by James Stephens

March 17, 2010

On this Ireland´s national day we on 4international send greetings to Jews, Serbs, and all who are prepared to fight the twin evils of Islam and  US and EU Imperialism.

We are a revolutionary socialist movement and the only movement to affirm that Israel and Serbia have been fighting against Jihad, a Jihad which is urged on by US and EU

Ther issues are not being reported

Who knows of the terror being inflicted on Jews in Israel over religious sites.

The most important religious site in the world is surely the place where the Jews thousands of years ago built their Temple, now called sometimes The Temple Mount.

it is on this asrea that the Arabs are mounting campaigns of Jew Hatred.

You can see the game of the Arabs in this. They are using the theme of victims and victimisation to its full extent.

But this theme has at its very base antisemitic foundations.

So we have Arabs being reported fully on BBC organizing a campaign of boycott of goods made in the jewish “settlememts”

This is pure antisemitism

And it is pure antisemitic racism to say that Jews cannot live and live happily in Judea and Samaria, the right name for the “West bank”

I can see how the antisemites in the west, in France, Spain etc, latch on to these issues. These antisemites fairly spit out the word “settlers”.

But they obscure the dangers to Israel.

1. Hizbullah has taken over the country of Syria. Rockets point at Israeli cities.

2. Syria stands poised to strike along with Iran

3. Hamas is the direct agent of Iran

4. Iran prepares huge rocketry and a nuclear bomb, both very interconnected

But these Spanish and English and Irish morons cum antisemites should stop an d ponder that these rockets of Jihad Iran can also hit them, say the miserable lives of the ex pats in Spain lounging beside the swimming pools…will they be safe? perhaps not!

In the miodst of this Hamas calls for a new Intifada:

Israeli border policemen arrest a Palestinian youth during clashes in the east Jerusalem Shufat refugee camp. Hundreds of Palestinians clashed with Israeli security forces across east Jerusalem on Tuesday in the worst rioting in years, as a senior Hamas leader called for a new “intifada,” or uprising.

(AFP/Marco Longari)


The Wall Street Joyurnal has summed up the strange courtship of the Obama regime with Islam

In his message, the Syrian president warned Washington frankly for the first time to stop expecting him to break off or degrade his ties with Tehran. In so doing, he has snatched a key Obama foreign policy goal out of the administration’s grasp. He explained that his bond with Iran was less ideological than strategic, grounded in the Arabs’ need to keep up their “resistance” to Israel. The Syrian-Iranian bond, says Assad, will peter out of its own accord when this need disappears.

Syrian contempt, intransigence and commitment to Arab violence against Israel have not discouraged the Obama administration in its courtship of this terror-sponsoring dictatorship. A senior emissary, John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, later affirmed his belief that “it is important to have diplomatic representation in Syria.
On March 14, The Wall Street Journal wrote succinctly:
“Mr. Obama’s foreign policy pattern to date: Our enemies get courted; our friends get the squeeze. It has happened to Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras and Colombia. Now it’s Israel’s turn.”


This strange thing that is Palestinianism was on show and was analysed brilliantly by DEBKAfile in the following

DEBKAfile Special Report March 16, 2010, 8:57 PM (GMT+02:00)

Tags:  intifada   Jerusalem   Palestinians 

Jerusalem on high alert for Palestinian violence

No Palestinian or Israeli Arab masses showed up in Jerusalem for the Day of Rage, Tuesday, March 15, called by Fatah, Hamas and Israeli Muslim leaders in a bid to stir up a third uprising (intifada) against Israel. No more than 500 teenagers were out on the streets of half a dozen Palestinian enclaves in Jerusalem, hurling rocks, rolling burning tires and blocking roads against the thousands of Israeli police armed with tear gas and rubber bullets ranged against them.
Around 14 policemen and three dozen Palestinians were injured in clashes – none seriously, and 60 arrested. One police officer was injured in the single shooting attack of the day at Ras al-Amud.
Police commissioner Dudi Cohen said reinforced Jerusalem units would stay on alert for more outbreaks until after the Muslim Friday prayers on Temple Mount. He hoped normal life would return to Jerusalem by next Sunday, March 21. The slogan of a Third Uprising made a snappy headline, nothing more, he said.
The riots scarcely seeped over into the West Bank. In Hebron, the Palestinian Authority’s US-trained security force drove a flying wedge between would-be rioters and Israeli troops.

Monday, Halil al Haya, speaking for the ruling Hamas in the Gaza Strip said “rivers of blood must flow,” while the radical Muslim leaders of the Israeli Arab communities threatened to descend on Jerusalem in force.
debkafile’s counter-terror sources report that a group of Israeli Muslim leaders were admitted to Temple Mount Tuesday and prayed at al Aqsa and some of their followers joined the Palestinian rioters. But two buses packed with Palestinian sympathizers heading for Jerusalem were turned back by police roadblocks on Galilee and central Israeli highways.   

In a bid to bring out the masses, Abu Ala, former Palestinian prime minister and peace negotiator with the Olmert government, and Hatem Abdul Qader, head of the Jerusalem desk in the Palestinian Authority, said Monday the Day of Rage must be the opening shot for a fresh uprising (intifada) against Israel.

In rabid anti-Semitic diatribes, they again accused “the Jews” of “plotting to seize al Aqsa” in order to build their Third Temple. All Jewish claims of an ancestral connection to Jerusalem “was one big lie,” they said for rewriting Muslim history.
There never was a Hurva (Ruin) Synagogue in the Old City, said these Fatah spokesmen, referring to the 300-old synagogue, rebuilt and rededicated Monday, March 15, on the ruins of the Jewish house of worship and community center the Jordanians destroyed during their 19-year presence in the Old City up until 1967.
The structure was restored stone by stone according to the photos and plans of the old building.
Palestinian leaders took encouragement from the Obama administration’s harsh campaign against Israel as their big chance to embark on another violent war of “resistance” to Israel. They believed the Jewish state was in such bad odor with its best friend, America, that it would be held by the entire world responsible for the violence.
According to debkafile’s military sources, Mahmoud Abbas stood up to the pressure of his colleagues to let PA security forces off the leash. Instead, he ordered them to keep would-be rioters in check. 


How can these antisemites in the west not see what is going on?

For many reasons.

Firstly the high level of historical antisemitism which today runs through contemporary Europe, reflected all the time in the BBC reportage

Secondly the ordinary people just do not know or understand and how on earth could they…the background musak is antisemitism

Thirdly the Left (really Left Fascists) betray the Jews

Best example of all of this is the Jerusalem “settler” issue

BBC always says when speaking of East Jerusalem “Occupied East Jerusalem”.

In other words a lie about history. Easy to rattle off, the actual history of Jerusalem much harder to learn.

And then take a prominent Jewish man who I heard on Spanish radio joining in on the attack on the Jews re East jerusalem.

A prominent Jewish religious man at that.

Who believe me really hates Trotskyism.

There can be no way out and no step forward without a revolutionary party. That requires people who will fight, who will not cut and run, who will fight int he same way that the great Z Street has shown, who can get out on the streets and fight the Left Fascists.

Time to decide. Time to choose. Time is up now and you have to decide what to do with your life.


by Felix Quigley

3 December

Wikipedia is in part a useful giver of information and in other part a mechanism or forum where actual lies are told. But the correction of these lies entails the creation of a revolutionary Trotskyist leadership able to theoretically take up the issues.

We on 4internaional have found that Wikipedia misinformation is prevalent in Serb and Jewish stories.

A good example of the later is on the Wikipedia coverage of the British notorious White Paper of 1939 which was responsible along with the Nazis for the Holocaust of millions of Jews in the camps.

It is necessary to take parts of their article, place it on print and see what the Wikipedia writers are doing

[Start Wikipedia extract on White Paper of 1939]

At the same time, British leaders had an interest in Zionism arising from widespread influence of Evangelism and belief in Jewish economic influence (e.g. Alfred, Lord Milner was employed as Chairman of the Rothschild owned Rio Tinto Zinc some time after 1906). David Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister during World War I had worked closely with the Zionist movement and was an Evangelical preacher.[3] This, and a variety of strategic factors, such as securing Jewish support in Eastern Europe as the Russian front collapsed, culminated in the Balfour Declaration, 1917, with Britain promising to create and foster a Jewish national home in Palestine. These broad delineations of territory and goals for both the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and Arab self determination was approved in the San Remo conference.

[End Wikipedia extract here]

The use of the word “Evangelical” may seem a minor matter but it is critical. [I deliberately leave aside the reference to Milner working for a Rothschild company, the target of Protocols of Zion type conspiracy theorists]

Is the writer attempting to bring to the mind of the reader people like Billy Graham or Pat Robertson?

As we have described before there was an authentic movement inside British religious especially on the Protestant side to draw close to the plight of the Jews because of their common ownership of the Bible, the Old Testament.

The writer here is not doing other than bashing religion, which is a feature not of Lenin or Trotsky, but of Stalin and Zinoviev.

Since the Christians like Lord Alfred Balfour were moved to compassion for the persecuted Jews who had been persecuted for 2 years, how could that be other than extremely progressive, in a bourgeois democratic sense, in a truly socialist sense, if you do not want to use the simple word “human sense”

We know that other factors were present but that is a very strong factor indeed.

The proof of that is contained in a fuller knowledge of the facts which the Wikipedia writer obscures. Lord Balfour was part of a Christian trend which was supportive of the Jews, and he was fighting against another anti-Semitic trend inside British politics, and in fact that anti-Semitic trend was to come out on top in a very short time.

That shows that Lord Balfour was quite sincere in his support for the Jews. In fact, he suffered career wise for this support.

The Wikipedia writer can have none of this. People cannot have sincere feelings of support for the Jews. It is a kind of moral relativism. It is affected by the writer probably being a supporter of the “Palestinian” myth and full of hatred for Israel in the present such as the war in Gaza.

When one looks further at the extract above and if one focuses on these words

[Begin extract from words above here]

…culminated in the Balfour Declaration, 1917, with Britain promising to create and foster a Jewish national home in Palestine. These broad delineations of territory and goals for both the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and Arab self determination was approved in the San Remo conference

[End extract here]

The first question that arises from the above is whether it was a Jewish national home IN Palestine or whether Palestine was to be set aside as THE Jewish National Home.

The partisan intent of the Wikipedia writer is shown in that this question is not faced up to, but is cunningly glossed over.

But if that is cunning the other salient point from above is downright evil. This is the reverence of the Wikipedia writer to “Arab self determination”.

A clear reading of the Balfour Declaration is thus necessary for truth. Where in the Balfour Declaration is there any reference whatsoever to that term?

This issue is of such gigantic importance in the present, where Israel is coming under sustained attack from the Obama regime, previously also the Bush outfit, to give up its homeland area of JUDEA to accommodate a “Palestine” state that it is necessary to return to it again and again.

We on 4international from our reading of history say that Palestine was to be the Homeland of the Jews and that the action of the British Government in splitting off the huge area of Transjordan, fully 78 per cent, was illegal. Carried out actually by Churchill! That was later to form the independent Arab state of Jordan, sitting on as far as we can see the original homeland area for the Jews.

So was Palestine to be for the Jews of the world to settle on and to make their state where they could be secure from anti-Semitism?

In this series of articles on 4international we will show

  1. That in 1917 there were no Arab people who called themselves “Palestinians”. The term then did not exist as applied to Arabs.
  2. That out of the downfall of the Islamist ottoman Empire a series of Arab states were set up with the help of US and British/French Imperialism, totally believ e it or not 21 states, and the state striven for by Obama and Bush along with Blair and Cameron is NUMBER TWENTY TWO


Not bad going eh!

We on 4international realize that the above statement (inside the 2 bullet points) are really just assertions.

So since this is the internet and anybody can say anything (and they do!) it is necessary to back this up with some precision. We will of course do that.


by Felix Quigley

1 December, 2009


The very first response of the EU bureaucrats to the decision to ban minarets in Switzerland is to reach for the “Human Rights Nazis” to reverse the decision of a majority of the Swiss. Same thing in bureaucratic terms as the Irish vote!


This exposes the real nature of the EU, a totally anti democratic reactionary alliance, and forum for Islam.


This brings into line now the study of the work of Bat Yeor, the Egyptian Jewess who has studied Islam, especially the dhimmi aspects of Islam.


Now just watch those EU dhimmis rabbits run for the cover of the Human Rights Nazis who will come in wielding their big cudgel of Human Rights Nazi Legislation against the hapless ordinary European people. How dare they vote against Islam!


We on 4international have our own independent political line. We do not agree with Bat Yeor in that she offers no strategy to fight Islam. She leaves the aspect of defeating Islam hanging in the air.


But her research and analysis is uncanny in its correctness


The Swiss vote is up there, a really courageous action, with the Gates of Vienna and the Knights of Malta decisive and courageous opposition to the Islamic Imperialism


A great beginning to our new era!


The vital need is for our Trotskyist Party to take up the struggle on this and to provide correct leadership


And we say again…Thank you Bat Yeor!


[Begin analysis of the EU and Islam by Bat Yeor here]


The EU’s craven, morally bankrupt stance was sadly consistent with Eurabian policies evident now for three decades. In fact, the EU has been completing a slow metamorphasis into the “Christian” arm of the Pan-Arab world, different in religious observation (or lack of same) but united in its views of Israel and America.


The European Community (EC), and later the EU, has been aligned with Arab policy regarding Israel and the United States since its June 1977 declaration.


Disruption of the Western alliance by separating Europe from America, and the piecemeal destruction of Israel were the pillars of the Euro-Arab alliance that gave birth to Eurabia.


The formation of this tactical alliance can be traced clearly to a document issued 24 years ago. Prompted by fears of Khomeini’s Shi’ite theocracy in Iran, international Arab terrorism and the rise of oil prices, the EC adopted the 1980 Venice Declaration.


This declaration made clear that the EC, under French leadership, had adopted Pan-Arab conditions regarding Israel without qualification, including: the 1949 armistice as Israel’s legitimate borders; Arab sovereignty over East Jerusalem; an Arab Palestinian state; the recognition of the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinians, as well as its participation in all negotiations, and the obligation of Israel to negotiate with Arafat, exclusively; and the refusal to recognize a separate peace between Israel and any Arab country, for the resolution of the “Palestinian problem.”


By adopting all those conditions (which contradicted UN Resolution 242) Europeans could in turn justify their ahistorical designation of Judea and Samaria as occupied Arab land.


 Ultimately, the entire European effort to delegitimize and vilify Israel hinges upon this inaccurate, disingenuous formulation.


In the 1970s and 80s, the Communist bloc and the burgeoning Euro-Arab alliance granted international legitimacy to the denial of Israel’s rights by the PLO. France, and to a lesser extent Germany, directed the entire European Community foreign policy in accord with Arab-Islamic sentiments.


A careful reading of the Venice Declaration (1980), the Fez Islamic Conference (1980), the Amman Arab Summit (1980), and the Taif-Mecca Islamic Summit (1981) reveals the similarities between the European and Arab positions in relation to Israel.


Europe’s modified wording is just a fig-leaf.


This subterfuge allows the EU to pose as a “neutral” agent between Israel and the Arab world and to retain a role in the peace-for-terrorists-process.


At the Durban circus in September 2001, European representatives tried in vain to conceal the anti-American and anti-Semitic animus that permeates Eurabian policies, most visibly through the collusion of Eurabian and Arab NGOs.


 And again, during the recently completed International Court of Justice proceedings in The Hague, Eurabian judges employed similar tactics but joined their colleagues from the Muslim world in finding Israel’s anti-terrorist barrier “illegal” (and thus denying the Jewish state its legal right to self-defense).


Beyond a fleeting awareness, the overwhelming majority of Europeans and Americans do not understand the new Eurabian entity, which is only the first step in a steady progression toward its Arabization and Islamization.


Europe has evolved from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment/secular elements, to a “civilization of dhimmitude,” i.e., Eurabia: a secular-Muslim transitional society with its traditional Judeo-Christian mores rapidly disappearing.


This evolution of Europe has been duplicated internally within every EU country.


This deliberate, comprehensive process has taken place through several means: the control of Middle Eastern Studies departments at European universities, and the re-writing of historical textbooks; allowing Euro-Arab bodies to screen cultural exchanges and publications relating to Islam and the Arab Muslim world for unwelcome content; taboos imposed on issues related to immigration and Islam; disinformation campaigns demonizing Israel (and America), while fostering a comprehensive and “brotherly” alliance between EU and Arab League countries on the political, economic, cultural, and social levels; and the servile obedience of the EU’s mainstream media to all these initiatives.


Most recently, this program of Euro-Arab symbiosis has been codified in a detailed report entitled, “Dialogue between Peoples and Cultures in the Euro-Mediterranean Area.”


Released last October, this report (whose contributors included Umberto Eco and Tariq Ramadan) was to establish complete interdependence between Europe and the Arab-Muslim world. Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, established the High-Level Advisory Group which stated the aims, policies, and routine functions of the foundation. The Advisory Group mandated that the foundation have complete financial and administrative independence in managing its budget and in choosing its partners.


In support of this remarkable request, the Advisory Group argued that the foundation needed considerable resources to cover its activities that would be extraordinarily expensive, as they will encompass all the countries of the EU.


The Advisory Group further justified such conditions by invoking its lofty aim, which “is nothing less than peace itself.”


And this “peace” — accomplished through “brotherly love” and “dialogue” between the North and the South of the Mediterranean — will be achieved by a total economic, political, and cultural fusion.


This May (2004), the EU followed this report up by accepting the creation of the Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue of Cultures, named after Anna Lindh, the Swedish minister murdered by a deranged man. Lindh was a staunch defender of Arafat and advocated an economic boycott of Israel by the EU, a policy long desired by Eurabian politicians. Not surprisingly, the Anna Lindh Foundation draws inspiration from the spirit of Edward Said, the late dhimmi ideologue bent upon subverting Western culture, and values.


The Anna Lindh Foundation endeavors to fight what it dubs “Fortress Europe” on Arab immigration issues, and to establish a totalitarian academic structure which alone will be entitled to teach and publish material on the Euro-Arab Mediterranean. It will also monitor the texbooks and university curricula for all of the EU.


Moreover, the Foundation promotes the vision of a unified Euro-Mediterranean world where people are not even defined as being from the North or the South, (terms considered too provocative as they might evoke visions of a once-Christian North and a very Muslim South).


 The Euro-Arab continent will instead be populated by an amorphous mass called only “Us,” without acknowledged ethnic, national, or religious features.


 In reality, Europe is creating a gigantic Muslim community, or “umma,” which is also inhabited by an anonymous (and precipitously dying) European dhimmi population. One can choose to ignore it, but Eurabia is a tangible entity.


Eurabia has a discernible historical development, and its functionaries are now well entrenched in each European parliament, and at the head of the European Commission.


Often Javier Solana merely parrots the Arab League’s Amr Moussa, or the Palestinian Authority’s Yasser Arafat. Hence Solana’s parrots the pan-Arab refrain that no reforms can be achieved in any Muslim country before the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, reiterating the same fatuous statements made by Amr Moussa.


The EU continues to proclaim that all negotiations must be conducted with Arafat alone and that the Middle East conflict is at the center of world politics. Those two assertions were repeated endlessly at the Fez, Amman, and Taif Summits (1980-81).


 The EU’s unlimited funds finance anti-Israeli and anti-American campaigns, as well as the “dialogue” industry.


Regarding Israel in particular, it appears as if the EU has become the obsequious mouthpiece of the Arab League.


This Eurabian ethos operates at all levels of European society. Its countless functionaries, like the Christian janissary slave-soldiers of past Islamic regimes, advance a jihadist world strategy.


Eurabia cannot change direction; it can only use deception to mask its emergence, its bias and its inevitable trajectory. Eurabia’s destiny was sealed when it decided, willingly, to become a covert partner with the Arab global jihad against America and Israel.


 Americans must discuss the tragic development of Eurabia, and its profound implications for the United States, particularly in terms of its resultant foreign policy realities.


Americans should consider the despair and confusion of many Europeans, prisoners of a Eurabian totalitarianism that foments a culture of deadly lies about Western civilization.


Americans should know that this self-destructive calamity did not just happen, rather it was the result of deliberate policies, executed and monitored by ostensibly responsible people.


Finally, Americans should understand that Eurabia’s contemporary anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism are the spiritual heirs of 1930s Nazism and anti-Semitism, triumphally resurgent.




[end Bat Yeor analysis here]


by Felix Quigley

11 July, 2009



 (This is the first of a series dealing with Jewish history directed towards discussion of historical issues, will also incorporate Serb issues)

Not many people today know, but have to urgently know, the “Great” Britain took away from the Jews 78 per cent of their planned and promised Homeland.


This became Transjordan then later an independent Arab country which they called Jordan and which name we know it by today.


Jordan as the British and Arabs created it became a Judenfrei state.


No Jew has lived there since the British and Arab anti-Semitic action.


Britain changed the whole geography even psychology of the issue. Britain signed on the dotted line on behalf of the anti-Semites of Islam who would live not with Jews but only in the absence of Jews.


Look at what has happened. The Arab anti-Semites in country after country have expelled all Jews. In state after state where once there were hundreds of millions of Jews living in homers since way before Islam there are now a few hundreds and most often as in Iraq (Baghdad) none at all.


We emphasise…Britain helped this and set the moral tone for this by what they did to the Jews in Palestine.


Consider this on this basis


  1. we have Palestine
  2. Britain chops off 78 per cent
  3. Britain calls that 78 per cent Transjordan, then Jordan



Where has “Palestine” gone? In one fell swoop 78 per cent is gone.



It gets even worse.


The Jews are now forced to settle for the 22 per cent remaining. So does that 22 per cent go to the Jews WITHOUT ANY QUIBBLING OVER IT


Like hell it did.


This happened in the early months and years of the 1920s.


No understanding of the Islamic Jihad, of the way that the Imperialist powers of today (The US and EU especially) use the Jihad for their own geostrategic aims, without going back and making a study of that history




The Trotskyist vanguard are not the type of people who will do a study and then not act upon it.




And so we set about righting that wrong


  1. Present day Jordan is actually and materially Jewish Homeland land
  2. Repeat that for emphasis: The Judenfrei area of Jordan is illegal. It belongs to the Jews
  3. With that as our starting point naturally the rest (WHICH AT THAT POINT BRITAIN ALLOWED REMAIN) is Jewish Homeland as well. The rest is of course the 22 per cent. It is made up of Golan, Gaza, present day Israel. Judea and Samaria


As Trotskyist leaders and fighters we are not prepared to go on the back foot in relation to the Imperialist alliance with the Islamist Jihad. We state the truth and we go on the attack against the Imperialist manipulated anti-Semitic (and totally racist) Jihadist reaction




by Felix Quigley

May 11, 2009

This is a story about a woman called Caoimhe Butterly.

Butterly leaves the fair land of Ireland and journeys out to the Gaza WHERE SHE SENDS A LYING REPORT TO THE OPENLY ANTISEMITIC COUNTERPUNCH.

Butterly is billed in this way by Counterpunch.

Caoimhe Butterly is an Irish human rights activist working in Jabaliya and Gaza City as a volunteer with ambulance services and as co-coordinator for the Free Gaza Movement

Butterly is from the pacifist section of Irish society and she demonstrates in the following everything that is neurotic in Irish society concerning the Palestinians

Some years ago Butterly and Eamon McCann dragged a collection of boneheads down from Derry to visit Qana, never mind that a very ordinary little English website with no stake in the affair except a principled desire to get at the truth showed convincingly that the whole Qana Massacre was a gigantic hoax. Butterly and McCann never bothered to answer the EU Referendum because quite simply that is not what they do, not how they operate. To McCann and especially to Butterly facts have got nothing whatsoever to do with it, Butterly makes up her facts as she goes along. I guess you could say that McCann and Butterly are cultists, they have their little or biggish cult followings, and that keeps their egos ticking over.


The following report of Butterly published in the right fascist organ of Cockburn bears no relation whatsoever to the Gaza war.. it is a tissue of lies and is blatantly so. Butterly does not once mention the context, that the Jews left gaza en toto, that the Jews hoped for peace, that they got war instead, that Jewish areas of Israel were pummelled for 8 years, that the Jews delayed and delayed for years doing anything, that the Hamas terrorists wish to destroy Israel not live in peace, that all the time Hamas was being supplied with weapons by Iran and Hizbullah, that Shalit is still held without Red Cross visits, that Hamas fought from within civilians, that they loosed rockets from the midst of civilians onto civilians, that the Israeli army made phone calls to civilians telling them to get out as a strike was on the cards, that a person who is fighting aged 17 going on 18 is not really a child but a dangerous terrorist Jew hating killer, and so on

Not one of those items is mentioned by Butterly once. Count in the following how often Butterly mentions the Hamas rockets on Israeli civilians of Sderot


[Start notorious rant by Butterly here]


Weekend Edition
January 16-18, 2009

A Report From Gaza

Terribly Bloodied, Still Breathing



The morgues of Gaza’s hospitals are over-flowing. The bodies in their blood-soaked white shrouds cover the entire floor space of the Shifa hospital morgue. Some are intact, most horribly deformed, limbs twisted into unnatural positions, chest cavities exposed, heads blown off, skulls crushed in. Family members wait outside to identify and claim a brother, husband, father, mother, wife, child. Many of those who wait their turn have lost numerous family members and loved ones.

Blood is everywhere. Hospital orderlies hose down the floors of operating rooms, bloodied bandages lie discarded in corners, and the injured continue to pour in: bodies lacerated by shrapnel, burns, bullet wounds. Medical workers, exhausted and under siege, work day and night and each life saved is seen as a victory over the predominance of death.

The streets of Gaza are eerily silent- the pulsing life and rhythm of markets, children, fishermen walking down to the sea at dawn brutally stilled and replaced by an atmosphere of uncertainty, isolation and fear. The ever-present sounds of surveillance drones, F16s, tanks and Apaches are listened to acutely as residents try to guess where the next deadly strike will be- which house, school, clinic, mosque, governmental building or community centre will be hit next and how to move before it does. That there are no safe places- no refuge for vulnerable human bodies- is felt acutely. It is a devastating awareness for parents- that there is no way to keep their children safe.

In this paragraph Butterly ges carried Hawai in her total Israel hatred. Here she creates a totally nasty concept that Israel was actino like the IRA did in Bloody Friday, where second bombs were set off to blog up those fleeing from the first.

As we continue to accompany the ambulances, joining Palestinian paramedics as they risk their lives, daily, to respond to calls from those with no other life-line, our existence becomes temporarily narrowed down and focused on the few precious minutes that make the difference between life and death. With each new call received as we ride in ambulances that careen down broken, silent roads, sirens and lights blaring, there exists a battle of life over death. We have learned the language of the war that the Israelis are waging on the collective captive population of Gaza- to distinguish between the sounds of the weaponry used, the timing between the first missile strikes and the inevitable second- targeting those that rush to tend to and evacuate the wounded, to recognize the signs of the different chemical weapons being used in this onslaught, to overcome the initial vulnerability of recognizing our own mortality.

Note in the following paragraph how Butterly throws out unsubstantiated “facts” without bothering to source anything. It is more than posible that Butterly picks up these facts from the sink hople of antisemitism in Indymedia where no lie against Israel is too big to use.

Though many of the calls received are to pick up bodies, not the wounded, the necessity of affording the dead a dignified burial drives the paramedics to face the deliberate targeting of their colleagues and comrades- thirteen killed while evacuating the wounded, fourteen ambulances destroyed- and to continue to search for the shattered bodies of the dead to bring home to their families.

Last night, while sitting with paramedics in Jabaliya refugee camp, drinking tea and listening to their stories, we received a call to respond to the aftermath of a missile strike. When we arrived at the outskirts of the camp where the attack had taken place the area was filled with clouds of dust, torn electricity lines, slabs of concrete and open water pipes gushing water into the street. Amongst the carnage of severed limbs and blood we pulled out the body of a young man, his chest and face lacerated by shrapnel wounds, but alive- conscious and moaning.

As the ambulance sped him through the cold night we applied pressure to his wounds, the warmth of his blood seeping through the bandages reminder of the life still in him. He opened his eyes in answer to my questions and closed them again as Muhammud, a volunteer paramedic, murmured “ayeesh, nufuss”- live, breathe- over and over to him. He lost consciousness as we arrived at the hospital, received into the arms of friends who carried him into the emergency room. He, Majid, lived and is recovering.

This could be a totally made up store by Butterly, I mean how many “Muhammuds” are there in Gaza! And how likely is it that somebody would return to ruins to pick up clothes if things were as bad as painted by Butterly. And if the age she gives is correct, 17, that means he is terrorist age.

A few minutes later there was another missile strike, this time on a residential house. As we arrived a crowd had rushed to the ruins of the four story home in an attempt to drag survivors out from under the rubble. The family the house belonged to had evacuated the area the day before and the only person in it at the time of the strike was 17 year old Muhammud who had gone back to collect clothes for his family. He was dragged out from under the rubble still breathing- his legs twisted in unnatural directions and with a head wound, but alive. There was no choice but to move him, with the imminence of a possible second strike, and he lay in the ambulance moaning with pain and calling for his mother. We thought he would live, he was conscious though in intense pain and with the rest of the night consumed with call after call to pick up the wounded and the dead, I forgot to check on him. This morning we were called to pick up a body from Shifa hospital to take back to Jabaliya. We carried a body wrapped in a blood-soaked white shroud into the ambulance, and it wasn’t until we were on the road that we realized that it was Muhammud’s body. His brother rode with us, opening the shroud to tenderly kiss Muhammud’s forehead.

This morning we received news that Al-Quds hospital in Gaza City was under siege. We tried unsuccessfully for hours to gain access to the hospital, trying to organize co-ordination to get the ambulances past Israeli tanks and snipers to evacuate the wounded and dead. Hours of unsuccessful attempts later we received a call from the Shujahiya neighborhood, describing a house where there were both dead and wounded patients to pick up. The area was deserted, many families having fled as Israeli tanks and snipers took up position amongst their homes, other silent in the dark, cold confines of their homes, crawling from room to room to avoid sniper fire through their windows.

As we drove slowly around the area, we heard women’s cries for help. We approached their house on foot, followed by the ambulances and as we came to the threshold of their home, they rushed towards us with their children, shaking and crying with shock. At the door of the house the ambulance lights exposed the bodies of four men, lacerated by shrapnel wounds- the skull and brains of one exposed, others whose limbs had been severed off. The four were the husbands and brothers of the women, who had ventured out to search for bread and food for their families. Their bodies were still warm as we struggled to carry them on stretchers over the uneven ground, their blood staining the earth and our clothes. As we prepared to leave the area our torches illuminated the slumped figure of another man, his abdomen and chest shredded by shrapnel. With no space in the other ambulances, and the imminent possibility of sniper fire, we were forced to take his body in the back of the ambulance carrying the women and children. One of the little girls stared at me before coming into my arms and telling me her name- Fidaa’, which means to sacrifice. She stared at the body bag, asking when he would wake up.

Once back at the hospital we received word that the Israeli army had shelled Al Quds hospital, that the ensuing fire risked spreading and that there had been a 20-minute time-frame negotiated to evacuate patients, doctors and residents in the surrounding houses. By the time we got up there in a convoy of ambulances, hundreds of people had gathered. With the shelling of the UNRWA compound and the hospital there was a deep awareness that nowhere in Gaza is safe, or sacred.

We helped evacuate those assembled to near-by hospitals and schools that have been opened to receive the displaced. The scenes were deeply saddening- families, desperate and carrying their children, blankets and bags of their possessions venturing out in the cold night to try to find a corner of a school or hospital to shelter in. The paramedic we were with referred to the displacement of the over 46,000 Gazan Palestinians now on the move as a continuation of the ongoing Nakba of dispossession and exile seen through generation after generation enduring massacre after massacre.

Today’s death toll was over 75, one of the bloodiest days since the start of this carnage. Over 1,110 Palestinians have been killed in the past 21 days. 367 of those have been children. The humanitarian infrastructure of Gaza is on its knees- already devastated by years of comprehensive siege. There has been a deliberate, systematic destruction of all places of refuge. There are no safe places here, for anyone.

And yet, in the face of so much desecration, this community has remained intact. The social solidarity and support between people is inspiring, and the steadfastness of Gaza continues to humble and inspire all those who witness it. Their level of sacrifice demands our collective response- and recognition that demonstrations are not enough. Gaza, Palestine and its people continue to live, breathe, resist and remain intact and this refusal to be broken is a call and challenge to us all.

Caoimhe Butterly is an Irish human rights activist working in Jabaliya and Gaza City as a volunteer with ambulance services and as co-coordinator for the Free Gaza Movement, She can be contacted at sahara78@hotmail.co.uk

[End the notorious rant by Butterly here]


by Felix Quigley

May 11, 2009

Rory Miller is an outstanding gain for the Irish socialist revolutionary movement. Let me explain this rather carefully.

The Irish “Left” has become a really corrupt mess of a thing!

The Irish “Left” really has nothing whatsoever to do with the great traditions of the historical socialist movement. I can best explain this in showing that they are known liars, which is seen in their refusal to publish 2 things:

1. That the Arab leader from the Palestine area of the Middle East was the worst ever Nazi criminal. This was the Arab Hajj Amin el Husseini. In the Holocaust he was the equal of Hitler, certainly easily on a par with Himmler and arguably the superior in the killing of Jews in the Nazi Holocaust to even Eichmann.

2. They have also hidden that the great socialist revolutionary Leon Trotsky advocated the Jews create their own independent state and that they use that state as a refuge from antisemitism. Trotsky was an advocate of the Israel to be.

And these are the 2 great lies that have corrupted the Irish “Left” of today.


The following work by Miller is outstanding in every regard. It covers the whole expanse of Irish Free State history and shows how the Irish have drifted into sheer antisemitism.

This analysis (I think it may be in the form of notes towards a lecture…FQ) which Rory Miller made is most revealing.

He begins with 3 reasons why the Irish may be so anti-Semitic. It is number 3 in the following which is most damning of the Irish position and echoes the disappointment with the Irish felt by Ben Brisco towards the end of hios life. Basically from a historical stand point the Jews in Ireland and elsewhere thought that they and the Irish had everything in common. In fact Jews played a big role in the Irish struggle for independence. Imagine then the disappointment of the Jews with the Irish when they the Irish betrayed the Jews and would not recognize Israel.


[Begin the rest of Miller’s analysis]


Even, prior to 1956, when Ireland was a powerless/peripheral state without a UN seat [entry vetoed in 1946 by USSR] and struggling to make a go of its new status as an independent republic the Palestine issue was a major preoccupation in Ireland.



Number of reasons–many of which are as true today as they were then


1. Irish struggle for independence from Britain lead to an innate Irish hostility towards partition as a solution to territorial conflict


[1920-Government of Ireland Act 1920-partition island]


Irish reject 1937 Royal commission on Palestine partition proposal

At league of Nations in 1937 Eamon De Valera attack partition as
”the cruelest wrong”


Capt. John Lucy writing in the Irish dept of foreign affairs monthly bulletin in 1938 noted

“England seems to be under the permanent delustion, as she is here in Ireland, that she can sell the same article to two people”


2. Importance attached to the Holy Land, and in particular, Christian Holy Places in Jerusalem

What Conor Cruise O’Brien has termed “The Vatican Factor” among

Public                                      clerical establishment                political elite.


June 1949 Foreign minister Sean MacBride told the Dail

“strongly supports the general demand that the holy places in Palestine should be suitably protected…the whole area of Jerusalem should be brought under international control”


Closely follow Vatican position on internationalization

Pope Pius XII—October 1948 encyclical on Jerusalem In Multiplicibus and April 1949 encyclical In redemptoris. 


In 1961 the Israeli ambassador to London was warned by senior diplomat:

“in such matters it is a mistake to write off the Vatican position by reference to what might to a normal person seem to be realism”



3. Identification with Jews in History

The Irish have undoubtedly seen parallels between their own history of large-scale migration and suffering in response to the Famine and the Penal Laws and that of the Jews under the Russian Tzars and later under the Nazis. 


Moreover, in 1936 the spiritual leader of the Irish Republic’s Jewish Community, the renowned Rabbi Isaac Herzog, left Dublin to take up the post of Chief Rabbi of Palestine, later becoming Israel’s first Chief Rabbi. 


While the Jewish underground fighting the British during the pre-1948 era was modeled on the old IRA—Yitzak Shamir’s nom de guerre was, after all, “Michael”, after Michael Collins.

-Yitzhak Shamir, future Prime Minister in Brussels in 1960s–courted Irish officials–but they not interested in stories of Civil War and the battle against the British.


In the decades after Israel’s birth Irish Jews, like Rabbi Herzog’s sons Chaim (a future president of Israel) and Yaacov (a great scholar and diplomat), as well as others like Max Nurock Israel’s ambassador to Australia contributed greatly to Israeli political and diplomatic life. 

Among this group

Frustration seen re: Irish attitude to developing Diplomatic Relations with Israel


February 1949 Cabinet agree to grant Israel de facto recognition [minimum level of recognition]

One of 32 states to recognize Israel between 1 January 1949 & 11 May 1949

20 others recognize Israel prior to 31 December 1948


Main Irish objective: Avoid any action that construed as

Legal recognition

Acceptance of Israeli control of Jerusalem


Death of Weizmann 1952-DEA advise president [O’Ceallaigh] against writing

In case it viewed as recognition of Weizmann as head of state


De Valera refuse invite to memorial service in Dublin synagogue


Policy of not sending note of congratulations on Israeli independence day


This refusal of Ireland to commit to legal recognition of Israel frustrated senior Israeli officials who not understand Irish position


In 1958 Walter Eytan, the first Director general of Israel’s foreign ministry noted that “irealnd, for some Irish reason, to this day does not recognize Israel de jure’


Shlomo Argov Israel’s ambassador to Ireland in the late 1970s and early 1980s expressed similary puzzlement


Israel constantly propose: 3 options to rise diplomatic ties


1-exchange of diplomatic missions

2-establish Israeli mission in Dublin (directly or by dual accreditation)

3-simple public statement of de jure recognition by Ireland


May 1963: grant Israel de jure recognition


Not a significant departure from ireland’s cautious stance up to this point


Exclude explicit or implicit acceptance of Israeli sovereignty over Jersualem from statement

[this decision was made at the time]


Signficiant public goodwill in Ireland towards Israel at this time


Rising Israel-Vatican ties

-in January 1964 Pope Paul VI visited Israel as part of tour of Holy Places

-Vatican “raised no objection” to upgrading ties [DEA]

-Italy, home of Vatican upgraded diplomatic relations with Israel from legation to embassy level in October 1955


Prior to this grant de jure recognition to

Egypt                           Syria                            Lebanon


On same day grant de jure recognition to 40 states including

Morocco                     Jordan                         Libya               Kuwait             Algeria



No rise in practical ties with Israel

–spring 1963 no message of sympathy sent on death of president Ben-Zvi


-Summer 1966 Taoiseach decline invite to dedication of forest in Israel to de valera


-refuse to appoint honorary consul or trade rep in Tel Aviv despite numerous applications


-Careful not allow Israel to use rising trade ties as back door to gaining further recognition


-Not mistake cautious rise in bilateral ties with anti-Israel attitude in intenraitonal norms


-rise in ties Israel demand similar effort vis a vis Arabs: not a priority region


1975-following EEC entry—and on eve of EU presidency – formalise diplomatic relations with Israel on a non-residential ambassadorial basis in December 1974—last to do so in EEC

In the eleven months prior to the decision on Israel, Ireland had commenced, or upgraded, diplomatic relations with

Lebanon (January)

Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia (September)

Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates (October)

 and Egypt (December). 

In January 1975 Ireland entered into non-residential diplomatic relations with Algeria and Tunisia

more significantly,

In February 1976 an Irish resident mission was opened in Iran.  In June 1980 Ireland entered into non-residential diplomatic relations with the Republic of Iraq.


December 1993 following Oslo—exchange residential missions—last to do so in EEC

[PLO not fair much better: offered a residential mission same day as Israel in 1993]



Identification with the Palestinian cause

However, the Irish struggle for independence also infused them

with a deep identification with the Arab nationalist struggle. 

terms of Irish identification with the Palestinian Arabs who were (at least in the Irish perception) forcibly partitioned.

 As O’Brien explains:

A little over three hundred and fifty years ago, the Catholic natives of large regions of Ulster were displaced from their homelands, by forfeiture or purchase, and replaced by a population differing from them both in religion and education and social organisation.  The natives remained in the area, mainly as tenants on the poorer land, and in unskilled industry.  Today, although the material position of the Catholics has greatly improved, the relationship between Catholic and Protestant, native and settler, has lost almost nothing of its animosity.



This was reciprocated by the Arabs. 

The scholar and statesman Richard Crossman has written that he realized the importance of the “Irish revolution model in modern history” during his first meeting with Egypt’s Gamal Abd-al Nasser in the early 1950s.

 During this meeting Nasser told Crossman that a book he had read on how the British were expelled from Ireland “will be a textbook of our Egyptian revolution”. 


As mentioned above the Irish anti-colonial experience also left the Irish with a deep hostility towards partition as a solution to territorial conflict, which in turn led to consistent support for the Palestinian cause. 


The factors set out above influenced both

the Irish attitude to the Israel-Palestine conflict

and the Israeli and Palestinian attitude to the Irish role in that conflict


Take Conor Cruise O’Brien’s book on Zionism and Israel—The Siege


David Vital—distinguished Israeli historian say

“it is surely an Irishman’s intuitive understanding of the Jewish-israeli predicament that makes it much the best book on the subject to be written by one fortunate enough (in this case) to be an outsider”.


Review of the same book in Journal of Palestine Studies

“one might expect Dr O’Brien to take a sympathetic position vis a vis the Arabs.  He does not”


The Same is true from the Irish perspective:

An Editorial in Leader 1957

“From our standpoint, the interesting thing is that both side sare prepared to listen to us.  The Jews…feel that we attempted what they are trying to do, to estabihs a political entity, which will be part independent state and part nostalgic homeland for the Diaspora.  They read our history in their schools, and it is said tha the Haganah was modeled on the IRA.  They think we are “with them”.  There is no need, on the other side, to stress the similiraity of the Arab nationalist plight to that of the Irish.  They would listen to us if they listen to anyone in the role of mediator”. 




This seen clearly both following Irish entry into the UN in 1956 and following Irish entry into the EEC in 1973:

Indeed, these two events have been the key dates in the evolving Irish attitude to the Palestine question



Palestine question at the UN

ENTER UN 1955-56

Suez Crisis

UK/France/Israeli invasion of Egypt late 1956

-FM Liam Cosgrave “deplored and condemned” invasion


November Sepcial Session support UNGA resolutions condemning action


But Cosgrave also note his “regret” at Egypt’s attempt to


“encompass the destruction of Israel….[Israel’s neighbours] must be ready to accept as a fact the existence of Israel and must renounce their projects for the destruction of that country”


January 1957: Irish Un delegation abstain on section of UNGA draft resolution attacking Israeli action in Suez as “a little too one sided to be of real service”




One term temporary member of UNSC for first time


March –Israeli-syrian border clashes

Support draft resolution calling on both sides to honour 1949 Armistice agreement



Freddy Boland [Irish UN ambassador] refused to speak in debate as

“I felt it would carry us into the sphere of Arab-Israeli differences to an extent which we have so far managed to avoid in the UN”


Hesitancy to become directly embroiled in the ME at the UNSC


Adds credibility to Aiekn’s words to Israeli foreign ministry member in 1962 that

Irish position on ME was Discreet and limited to private suggestions to parties involved.


Not confuse hesitancy with

-lack of interest or a

-belief that it had no right to be involved


Belief: especially under Aiken: FM 1957-1969 that Ireland occupy a unique place in international system


RIGHT and DUTY to contribute to search for peace and harmony in world


As Aiken told Dail 1961:

“owing to the accident of history or whatever way you like to put it [Ireland has] been independent, united, neutral, in the accepted sense of the term, in the military sense of the term.  It was our duty…take full advantage of that position, in order to try to promote the peace, to try to make propositions which countries tied to blocs could not make without committing their bloc”


Constant argument for irish international involvement

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern at Foreign Policy Association in New York, Sept. 2000

“the first and foremost” argument in favour of Irish involvement in the international arena was the “moral dimension”.


This particularly so re: Arab-Israeli conflict



Most notable—

Aiken’s central—and much underestimated role in UN mediations during and following June 1967 Arab Israeli War


Key speech in 5th emergency special session, 27 June 1967

Arnold Toynbee—“historic document”

Arthurl Lass, former Indian ambassador to the UN “by far the most far reaching of all those made in the Assembly debate”.


Key Role in deliberations of Western and Latin American States over diplomatic wording of UNGA resolutions:

Aiken suggested the wording for operative paragraph 1 (a) “all the territories of Jordan, Syria and the UAR occupied as a result of recent conflict”. 

This was ultimately adopted as the basis for operative paragraph 1 (a) of the final draft (which called for Israel to withdraw its forces from “all the territories occupied by it as a result of the recent conflict”. 



Lord Caradon, Dean Rusk, Abba Eban, U Thant: All look to Aiken


May 22: Day Nasser close Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships: Lunch with Thant


Caradon suggest that if negotiations with Latin American states broke down, then Ireland “should go it alone” and be the sole sponsor of a Western Draft resolution


Abba Eban: before the UNSC on 13 November 1967 urge UNSC to adhere to “my friend” Aiken’s call for a “speedy negotiation and [the] signing of a permanent treaty of peace”.

Irish stance between 1967-1973 was not expressed in anti-Israeli political position yet


Institute of Palestine studies characterize Irish position in UN in Summer 1967 as “strongly pro-Israeli”


December 1969: Ireland vote against UNGA resolution 2535 (XXIV) that viewed as a “call for the destruction of Israel”.


December 1970 vote against similar draft resolution “political and biased resolution”.


But some notable chanes in the yeas 1967-73:

First: Rising Irish preoccupation with the Palestinian refugee crisis


Irish policy on refugees increasingly at odds with Israel

Israel—peace settlement followed by solution to refugee crisis

Ireland—solution to refugee crisis prerequisite to rpeace settlement



Prior to EEC entry in 1973: 1 major involvement in the Israel Palestine conflict

Aid to Palestinian Arab Refugees


By April 1948

Month prior to Arab invasion of Israel

Over 100,000 Paelstinian Arabs

Urban centres Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa

Villages of Coastal plane

Flee to surrounting Arab states


By end of War: Early 1949: Refugee no.s

Israeli sources—538,000

Palestinian sources—850,000

UN estimates—720,000


1949 UNGA establish UNRWA [United Nations Relief and Works Agency


Aid to refugees of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza strip


Aiken in UN speeches 1957 & 1958

Described P refugee issue as “greatest single obstacle” to a lasting peace in the Mid-East

Most ambitious humanitarian plan for refugees


–called on UN to “guarantee full compensation” for the refugees for both property lost and damages suffered as a “result of their exile”


–accept Israel not exclusively responsbiel for the tragedy but call on it to state how many refugees it was prepared to accept


—call on UN to “arrange for repatriation for the maximum possible number of those who would rather return than receive full compensation”


–US $1000 per family to resettle outside Palestine


October 1958: Ireland makes first “purely token” donation to UNRWA £1000

One of 31 nations to fund UNRWA


Donations grow notably until 1966

[see table 1]



One of 43 out of 121 UN members [around one third] to donate funds


Contribution as a percentage of GNP—ranked sixth overall in Europe


Following June 1967 War—200,000 more refugees

December 1967 Aiken SPC speech on refugees

Repeat proposal of 1958


Instruct DEA to draw up plan for UN refugee fund to be submitted to UN Sec-Gen


Plight of P. Refugees:

Dominate Irish Mid East Policy and Aid Policy


June 1967—Refugee problem not on list of DEA Mid East priorities.

[free access to Suez; limit nuclear weapons; freedom of oil; solution to Arab-Israeli conflict]

By 1969 it was one of top 3 priorities


As a member of the DEA noted in summer of 1967

“tanaiste regards the present situation in the Middle East, and especially the plight of the refugees, as a major crisis with the gravest implications for world peace and he feels that Ireland should make a generous contribution as possible, not only for humanitarian reasons but also in the interest of peace in the Middle East and the world in general”


See this in rise in UNRWA funds 1967-1973: Table 2


UNRWA aid: out of proportion to other funding

Especially UNHCR


Responsibility for 3.5 million refugees[ Asia & Africa need practical assistance]

DEA figures: 1967-68: UNHCR 200,000 more refugees

See TABLES 3 & 4


1959-1966 inclusive:
FUNDS to UNRWA=US$ 133,800

FUNDS to UNHCR=UA$40,000


1967-1971 inclusive:

FUNDS to UNRWA=US$275,000

FUNDS to UNHCR=US$40,000


By 1970 DEA admit privately

UNRWA funding “reasonably adequate”.


UNHCR “ very poor”


Justified by FM Hillery on “political grounds [as way of] demonstrating practical support for P. tragedy”

Following EEC entry in 1973


Frustration over ongoing failure to resolve refugee crisis

Combined with

Anger at Israeli occupation of W. Bank and Gaza


Rising western sympathy for 3rd world causes and anti-colonial ideology


Success of PLO twin policy of terror and international diplomacy


French attempt to move the EEC towards its pro-Arab position


Focus on Palestine issue by existing Six member state try to increase co-operation in foreign policy



Ireland committed to this approach.

Take 6 Irish EU presidencies


1975: Garret Fitzgerald

-allay fears that 1975 Israel-EEC trade agreement

-gain compromise “Dublin Formual” re: Palestinians in single Arab delegation for EAD


1979: Michael O’Kennedy

-at UN, first EU rep to call for “representatives” of the Palestinains (diplomatic speak for the PLO) to “play a full part in the negotiations of a comprehensive settlement”

-Arab view of this statement

“first time that the EEC mentioned the need for the PLO to have a role in the peace process”.


1996 Dick Spring:

-intensive shuttle diplomacy Oslo peace process

-EU envoy to Mid East-post established in Dublin


Report back on opportunities for Eu politicial role

-assist Israel and PA in negotiations

-monitor violations by both sides

At start of presidency Ireland also propose EU monitoring system of settlement building in Jerusalem –later extended to W. Bank


Outside of the Presidency:

October 1974

Vote with France and Italy [all rest of EC abstain or vote against]

Resolution in favour of PLO participation in plenary UNGA meetings on P. question.


Israeli respond “greatly disappointed…Ireland lend support for organization of murderers”


February 1980:

Bahrain communiqué

-Independent state in Palestine

-PLO ‘full role’ in negotiations

-withdrawal from all territoty captured in 1967


Begin: RTE radio: this tantamount to irish acceptance of PLO right “to destroy state of Israel”

Bahrain go further than March 1980 Giscard D’estaing [French president] call for P self determination


June 1980 Venice Declaration

PLO “association”                   self determination


From 1980s Ireland viewed as part of the EEC’s pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian bloc

Intensified by

UNIFIL experience

Between 1978-2001—40,000 Irish troops serve on Israel-Lebanese border in Southern Lebanon [47 lose lives]

increase support for Palestinian cause in Irealnd at a public and official level:—casualties/clashes with SLA

Senator McDonald evoked the general Irish view on the issue at this time, when he admitted in 1990 that he had lost much of his previous sympathy for the Jewish state once Israel ‘commenced to use our UNIFIL volunteer soldiers as target practice’.

This tension end 2000, following Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and end of Irish UNIFIL role


But coincide

Breakdown of Oslo—outbreak of violence September 2000


As Brian Cowen, Ireland’s then Minister for Foreign Affairs, put it in October 2000, the renewed fighting was ‘truly tragic’ because it occurred ‘just at the moment when the parties were closer to an agreement than they have ever been’.


Like its EU partners, Irish government has continuously expressed regret at the escalation of violence and has repeatedly condemned the ‘horrific’ killing of Israeli civilians in suicide bombings, arguing that such ‘atrocities …do nothing to advance any legitimate political agenda and must be unreservedly condemned’. 


The government, again like EU partners, have linked condemnations of Palestinian violence s with criticisms of Israeli policies and actions that were viewed to have either provoked, fuelled or prolonged the Palestinian resort to terror as ‘excessive and disproportionate’. 

In particular the government has condemned ‘extra-judicial killings’—what Israel terms “targeted assassination”

It has also drawn attention to settlement building—as a “cause of massive Palestinian resentment’ as well as ‘a major focus of violent incidents”.

Most notably between 2000 and his death in November 2004

Ireland was committed to supporting the role of President Arafat as “ the indispensable partner for dialogue”

While Ireland’s UN Ambassador Richard Ryan

We reject outright any intention to oblige the elected leader of the Palestinian people to re-enter exile.


Ireland opposition to any policy of excluding Arafat from the political process clearly highlighted by Cowen’s decision to meet Arafat during his visit to the region in late June 2003 even though Israel refuses to meet foreign representatives who visit Arafat on the same visit.  Both the DFA and the Irish embassy in Tel Aviv downplayed the implications of the incident by calling Cowen’s visit to Arafat a ‘courtesy call’.  The Israeli foreign ministry, at least privately, took a less sympathetic view of Cowen’s decision while the Israeli press described Cowen as the ‘most blunt of all’ EU leaders on the matter.  Indeed, Cowen was the first high-ranking international diplomat to choose to meet with Arafat over Israeli officials since Mazen became Palestinian prime minister.  Prior to his trip the Spanish foreign minister made two official visits to the region in a five-day period to avoid the Israeli boycott, while Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi refused to meet Arafat at all. 

This whole affair clearly underlines the ongoing Irish commitment to the Palestinian cause (it coincided with the founding of a new cross party lobby group ‘Friends of Palestine in the Oireachtas’ that can claim fifty Dáil deputies and senators as members).  But it also highlights the extent that Irish policy makers continue to view Arafat as “Mr Palestine”–the embodiment of the Palestinian struggle and the father of Palestinian hopes.  In 1993, during his celebratory trip to Dublin following the signing of the Oslo peace accords, Brian Lenihan reminded Arafat of the ‘genuine warmth in Ireland for you and your cause’.  A decade later, with the optimism of 1993 long-gone, the Oslo process is in ruins, terror at an all-time high, and a majority of Israelis, the American administration and significant sectors of the Palestinian population having lost faith in Arafat’s capacity, or desire, to lead the Palestinians to their inevitable state, Cowen was describing Arafat as ‘the symbol of the hope of self-determination of the Palestinian people’ and praising him for his ‘outstanding work…tenacity and persistence’. 


Arafat always appreciated Irish support.

On his first visit to Dublin in 1993 he: thanked his hosts for the fact that

‘during our long march we have had real friends in Ireland who have given us unlimited support in difficult days when many others would not even listen to us…they have supported us on many occasions and on many levels’.

On a visit to Dublin in October 2001 Arafat noted that Ireland had always been a ‘good friend’ of the Palestinians told a press conference that the Palestinians and the Irish have a ‘historical and very important relationship together, more than friends, and we are proud of it and we are in need of it’. 

He repeated this again in a March 2002 interview with the Irish Times in which he noted that ‘we are proud that the relations of our two peoples are very strong and very old and we are proud of it’. 



Arafat not only praised Irish support but looked for it to help in a number of ways

–To use its membership of the UNSC-2001-2002

–TO use its close ties with the US administration—

As early as his visit to Dublin in 1993 Arafat had called on Ireland to use its special relationship with the United States to promote the Palestinian cause and throughout the 1990’s the Palestinian leadership continually urged Ireland to use its influence in Washington, strengthened by the role of the President Clinton in the Northern Ireland peace process, to promote the Palestinian case.

With the onset of Oslo deadlock, Arafat repeated this call in a message to Taoiseach Ahern prior to Clinton’s visit to Ireland in May 1998.  While during their October 2001 meeting the Palestinian leader again urged the Irish premier to raise the matter of Palestinian rights in his upcoming meeting with with President George W. Bush in Washington the following month. 

This belief in close ties between Dublin and Washington fostered, in part by cooperation on the Northern Ireland peace process)


Indeed—following breakdown in Oslo—Ireland took advantage of its role in Norhtern Ireland to involve itself in Mid East

For example, in his meeting with Shimon Peres in early September 2001 Cowen drew on the Irish case, as part of his attempt to convince the Israeli foreign minister to meet Arafat. 

Or as the Irish Times put it Cowen’s message to Peres that ‘political dialogue is an indispensable ingredient of peacemaking carries greater conviction by virtue of his own experience in the Northern Ireland peace process’. 


This point was reiterated by Taoiseach Ahern at the height of the second intifada in April 2002 when he told an audience at the annual Easter Rising commemorations in Dublin that ‘the protagonists in the Middle East should study more closely the Irish experience’; and by Cowen the following month when he emphasised that: ‘Ireland’s own experience of conflict resolution has shown clearly that progress can be achieved only when those parties committed to peace refuse to allow the peace process to be made hostage to the latest atrocity carried out by men of violence’. 

The Irish government’s experience of facilitating peace in Northern Ireland was acknowledged by various Middle Eastern figures from Netanyahu and Barak to Arafat and Egypt’s former foreign minister Ahmed Maher who explained that though ‘a small country…as a country that has itself been engaged in a peace process, I think they have a deep knowledge of how to handle these difficult moments’.


In January 2004 Irleand took over the EU presidency for 6 months:

The gov expressed Ireland’s ‘deep and sympathetic interest’ in contributing to a solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict


Diplomatic niceties apart, there was little optimism in Jerusalem that Ireland would use the platform provided by its Presidency to help rebuild the EU’s deteriorating relationship with Israel. 

Ireland’s December 2003 decision to abandon its efforts to put forward a UN draft resolution condemning anti-Semitism after it failed to gain unanimous support for the proposal, was an immediate cause of this Israeli anxiety. 


As Yoav Biran, Director General of the Israeli foreign ministry explained during a visit to Dublin in the same month, the real concerns related to the fact that over an extended period Israel believed that ‘some positions’ adopted by Ireland on the Israel-Palestine conflict could be construed as ‘lacking the kind of balance and understanding of the terrible human difficulties of Israel that one would expect’.

In February 2004 Israel dismissed as ‘tepid’ the contents of a statement issued by the Irish presidency, on behalf of the EU, condemning a suicide bombing that killed eight Israeli civilians.  In particular, Israel took offence at the statement’s demand that the PA should take action ‘to the extent possible’ to halt terror, and argued that the EU should demand more from the PA than that.

The following May the Israeli foreign ministry was even more outspoken in its repudiation of a statement by Cowen that Israeli forces had shown a ‘reckless disregard for human life’ in operations in Rafah in the Gaza strip that resulted in a number of Palestinian fatalities.  Israeli officials took special exception to what it viewed to be Cowen’s equation of the actions of the IDF with the cold-blooded murder of an Israeli woman and her four children earlier in the month.  One senior Israeli diplomat went as far as to tell the press that since acceding to the EU presidency Ireland had taken the most radical anti-Israel position in the EU.


It is true that Cowen’s statement could have been worded more carefully.  It is also true that the Rafah tragedy had caused considerable anger in Ireland.  In early May it was reported that 52 TDs, MEPs, senators and independent politicians signed a petition in favour of sanctions against Israel, which was submitted by the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC), to the Department of Foreign Affairs; while in the wake of events in Rafah a number of senators expressed their support for economic sanctions against Israel.

It is incorrect to label Ireland as the most radical anti-Israel state in the EU at that time, given the far more outspoken attacks on Israel emanating from countries like France, Belgium and Sweden.  .

But the Irish government was guilty of failing to use its presidency to admonish the PA leadership, in particular Arafat, for ignoring, and in many cases causing, the chronic corruption and instability that plagued the PA by this time. 


By mid-February reports from the PA were noting the rising anger over the ‘political bankruptcy’ of the Arafat regime and the growing discontent even within Arafat’s Fatah organisation


In late May 2004, over one hundred Palestinian policemen, in a desperate attempt to draw attention to the failings of the PA leadership that it served, briefly occupied a security base run by members of Force 17, Arafat’s personal bodyguard.  Before surrendering they warned that unless something was done about corruption thousands of fellow officers would be forced to mutiny. 


The following month, Egypt gave Arafat an ultimatum to implement reforms.  The Mubarak government was joined in calling for reforms and in holding Arafat personally responsible for the chaos inside the PA, by King Abdallah of Jordan and a number of Palestinian officials and personalities.  ,

In July 2004, Dr Khalil Shikaki, head of the Ramallah-based Centre for Policy and Survey Research blamed the crisis of governance on the refusal of the Arafat-controlled Palestinian National Security Council to take measures ‘to maintain public order’.


However, during both its presidency and since that time Ireland has been far more reticent.  there has been little serious domestic debate on, never mind criticism of, Arafat’s failure to facilitate democracy, tackle corruption or develop the PA into a viable entity.


This remained the case even following the publication of a report by the Palestinian Legislative Council—the Palestinian parliament—that concluded that Arafat and the PA’s failure to live up to the responsibilities of leadership was a significant contributing factor to the growing anarchy and disillusionment of the Palestinian people. 


Even when in August 2004 Arafat, bowing to growing external and domestic pressure, grudgingly admitted that he had made ‘unacceptable mistakes’, the Irish government refused to take a public stand on the matter. 


Indeed, by the autumn of 2004, even the UN, an institution that has championed Palestinian rights since the 1970s, had acknowledged that any security reforms that had been reluctantly implemented by the PA in response to pressure from the Quartet had been ‘slow and mostly cosmetic’. 


Though providing further evidence of the deep attachment in Ireland to Arafat, the Irish decision to remain silent, while so many other nations, international organizations and Palestinian officials publicly criticize Arafat and his lieutenants is ill-advised. 


This refusal to acknowledge that Arafat is directly responsible for the crisis or that, as Ahmad Dudin a former senior Fatah official in Hebron put it, the PA ‘has always been a one-man operation…that is the problem’, threatens to tarnish Ireland’s reputation among a younger generation of Palestinian leaders. 


Yet it is they, in the post Arafat era, who offer the best chance of leading the Palestinian people to a viable, sovereign state alongside Israel, a central objective of Ireland’s Middle East policy for over three decades.


by Felix Quigley

May 11, 2009

Manfred Gerstenfeld reviewed Rory Miller’s book and it is very refreshing to see how he views the Irish especially in their relation to the Jews of Israel


[start with introductory excerpt from Gerstenfeld’s review]

Ireland is a minor member of the European Union and draws little international attention. Few people know that it is probably the EU country most hostile to Israel. Israeli ambassador to the EU, Oded Eran, said in a 2006 interview: “Sweden and Ireland are probably the countries that most frequently raise their voices against Israel.”[1] Since then, in Sweden the notoriously anti-Israeli Social Democrats have lost the elections and been replaced by a Conservative government.

One example of Ireland’s attitude toward Israel and Arab terrorism is that it is one of the only three countries, the others being France and Spain, that have prevented the EU from declaring Hizballah a terrorist organization.[2]

We on 4international are drawing much knowledge from the outstanding research into this vital issue by a noted academic. Rory Miller, Irish-born, is a lecturer in Mediterranean studies at King’s College, University of London. He is also associate editor of Israel Affairs. Miller’s book covers Ireland’s policy toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict since Israel’s establishment. It reviews developments fairly, which means exposing a little-known country’s discriminatory behavior against another democracy.

[End introductory excerpt about the Irish here] 




The Gerstenfeld study based on his interview with Miller continues here. 

Politicians against Israel

Over most of the past decades, Ireland’s political attitude toward Israel has been largely negative. Miller explains that many Irish view Israel as a colonial state. Yet, in his opinion, Ireland has much more in common with Israel than with the Palestinians. Nevertheless, for decades Ireland has only rarely come out in favor of Israel.

Many Irish politicians have also personally played a negative role in accusations against Israel. Former foreign minister Sean McBride was chairman of an international Commission of Inquiry into the murders of Palestinians by Lebanese Christians at Sabra and Shatila. Its report said this was the “culminating instance” of Israeli massacres of Palestinians (112). Another well-known case of misconduct concerns Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and former UN high commissioner for human rights. She bears major responsibility for the events leading up to the greatest postwar explosion of anti-Semitic hatred at the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism in Durban.[3]   

In an interview Miller said: “If one were to throw a sack of flour over the Irish parliament, it is unlikely that anybody pro-Israeli would get white. Among the 120 members of the Dáil-the Irish parliament’s lower house-and the hundred members of the Senate, not one name springs to mind as a regular defender of Israel. There are either those who do not care or pro-Palestinians.”[4]

Miller mentions that Irish parliamentarians in session will regularly discuss Israel’s shortcomings while not one of them mentions Palestinian suicide bombings. Double standards so characteristic of the anti-Israeli mutation of anti-Semitism are typical for the Irish government. It will regularly condemn Israel but, for instance, in 1990, refused to denounce King Hussein’s and Yasser Arafat’s support for Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait (147).

The evidence of Anne bayefsky on the present anti-Semitic role of the Irish is especially significant because we on 4international believe that she is the premier authority on the UN.

American Law professor Anne Bayefsky points out that Ireland has been the EU’s leading state on the subject of religious intolerance at the United Nations. Yet it was determined to exclude any mention of anti-Semitism from the 2003 UN resolution on religious intolerance. Ultimately, to avoid a separate motion by Israel, Ireland agreed to include such mention if Israel withdrew its motion, which it did. Yet, the Irish delegation reneged on its promise.[5] 


Nonpolitical Matters

Elsewhere, Miller has observed that the Irish government values economic and research relations with Israel. This explains the fact that the many Irish condemnations of Israel remain verbal only. Another reason is that, as a small country, Ireland feels that its policy should be in line with the EU mainstream.

Relatively strong forces on the Irish Left, however, favor boycotting Israel. Anti-Israeli organizations have rather more support in Ireland than in other European countries. Miller notes that:

the Irish branch of the International Solidarity Movement [an extreme anti-Israeli organization] . . . is among the most active in the world. In 2004 they handed a petition to the foreign minister with twelve thousand Irish signatures, 275 of elected officials across Europe, and fifty of elected officials or public figures in Ireland, calling for an economic boycott.

As Ireland has a population of three and a half million, this is far from insignificant. At that time the leader of the Irish Senate, Mary O’Rourke, said she would support an economic boycott of Israel unless the country improved its treatment of the Palestinians.[6]

After the summer 2006 war in Lebanon, it was a group of Irish academics who were the first in Europe to renew the call to boycott Israeli academics.[7]


A History of Anti-Semitism

Ireland has a substantial history of anti-Semitism. A main force has been the Catholic Church, which, however, has lost power in recent decades. At the beginning of the twentieth century, there were pogroms in Ireland. Although much of the country’s current anti-Zionism is, according to the commonly accepted definitions, unabashedly anti-Semitic, it has not led to incidents against the local Jews. In this regard Ireland is an exception to the rule.

The Jewish community in Ireland has dwindled to about a thousand. The number of anti-Semitic incidents is very limited, and the government takes a strong stand against them. The Muslim community is relatively small at an estimated twenty thousand, only about half a percent of Ireland’s population.

A substantial area of friction between Israel and Ireland has been the tense relationship with Irish UNIFIL forces in southern Lebanon. Since the summer 2006 war, a small Irish contingent is again participating in the new international force there. The failure of the latter to disarm the Hizballah terrorists may well lead to new frictions between the EU and Israel. Past experiences have already made Ireland sensitive on the subject, and this is another potential obstacle to improving relations with Israel. Miller’s book provides an excellent background for understanding future developments.


*     *     *



[1] Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Oded Eran, “Israel and the European Union,” European-Israeli Relations: Between Confusion and Change? (Jerusalem: JCPA, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2006), 91-101.

[2] Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Rijk van Dam, “Anti-Israeli Bias in the European Parliament and Other European Union Institutions,” ibid., 79-90.

[3] Tom Lantos, The Durban Debacle: An Insider’s View of the UN World Conference against Racism (Jerusalem: Institute of the World Jewish Congress, 2002)

[4] Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Rory Miller, “Irish Attitudes toward Israel,” European-Israeli Relations, 181-94.

[5] Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Anne Bayefsky, “The United Nations: Leading Global Purveyor of Anti-Semitism,” Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, 31, 1 April 2005.

[6] Gerstenfeld, interview with Miller.

[7] “Academics Call for Ban on Israel,” Irish Times, 16 September 2006.


by Felix Quigley

May 11, 2009

Why are the Irish so anti-Semitic?

Rory Miller, Irish-born, is a lecturer in Mediterranean studies at King’s College, University of London. In 2005 he published a book titled Ireland and the Palestine Question, 1948-2004. He also gave a revealing interview with the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs in October 2006

Miller explains:

“In Irish politics sympathies are very much with the Palestinians. The negative attitude toward Israel is in line with that of the European Union and its belief that Israel was in the wrong when the Second Intifada broke out. Yet Irish politicians are pragmatic. Many believe that Israel has much to offer their country in the economic field and thus think Ireland should not burn its bridges with it. Moreover, Irish politicians would not be willing to break ranks with the EU and adopt a tougher position on Israel than its European partners.

“The trade volume between Ireland and Israel is $700 million a year. Exports and imports are about equal. Ireland is a good case study to prove that no matter how bad political relations are these do not necessarily impact negatively on bilateral economic relations. It is also a good case study to demonstrate that however good economic relations are, these do not improve the political relationship.

Irish ministers say it is important for Ireland to develop a relationship with Israel in the hi-tech field. The same people will stand up in parliament and say that Israel needs to make concessions, and that the problems in the Middle East are its fault.

“Israeli governments, for decades, have wanted to separate the economic from the political sphere, and have often been successful. Now that the two are separate, this also means that economic developments have no political influence. The EU’s multibillion-dollar trade surplus with Israel has not reduced its political animosity.”

What this adds up to is that the Irish, especially the Irish bourgeoisie, are the biggest hypocrites in the whole world. Here they are as a reflection of the EU prepared to milk the power and genius of Israel and the Israelis while at the very same time stabbing Israeli nationalism in the back. Could anything be more obvious. The Irish trying to feather their own nationalist nest at the expense of Israel, using Israeli brains and expertise, yet at the same time denying that the Jews can actually have their own national state. And of course lining up with terrorists, the biggest and most consistent liars in the whole world, who have successfully hidden that they the Palestinians were founded by the very worst Nazi that there has ever been (Yes folks I did say Nazi), Hajj Amin el Husseini, friend of Himmler and Eichmann and definitely on a par with Hitler. Praised and loved by Arafat and Abbas, their common forte was the killing of Jews. And the Irish, gullible fools that they are, bought the whole thing hook line and sinker. What suckers!

Miller is dead right in his assessment that this foul smelling anti-Semitic position of the Irish is at root a result of their lack of independent being. Miller does not say it but I believe that this comes essentially from the weakness of republicanism in Ireland as an ideology. Griffith, as James Joyce well knew, was a conscious Jew hater and a worker hater. The Irish fought their decisive battle not in 1916 but in 1913 when Murphy leading the Dublin and Irish employers brought the union of Larkin and Connolly to its knees in the infamous “Dublin Lockout”, when the whole forces of the nascent republican state were mobilised against the workers. The other side to that determination of the employers was the abject failure of the syndicalism of Connolly and Larkin (in contrast to Lenin and the Russian Bolshevik political tendency) to build a leadership which could prevail. Connolly leading his Citizen Army into the GPO later in 1916 under the banner not of communism, but of the “republican” banner of De Valera, was thus not only an act of extreme courage but simultaneously an act of despair. Blood sacrifices are not the ideal for workers, blood happens when workers are vanquished, and James Connolly very, very unfortunately was operating in 1916 from a legacy of theoretical and political weakness ending in despair.

Frank Aiken as foreign minister over a long time was already making tracks for Ireland so that the tiny country with huge pretensions would play a reactionary role towards the Jews of Israel. This centred on his adoption of the Palestinian refugees and here it is a matter of Irish anti-Semitism meeting Irish plain buck stupid ignorance, especially ignorance of history, or should we say indifference to historical fact and detail.

One can follow many leads in trying to explain this buck ignorance of the Irish. A nation oppressed by the British and kept in total poverty and blinding ignorance for centuries. The role of the Catholic Church which trampled all over intellectualism and indeed intellectuals is another reason. And a big factor is that on winning power in the 20s especially the Irish Catholics set about pretty well wiping out their own protestant minority in the south of Ireland so that today there is little more than 2 per cent left. All this is assiduously and quite blatantly cleverly hidden. So in adapting the Palestinian refugees there was no precedent for dealing with the issue historically. Especially the not peripheral issue, did the Arabs of the area (not then calling themselves Palestinian anything) leave of their own or own leaders accord or were they forced out by the Jews, is either ignored, or lied about.

Anyway there are many reasons for the anti intellectualism of the Irish, their ignorance of history, their preparedness to wallow in this ignorance rather than doing something about it. But it does no good to just state the reasons or excuses. The Jews in this instance are the ones who do suffer.

Miller does a great job in showing the slavish following of the reactionary EU and UN by the Irish. We need also to look however at just how reactionary these bodies are. There is much evidence for this but of course it is kept well hidden by the Israel haters and the anti-Semites on the Left (so called Left of course) As we move into decisive battles there will be no answers forthcoming from this Left who have become the hod carriers for Islamic Fascists, the same whom Trotsky referred to as “the reactionary Mohammedans”! (Judge therefore the hollowness of some of their claims even to the “Trotskyists”!) But there is a new generation of thinkers, researchers and writers who have done sterling work and have helped fill the vacuum caused by the betrayal of this left. This left is a fake and these new thinkers are not trammelled by the dogmatism of the left and have brought us nearer to the truth.


by Felix Quigley

May 4, 2009

The key to understanding how the Irish elites and governments can claim they are against antisemitism yet are at the same time in support of the totally antisemitic “Palestinian” movement is found in a phenomenon of Arab history that the Irish academic Rory Miller leaves well out of his thinking.

That is the role of the Arab from Palestine who was the equal of Hitler, Himmler and Eichmann in the Holocaust. Arguably he was the superior of Eichmann. His name is Hajj Amin el Husseini and academics usually either ignore him or down play his role.

However leave aside this omission by Miller for a moment.

What Miller does do is give us the background as to how the Irish capitalist class made the morph from antisemitism to anti Israelism and pro Palestinianism, the same thing of course. Meaning anti Israelism is one and the same as antisemitism.

In the relationship between Israel and Ireland knuckle heads of the Irish pro Palestinian Terrorist movement like to call for a boycott of Israel. It appears according to Miller that Ireland would be the loser and not Israel.

This is because the Irish capitalist class is rather (very tremendously) weak and does not have all that much independence, either independent thought or independent “doing”

[Start quote from Miller here]

Ireland has been very successful in attracting overseas investment over the past decade, mainly from the United States. There have been years that it exceeded the U.S. investment in China. Ireland, however, has been unable to create its own entrepreneurs. Neither does it invest significantly in research and development.

“Many Irish do not realize how artificial their national economy is. One can understand that, for instance, from its trade with Israel. Israel mainly imports and exports from subsidiaries of U.S. multinationals that happen to be located in Ireland. Very little derives from indigenous Irish companies.

“American multinationals in pharmaceuticals and other technological areas have invested heavily in Ireland. They employ many Irish workers. If these companies were to expand further in cheaper countries abroad, Irish-Israeli trade would shrink significantly.”


Research and Development

“It is common among Irish politicians, businesspeople, and scientists to say that their country has to learn from Israel. They view the latter as a country with a small population and few natural resources, facing economic challenges similar to those of Ireland. So they claim that their country should follow Israel as far as investment in education and technology is concerned.

“Irish ministers say openly that Israel is a model economy and that from their perspective it offers vast opportunities. From 1995 onward there has been a significant development of R&D cooperation between Ireland and Israel. When Israeli chief scientists or, for instance, biotechnology experts visit Ireland, they are treated professionally and warmly welcomed at the highest level. That continued after the breakdown of the Oslo agreements.

“In these conversations one could not detect any political animosity among senior economic advisers, civil servants, or politicians. I would imagine if one asked these people, once the Israelis had left, who was in the right in the Middle East, most would be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, but the political issue is just not a consideration in bilateral economic ties.”

[End quote from Miller here]

So it is the Irish capitalist class who are the parasites in this trade relationship between the Irish and the Israelis.

Or in other words the Irish are the knuckle heads, it is the Jews of Israel who are the whizz kids.

And the crafty Celts are out to milk the Jews for all they are worth.

But that does not stop these Irish elites from lining up behind Hamas and Fatah who call for the destruction of Israel and who insist that Israel is just about the worst idea there has ever been, in fact such a bad idea that the world would collectively breath a huge sigh of relief if it could be obliterated.

But then what would the knuckle heads in the Irish do for lack of their “R&D.

Obviously far thinking is not part of their forte!

To me there seems to be massive doses of  prejudice here, the kind of prejudice that has deep historical roots, and that stops people from thinking logically and reasonably.

Miller has highlighted the hypocricy of the Irish. They sit round the table with the Israeli Jews and everything is hunky dorey and the Irish are milking it for all they are worth.

They even comment that they should be holding Israel up as a model for they the Irish to follow.

No sooner are the Israelis out the door than they are slagging Israel.

You really could not make this up!

This is a very peculiar prejudice indeed one that is all mixed up with hypocricy and an apparent lack of self awareness.

Next we will go on to discuss how this prejudice against Israel came into being. It has got clear historical roots. On this Miller is particularly strong because he locates this inside the historical weakness of the Irish capitalist class, and how they have followed like the little slaves they are, firstly the UN and then the EU.


(more to come)


by Felix Quigley

May 4, 2009

We are looking at the actual record of the Irish state towards the Jews and Israel.

Talk about assimilation. I mean the Irish Jews historically were so assimilated into Irish society that Herzog´s family was offering safe house to De Valera when Dev was on the run from the British. Assimilation and its inevitable failure to impress how are ye!

An interesting summary of some historical issues in Irish society and the issue of antisemitism is the following

It is by Robert Tracy and deals mainly witht he work of Professor Keogh

[Begin quote from Robert Tracy here]


Professor Keogh cites an oral source that attributes the inclusion of the Jewish Congregations to consultations with Isaac Herzog, then Chief Rabbi of Ireland, who became Chief Rabbi of Palestine in 1937, the father of Chaim Herzog (who contributes a preface to Keogh’s book). Rabbi Herzog and de Valera were friends, so much so that the future Taoiseach had on occasion hidden in the Rabbi’s house when a fugitive from British or Free State police. Both were eager to see the establishment of an independent Irish republic.

The Herzog-de Valera friendship continued until the Rabbi’s death, but did not translate into practical measures to assist German Jews before the War, nor the many Jewish victims of Nazi cruelty later. Just before war broke out, de Valera declined to meet Herzog’s request that he admit Christian Jewish doctors and dentists to Ireland and allow them to practice there; he also refused a request from the Vatican to admit a number of Jewish doctors temporarily. In the entire period of Nazi persecution, only 60 to 7O Jews were admitted to Ireland as refugees. The Irish Department of Justice continually recommended against such admissions, partly on the grounds that many Irish citizens were unemployed and would see the refugees as competitors for such jobs as there were, and partly out of fear that the result would be an antisemitic backlash. We should remember that similar arguments prevailed with President Roosevelt and the American authorities in 1937 when they refused sanctuary to German Jewish refugees on the St. Louis and sent them back to Germany to die.

Charles Bewley, the Irish Minister in Berlin, played a major role in thwarting refugees trying to reach Ireland. Bewley was enthusiastically pro-Nazi and anti-Jewish. His reports to Dublin consistently reiterate Nazi arguments that Jews considered themselves free of any moral obligations toward non-Jews, or toward the state of which they happened to be citizens, and so would subvert Christian citizens and Christian states. Jews ran “the “international white slave traffic,” Bewley reported to Dublin, and promoted pornography and abortion. The Irish government recalled him in disgrace in August 1939, replacing him with a less hostile Minister, but from his arrival in 1933, Bewley had denied or delayed Irish visas for Jews; with the outbreak of war it was impossible even for Jews granted visas to reach Ireland.

In 1942 Rabbi Herzog warned de Valera that Jews were being systematically exterminated in German prison camps. The Taoiseach and his government made efforts to rescue various groups, especially groups including children, and bring them to Ireland. These included a large group of German Jews held at Vittel in Vichy France, who already possessed visas for various South American countries. De Valera, together with the Irish ministers in Berlin, Vichy, and at the Vatican worked to rescue the Vittel Jews, and later groups of Italian, Dutch, Hungarian, and Slovakian Jews, but without success. In no case were the Nazis willing to let such groups depart for Ireland or leave Europe under Irish auspices. There was also a mistaken belief that Jews with Irish visas might be imprisoned, but would not be sent to the death camps, a belief the Vittel episode destroyed.

[End quote from Robert Tracy here]


Charles Bewley thus was in Berlin for all of those long years from 1933 to 1939 and he was preaching and in the cockpit of the Shoah acting out antisemitism. If De Valera tried to save some children later then what does having Bewley present in Berlin during all of those critical years say about the Irish capitalist ruling class and the Jews!

In an interview with Rory Miller one of the bullet points at the top of the interview is this:

  • Violent anti-Semitism is rare in Ireland. Although the Irish government has a strong anti-Israel bias, it cannot be faulted as far as protecting the Jewish community is concerned. Neo-Nazis in Ireland are marginal. Much more of a threat to the Jewish community is the continuous defaming and demonizing of Israel.

(Interview of Miller with the Jewish Centre of Public Affairs 1 October 2006)

So the Jewish community is protected, there is no violent antisemitism against Irish Jews and if there is any tendency towards that the Government will protect, but along with that there is:

continuous defaming and demonizing of Israel

That is a strange conjuncture of phenomena. A little peculiar I would say. Certainly requires explanation.

Miller does indeed provide a clear answer a little later in his interview:

“The Jewish community in Ireland numbers around a thousand. There are also about six hundred Israelis. Many are active in the community; a few, however, are leaders in anti-Israeli activities.

“The Jewish community has a policy of not sticking its neck out. Rarely will it come out on behalf of Israel. Individual members of the community do write to the newspapers or express unhappiness with the situation whereby Israel gets bad press and an unfair hearing in parliament.

“Although, for a large part of the last few decades, the Jews of Ireland have been well represented in parliament, the Jews were always insignificant in Ireland. They were not involved in the politics of the Northern Ireland crisis between Catholics and Protestants, or ‘the Troubles’ as it came to be known. Over the last fifty years there have been some people in the public eye who were anti-Semites. However, they had no effect on Irish Jewish life.”

This is a little remarkable. The Irish Jewish community is now rather small, about 1000 members, whereas post war it was 4 to 5000.

The Irish Jewish community does not like sticking its neck out. Yet this Jewish community is protected.

Could it be that the Irish Jewish community are in fact “dhimmis” but that the tax that they pay to the ruling authorities in this case Catholic Ireland is that they have to be careful “not to stick their necks out”.

Why would Miller say this about the Irish Jews, that they do not like sticking their necks out. Could it be that they are afraid of persecution and that this fear of persecution in Ireland must be well founded.

Again Robert Tracy in a separate article and by way of Barney Kiernan´s pub throws some light on the issue as to why the Jews of Ireland may have been in a “dhimmi” (I deliberately misuse the word slightly) position in relation to the Catholic rather than Islamist authorities.

[Begin quote from Robert Tracy on Jewish persecutions here]

WHEN WE SPENT A YEAR IN DUBLIN IN THE 1980s, A neighbor worried that we were so far from home, friends, and relations. She was glad to hear that American friends were to pay us a brief visit and asked their name. “Bloom,” I told her. “Bloom,” she repeated, “Bloom. Would that be an Irish name, now?” “None more so,” I assured her. “The most Irish name there is.”

Leopold Bloom of James Joyce’s Ulysses answers the same question in Barney Kiernan’s pub, when the rabidly nationalistic Citizen asks him, “What is your nation?” and Bloom replies, “Ireland… I was born here. Ireland.” The answer, and indeed Bloom’s very presence, enrages the Citizen; Bloom is hurried away by friends, as the Citizen threatens to “brain that jewman.”

Bloom’s exclusion from the Citizen’s notion of Ireland and Irishness is one of the many exclusions he suffers as he wanders through Dublin on l6 June 1904, at once wandering Ulysses and Wandering Jew. Bloom is excluded by one group after another because he is perceived as different, other. Asked why Bloom is Jewish, Joyce said, “…. because only a foreigner would do. The Jews were foreigners at that time in Dublin. There was no hostility towards them, but contempt, yes the contempt people always show for the unknown.” In Ulysses Joyce parallels Bloom with Stephen Dedalus, Joyce’s own self-portrait, excluded because he is an artist, until the two briefly come together in a meeting of outcasts.

Dermot Keogh’s welcome and carefully researched account of Ireland’s Jews, Jews in Twentieth-Century Ireland: Refugees, Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, is in one sense an extended commentary on Leopold Bloom and his uneasy position in Dublin life, placing him in context as an Irishman who is also a Jew-though strictly speaking, as the son of a non-Jewish mother, Bloom’s Jewish identity is arguable. Keogh’s book supersedes earlier works by Bernard Shillman(1945) and Louis Hyman (1972). His subtitle reminds us that, while Ireland’s Jews were not direct victims of the Holocaust, they did experience antisemitism. They also prospered and contributed to Ireland in significant ways, especially in medicine, law, and politics. Keogh reminds us that they would not have long survived a Nazi invasion or a Nazi victory in World War II-their number and names had been tabulated at the Wannsee Conference.

By focusing on the small Jewish community of a small country–Ireland is about the size of West Virginia–Keogh offers us a case study of both Jewish exclusion and Jewish assimilation. His work will be the definitive account of Ireland’s Jewish community for the foreseeable future, and is also, alas, a kind of elegy for that rapidly disappearing community. Indeed, since Professor Keogh’s book went to press, Cork’s last synagogue has closed, unable to achieve a minyan. The new Herzog Center for Jewish Studies at Trinity College, Dublin, is admirable, but no substitute for a living Jewish community.

By making Bloom one of his two protagonists, Joyce affirmed Jewish membership in the Irish polity, and at the same time recognized the prevalence and nature of anti-Jewish prejudice in Ireland. He slyly made Bloom a friend of Arthur Griffith, at once a notorious antisemite and the editor of The United Irishman, then the most radical of nationalist newspapers. Deploring the inequities of British rule over Ireland, Griffith was simultaneously hostile to Ireland’s smallest and most vulnerable minority.

The choleric Citizen carries copies of The United Irishman, which, as Joyce well knew, contained Griffith’s approving reports of Ireland’s only pogrom, which took place in and around the small city of Limerick. The pogrom was instigated by a Redemptorist priest, Father John Creagh, in January 1904. A strident and dramatic orator, Creagh attacked Limerick’s tiny Jewish community with the cliches of antisemitism: the Jews rejected Christ, they were usurers sucking the blood of the poor, they were in league with the Freemasons then persecuting the Church in France, they were taking over the local economy, they sold shoddy goods at inflated prices, to be paid for in installments. He absolved them of only one traditional crime: “Nowadays, they dare not kidnap and slay Christian children, but they will not hesitate to expose them to a longer and even more cruel martyrdom by taking the clothes off their backs and the bit out of their mouths.” Creagh was particularly outraged at a recent Jewish wedding, contrasting the “silks and satin” of the wedding party with the rags of Irish onlookers. Though Michael Davitt and other revered political leaders immediately denounced Creagh’s inflammatory sermon, and especially the old charge of ritual murder, Creagh’s followers-6000 Limerick men belonged to the Arch-confraternity of the Holy Family, which he directed–quickly heeded his call for a boycott against Jews and a refusal to pay money owing to them. A series of antisemitic riots in the city followed.

In a second sermon, Creagh insisted that he deplored violence. He objected to jewish business methods, not to Jews. But his denunciations continued to sustain the boycott, and Jews were assaulted in the streets, despite police protection. Police authorities considered charging him with incitement to violence, but the Royal Irish Constabulary were widely resented as an agent of British rule, and they feared that to do so would make Creagh at once a Catholic and a nationalist martyr.

[End quote from Robert Tracy on Limerick persecutions here]


So something is afoot in Ireland, the land of the saints and the scholars, is it not!

We have in the above Ireland´s premier artist, we have the founder of Sinn Fein Arthur Griffith and his journal the United Irishman, leading into a discussion of the antics of a Redemptorist priest in Limerick

All of this not divorced from the Irish but arguably at the centre of the Irish psyche.

To return to the interview with Miller. The question we posed was how the Jews of Ireland were made into dhimmis. I think he has the answer and it is connected with the way the Irish state made Judaism into a state religion:

[Begin quote from Miller here]

“When Ireland became a republic upon leaving the British Commonwealth in 1949, it was written in the Irish constitution that Judaism was a state religion. It thus had the same rights as Catholicism and Protestantism. The constitution says that whenever there is a state function, for instance for a foreign president, the order of presentations is: the Irish president, the head of the Catholic church, the head of the Protestant church and then the Chief Rabbi.

The Jewish community then numbered four to five thousand. The former Chief Rabbi Herzog was a very good friend of the legendary Irish leader Eamon de Valera and other leading Irish officials. They respected Judaism very much. The Muslims now claim that they are much larger in number than the Jews, and they too want to become a state religion. One cannot much argue with that, except that many do not integrate and they will use this status for their own interests. It is almost inevitable that Islam will eventually replace Judaism as the country’s third religion.

“For over twenty years there were three Jewish members of parliament and only one Protestant one. When one asked how this was possible, the usual answer was that the Catholics, who accounted for 98 percent of the population, had nothing against the Jews. They were, however, opposed to the Protestants who had ruled the country in the past.

“Yet the official Catholic church was a major source of anti-Semitism until deep into the twentieth century. My mother has a very good Catholic friend who used to go to church on Sunday. In sermons, until the 1980s, some priests would talk about how the Jews killed Jesus and in later centuries stole money. My mother’s friend would challenge them. Yet thousands of people heard this every Sunday. Nowadays the Irish Catholic church has lost much of its influence. Few people go to church and hardly anybody joins the priesthood.”

[end quote from Miller here]

So they respected Judaism very much.

Yet Ireland was a big centre and source of antisemitism flowing from the Vatican

And they were great friends!!!

How did all this come about. There are more than enough problems with all therein to be getting along with.

The mystery is deepened in the following from Miller but there are a few clues now emerging also

[Begin quote from Miller here]

Miller says violent anti-Semitism is rare in Ireland.

“In 2005 the main synagogue in Dublin was daubed with swastikas. When that happened the police assigned patrols and plainclothes policemen to investigate the matter. It turned out the graffiti were the work of a loner who believed that Jews caused all the problems of the world.

“Although the Irish government has a strong political anti-Israeli bias, it cannot be faulted as far as protecting the Jewish community is concerned. The current justice minister, Michael McDowell, is one of the most outspoken enemies of the IRA. He has helped stamp out terrorism in Northern Ireland as much as he could. When the Jewish community complained about the graffiti, he received their representatives for an hour. McDowell made it clear that he will not tolerate any anti-Semitism.

“Like everywhere else, there are also neo-Nazis in Ireland, but they are marginal. Much more of a threat to the Jewish community is the continuous defaming and demonizing of Israel. People start to think the Israelis are like Nazis while the Jews in Ireland support them. In this way you create an environment where the Jews become guilty by default. If one does not oppose such a Nazi regime, one must be a fascist as well.

“However, the real problems for the Jews in Ireland come far more from the Left than from the extreme Right. Probably, in the coming years, the Palestinian issue will not be used as a foreign policy issue but rather to push the Muslim agenda in Ireland. That cannot be good for the Jews, and as the Jews are a very small group, people often forget about them.”

[End quote from Miller here]

So again they are protecting Jews and nominally opposing antisemitism.

Yet they are fighting with all their Irish cunning to destroy the state of the Jews, the nation of the Jews, that is Israel.

So we have almost unbeknownst to the participants this strange morph taking place. Antisemitism is morphed into anti Israelism.

And the people doing the trick are the very Irish who placed at the head of THEIR game the gaining of THEIR nation state.

But seemingly they exclude the Jews from this.

And we have seen that thrown into the mix there is a cold and almost unstated warning (unlike the Islamist dhimmi threat which is quite explicit) that if the Irish Jews “stick their necks out” they will severely regret it.

It may not be an empty threat either if we keep those historical precedents in mind!

We also have the situation as we saw above of the Irish Government essentially in an alliance with the Nazis in order to liquidate these Jews.

Some kind of a hand in the Shoah I would say.

All of this requires some explaining but I do think that Miller does get close to the truth of the matter. I think we are about to return to that weakness historically of the Irish capitalist class which we noted earlier, and with it something that Miller does not understand and anyway does not over tax his academic head unduly with, the inability of the Irish working class to become historically independent through a scientific Leninist or Trotskyist type party.

(more later)


by Felix Quigley

May 3, 2009

Irish attitudes to antisemitism

This is the broad theme of a book published by Irish academic Rory Miller and is also the title of an interview and study based on that interview by the Institute for Global Jewish Affairs

The issues raised by Rory Miller are very important.

Miller is an academic and the issues he raises he cannot in any way resolve. He cuts himself off from the only progressive class and force in Ireland which is the Irish working class. Keep that in mind when we praise Miller for the genuine work that he has done to defend Israel and the Jews of both Israel and the Diaspora against antisemitism.


Rory Miller shows this extremely well.

He dwells on 2 key areas or points in time

1. The entry of Ireland into the United Nations

2. The entry of Ireland into the EU

Miller deals ith these two focal points and in their interconnection with Israel and the Jes in admirable detail.

On reading his material, hich we shall reproduce, it strikes me that the Irish capitalist class has been always floundering in the world cappitalist morass since its incetion in 1920, looking for a cruth to lean on.


There was a qualitative difference here.

James Connolly make no mistake about it was an Irish revolutionary of the first order, and was a great fighter for the Irish working class. So was Big Jim Larkin. Both of these men fought with great devotion and skill on behalf of the Irish working class.

But really, the most and highest point they could reach was the creation of the Irish Labour party.

To their credit as soon as they created the Labour Party of Ireland they were in conflict ith it! But at that stage of the game they could get no further.

Note these were men of their time so beware of being hyper critical.

They could not make the leap in consciousness that was made by the Bolshevik tendency, then party, of Lenin.

Nor could they make the leap as in the development made by Leon Trotsky in the invaluable Theory of the Permanent Revolution (actually this was a combo operation, Trotsky was joined in this by an intellectual called Parvus)

This is not the place to go into details on this. But remember that the Citizens Army created by Connolly was not such a party as above and to join with the petty bourgeois nationalists in 1916, even though it was surely correct, meant sure as hell liquidation.

So while our friend Miller points out very well indeed as to how the Irish capitalist class has always been subservient, and lacking in any real independence of spirit, he leaves out the reasons why the Irish working class  could never actually be independent or play an independent role. Thus in the end Miller offers no way forward.

Before going into Miller´s invaluable research I feel there is another reason which handicaps his work and is driving him relentlessly into a blind ally.

Miller does not actually despite being an historin of note locate the “Palestinian” issue in its correct and truthful place.

This is the place actually of “Jihad” and of “Je Hatred”.

In order to get a true picture one needs to turn to the work of other people.

I will name a few.

Jared Israel who has researched the turn of the US World Order in the events surrounding the destruction of Yugoslavia in the late 1980s through the 90s especially

Francisco Gil White who along with Jared Israel has done wonderful work in showing how the originator of “Palestinianism” was really Hajj Amin el Husseini who was a leading war criminal of the Nazi period

Without the work of these two, and others also who I will deal with, it is impossible to move forward. And Miller does not move forward. I think he may be out on a limb somehere in academia!

That is why at the end of the hunt he is a supporter of “Palestinianism” which is the mortal enemy of Israel and is the essence of contemporary Jew Hatred.


(more later)h