-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Irish MP to Israeli Ambassador
- Thread starter saynotomsm
- Start date
That Irish MP is anti-semitic!! Jail him!
The Irish are some of the nicest and most easy-going people in the world. They've suffered for centuries under the yoke of Anglo-Saxon oppression and savagery and know what it's like to be an oppressed and dispossessed minority.
How can they be anti-Semitic when they've been the target of persecution for centuries? Except when they call out Israeli state terrorism, which is just calling a spade a spade.
How can they be anti-Semitic when they've been the target of persecution for centuries? Except when they call out Israeli state terrorism, which is just calling a spade a spade.
From what I read, the Irish now hate the palestinian loving migrants. I found it strange as the Irish are said to also love the moslem palestinians jihadists.
The Irish have traditionally had strong empathy for the underdogs anywhere. Most of recent anti-immigrant protests are the result of the far right anti-immigrant and racist rhetoric imported from the UK by an activist minority in reaction to the large numbers of homeless immigrants in Dublin.
---
Why are Ireland’s anti-refugee protests erupting now? Look across the Irish Sea
This article is more than 6 months oldColin Gannon
Far-right rhetoric and tactics are being imported wholesale from the UK into Ireland. The effects on Irish politics are yet to be seen
After years of bucking the European trend, an organised anti-refugee backlash has finally hit Ireland. Recent protests involved threats to burn down a hotel housing refugees and, in a separate incident, there was a vigilante attack on a homeless migrant camp. These ugly scenes followed months of protests led by the far right and simmering community tensions over the provision of local accommodation to refugees. But where has this come from?
Not previously high on the agenda of voters more concerned with a crumbling, two-tier healthcare system and a chronic housing crisis, a recent poll found that a small majority (56%) of Irish respondents believe the country has accepted too many refugees over the past year.
Ireland is currently housing about 74,000 asylum applicants, 49,227 of whom are Ukrainians. A year ago, the total number was 7,500. Hotels, emergency shelters and improvised accommodation centres across the country are practically full. And what is sometimes forgotten is that the number of non-Ukrainian applicants is also the highest in decades, mirroring a Europe-wide trend of rising asylum claims.
As seen during the water charges revolt and through the popularity of the policies of Sinn Féin, mass anger has, in recent memory, largely been directed at the ruling parties, which bailed out the banks and the bondholders on the backs of the Irish working and middle classes before unleashing austerity under the guise of a post-crash recovery. Now anti-refugee sentiment has exploded amid a devastating housing crisis, made worse by the destabilising effects of public sector cuts and stagnant wages.
With the asylum system at breaking point and fury building at these national maladies, anti-refugee protests and the febrile discourses that swirl around are potentially signalling the birth of a new political energy that could impose itself on future elections in Ireland. On closer inspection, they also demonstrate the importation of anti-refugee arguments from across the Irish Sea.
These protests have drawn from the same rhetorical, tactical, and ideological energy as the recent anti-refugee riot in Knowsley, England. The most commonplace and persistent anti-refugee narrative concerns “unvetted” or “military age” young male refugees, who are depicted, because of their age and gender, as inherently unsafe to the public, especially women. As a recent poll indicated, women in working-class communities are more strongly against integrating refugees than men.
Preying on these fears, Irish far-right activists are disseminating false information about criminal activities. Proliferating through social media on any given day are rumours of sexual assault or the harassment of women by migrants, or grainy, unverifiable video clips of the same. A security source recently told the Irish Times that this is “a mirror image of what has been happening in the UK”.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...d-anti-refugee-protests-far-right-uk-politics
The Irish MP is a good brave man. Here's the transcript of his speech:
To say frankly I'm one of the people who thinks you should be expelled from this country. You have done the innocent killings of people in Gaza, the seizure of Palestinian land and so on.
But the ordinary Palestinians rose up because you denied them basic rights. I lived there. it was apartheid; racism was endemic, was rotten. Absolutely I was shocked within weeks of living there to see how you treated Palestinian people.
And isn't it a fact that the law of return which is the basic law of the Israeli state is a racist apartheid law because it confers rights on Jews that it denies to Palestinians... it allows for example: if I was Jewish and had never stepped foot in Israel I could claim citizenship there tomorrow, but 6 million people whose origins are in what you now call Israel who were forced out in 1947 or 1948 do not have that right.
And isn't that part of the reason why the Palestinians are in dispute wth Israelis because you deny them their right to return to their homes and their land and their villages and they have a legitimate claim even nder international law to return but you deny them that right.
Why do you deny them that right and why do you give that right to other people who have no connection whatsoever with the land, whether you call it Israel or whether you csll it Palestine.
Why do you continue to seize land if you are serious about a new state solution? Why do continue to seize land which under agreement is land designated to be Palestinian land?
500,000 people. You allow that to happen. Why do you allow that to happen if you're serious about giving this land to the Palestinians? Are you just taking us, ambassador, for idiots that you can say with a straight face, that "we're serious about peace but while we're serious about peace we're going to seize Palestinian land."
And you know what the Palestinian people have been asking for? Far even less than some people would ask for - because I believe the whole aparttheid system should be dismantled - but what they've asked for is to lift the siege of Gaza, just to lift the siege of Gaza, let them not be dictated to by a government for whom they do not vote, as to what can go in and out of their territories, whether they will have power, whether they will have clean water, whether they will have medicine.
What makes you think you're allowed to have nuclear weapons and the fourth biggest army in the world and this is destruction on the people of Gaza but they have no right to defend themselves. They have no territorial subject over that land.
Lastly, ambassador: I describe your state as an apartheid state with different laws for different people depending on their race or religion. Isn't that just the case, that, for example, the checkpoints going into the West Bank... there's a channel if you're Israeli or European and there's a channel if you're Arab. Just because you're Arab, if you came into Dole Aaron and they stopped you and said, 'Are you Jewish? Oh no, sir, you can't come in through the same entrance as Irish people or European people because you're Jewish' you would call that racism, an apartheid.
But yes, you practise that, you practise that with your checkpoints and your military and barriers and paradise walls. How can you justify that?
To say frankly I'm one of the people who thinks you should be expelled from this country. You have done the innocent killings of people in Gaza, the seizure of Palestinian land and so on.
But the ordinary Palestinians rose up because you denied them basic rights. I lived there. it was apartheid; racism was endemic, was rotten. Absolutely I was shocked within weeks of living there to see how you treated Palestinian people.
And isn't it a fact that the law of return which is the basic law of the Israeli state is a racist apartheid law because it confers rights on Jews that it denies to Palestinians... it allows for example: if I was Jewish and had never stepped foot in Israel I could claim citizenship there tomorrow, but 6 million people whose origins are in what you now call Israel who were forced out in 1947 or 1948 do not have that right.
And isn't that part of the reason why the Palestinians are in dispute wth Israelis because you deny them their right to return to their homes and their land and their villages and they have a legitimate claim even nder international law to return but you deny them that right.
Why do you deny them that right and why do you give that right to other people who have no connection whatsoever with the land, whether you call it Israel or whether you csll it Palestine.
Why do you continue to seize land if you are serious about a new state solution? Why do continue to seize land which under agreement is land designated to be Palestinian land?
500,000 people. You allow that to happen. Why do you allow that to happen if you're serious about giving this land to the Palestinians? Are you just taking us, ambassador, for idiots that you can say with a straight face, that "we're serious about peace but while we're serious about peace we're going to seize Palestinian land."
And you know what the Palestinian people have been asking for? Far even less than some people would ask for - because I believe the whole aparttheid system should be dismantled - but what they've asked for is to lift the siege of Gaza, just to lift the siege of Gaza, let them not be dictated to by a government for whom they do not vote, as to what can go in and out of their territories, whether they will have power, whether they will have clean water, whether they will have medicine.
What makes you think you're allowed to have nuclear weapons and the fourth biggest army in the world and this is destruction on the people of Gaza but they have no right to defend themselves. They have no territorial subject over that land.
Lastly, ambassador: I describe your state as an apartheid state with different laws for different people depending on their race or religion. Isn't that just the case, that, for example, the checkpoints going into the West Bank... there's a channel if you're Israeli or European and there's a channel if you're Arab. Just because you're Arab, if you came into Dole Aaron and they stopped you and said, 'Are you Jewish? Oh no, sir, you can't come in through the same entrance as Irish people or European people because you're Jewish' you would call that racism, an apartheid.
But yes, you practise that, you practise that with your checkpoints and your military and barriers and paradise walls. How can you justify that?
Similar threads
