Irish TD promotes anti-Semitic conspiracy theory on the floor of the Dail

[Horus]

The Lobby calls basic truth telling "anti-semitism". News at 11.

Once again I should point out that the above poster is one of this forum's most notorious antisemites.

You really are insufferable. Do you ever contribute anything besides elitism and snark?

[Horus]

The term Jewish supremacism isn't nonexistent- factually, there are Israelis (mostly religious nationalists) who are Jewish supremacists with opinions just as disgusting as David Duke's. But the way she presented it as Israel's core goal is, obviously, as antisemitic as they come- as are people here who jump at the chance to talk about the (((lobby))). Basically all modern antisemites use Israel as the new elders of zion, and Ireland has a history of antisemitic voices.

It's one of those terms, to me, that has an entirely different meaning coming out of a non-Jew's mouth vs. a Jewish person's mouth. Similar to discussing Chicago crime rates with a black youth leader vs. a Republican Congressman from Iowa.

But every time I, a person of Jewish descent, say this, you still call me an antisemite. So practice what you preach.

[Big Abraham]

"South Africa must always remain a White state." - white supremacist

"The United States must always preserve its White majority." - white supremacist

"Israel must always remain a Jewish state/preserve its Jewish majority." - noooo that's not Jewish supremacist!!!

It really is telling, innit?

You're not interested in good faith debate on the issue so I'm not answering for you, but rather for other people.

The Jews are a unique cultural and religious group that existed for thousands of years. After facing the most horrible persecution and genocide that any group experienced in documented history, they've decided to seek a nation state for Jews- just like many other groups have their own nation states. Where will Jews turn to if France or the United Kingdom or Russia or the United States elect an antisemitic authoritarian leader? Can they trust other countries to accept them, after during the holocaust German Jews were turned away in many countries? No, we clearly can't trust non-Jews to protect us.

This is why Israel and zionism are necessary, and this is why (unlike criticisms of Israel's actions), denying the very existence of Israel is antisemitic. And this is why comparing the necessity to keep a Jewish majority in Israel- the only way to ensure Jews have their own country- to neo-nazism and white supremacism is deploreable and filthy.

With all due respect, a White nationalist (or any other form of ethno-supremacism) could reason the same way.

These are some serious mental gymnastics you have to go through to argue in favor of perpetual racialism

[America Needs R'hllor]

"South Africa must always remain a White state." - white supremacist

"The United States must always preserve its White majority." - white supremacist

"Israel must always remain a Jewish state/preserve its Jewish majority." - noooo that's not Jewish supremacist!!!

It really is telling, innit?

You're not interested in good faith debate on the issue so I'm not answering for you, but rather for other people.

The Jews are a unique cultural and religious group that existed for thousands of years. After facing the most horrible persecution and genocide that any group experienced in documented history, they've decided to seek a nation state for Jews- just like many other groups have their own nation states. Where will Jews turn to if France or the United Kingdom or Russia or the United States elect an antisemitic authoritarian leader? Can they trust other countries to accept them, after during the holocaust German Jews were turned away in many countries? No, we clearly can't trust non-Jews to protect us.

This is why Israel and zionism are necessary, and this is why (unlike criticisms of Israel's actions), denying the very existence of Israel is antisemitic. And this is why comparing the necessity to keep a Jewish majority in Israel- the only way to ensure Jews have their own country- to neo-nazism and white supremacism is deploreable and filthy.

With all due respect, a White nationalist (or any other form of ethno-supremacism) could reason the same way.

These are some serious mental gymnastics you have to go through to argue in favor of perpetual racialism

No, they simply could not. There is absolutely no connection between the two and the fact that you keep name-dropping white supremacists in connection to a project started because Jews were slaughtered en masse by their ideological fathers without help from non Jewish countries is offensive.

[Big Abraham]

"South Africa must always remain a White state." - white supremacist

"The United States must always preserve its White majority." - white supremacist

"Israel must always remain a Jewish state/preserve its Jewish majority." - noooo that's not Jewish supremacist!!!

It really is telling, innit?

You're not interested in good faith debate on the issue so I'm not answering for you, but rather for other people.

The Jews are a unique cultural and religious group that existed for thousands of years. After facing the most horrible persecution and genocide that any group experienced in documented history, they've decided to seek a nation state for Jews- just like many other groups have their own nation states. Where will Jews turn to if France or the United Kingdom or Russia or the United States elect an antisemitic authoritarian leader? Can they trust other countries to accept them, after during the holocaust German Jews were turned away in many countries? No, we clearly can't trust non-Jews to protect us.

This is why Israel and zionism are necessary, and this is why (unlike criticisms of Israel's actions), denying the very existence of Israel is antisemitic. And this is why comparing the necessity to keep a Jewish majority in Israel- the only way to ensure Jews have their own country- to neo-nazism and white supremacism is deploreable and filthy.

With all due respect, a White nationalist (or any other form of ethno-supremacism) could reason the same way.

These are some serious mental gymnastics you have to go through to argue in favor of perpetual racialism

No, they simply could not. There is absolutely no connection between the two and the fact that you keep name-dropping white supremacists in connection to a project started because Jews were slaughtered en masse by their ideological fathers without help from non Jewish countries is offensive.

Ah, I see, so because certain members of the ethnic group in question suffered brutality at the hands of others, that gives them the right to brutalize members of another nation by cutting them off, robbing them of their homes and resources, denying them a state, and forcefully maintaining the primacy of said ethnic group through ideology and demographic numbers. Sound logic sir.

[Crane]

The Lobby calls basic truth telling "anti-semitism". News at 11.

Once again I should point out that the above poster is one of this forum's most notorious antisemites.

You really are insufferable. Do you ever contribute anything besides elitism and snark?

Some people have said he's an intelligent, insightful poster, but I've seen no evidence to back up this claim.

[Zinneke]

"South Africa must always remain a White state." - white supremacist

"The United States must always preserve its White majority." - white supremacist

"Israel must always remain a Jewish state/preserve its Jewish majority." - noooo that's not Jewish supremacist!!!

It really is telling, innit?

You're not interested in good faith debate on the issue so I'm not answering for you, but rather for other people.

The Jews are a unique cultural and religious group that existed for thousands of years. After facing the most horrible persecution and genocide that any group experienced in documented history, they've decided to seek a nation state for Jews- just like many other groups have their own nation states. Where will Jews turn to if France or the United Kingdom or Russia or the United States elect an antisemitic authoritarian leader? Can they trust other countries to accept them, after during the holocaust German Jews were turned away in many countries? No, we clearly can't trust non-Jews to protect us.

This is why Israel and zionism are necessary, and this is why (unlike criticisms of Israel's actions), denying the very existence of Israel is antisemitic. And this is why comparing the necessity to keep a Jewish majority in Israel- the only way to ensure Jews have their own country- to neo-nazism and white supremacism is deploreable and filthy.

Jewish self-determination doesn't have to be incompatible with other people's self-determination.

[America Needs R'hllor]

"South Africa must always remain a White state." - white supremacist

"The United States must always preserve its White majority." - white supremacist

"Israel must always remain a Jewish state/preserve its Jewish majority." - noooo that's not Jewish supremacist!!!

It really is telling, innit?

You're not interested in good faith debate on the issue so I'm not answering for you, but rather for other people.

The Jews are a unique cultural and religious group that existed for thousands of years. After facing the most horrible persecution and genocide that any group experienced in documented history, they've decided to seek a nation state for Jews- just like many other groups have their own nation states. Where will Jews turn to if France or the United Kingdom or Russia or the United States elect an antisemitic authoritarian leader? Can they trust other countries to accept them, after during the holocaust German Jews were turned away in many countries? No, we clearly can't trust non-Jews to protect us.

This is why Israel and zionism are necessary, and this is why (unlike criticisms of Israel's actions), denying the very existence of Israel is antisemitic. And this is why comparing the necessity to keep a Jewish majority in Israel- the only way to ensure Jews have their own country- to neo-nazism and white supremacism is deploreable and filthy.

Jewish self-determination doesn't have to be incompatible with other people's self-determination.

Bingo. This is why leftist activism on the issue today is so flawed- you hear the word "occupation" less and less, even though that right there is the big issue that we should be talking about. Instead, you're hearing hyperboles such as "apartheid" and even the extremely antisemitic accusation of "genocide", meant to delegitimize the very *existence* of Israel. When they say Palestinian liberation, they don't mean the two state solution or equality- they mean ending the only Jewish state in the world. Just like the world turning its back on German Jews before the Holocaust or on Jewish refugees after the war, a huge chunk of non Jews continue to prove today why we can only trust ourselves.

Ah, I see, so because certain members of the ethnic group in question suffered brutality at the hands of others, that gives them the right to brutalize members of another nation by cutting them off, robbing them of their homes and resources, denying them a state, and forcefully maintaining the primacy of said ethnic group through ideology and demographic numbers. Sound logic sir.

I'll refer you to this post. I've probably done more to end the occupation and achieve a two state solution than you ever did. But don't gaslight- if your goal was Palestinian self determination, you wouldn't be arguing with someone whose only argument in this thread is that Israel should exist. You and your type would just rather the Arab states won the 1948 war and slaughtered the Jews here like they meant to.

[Zinneke]

"South Africa must always remain a White state." - white supremacist

"The United States must always preserve its White majority." - white supremacist

"Israel must always remain a Jewish state/preserve its Jewish majority." - noooo that's not Jewish supremacist!!!

It really is telling, innit?

You're not interested in good faith debate on the issue so I'm not answering for you, but rather for other people.

The Jews are a unique cultural and religious group that existed for thousands of years. After facing the most horrible persecution and genocide that any group experienced in documented history, they've decided to seek a nation state for Jews- just like many other groups have their own nation states. Where will Jews turn to if France or the United Kingdom or Russia or the United States elect an antisemitic authoritarian leader? Can they trust other countries to accept them, after during the holocaust German Jews were turned away in many countries? No, we clearly can't trust non-Jews to protect us.

This is why Israel and zionism are necessary, and this is why (unlike criticisms of Israel's actions), denying the very existence of Israel is antisemitic. And this is why comparing the necessity to keep a Jewish majority in Israel- the only way to ensure Jews have their own country- to neo-nazism and white supremacism is deploreable and filthy.

Jewish self-determination doesn't have to be incompatible with other people's self-determination.

Bingo. This is why leftist activism on the issue today is so flawed- you hear the word "occupation" less and less, even though that right there is the big issue that we should be talking about. Instead, you're hearing hyperboles such as "apartheid" and even the extremely antisemitic accusation of "genocide", meant to delegitimize the very *existence* of Israel. When they say Palestinian liberation, they don't mean the two state solution or equality- they mean ending the only Jewish state in the world. Just like the world turning its back on German Jews before the Holocaust or on Jewish refugees after the war, a huge chunk of non Jews continue to prove today why we can only trust ourselves.

I think when talking Irish-Israeli relations and the generic European Left and how it has engaged in a tone deaf war of words with the pro-Israel camp, there is this idea that actually Israel's raison d'etat went from being a self-determination and Labor Zionist movement to a combination of deeply cynical Darwinist survival of the fittest ideology and generic ''Arabs can't decide for themselves, only Judeo-Christian peoples can...just look at Gaza!'. I think you are being a bit naive if you don't think such views are now pretty mainstream in the pro-Israel camp. I know you don't hold them, but essentially I'm trying to show you where the origin of the rather extreme language comes from from the other side.

I agree the apartheid analogy is flawed, Arabs can be power brokers in Israel, that was never the case in ZA. I still think its worth examining why that analogy came to be though, because there are some valid criticisms of the way the Israeli security doctrine decided to make Gaza an example (a sort of Bantustan) without realising the deep social and political problems there are entirely symbiotic with a failed counter-insurgency strategy by the Israeli government.

I've already said my view (from the little that I know on it) is that the main drivers of the occupation status quo are elements of the Israeli military and right-wing that know that their sources of currency (money for testing arms and votes from a fearful populace) would dry up. Its not even an ethnic issue anymore, there are so many grifters on the gravy train on both sides that ending the occupation would be a political and economic disaster for people with way more cynical outlooks than ''your self-determination movement is less important than my self-determination movement''.

[Hnv1]

Ireland dislikes Israel. Colour me shocked.

Yes, being a colony often leads to empathy for other colonized.

No doubt that looking for similarities makes you blind to differences.

I do wonder why harsh antisemitism in Ireland predates any knowledge there on Zionism, or as that nice part in Ulysses reads, they never had a Jewish problem because they never let us in.

[rc18]

Ireland dislikes Israel. Colour me shocked.

Yes, being a colony often leads to empathy for other colonized.

No doubt that looking for similarities makes you blind to differences.

I do wonder why harsh antisemitism in Ireland predates any knowledge there on Zionism, or as that nice part in Ulysses reads, they never had a Jewish problem because they never let us in.

Cultural Catholicism.

[America Needs R'hllor]

"South Africa must always remain a White state." - white supremacist

"The United States must always preserve its White majority." - white supremacist

"Israel must always remain a Jewish state/preserve its Jewish majority." - noooo that's not Jewish supremacist!!!

It really is telling, innit?

You're not interested in good faith debate on the issue so I'm not answering for you, but rather for other people.

The Jews are a unique cultural and religious group that existed for thousands of years. After facing the most horrible persecution and genocide that any group experienced in documented history, they've decided to seek a nation state for Jews- just like many other groups have their own nation states. Where will Jews turn to if France or the United Kingdom or Russia or the United States elect an antisemitic authoritarian leader? Can they trust other countries to accept them, after during the holocaust German Jews were turned away in many countries? No, we clearly can't trust non-Jews to protect us.

This is why Israel and zionism are necessary, and this is why (unlike criticisms of Israel's actions), denying the very existence of Israel is antisemitic. And this is why comparing the necessity to keep a Jewish majority in Israel- the only way to ensure Jews have their own country- to neo-nazism and white supremacism is deploreable and filthy.

Jewish self-determination doesn't have to be incompatible with other people's self-determination.

Bingo. This is why leftist activism on the issue today is so flawed- you hear the word "occupation" less and less, even though that right there is the big issue that we should be talking about. Instead, you're hearing hyperboles such as "apartheid" and even the extremely antisemitic accusation of "genocide", meant to delegitimize the very *existence* of Israel. When they say Palestinian liberation, they don't mean the two state solution or equality- they mean ending the only Jewish state in the world. Just like the world turning its back on German Jews before the Holocaust or on Jewish refugees after the war, a huge chunk of non Jews continue to prove today why we can only trust ourselves.

I think when talking Irish-Israeli relations and the generic European Left and how it has engaged in a tone deaf war of words with the pro-Israel camp, there is this idea that actually Israel's raison d'etat went from being a self-determination and Labor Zionist movement to a combination of deeply cynical Darwinist survival of the fittest ideology and generic ''Arabs can't decide for themselves, only Judeo-Christian peoples can...just look at Gaza!'. I think you are being a bit naive if you don't think such views are now pretty mainstream in the pro-Israel camp. I know you don't hold them, but essentially I'm trying to show you where the origin of the rather extreme language comes from from the other side.

I agree the apartheid analogy is flawed, Arabs can be power brokers in Israel, that was never the case in ZA. I still think its worth examining why that analogy came to be though, because there are some valid criticisms of the way the Israeli security doctrine decided to make Gaza an example (a sort of Bantustan) without realising the deep social and political problems there are entirely symbiotic with a failed counter-insurgency strategy by the Israeli government.

I've already said my view (from the little that I know on it) is that the main drivers of the occupation status quo are elements of the Israeli military and right-wing that know that their sources of currency (money for testing arms and votes from a fearful populace) would dry up. Its not even an ethnic issue anymore, there are so many grifters on the gravy train on both sides that ending the occupation would be a political and economic disaster for people with way more cynical outlooks than ''your self-determination movement is less important than my self-determination movement''.

Agreed with the first two paragraphs. I don't lack criticism for the pro-Israel camp, in fact- I think the difference between the focus of my arguments in Hebrew vs in English is quite amusing. I keep the word "appartheid" for the anti-two state solution camp- annexing Palestinian lands without giving full citizenship and rights to the Palestinians there is easily defined as appartheid.

As for the third, I'm not sure money is the issue- historical narratives are still very much a huge part of it.

[CumbrianLefty]

The Lobby calls basic truth telling "anti-semitism". News at 11.

Once again I should point out that the above poster is one of this forum's most notorious antisemites.

You really are insufferable. Do you ever contribute anything besides elitism and snark?

I have certainly had may disagreements with Al before now - but isn't the answer to this question an emphatic, indisputable and incontrovertible "YES!"?

[Lord Halifax]

The Lobby calls basic truth telling "anti-semitism". News at 11.

Once again I should point out that the above poster is one of this forum's most notorious antisemites.

You really are insufferable. Do you ever contribute anything besides elitism and snark?

He makes exquisite maps.

[Former President tack50]

Jewish self-determination doesn't have to be incompatible with other people's self-determination.

Eh, the self determination of some people is often incompatible with the self determination of others. This is why there are countless groups of people living under minority rules; and why there have been so many wars fought over such issues.

Hell, even in the Israeli example (where it might be true to at least some extent); a 2 state solution would lead to incredibly ugly borders and/or a forced displacement of people only comparable to the partition of India.

I am of the (perhaps ideallistic) opinion that nation states are overrated as long as the rights of national minorities are sufficiently entrenched, respected and protected.

Though to be honest I find this basically irrelevant when talking about Israel (it's a lot more relevant when talking about other "national minorities"; like say, the Kurds, or even stuff like the Catalonia issue). In my view the existance of a state of Israel should not be questioned since at worst it is a "fait accompli" and impossible to reverse (if you want to question Israel as a whole, you should find a time machine and travel back at least 100-120 years ago). The current state of Israel is certainly questionable though.

[PSOL]

Wow, another bull•••• story.

[CumbrianLefty]

Though to be honest I find this basically irrelevant when talking about Israel (it's a lot more relevant when talking about other "national minorities"; like say, the Kurds, or even stuff like the Catalonia issue). In my view the existance of a state of Israel should not be questioned since at worst it is a "fait accompli" and impossible to reverse (if you want to question Israel as a whole, you should find a time machine and travel back at least 100-120 years ago). The current state of Israel is certainly questionable though.

The obviously sensible and rational take. Israel is not going away and nor should it, but the past does not give it carte blanche to do whatever it likes.

[Silent Hunter]

No-one says the past gives Israel carte blanche.

[CumbrianLefty]

No-one says the past gives Israel carte blanche.

Well maybe not explicitly, no. But still......

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Lobby calls basic truth telling "anti-semitism". News at 11.

Once again I should point out that the above poster is one of this forum's most notorious antisemites.

You really are insufferable. Do you ever contribute anything besides elitism and snark?

He makes exquisite maps.

I also bake lovely bread.

[Cory]

The Lobby calls basic truth telling "anti-semitism". News at 11.

Once again I should point out that the above poster is one of this forum's most notorious antisemites.

There it is again.