Friday, June 04, 2010

Irish Government Enabling Terror

It’s painfully obvious that the “Gaza Peace Flotilla’s” only purpose is to open up a conduit to Hamas for weapons. And in the spirit of their usual outbursts that they’re selectively-neutral, pro-nonviolence, and all about peace (which is to say, a propagandized teenager’s understanding of peace), the Irish government is propping up the Kabuki theater thus:

As an Irish ship carrying humanitarian aid continues to sail for Gaza, Ireland has found itself hurled to the forefront of tensions between Israel and the European Union.

On Wednesday (2 June), the Irish government warned Israel for a second time to let the boat, whose passengers count among their number five Irish nationals, including a former UN deputy secretary general and a Northern Irish Nobel peace prize laureate, carry on to its destination and deliver its cargo without hindrance.

The Irish Taoiseach, or prime minister, Brian Cowen said that the ship, which he described as Irish-owned, should be allowed to complete its mission, telling the country's parliament that Dublin has been in close contact with the boat
The press is ignorantly playing along too:
the MV Rachel Corrie, named after an American university student and peace activist who was killed by an Israeli army bulldozer while attempting to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home in 2003.
Which must be what the kids these days are calling a tunnel to smuggle weapons used to kill civilians.

Given Teheran’s support of Hamas and Hizballah, it could even be that these shallow ‘pacifists’ are even stupid enough to believe that it will ingratiate them to Iran, and possibly dull their tacit threats.

Doubtful. Even amateur students of history should know better:
Since I first went to Berchtesgaden more than 20,0000 letters and telegrams have come to No. 10, Downing Street. Of course, I have been able to look at a tiny fraction of them, but I have seen enough to know that the people who wrote did not feel that they had such a cause for which to fight, if they were asked to go to war in order that the Sudeten Germans might not join the Reich. That is how they are feeling. That is my answer to those who say that we should have told Germany weeks ago that, if her army crossed the border of Czechoslovakia, we should be at war with her. We had no treaty obligations and no legal obligations to Czechoslovakia and if we had said that, we feel that we should have received no support from the people of this country. . .

- Neville Chamberlain, In Search of Peace (1939)

In other words, the “illegal war” argument. Can’t violate ‘international law’ can we? Even if we don’t say what that means or mention that there is no ‘big book of international law’ and a ‘big, God-like, stick-wielding constable to enforce it. Besides, how was invading Czechoslovakia any more ‘legal’ than stopping the invasion?

No comments: