Here is the letter from March 1st:
Sir -- We, members of the American Trade Union movement, have heard and read with disappointment and sadness that some of our Irish colleagues continue to lead a campaign in Ireland for a boycott of Israeli goods and services. It would seem that the appeal we made to them, during our visit to Ireland last November, to reconsider their boycott call has fallen on deaf ears.
We believe that such a campaign amounts to a form of prejudice and discrimination. In unfairly singling out one party to the conflict, it aims to punish and delegitimise Israel while ignoring the decades-long attacks against it by Palestinian terrorist organisations. Such a campaign can only serve to embolden these extreme elements and disempower moderates.
We believe that the boycott campaign is misguided and runs counter to efforts to promote dialogue and understanding. It contradicts the insistence, based on the experience of the Irish peace process, on the value of dialogue as a means of solving conflict.
We suggest that, rather than embracing the politics of rejectionism, trade unionists and other non-governmental organisations seeking a just and fair resolution should help to bridge the gaps between the two sides. In particular, the encouragement of trade and academic links has the potential to bring employment and prosperity, significant factors in the achievement of peace.
Jack Ahern, President,
New York City Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO,
Atty Mike Carroll,
Robert Haynes, President, Massachusetts AFL-CIO,
Atty Cody McCone,
Atty Brian O’Dwyer,
Tom Wilkinson, President,
Fairfield County Labor Council, AFL-CIO
The letter intrigued me. I know there is anti-Semitism in Ireland, but I needed more detail about the boycott issue.
- - - - - - - - -
It’s worse than I thought.
The first site I found, The Institute for Global Jewish Affairs, had a fairly recent (December 2008) summary of Trade Union and Other Boycotts of Israel in Great Britain and Ireland. It’s a dismal account:
- The United Kingdom more than any other country in the world has embraced the Palestinian call for academic, trade union, media, medical, architectural, and cultural boycotts of Israel. The driving force for this campaign is Britain’s trade union movement and its anti-Zionist activists on the far Left, such as the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).
- The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) actively works for a general boycott of Israeli goods as well as a cultural and sports boycott of Israel and has forged links with the far Left and the unions to publicize their cause. All the major UK trade unions are affiliated with the PSC and several of them actively promote PSC policies and literature.
- In Ireland as in Britain, the most prominent supporters of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) are the academics and the trade union movement. The call for a boycott of Israel has been endorsed by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU); IMPACT, the largest public-sector union in the Republic of Ireland; and the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA), the largest public-sector union in Northern Ireland. Israel is a soft target in Ireland as there is very little organized opposition to the boycott calls.
- An agreement between the Histadrut and the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU) may help ease the tension. It aims to protect the rights of Palestinians working for Israeli employers and to base future relations on negotiations and dialogue.
It goes on from there with a detailed history of the anti-Israel movement in Britain, including the fact that the main group, The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, “employ[s] a fulltime trade union organizer to forge links with the unions and publicize their cause”…
There is a section on Ireland specifically, and unfortunately, it does not include just Northern Ireland, but the Republic of Ireland to the south:
Irish attitudes toward Israel are not straightforward.
In Irish politics sympathies are very much with the Palestinians…. 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 Irish gave the English language the word boycott when in 1880 the Irish Land League successfully called on the Irish farmers to ostracize Captain Charles Boycott, an English land agent. Since that time boycotts have been used as a strategy to try and force change, and the British trade union movement was one of the main supporters of the boycott movement against South Africa in the 1980s.
In Ireland as in Britain, the most prominent supporters of the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) are the academics and the trade union movement. The similarity does not end there; many of the activists in both the Republic and Northern Ireland are on the far Left with several involved with both the unions and the IPSC. The call to boycott Israel has been endorsed by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ITUC); IMPACT, the largest public-sector union in the Republic of Ireland; and the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA), the largest public-sector union in Northern Ireland.
I asked our correspondent, Murphy, if there were any other sites that might have information on Ireland’s anti-Israel activities. Mark Humphrys’ name came up and I smiled: Humphrys is a pro-American, libertarian blogger with a wealth of information not just on Ireland but on the rest of the world, too. Besides, Mark Humphrys is my cousin, so he’s got to be brilliant, right?
All the information I needed was there on Mark's blog, and it makes for sad reading. Here’s one example:
Letter calling for Israeli ambassador to be expelled
12-18 January 2009etc., ad nauseam, the signatures go on and on and on, down the page...
We, the undersigned, are united in seeking the immediate expulsion of the Israeli ambassador to Ireland, Dr Zion Evrony. We believe the ambassador must leave Ireland until such time as there is a complete end to Israel’s war on Gaza and its continued slaughter of the Palestinian people.
Mairead Maguire (Nobel Peace Laureate)
Kathy Sinnott MEP
Margaret Conlon TD
Maggie Ronayne (NUI Galway)
Gerry Grehan (Chairman, Peace People)
Dr. Raymond Deane
Kieran Allen (Socialist Workers Party)
As Mark says: [all emphases in original]
Nobody defends Israel.
When you read these awful Israel-condemning debates in the Irish Senate, remember that Ireland is a country that was neutral during the Holocaust, that sent condolences to Germany on the death of Hitler, and that refused to allow almost any Jewish refugees in, either before, during or after the war. I don’t at all think the Irish politicians are anti-semitic. Rather, they have a range of trendy reasons for their views. But I think Ireland - like most of Europe - should shut up about Jews for a few hundred years.
Fortunately, there were many Irishmen who disagreed with the Irish President’s openly pro-Nazi stance in World War II. They voted with their feet, 39,000 of them enlisting in the Allied forces to fight Nazi Germany.
Mark quotes Churchill:
- I agree with Churchill on Ireland’s treachery. Ireland was a democracy, one of the only democracies in a world full of genocidal communist and fascist totalitarianism. And it should have stood with the other democracies in World War Two. As Churchill said:
“The sense of envelopment, which might at any moment turn to strangulation, lay heavy upon us. We had only the northwestern approach between Ulster and Scotland through which to bring in the means of life and to send out the forces of war. Owing to the action of Mr. de Valera, so much at variance with the temper and instinct of thousands of southern Irishmen, who hastened to the battlefront to prove their ancient valor, the approaches which the southern Irish ports and airfields could so easily have guarded were closed by the hostile aircraft and U-boats.
This was indeed a deadly moment in our life, and if it had not been for the loyalty and friendship of Northern Ireland we should have been forced to come to close quarters with Mr. de Valera or perish forever from the earth. However, with a restraint and poise to which, I say, history will find few parallels, we never laid a violent hand upon them, which at times would have been quite easy and quite natural, and left the de Valera Government to frolic with the German and later with the Japanese representatives to their heart’s content.
When I think of these days I think also of other episodes and personalities. I do not forget Lieutenant-Commander Esmonde, V.C., D.S.O., Lance-Corporal Keneally, V.C., Captain Fegen, V.C., and other Irish heroes that I could easily recite, and all bitterness by Britain for the Irish race dies in my heart. I can only pray that in years which I shall not see, the shame will be forgotten and the glories will endure, and that the peoples of the British Isles and of the British Commonwealth of Nations will walk together in mutual comprehension and forgiveness.” - Britain would certainly have been entitled to invade my country, Ireland, if the alternative was losing the war. It was Ireland’s most shameful moment in all of its history.
- If Irish Catholicism could not stand unambiguously against Nazism, then WHAT IN THE NAME OF GOD DID IT STAND FOR?
So what chance do you think the American Trade Union’s letter to the editor has in an atmosphere like Ireland’s?
Mark is right that the Irish have acted shamefully and continue to do so. In keeping with his fighting Irish spirit, though, he has a link to a wiki which lists Israeli businesses you can support.
If you know of other companies in Israel, he asks that you contact him here.
Here’s a good place to start looking around.
Obviously Ireland is on its way to hell in a handbasket. Anyone who supports Hamas needs an IQ exam at the very least.
54 comments:
You've confounded a political position towards a State (Israel) with an attitude towards a people (anti-Semitism).
For that matter, you've also confounded the actions of an Irish government and Church of the past (stupid and reprehensible actions, I grant you - inexcusable in fact) with opinions of some Irish people of the present.
Very sloppy of you. :-/
Israel's very existence is racist. Israel is the Jewish state for the Jewish nation, and notwithstanding substantial indigenous minorities, it is inherently racist because one can only become an Israeli by virtue of being a Jew or possessing "Jewish Lineage". This is undemocratic, unegalitarian, racist and discriminatory.
All countries are social constructions and Israel is no exception. We must socially construct a new multi-faith country according to the universal principles of multi-ethnicity. "Israel" and the West Bank and the Gaza strip must be unified into a new country called Palebosnia, dedicated to the virtues and strength of diversity and tolerance.
@Jun--
stupidity is in the eye of beholder.
The left in Ireland is large and it is anti-Semitic ans anti-Israel. The left in Ireland does not make the fine distinctions between Israel and the Jews that you do.
I used the behavior of Ireland in WWII to demonstrate that the leftist anti-semitism is consistent historically with its present stance.
To refuse to grant asylum to the Jews during the Holocaust was anti-Semitic. Israel didn't exist then.
I have confounded nothing. What I did was point out consistent behavior and attitudes over a span of time.
Read the links.
Here's a snip of a book 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." 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.
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.
The book is "Ireland and the Palestine Question, 1948-2004" by Rory Miller, Irish Academic Press.
I am an Irish-American. My mother remembers well the anti-Semitic diatribes of both her mother and Father Coughlin during the 1930s and 1940's.
Irish people have always been among the most anti-Semitic. This has been a feature of traditional Catholicism (see Southern Germany, Austria, France, Spain, but NOT Italy, probably due to seeing "the sausage made").
The Irish people themselves are profoundly anti-Semitic, and de Valera's alliance with Hitler was wildly popular though put down the memory hole afterwards. Ike for example never forgot. Ireland was not neutral but rather as close to an ally to Hitler as they could be.
The reason the anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic actions of the Irish Government happen is because these actions are deeply popular among the people.
The Icelandic people are also profoundly anti-Semitic, as are the Scandis excepting the Danes. As are the Eastern Europeans excepting the Czechs and the Bulgarians. It's just one of those oddities of Europe. A few nations and peoples stand out some ways.
Amazing
Whiskey--
My family experience was the same. My cousin who migrated to the US married a Jewish professor who taught French. To the day her father died, he never knew his daughter had married "one of them".
My cousin and her husband made a nice accomodation though: he went to synagogue and she went to Mass. It worked well.
The Icelandic people are largely descended from the Irish and the Scandinavians, so no surprise there.
When I lived in the Boston area, there were three groupings: the Irish, the blacks, and the Jews. They didn't mix...
Mark Humphrys comments (as related to Dymphna) can not go unanswered.
When you read these awful Israel-condemning debates in the Irish Senate, remember that
Ireland is a country that was neutral during the Holocaust, that sent condolences to Germany on the death of Hitler, and that refused to allow almost any Jewish refugees in, either before, during or after the war.
Neutral during the Holocaust? What a turn of phrase! Ireland was neutral during World War II, of which the Holocaust was a largely unknown aspect in Ireland (and most of the world) until after the war was over.
Also, Eammon DeValera over-ruled members of his own government in order to allow Jewish refugees to come to Ireland. There is a farm named for him in Israel to commemorate all he did for the Jewish community in Clanbrassil Street and Terenure. It does a great disservice to his memory to paint him as an anti-semite. FDR sent a ship of Jewish refugees back to Germany. Is that proof that Americans are anti-semites?
(Note: My parents lived in Clanbrassil Street as a young couple and their Jewish neighbours did not consider Ireland a hotbed of anti-semitism.)
When you read these awful Israel-condemning debates in the Irish Senate, remember that Ireland is a country that was neutral during the Holocaust, that sent condolences to Germany on the death of Hitler, and that refused to allow almost any Jewish refugees in, either before, during or after the war.
Mr. Humphrys, who almost certainly knows as I do that over half the members of the Seanad (Irish Senate) are voted in exclusively by university graduates which leads to a disproportionate representation of left-leaning politicians such as David Norris, goes on to say "I don’t at all think the Irish politicians are anti-semitic." Alan Shatter will be relieved to hear that!
But I think Ireland - like most of Europe - should shut up about Jews for a few hundred years.
I would be happy if Irish leftists shut up in general but the idea that Ireland has a long history of (specifically Catholic) anti-semitism is not true.
In 1555, when Pope Paul IV issued a papal law to force Jews into Italian ghettos these conditions were not replicated in Ireland. The very same year, 1555, the the first Jewish Mayor in Ireland, Mr. William Annyas, was electd in the town of Youghal in Cork County.
The only specific episode of anti-semtism in Irish history was the Limerick pogrom in 1904. It was an ugly chapter in Irish history but did not lead to any deaths. To draw a mild comparison I'll just say that they used to hang Jews in Alabama.
Clearly though, Ireland's non-existent anti-semitic past can be divined by mind readers. Sure, the Irish never actually killed Jews but the Irish then were primitive Catholics so they probably wanted to. It's a pity they didn't have "hate crimes" legislation in those days. That would have solved many a problem.
As for Ireland's neutral stance in World War II I think it was justified.
First of all Ireland's neutrality policy was a mirror image of America's neutrality policy until December 1940. There is no doubt in my mind that if Imperial Japan had launched a sneak attack on Dun Laoghaire Harbour that Ireland would have entered into an alliance with Britain.
Second of all is the fact that Neville Chamberlain returned to Ireland sovereign control over the Treaty Ports in 1938. More than anything else, that is what kept Ireland out of the war.
Third of all, Ireland was less than twenty years out of the (Irish) Civil War and DeValera (who was no fool) knew, as anyone who has studied Irish history would know, that an alliance with Britain would lead to a new civil war. The practical result would have been Irish soldiers shooting at each other while the Blitzkrieg bombed them from above.
Britain would certainly have been entitled to invade my country, Ireland, if the alternative was losing the war.
I'm sure all GoV's American commenters will follow your lead by denouncing the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 (which ended the Anglo-Japanese alliance and, by disallowing Britain to build new ships, crippled the Royal Navy), FDR's encouragement (nay insistence) that Neville Chamberlain attend the Munich conference and FDR's declaration of American neutrality the day after the Nazis invaded Poland.
It was Ireland’s most shameful moment in all of its history.
No. Not even close.
You are castigating not just DeValera's government but the Irish people in general. Yet have not mentioned that 100,000 Irishmen volunteered for the Allied sided in the war. In terms of manpower Ireland's contribution to the war was more significant than some European countries who surrendered straight away.
Also, The most shameful moment in Ireland's history occurred in the 12th century (look it up).
If Irish Catholicism could not stand unambiguously against Nazism, then WHAT IN THE NAME OF GOD DID IT STAND FOR?
I'd just like to point out that Mr. Humphyrs, whose blog I have been reading for a few years, is an anti-theist and Biblically illiterate (laughably so). Any statements he makes "in the name of God" or about Catholicism should be treated with extreme scepticism.
Whiskey
My mother remembers well the anti-Semitic diatribes of both her mother and Father Coughlin during the 1930s and 1940's.
Father Coughlin was an American - who was born in Canada.
The Irish people themselves are profoundly anti-Semitic, and de Valera's alliance with Hitler was wildly popular though put down the memory hole afterwards. Ike for example never forgot.
DeValera didn't have an alliance with Hitler, and Nazi Germany was not popular in Ireland. The IRA - a terrotist organisation - had a secret alliance with the Nazis under Sean Russell's leadership but it ultimately came to nothing (Russell died aboard a German submarine).
Ireland was not neutral but rather as close to an ally to Hitler as they could be.
Ever heard of the Belfast Blitz? Or R.M. Smyllie? Ireland was in fact as close an ally to Britain as was possible for a neutral country to be. When British planes fell down over Ireland their pilots were released. When German planes suffered a similar fate their pilots were interned.
Dymphna,
The left in Ireland is large and it is anti-Semitic ans anti-Israel. The left in Ireland does not make the fine distinctions between Israel and the Jews that you do.
Very true. The name on the list of those who called for the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador to be looked out for is Dr. Raymond Dean. He is Ireland's Israel-hater-in-chief and writes letters to every newspaper on the subject.
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.
I'm very surprised at this statement.
The Icelandic people are largely descended from the Irish and the Scandinavians, so no surprise there.
Scandinavians are not descended from the Irish. It's the other way around. The Danes invaded Ireland in the 10th century and consequently their direct descendants, who still have characteristic Danish looks and long flowing golden locks, can be seen in the fish and vegetable markets on Moore Street in Dublin Town.
Islam O'Phobe --
It's not the Scandinavians who are descended from the Irish, but Icelanders. As reported in this space by Yorkshire Miner a year or two ago, a large proportion of Iceland's genetic material comes from Ireland (the rest is mostly from the Vikings, obviously).
The interesting thing is that almost all the Irish DNA in Iceland came in through females. Do you think those fair colleens made the journey to the frozen fjords willingly?
My bet is that they were part of the booty carried off by the warriors in the Viking longboats, along with the gold and jewels from the abbeys and the monasteries...
There's a pretty simple rule of thumb to differentiate anti-semitism (bigotry) from mere criticism of Israel which can be justified.
If the critic holds Israel to the same standard as any other country and conversely subjects other countries with worse human rights records to the same judgmental attitude complete with academic boycotts and disapproving motions made at the UN, then he's an unbiased critic.
If his contempt and efforts to punish are directed exclusively toward Israel, a country that cannot be judged by any objective criteria as the only or even worst human rights abuser on the planet, then he is an anti-semite.
Is Homophobic Horse serious with his comment or is it supposed to be sarcasm? If he's serious, then presumably Japan, China, India and other ethnically based nations are all equally to be tarred as racist?
Not everyone in the world agrees that multiculturalism is a wise foundation for building a sustainable state. It's been foisted on all Western countries by a social engineering elite embracing white guilt on behalf of all citizens and the negatives (after years of propaganda about enrichment and good restaurants) are now visible in every last country that has erected a Tower of Babel. Historical enmities between nations and tribes are now being played out within western countries who had no dog in the hunt before widespread immigration overwhelmed assimilation capabilities or even the right to demand assimilation.
Returning to the problem of anti-semitism, may I toss an idea into the ring? Jews like all people should not be subjected to unreasoning prejudice but neither should they be above criticism. All fair minded people, Jewish or not should be able to agree on that.
Post Holocaust, there was a long period where criticism of Jews or their actions were suppressed out of respect for their suffering. In tandem, the Holocaust was made by many into an event requiring world guilt, not just confined to the Germans.
Now both before and after the Holocaust, other peoples suffered holocausts of their own, yet none were given the same deference and attention by the arts in general and various publics. So a kind of envy may have burgeoned, at how Jews alone seemed to get sympathy.
Some peoples even consider their suffering to have been brought on by Jews. Do the Palestinians have a legitimate case based on Israeli actions or did their hatred for Jews predate modern Israel on the basis of their religious teachings making it irrational? The historical Mohammed had a hate- on for Jews who did not sign on to his struggling would-be supremacist religion "perfecting" all others. He inscribed that hatred into the fabric of Islam (though the cover story was that Allah said so, rather than that Mohammed was a sore loser).
Some historical analyses hold Jews responsible for playing a leading role in the creation of marxism and the flourishing of communism in the Soviet Union with many of the prime movers being Jewish or partly so, for example, Lenin (maternal grandfather) controversially Stalin and unequivocally his henchman Lazar Kaganovich who oversaw the death of millions yet escaped any Nuremberg type trial and drew a state pension until his death in Moscow his nineties. When people who suffered the scourge of communism for decades and observed Jews among the murderous leading lights have negative feelings about them, is this bigotry or understandable bitterness?
Anyway, even normal and justifiable criticism of Jews and various movements with which they have been associated has been pent up and is now being released in a gush mixed in with anti-semitism.
Still, for people of good will it's not too difficult to differentiate among bigots, unbiased critics of Israel and those with a legitimate grievance against Jews. No, they are not the only people on earth who are only sinned against and have never sinned.
I'm just speculating and would appreciate some feedback on this idea: Did Jews overplay the all-time victim role and are getting some resentment for it now? Did the massive attention paid to the Holocaust crowd out the Rwandan and ongoing Darfur horrors going on now along with many others along the way?
Dympna,
I have to agree with Jun, you have no idea what you are talking about, your post is rife with errors. You seem to put much weight on the words of Winston Churchill - a mortal enemy of Irish freedom and liberty.
For starters Palestinians and Arabs are Semites, so being pro-Palestinian does not make one anti-Semitic, but pro-Semitic.
You unfortunately fall into the stereotypical category of being an Ignorant American - and no don't claim you're Irish, you're not.
Ireland's population of Jews increased by 500% during and after World War II - many more could have emigrated there but didn't as the country had few opportunities at the time.
If you knew anything about Ireland's struggle for over 800 years against imperialism, oppression, genocide and extermination, you would understand why they would naturally feel sympathy with those in a similar position, against an Israel who embodies all the malignant tendencies towards the Palestinians, that the British had towards the Irish.
Let's face it Israel is an illegitimate state, it came into being by the nefarious actions of the Fascist/Zionist movement, who used Rothschild money to purchase land from fleeing Ottoman landlords at fire-sale prices, on the one hand, and on the other organized fascist mobs to ethnically cleanse whole villages of Palestinians.
Personally I'm against the use of violence to solve issues, but can understand those who have no hope, who are starving, who are unemployed, who are being daily beaten and killed, who might resort to violence as a last means possible to survive.
Last point, I have relatives who are Jewish and know a lot of Jews, and can tell you that many of the smart ones are embarrassed and ashamed by the recent actions of Israel.
But like I said, you are just an Ignorant American, you're "one of them"...
Dymphna: The left in Ireland is large and it is anti-Semitic ans anti-Israel.
You still haven't demonstrated that today's leftist politicians in Ireland are anti-Semitic. You've only demonstrated that they are anti-Israel. From the book review that you quoted:
"Few people know that it is probably the EU country most hostile to Irael."
Note Israel, not Jews.
"It reviews developments fairly, which means exposing a little-known country's discriminatory behavior against another democracy."
"Another democracy" - meaning Israel - again, not Jews.
~~~~~
In your response to me you say that the "rampant anti-Semitism" you see in Ireland is a characteristic of the left. If it is true (that Irish leftists are anti-Semitic and not just anti-Israel), that doesn't mean that anti-Semitism is rampant in Ireland as the title of your post suggests. It would mean that anti-Semistism is rampant amongst the left in Ireland.
Baron,
It's not the Scandinavians who are descended from the Irish, but Icelanders.
You are correct on this point. I spoke (commented) too soon.
As for abducting women into slavery, trashing abbeys and monasteries, killing priests (all activities which the savage Viking invaders engaged in) I condemn all of these things.
"Let's face it Israel is an illegitimate state, it came into being by the nefarious actions of the Fascist/Zionist movement, who used Rothschild money to purchase land from fleeing Ottoman landlords at fire-sale prices, on the one hand, and on the other organized fascist mobs to ethnically cleanse whole villages of Palestinians."
You forgot to add the Bavarian Illuminati, Elders of Zion, and Joe Kennedy.
The only country in the region with a representative government, decent health care, capitalist markets, equal rights for women, and a justice system not based on graft. Yep, doesn't get much more evil than that.
Ireland should be more concerned about its basket-case economy. A brief visit to Dublin left me staggered. The cost of living is beyond a joke. I predict food riots before the year is out. The place was full of Eastern Europeans and third worlders.
Rampant anti semitism in ireland what a load of rubbush. I have never heard anti semitic comments being made in ireland. The people who called for these boycotts are leftists no one will listen or probaly even have no idea where Israel is for that matter. When the recent gaza war broke out there was no trouble agaisnt police or jews reported in Ireland as for the uk france and scandanavia etc. there was lots of trouble, sometimes i wonder if this site is more concerned with israel than Europe.
Amazing
Afonsos concept of "bigger picture" does not work at all.
I do not think there is any space left to simplify the matter. So I add something to make it more complicated.
Until now there is a tention between Western European Jewry and Eastern European Jewry. The Western Jewry was considerably weakened by the holocaust and has to face Eastern Jewry in US, Germany, Israel etc. The Germans might be proud of exSoviet Jews settling in Germany (more than 200 000), but the original Western Jewry is not happy about dissolving in this milieu. Similar situation was around here in Central Europe before WWII- the settled integrated successful secularized Jewry was not happy about impoverished non-secualar Jews coming from the East - destroying their selfconfident image.
The reason the Czechs are not "anti-semitic" is partly due to this traditional westernized Jewry which is so much "Czech" in many ways that they even refused to be dealt as one of the 12 official minorities in Czech Rep.
This Jewry test shows also clearly that Afonsos assessment of Czech Rep. as "Eastern European country" is a nonsense (many other would follow, it is so romantic).
At the end of his life the Western Jew Franz Kafka felt a certain relief in communicating with the Eastern European Jews, who in his eyes had more "identity" more soul whatever. (He was taken care by a young girl from the East and enjoyed it).
Until today these two brands of Jews meeting each other in US, Europe, Israel can insult each other displaying a sort of disdain for the cutural level/quality represented by the other.
We are too envolved in protecting the Jews to consider such things for a second. No one asked us to take sides.
Amazing.
There are outright lies here, the biggest being the comment above about De Valera's "alliance" with Hitler. An absolute, complete, and shameless lie. Gates of Vienna and its readers should think carefully before accusing an entire people and nation of being "anti-semitic".
Whatever the merit of all these opinions, I would predict that, were 400 million quarrelsome, vengeful, Old Kingdom Jews spread around the Middle East, and five million Arabs occupying what is presently Isael, the Irish foreign policy would be anti-Arab.
Too bad about the Irish; there is otherwise a lot to recommend them. But I don't suppose they are more anti-Isael than the average suicide Jew.
People seem to forget that the Irish took the lead in boycotting South African products in one of the largest supermarket chains in the country - Dunnes Stores - to help the situation in South Africa.
The Irish also protested the American invasion of the island of Grenada.
The Irish also rejected the latest EU treaty, whereby small countries would give up some rights to larger countries.
So, I think it fair to say the Irish have a track record of sticking up for the underdog, no matter who they are or where they live.
I thought it was obvious I was demonstrating how the principles of anti-racism and nations right to self determination are, perversely, the well spring of a political paradigm that is effectively anti-Semitic.
When I have this conversation IRL I always tell people about Le Pen's Front National's demented embrace of multiculturalism and egalitarianism - as a weapon against the Jews and Israel. There's something inherently destructive about multiculturalism and egalitarianism.
Sorry to burst your bubble. Some FACTS!
Ireland - International Religious Freedom Report 2007
U.S. Department of State
Anti-Semitism
There were isolated reports of anti-Semitism during the year. On January 12, 2007, a man previously convicted of acts of vandalism against Jewish establishments in Dublin was convicted of sending offensive e-mails to Jewish community individuals. He received a six-month suspended sentence contingent on his continued psychiatric treatment. On September 22, 2006, two swastikas and an expletive were painted on the gates and wall of a college. The police were investigating at the end of the reporting period.
On August 11, 2006, a pair of children's shoes with the word "Qana" (a reference to the conflict involving Israeli and Hezbollah) written in red ink was found outside the synagogue in Cork.
On July 20, 2006, unknown persons painted anti-Semitic graffiti on the exterior wall of an office building during the conflict involving Israel and Hezbollah. The police promptly removed the graffiti but never identified those responsible for it. The Israeli embassy in Dublin received anti-Semitic and anti-Israel phone calls in July. A rabbi's office in Dublin also received several phone calls in July 2006 that expressed outrage at Israel's actions during the conflict with Lebanon.
2008 Human Rights Report: Ireland
U.S. Department of State
There were NONE. NO antiSemitism reports. ZILCH!!! Sorry.
pconroy said:
Let's face it Israel is an illegitimate state
Let's face it, pconroy, you're wrong:
Jer 16:14-16 However, the days are coming," declares the LORD, "when men will no longer say, ‘As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the Israelites up out of Egypt,’ but they will say, ‘As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the Israelites up out of the land of the north and out of all the countries where he had banished them.’ For I will restore them to the land I gave their forefathers.
Three hundred and thirty thousand irishmen fought in world war one. They were not conscripts. This from a population of just four and a half million. No Irishman had a say in the Versaille treaty which led to Hitler and world war two.
And Churchill the champion of self determination who wanted to hold onto India, resented them for not fighting in the war that bufoons like Wilson and Lloyd George engineered. Ireland would have been bombed to hell. Churchill needed everything he had in the air just to prevent England from being overun. The low countries, Denmark and Norway would have stayed neutral if they could just like Ireland. And what did Churchill get out of the war. A broken germany and communism in East Europe. Nice one. We have no riots in Ireland against Israel like in Norway and Denmark and you're telling us antsematism is rampant in our country. Maybe you're mistaking Ireland for irish America. I see on your blog today five thousand showed up to protest against a tennis game in Sweden. When the Israeli soccer team played here in 2005 there was no trouble. Three thousand Irish fans travelled to israel for the return game. What a boycott eh? The Irish papers were full of reports of what a great time they had and how nice the Israelis were to them. And there have been plenty of articles in those papers backing Israel in the Gaza conflict. The left in Ireland is not 'large.' Left wingers have approx 35 seats in the 166 seat parliament.
Here is an excerpt from Tim Pat Coogan's De Valera: Long Fellow, Long Shadow, p. 600-1:
“[Martin Quigley, an American OSS officer] whose father also had high-level American access - to Roosevelt - devised a scheme: '...the British Government - with the consent of the Eire Government (meaning at the time the consent of de Valera) turning over the bases [i.e. the Treaty Ports - io'p] to the U.S.A. This would be in exchange for the guarantee of the American Government using its good offices at the end of the war to bring about the end of Partition.' Quigley believed, rightly, that 'Neither the British Government nor the Government in Belfast could have resisted determined American pressure.' However, the level of co-operation between the Irish and the British, as opposed to the top-level sparring between Churchill and de Valera was such that: 'The plan died after [Emmett] Dalton had it referred directly to the top officials of the Imperial General Staff in England. The word sent back to Dalton...was that the British Military wanted no alteration to the existing situation.' As Quigley says, the 'aggressive Nazi bombings' would have 'devastated' the bases if the USA had taken them over; and the devastation, which of course would have been confined to the bases, would have 'required relief and scarce materials and supplies if Eire became an official belligerent. Nazi bombings would require the diversion of military equipment.'
On top of this another OSS agent, Ervin Marlin, based in the American Embassy, had already informed his superiors that, contrary to Gray's beliefs, Irish intelligence efficiency was such that the threat from German spies was non-existent. Gray was displeased and asked for Marlin's recall. However, as the Normandy landings approached it was finally decided that a note should be presented by the Americans with which the British would concur. This American-British approach was to contain a different demand from that which Gray had originally prepared, though it had the same object: getting de Valera's refusal of co-operation on the record. The Allies both wanted to continue the de facto wartime co-operation with the Irish and brand them (or at least de Valera) de jure as Nazi collaborators.”
I initially passed over this statement:
"Nobody defends Israel."
This is untrue.
There is the Irish Independent (to whom the American Trade Union movement sent their letter), the Irish friends of Israel (their chairman is Sean Gannon), the Irish Christian Friends of Israel, the late Conor Cruise O'Brien (RIP). That's just off the top of my head. There are others.
Homophobic horse said: "Le Pen's Front National's demented embrace of multiculturalism and egalitarianism - as a weapon against the Jews and Israel. There's something inherently destructive about multiculturalism and egalitarianism".
Agreed, but how and why did state multiculturalism appear in only Western societies and cross pollinate back and forth across the Atlantic?
It's been said that North American Jews who are mainly lib left as evidenced by their voting patterns pushed for and promoted multiculturalism through the Democratic Party and Ted Kennedy in the 60's. Some were presumably just backing a liberal policy. There's been some speculation that perhaps some thought the best protection for Jews against a repeat of what happened in Germany would be to break up a monolithic white Christian society by fragmenting it into multiple competing smaller groups, sort of "divided there's safety". Possibly there was an element of bitterness about white American society not accepting enough refugees from Nazi Germany. Whatever the motivation, this is a policy that now appears to be biting Jews in the posterior with the last wave of Muslim immigration. There is no Christian bulwark anymore to beat back Koran inspired hatred of preceding religions and secularism appears not to be holding against Muslim demands and creeping sharia.
So is multiculturalism a two-edged sword that was to serve one purpose even if it was just to burnish one's humanitarian credentials but is now cutting deep in the host everywhere it's been instituted?
Finally, how to explain the leftist Jewish component of one sided complaints against Israel? They've said worse things than le Pen, likened Israeli Jews to Nazis and thereby given cover to anti-semitics. They are not self-hating, there's too many of them and they evince a very high opinion of themselves as humanitarians.
Here is a transcript of a speech which Eammon de Valera gave in Cork in December 12, 1941.
Sample quote:
"Since this war began our sympathy has gone out to all the suffering people who have been dragged into it. Further hundreds of millions have become involved since I spoke at Limerick a fortnight ago. Its extension to the U.S.A. brings a source of anxiety and sorrow to every part of this land. There is scarcely a family here which has not a member or a near relative in that country, in addition to the ties of blood, there has been our two nations a long association of friendship and regard, continuing uninterruptedly from America's struggle for independence down to our own. The part which American friendship played in helping us to win the freedom we enjoy in this part of Ireland has been gratefully recognized and acknowledged by our people. It would be unnatural, then, if we did not sympathize in this total manner with the people of the U.S.A. and if we did not feel with them in all the anxiety and trials which this war has brought upon them.
People who do not understand our conditions have asked how America's entry into the war will affect our neutrality here. The policy of the state remains unchanged. We can only be friendly neutral. From the moment this war began, there was, for this state, only one policy possible, neutrality. Our circumstances, our history, the incompleteness of our national freedom through the partition of our country, made any other policy impossible. Any other policy would have divided our people and for a divided nation to fling itself into this war would have been to commit suicide. When we adopted the policy of neutrality, we had no illusions about it. We knew the difficulties and dangers. We are fully aware that, in a world at war, each set of belligerents is over ready to regard those who are not with them as against them; but the course we have followed is a just course. God has been pleased to save us during the years of war that have already passed. We pray that He may be pleased to save us to the end. But we must do our part."
laine,
I'm just speculating and would appreciate some feedback on this idea: Did Jews overplay the all-time victim role and are getting some resentment for it now?
You have made a genuine request for feedback on this issue so I will respond.
At the risk of sounding like an American-bashing punk it's my opinion that historical anti-Semitism is leveraged by Americans to justify their country's political maneuvers.
The disproportionate criticism of France's historical anti-Semitism compared with the sudden amnesia when it comes to Poland is stunning. Even if the missile shield never gets built the criticism shield around Poland will remain intact as long as the Polish are faithful American allies.
The Jews do not, in my opinion, over-egg the historical occurence of anti-Semitism. That would be very hard to do in the first place considering how badly they have been treated down the ages. Israeli diplomats are very fair in this regard. Maybe too fair, but such is diplomacy.
However any country that does not take a pro-America line on crucial foreign policy issues can expect to have every skeleton, real or imaginary, dragged out of the closet (e.g. Hitler's Irish grandmother) and can like it or lump it.
This behaviour is not just confined to Johnsonians (as in Charles) but operates across the political spectrum.
"Islam O'Phobe" takes lots of time to write comments,
but he never bothers to actually look at my pages that Dymphna referenced:
http://markhumphrys.com/irish.left.israel.html
http://markhumphrys.com/christianity.ww2.html
If he did, he would find out:
1. I never said De Valera was anti-semitic.
2. I never said the past or present Irish were anti-semitic.
3. I never said that even the modern Irish left are anti-semitic.
4. I never said "nobody defends Israel" in Ireland.
(That was merely a reference to a single Senate debate on 23 Mar 2004.)
5. I did not neglect the Irishmen that volunteered for the Allies. I refer to them thus:
"The true Irish heroes of WW2: the 40,000 Irish who fought for the Allies.
These brave men redeemed Ireland somewhat from the villainy of de Valera.
Apparently, fully two-thirds of the Irish Army of 1939 joined the Allies."
Irish Catholicism certainly did not save Ireland's honour in the war.
In the great battle between good and evil of our time, it was neutral. Neutral!
European Catholicism was even worse - it was mostly neutral or pro-Nazi.
Finally, I am not an "anti-theist".
I think theism is entirely untrue, but I am a fan of many people who are theists.
For example, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
Mark Humphrys
Mr. Humphrys,
Thanks for replying.
1. I never said De Valera was anti-semitic.
2. I never said the past or present Irish were anti-semitic.
I was responding not solely to your comments but to the thread at large - including comments from other people who said exactly that. Sorry if that was not clear.
It is worth mentioning that the bolded statement "But I think Ireland - like most of Europe - should shut up about Jews for a few hundred years" suggests a historical taint.
Why should Ireland which - unlike most of Europe - had no role in the Holocaust shut up about Jews for a few hundred years?
4. I never said "nobody defends Israel" in Ireland.
(That was merely a reference to a single Senate debate on 23 Mar 2004.)
That was not clear at all. You said "Nobody defends Israel" and then went on to lambast both the Seanad and Ireland. I don't think I was the only person who took away this impression as the comment thread indicates.
Irish Catholicism certainly did not save Ireland's honour in the war.
What could they have done? Ireland was not a Catholic theocracy in those days despite what people may think.
European Catholicism was even worse - it was mostly neutral or pro-Nazi.
You are very wrong. While the Catholic Church did not have an army to fight the Nazis, it did a lot to protect Jews in Italy during the war. In an Axis country no less!
Finally, I am not an "anti-theist".
That's a matter of opinion.
I'll take a single example from the page on your web site "The Bible in its Own Words: An unbeliever's choice of quotes" where you take passages out of their proper context in order to make Christianity seem especially bad:
1 Corinthians 7 - To the unmarried and to widows I say: it is good for them to stay as they are, like me. But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry, since it is better to be married than to be burnt up.
A literal reading of this passage would seem to endorse the burning of widows on funeral pyres as used to happen (and still does to a lesser extent) in India. So why haven't Christians been burning widows for centuries? It is because this passage, read in good faith, means "It is better to marry than be burnt up [in lust]".
Further thoughts on this topic:
Quoting Winston Churchill's speech on Irish neutrality at the close of the war, while omitting Eammon de Valera's reply, is unbalanced. It is recorded that Churchill himself was very impressed with de Valera's rebuttal speech. (They finally met each other in the 1950's.)
Would a speech by King George III on the U.S.A.'s unseemly alliance with the evil dictator Napolean pass for an accurate summing up of the War of 1812 in the American blogosphere? I daresay it would not.
Incidentally there used to be town called Napolean, Arkansas where Mark Twain in his own words "used to know the prettiest girl" but it got swallowed up the Mississippi.
In the exceprt from de Valera's speech on Irish neutrality that I quoted above, the sentence that I should have highlighted is this: "Any other policy would have divided our people and for a divided nation to fling itself into this war would have been to commit suicide."
We gab a lot on this blog about suicidal leaders, the suicidal West etc. but leaders who do not commit national suicide like de Valera refused to are retroactively condemned when it comes down to the nitty gritty.
Take this statement:
"To refuse to grant asylum to the Jews during the Holocaust was anti-Semitic."
Yet Ireland did grant asylum to Jews during the Holocaust. The retrospective response is to say "Well why didn't you do more?"
And finally:
De Valera Forest Rededicated at 40th Anniversary
That was not clear at all. You said "Nobody defends Israel" and then went on to lambast both the Seanad and Ireland. I don't think I was the only person who took away this impression as the comment thread indicates.
As I said, you are replying to Dymphna's quoting of my page rather than looking at my page itself.
You are very wrong. While the Catholic Church did not have an army to fight the Nazis, it did a lot to protect Jews in Italy during the war. In an Axis country no less!
Well I think that's a rosy view of it. I guess you have a brief for the Catholic church.
I don't think they're the worst organisation around, but any objective look at their record in WW2 would come away very disappointed. I think for all their war crimes the UK and USA still come away from WW2 looking morally superior to Ireland or Rome.
1 Corinthians 7 - To the unmarried and to widows I say: it is good for them to stay as they are, like me. But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry, since it is better to be married than to be burnt up.
Surely this passage illustrates that Paul is a loony?
this passage, read in good faith, means "It is better to marry than be burnt up [in lust]".
So you say. But I'd say that would be news to Paul.
You should also tell these people:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7;&version=8;
who have it as the traditional:
"for it is better to marry than to burn."
BTW I'm surprised you found this the most offensive. There are far worse passages.
Quoting Winston Churchill's speech on Irish neutrality at the close of the war, while omitting Eammon de Valera's reply, is unbalanced
Frankly, Dev gets too much press in Ireland, Churchill not enough.
I think the Irish should be willing to listen to some criticism.
Take this statement:
"To refuse to grant asylum to the Jews during the Holocaust was anti-Semitic."
Em, that's Dymphna again, not me.
Mark
Mark,
As I said, you are replying to Dymphna's quoting of my page rather than looking at my page itself.
Yes, I am replying to the post as written seeing as that is what the discussion is about
I think for all their war crimes the UK and USA still come away from WW2 looking morally superior to Ireland or Rome.
I have defended the UK and the USA on this forum and in other places over their conduct in World War II. I just think you are taking a "warts only" apoproach re Ireland the Catholic Church.
who have it as the traditional:
"for it is better to marry than to burn."
I wasn't saying you were misquoting it but rather making a literalist interpretation. Christians do not literally set widows on fire if they refuse to get a husband.
Frankly, Dev gets too much press in Ireland, Churchill not enough.
Perhaps but Gates of Vienna is not a part of the Irish press. I was responding specifically to this post and not your web site.
Em, that's Dymphna again, not me.
The second comment was not addressed to you but rather the topic in general.
pconroy.
You couldn't be more wrong when you stated "Ireland's population of Jews increased by 500% during and after World War II"
In the early 1900s, there were almost 5000 Jews in Ireland, by the 40s, there were 5500, today, theres less than 2000.
I'd have to agree the Irish are very anti-Semetic, anti-Israeli, sided with Hitler in the war. Lets not forget Hitler was and is still seen as a great ally by all of the Middle East Muslims and shared his vision of a world free Jews. Any social democracy, all of Europe, can owe it's roots to Karl Marx, a true Jew Hater.
pconroy --
Rule #1 of commenting here requires civility. Please refrain from name-calling.
--------
pconroy said...
Joshua,
You are wrong, you are ignorant of the facts.
Ireland was neutral during the war, but 50,000 Irishmen volunteered to fight for the British army against Fascism, likewise thousands of Irish volunteered to fight fascism in Spain.
Today most Irish people are still against fascism, wherever it rears its ugly head, be that as Zionism in Israel or elsewhere.
Here's a question for you, many Americans falsely believe that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, if that is the case, then why does it act as an ethno-religious state - like Saudi Arabia - and practices fascism and genocide against minorities in Israel - like the Northern Sudanese in Darfur. These are the very crimes that many Jews equate with Hitler and 1940's Germany. Do you feel that Israel is special and above criticism [redacted]?
I really don't get all this antisemitism whining. Didn't it occur to you that these people simply are ideologically consistent? It's not like they support Ireland behaving in apartheid way and not letting Israel do it. It's the same with the flotilla. If an European country would have did it, they would have said the same thing. They're just being consistent.
On the other hand, not liking Jews is a perfectly ok position. There's a difference in between not liking them and wanting to kill them all. Just like not wanting to trade with Israel is perfectly ok for a sovereign country. It's a difference in between these and wanting genocide.
Since this thread has been resurrected, I thought I would post something more up to date:
I've been following the hysterical Irish media reaction to the Israeli clash with the Gaza flotilla Islamists. The anti-Israel mobs have been waving Islamic terror flags at their demos in Dublin.
See: Irish reaction to the Gaza flotilla clash, where I receive abusive email from an elected Irish politician! (I am so pleased.)
BTW I'm not saying anti-semitism is irrelevant in Irish history. I'm saying there are lots of stupid reasons why Ireland has been hostile or indifferent to the Jews and Israel. Anti-semitism would have been a reason mainly for the Catholic right. (See Oliver J. Flanagan.) For lefties and republicans there were and are other stupid reasons.
This would be a good time to mention that the American-Irish academic Dr T. Ryle Dwyer brought out a new book eight months ago which examines Irish neutrality with greater scrutiny than his or anyone else's previous work on the subject: Behind the Green Curtain: Ireland’s Phoney Neutrality during World War II.
Here is the book description:
"Previously, it had been well understood that, for reasons of geographical location, Ireland had been prepared ‘to show a certain consideration for Britain’ as Éamon de Valera explained to the German minister in Dublin. It was equally known that combatants were not treated with absolute equality. Allied airmen who crash landed in Ireland were quietly repatriated to the UK across the land border with Northern Ireland. Over-fly rights were granted and tens of thousands of Irish men fought in the British Army. German air crew who crash-landed in Ireland were, however, interned for the duration of the war.
What Dr Dwyer has uncovered goes far beyond any of this. Dwyer reveals that Irish diplomats were used as spies for the United States during the course of the war. Irish diplomats in Europe supplied information to the OSS—the predecessor of the CIA—with the full knowledge and consent of de Valera. Behind the Green Curtain is a comprehensive account of Irish neutrality, focusing strongly on the American, British—and to a lesser extent the Canadian—connection. It confirms beyond any doubt that Ireland made a positive and partisan contribution to the allied war effort. Neutrality has become a shibboleth of modern Irish politics. Behind the Green Curtain explodes the myth behind that shibboleth in the most decisive way."
I haven't gotten a hold of it yet. I saw it in a shop in hardback and it was quite expensive. I'm still waiting for the paperback, or maybe I'll get it out of the library.
Also, Randolph Churchill, Winston's son, had a long conversation with John Dulanty (the Irish High Commissioner in London) in late 1945, in which he indicated an apology for his father's Maytime outburst against Ireland and de Valera. Randolph said that 'his father's reference to Ireland and the Taoiseach was a piece of folly. He was the first to accept it.' (NAI, 2006/39/18, Doc. 17a, 27 October 1945.)
May as well respond to some other points while I'm here:
"In the early 1900s, there were almost 5000 Jews in Ireland, by the 40s, there were 5500, today, theres less than 2000."
The creation of the state of Israel in 1948 followed by a large wave of emigration from Ireland in the 1950s, with subsequent waves continuing up to the late 1980s, accounts for this. They simply moved on to better things.
"Here's a question for you, many Americans falsely believe that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East"
If they don't know that Iraq is a democracy then they must be reading the wrong newspapers.
Baron,
It's your blog so you are free to censure my post if you like. However, I'd prefer that you deleted my post in it's entirety, rather than censure out a relevant paragraph, while leaving slanderous assertions by Joshua that the Irish are Anti-Semitic and sided with Hitler intact. You do yourself, this blog and thinking people a disservice, and come across as a "Goyishe kopf" yourself.
Oh BTW, I hope that last phrase won't get censured too ;)
pconroy --
First of all, I assume you mean "censor" and not "censure".
Secondly, I censor no one. This is not a public forum, and I am not the government, hence my actions here cannot possibly constitute censorship. This is a private forum, and it has rules which commenters must adhere to. Rule #1 demands civility, which means, inter alia, that commenters are not allowed to call each other names.
Thirdly, I didn't delete a paragraph, but merely a single clause of a single sentence, one in which you used two insulting words to describe the person you were addressing.
As for "goyishe kopf", whatever that is -- I allow greater latitude to commenters when it comes to insulting me than when they insult each other. My skin is fairly thick.
Baron,
"Goyishe kopf" is what the Neo-Cons would call someone like you who runs a fascist front blog.
Oh, BTW, there were Irish settlers in Iceland before the Vikings ever got there - google Dicuil, then check out all the references in Iceland to the Westman (Irish people), and Papys (Christians).
Dympna said:
My family experience was the same. My cousin who migrated to the US married a Jewish professor who taught French. To the day her father died, he never knew his daughter had married "one of them"
All you are really saying is that you are from a PROLE family - so your family experiences are not representative of the Irish elite.
pconroy --
What do you mean, a "fascist front blog"? We're not a front -- we're at the epicenter of fascism!
We're fascism itself -- just ask anybody. Haven't you been paying attention?
pconroy: "Goyishe kopf" is what the Neo-Cons would call someone like you who runs a fascist front blog.
That's Mister Fascist to you!
[resumes polishing jack boots]
All you are really saying is that you are from a PROLE family - so your family experiences are not representative of the Irish elite.
Well I guess they were proles if politicians are proles.
Some of them on my father's side were Lords Mayor in Limerick.
On my mother's side my great uncle was the Irish Consul General to NYC to many decades. That's a political appointment for sure.
So what's wrong with proles? You want to count yourself among the elites? Go for it, Conroy. Y'all appear to deserve one another.
Limerick - aka Stab City - a dirty, violent place, where politicians were corrupt and the police wouldn't patrol it's main streets after dark, for fear of being stabbed/mugged.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Stab%20City
"Y'all" - try speaking English??
For someone who doesn't read this blog, you've spent an inordinate amount of time making bitter remarks in the comments of this post.
"Y'all" is a perfectly acceptable idiom in the southern part of the US, which is where this blog originates.
However they may say that word in Limerick, they don't say it in any form on this blog.
Keep a civil tongue in your head or move along.
OK, Dymphna and I have both had it. This thread is a spent scene. It's more than a year old.
Enough is enough.
Post a Comment