Ireland, is this true?

[SR71Blackbird]

Wasn’t sure where to ask this but there’s a piece in the JC about antisemitism in the Irish curriculum. It seems legit but incredulous:

https://www.thejc.com/news/world/jews-are-jesus-killers-and-israel-is-uniquely-aggressive-what-irish-pupils-are-taught-dhqmypgo

Can anyone here verify?

Dulra - the difference is that these thugs may well have considered themselves anti-racist. Let's what what transpires.

It will be the first crime tried under new Hate Crime Legislation.

Sounds like a horrible attack.

the difference is that these thugs may well have considered themselves anti-racist.
I doubt it. There are very few types of people that would assault someone in this way. They are probably the same type of knuckle draggers that chased and tried to assault a colleague of mine (refugee) recently and are behind a recent spike in homophobic assaults.

Yes I very much doubt it as well.

Anyway we'll see how it goes.

@knitnerd90

Yes but this post is asking if Ireland is inherently antisemitic, that it is taught in our education system. And it is not. The official government position is pro a two state solution and pro human rights. We have a bit of a two state solution going on ourselves.

There is also an element of Irish support (not officially and more so in NI) that supports terrorism basically. And there is much criticism you could lay at that view. But I don't think outsiders fully understand the situation.

For anyone who is interested. Here is an overview of all political parties stance on Israel. The OTB is the occupied territories bill which will ban trade between the the West Bank and Israel (simplified explanation). The last party could be considered far- right.

	FG: Wants a ceasefire, continued funding for UNRWA and certain aircraft restrictions; supports the OTB with amendments 
	FF: Wants a ceasefire and sanctions on Israel; supports the OTB with amendments 
	SF: Supports a ceasefire, the OTB and sanctions on Israel 
	Labour: Supports the OTB and sanctions on Israel; wants a ceasefire and prosecutions for war crimes
	Greens: Support a ceasefire and the OTB; want all dual-export licenses to Israel to be suspended
	SocDems: Want a ceasefire, enactment of the OTB, and accountability for war crimes 
	PBP: Wants a ceasefire, expulsion of Israeli ambassador, boycott of events in Washington DC, ban on use of Shannon Airport by US military planes
	Solidarity: Supports a ceasefire, expulsion of Israeli ambassador, boycott of St Patrick’s Day events in Washington DC, enactment of OTB, ban on passage of arms through Irish territory 
	Aontú: Supports a ceasefire, the OTB and expulsion of Israeli ambassador
	Independent Ireland: Supports a ceasefire and the OTB

As set out before, being in favour of a ceasefire is pretty meaningless, unless you set out the terms that would apply. An the OTB is contrary to EU trade law, which is ironic given how slavishly the Irish govt whitters on about the sanctity of EU law. And it will make *&%^ all difference to anyone as there is pretty much no trade between Ireland and the occupied territories. So a perfect distraction from actually governing the country or solving any of Ireland's problems.

@samG76
Former attorney general Michael McDowell has opined that OTB doesn’t contravene international obligations and there have been some amendments since.

Fine Gael is like to be the junior coalition partner in the coming government and there should be adequate support from the Bill from TDs to get it across the line.

It’s obviously not going to be impactful in relation to trade balance but it’s signaling that as a nation we do not want to be complicit in a land grab that sabotages the potential for a two state solution.However, it’s interesting to see the response, even Netanyahu himself took time from his busy day to throw a bit wobbly as well as the President of Israel.

Millions and millions of US dollars are soent trying to make the world forget that the occupation is illegal under international law. Where do you stand yourself on this- do you acknowledge that the occupation is illegal?

Kindatired - "illegal" is a complex term at int'l law, which itself is not entirely clear. It could encompass, eg, how the territory was captured, whether and when it should have been returned, and for whom, and under what condition. The position of Tekoa, for example, is completely different from East Jerusalem.

Luckily for you the ICJ made it clear the landmark ruling of 19 July 2024 declared that Israel’s occupation of the Gaza strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is unlawful, along with the associated settlement regime, annexation and use of natural resources. The Court added that Israel's legislation and measures violate the international prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid. The ICJ mandated Israel to end its occupation, dismantle its settlements, provide full reparations to Palestinian victims and facilitate the return of displaced people.

Moth - ICJ "ruling" a completely non-binding piece of virtue signalling that couldn't possibly be implemented even if Israel wanted to. Should the Israelis throw themselves out of E Jerusalem - what about the Western Wall? What about the Jews in the Jewish quarter of the Old City? how about the substantial parts that were no-mans land? would the city be partitioned like between 1948 and 1967? What would be the role of the Waqf and the Jordanians?

The International Court of Justice is not a virtue signaller. Who does Israel think it is to laugh off international law like that?

It's very disrespectful to the rest of the world to say this.

So - keep killing and clearing land for settlers (from Brooklyn) until "terms" are decided?

i could give a long spiel on settler demographics, but there aren't that many Americans. They just are often spokespeople because they speak English fluently. (And yes, I know about the one with the dogs in Sheikh Jarrah from a few years back.) The focus in Americans is counterproductive and can verge on the creepy, like they're just being used to make some point about Israelis as a whole. Itamar Ben-Gvir is Iraqi. A majority of Israelis are now if at least part middle eastern (Mizrahi) ancestry. That doesn't make settlements okay: that's not my point.

' "Everything you love about America, right here in Israel."

While Israel decimates Palestinians in Gaza, real estate firms are touring the U.S. looking for buyers to purchase property in Israel and in illegal West Bank settlements. '

Ochalove - loads of people in our community in London are buying or have bought properties in Israel - I don't know anyone who has bought on the West Bank. Seems pretty harmless to me - a bit like buying in Spain or Greece. Lots of people are nervous about the political climate over here and having a bolt-hole is a type of insurance.A good way to reduce sales would be to provide some reassurance to the Jewish community, including actions rather than words.

I don't like the whole business (and I actually do know Americans who have moved to the West Bank, and there is a fairly famous settlement that was founded by Americans, Efrat), but again, that's not proof of demographics and the focus on Americans gets rather obsessive and weird. There's probably a larger percentage of Americans amongst the settlers than amongst the Israeli population in general, but the latter population is low. The reason is that Americans are much more likely to move to Israel for religiously ideological reasons.

By the way? The real estate firms also target the French, who are making aliyah in higher numbers.

6 minutes into this Channel 4 report,

Israeli settlers accused of using cover of war to build more settlements

an interview with an American woman and her family hoping to live in Gaza when, if as she hopes, there are no Palestinians left there.

And this is a video from 3 years ago, showing a man from Long Island (New York) not buying a house in Israel but occupying a Palestinian's house while being paid to do this. He infamously says "If I don't steal it someone else is going to steal it"

Yeah, that's Yaakov Fauci, the guy I mentioned upthread (Sheikh Jarrah).

But again, you keep posting clips and ignoring what I've posted. Why the obsessive focus on a small minority? This doesn't make settlements okay, but the focus on Americans is about media, and not representative. To me, the constant talk about the small number of Anglos (as they are known in Israel, all English speaking immigrants) is often about trying to misrepresent the ethnic background of Israelis.

I think that US citizens are about 15% of the settlers. The point is that these people do not need to go to Israel to be safe and they have their own homes. It’s the most brazen colonialism. And it’s got the worst elements of land grabbing as well as the nastiness of bagging a sun lounger with a towel and going back to the hotel bed because they keep their US citizenship.

If it is a minority it is a minority with US power and backing behind it.

But this chart from the Jewish Virtual Library shows the highest migration to Israel as coming from the Former Soviet Union, and the USA as second highest source, so not a minority as far as I can make out.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/total-immigration-to-israel-by-country-per-year

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/15/biden-extremist-jewish-settlers-travel-ban-loophole

This is an interesting article about the key role Americans have played in violent settler culture. A minority perhaps but have they been an influential minority over the years which means they are rather prominent in people's mind when they think of extremist settlers?

Why are Americans considered a minority when they make up the second highest proportion of migrants to Israel?

1The Former Soviet Union
2 America/Canada
3 France
4 U.K.
5 Argentina
6 South Africa
8 Ethiopia

According to the Jewish virtual library I posted a little earlier.

Did you read the numbers carefully?

That is a selected list of countries. There are many that are unrepresented, including the countries that provided the vast bulk of immigration other than the FSU. So none of the Holocaust refugees (the Soviets didn't let theirs go, as you can see from those numbers), no one who came after the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries. The total for the USA and Canada combined is still only about 10% of the FSU alone. Did you really think Israel had so few immigrants in 1948? From 1948 to 1951, 120,000 Jews from Iraq alone immigrated to Israel under pressure from the Iraqi government. 50,000 came from Yemen in 1949-50.

At that the American figures are actually somewhat inflated because it doesn't track who stays in Israel. For logistical reasons, Americans (and some other nationalities) who don't intend to stay permanently may become citizens.

I wouldn't disagree that Americans are disproportionately represented amongst certain segments of settlers, but they are still very much a minority. Some settlements are known for active Anglo communities, but most are not.