Central Bank of Ireland confirms it will no longer approve sale of Israeli ‘war bonds’

The article cites more recent evidence. It was not claiming to be a complete and comprehensive history of Irish antisemitism.

Its extraordinary to see you continuing to minimise this because noone was killed. Its no good calling out antisemitism when everyone is dead. But, Ok, lets call it a 'boycott' rather than a 'pogrom' then. Lets see what that 'boycott' involved.
A Month of smashing windows and doors and looting
The Jewish traders worked often on credit, but the boycott meant people not paying their debts. Not just refusing to buy from them but refusing to pay money that was already owed ,leading to starvation and hardship. The 'boycott' was serious enough to be raised in parliament etc and eventually there was intervention but there had been considerable collusion from the authorities. There was also vicious antisemitism in the sermon of the local priest and then later in the press, calling the Jews 'wild, savage, filthy...strange people alien to us in thought'.
Montefiore then also cites other evidence. It was over 100 years ago - by most people's standards 'a long history' and the Irish certainly, and rightly, refer to historical events that are significant that were closer in time than that.

Do you not think it is reasonable to request evidence of antisemitism more up to date than the pogrom in 1909? It is an extremely serious accusation to level against a nation state and their citizens.

Of?

This exact argument has been had before. If anyone was genuinely interested they could do a search.

Anyone who criticises the Israeli administration’s actions is smeared with accusations of antisemitism.

Putting the word pogrom in sarcastic quotes and wanging on about how nobody died is pretty fucking undermining. If nobody died is your bar for antisemitism then it kind of makes your claim of antisemitism in Ireland being bullshit well, bullshit.

It's relevant to your claim that the idea of antisemitism in Ireland is bullshit. Other places have it worse is not an excuse, and quite insulting to Irish victims of antisemitism.

It’s been really interesting reading about all of this- I have Irish grandparents on both sides and my families businesses were burned down in the troubles, we also had land taken from us a few generations ago. I’d never read about the connection.

So he couldn't be trusted not because of anything he said in the article but because he is 'English' (even with Irish heritage) and writes on occasion for a magazine you don't like. I didn't twist anything. Your respobse is there in your own words.
I have read the article before it wasn't new to me and I can see his bias. I didn't dismiss it because he is English I dismissed it because it lacks any evidence to back up his claims

Now you're saying you picked up bias in the article. Great, but you don't say what it is.
Complete lack of context as to why Ireland may struggle to support Britain in WW2, statements about

But Ireland’s animosity has also been marked by visceral hostility from the government and activists to the very existence of Israel

the Irish government, backed by many activists in media and academia, has shown deepening hostility to Israel.

Blanket statements like this with no evidence to back it up. The author is starting from the perspective that Ireland is antisemitic and goes from there without evidence or context.

The misguided idea that the Palestinian experience at the hands of Israel is similar to that of the Irish with the British; and the simplistic, ahistorical ideology of decolonialization, in which the Palestinians are virtuous oppressed and the Israelis are iniquitous oppressors.

Fails to mention why? It's more then just oppression it's the black and tans the same British officers in both Ireland and mandate Palestine

But Ireland’s animosity has also been marked by visceral hostility from the government and activists to the very existence of Israel, by a lack of proportion and perspective in policy toward the Jewish state, by the deployment of medieval antisemitic tropes, harassment of Jewish students, and the inversion of Jewish history against Jews and Israelis, and by the blind acceptance of the often mendacious Hamas terrorist narrative. On the ground, the Irish contingent in the UNIFIL peacekeeping force in Lebanon, appointed to enforce the disarmament of Hezbollah, turned a blind eye to the terrorist group as they attacked Israel. This did not appear out of thin air; it has a background and this story is a small part of it.
This paragraph. Where's her s evidence?

You wouldn't accept these blanket statements about Israel without evidence not sure why you expect me to about Ireland.

This is mind boggling actually. Who would you trust? Only Irish people can tell Irish history? Which Irish people? There are some pretty deep fractures and schisms in Irish society. How do you decide who can speak about what? There are some wonderful Irish historians of British history, some of the nest in their fields. Should I not trust them? How long does an immigrant live in a society before they are accepted to tell its history?

This is not news nor is it something anyone is disputing. Everyone knows the British have historic bias against the Irish. I could tell you about all the work I have done professionally to counter it and how I have visited Ireland as a guest of the Irish government, but no doubt you wouldn't believe me (seriously, this is very funny). It was you who said You seriously expect Irish people to trust the narrative of an English historian.

The issue here is someone saying that the history of antisemitism in Ireland is bullshit.

But what you actually said in response to me posting an article by a serious historian who also has personal history in Ireland was You seriously expect Irish people to trust the narrative of an English historian who writes for the spectator!

So he couldn't be trusted not because of anything he said in the article but because he is 'English' (even with Irish heritage) and writes on occasion for a magazine you don't like. I didn't twist anything. Your respobse is there in your own words.

SSM has Irish family. He talks very fondly about them in the article. He would have more of them if they hadn't been forced to leave Ireland. He has researched and produced a Channel 4 doc on Irish nationalism. His article was wide ranging and nuanced. He said himself that the episide 'does not reflect on all Irish people then or now. Indeed, at the same time as the pogrom in Limerick in 1904, an Irish Jew, Otto Jaffe (no relation) was elected Lord Mayor of Belfast for the second time. So this must always be a nuanced picture.'

Now you're saying you picked up bias in the article. Great, but you don't say what it is. That wasn't your initial response. You also asked for an explanation of the relevance to today which the article very much addresses and I also mentioned across several posts. But the relevance is very clear in the vehemence of everexpanding in completely denying the history of antisemitism in Ireland. Why she is so invested in that, I obviously dont know.

No I don't think the Irish have a bias against the English and vice versa in general. I do think both often have different interpretations of what happened during that period of Irish history and why the troubles started in the north.

The English also held very negative views of Irish people right up to the 80s and many still do so sometimes it is probably an unconscious bias. I was watching a video this week filmed in England (I think late 70s early 80s) interviewing English people about what they thought of the Irish. It was very negative
They're different to us, not as educated, a bit slow, drink too much, don't want them here, wish they'd go home, raised different to us and so on. Many Irish people living in England in that time had difficult experiences so of course that stays with people. My own aunt was a midwife in London and hid her accent travelling on public transport so she wouldn't get abuse. She'd a strong cork accent so that was no mean feat.

I didn't mean to twist I did not understand the point
everyone see it and it doesnt hep discussion.
Christ that's me told

I did read your article and I recognised a bias from it with regards to that period in history. I am not too prejudiced to read an English historian I think that's you twisting things now, I just can recognise the bias in the piece you shared.

No particular context, just do you think the Irish have a bias against the English?

Or only the English & their historians according to you having a bias against the Irish?

Read what I wrote again. I didnt say the Irish are bigoted. I said your point only makes sense kp,ifIrish people are too prejudiced to read a British writer. Please dont twist things - everyone see it and it doesnt hep discussion.

In what context are you referring to?

Well yes, why wouldn't Irish people trust a British writer, unless they are mired in bigotry?
The Irish are now mired in bigotry?
I was suggesting a British historian reporting on that period in Ireland has a bias.