Irish MP slams EU "hypocrisy," calls for suspension of EU-Israel agreement

[Scurrilous]

Press Release, Sinn Féin, 26 April 2006

Statement by Aengus Ó Snodaigh, Member of parliament for Dublin South Central and Sinn Féin spokesman on Justice, Equality and International affairs, commenting on parliamentary reply by Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern.

Decision on funding highlights on-going hypocrisy of EU in relation to illegal occupation of Palestine

<snip>

"Commenting on a parliamentary question reply that he received from the Minister for Foreign Affairs in relation to the decision by the EU to block funding to the Palestinian National Authority, Sinn Féin Spokesperson on International Affairs Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh welcomed Minister Ahern's stated determination to maintain the overall volume of this state's bilateral assistance to the Palestinian people and said Sinn Fein will hold him to this.

However, Deputy Ó Snodaigh said, "in light of this commitment and the overwhelming public support for Palestine in Ireland and across Europe, I am dismayed and frustrated that he did not vote against the European Council's decision to revise its assistance to Palestine."

He said, "The Council's decision highlights the on-going hypocrisy that characterises the positions taken by the EU in relation to the illegal occupation of Palestine. On the one hand Palestinians are being punished, with real economic sanctions, simply because of who they chose to vote for. On the other, Israel is merely "urged" to take steps to improve the lot of Palestinians under occupation. The EU has been "urging" Israel for years.

The Council and each Member State must suspend preferential trade with Israel until such time as it renounces violence, recognises Palestine's right to exist and accepts previous agreements and obligations. This type of action against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is long overdue.

"All across Europe Human Rights and Palestine Solidarity organisations are demanding that the EU overturn its decision to block funds to the Palestinian National Authority. It is up to each Member State beginning with this one and Dermot Ahern to reflect these demands at Council level."

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4670.shtml

[Selatius]

1. It's not likely to pass;they would be attacked with the "anti-semite" card

And they would be painted as a continuation of a legacy that included such things as the Nazi Holocaust.

[anitar1]

2. exactly, and that is becoming very old. n/t

[cali]

3. So what?

If they don't have the guts to stand up to criticism, that's their problem. The EU shouldn't block funding to the Palestinian Authority, but as for this:

"The Council and each Member State must suspend preferential trade with Israel until such time as it renounces violence, recognises Palestine's right to exist and accepts previous agreements and obligations. This type of action against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is long overdue."

Sorry, that's too one sided and it lacks a depth of understanding of the problem, and utterly forgoes asking even the bare minimum of the Palestinians. The history of the dispute should be taken into account going all the way back to 1948. Israel should recognize Palestine, and Hamas as the Palestinian government should recognize Israel within the 1967 borders. They should also renounce violence and stop supporting suicide bombing of civilians and rocket attacks on Israeli civilian centers.

Finally, anti-semitism is both an unfounded charge and a real one. If you believe that the charge is unfounded, explain why instead of complaining, and pre-emptively tossing out the charge that you're going to be charged with anti-semitism is also 'playing a card'..

[Selatius]

4. It's been used to stop debate for a long time. It's not "playing a card"

The "anti-semite" card is a real ploy that has been used. It attempts to lump in people who criticize Israeli policy based on the merits of such policy with those who criticize Israeli policy and Israel itself because of a deep-seated bigotry against Jews (Dare I say the real anti-semites?) in order to discredit the first group.

By attempting at the very beginning to note previous examples of the Israeli ultra-rightwing attempting to discredit valid criticism of policy, we would go a long way towards revealing this dirty tactic for what it is, but at the same time, I also believe one should preface his arguments with respect to the support or non-support of the intentional targeting of innocent civilians regardless if they're Palestinian or Israeli.

No, it isn't a "card" when the charge is thrown at those who really are anti-semitic. Then that becomes valid criticism.

[cali]

5. I'm confused. You're the person that

labeled it as a "card" in your first post in this thread. Sadly, this post, by and large, was not responsive to the points I raised. Also, regrettably, real anti-semitism is not the sole purview of the right wing.

[Selatius]

6. I call it a card when I consider it as a ploy to stop valid debate, not...

when it's used to root out bigots.

[cali]

7. and how does one discern

when it's being used legitimately? And who does the deciding? It's a thorny problem.