Galway Free Palestine Campaign : The schizophrenic "morality" of the EU towards Palestine

by TD - FPC Mon Jun 23, 2008 18:50

3

From L to R: Madsun, Paraiba and Dread

by Sceptic Mon Jun 23, 2008 22:49

A pretty one sided posting ignoring such material facts as the very high level of EU aid to the PA and for the the Palestinians people generally. The EU engages with both sides - you want it to engage with one only and ignore the Israelis and you excoriate it if it does not do what you want. As regards the prisoners the Cuban prisoners are prisoners of conscience. They are in jail for what they think. That is not the case with the Palestinians detainees.

by TD - FPC Tue Jun 24, 2008 17:07

Not the case, "Sceptic," of what I want, more the case of the EU adhering to the Essential Element Clause of its Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Israel: "Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement." and Israel's “waves of arbitrary arrests, incommunicado detention, torture and unfair trials" (Amnesty International), I put it to you, don't constitute "respect for human rights and democratic principles," and to paraphrase Ronnie Kasrils are much, much worse than Cuba's errancy on these matters, ?

With its "very high level of EU aid to the PA and for the the Palestinians people generally," the EU is hypocritically running with the hare, with its refusal to kybosh the Euro-Med Agreement and institute comprehensive sanctions against Israel it is running with the Zionist hounds.?

by Sandra K. Tue Jun 24, 2008 17:56

Barack Obama speaking to the expatriate Cuban community in Miami on 23 May promised to continue the 47-year crippling embargo on Cuba that has been declared illegal by the UN year after year,

Obama also promised to support an “undivided Jerusalem” as Israel’s capital - as John Pilger points out in his excellent New Statesman article; "Not a single government on earth supports the Israeli annexation of all of Jerusalem, including the Bush regime, which recognises the UN resolution designating Jerusalem an international city".

by Eamonn Tue Jun 24, 2008 18:41

In a speech to the Israeli lobby AIPAC, Obama moved to the right of Israel’s government by ruling out negotiations with Hamas. A day earlier, he told Cuban exile groups that he would only sit down with Raul Castro if the exiles had a seat at the table, a precondition that Cuba will never agree to.
Obama also refused to criticize Israel's recent practise bombing run in the Mediterranean and accompanying threats to launch massive air attacks on Iran failing to even urge restraint.

by Mike Novack Wed Jun 25, 2008 14:49

I hate to have to break this to you, but "democracy" is not about making wise, just, good, etc. etc. decisions.

It is about making the decisions that "the people" want, for good OR ill --- for however self interested they are deciding, etc. etc.

Obama is running for election, seeking the votes of the people. The reality is .............

1) There are people who will be more likely to vote for him if he is very pro Israel. His opponent will face the same problem. There are very few people in the US who will vote AGAINST a candidate because "too pro Israel" (that might be a minor consideration among any, not the deciding factor).

2) There are people (namely the Cuban exiles, they VOTE remember) who will vote for or against a candidate based solely on this issue. There very few to no people who get to vote here on the other side of this issue (it's a "don't give a damn" for everybody else). Of course there are a fvery ew socialists and/or communists here and they vote but that's irrelevant for any Democrat or Republican as for a candiate from these parties, regardless of position on Cuba, won't be getting votes from socialists or communists.

REMEBER -- our system over here isn't based upon getting the max for some majority coalition. It's designed around ensuring that minority interests can perhaps negotiate SOME of what they want -- in exchange for supporting a lot of what the coalition wants. Our coalitions are very loose/undisciplined cpompared to those of parliamentary form of democracy.

You see this most clearly with the "Cuba" issue. There is no majority SUPPORT for the policy (of the last many decades) but our system doesn't depend upon that. The key thing is that there is very little support for something different while at the same time there is support from a determined small minority FOR the policy. In this country, a minority can get what it wants if:
a) It doesn't want very many things and is willing to accept almost anything on other issues.
b) Isn't actively opposed by a counterbalancing interest group.

Most Americans don't WANT the current (and longstanding) policy on Cuba but it's not an issue they give much of a damn about, not one on which to get their way they would be willing to expend a drop of their politcal clout. The Cuban exile community may be small, but this is about all they care about, and while small nationally they are concentrated in one state (go against them and you will NOT get elected as Senator from Florida)

by Eamonn Wed Jun 25, 2008 14:53

The conflicts in the Middle East emanate from the "perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam." ?
See Related Link

Obama addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) forum on Foreign Policy in Chicago, March 2007.