Taoiseach is anti-semetic

[Itchy]

Both countries have gasbags in high office who don’t speak on behalf of either their government or their people.

I don't think its that simple.

The Israeli FM's comments were targeted, direct and strategic. He slandered the Taoiseach directly (and Irish people indirectly - who elects him?) and contrasts an ahistorical view of Ireland's WW2 foreign policy position with the modern day context. It's easy to dismiss this, as we know it's not true. But its not for here or Israel, for that matter. It's strategic messaging, backed with serious diplomatic action (closing the embassy) to undermine Ireland at the political level and shaping the narrative that Ireland is a bad actor generally. There's significant cross over between the pro-Irish and pro-Israel political camps in the US remember.

It's political warfare no doubt, and Israel are experts at this by the way. Harris did the right thing by not responding directly. Higgins made a massive cock-up, responding directly and then tripping over himself. That will feed this.

 

[Itchy]

Why are we only interested in Israeli war criminals?

We're not. That's just a juvenile way to deflect from accounting for one's own actions. Classic whataboutism.

 

[Purple]

We're not. That's just a juvenile way to deflect from accounting for one's own actions. Classic whataboutism.

Really? Can you support that assertion with, well, anything?
I've listed far bigger conflicts, some of them current, in which the Irish media and Government has shown little of no interest. Would you like me to list them off individually again so that you can back up the proposition that we are just as interested in them as we are in what Israel does?

 

[joe sod]

Criticising Ireland’s neutrality during WW2 plus other intonations are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Last major criticism of our neutrality was by Winston Churchill who was verbally hammered by Eamonn Devalera after. The issue has become a whole propaganda slur

That's the problem with Ireland's policy towards Israel, we are very vocal especially in last few years, so now we are drawing all this attention onto our neutrality since WW2. We can't have it both ways either we want to stay neutral and keep our mouths shut. Or we actually have a military policy and nail our colours to the mast. By being so vocal on these issues we are endangering our whole neutrality policy anyway. Traditionally Irish neutrality was based on us being a small poor backwater who stayed out of big international issues. Therefore our neutrality was sort of accepted. If we want to play big boys games we need to get big boys toys.

 

[trajan]

There's significant cross over between the pro-Irish and pro-Israel political camps in the US remember.

I think that is the essence of Israel's diplomatic actions in regard to Ireland.

Israel opening an embassy in Ireland ? This never made sense to me since the Israeli embassy to the UK is so close at hand to Ireland and running an embassy is a significant overhead for a country with a very small Jewish population.

Israel's exports to Ireland are significant at ~ $2.5 bn.

But so are Irish exports to Israel at ~ $ 2 bn.

Its decision then seemed to me to be purely a PR move towards a state whose army contributed UN personnel at Israel's borders and whose diplomatic swing vastly exceeded its economic weight. The latter attribute has become even more so in recent years due to a policy of overseas aid by Irish governments to weaker nations.

USA is the key to Israel's ability to prevail in the long term. Irish-American political influence goes a long way. Hence the desire to keep in with Ireland.

Until the hostage crisis and Ireland's public and official reaction to it.

 

[trajan]

That's the problem with Ireland's policy towards Israel, we are very vocal especially in last few years, so now we are drawing all this attention onto our neutrality since WW2. We can't have it both ways either we want to stay neutral and keep our mouths shut. Or we actually have a military policy and nail our colours to the mast. By being so vocal on these issues we are endangering our whole neutrality policy anyway. Traditionally Irish neutrality was based on us being a small poor backwater who stayed out of big international issues. Therefore our neutrality was sort of accepted. If we want to play big boys games we need to get big boys toys.

Hold on there.

Having a policy on humanitarian matters like treatment of Palestinian civilians doesn't require us to join some military alliance or other. In any case we have a sort of associate membership of the EU military alliance.

This forum doesn't need a resident Eamon Delaney urging us to send troops to the old USSR borders and suchlike.

 

[Purple]

I think that is the essence of Israel's diplomatic actions in regard to Ireland.

Israel opening an embassy in Ireland ? This never made sense to me since the Israeli embassy to the UK is so close at hand to Ireland and running an embassy is a significant overhead for a country with a very small Jewish population.

I agree.

Israel's exports to Ireland are significant at ~ $2.5 bn.

But so are Irish exports to Israel at ~ $ 2 bn.

There's a lot of crossover within US Multinationals between Israel and Ireland, Intel being the most obvious example.

Its decision then seemed to me to be purely a PR move towards a state whose army contributed UN personnel at Israel's borders

There are around 10,000 personnel in the UNIFIL mission. Most of them are troops. Ireland contributes around 375 of them. We are a small and irrelevant part of the overall mission with no heavy lifting, heavy weapons or deployment capability.

and whose diplomatic swing vastly exceeded its economic weight.

Only in our own delusional minds.

The latter attribute has become even more so in recent years due to a policy of overseas aid by Irish governments to weaker nations.

Our contributions are Lilliputian in scale. Certainly more than we used to give but still very little, around the same as Belgium.

USA is the key to Israel's ability to prevail in the long term. Irish-American political influence goes a long way. Hence the desire to keep in with Ireland.

I think that works more the other way around, especially with the incoming administration, hence what should be our strong desire to keep in with Israel.

 

[Itchy]

Really? Can you support that assertion with, well, anything?

Well it's self evident from you post

I agree. Why are we only interested in Israeli war criminals?

We are also interested in Russian war criminals, for example. So we are are not only interested in Israeli war criminals as you implied by your question.

I've listed far bigger conflicts, some of them current, in which the Irish media and Government has shown little of no interest.

What the media does or doesn't do is a red herring.

Would you like me to list them off individually again so that you can back up the proposition that we are just as interested in them as we are in what Israel does?

See how you've moved the goal posts, it was "we are only interested in X" and now it's "we are not as interested in Y as we are in X". This implies there is some other reason why X should be a particular focus and not the substantive issue itself e.g. in the Israel context, the substantive point is the application of HR/Int law but also the Irish are anitsemiites so that's why they are focusing on Israel. Its a nonsense. Y is moveable too.

As for other conflicts, in the other thread you posted the below:

Meanwhile in Sudan;

Sudan war death toll much higher than previously recorded, new study finds​

60,000 dead, 11,000,000 displaced and 25,000,000 living off aid.
Not a dickeybird out of Michael Martin about this conflict. Not a word against UAE, despite them backing one side, the same side as Russia, while stealing millions on gold from the country.

I responded with a number of references of how MM/Ireland directly addressed this and other conflicts in various actions over the course of months.

Here is a contribution to the Foreign Affairs Committee meeting on the Sudan conflict that I referenced in that thread

Ms Jane-Ann McKenna: I thank the Deputy. On the first question regarding the political solution, we would like to acknowledge that when the Tánaiste was in New York only a few weeks ago, he called out all the external actors that are fuelling this conflict very clearly. That was a welcome move because it is not an easy statement to make at the UN General Assembly that there are very much other actors fuelling this conflict. Unfortunately, we are not seeing people coming to the table collectively who are the critical actors in this conflict, not only obviously the relative parties but particularly the countries that are fuelling it. The Taoiseach will bein Washington today and we are hoping that he will address this with President Biden to exert political pressure.

So "not a dickybird" is not a fair reflection of the State's actions.

Intervening in SA's case at the ICC was seen as particularly targeting Israel, yet Ireland also intends to intervene in Gambia's case against Myanmar. Now is this a situation where Ireland is as interested in the substantive issue or is the latter intervention done to ostensibly provide "cover" for the former? The answer shouldn't matter, by the way. It's the substantive issue that should be discussed on its own merits, relative to International law, not relative to other criminal actions.

It is a legitimate position for the State to pursue Israel at the ICC or Sudan or Russia as a standalone issue.

 

[Purple]

Well it's self evident from you post

I don't understand what you mean.

We are also interested in Russian war criminals, for example. So we are are not only interested in Israeli war criminals as you implied by your question.

Okay, overwhelmingly disproportionately interested in Israeli war criminals.

What the media does or doesn't do is a red herring.

Why?

See how you've moved the goal posts, it was "we are only interested in X" and now it's "we are not as interested in Y as we are in X". This implies there is some other reason why X should be a particular focus and not the substantive issue itself e.g. in the Israel context, the substantive point is the application of HR/Int law but also the Irish are anitsemiites so that's why they are focusing on Israel. Its a nonsense. Y is moveable too.

Are you suggesting that we are as focused on other conflicts as we are on Israel?
Are we looking to sanction the UAE or Saudi?
Is our media condemning them?
Are they condemning the Irish nurses, doctors and teachers who profit from slavery and oppression by working in those countries?
Are TD's who worked there or who own shares in companies from there getting suspended?

As for other conflicts, in the other thread you posted the below:



I responded with a number of references of how MM/Ireland directly addressed this and other conflicts in various actions over the course of months.

Here is a contribution to the Foreign Affairs Committee meeting on the Sudan conflict that I referenced in that thread



So "not a dickybird" is not a fair reflection of the State's actions.

Are you suggesting that we are as focused on other conflicts as we are on Israel?

Intervening in SA's case at the ICC was seen as particularly targeting Israel, yet Ireland also intends to intervene in Gambia's case against Myanmar. Now is this a situation where Ireland is as interested in the substantive issue or is the latter intervention done to ostensibly provide "cover" for the former? The answer shouldn't matter, by the way. It's the substantive issue that should be discussed on its own merits, relative to International law, not relative to other criminal actions.


It is a legitimate position for the State to pursue Israel at the ICC or Sudan or Russia as a standalone issue.

There are larger and bloodier conflicts which have much more significant economic implications for Ireland. Despite that our government, our media and our population in general are overwhelmingly focused in the Israel Gaza war. Within that conflict our focus, ire, condemnation and pontification is overwhelming on one of the two protagonists. The one that didn't start this round. That's the issue. That's where the accusation of anti-Semitism comes from.

You can play games with semantics and create false dichotomies all you like but when the strongly pro-Israeli Trump Presidency, which already has Ireland in their crosshairs takes the reigns our futile preaching from the side-lines may turn out to do us some serious harm.

In my experience Irish people are highly ethical and interested in justice right up until it might hurt them in their pocket. See refugees and climate change and how other countries should do something about "it" but not us for examples.

 

[cremeegg]

No he didn't. Where he did overstep, along with his government, was when he and they used the murder of over a thousand of their own people as an excuse for the destruction of Gaza and ethnic cleansing there and in the West Bank.

Well we can't say we don't know what is going on, because if we didn't know already, Purple has told us.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I heard Joe Brolly in NewsTalk yesterday evening talking about this issue. He made an absolute show of himself. He came out with absolute beaut's such as saying that this is the worst thing he ever remembers happening.
Joe is 55 years old and therefore he ranks this as worse than the 1994 Rwandan Genocide which killed a million people, the Ethiopian Famine in the mid 80's which killed between 300,000 to 1 million people, the Somalian Famines in 1992 and 2011 which between them killed nearly a half a million people, the ongoing Yemenis Civil War which has so far killed nearly 400,000 people, the Syrian Civil War which so far had killed over 600,000 people, the recent Afghanistan war which killed 176,000 people, the Soviet Afghanistan war which killed 2 million people, and the Congolese Civil War (the biggest war since the Second World War) which killed over 6 million people. I'm not including older conflicts which Joe may not have been aware of in his youth but when that utter rubbish gets free reign on the national airways it's hard to defend against the accusation that we are more than a bit antisemitic.

Joe also said that tolerance of Genocide is a concept that he's not familiar with. I missed his calls for sanctions against China due to it's treatment of the Uyghurs (1.8 million of them in concentration camps with a death rate of 5-10% of detainees each year), and Saudi Arabia and the UAE for their genocide in Yemen.

You do not mention the current Sudan war here, but I know you have before. Just for completion:

In April 2024, the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights released a report into breaches of the Genocide Convention in Darfur. The independent report found that there is "clear and convincing evidence" that the RSF and its allied militias "have committed and are committing genocide against the Masalit", a non-Arab ethnic group, and that all 153 states that have signed the Genocide Convention are "obligated to end complicity in and employ all means reasonably available to prevent and halt the genocide." It goes on to say that there is "clear and convincing evidence" that Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Libya, Chad, the Central African Republic (CAR) and Russia via the actions of the Wagner Group are "complicit in the genocide"

According to a report published by Le Monde in November 2024, the war may have killed over 150,000 civilians through the combined tolls of bombardments, massacres, starvation and disease

But I don't think it is anti-Semitism that is behind the likes of Brolly seeing Israel's actions as the worst thing he can remember. It is racism. Not racism against Israel, but against Sudan and many of your other examples which he disregards as being just a bunch of savages having fun.
His remark is on a par with Boyd Barret saying that guy lying about selling shares in June rather than July was the biggest political scandal he had ever come across.