I mean does the IDF purchase Microsoft Office, Gillette razor blades, Coca Cola to name a few?
Where is the acceptable line exactly?
Apple’s sales for Europe, Middle East, Africa and India are managed from Cork. I’m sure a few of those iPads and iPhones are purchased by the IDF.In 2023, Israel imported over $3bn from Ireland.
HP, Intel, the list would be a long one. Quite probably many of us have pension funds that have investments in companies who sell into Israel, either directly or indirectly.Apple’s sales for Europe, Middle East, Africa and India are managed from Cork. I’m sure a few of those iPads and iPhones are purchased by the IDF.
6,000 workers employed or engaged by Apple in Cork…..
Same for lots of tech and pharmaceutical companies.
How else does it manifest itself?I'd agree of that was all it was.
Listen to or watch RTE. They quote the Hamas officials as if they were honest brokers. They quote casualty figures as if they were all civilians. They refer to the conflict as the Israel Hamas war when it is the Israel Gaza war. They are, in my opinion, very biased. The response from the Government and opposition is equally biased. I don't expect any better from the President, Putin's Puppets in the Dáil and the Party run by child killers but Michael Martin's response has been particularly disappointing.How else does it manifest itself?
Hamas <- Hezbollah <- Syria <- Iran <- RussiaBoyd Barret
Yes, it's remarkable that so many Irish people can't join the large dots alone the short line between Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and the war in Gaza.Hamas <- Hezbollah <- Syria <- Iran <- Russia
We know that Hezbollah & Hamas are nutters
This week we have seen the atrocities in the Sednaya prison in Syria
We know how Iran treats half its population
We know how Russia treats its nearest & dearest as well as its own people
Boyd Barret and the rest of them should hang their heads in shame.
Exactly, the multinationals like intel have a large presence in Israel so there is alot of transfer of goods back and forth within the company. We are not in a position to be "holier than thou" since we are so dependent on US multinationals ourselves.HP, Intel, the list would be a long one. Quite probably many of us have pension funds that have investments in companies who sell into Israel, either directly or indirectly.
None of this is evidence of antisemitism, much less “deep rooted” antisemitism.Listen to or watch RTE. They quote the Hamas officials as if they were honest brokers. They quote casualty figures as if they were all civilians. They refer to the conflict as the Israel Hamas war when it is the Israel Gaza war. They are, in my opinion, very biased. The response from the Government and opposition is equally biased. I don't expect any better from the President, Putin's Puppets in the Dáil and the Party run by child killers but Michael Martin's response has been particularly disappointing.
Probably from the same band of people but not necessarily reflective of “deep rooted antisemitism” in the country.I frequently hear the word "Zionist" used as a pejorative term.
I frequently hear the phrase "from the river to the sea" used in support of the Palestinian Muslims.
Why is it outrageous to even suggest that the civil servants in his department have antisemitic leanings? I’d suggest that assuming that a group of people are incapable of such bias simply by virtue of their employment is outrageous. Putting groups of people on pedestals generally doesn’t work out well.None of this is evidence of antisemitism, much less “deep rooted” antisemitism.
Make no mistake, any pronouncement Michael Martin makes on foreign policy is reflective of the very informed position of his Department’s diplomats. These are serious people. To even suggest that they have antisemitic leanings is outrageous.
That would certainly be a mistake. I’m very critical of Israel, particularly of their current government which is run by a criminal and propped up by genocidal religious fanatics, and I’m not antisemitic.Maybe the mistake is to assume that everyone who’s anyway critical of Israel is automatically antisemitic.
I’ve heard very few balanced critiques of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, either historical or political, from any Irish news source or politician. The level of vitriol levelled against Israel, and Israel alone, from all sides of Irish society is appalling.Probably from the same band of people but not necessarily reflective of “deep rooted antisemitism” in the country.
Because you have absolutely no evidence to support this other than a disagreement with related Government policy.Why is it outrageous to even suggest that the civil servants in his department have antisemitic leanings? I’d suggest that assuming that a group of people are incapable of such bias simply by virtue of their employment is outrageous. Putting groups of people on pedestals generally doesn’t work out well.
Because like most cautious ministers, he relies on the informed views of his official. All government ministers are regularly fed information notes and speaking points on all policy matters. You can be pretty sure that as minister for Foreign Affairs, MM isn’t going to disregard these in favour of an alternative position.Why do you think that Michael Martin does not form his own views and only parrots those of the employees of his department?
Again, this isn’t antisemitism. It’s possible (or at least it should be) to take the view that Israel’s response has been disproportionate without being accused of antisemitism.The level of vitriol levelled against Israel, and Israel alone, from all sides of Irish society is appalling.
If they are the source of the minister’s antisemitic stance then that is evidence.Because you have absolutely no evidence to support this other than a disagreement with related Government policy.
They are civil servants in a small politically and militarily irrelevant country with the same biases as the rest of us.Diplomats are thoroughly informed on matters of foreign policy. They have information sources that aren’t generally available. They consult with counterparts from other countries and produce an informed and considered view.
Nobody is suggesting that they do.They don’t saunter into work each day thinking “what can I do to stick it to the Israelis today”.
See by point above; if his views are a reflection of his civil servants then that is evidence of their bias. I don’t believe that they are the source but I also don’t believe that they are incapable of being biased simply by virtue of their employment.Because like most cautious ministers, he relies on the informed views of his official. All government ministers are regularly fed information notes and speaking points on all policy matters. You can be pretty sure that as minister for Foreign Affairs, MM isn’t going to disregard these in favour of an alternative position.
I am of that view but that’s not the position of the government or the minister or indeed of the media in general.Again, this isn’t antisemitism. It’s possible (or at least it should be) to take the view that Israel’s response has been disproportionate without being accused of antisemitism.
If you honestly believe that the government is antisemitic as a matter of policy, then there’s really nothing to say in response.I am of that view but that’s not the position of the government or the minister or indeed of the media in general.
I wish that was true but they have consistently condemned the government of Israel while not condemning the government of Gaza. They take the reports from the Gazan government as true and accurate while (rightly) questioning the reports from the Israeli government.The Irish government is not Anti-Semitic. It is caught between the atrocities of Hamas and the Israelis.
I agree 100% with you there.Nobody should condone the killing of civilians or promote land grabbing. While I am a supporter of the plight of Israel; I’m also sympathetic with the plight of innocent Palestinians. There’s no middle ground here.
I think that recent events have shown that to be the case.If you honestly believe that the government is antisemitic as a matter of policy, then there’s really nothing to say in response.
Ah. So now we should be more nuanced in our assessment of Israel’s military actions because of the potential impact on our economic interests.I think that recent events have shown that to be the case.
I also think that it is remarkable arrogant and ill considered to be so pointlessly vocal about the actions of one side in this particular conflict considering that we are in the economic crosshairs of a bullishly isolationist new US Administration which is possibly the most pro-Israeli, and pro this Israeli government, in history.
If we were looking for a way to make ourselves more unpopular with the new Trump administration we probably couldn't have picked a better issue to do it with... now tell me again about how our civil servants in the department of Foreign Affairs are professional, balances, detached, considered and well informed.
This is our diplomatic version of Brexit, only far more stupid and pointless.
Yes, of course we should. Our entire economic existence is threatened by the new US Administration and we are engaging in an utterly pointless exercise in very selective virtue signalling against their ideological bedfellows.Ah. So now we should be more nuanced in our assessment of Israel’s military actions because of the potential impact on our economic interests.