Haaretz is reporting that David Trimble is going to be one of the foreign observers participating in Israel’s inquiry into the Mavi Marmara affair.
He’s a Nobel Peace Prize holder so it’ll be fun watching those who attempted to defend Judge Richard “Hang ‘em high!” Goldstone’s character attack Trimble as a sectarian Protestant supremacist when what’ll really be annoying them is that he was one of the leaders of the process which led to the Provisional Republican movement abandoning attempts to terrorize Northern Ireland Protestants out of their allegiance to the United Kingdom and instead devote itself to democratic participation in the state it attempted to destroy.
A quick note for the Haaretz journalist who wrote the story; describing Trimble as “of Ireland” is a bit like describing Bibi as Palestinian.
Read his article in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/25/comment.politics) and you’ll understand why the Israelis would love him: when he compares Israel and Northern Ireland, he looks at it from an IDF/Loyalist perspective versus a Hamas/Republican perspective. And being a Loyalist in Ireland, you know what he’s going to be in Israel.
Let’s just say, if this is a foreign observer who the Israelis hope will make their inquiry look balanced and fair, they must either be smoking a lot of pot, or they know something I don’t.
I have to say, however, that I do feel sorry for Israel. They’re scared of going to any international organisation because they know that if there’s anything like a balanced report Israel will be damned. So they’re forced to create a mock inquiry and invite sympathetic foreigners to give it some legitimacy, even if said foreigners are beacons of prejudice (cue David Trimble).
The worst thing is that the Israelis may get away with it, like they get away with everything.
The precedent established today is a dangerous one. The investigation will not win Israel any credit with a world that convicted it. If Israel thinks the result of a finding other than “guilty” will be accepted, it is sadly mistaken. And I want to stress the innocent party is not obligated to prove the negative - which is exactly what this investigation seeks to do. I am still opposed to it and I think no good will come from it.
D$
You and the Red Queen, “First the verdict, then the trial.”