the table is a better way then rendering to solve problems. However they also say “with its capital in Jerusalem” now one of the very major issues if not the biggest with the middle east is the issue of Jerusalem. Yet Labour seem not to believe that this the major issue of the conflict should be negotiated that it should be dictated to the Israeli people that they are going to lose the thing that means the most to them. How very democratic. Now I don’t pretend to know the solution to the Middle East but one thing I do know is that the situation with Jerusalem is going to have be negotiated not set as a pre-condition.

Now I could go into the Left wingness of Labour and Sinn Fein and where they agree or indeed the Offical IRA connections to Labour. To suggest some future coming together but I think that Labour belief in awarding terrorism and Sinn Fein support for terrorism. Suggest that the moral barrier (terrorism) that blocks Sinn Fein from the other parties in the Dail may well be a smaller barrier for Labour.

6 comments:

Cian said...

Just one thing, you can arguably invert that entire logic and suggest that supporters of a state which is effectively keeping Gaza as an open jail are also supporters of terrorism.

The wonders of the morality of terror is that the morality is not clear it is arbitrary. We could get into the whole issue but I am simply suggesting that both sides have justification for calling the other party terrorists.

Calling Labours support for palestine at a time of occupation sympathy for terror makes the usual mistake of excusing israeli terror as the necessary reaction. Labours motion may have gone too far but recognition that Israeli reaction to this has escalated the crisis instead of resolving it is also a fair point.

Yes the kidnapping did begin this proces but mass-punishment is illegal under the geneva convention and the response of Israel could be seen as not the most morally upright.

All im saying is that the above is valid argument and parties which take the opposite tack to Labour may also have less moral issues with Sinn Fein.

On the moral issues the notion that their is a fixed morality in politics regarding political violence is an uncertain one. Its more of a case by case scenario and to be sure the violence in palestine and israel doesnt help anyone.

Mr Estranged said...

For your first point, Palestine should be considered a state at war, it has the right to defend its territories, a foreign occupying force should be considered a legitimate target.
There is no comparison to the US in this regard, they arrest civilians under suspicion of terrorist affiliation, imprison them without trial in harsh circumstances. In the Palestine case, the solider is a legitimate target in war, the Palestinians are in the near impossible task of repelling a heavily armed foreign force.

Terrorism is a strategy of war, there is no point in saying to an under privileged and occupied territory who is trying to repel a well supported military from their state, that they should apply approved tactics, which you deem moral, I cannot think of a time when there wasn't civilian loss of life in a war, legitimate or otherwise.
Fact is the illegitimacy of these targets must also be questioned, if they move on resource rich land and expel the resident population to an impovished existence (as those living in the rather plush colonisation areas of Palestine did) then they cannot really be described as innocent, ideologically neutral or even civilian, I’m not advocating killing but I’m not going to rosy up the picture either, this is war, civilians deaths happen.

On point two we are agreed, there should peace, with the handing over the solider and the complete withdraw of Israel forces/planters to the pre 1967 borders, then we can have two very happy states living together in harmony, as opposed to one impoverished half destroyed pretend state and one wealthy military superior state, that has no legitimacy as a state at all, due to its continuing greed and pursuit of what are in essence racist policies.

Israel may have a claim to some of Jerusalem (I mean im sure they made quite a home for themselves there in the last hundred years, when most Jewish settler families arrived there, excluding the resident minority of course who as been there in small quantity for centuries). However surprisingly enough the Palestinians have also made a home there, the solution is a return to the division before Israel occupied the east and Historically Arab sector of Jerusalem. Jerusalem should be divided between both parties, as both claim it has their capital, and any negotiations WILL have to put this compromise as a pre condition, if a fair peace is to be achieved.

As the above comment as adequately pointed out, the word terrorism is allot more subjective then you make out. The Israeli army after the terrorist attack in Munich in which 11 Israeli athletes were killed by the Palestinian group "black September", attacked 9 locations in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, these locations were refugee camps, the total loss of life equalled 240. Then they sent their "legitimate force" in the guise of Mossad, who began operation "Wrath of God",
which saw them assinate the Palestinian organisation leading members along with 4 targets who have no connection to the incident but were Palestinian militants and 24 Syrians who where in the way of one of the assinations, they also disrespected the sovereignty of France, Norway and Syria to carry out this supposed "non-terrorist" act.

Point is the Israeli Govt does not care for the lives of Palestinian civilians, it employs terror tactics through solider intimidation, it destroys infrastructure resulting in high unemployment through a check point system that does not allow for free travel between locations in Palestine and it massacres people in their throves using advanced weaponry provided by the USA.
All in order to pursue its expansionist polices, this attack on Palestine for one solider is a flimsy excuse to garner more power in the Gaza strip.

If its Labour's policy to stand up to Israel, and to try enforce some kind of sanction on them for their huge human Rights violations, then they will get a vote from me, and that’s from someone who is not immediately inclined to vote labour.
What if Britain invaded the Republic if the IRA kidnapped a British solider?!

If you’re willing to condemn these people because of the methods of violence they use, then remember you damn well better condemn Israel too, they are the aggressor, they are thieves, they are the ones who have no regard for human life. And if there is such a thing as a completely soulless monster committed to murder, that you would have us believe, your “terrorist”, then it can only be them.
By the way, their not Islamic terrorists, their Arabs, a mixture of Muslim and Eastern Orthdox.

Mr Estranged said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Simon said...

I am simply suggesting that both sides have justification for calling the other party terrorists.
I totally agree but no body was aruging that they were argueing that one side was better then the other. Hence justifing it.

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Simon said...

If you’re willing to condemn these people because of the methods of violence they use, then remember you damn well better condemn Israel too, they are the aggressor,

I do. my point is Labour are not being even handed in their condemnation.