Hamas strike on Israel - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

And here is Simon Harris over 8 months ago on CNN when the Government recognised Palestine as a state.

Much more productive than the cheap soundbite from her today "You’re waiting for morally corrupt EU take action”

You forgot all Hamas has to do is starve/ kill/ remove/ disappear all Palestinians from their native homeland, and give it all to Israel to annex into their own territory to appease religious nutjobs who think God told them it was theirs.

Exactly right and exactly what Connolly said in the Dail…

I wouldn't have advised her to visit Syria with Wallace/Daly but there were 15 other people on the trip including some who had been involved in the Irish Palestine Solidarity campaign. Nevertheless I can guarantee she was no supporter of Assad. She criticised him many times.

This was her speech on the sanctions. Health Agencies on the ground in Syria were saying the sanctions including medical products and drugs were making the situation on the ground much worse and having no impact on Assad. She was critical of Assad in it and mentions the Amnesty reports on his war crimes. Where was she wrong on below?

@Ha Long Bay Please pick out her exact words that were wrong re sanctions. She also called out war crimes by Assad in the speech. Have a listen on what she thinks of Assad. Easier to trot out a picture and called a woman "Vomit" though eh…How many of these links do you want in a thread on Gaza?

Before you go, please out in the video where she was wrong on sanctions and where she supported Assad (she accused him of war crimes if you missed it). That's all I asked. It's only 5 mins long. A little respect please before you run off. You made the accusation. Back it up. The health agencies in Syria all agreed with Connolly - the sanctions made the situation in Syria much worse for the innocent civilians.

The video I provided is her speech on the matter in the Dail. Why are you sending me the same speech?? I sent it to you and asked you and asked you to point out what you accused her of.

For the 3rd time, where was she wrong on sanctions?? Point it out exactly. Back up your accusation.

On sanctions…

"I refer the Minister to all of them, including those made by the World Health Organization to the effect that there are shortages of insulin, anaesthetics, specific antibiotics, blood products, vaccines and so on. Health agencies on the ground say the sanctions are making life absolutely impossible.

I am not here to tell lies, nor am I here to exaggerate. I am outlining what we have been reading, namely, that the sanctions are simply making circumstances on the ground much worse. Despite this, the Government persists with its thinking. Fianna Fáil also states that the sanctions are targeted, which is doubly shocking. The Government parties are persisting with the illusion that there can be a targeted programme when the reality on the ground is far from that."

Where was she wrong?

On Assad…

"I am not here to defend the Assad regime. I have read the Amnesty reports. The most appalling war crimes have been carried out by the Syrian Government and ISIS but also by US-led forces. The latter have been cited by Amnesty in regard to the killing of hundreds of civilians. Ultimately, Bashar al-Assad is more firmly in place than he has ever been. We have trotted out the figures here tonight. Some 4.8 million people have fled. Some 6.6 million are internally displaced. Significantly, half of the 6.6 million are children. Some 300,000 are dead and millions have been injured and maimed. Despite these statistics, the Minister is sitting here tonight still standing over sanctions that are totally unjust and not achieving what they were intended to do. Moreover, they are making circumstances much worse."

Where was she wrong?

I know she was against sanctions that weren't targeted and she gave her reasons. The health agencies and UN agreed. Re lifting sanctions, point out below where she was wrong. Copy and paste the exact lines where she was wrong, in context please. Where was her reasoning incorrect?

"It is following a visit to Syria and a tremendous amount of research that we stand here tonight to say we do not support the sanctions. It is absolutely nonsensical and hypocritical to stand over sanctions by the US and EU that are supposedly targeted when we know from a UN report and leaked memos that they are not. As Senator Maureen O'Sullivan said, it is the vulnerable who suffer.

I refer the Minister to all of them, including those made by the World Health Organization to the effect that there are shortages of insulin, anaesthetics, specific antibiotics, blood products, vaccines and so on. Health agencies on the ground say the sanctions are making life absolutely impossible.

I am not here to tell lies, nor am I here to exaggerate. I am outlining what we have been reading, namely, that the sanctions are simply making circumstances on the ground much worse. Despite this, the Government persists with its thinking. Fianna Fáil also states that the sanctions are targeted, which is doubly shocking. The Government parties are persisting with the illusion that there can be a targeted programme when the reality on the ground is far from that.

I am not here to defend the Assad regime. I have read the Amnesty reports. The most appalling war crimes have been carried out by the Syrian Government.

It is a very cautious and moderate report. More than a year ago the UN appealed for an immediate, strategic review of the sanctions by all the stakeholders because they were simply not doing what they were supposed to do. "

Do you know more than the on-the-ground health agencies? Or the UN? Or a TD, barrister and clinical pscyhologist who actually visited Syria?

You said she had "previous support for Assad regime in Syria". That's a lie. Apologise or back it up.

I owed you a response on that crass statement at the time but never got around to it. Not sure why it took you over a week to respond and why you picked tonight 😉

Do you recall what you said? "Since the ceasefire, images and vidoes coming out of the region shows people who are generally safe, happy and well fed." That was far from the reality.

You also said there was no evidence of genocide taking place. What do you think now?

Night night.

I can't say to have any real knowledge of Catherine Connolly or what her opinions are of certain things. But I have been following events in the Middle East for more years than I'd care to mention and more often than not sanctions, if they are not specific, tend not to affect the regime in question who are usually quite deserving of some sort of crack down. They do, however, greatly affect the ordinary people in the main while the offending party or parties escape unscathed.

However, what we have here is what appears to be the usual bollocks from certain quarters who are only interested in scoring cheap, nebulous, "points" on a TD they don't like because they speak on the other side of the aisle. In this case Connolly is on the left broadly speaking so therefore, according to some, she is always going to be wrong, somehow, irrespective of what she is actually saying or pointing out, up to an including the reducto ad absurdum of the fact that she had issues with sanctions on SYRIA, as a whole, so she's supposedly "pro Assad".

That type of nonsense is the reasoning of a 2 year old.

To put things in a clearer context, I would like to see sanctions placed on Israel for their appalling behaviour in Gaza and the west bank which has been going on for decades. But that doesn't mean that I want to see ordinary Israeli citizens suffer because of the shitty regime that currently rules them.

Nonsense they would all have been released ages ago if that was the case. Why should a democratic country negotiate with a terrorist organisation anyway?

Dublin should be given back to the Norwegians so, oklahoma back to the Cherokee, Mexico back to the Aztec ancestors

You might have missed the reports that not all Israelis killed that day were actually killed by Hamas. The IDF slaughtered hundreds of their own under the Hannibal Directive on Oct 7th.

As for the rest of your post, it simply parrots the Hasbara.

But sure, given your opening gambit, presumably a kill ratio of Palestinians to Israelis of 45:1 is just not enough.

We await as a terrorist organisation, "Hamas" have to approve it.

What do you suggest? Israel and others develop a plan and not include Hamas in talks?

No, I'm just asking a question really. Are the 2m plus population powerless and not represented without them. Is it Hamas that speaks for and represents the people of Gaza?

At this stage, I would leave Israel out of it too. Negotiations with Hamás? **** them, they should be hunted down.

Getting very close to the ridiculous here now.