Hamas proposes truce in Gaza

cabinteelytom

Today (24-4-08) Reuters.com reports that Hamas proposes a truce in Gaza. It is the smallest possible step in the right direction; a six month truce, bilateral, in Gaza only; but should be encouraged. Piece by piece is better than no peace at all.
The Government of Ireland should respond positively to this overture, conclude a truce with the elected Hamas administration, and resume aid and trade to the people of Gaza.

Sand

The Govt of Ireland should only co-operate with the Hamas government when Hamas disavows terrorism, and acts to ensure that its territory is not used for attacks on civillians.

As it is, the truce is fairly meaningless. Carter came out and claimed Hamas accepted Israels right to exist. Hamas corrected him very quickly that they did not accept Israels right to exist.

Hence there is no real basis for negotiation as Hamas cannot negotiate constructively with a partner they do not accept as valid.

Manic Moran

I think a lot of it depends on the fine print. Headlines such as "Ten year truce!" or "Six month truce" are great as they fit on the newspaper, but there's usually a bunch of caveats.

Still, the signs are promising. Apparently some of the other groups in the region have agreed to sign up for the pause. Israel's taking sortof a peudo-acceptance. "We're not formally going to truce, but if no rockets and suicide bombers come over the border at us, we're going to have no need to send troops or ordnance back the other way"

It's possible it could be the first step. Then again, it's also possible that some of the fine print is unacceptable, and they just wanted a positive headline to make Israel look like the bad guy. We'll see what the Egyptian mediators come up with.

NTM

cabinteelytom

Our Irish people have no antipathy to the people of Gaza or of Israel and should be enabled by our government to trade on terms of equality with both.
Hamas's proposals for ceasefire are a welcome change, which should be recognised and encouraged.
Our government has experience of peace-keeping exercises and could help the administration in Gaza (which has little experience)to put forward credible proposals wrt sourcing monitors/peacekeeping troops, intelligence platforms to monitor weapons use, protocols for when infractions are reported, reporting procedures to the UN, to the EU, procedures to protect the civilian population etc.
It's time to show we are the honest-broker, that is so badly needed. Our government should engage with the Gazan administration, develop these ceasefire ideas constructively; and immediately restore our people's rights to trade with the people of Gaza.

Riddle101

What exactly dose Ireland have to do with Isreal and Palestine, trade is hardly an issue for Ireland and we should not trade with either Palestine or Isreal, i'd be more concerned about what the Lisbon Treaty will do to us if war breaks out between Isreal and Iran which has been a big issue lately

eoin5

Riddle101 wrote: »

What exactly dose Ireland have to do with Isreal and Palestine, trade is hardly an issue for Ireland and we should not trade with either Palestine or Isreal.

Why not? Is it because of their killing of innocents? This country didnt just happen either. Trade helps ease international relations and promotes economic growth, are you saying we should reject it on our own with some righteous holier than thou bullcrap? These are good things happening now and we should help them grow if we can at all.

dimerocks

Riddle101 wrote: »

What exactly dose Ireland have to do with Isreal and Palestine, trade is hardly an issue for Ireland

It's an issue for every country which has signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Palestinian people are living in refugee camps all over the area so any progress towards any sort of stability in the region should be welcomed and embraced by the international community whilst at the same time placing more pressure on the Israelis/Palestinians to enter meaningful talks.

Riddle101

eoin5 wrote: »

Why not? Is it because of their killing of innocents? This country didnt just happen either. Trade helps ease international relations and promotes economic growth, are you saying we should reject it on our own with some righteous holier than thou bullcrap? These are good things happening now and we should help them grow if we can at all.

NO what i mean is Ireland should not get involved in something that is not our business, Isreal's probelm lies in it's oppresion of Palestine and constant careless killings of innocent Palestinian in the view that it is after Hamas militants and Hamas are classed as Terrorists when they could easily just be freedom fighters. Ireland shoudn't be allowed to choose sides on this because Ireland has a history of oppression as well and if people were to turn around and say Micheal Collins and Eamon DeValera were terrorists then i don't think we'd be too happy either.

dimerocks wrote: »

It's an issue for every country which has signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Palestinian people are living in refugee camps all over the area so any progress towards any sort of stability in the region should be welcomed and embraced by the international community whilst at the same time placing more pressure on the Israelis/Palestinians to enter meaningful talks.

You mean like when Northen Ireland was getting destroyed by Loyalist and Republican militants, the UN and the internation community were so helpful there weren't they.

Now i may sound like a bitter Irishman but i'm not, i have no problems going to Chad or the Congo or lebannon but Isreal and Palestine is not our league, because a)No one seems to care about Isreal's occupation of Palestine they seem to ignore this and b)Neither side is in the right they are both wrong and becuase of this innocent people are geting killed. I would only accept trade with Isreal and Palestine if the fighting stopped for ever and Isreal gave up it's claim to Palestine

humberklog

Riddle101 wrote: »

I would only accept trade with Isreal and Palestine if the fighting stopped for ever

So when exactly would you accept trade to be started? Aren't you setting your sights on a horizon? Surely any observers would have a problem with pinpointing eternity?

Good deeds and intelligent,peaceful intentions should be rewarded by the global community. Peace spreads peace. This works. Continueing grevances from an outside jurisdiction on behalf of a cause that isn't exactly rattling you out of your bed in the middle of the night doesn't.

eoin5

Riddle101 wrote: »

NO what i mean is Ireland should not get involved in something that is not our business, Isreal's probelm lies in it's oppresion of Palestine and constant careless killings of innocent Palestinian in the view that it is after Hamas militants and Hamas are classed as Terrorists when they could easily just be freedom fighters. Ireland shoudn't be allowed to choose sides on this because Ireland has a history of oppression as well and if people were to turn around and say Micheal Collins and Eamon DeValera were terrorists then i don't think we'd be too happy either.

I dont get you on this one I'm afraid. Surely the "neutral" country thing to do is to accept trade with whoever is available to trade with. Some solitary embargo is just being prejudiced and arrogant.

turgon

humberklog wrote: »

Peace spreads peace.

Your so right humperklog. So maybe you should stop being a hypocrite and stop supporting the Israeli violence in Gaza. As you said, peace spread peace!

Riddle101

humberklog wrote: »

So when exactly would you accept trade to be started? Aren't you setting your sights on a horizon? Surely any observers would have a problem with pinpointing eternity?

Good deeds and intelligent,peaceful intentions should be rewarded by the global community. Peace spreads peace. This works. Continueing grevances from an outside jurisdiction on behalf of a cause that isn't exactly rattling you out of your bed in the middle of the night doesn't.

Peace spreads peace? No it dosen't, there have been many cases where peace has only led to war because some countries see Peace as being weak and puny, many countries have been nothing but peaceful to other countries and in the end they get betrayed. If Ireland is to be friendly to Isreal then maybe Isreal should stop these attorcities from happening, they are the cause for all the paramilitant fighting in Palestine and they do not care about what they do

eoin5 wrote: »

I dont get you on this one I'm afraid. Surely the "neutral" country thing to do is to accept trade with whoever is available to trade with. Some solitary embargo is just being prejudiced and arrogant.

Trade with Isreal is not essential we have many other countries to trade with so Isreal is not a huge loss, as for me being prejudiced, well if i'm prejudiced it's only because i find Isreal to be an Evil country that has no remorse for the damage it has done. At least Britain try to redo the damage in the countries it's in by building water supplies and other equipment, but Isreal just bomb and kill and destroy anything that moves in Palestine and for that i do not condone Isreali trade

humberklog

Riddle101 wrote: »

Peace spreads peace?

A question with a question(?)! Where's the address of your last post about your eternal protestation with no resolve?

humberklog

turgon wrote: »

Your so right humperklog. So maybe you should stop being a hypocrite and stop supporting the Israeli violence in Gaza. As you said, peace spread peace!

I don't support israerli violence in the gaza,nor for that matter its population of the west bank and further still to I don't support the passive aggression shown to its arab population within Isreal. I've lived, served,studied and worked in Israel and will do again. My opinions are based on first hand knowledge and experience. I've read a lot without commenting on this area in this forum and i can't see how you've come up the notion of me being a hypocrite. I've been mostly very quiet, more interested in reading peoples opinions than airing my own and I've re-read my previous posts and can't see how you've landed on that opinion. A previous comment on a different thread raised me to comment (a post saying that 'the jews' shoulda learnt a lesson from the nazis). Let's keep this thead to hamas and the hope of an olive branch. If you ain't dreaming now the people around you won't be doing much later.(And all that).

djpbarry

Riddle101 wrote: »

Peace spreads peace? No it dosen't, there have been many cases where peace has only led to war because some countries see Peace as being weak and puny, many countries have been nothing but peaceful to other countries and in the end they get betrayed.

Such as?

Riddle101 wrote: »

Trade with Isreal is not essential we have many other countries to trade with so Isreal is not a huge loss...

But if we are to stop trading with countries on moral grounds, there aren't going to be too many nations left with whom we can trade. For example, two of our biggest trading partners, the US and the UK, are involved in illegal wars; ceasing trade with either would have major economic repercussions.

Manic Moran

djpbarry wrote: »

Such as?

A good one is probably...



The difference between what the Brits thought they were getting, and what they got, is pretty dramatic.

NTM

Riddle101

djpbarry wrote: »

Such as?
But if we are to stop trading with countries on moral grounds, there aren't going to be too many nations left with whom we can trade. For example, two of our biggest trading partners, the US and the UK, are involved in illegal wars; ceasing trade with either would have major economic repercussions.

Unfortunatley Ireland is dependant on the US economy becaus eof it's transnationals over here and it's trade so we can't really say much to the US because we need them, same with UK, but Isreal is a different story, Isreal are not that essential as i said so to hell with Isreal

humberklog

Manic Moran wrote: »

A good one is probably...



The difference between what the Brits thought they were getting, and what they got, is pretty dramatic.

NTM

That is a blinder MM. Very funny. Mind you there was more diplomatic appeasement and buying time from one side and...possibly the same on the other. Not really the fatigue of loss that draws a true approach to a settlement of peace. Still and all its brilliant. You musta been happy with that post. More of it.

eoin5

Riddle101 wrote: »

Unfortunatley Ireland is dependant on the US economy becaus eof it's transnationals over here and it's trade so we can't really say much to the US because we need them, same with UK, but Isreal is a different story, Isreal are not that essential as i said so to hell with Isreal

That would be hypocritical, arrogant, prejudiced, unfair, immoral, spineless, selective (as opposed to neutral) and most of all totally needless.

wes

eoin5 wrote: »

That would be hypocritical, arrogant, prejudiced, unfair, immoral, spineless, selective (as opposed to neutral) and most of all totally needless.

We would still be miles ahead of an Israel, what with it being an apartheid state and everything. Perhaps you should reserve your ire for there treatment of Palestinians, as opposed to someone who supports a boycott.

Its absurd to throw those accusation at someone who wants to boycott Israel. There treatment of Palestinians makes a boycott a perfectly reasonable response to its own actions.

If people took the same attitude with the apartheid regime in South Africa, it may have continued for quite a bit longer or even still going.

djpbarry

Manic Moran wrote: »

The difference between what the Brits thought they were getting, and what they got, is pretty dramatic.

So that's one pretty extreme example of one regime bent on world domination - where are the "many" others?

I think it's fair to say that (generally) peace does indeed spread peace; the EU is probably the best example of this. In the case of Israel and Palestine; they've been blowing the bejesus out of each other for years and it's achieved nothing. Maybe it's time to give diplomacy a chance.

wes wrote: »

Its absurd to throw those accusation at someone who wants to boycott Israel. There treatment of Palestinians makes a boycott a perfectly reasonable response to its own actions.

But if we were to boycott Israel, it would be extremely hypocritical not to boycott the US as well. Arguing that the US is more important to us than Israel and, as such, should not be boycotted, is a great big double-standard.

eoin5

wes wrote: »

We would still be miles ahead of an Israel, what with it being an apartheid state and everything. Perhaps you should reserve your ire for there treatment of Palestinians, as opposed to someone who supports a boycott.

Its absurd to throw those accusation at someone who wants to boycott Israel. There treatment of Palestinians makes a boycott a perfectly reasonable response to its own actions.

If people took the same attitude with the apartheid regime in South Africa, it may have continued for quite a bit longer or even still going.

I'm all for against sanctions against Israel through the UN for breaking international peace treaties or at the very least some kind of international organised embargo that will actually make something more than just a statement. What I'm against is this idea that we, Ireland, as the moral highground should go off on our own silly, petty agenda when we are clearly involved in an illegal war ourselves. Its calling the pot black and for no good reason whatsoever.

wes

djpbarry wrote: »

But if we were to boycott Israel, it would be extremely hypocritical not to boycott the US as well. Arguing that the US is more important to us than Israel and, as such, should not be boycotted, is a great big double-standard.

I would disagree. Boycotting the US would be impossible. A different tactic would have to be taken with the US.

A sporting boycott or something to that effect would make more sense.

Basically the US and Israel are 2 very different entities and a boycott of the US will not have the same effect as a boycott on Israel.

wes

eoin5 wrote: »

I'm all for against sanctions against Israel through the UN for breaking international peace treaties or at the very least some kind of international organised embargo that will actually make something more than just a statement. What I'm against is this idea that we, Ireland, as the moral highground should go off on our own silly, petty agenda when we are clearly involved in an illegal war ourselves. Its calling the pot black and for no good reason whatsoever.

I still think we have a moral high ground over Israel (at least until the US starts ethnically cleansing Iraqi's). We are also, not currently oppressing any native populations in this country last I checked.

I agree our allowing Shannon to be used by the US military is wrong, and I don't support that either.

Manic Moran

djpbarry wrote: »

So that's one pretty extreme example of one regime bent on world domination - where are the "many" others?

I think it's fair to say that (generally) peace does indeed spread peace; the EU is probably the best example of this.

Only after the vast majority of the continent had the living crap beaten out of it, twice. It's a bit Heinleinian, but to say "Violence never brings peace" does have the counter-argument of "Tell that to the Japanese, they've been pretty damned peaceful the last 60 years"

It is probably more accurate to say that prosperity brings peace, probably combined with a state of being fed up with violence. A country with a good, strong economy is far less likely to go to war. A country with a lousy economy, and many people within it who are disaffected as a result, are likely to suffer strife, either internal to itself in the form of riots, or external, in the form of armed conflict. For example, the Falklands War is probably the best recent example of both factors (Poor internal situation combined with a perceived weak adversary) in that it had a disaffected population with a UK which gave every signal of not wanting to fight over the Falklands: The UK was both negotiating over sovereignty and dramatically downsizing its military. Argentina figured that the UK was too weak, politically, and militarily, to fight, and that capturing the Falklands was a done deal. Well, that wasn't a pleasant result.

These days, most states have figured out that weakness invites trouble. This is why we've seen the preponderance of alliances such as NATO or SEATO after WWII and why most countries who choose not to partake in such and remain independent retain capable militaries. (The Swiss, obviously, figured this out much earlier!)

As a result, the majority of examples of a peaceful, prosperous state being set upon by more warlike types, even those they trade with, tend to be found further in history, from the almost military-less Minoans being conquered by the Dorians through the American Indians being rather rudely set about by the US and its predecessors.

For modern examples, you need to look intra-state, primarily at examples such a crime which are very definitely cases of peaceful weak people being set about by mal-intended stronger types.

NTM

eoin5

wes wrote: »

I still think we have a moral high ground over Israel (at least until the US starts ethnically cleansing Iraqi's). We are also, not currently oppressing any native populations in this country last I checked.

I agree our allowing Shannon to be used by the US military is wrong, and I don't support that either.

Most people will percieve they have the high ground and they will have their reasons but enforcing an embargo based on that perception is wrong, meaningful organised sanctions for those who continually break UN resolutions makes sense.

Riddle101

eoin5 wrote: »

Most people will percieve they have the high ground and they will have their reasons but enforcing an embargo based on that perception is wrong, meaningful organised sanctions for those who continually break UN resolutions makes sense.

You just said in your last post that sanctions and embargos are good on Isreal are good

I'm all for against sanctions against Israel through the UN for breaking international peace treaties or at the very least some kind of international organised embargo that will actually make something more than just a statement

Anyway djpbarry you want opther cases where countries have betrayed how about the Native Americans, not ecactly a country but still they were betrayed by the English and they were peaceful, you also have the fact that America betrayed South Vietnam in the Vietnam war and allowed them to be taken over by N Vietnam, and S Vietnam were on fighting with the Americans

eoin5

Riddle101 wrote: »

You just said in your last post that sanctions and embargos are good on Isreal

Bingo! I have said it many times before that too. I have never suggested it in a hypocritical and useless holier-than-thou sense though.

The last thing the world needs is small countries on high horses, especially when they dont have to be.

wes

eoin5 wrote: »

Most people will percieve they have the high ground and they will have their reasons but enforcing an embargo based on that perception is wrong, meaningful organised sanctions for those who continually break UN resolutions makes sense.

The reason this can't happen is that the US will prevent this from ever happening. Israel is immune to any UN sanctions that would call for an embargo.

So something else has to be done.

djpbarry

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is probably more accurate to say that prosperity brings peace, probably combined with a state of being fed up with violence. A country with a good, strong economy is far less likely to go to war.

So why is the US military spread all over the world? Ain't nobody more prosperous than the good old US of A; when are they going to get "fed up with violence"?

Manic Moran wrote: »

These days, most states have figured out that weakness invites trouble. This is why we've seen the preponderance of alliances such as NATO or SEATO after WWII and why most countries who choose not to partake in such and remain independent retain capable militaries.

Ireland is a notable exception. Costa Rica is another, even though it lies in a rather volatile region. I'm sure there are other examples.

Riddle101 wrote: »

Anyway djpbarry you want opther cases where countries have betrayed how about the Native Americans, not ecactly a country but still they were betrayed by the English and they were peaceful...

I was sort of looking for recent examples.

Riddle101 wrote: »

...you also have the fact that America betrayed South Vietnam in the Vietnam war ...

Interesting synopsis. The Vietnam War was rather more complex than the bad guys attacking the good guys before one of the good guys got tired and left.

Manic Moran

djpbarry wrote: »

So why is the US military spread all over the world? Ain't nobody more prosperous than the good old US of A; when are they going to get "fed up with violence"?

Until 2001, the US has been relatively good about not going and attacking people who haven't been antagonising them. Most US foreign bases tend to be either defensive in nature, such as Korea, Japan or Germany (The US has comitted to protect its friends, can't do that from home), support or projection operations, such as Kosovo, or many in South America or Africa, or outright "You right well pissed us off" deals such as Haiti, Panama or Afghanistan. You can make an argument about Iraq, given the current differences of opinion on the subject, but it's hardly sufficient to justify a trend. Still, the US is actually drawing down its foreign basing. Its forces in Germany, for example, have dramatically decreased. Last month, the defence of Iceland was formally handed over to France with the withdrawl of the US Air Force and Marines stationed there.

Ireland is a notable exception. Costa Rica is another, even though it lies in a rather volatile region. I'm sure there are other examples.

The viability of Ireland's policity of neutrality without the ability to back it up has been questioned more than once. See recent thread entitled "Ireland's neutrality is a Joke" for example. Costa Rica at least had the good sense to sign onto a defense pact, like Iceland did.

NTM

dimerocks

Riddle101 wrote: »

Now i may sound like a bitter Irishman but i'm not, i have no problems going to Chad or the Congo or lebannon but Isreal and Palestine is not our league, because a)No one seems to care about Isreal's occupation of Palestine they seem to ignore this and b)Neither side is in the right they are both wrong and becuase of this innocent people are geting killed. I would only accept trade with Isreal and Palestine if the fighting stopped for ever and Isreal gave up it's claim to Palestine

In regard A, I think people are largely ignorant to the formation of Israel and don't realise how it was founded and why it was founded. The whole point is that it was a complete mess by the British and the League of Nations. The countries were acting primarily for their own interests in the region.
Yes neither side is correct but if you were to lay a blame on one side it would have to be with the Israeli handling of the affairs from the formation up until....well they are still doing it. They had no interest in forming a state which respected Palestinian rights, if anything is going to be conceded its gonna have to come through talks from all sides. You can't expect the fighting to just stop if there is no international pressure?

eoin5

wes wrote: »

The reason this can't happen is that the US will prevent this from ever happening. Israel is immune to any UN sanctions that would call for an embargo.

So something else has to be done.

I agree. Action can happen regardless of repeated vetoing. I think those south-african dockworkers are an inspiration as they have made a difference by drawing attention to the situation and added cost to the shipment.

Disorganisation has been proven to work very well as long as people can share and spread a similar ethos by their actions. My hope is that all the people involved in trading arms with Israel wake up and accept what they are used for and that trade gets cut on the human level (as opposed to a state level).

djpbarry

Manic Moran wrote: »

Until 2001, the US has been relatively good about not going and attacking people who haven't been antagonising them.

That statement is so laughable it scarcely merits a response.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Most US foreign bases tend to be either defensive in nature, such as Korea, Japan or Germany (The US has comitted to protect its friends, can't do that from home), support or projection operations, such as Kosovo, or many in South America or Africa, or outright "You right well pissed us off" deals such as Haiti, Panama or Afghanistan.

:rolleyes: The US can justify just about anything, can't they? It’s precisely this kind of thinking that gives Israel free reign in the Middle East.

I'm just going to take one example from the list; Panama. Overlooking the fact that Noriega was a former CIA operative and US puppet, in December 1989, the General Assembly of the UN condemned the invasion (in which thousands of Panamanian civilians were killed and thousands more were left homeless) as a "flagrant violation of international law." I would say that Afghanistan and Iraq fall into the same category. As for Haiti, as far as I am aware, violence was largely avoided due to the diplomatic efforts of Colin Powell.

Tea drinker

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Today (24-4-08) Reuters.com reports that Hamas proposes a truce in Gaza. It is the smallest possible step in the right direction; a six month truce, bilateral, in Gaza only; but should be encouraged. Piece by piece is better than no peace at all.
The Government of Ireland should respond positively to this overture, conclude a truce with the elected Hamas administration, and resume aid and trade to the people of Gaza.

It's useless.

Israel will find a way to break it

Riddle101

Tea drinker wrote: »

It's useless.

Israel will find a way to break it

Not if Hisbollah has anything to say about it