Israel to block Irish religious tolerance motion?!

DeVore

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2003/1212/3151954265HM1MOTION.html

I find this incomprehsible.

Theres really not much more to say. Typically I'm fairly neutral on the Jewish vs Arab thing. Hate is always incomprehensible to me.

This just seems utterly bloody minded!

I also wasnt aware that Ireland did that every year. Makes me a little bit prouder to be irish.

DeV.

seamus

Ireland, which has sponsored the resolution for 20 years, declined Israel's request this year to include a condemnation of anti-Semitism, on the grounds that it would lead to the perception of a hierarchy of religious intolerance and detract from the resolution's universal scope.

Damn right.

"All religions are equal, but it's more important that you protect ours from intolerance". Fs......idiots.

mr_angry

By far the most shocking thing I've seen the Israelis do in a long time - and they've done some pretty shocking things. That is outright madness. The resolution was going to include them anyway! ffs... *shakes head*

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mike65

The Israeli action is a strong reflection of the one religion/one state mentality...many Jews outside Israel
and many non Jews inside Israel but the government identifies itself with just the one faith it seems...

Mike.

yellum

Well spotted DeV. How am I not surprised ? I'm sure they'll equate Ireland to the Third Reich now.

Victor

Originally posted by mike65
The Israeli action is a strong reflection of the one religion/one state mentality

Like Ireland and India and The Holy See (the official title of the Vatican) and Saudi Arabia ..... and Texas :rolleyes:

mike65

Damn you Victor!

I was going to ammend my post to say "....just like this state..." etc

Mike.

Sand

Yeah, I heard about this before when the Israelis and their American lobbyists were reacting to Ireland withdrawing the original motion which specifically condemned anti-semitism in the face of Arab/Muslim opposition. Spitting mad so they were and they didnt nice things about Ireland at all. Given their absolute fury their action isnt all *that* surprising, though it is quite spiteful and petty - I went looking for the article I read but it was a few days ago and I cant find it now...maybe later.

I think the Israelis believed that the dramatic upsurge in violence against Jews, Synagogues and Jewish cemetaries in Europe demanded an equally dramatic response in the UNs yearly feel good resolution. In my search I did find this article which was complaining about the violence in Europe and the comments of several figures.

Whilst it is true that to pick and choose religions for special mention might be seen to lead to discord, it does lend credence to the view that those signing up to the resolution actually do give a damn and its not just the next item on the agenda to be cleared before they can go to lunch. The muslim-hindu violence in India in which hundreds were killed, maimed and tormented with the apparent indifference of the Indian authorities is another example of a case that would be worthy of mention.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The muslim-hindu violence in India in which hundreds were killed, maimed and tormented with the apparent indifference of the Indian authorities is another example of a case that would be worthy of mention.

The problem as I see it is that there are - unfortunately - so many cases which are "worthy of mention". From the religious persecution of Falun Gong in China, through the increasing mistragetted demonisation of all forms of Islam in Europe and the US in response to the War Of Terror, the Israeli/Palestine conflict, and so on. By deeming that some are worthy of mention, it immediately implies that the others - for some reason are less worthy of mention. This could be perceived to be because the problem is considered to be lesser, or because the religion is considered to be lesser. In either case, it is a recipe for disaster.

Furthermore, I can't understand this inability of the Israelis to understand that there is a distinction between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism.


I, for example, have nothing against the Jewish religion, or its adherents. I do, however, have strong objections (for example) to a vice-president of a nation saying that certain areas should be "given back" before the non-Jews became a majority....because at that point they may have to be given the right to vote and that would spell the end of the nation. (I think it was the VP - it was on a AP-feed article I read during the week, but have no linkage for).

But levelling such criticism is "clearly" just part of the anti-Semitic feelings that are rife in Europe....just as any criticism of Bush and his policies is "obviously" nothing but thinly disguised anti-Americanism.

I wonder what the almost-identical criticism levelled against the South-Africans was classified as when they wanted to keep the black majority from voting for the same reason? I'm pretty sure it wasn't anti-Semitism, or even anti-White-Man-In-South-Africa-ism that it was called back then.....no...that was good criticism to level back then, apparently. But to say the same thing about the Israeli state witholding the same rights from those living inside its borders for the same reasons....for that, I must hate all Jews apparently.

What I don't understand is this....time and time again, we see the media being used by one side or another to "spin" a story. Its been said on this forum before, but if you say something often enough in the media, people start to believe it. So, I'm trying to figure something out.....why are the Israeli's trying to convince Europeans that they are not critical of the Israeli state, but are - in fact - anti-Semitic. Do they want to foster more religious intolerance?????

And ultimately, thats what Israel will do. They will insist long and loud that all criticisms of the actions of Jewish people are based on anti-Semitism.....and this will give rise to more anti-Semitism. (And getting back on thread......) They will also now, apparently, scupper a traditional non-denominational affirmation of religious tolerance because it didn't give them pride of place.....sending a message that they would prefer religious intolerance over just being accepted as one amongst many who suffer from from it.

One has to wonder why it is so important that the whole world place Jewish suffering on a pedestal above all other (religious) suffering.

jc

DadaKopf

Grr.

It seems to me that the Israeli Jews seem to switch between meanings of Judaism when it suits them.

There's a weird contradiction in what they, and in response, the Arabs are saying.

The resolution is a 'non-denominational affirmation of religious tolerance' but the opening paragraph of the article says that Israel is trying to block the resolution because it doesn't make a special case for anti-Semitism. That's interesting because the implication is Religious Jew = Semite. So clearly secular Jews fall under this resolution, too?

Then there's the Arab response. Since when have all Arabs been Muslims?

This seems to me like a crude, and frankly despicably cynical attempt to drag political national-territorialism into a purely religion-based UN resolution.

Israel's demand has nothing to do with religious tolerance. Ireland should have realised this and refused to insert those changes to the resolution. The UN should also recognise that and tell Israel to get outta town.

Clearly there's an issue of an overlap between nationality and religion, particularly anywhere other than Europe and New York. But it still doesn't change the fact that those being attacked in Europe are religious Jews and not Semites, per se.

But in this day any age, who really wants to split hairs? Who cares? Most people seem much more into adopting extreme positions because they're easier.

Capt'n Midnight

I was going to say "do unto others" but that's the wrong book and I seem to remember "an eye for an eye" was by a pagan king.

So "handsome is as handsome does" before you can demand special teatment you have to show you can give it. And depriving people of water in that part of the world .. it a basic human right. (they extracted so much water the water table dropped below the bottom of palestinian wells - news report on telly - for me it was the event that lost Israel my sympathy)

BTW: aren't there about one million arab citizens of Isreal.

And as for Isreal proposing UN resolutions..
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1030386/posts
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/261489072?ts=1071325063&sign
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2596249.stm

Let's not forget Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November - the US could use this mandate to invade tomorrow !
UN resolution 242
(Resolution 338 later passed on same subject)

Nice summary on. http://www.middleeastfacts.com/UNresolutions.html
Twenty-six percent of all Security Council meetings between 1948 and the 1991 Madrid Conference dealt with the Arab-Israeli conflict. The U.N. Security Council passed a total of 175 resolutions. Seventy-four were neutral. Four were against the perceived interests of an Arab body. Ninety-seven were against Israel. In the U.N. General Assembly, the cumulative votes cast during this same period with or for Israel totaled 7,938. Those against Israel totaled 55,642 [Source: WorldNetDaily.com]

Capt'n Midnight

Forget the previous post

- this lists 65 UN resolutions against Israel which have not been fully complied with yet. That's 8% of all UN resolutions issued worldwide during that time.
note: in fairness not all are binding

http://www.petitiononline.com/84766866/petition.html

Mr Pinchy

Ah, the Chosen People. God would be proud of their behaviour.

Victor

I think this is an attempt to find some common ground while sticking to principals. Remember we have only had diplomatic relations for about 5 years, us objecting to the Jewish state, them objecting to the Catholic state.

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/2156596?view=Eircomnet

Israeli official says Ireland does not understand its difficulties
From:ireland.com
Monday, 15th December, 2003

Israel: Israel wants to improve its relations with Ireland, the country's top civil servant, who is in Dublin today, tells Nuala Haughey in Jerusalem

Ireland does does not always show an understanding of the difficulties which face Israel, according to the highest-ranking official in Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is potential for a "better, more trusting dialogue" between the two countries.

Mr Yoav Biran arrives in Dublin today for talks with senior Irish officials on the eve of Ireland's assumption of the EU presidency. He may also meet the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen.

Ireland takes over the EU presidency on January 1st and could find itself playing an important role in any efforts to revive the stalled road map for peace in the Middle East drawn up by the so-called quartet of the EU, the US, the UN and Russia.

During the Irish presidency, Mr Cowen will become the EU representative in the quartet and is scheduled to visit Israel early next year.

Relations between Ireland and Israel were strained during Mr Cowen's most recent trip to the region last June, when he insisted on meeting the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mr Yasser Arafat. Mr Cowen was then barred from meeting Israeli ministers, who maintain a controversial policy of boycotting visiting politicians who meet Mr Arafat.

The Israeli position has been strongly resisted by the EU, which insists on maintaining contacts with him.

Meetings between Irish and Israeli officials, as well as last month's meeting in Brussels between Mr Cowen and his counterpart, Mr Silvan Shalom, are part of an effort to ensure positive contacts between the two states in the run-up to the Irish presidency.

Mr Biran said Israel fully accepted the wish of the EU to play a political role in the Middle East and to promote peace. "We are sure that Europe can play a very positive role if it takes a balanced, responsible and constructive attitude," he said.

"So I hope that during our visit in Dublin, we'll be able to discuss indeed how to improve the bilateral relations with Ireland and how to see the EU, under the leadership of Ireland as its president, develop together with us deeper relations, more extended relations and first and foremost a better more trusting dialogue between our two countries."

Ireland's voting pattern at the United Nations in New York on Israeli- Palestinian issues is consistently in accordance with the agreed EU position, and Irish officials have refuted suggestions by officials here that Ireland is biased against Israel.

However, Mr Biran, while declining to offer specific examples, cited "some positions" taken by the Irish Government and public utterances at the UN, as well as Ireland's voting pattern, as "lacking the kind of balance and understanding of the terrible human difficulties of Israel that one would expect.

"Frankly we would like also to improve the political dialogue because we feel that not always do we see the kind of understanding of our difficulties and our problems and therefore support of our ongoing efforts to promote peace between us and the Palestinians on the part of your government."

Mr Biran said he also appreciated the recent Irish initiative to pass a resolution, which was co- sponsored by the EU, condemning anti-Semitism at the UN General Assembly. Ireland withdrew the resolution in the past fortnight after Arab and Muslim states insisted that it include amendments condemning intolerance against other religions.

This would have defeated the purpose of obtaining the first UN resolution specifically condemning anti-Semitism.

ferdi

oh for fuks sake:rolleyes: :mad:

DadaKopf

I'm sure that Israel will accuse Ireland of supporting terrorism because we gave €1,524,000 to various Palestinian development initiatives.

Ironic since, well, it's Israel. And there's that thing about Israel existing only for the billions it receives from that other terrorist state, the US of A.

bonkey

/me ignores troll-bait reference to "terrorist state"

Moving onwards....