Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

481 replies

Everexpanding · 01/09/2025 17:24

Good news. Political pressure, protests and letters beginning to work

www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/09/01/israel-to-market-war-bonds-through-luxembourg-as-irish-authority-expires/

OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
Everexpanding · 14/09/2025 12:51

PlusBarrette · 14/09/2025 12:42

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.

I take it you have no more evidence

OP posts:
PaxAeterna · 14/09/2025 13:21

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.

PlusBarrette · 14/09/2025 14:19

Everexpanding · 14/09/2025 12:51

I take it you have no more evidence

Of?

Pasly · 14/09/2025 15:27

PlusBarrette · 14/09/2025 12:42

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.

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.

SharonEllis · 14/09/2025 15:37

Everexpanding · 14/09/2025 12:09

Trying to undermine warranted criticism of Israel’s breaches of international law by claiming the country criticising is somehow innately anti semitic is insulting to victims of real anti semitism. Undermining the real definition of anti semitism by claiming opposition to genocide is anti semitic is insulting to the real victims of anti semitism.
please illustrate your claims with more evidence than one “pogrom” where nobody died, I am not saying what occurred in Limerick in 1904 was not wrong just that it does not show a long history of anti semitism

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.

SharonEllis · 14/09/2025 15:38

Pasly · 14/09/2025 15:27

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.

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

Welcometoshowbusiness · 14/09/2025 15:43

Twiglets1 · 14/09/2025 08:56

My point @Everexpanding was that on a discussion about the Irish having prejudices against certain groups, many seem happy to admit to a bias against the English.

Less keen to admit to having a bias against Jews though some seem happy to admit to having an affinity with Palestinians in Gaza. Which currently leads to a huge amount of criticism - much justified but some exaggerated - against Israel.

Less keen to admit to having a bias against Jews

People don’t want to admit this because, for the majority, it’s not true.

There are racists and anti-semites and bigots everywhere of course and Ireland is not exempt. But to say that the majority are objecting to what is happening in Gaza, to objecting to the murder of innocent children, simply because they are biased against Jewish people…well, it’s just a very clear and poor attempt at deflection.

Pasly · 14/09/2025 15:44

SharonEllis · 14/09/2025 15:38

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

The article cites more recent evidence

The article makes blanket claims with very little evidence. I am not denying that there is antisemitism in Ireland. But that's not what is being claimed. It is claimed the Irish state and Irish citizens are antisemitic which is an extremely serious allegation to make. Is it deep rooted in our institutions? do our laws discriminate against Jewish citizens? is every citizen antisemitic? Because this is what is being claimed. Or do we have similar levels of antisemitism as everywhere else? And if we do why are the Irish constantly getting singled out in this way?

SharonEllis · 14/09/2025 15:52

Pasly · 14/09/2025 10:24

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.

Your first point is disingenuous. You did dismiss the article initially saying You seriously expect Irish people to trust the narrative of an English historian who writes for the spectator!
Its only with some considerably pushing that you have come up with an argument against the article that is more than your original ad hom that he is English.

As to your other points I think you are expecting a lot from a magazine article which tends to be focussed on a point and does not drift off into context or provide extensive references. Its not a thesis, or a book that has references. I think he would expect the readers of the Spectator to understand the general context of British/Irish history and therefore to know that the Irish would have reasons for not supporting the British at the beginning of the 2WW. Especially as this article was originally published in 1997 - before the Good Friday Agreement when discussions about Irish history were very common.

The substance of his article is about he Limerick pogrom/boycott, whereas the points you raise are about the context that he is putting it in. He obviously is not going write a fully referenced article about every one of those points. No magazine editor would publish it! If you know his work you know he has expanded on much of this elsewhere particularly in his excellent article on colonisation in the Atlantic.

Pasly · 14/09/2025 15:57

SharonEllis · 14/09/2025 15:52

Your first point is disingenuous. You did dismiss the article initially saying You seriously expect Irish people to trust the narrative of an English historian who writes for the spectator!
Its only with some considerably pushing that you have come up with an argument against the article that is more than your original ad hom that he is English.

As to your other points I think you are expecting a lot from a magazine article which tends to be focussed on a point and does not drift off into context or provide extensive references. Its not a thesis, or a book that has references. I think he would expect the readers of the Spectator to understand the general context of British/Irish history and therefore to know that the Irish would have reasons for not supporting the British at the beginning of the 2WW. Especially as this article was originally published in 1997 - before the Good Friday Agreement when discussions about Irish history were very common.

The substance of his article is about he Limerick pogrom/boycott, whereas the points you raise are about the context that he is putting it in. He obviously is not going write a fully referenced article about every one of those points. No magazine editor would publish it! If you know his work you know he has expanded on much of this elsewhere particularly in his excellent article on colonisation in the Atlantic.

As to your other points I think you are expecting a lot from a magazine article

Yet you're using it as evidence for a claim the Irish and the Irish state are antisemitic. A serious slander repeated over and over but with only opinion and circumstantial evidence to back it up. Do you not think it reasonable to expect more when a nation state is being accused of something so serious?

Pasly · 14/09/2025 16:03

Your first point is disingenuous. You did dismiss the article initially saying You seriously expect Irish people to trust the narrative of an English historian who writes for the spectator!

@SharonEllis it was the authors references to WW2 which annoyed me because if he had looked into Irish support for the allies at that time he would know as a state we were not supporting the Nazis is any way yet the article was worded to look like we were so anyone who didn't know how Ireland, as a neutral country, supported the allies they'd assume we supported Germany which is completely untrue. Irish people fought in the British army, we provided intelligence to the allies, The Irish Defence Forces escorted Allied airmen and seamen who had crashed or landed in Ireland across the border to British territory.

SharonEllis · 14/09/2025 18:06

Pasly · 14/09/2025 15:57

As to your other points I think you are expecting a lot from a magazine article

Yet you're using it as evidence for a claim the Irish and the Irish state are antisemitic. A serious slander repeated over and over but with only opinion and circumstantial evidence to back it up. Do you not think it reasonable to expect more when a nation state is being accused of something so serious?

I have never said that 'the Irish' and 'the Irish state' are antisemitic. Neither has Simon Sebag Montefiore for that matter. How would you determine that a whole people and a whole state was antisemitic? So, not a slander repeated over and over. What I and he have said is that there is a long history of antisemitism in Ireland - obviously true.
I do find this defensiveness interesting - from you and other posters, and the article about the Limerick Civic Trust. All countries have antisemitic people in them. I would have thought that the process of confronting uncomfortable histories was something that Irish people were rather good at. I always hold up the example of Northern Ireland as an example of how people can face up to horrors in their past and move on. Yet on here there is so much defensiveness. Antisemitism has existed everywhere - why would Ireland be immune?
Ireland was one of the last countries in the West to recognise Israel and establish diplomatic relations. The Catholic Church as a whole has a long history of antisemitism really from the beginning, through the inquisition to less than glorious record in the second world war. Why you think Ireland would be immune from this influence is odd even if the power of the Catholic church has declined in recent years. The Limerick Boycott/Pogrom is again, an example.
Yet again, this whole discussion has been an example of not listening to this particular minority when they tell you that they have suffered discrimination. You dismiss it out of hand when a historian with Irish heritage tells you that his family suffered discrmination. I don't think you would do it for any other minority

Kindatired · 14/09/2025 18:11

The Limerick program was extremely localised and widely criticised by various pillars of the Nationalist movement and the priest that instigated it ending up effectively banished. Ireland’s fist constitution gave specific protection to people of the Jewish faith. The problem that Irish people have is with government sponsored sectarian land grabs and systematic human rights abuses and war crimes

hellohellooo · 14/09/2025 18:11

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

SharonEllis · 14/09/2025 19:44

Rachel Moiselle is interesting in this regard. She says that antisemitism has never been extensive in Ireland (and neither have I or SSMontefiore said that it was) but the problem is the denial which she says is extensive. Interesting in the context of MN discussions, I think.

Welcometoshowbusiness · 14/09/2025 20:05

SharonEllis · 14/09/2025 19:44

Rachel Moiselle is interesting in this regard. She says that antisemitism has never been extensive in Ireland (and neither have I or SSMontefiore said that it was) but the problem is the denial which she says is extensive. Interesting in the context of MN discussions, I think.

Speaking of denial, I think, at present, Irish people are denying that anti-semitism is the reason they want Israel to stop bombing Gaza.

Because that’s what Irish people are being accused of…that anti-semitism is the reason they’re not supporting Israel’s actions.

These accusations are defensive nonsense aimed at deflection, of course.

Ireland isn’t any more (or less) anti-semitic than other countries that don’t face the same accusations. It’s because we spoke out against what Israel was and is doing, and spoke out early, that has singled us out for this criticism.

DenizenOfAisleOfShame · 14/09/2025 20:18

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Everexpanding · 14/09/2025 20:25

Clutching at straws comes to mind, it is Israel that is the pariah state

OP posts:
Pasly · 14/09/2025 20:28

SharonEllis · 14/09/2025 18:06

I have never said that 'the Irish' and 'the Irish state' are antisemitic. Neither has Simon Sebag Montefiore for that matter. How would you determine that a whole people and a whole state was antisemitic? So, not a slander repeated over and over. What I and he have said is that there is a long history of antisemitism in Ireland - obviously true.
I do find this defensiveness interesting - from you and other posters, and the article about the Limerick Civic Trust. All countries have antisemitic people in them. I would have thought that the process of confronting uncomfortable histories was something that Irish people were rather good at. I always hold up the example of Northern Ireland as an example of how people can face up to horrors in their past and move on. Yet on here there is so much defensiveness. Antisemitism has existed everywhere - why would Ireland be immune?
Ireland was one of the last countries in the West to recognise Israel and establish diplomatic relations. The Catholic Church as a whole has a long history of antisemitism really from the beginning, through the inquisition to less than glorious record in the second world war. Why you think Ireland would be immune from this influence is odd even if the power of the Catholic church has declined in recent years. The Limerick Boycott/Pogrom is again, an example.
Yet again, this whole discussion has been an example of not listening to this particular minority when they tell you that they have suffered discrimination. You dismiss it out of hand when a historian with Irish heritage tells you that his family suffered discrmination. I don't think you would do it for any other minority

I accept you did not say specifically that the Irish and Irish state are antisemitic and I am not denying that there is antisemitism in Ireland. For me, the defencesiveness comes from the constant accusations about Ireland being antisemitic from all quarters especially the current Israeli government when in fact there is little evidence to suggest it is more prevalent in Ireland than anywhere else yet we have become "notorious" for being antisemitic the messaging is out there Irish = antisemitic. I even see it on here Ireland being antisemitic has been discussed more than any other nation. Any poster that reveals their Irish the accusations start. So yeah I am a bit defensive about it because I do think there is more focus on Ireland then anywhere else with zero understanding from most as to why the Irish have always been supportive of Palestine, but I don't deny there is antisemitism in Ireland but I do not accept that it is worse than anywhere else or warrants the constant vitriol towards us.

I also did not discuss the firsthand experiences of antisemitism mentioned in the article because I would not deny that and didn't, I have already mentioned the issues with the article I had

Pasly · 14/09/2025 20:31

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Straight in with the Ireland as a state is antisemitic @SharonEllis this is what I am referring to

Pasly · 14/09/2025 20:32

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Have you any evidence as to how the state of Ireland and it's institutions are discriminating against Jewish people?

DenizenOfAisleOfShame · 14/09/2025 20:33

Pasly · 14/09/2025 20:31

Straight in with the Ireland as a state is antisemitic @SharonEllis this is what I am referring to

Yeah, terrible that. Stating the truth.

Everexpanding · 14/09/2025 20:41

DenizenOfAisleOfShame · 14/09/2025 20:33

Yeah, terrible that. Stating the truth.

It’s an absolutely ridiculous lie

OP posts:
DenizenOfAisleOfShame · 14/09/2025 20:44

Everexpanding · 14/09/2025 20:41

It’s an absolutely ridiculous lie

Sure.

Everexpanding · 14/09/2025 20:44

If it helps you sleep at night to think that all criticism of Israel is based on antisemitism go for it, live in denial but the rest of us unfortunately have to live in reality, where the state of Israel has been allowed and facilitated to kill thousands of innocent civilians

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread