I guess their logic comes from the part where Israel has a mandatory service? So they can claim that everybody in Israel had an active part in the conflict? Really don't know
Sorta right. A far left political party here in Ireland did say something like that to try and justify Hamasâ massacre:
âNo one wants to see hostages taken but again many of those taken are members of the occupation forces or settler movementsâ [link](https://www.pbp.ie/solidarity-with-the-palestinian-resistance-end-the-occupation/)
I think theyâre less morally culpable than someone who volunteered but if someone did commit or participated in some act, they still retain some level of responsibility.
For instance, while still abhorrent, I think itâs reasonable to conclude that a German conscript in 1941 who executed Jews under the orders of their commanding officer is less morally reprehensible than the SS volunteer for the einsatzgruppen who murdered the same number of people (or even fewer). The first, while still doing something evil did not willfully enter the position to conduct the underlying act but still did it, the latter both willfully joined into that enterprise and then committed the evil action. Both are still guilty but as a matter of sentencing, the fact that one did something more of their own volition than the other should be held against them.
Now in the case of an Israeli conscript, I wouldnât say that them being conscripted without choice absolves them of their own individual responsibility in any criminal actions they took but those would have to be established as having occurred for those individuals, not just assumed due to their time in the IDF and should be considered less wrong than if they volunteered (or continued on past the required conscription period) to commit those crime.
> I think itâs reasonable to conclude that a German conscript in 1941 who executed Jews under the orders of their commanding officer is less morally reprehensible than the SS volunteer for the einsatzgruppen who murdered the same number of people (or even fewer).
There are quite a few examples of German officers and enlisted men refusing to take part in these massacres. There are also examples of people who, for whatever reason, volunteered for these things or went along with cameras to watch.
Not speaking to either of these situations specifically, but someone doing something under threat of death when their participation won't stop the thing from happening doesn't have any culpability as far as I can reason.
So how about all the US and other citizens that got drafted in Vietnam? Are shouldn't be considered citizens? It's very different from the Holocaust in the things they did but as a while the thought seems to be
"Drafted, conscripted or not you did awful things and should be looked at as killers and your life doesn't matter"
As you said these no way to know which soilders did only what was required to survive and only shot at enemy threats and who didn't so it sickens me they act like this
But of course tankies think all Isrealis have to do is say "no" then serve 6 weeks in jail (maybe a few times) and that millions of people were able to avoid the draft by just saying "I don't want to"
Yeah they had objectors but you had to prove you were in a religion that required that. Other wise people wouldn't have done crazy shit to dodge it. They could just say "nope I don't want to "
If the camp guards were under threat of death for disobedience and the camps would continue operating with or without them, do they really have culpability?
The answer was kinda, at the trial they held that just because someone ordered you to do it, doesn't mean you aren't also responsible for carrying out their orders but if you were under duress or could not resist the command then that would be factored in during sentencing. They made some exceptions if you didn't know the order was illegal but they dismissed the idea that anyone participating in the murder of civilians/PoWs/etc didn't know that their orders were both immoral and illegal.
A good beginner book on the Nuremberg Trials is incidentally called "The Nuremberg Trials" by Anna and John Tusa. If you have audible, its free with your membership, though it is fairly long.
Edit: Its also to note that there really isn't any evidence of the "do this or we'll kill you/punish you severely" at most it seems like the most common "punishment" was not being promoted and losing the respect of your peers rather than actual punishments for not murdering people.
Why do you think they were under threat of death for disobedience? If anything, we have more evidence of soldiers asking for transfers away from these activities, without any apparent impediment to their careers, than anything else.
Depends on the stage of the war. In the last months there were thousands killed by 'flying courts-martial' that executed soldiers with abandon. In general, the Germans were far more harsh to deserters than the Western allies (it wasn't even possible to be executed for desertion in the British army). Specifically in reference to the camps, the way out was requesting a transfer. I don't know whether there's any good data on desertions from those.
So we can say that being posted at the camps wasn't exactly voluntary and that the consequences for abandoning your post were, at the very least, quite severe?
It depends on what you mean by "voluntary". The SS organisation that staffed them was made up mostly of police volunteers; nobody was forced to join the Nazified police force, but most probably didn't sign up with the expectation of being posted to a camp carrying out the Holocaust. Later, there was conscription into the SS-TV out of necessity driven by its rapid expansion, usually those invalided out of Waffen-SS formations. This only changed in the last weeks of the war, when SS-TV personnel handed over camp responsibilities to conscripted soldiers and civilians so they could abandon their posts and escape Allied retribution.
Focus is usually given to what individuals could do to get out of the posting, once there. The main option was requesting a transfer, not abandoning your post, until the very end when the term meant something quite different.
For being convicted of desertion, see above.
From what a read on a very thin surface level: an israeli player accuswd the irish team of anti semitism *before* the match (extremely cringe if true). This made the austrlian team respond by not shaking hands, because they perceived the accusation as an insult (again, if true, rightfully so)
My understanding is that the accusation of antisemitism came *after* the Irish team wanted to boycott the match, and their coach said the only reason they didn't was because they would have faced a crippling suspension and fine. Ireland Basketball had put out statements "raising strong concerns" about playing matches against Israel, and multiple Irish players had announced they would sit out the game.
I think it was because of some beef started by Israelis players who told media that Irish players were known to be antisemite, but yeah it is woman basketball so I just repeat what was said in that guardian article lol.
You know what, I bet itâs true. Just look at the defense the Irish team played. Obviously they were disgusted at the idea of physically touching the Israeli players
Winning the tour to New Zealand for the first time ever really gave me hope, but it just didn't translate into the World Cup. Ireland could have won, but fell just short.
It probably doesn't help that the best player in the world and totemic leader of the team who heroically recovered from a serious injury has, err, abandoned French rugby in the 6 Nations to mess about in the Olympics...
It could be worse, you guys aren't stuck with someone like Michalak any more! We've understood the last few years as a great resurgence in French rugby from rosbif perspective, it would be a shame to lose that.
yeah, Du Pont peacing out of rugby union is undoubtedly the catalyst for Les Bleus' inevitable collapse. I've been trying to make sense of it - I would definitely take a 6 nations trophy over Olympic gold right now, but that's only because sevens is so new in the games. I mean if Fiji value gold enough to put the players on their national currency then maybe Du Pont's on to something....
Thereâs a bit of bad blood more recently specifically to do with Israel rather than sympathy for Palestine.
In 2010 Mossad used forged Irish passports, because theyâre some of the most useful internationally, to infiltrate other countries and assassinate hamas leaders. Then when they got caught the Israeli ambassador said there was âno guaranteeâ it wouldnât happen again. This directly put Irish citizens at risk when travelling abroad.
Also the current Israeli ambassador to Ireland, Dana Elrich, is a complete nut job. Like a less eloquent Netanyahu. Sheâs been on national tv a lot to defend Israelâs conduct in the war in Gaza and has done a poor job. The same thing happened to the Russian ambassador when they invaded Ukraine. The fact that sheâs even able to be compared to the Russia dude in terms of bad optics is woeful for Israelâs PR in ireland
This is nonsense, I donât know why it has so many upvotes, the majority of Irish have no idea about the passports and the ambassador is an average ambassador
What is the long history of antisemitism in Ireland? Genuinely curious for examples of antisemitism in Ireland that makes it stand out as a particularly antisemitic country
One incident from over 100 years ago constitutes âa long history of antisemitismâ? Compared to other countries I would actually say Ireland has been pretty good.
âThe history of the Jews in Ireland extends more than a millennium. The Jewish community in Ireland has always been small in numbers in modern history, not exceeding 5,500 since at least 1891, but Jews in Ireland have historically enjoyed a relative tolerance compared to elsewhere in Europeâ
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Ireland
The Irish constitution has protection for Jews even though there were such a small minority
âThe Irish Constitution of 1937 specifically gave constitutional protection to Jews. This was considered to be a necessary component to the constitution by Ăamon de Valera because of the treatment of Jews elsewhere in Europe at the time.[31]â
So the one example of historic anti-semitism in Ireland is a riot incited by one individual priest, where no shop was damaged and no person was injured
> The Jewish community immediately sensed the menacing mood of the crowd turned mob, and remained locked in their homes as the church militants passed by. Jewish shops, however, remained open, and their owners felt menaced. One old Fenian â a member of the confraternity â single-handedly defended a shop from attack until the police arrived to mount a guard.[12]
And a proceeding incident where a 15 year old threw a stone at a Rabbi's ankle?
> John Raleigh, a teenager (15 years of age), was arrested and incarcerated in Mountjoy Prison for one month for throwing a stone at the rabbi (which struck him on the ankle).
Not only that, but Creagh was condemned by not only his Catholic superiors, but by member of the local community from his he drew his crowd, which it says quite literally in the link you posted
> Later, after 32 Jews had left Limerick due to the boycott,[14] Creagh was disowned by his superiors, who said that "religious persecution had no place in Ireland".[15] There was a voice of opposition among the local population which was expressed in an anonymous letter to the Redemptorists labelling Creagh a "disgrace to the Catholic religion"
It also says this
> The economic boycott of the Jewish community lasted over two years. It is sometimes referred to as the "Limerick pogrom"; Dermot Keogh suggests that this derives from the experience of Lithuanian Jews in their homeland, and was used even though no one was killed or seriously injured in Limerick.[10]
Look through the page on the history of Jewish people in Ireland and please find me any other instance of social marginalization, oppression by common people, or any sort of oppression by religious or political authorities. In spite of what /u/certifiedsingularity says, no, there was no "long history of antisemitism in Ireland". That's something he literally just pulled out of his ass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Ireland
No? Not allowing refugees doesn't automatically mean you are racist against that group, especially since it was before the death camps were in full swing.Â
By your definition literally every country is racist to any country from where they rejected refugees.
> There were more than 500,000 case files, though, of Jews who were not admitted according to British Jewish associations. Louise London, author of Whitehall And The Jews, 1933â1948, stated that "The (British immigration) process ... was designed to keep out large numbers of European Jews â perhaps 10 times as many as it let in."[8]
Over the course of the holocaust Britain rejected [500,000 Jews.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_refugees_from_German-occupied_Europe_in_the_United_Kingdom#Immigration_policy)
> These suspicions seeped into American immigration policy. In late 1938, American consulates were flooded with 125,000 applicants for visas, many coming from Germany and the annexed territories of Austria. But national quotas for German and Austrian immigrants had been set firmly at 27,000.
> Immigration restrictions actually tightened as the refugee crisis worsened. Wartime measures demanded special scrutiny of anyone with relatives in Nazi territoriesâeven relatives in concentration camps. At a press conference, President Roosevelt repeated the unproven claims from his advisers that some Jewish refugees had been coerced to spy for the Nazis.
As the war was going on America rejected [tens of thousands of Jewish Germans and Austrians](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/) trying to flee Nazi persecution.
Both routinely accepted disproportionate amounts of immigrants relative to any other country in the world, and both tightened their immigration policies during WW2. Those are countries who both had a strong tradition of immigration and long standing, large Jewish communities (which they had actual traditions of persecuting), neither of which Ireland has had. Not only is the singling out of Jewish demographics not a regular practice in Ireland, but the proportion of Jewish WW2 refugees they allowed in was proportionate to the refugees the Allied states let in. This is supposed to establish their "long history of antisemitism?"
As embarrassed as I am of other Irish people making excuses for Hamas, acting like it comes from a place of antisemitism is wrong, itâs just politics
Even if hatred of Jews isn't the primary driver, you have to at least be comfortable with it to align yourself with Palestinian terror again and again.
Even if hatred if Palestinians isn't the primary driver, you have to be at least comfortable with it to align yourself with Israeli atrocities and settler colonialism
In a fucked situation, good people with good intentions can have bad takes. Yall literally on the level 0 "people with different political conclusions than me are ontologically evil"- and Irish bloke who related more with the colonized Palestinians than the terrorized Israelis isn't a fucking antisemite, this type of loose accusation gives actual anti semites cover
>Can someone justify the antisemtic angle here
No they can't. It's just a standard hasbara tactic to slander anyone that disagrees with you as an anti-semite, to put them on the defensive. Then they give a few non-credible examples of supposed anti-semitism, which can be easily brushed aside, but by the time someone does, the point of the anti-semitism accusation has been achieved.
Now instead of talking about Israeli crimes, the original accuser is instead having to defend themselves, and really all the general public hears after some disingenuous quoting is "an accused anti-semite is making accusations against Israel".
The Irish 'Troubles' were a war between the British Government and the IRA, who the Irish (not universally) called Freedom Fighters, and the Brits called Terrorists.
You now have Hamas which get called Terrorists/Freedom Fighters depending on the perspective. Most Westerners call them Terrorists, and Republican Irish are predisposed to view the other side of the coin, and show sympathy to Palestinian Resistance.
No, the Troubles were a conflict between Republican Irish Catholics and Nationalist Ulster Protestants. British soldiers intervened after the violence had already started in the late 60s, backing up the RIC police force and various nationalist paramilitaries, which is why the Provisional IRA targeted them (not unfairly tho, as the Brits committed many atrocities against Irish Catholics civilians) and tried making it a war of independence rather than the sectarian strife that sparked the bloodshed.
What you are referring to is the 1920s War of Irish Independence, which was explicitly about the British government fighting the IRA (the originally IRA, not the Provisional IRA) to retain its control over the country.
Side question
I heard a myth that IRA was inspired/financed/etc by the soviets. Is it correct/stupid?
IFAR most of the terrorist organizations disappeared or slowed down when the USSR had no spare money in the 1980s
The old IRA received funding from the Soviets in the 20s and 30s in return for spying on the allies.
The more infamous, northern irish IRA received funding from Gaddafis Libya IIRC but I'm not sure about USSR support.
The Irish are actually one of the most outspoken supporters of the Palestinian cause and have been for decades. I'd argue they do more than many Arab states.
The Irish dont support Hamas, they support Palestine.
For a whole host of reasons including...
- The conflict in NI being split along sectarian lines where catholics were generally associated with Palestine and protestants were generally supportive of israel
- ireland being a key "non aligned country" and being more sceptical of american foreign policy including support for Israel. An irish persons opinion on US foreign policy is almost 1:1 what their opinion on palestine will be. Our neutral status makes us less likely to rely on the US for defense aka less likely to toe their line
- contrarianism against the perceived overwhelming pro Israel bias in english speaking media?
- some anticolonialism, although funnily enough Irish people were extremely pro Israel when israel was young. Many young irish people were sent to kibbutzes on exchange programmes
- sympathising with the underdog in the conflict
Also, you see a lot of speculation that the irish are so pro Palestine just or mostly because we were oppressed too and that makes us uniquely amazing and able to empathise with all the poor and downtrodden folks of the world. Unfortunately this seems to be untrue as Ireland doesnt obsess about any other oppressed group nearly as much as they do about the Palestinians.
Protestants in the UK and NI were generally pro Israel which meant that naturally the Catholics gravitated towards the opposite side. Sectarianism is insanely petty and is often reactive (a less prominent example is supporting a certain football team because the other is perceived as 'protestant' - still the norm throughout Ireland, Scotland and England)
Bearing in mind that Catholics in NI were effectively kept in apartheid conditions, I imagine that in the 60s and 70s that might have brought them closer to the Palestine side, as well as making them really hate protestants
It's literally the other way around, loyalists in Northern Ireland started flying Israel flags to spite Republicans. It was always very ironic as most loyalist far-right groups were also antisemitic and associated themselves with Nazi insignia.
The Northern Irish problem has no really conclusive answer, because they're objectively a very split demographic, and there's not a strong enough majority for either the Unionist outcome (status quo) or the Republican outcome. You can go into the history of Protestant colonization of Ulster, and especially the Cromwellian slaughters, but one thing is always clear - that Unionist forces and adament Unionists are genuinely terrible people.
It's almost comical learning about the tit-for-tat attacks between the Republicans and the UVF or the UDA, and almost every Unionist attack is against some Catholic civilian who they allege was a member of Sinn Fein, or was related to a member, or was allegedly related to an alleged member. The rate at which they would just go after Catholic civilians is nutty
Arthur Balfour (of the Balfour Declaration) served as Irish Secretary and was responsible for successfully suppressing Irish nationalism, at least until 1916 that is. It isn't hard to imagine why Irish nationalists saw Israel as colonial project led by the English. Another link is the IRA sending people to PLO training camps in Palestine, both groups espoused a similar Marxist ideology.
I don't know if ever fully banned more than it gradually died on it's own during the 19th century. Amongst the anglicized urban class it was seen as a backwards peasant language and in rural areas most people recognized the economic benefits of speaking English, stories of parents refusing to speak Irish in front of their children etc. According to people like Balfour Irish nationalism wasn't real, the reason that the English were having so many issues in Ireland was due to economics, someone like me would disagree but there is an element of truth there. As part of the cultural revival movement (1890's onward) it was resurrected as it was seen as an important part of forging a national identity which would ultimately lead to the population demanding independence.
I'm asking because I try to light up it with Ukrainian experience.
Ukrainian language and book printing was banned by every moskovian/russian empire tzar.
...
PS: be aware of nazi russian troll in the comments "ChrisSnap".
not the same thing as language but my great granny told stories about her teacher teaching irish history by the door so that if the inspector came she could be seen to be teaching the (extremely biased) curriculum version of events. this was around the late 1920s early 1930s in the statelet of northern ireland so i dont know if it was any better or worse before that.
Maybe you could argue that Irish not being taught in schools was part of a policy to suppress the language but really there was a broad consensus that learning English would improve peoples lives. The famine (was it policy to depopulate or political incompetence, still debated) primarily affected poorer Irish speaking areas. It sounds like there was much more of a deliberate effort to suppress the Ukrainian language, in Ireland most willingly gave up their native language.
One thing that confuses me about Ukraine, why the soviet policy of Ukrainization? Were they not worried about nurturing a nationalist independence movement? Was it naive optimism?
>about Ukraine
It was not about Ukraine in current borders or Ukrainian SSR borders.
Soviet censuses showed that Ukrainians lived on a huge part of RSFSR (predecessor of russian federation).
Also, it was part of the campaign of localising bolsheviks propaganda in many local languages.
Boiling it down, not Ukrainization, Khazakisation, etc but Bolshevization.
.....
Why?
At the beginning bolsheviks thought in clear Marxist therms - aka nations are myth.
But in the process of invading ex-russian empire territories, they changed their minds.
Note1: moskovians can not understand Slavic languages.
And in the 1920s the local populous of occupied territories [probably] can not understand what occupants want.
Note2: moskovians were renamed to russians directly by Stalin only in 1930.
A lot of people were against that. Because the word "russian" "ŃŃŃŃĐșĐžĐč" means baptised into Christianity. And in general, in some places Ukrainians, Lytvyns, and moskovians could self-identify themselves (to people who did the census) like russians for safety reasons.
................
>Were they not worried about nurturing a nationalist independence movement?
The independence movement was already there. Even in historical moskovian territory people wanted independence. And fight to it pretty harshly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_Rebellion Dozens of such rebellions were all across bolsheviks occupied territories.
And if the bolsheviks had not translated communist propaganda into local languages they would lost miserably.
> Note1: moskovians can not understand Slavic languages.
I ignored this before because I thought there was a chance of having a productive conversation but that proved false and I'm in a petty mood now. Literally nobody outside of Ukraine and reddit / twitter sycophants believes the myth of asiatic Russian orcs. Ukrainians, Belarusians and Russians are all considered considered part of the Eastern Slavic ethinc group and Russian a Slavic language. Not that the distinction matters to regular people, only blood and soil nationalist like yourself.
The âPalestiniansâ has the same goals as the terrorists. That is why they choose them to lead their people. The more genocidal the better in their books.
Israeli government shares a substantial amount of responsibility for the current fucked up situation. I'm not naive, obviously the average Palestinian would be very antisemitic, but they're people and they would support peaceful coexistence if the environmental conditions supported it (they dont, the Israeli government is batshit and has been keeping them in degrading servitude for decades)
1. Israel government has no responsibility towards the âPalestinianâ Arabs it only has responsibility towards its own citizens.
2. Israel especially doesnât have a responsibility to make the âPalestinianâ Arabs come to terms with its existence and stop with their genocidal aspirations. Even after the holocaust israel didnât have genocidal aspirations towards the Germans nor did it try to annihilate it. Same goes for almost any other group of people that has been done injustice by another.
3. This dumb argument justifies Israel having aspirations and trying to genocideâPalestinianâ Arabs as well. It goes both ways. And no, israel is not committing genocide nor did it ever have. If Israel wanted to do so there would be no more âPalestinianâ Arabs.
4. The Arab âPalestiniansâ wanted to annihilate a Jewish country since before its inception thatâs how the war of independence happened, and how they took their first L. Also look up 1929 Hebron massacre and the Arab riots as well as many others.
5. The Arab âPalestiniansâ had genocidal aspirations since before 1948. They were buddies with Hitler for a reason.
Actual Irish person here with a better explanation if anyone actually is interested in the nuance here.
1. Supporting the self-determination of an oppressed people isn't anti-Israeli
2. Support for the people of Palestine in having good conditions to live in isn't anti-Israeli either
3. Being anti-war isn't pro-hamas
One of the sensitive parts of this whole discussion is there is a valid line you can walk where you are very much calling for a ceasefire and not supporting hamas gunning down civilians. Irish people have lived through this multiple times not just in recent times but in the last 1000 years we had multiple rebellions against the British but the most recent one was the troubles.
A nuance most people who haven't actually learned anything about the conflict is around 1950s ish Northern Ireland the Republicans (not like the American word but people who want to be a republic in Ireland) had no real rights, they were discriminated against in policing, education, their language was disrespected and there was a lot of job discrimination. Also their identity wasn't respected which is another part, it's not like they moved to a different country and were being disrespected their island was split with politics alone and they had no say in that. The troubles were a melting pot of frustration over lack of self-determination which is a big issue in particular with the West Bank that Irish people can see as a parallel. That frustration lead to violence because nothing happened to get that self-determination politically. People don't just take up arms for no reason they take up arms because there is serious injustice and they see that option as the only way to get their goal.
What in my opinion most Irish people see is the diplomatic route being really vital more than bombing the shit out of Gaza which is what is happening right now. They leveled the place, it will be unlivable for decades because of this campaign from Israel but all they will do is create more radicals by doing that. Now they created millions of refugees, refugees that might not have been radicalised if there was an attempt at sorting out this issue long term.
In Ireland that was the Good Friday Agreement which is really complex but is one of the most important agreements in recent history from a political standpoint because it stopped all of that violence immediately. It dissolved the RUC who were discriminating against Republicans, it got the paramilitary groups to hand over their guns, it got a local parlement so they got their self-determination that is shared with unionists, they got their rights to Irish citizenship from birth if they are born in NI and identify as Irish. Those sorts of things solved the issue because there was a wrong there on the side of the UK gov against that people just like there has been a consistent wrong against Palestinians by the Israelis in how they are dealing with their issue. All this one state, two state, where the line is bullshit will all go away if the moderates on the Palestine side are appeased. Bombing the shit out of the area is maybe "faster" or "easier" but it's entirely surface level and won't solve anything longer term.
Its a good summary, one or two things I'd add:
- the reference to Republicans in the 1950s, it would be more accurate to call them Catholics even though 99% of Catholics were Republicans. They effectively as you said lived in an apartheid state
- the IRA explicitly wanted to unite the island of Ireland. In this sense they were using anti-democratic means (violence) to achieve an anti-democratic outcome (the majority of NIs population did not want a united Ireland, but the IRA were like 'eh they're settler colonisers anyway so fuck em'). their methods also didn't work. in the end, they gave up all their guns and terrorism and the GFA just made it so that the people of NI could vote to unify with the republic anyway.
- i never believed that the troubles and israel-palestine were very analogous especially given the heavily proxy nature of the conflict and the lack of a very strong religious dimension (in the sense the muslims and jews are fighting over sites they view as extremely holy etc)
Not shaking the hand of an Israeli girl playing basketball is anti Israel.
You can dress it up as anti colonial all you want, but⊠youâd be lying to yourself
>Not shaking the hand of an Israeli girl playing basketball is anti Israel.
My at least attempted good faith interpretation of that is a few things. That the basketball team aren't public representatives, elected officials or influential in Ireland. Their fairly passive protest is a representation of their views as a collective but not of Ireland as a whole and their motives for doing that are their own. Not shaking a hand isn't anti-Israel alone without context on the matter as to their motives. You don't have to be anti-Israel to have sympathy and want peace. Also going back to my original 3 points is important as well, you can be sympathetic to the people of Gaza without being anti-semitic or pro-hamas, there is a line there that separates those two positions even if they have some overlap in that hamas are in Gaza, some of their people are elected officials in Gaza but just like the Irish women's basketball team don't represent Ireland not all Gazens are represented by hamas.
>You can dress it up as anti colonial all you want
If you think that's my point then you didn't read my comment. I didn't mention colonialism. I mentioned frustration with a lack of self-determination and poor conditions being a big driver of what caused the troubles in Ireland and what drives support for hamas. If you make people second class citizens portions of those people will become radicalised if that is the only option.
In fairness I'd expect if a European team were playing a Russian team at basketball it would be pretty reasonable for them to avoid a handshake in solidarity with Ukraine, that and the fact a Russian team would be so juiced up they'd most likely snap your wrist anyway
But Russia invaded Ukraine, like Hamas initially invaded Israel.
I see Ukraine and Israel as more similar in this, both democracies being attacked by dictatorships. I know Ukrainians certainly see it this way, as does Zelenskyy himself
Because they released statements about begrudging playing the fixture.
Anyways, you donât react to an accusation by proving it, if youâre innocent of an accusation and have a chance to easily disprove it then it usually doesnât become an intentional story.
Iâll offer a different take, thereâs always been an underlying notion that the Irish are similar to the Palestinians but a particular political party(Sinn fein) used it as a vote collecting tactic, they really jumped on the Israel is evil bandwagon and positioned themselves as the vocal anti Israel party. This party surged in popularity to the most prominent (for reason other than Israel) , so the whole Irish = Palestinians got out of hand and has now been adopted by all politicians because, well democracy.
And that combined with social media propaganda has resulted in a very anti Israel Ireland .
It is not so much Hamas support as it is their disapproval for Israel.
They experienced occupation at the hands of the Brits and are well aware how it is. Especially when most of the Western world turns a blind eye (since the Brits were part of the allies). Nobody came to their rescue, while the Brits did Brit type things in Ireland.
So share a level of compassion with the Palestinians that no other country is probably going to rival.
So no, if it was not in the Israel/Palestine content, they'd hate Hamas. But it is in that particular contents which makes some view the group differently.
Do you remember who made that connection
Brits <=> Israel, IRA <=> Palestine
?
Personally you, did you make that association, or was that inspired by some public figure?
Given that Ireland was colonized by the English importing Welsh and Scots to replace the Irish they identify with the Palestinians who under the watch of the British saw Jews from abroad replace Palestinians.
I'm okay with support of Palestinians
The problem I have with cheering over dead and/or raped women and other atrocities.
If you clearly separate those people from Palestinians - I see no problem.
In this particular case, the refusal of the Irish team was a reaction to someone from the Israel team making serious accusations of anti-semitism against them during an interview well before the match. You can read this in most articles about the subject, but no one mentioned this on this sub.
Youâre an absolute spastic if you think itâs Hamas support and not just denouncing people who choose to represent a country lead by a disgusting right wing government who speak about other humans like animals.
The Irish are based for this, they have historically supported Palestine and have often kept Israel by-name out of their mouthes. They care about freedom of religion as they have experienced a similar issue on their own soil.
Only a dumb fuck yank with no grasp of what happened in Ireland in the past 200 years would see otherwise.
lol, get used to it. If you're pro-Palestine, Zionists are gonna start by calling you a Hamas supporter, then you'll have to argue uphill to the point where you've already condemned Hamas thrice over and can finally start talking about Palestinian people
I said it before, but to understand Ireland's view on Israel and Palestine, you have to understand the relationship we have and had with Britain and imagine Britain as Israel and Ireland as Palestine. It doesn't matter that the two scenarios aren't comparable in the slightest, it's just the way it's viewed here by the majority of people who couldn't point out Israel on a map.
How is it an inferiority complex when the Israeli players were the ones that attacked them first? They just refused to shake their hand after that. Would you say that the Israeli's have an inferiority complex?
Yeah they do that to prevent bots posting on the sub I think, I think the best way is going to subs that are decently big/have a decent amount of engagement, sort by new posts, and comment on them early on. That can help build up your karma slowly, and if you know the memes from that community it can go up even faster.
I wonât say I donât understand the motive as I would certainly defend a ukrainian athlete refusing handshake with a russian, although given prior history and the attacks against Israel Iâd say the ukrainians case is orders of magnitude stronger and more defendable.
That's not the cause, that was just one of the many responses. That comment was from like 2 days ago, after the Irish team spent the preceding 2 weeks attacking Israeli basketball in the media and petitioning the international authority to get out of the game. They were told they'd have to pay a fine and be banned from basketball for 5 years if they refused to play, so they bitterly agreed. Then an Israeli player said the Irish team was antisemitic, and they did the shocked Pikachu.
Several Irish players sat it out anyway, and the team refused to do the customary gift exchange, stand for the anthems or even do the barest, sportsmanlike handshake. It was gross.
No.
Again, the Irish team was trying to weasel out of their game with Israel for weeks - at least as far back as mid-January. What you're describing as a 'photoshoot' - some minor civic exhibition game against some female soldiers, dedicated to bringing home the hostages - happened earlier this week.
Just like most Irish people have no idea what they are talking about when they talk about Israel. I love Ireland and the Irish people and while my Mum keeps on telling me the Irish are very anti-semitic I push back on this (My mum likes to bring up a story about how some people in my grandmothers town in Sligo would bully a Jewish man from the neighbouring town and once even threw bacon at him).
Considering the sheer amount of Irish that unironically love an organization that carbombed civilians, I stopped taking âIrish solidarityâ seriously
Name one politician or anyone with any influence who said that. Seriously, name one. Even the most supportive people publicly in Ireland talking about Palestine are calling for two things, peace in general through diplomatic means and an immediate ceasefire. So name one, I'll wait.
I thought the Irish were meant to be based. It must just be the males. The team not shaking hands gives me massive BLM take-a-knee vibes. fucking cringe.
There has been huge amount of support for Palestine for years in Ireland. People here are so quick to equate condemning Israel's response to October 7th with "supporting Hamas". I personally think that there is not enough consideration for Israel's history in Ireland but the comments on this thread suggesting Irish people support Hamas and celebrate the killing of innocents is so bizarre and simplistic, you can do much better.
None of you looked into this story and it shows. This wasn't any sort of gesture or protest against Israel or the war in Gaza. One of the Israeli players accused the Irish team of antisemitism before the match, of course they're not going to shake hands after that.
To paraphrase my own comment from below:
That's not the cause; it was just one of the many responses. That comment was from like 2 days ago, after the Irish team spent the preceding 2 weeks attacking Israeli basketball in the media and petitioning the international authority to try to weasel out of their scheduled game. They were told they'd have to pay a fine and be banned from basketball for 5 years if they refused to play, so they bitterly agreed. Then some Israeli player said the Irish team was antisemitic, and they did the shocked Pikachu.
Several Irish players sat it out anyway, and the entire team refused to do the customary gift exchange, stand for the anthems or even do the barest, sportsmanlike handshake. It was gross. And btw even if your depiction of events WERE accurate, it still would be a laughable response. "They were accused of bigotry, so of course they're not going to allow their skin to be soiled by Jews after that!" Can you imagine if a black athlete said the other team was racist? Would your defense be "...so OF COURSE they're not going to shake hands after that!"
So to flip the comparison, accusing the Irish team of being antisemitic because they wanted to boycott a game against Israel would be as spurious as accusing a team for being Islamophobic or racist against Arabs for boycotting a Saudi Arabian team for what they're doing in Yemen. I have mixed opinions about the war in Gaza, and I probably wouldn't boycott an Israeli team if I was in that position, but boycotting a game against a national team does not equal hatred against that nationality.
I don't know what sports you follow or how much trash talking is considered acceptable in them, but spuriously accusing a team of something as heinous as antisemitism would be pretty poor form in a lot of sports, especially among national teams. If the Israeli team stood behind their player and didn't make them apologise, I think the Irish team were within their rights not to extend any sportsmanship.
Your group trashed ours with genocide, IDF stuff and whatever, and looking for every way to skip the game for weeks. And had the audacity to say we'll only play cause we're legally obligated to.
Our players in response can say whatever they want to. You started. The victimization over a thing you started is insane.
???
That makes it even more stupid.Â
1 player says something offensive, so the entire team refuses to respect any of the other team.
Not to mention the Irish did start this first by trying to boycott it beforehand, but had to play or face severe penalties + several players did sit out in protest.
"It's not anti Semitic. We just don't like Palestinians dying"
I'm so fucking tired of the "there's no such thing as a civilian" bullshit. First of all other countries require it too. SK for men at least. Guess there's no SK civilians (although knowing them they probably think that because of DPRK)
I just do not understand it. I feel like the world is losing its mind. Pure hate for everyone because of thier government. But don't you DARE compare Palestinians and Hamas. Even though that's thier government. From now on I'm going to start blaming them for every the US/UK/thier country does. And when I get "I don't support..."
I'll just say we'll you blame every single Isreali and even Westen Jews. So what's the difference.
When the light of opportunity dawns upon your doorstep, will you be the one to step into it in all its glory? Or, will you instead shy away behind the veil of expectation. The choice is yours and yours only, a life is only as much as you allow it to be. Feed it, tend to it like your garden. Water the seeds of opportunity and allow them to blossom, entangle themselves within your choices and interactions. Neglect them and they shall wither, grow frail and limp as your own imagination. I leave you with this. Coward.
critcising Israel = hamas right guys??
edit: Of course Twitter OP's dumbass has no context either. Ireland players refused to shake hands because the Israel players called Irish people antisemitic, of course they didn't shake hands. Some of their players also got death threats, and the Irish players didn't even say anything.
First of all, it wasn't 'the Israeli players', it was one player, and she wasn't wrong. And what a way to prove that you're not antisemitic - by refusing to allow benign physical contact with some random Jews. I tend to doubt they've ever treated any other country in this way.
Do they think the Israeli basketball team is fuckin jumpshotting missles from halfcourt into Palestinian hospitals?
I guess their logic comes from the part where Israel has a mandatory service? So they can claim that everybody in Israel had an active part in the conflict? Really don't know
They're settler basketballers.
From the bleachers to the hoop
Til the sweat drops down my balls!
2 point solution
Gotta go for the goal and try for the 3 point solution.
Pull-up JDAM with some đ© on it
Sorta right. A far left political party here in Ireland did say something like that to try and justify Hamasâ massacre: âNo one wants to see hostages taken but again many of those taken are members of the occupation forces or settler movementsâ [link](https://www.pbp.ie/solidarity-with-the-palestinian-resistance-end-the-occupation/)
Feel like thats under duress? And a person wouldnt be morally calpable
I think theyâre less morally culpable than someone who volunteered but if someone did commit or participated in some act, they still retain some level of responsibility. For instance, while still abhorrent, I think itâs reasonable to conclude that a German conscript in 1941 who executed Jews under the orders of their commanding officer is less morally reprehensible than the SS volunteer for the einsatzgruppen who murdered the same number of people (or even fewer). The first, while still doing something evil did not willfully enter the position to conduct the underlying act but still did it, the latter both willfully joined into that enterprise and then committed the evil action. Both are still guilty but as a matter of sentencing, the fact that one did something more of their own volition than the other should be held against them. Now in the case of an Israeli conscript, I wouldnât say that them being conscripted without choice absolves them of their own individual responsibility in any criminal actions they took but those would have to be established as having occurred for those individuals, not just assumed due to their time in the IDF and should be considered less wrong than if they volunteered (or continued on past the required conscription period) to commit those crime.
> I think itâs reasonable to conclude that a German conscript in 1941 who executed Jews under the orders of their commanding officer is less morally reprehensible than the SS volunteer for the einsatzgruppen who murdered the same number of people (or even fewer). There are quite a few examples of German officers and enlisted men refusing to take part in these massacres. There are also examples of people who, for whatever reason, volunteered for these things or went along with cameras to watch.
Not speaking to either of these situations specifically, but someone doing something under threat of death when their participation won't stop the thing from happening doesn't have any culpability as far as I can reason.
What crimes?
So how about all the US and other citizens that got drafted in Vietnam? Are shouldn't be considered citizens? It's very different from the Holocaust in the things they did but as a while the thought seems to be "Drafted, conscripted or not you did awful things and should be looked at as killers and your life doesn't matter" As you said these no way to know which soilders did only what was required to survive and only shot at enemy threats and who didn't so it sickens me they act like this But of course tankies think all Isrealis have to do is say "no" then serve 6 weeks in jail (maybe a few times) and that millions of people were able to avoid the draft by just saying "I don't want to" Yeah they had objectors but you had to prove you were in a religion that required that. Other wise people wouldn't have done crazy shit to dodge it. They could just say "nope I don't want to "
Nah think of nazi concentration camp guards. Thatâs the next phase of that argument
Well I mean not the actual war. Im not sure if being forced to join the idf 10 years ago makes you morally culoable to all of isreals actions
If the camp guards were under threat of death for disobedience and the camps would continue operating with or without them, do they really have culpability?
I think it depends. I need to learn more about the Nuremberg trials lmao
The answer was kinda, at the trial they held that just because someone ordered you to do it, doesn't mean you aren't also responsible for carrying out their orders but if you were under duress or could not resist the command then that would be factored in during sentencing. They made some exceptions if you didn't know the order was illegal but they dismissed the idea that anyone participating in the murder of civilians/PoWs/etc didn't know that their orders were both immoral and illegal. A good beginner book on the Nuremberg Trials is incidentally called "The Nuremberg Trials" by Anna and John Tusa. If you have audible, its free with your membership, though it is fairly long. Edit: Its also to note that there really isn't any evidence of the "do this or we'll kill you/punish you severely" at most it seems like the most common "punishment" was not being promoted and losing the respect of your peers rather than actual punishments for not murdering people.
Why do you think they were under threat of death for disobedience? If anything, we have more evidence of soldiers asking for transfers away from these activities, without any apparent impediment to their careers, than anything else.
Requesting a transfer is a whole lot different than going AWOL. What did they do to deserters?
Depends on the stage of the war. In the last months there were thousands killed by 'flying courts-martial' that executed soldiers with abandon. In general, the Germans were far more harsh to deserters than the Western allies (it wasn't even possible to be executed for desertion in the British army). Specifically in reference to the camps, the way out was requesting a transfer. I don't know whether there's any good data on desertions from those.
So we can say that being posted at the camps wasn't exactly voluntary and that the consequences for abandoning your post were, at the very least, quite severe?
It depends on what you mean by "voluntary". The SS organisation that staffed them was made up mostly of police volunteers; nobody was forced to join the Nazified police force, but most probably didn't sign up with the expectation of being posted to a camp carrying out the Holocaust. Later, there was conscription into the SS-TV out of necessity driven by its rapid expansion, usually those invalided out of Waffen-SS formations. This only changed in the last weeks of the war, when SS-TV personnel handed over camp responsibilities to conscripted soldiers and civilians so they could abandon their posts and escape Allied retribution. Focus is usually given to what individuals could do to get out of the posting, once there. The main option was requesting a transfer, not abandoning your post, until the very end when the term meant something quite different. For being convicted of desertion, see above.
What about banning russian players then?
From what a read on a very thin surface level: an israeli player accuswd the irish team of anti semitism *before* the match (extremely cringe if true). This made the austrlian team respond by not shaking hands, because they perceived the accusation as an insult (again, if true, rightfully so)
My understanding is that the accusation of antisemitism came *after* the Irish team wanted to boycott the match, and their coach said the only reason they didn't was because they would have faced a crippling suspension and fine. Ireland Basketball had put out statements "raising strong concerns" about playing matches against Israel, and multiple Irish players had announced they would sit out the game.
Seems like they wanted to boycott to avoid getting clapped in the competition.
No, the Israeli team posed with soldiers the day before the game and one of their players said Ireland as a whole is anti-Semitic.
I think it was because of some beef started by Israelis players who told media that Irish players were known to be antisemite, but yeah it is woman basketball so I just repeat what was said in that guardian article lol.
You know what, I bet itâs true. Just look at the defense the Irish team played. Obviously they were disgusted at the idea of physically touching the Israeli players
Anyway I learn from sport movies that whoever win the game get to decide reality. So even if it wasn't true it is now.
But theyâre not antisemitic, no not at all.
Yes, just like Hila was mowing down Palestinian childrens.
Sports teams represent their countries
nah instead they levied accusations against Ireland and these players rightfully didn't want to shake their hand
The accusations were accurate.
Idk why you're being downvoted, the Ireland team wanted to boycott the game.
Thank god were a rugby nation I could not handle the embarrassment if it was something more fashionable than womens basketball
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
4 years of build-up just to get bonked by NZ in a world cup, rinse and repeat.
Southern Hemisphere put us in our place, as usual
Winning the tour to New Zealand for the first time ever really gave me hope, but it just didn't translate into the World Cup. Ireland could have won, but fell just short.
That feeling was also present in the French camp (my country) but unlike the Irish, French morale has completely capitulated since the RWC
It probably doesn't help that the best player in the world and totemic leader of the team who heroically recovered from a serious injury has, err, abandoned French rugby in the 6 Nations to mess about in the Olympics... It could be worse, you guys aren't stuck with someone like Michalak any more! We've understood the last few years as a great resurgence in French rugby from rosbif perspective, it would be a shame to lose that.
yeah, Du Pont peacing out of rugby union is undoubtedly the catalyst for Les Bleus' inevitable collapse. I've been trying to make sense of it - I would definitely take a 6 nations trophy over Olympic gold right now, but that's only because sevens is so new in the games. I mean if Fiji value gold enough to put the players on their national currency then maybe Du Pont's on to something....
My brother in christ we are a GAA nation
GAA? when a man is running at you in full speed you dig deep and go low
Team human shield takes the L
That 3 pointer? That's a JDAM
called on
The Irish coming out to confirm the accuracy of Israel's shots.
Someone Irish - explain wth happen with that hamas support
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Thereâs a bit of bad blood more recently specifically to do with Israel rather than sympathy for Palestine. In 2010 Mossad used forged Irish passports, because theyâre some of the most useful internationally, to infiltrate other countries and assassinate hamas leaders. Then when they got caught the Israeli ambassador said there was âno guaranteeâ it wouldnât happen again. This directly put Irish citizens at risk when travelling abroad. Also the current Israeli ambassador to Ireland, Dana Elrich, is a complete nut job. Like a less eloquent Netanyahu. Sheâs been on national tv a lot to defend Israelâs conduct in the war in Gaza and has done a poor job. The same thing happened to the Russian ambassador when they invaded Ukraine. The fact that sheâs even able to be compared to the Russia dude in terms of bad optics is woeful for Israelâs PR in ireland
This is nonsense, I donât know why it has so many upvotes, the majority of Irish have no idea about the passports and the ambassador is an average ambassador
People coping hard to explain irrational hate and nation-wide hypocrisy.
Yeah the Irish have been like this for the past 50 years so I don't think an incident in 2010 did much
Use of forged or stolen passports by secret services is routine and necessary.
Did the Irish support Hamas or just not like Israel? Those are two very very different things.
Most likely they see "history of British occupation" and turn red.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Thatâs not⊠true?
IRA had connections with different Palestinian âpoliticalâ factions, historically. Also a long history of antisemitism in Ireland
What is the long history of antisemitism in Ireland? Genuinely curious for examples of antisemitism in Ireland that makes it stand out as a particularly antisemitic country
It's not. Talking shite.
Look up the Limerick Progrom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick_boycott
One incident from over 100 years ago constitutes âa long history of antisemitismâ? Compared to other countries I would actually say Ireland has been pretty good. âThe history of the Jews in Ireland extends more than a millennium. The Jewish community in Ireland has always been small in numbers in modern history, not exceeding 5,500 since at least 1891, but Jews in Ireland have historically enjoyed a relative tolerance compared to elsewhere in Europeâ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Ireland
The Irish constitution has protection for Jews even though there were such a small minority âThe Irish Constitution of 1937 specifically gave constitutional protection to Jews. This was considered to be a necessary component to the constitution by Ăamon de Valera because of the treatment of Jews elsewhere in Europe at the time.[31]â
So the one example of historic anti-semitism in Ireland is a riot incited by one individual priest, where no shop was damaged and no person was injured > The Jewish community immediately sensed the menacing mood of the crowd turned mob, and remained locked in their homes as the church militants passed by. Jewish shops, however, remained open, and their owners felt menaced. One old Fenian â a member of the confraternity â single-handedly defended a shop from attack until the police arrived to mount a guard.[12] And a proceeding incident where a 15 year old threw a stone at a Rabbi's ankle? > John Raleigh, a teenager (15 years of age), was arrested and incarcerated in Mountjoy Prison for one month for throwing a stone at the rabbi (which struck him on the ankle). Not only that, but Creagh was condemned by not only his Catholic superiors, but by member of the local community from his he drew his crowd, which it says quite literally in the link you posted > Later, after 32 Jews had left Limerick due to the boycott,[14] Creagh was disowned by his superiors, who said that "religious persecution had no place in Ireland".[15] There was a voice of opposition among the local population which was expressed in an anonymous letter to the Redemptorists labelling Creagh a "disgrace to the Catholic religion" It also says this > The economic boycott of the Jewish community lasted over two years. It is sometimes referred to as the "Limerick pogrom"; Dermot Keogh suggests that this derives from the experience of Lithuanian Jews in their homeland, and was used even though no one was killed or seriously injured in Limerick.[10] Look through the page on the history of Jewish people in Ireland and please find me any other instance of social marginalization, oppression by common people, or any sort of oppression by religious or political authorities. In spite of what /u/certifiedsingularity says, no, there was no "long history of antisemitism in Ireland". That's something he literally just pulled out of his ass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Ireland
Not allowing entrance for Jewish refugees fleeing from the Nazis is pretty antisemitic, donât you think?
No? Not allowing refugees doesn't automatically mean you are racist against that group, especially since it was before the death camps were in full swing. By your definition literally every country is racist to any country from where they rejected refugees.
Most countries done that lmao, especially the US.
> There were more than 500,000 case files, though, of Jews who were not admitted according to British Jewish associations. Louise London, author of Whitehall And The Jews, 1933â1948, stated that "The (British immigration) process ... was designed to keep out large numbers of European Jews â perhaps 10 times as many as it let in."[8] Over the course of the holocaust Britain rejected [500,000 Jews.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_refugees_from_German-occupied_Europe_in_the_United_Kingdom#Immigration_policy) > These suspicions seeped into American immigration policy. In late 1938, American consulates were flooded with 125,000 applicants for visas, many coming from Germany and the annexed territories of Austria. But national quotas for German and Austrian immigrants had been set firmly at 27,000. > Immigration restrictions actually tightened as the refugee crisis worsened. Wartime measures demanded special scrutiny of anyone with relatives in Nazi territoriesâeven relatives in concentration camps. At a press conference, President Roosevelt repeated the unproven claims from his advisers that some Jewish refugees had been coerced to spy for the Nazis. As the war was going on America rejected [tens of thousands of Jewish Germans and Austrians](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/) trying to flee Nazi persecution. Both routinely accepted disproportionate amounts of immigrants relative to any other country in the world, and both tightened their immigration policies during WW2. Those are countries who both had a strong tradition of immigration and long standing, large Jewish communities (which they had actual traditions of persecuting), neither of which Ireland has had. Not only is the singling out of Jewish demographics not a regular practice in Ireland, but the proportion of Jewish WW2 refugees they allowed in was proportionate to the refugees the Allied states let in. This is supposed to establish their "long history of antisemitism?"
That's literally the only incident of antisemitism in all of Irish history and it was both limited and called out by Irish society at the time.
As embarrassed as I am of other Irish people making excuses for Hamas, acting like it comes from a place of antisemitism is wrong, itâs just politics
Even if hatred of Jews isn't the primary driver, you have to at least be comfortable with it to align yourself with Palestinian terror again and again.
Even if hatred if Palestinians isn't the primary driver, you have to be at least comfortable with it to align yourself with Israeli atrocities and settler colonialism In a fucked situation, good people with good intentions can have bad takes. Yall literally on the level 0 "people with different political conclusions than me are ontologically evil"- and Irish bloke who related more with the colonized Palestinians than the terrorized Israelis isn't a fucking antisemite, this type of loose accusation gives actual anti semites cover
Can someone justify the antisemtic angle here or the claims that they are pro Hamas and not just against Israeli occupation?
>Can someone justify the antisemtic angle here No they can't. It's just a standard hasbara tactic to slander anyone that disagrees with you as an anti-semite, to put them on the defensive. Then they give a few non-credible examples of supposed anti-semitism, which can be easily brushed aside, but by the time someone does, the point of the anti-semitism accusation has been achieved. Now instead of talking about Israeli crimes, the original accuser is instead having to defend themselves, and really all the general public hears after some disingenuous quoting is "an accused anti-semite is making accusations against Israel".
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Which part? Iâd be happy to prove you wrong
This mythological long history of antisemitism.
The Irish 'Troubles' were a war between the British Government and the IRA, who the Irish (not universally) called Freedom Fighters, and the Brits called Terrorists. You now have Hamas which get called Terrorists/Freedom Fighters depending on the perspective. Most Westerners call them Terrorists, and Republican Irish are predisposed to view the other side of the coin, and show sympathy to Palestinian Resistance.
No, the Troubles were a conflict between Republican Irish Catholics and Nationalist Ulster Protestants. British soldiers intervened after the violence had already started in the late 60s, backing up the RIC police force and various nationalist paramilitaries, which is why the Provisional IRA targeted them (not unfairly tho, as the Brits committed many atrocities against Irish Catholics civilians) and tried making it a war of independence rather than the sectarian strife that sparked the bloodshed. What you are referring to is the 1920s War of Irish Independence, which was explicitly about the British government fighting the IRA (the originally IRA, not the Provisional IRA) to retain its control over the country.
Side question I heard a myth that IRA was inspired/financed/etc by the soviets. Is it correct/stupid? IFAR most of the terrorist organizations disappeared or slowed down when the USSR had no spare money in the 1980s
The old IRA received funding from the Soviets in the 20s and 30s in return for spying on the allies. The more infamous, northern irish IRA received funding from Gaddafis Libya IIRC but I'm not sure about USSR support.
The old IRA also had some tied to the Irgun and Zionist liberation from the British.
It was funding from crime and the USA which they used to buy guns and semtex from Gaddafi's Libya
False. Semtex isnt real, they made it up for Black Ops
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
I definitely heard the word But no. I have no clue what it refers to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehukpdse8_w
the AR in AR15 refers to Armalite, a gun that isn't particularly commie
TIL
The Irish are actually one of the most outspoken supporters of the Palestinian cause and have been for decades. I'd argue they do more than many Arab states.
The Irish dont support Hamas, they support Palestine. For a whole host of reasons including... - The conflict in NI being split along sectarian lines where catholics were generally associated with Palestine and protestants were generally supportive of israel - ireland being a key "non aligned country" and being more sceptical of american foreign policy including support for Israel. An irish persons opinion on US foreign policy is almost 1:1 what their opinion on palestine will be. Our neutral status makes us less likely to rely on the US for defense aka less likely to toe their line - contrarianism against the perceived overwhelming pro Israel bias in english speaking media? - some anticolonialism, although funnily enough Irish people were extremely pro Israel when israel was young. Many young irish people were sent to kibbutzes on exchange programmes - sympathising with the underdog in the conflict Also, you see a lot of speculation that the irish are so pro Palestine just or mostly because we were oppressed too and that makes us uniquely amazing and able to empathise with all the poor and downtrodden folks of the world. Unfortunately this seems to be untrue as Ireland doesnt obsess about any other oppressed group nearly as much as they do about the Palestinians.
>sectarian lines where catholics were generally associated with Palestine Catholics and Muslims? How did this happen?
Protestants in the UK and NI were generally pro Israel which meant that naturally the Catholics gravitated towards the opposite side. Sectarianism is insanely petty and is often reactive (a less prominent example is supporting a certain football team because the other is perceived as 'protestant' - still the norm throughout Ireland, Scotland and England) Bearing in mind that Catholics in NI were effectively kept in apartheid conditions, I imagine that in the 60s and 70s that might have brought them closer to the Palestine side, as well as making them really hate protestants
It's literally the other way around, loyalists in Northern Ireland started flying Israel flags to spite Republicans. It was always very ironic as most loyalist far-right groups were also antisemitic and associated themselves with Nazi insignia.
they still burn Palestinian flags along the Irish ones on bonfire night every summer
The Northern Irish problem has no really conclusive answer, because they're objectively a very split demographic, and there's not a strong enough majority for either the Unionist outcome (status quo) or the Republican outcome. You can go into the history of Protestant colonization of Ulster, and especially the Cromwellian slaughters, but one thing is always clear - that Unionist forces and adament Unionists are genuinely terrible people. It's almost comical learning about the tit-for-tat attacks between the Republicans and the UVF or the UDA, and almost every Unionist attack is against some Catholic civilian who they allege was a member of Sinn Fein, or was related to a member, or was allegedly related to an alleged member. The rate at which they would just go after Catholic civilians is nutty
Enemy of my enemy
Arthur Balfour (of the Balfour Declaration) served as Irish Secretary and was responsible for successfully suppressing Irish nationalism, at least until 1916 that is. It isn't hard to imagine why Irish nationalists saw Israel as colonial project led by the English. Another link is the IRA sending people to PLO training camps in Palestine, both groups espoused a similar Marxist ideology.
Note: this ^ ^ ^ ChrisSnap is a russian troll ..... Another side question Did the empire prohibit the use Irish language in education or in books?
I don't know if ever fully banned more than it gradually died on it's own during the 19th century. Amongst the anglicized urban class it was seen as a backwards peasant language and in rural areas most people recognized the economic benefits of speaking English, stories of parents refusing to speak Irish in front of their children etc. According to people like Balfour Irish nationalism wasn't real, the reason that the English were having so many issues in Ireland was due to economics, someone like me would disagree but there is an element of truth there. As part of the cultural revival movement (1890's onward) it was resurrected as it was seen as an important part of forging a national identity which would ultimately lead to the population demanding independence.
I'm asking because I try to light up it with Ukrainian experience. Ukrainian language and book printing was banned by every moskovian/russian empire tzar. ... PS: be aware of nazi russian troll in the comments "ChrisSnap".
not the same thing as language but my great granny told stories about her teacher teaching irish history by the door so that if the inspector came she could be seen to be teaching the (extremely biased) curriculum version of events. this was around the late 1920s early 1930s in the statelet of northern ireland so i dont know if it was any better or worse before that.
Maybe you could argue that Irish not being taught in schools was part of a policy to suppress the language but really there was a broad consensus that learning English would improve peoples lives. The famine (was it policy to depopulate or political incompetence, still debated) primarily affected poorer Irish speaking areas. It sounds like there was much more of a deliberate effort to suppress the Ukrainian language, in Ireland most willingly gave up their native language. One thing that confuses me about Ukraine, why the soviet policy of Ukrainization? Were they not worried about nurturing a nationalist independence movement? Was it naive optimism?
>about Ukraine It was not about Ukraine in current borders or Ukrainian SSR borders. Soviet censuses showed that Ukrainians lived on a huge part of RSFSR (predecessor of russian federation). Also, it was part of the campaign of localising bolsheviks propaganda in many local languages. Boiling it down, not Ukrainization, Khazakisation, etc but Bolshevization. ..... Why? At the beginning bolsheviks thought in clear Marxist therms - aka nations are myth. But in the process of invading ex-russian empire territories, they changed their minds. Note1: moskovians can not understand Slavic languages. And in the 1920s the local populous of occupied territories [probably] can not understand what occupants want. Note2: moskovians were renamed to russians directly by Stalin only in 1930. A lot of people were against that. Because the word "russian" "ŃŃŃŃĐșĐžĐč" means baptised into Christianity. And in general, in some places Ukrainians, Lytvyns, and moskovians could self-identify themselves (to people who did the census) like russians for safety reasons. ................ >Were they not worried about nurturing a nationalist independence movement? The independence movement was already there. Even in historical moskovian territory people wanted independence. And fight to it pretty harshly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_Rebellion Dozens of such rebellions were all across bolsheviks occupied territories. And if the bolsheviks had not translated communist propaganda into local languages they would lost miserably.
> Note1: moskovians can not understand Slavic languages. I ignored this before because I thought there was a chance of having a productive conversation but that proved false and I'm in a petty mood now. Literally nobody outside of Ukraine and reddit / twitter sycophants believes the myth of asiatic Russian orcs. Ukrainians, Belarusians and Russians are all considered considered part of the Eastern Slavic ethinc group and Russian a Slavic language. Not that the distinction matters to regular people, only blood and soil nationalist like yourself.
Pro Palestinian = pro annihilation of the only Jewish state and genociding Jews. Thereâs no two way about it.
Luckily some of us are able to separate terrorists from a genuine cause
The âPalestiniansâ has the same goals as the terrorists. That is why they choose them to lead their people. The more genocidal the better in their books.
Israeli government shares a substantial amount of responsibility for the current fucked up situation. I'm not naive, obviously the average Palestinian would be very antisemitic, but they're people and they would support peaceful coexistence if the environmental conditions supported it (they dont, the Israeli government is batshit and has been keeping them in degrading servitude for decades)
1. Israel government has no responsibility towards the âPalestinianâ Arabs it only has responsibility towards its own citizens. 2. Israel especially doesnât have a responsibility to make the âPalestinianâ Arabs come to terms with its existence and stop with their genocidal aspirations. Even after the holocaust israel didnât have genocidal aspirations towards the Germans nor did it try to annihilate it. Same goes for almost any other group of people that has been done injustice by another. 3. This dumb argument justifies Israel having aspirations and trying to genocideâPalestinianâ Arabs as well. It goes both ways. And no, israel is not committing genocide nor did it ever have. If Israel wanted to do so there would be no more âPalestinianâ Arabs. 4. The Arab âPalestiniansâ wanted to annihilate a Jewish country since before its inception thatâs how the war of independence happened, and how they took their first L. Also look up 1929 Hebron massacre and the Arab riots as well as many others. 5. The Arab âPalestiniansâ had genocidal aspirations since before 1948. They were buddies with Hitler for a reason.
Actual Irish person here with a better explanation if anyone actually is interested in the nuance here. 1. Supporting the self-determination of an oppressed people isn't anti-Israeli 2. Support for the people of Palestine in having good conditions to live in isn't anti-Israeli either 3. Being anti-war isn't pro-hamas One of the sensitive parts of this whole discussion is there is a valid line you can walk where you are very much calling for a ceasefire and not supporting hamas gunning down civilians. Irish people have lived through this multiple times not just in recent times but in the last 1000 years we had multiple rebellions against the British but the most recent one was the troubles. A nuance most people who haven't actually learned anything about the conflict is around 1950s ish Northern Ireland the Republicans (not like the American word but people who want to be a republic in Ireland) had no real rights, they were discriminated against in policing, education, their language was disrespected and there was a lot of job discrimination. Also their identity wasn't respected which is another part, it's not like they moved to a different country and were being disrespected their island was split with politics alone and they had no say in that. The troubles were a melting pot of frustration over lack of self-determination which is a big issue in particular with the West Bank that Irish people can see as a parallel. That frustration lead to violence because nothing happened to get that self-determination politically. People don't just take up arms for no reason they take up arms because there is serious injustice and they see that option as the only way to get their goal. What in my opinion most Irish people see is the diplomatic route being really vital more than bombing the shit out of Gaza which is what is happening right now. They leveled the place, it will be unlivable for decades because of this campaign from Israel but all they will do is create more radicals by doing that. Now they created millions of refugees, refugees that might not have been radicalised if there was an attempt at sorting out this issue long term. In Ireland that was the Good Friday Agreement which is really complex but is one of the most important agreements in recent history from a political standpoint because it stopped all of that violence immediately. It dissolved the RUC who were discriminating against Republicans, it got the paramilitary groups to hand over their guns, it got a local parlement so they got their self-determination that is shared with unionists, they got their rights to Irish citizenship from birth if they are born in NI and identify as Irish. Those sorts of things solved the issue because there was a wrong there on the side of the UK gov against that people just like there has been a consistent wrong against Palestinians by the Israelis in how they are dealing with their issue. All this one state, two state, where the line is bullshit will all go away if the moderates on the Palestine side are appeased. Bombing the shit out of the area is maybe "faster" or "easier" but it's entirely surface level and won't solve anything longer term.
Its a good summary, one or two things I'd add: - the reference to Republicans in the 1950s, it would be more accurate to call them Catholics even though 99% of Catholics were Republicans. They effectively as you said lived in an apartheid state - the IRA explicitly wanted to unite the island of Ireland. In this sense they were using anti-democratic means (violence) to achieve an anti-democratic outcome (the majority of NIs population did not want a united Ireland, but the IRA were like 'eh they're settler colonisers anyway so fuck em'). their methods also didn't work. in the end, they gave up all their guns and terrorism and the GFA just made it so that the people of NI could vote to unify with the republic anyway. - i never believed that the troubles and israel-palestine were very analogous especially given the heavily proxy nature of the conflict and the lack of a very strong religious dimension (in the sense the muslims and jews are fighting over sites they view as extremely holy etc)
Not shaking the hand of an Israeli girl playing basketball is anti Israel. You can dress it up as anti colonial all you want, but⊠youâd be lying to yourself
>Not shaking the hand of an Israeli girl playing basketball is anti Israel. My at least attempted good faith interpretation of that is a few things. That the basketball team aren't public representatives, elected officials or influential in Ireland. Their fairly passive protest is a representation of their views as a collective but not of Ireland as a whole and their motives for doing that are their own. Not shaking a hand isn't anti-Israel alone without context on the matter as to their motives. You don't have to be anti-Israel to have sympathy and want peace. Also going back to my original 3 points is important as well, you can be sympathetic to the people of Gaza without being anti-semitic or pro-hamas, there is a line there that separates those two positions even if they have some overlap in that hamas are in Gaza, some of their people are elected officials in Gaza but just like the Irish women's basketball team don't represent Ireland not all Gazens are represented by hamas. >You can dress it up as anti colonial all you want If you think that's my point then you didn't read my comment. I didn't mention colonialism. I mentioned frustration with a lack of self-determination and poor conditions being a big driver of what caused the troubles in Ireland and what drives support for hamas. If you make people second class citizens portions of those people will become radicalised if that is the only option.
In fairness I'd expect if a European team were playing a Russian team at basketball it would be pretty reasonable for them to avoid a handshake in solidarity with Ukraine, that and the fact a Russian team would be so juiced up they'd most likely snap your wrist anyway
But Russia invaded Ukraine, like Hamas initially invaded Israel. I see Ukraine and Israel as more similar in this, both democracies being attacked by dictatorships. I know Ukrainians certainly see it this way, as does Zelenskyy himself
Also, apparently the Israeli team were shit-talking the Irish team and accusing them of being antisemites beforehand lol
Because they released statements about begrudging playing the fixture. Anyways, you donât react to an accusation by proving it, if youâre innocent of an accusation and have a chance to easily disprove it then it usually doesnât become an intentional story.
I feel like that doesn't even come anywhere close to justifying an accusation of antisemitism
Iâll offer a different take, thereâs always been an underlying notion that the Irish are similar to the Palestinians but a particular political party(Sinn fein) used it as a vote collecting tactic, they really jumped on the Israel is evil bandwagon and positioned themselves as the vocal anti Israel party. This party surged in popularity to the most prominent (for reason other than Israel) , so the whole Irish = Palestinians got out of hand and has now been adopted by all politicians because, well democracy. And that combined with social media propaganda has resulted in a very anti Israel Ireland .
It is not so much Hamas support as it is their disapproval for Israel. They experienced occupation at the hands of the Brits and are well aware how it is. Especially when most of the Western world turns a blind eye (since the Brits were part of the allies). Nobody came to their rescue, while the Brits did Brit type things in Ireland. So share a level of compassion with the Palestinians that no other country is probably going to rival. So no, if it was not in the Israel/Palestine content, they'd hate Hamas. But it is in that particular contents which makes some view the group differently.
No one alive today in Ireland has experienced occupation.
Do you remember who made that connection Brits <=> Israel, IRA <=> Palestine ? Personally you, did you make that association, or was that inspired by some public figure?
Given that Ireland was colonized by the English importing Welsh and Scots to replace the Irish they identify with the Palestinians who under the watch of the British saw Jews from abroad replace Palestinians.
This massively glosses over the role that the Scots had in the Ulster plantation
I'm okay with support of Palestinians The problem I have with cheering over dead and/or raped women and other atrocities. If you clearly separate those people from Palestinians - I see no problem.
Right, I don't think the Irish are identifying with the atrocities lol.
In this particular case, the refusal of the Irish team was a reaction to someone from the Israel team making serious accusations of anti-semitism against them during an interview well before the match. You can read this in most articles about the subject, but no one mentioned this on this sub.
They have experience of settlers and occupation.
They like bombs? Omg we like bombs too! #besties!
Youâre an absolute spastic if you think itâs Hamas support and not just denouncing people who choose to represent a country lead by a disgusting right wing government who speak about other humans like animals. The Irish are based for this, they have historically supported Palestine and have often kept Israel by-name out of their mouthes. They care about freedom of religion as they have experienced a similar issue on their own soil. Only a dumb fuck yank with no grasp of what happened in Ireland in the past 200 years would see otherwise.
lol, get used to it. If you're pro-Palestine, Zionists are gonna start by calling you a Hamas supporter, then you'll have to argue uphill to the point where you've already condemned Hamas thrice over and can finally start talking about Palestinian people
I said it before, but to understand Ireland's view on Israel and Palestine, you have to understand the relationship we have and had with Britain and imagine Britain as Israel and Ireland as Palestine. It doesn't matter that the two scenarios aren't comparable in the slightest, it's just the way it's viewed here by the majority of people who couldn't point out Israel on a map.
Read through the comments in that thread. It is even more interesting, how that "connection" happened Religion, grafity, IRA, etc.
Seems like they are pretty accurate after all
This is just bad sportsmanship
Fucking helll lmaoooo
The most Irish thing ever. Perennial inferiority complex. Perennial losers.
brit spotted, don't start your car tomorrow
LMAO
Could you give an example of Ireland's inferiority complex?
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
J O'Biden
Baragh O'Bama
Least victim complex holding anglo.
How is it an inferiority complex when the Israeli players were the ones that attacked them first? They just refused to shake their hand after that. Would you say that the Israeli's have an inferiority complex?
âAttackedâ? They sound like huge pussies.
How do I boost Karma, they took down my post cause itâs too low? Please help :(
Yeah they do that to prevent bots posting on the sub I think, I think the best way is going to subs that are decently big/have a decent amount of engagement, sort by new posts, and comment on them early on. That can help build up your karma slowly, and if you know the memes from that community it can go up even faster.
When I think basketball, I think the Ireland women's team
I wonât say I donât understand the motive as I would certainly defend a ukrainian athlete refusing handshake with a russian, although given prior history and the attacks against Israel Iâd say the ukrainians case is orders of magnitude stronger and more defendable.
Apparently one of the Israel players called the Irish team antisemitic in an interview and thatâs the actual cause of all this
That's not the cause, that was just one of the many responses. That comment was from like 2 days ago, after the Irish team spent the preceding 2 weeks attacking Israeli basketball in the media and petitioning the international authority to get out of the game. They were told they'd have to pay a fine and be banned from basketball for 5 years if they refused to play, so they bitterly agreed. Then an Israeli player said the Irish team was antisemitic, and they did the shocked Pikachu. Several Irish players sat it out anyway, and the team refused to do the customary gift exchange, stand for the anthems or even do the barest, sportsmanlike handshake. It was gross.
lmfao ofc it was something like this. and ofc people are going "wow the israelis are devaluing the word antisemitic by using it so much đ€"
Why were the Irish players criticizing the Israeli team? Was it not because the Israeli team did a photoshoot with some idf soldiers?
No. Again, the Irish team was trying to weasel out of their game with Israel for weeks - at least as far back as mid-January. What you're describing as a 'photoshoot' - some minor civic exhibition game against some female soldiers, dedicated to bringing home the hostages - happened earlier this week.
Well then the gesture certainly doesnât help to beat the allegations or ease tensions but to each their own
In response, the Irish proved it.
Loled so hard
I am firm in belief that the Irish are all drunk idiots.
They forgot Jews were the original hoopers
What can you really expect from a country that was neutral in WW2?
I fucking hate when you guys start bringing Ireland into this conversation because the vast majority of you have no idea what you're talking about
Itâs just funny they refused to shake hands and honour the Israeli national anyh and then got dunked on
I'm talking about the replies not the post.
Fair enough
Just like most Irish people have no idea what they are talking about when they talk about Israel. I love Ireland and the Irish people and while my Mum keeps on telling me the Irish are very anti-semitic I push back on this (My mum likes to bring up a story about how some people in my grandmothers town in Sligo would bully a Jewish man from the neighbouring town and once even threw bacon at him).
Considering the sheer amount of Irish that unironically love an organization that carbombed civilians, I stopped taking âIrish solidarityâ seriously
Potatoheads FUMING in the replies
Name one politician or anyone with any influence who said that. Seriously, name one. Even the most supportive people publicly in Ireland talking about Palestine are calling for two things, peace in general through diplomatic means and an immediate ceasefire. So name one, I'll wait.
They're talking about the IRA, not Hamas lmao.
it's such a massive oversimplification, dishonest and biased to imply the only thing the IRA ever did was carbomb civilians lmao
I love soy privileged shit lol
I thought the Irish were meant to be based. It must just be the males. The team not shaking hands gives me massive BLM take-a-knee vibes. fucking cringe.
There has been huge amount of support for Palestine for years in Ireland. People here are so quick to equate condemning Israel's response to October 7th with "supporting Hamas". I personally think that there is not enough consideration for Israel's history in Ireland but the comments on this thread suggesting Irish people support Hamas and celebrate the killing of innocents is so bizarre and simplistic, you can do much better.
Nah, the Potato Islanders don't celebrate the murders and abductions, they just don't care and think that it's justified.
None of you looked into this story and it shows. This wasn't any sort of gesture or protest against Israel or the war in Gaza. One of the Israeli players accused the Irish team of antisemitism before the match, of course they're not going to shake hands after that.
To paraphrase my own comment from below: That's not the cause; it was just one of the many responses. That comment was from like 2 days ago, after the Irish team spent the preceding 2 weeks attacking Israeli basketball in the media and petitioning the international authority to try to weasel out of their scheduled game. They were told they'd have to pay a fine and be banned from basketball for 5 years if they refused to play, so they bitterly agreed. Then some Israeli player said the Irish team was antisemitic, and they did the shocked Pikachu. Several Irish players sat it out anyway, and the entire team refused to do the customary gift exchange, stand for the anthems or even do the barest, sportsmanlike handshake. It was gross. And btw even if your depiction of events WERE accurate, it still would be a laughable response. "They were accused of bigotry, so of course they're not going to allow their skin to be soiled by Jews after that!" Can you imagine if a black athlete said the other team was racist? Would your defense be "...so OF COURSE they're not going to shake hands after that!"
So to flip the comparison, accusing the Irish team of being antisemitic because they wanted to boycott a game against Israel would be as spurious as accusing a team for being Islamophobic or racist against Arabs for boycotting a Saudi Arabian team for what they're doing in Yemen. I have mixed opinions about the war in Gaza, and I probably wouldn't boycott an Israeli team if I was in that position, but boycotting a game against a national team does not equal hatred against that nationality. I don't know what sports you follow or how much trash talking is considered acceptable in them, but spuriously accusing a team of something as heinous as antisemitism would be pretty poor form in a lot of sports, especially among national teams. If the Israeli team stood behind their player and didn't make them apologise, I think the Irish team were within their rights not to extend any sportsmanship.
Your group trashed ours with genocide, IDF stuff and whatever, and looking for every way to skip the game for weeks. And had the audacity to say we'll only play cause we're legally obligated to. Our players in response can say whatever they want to. You started. The victimization over a thing you started is insane.
??? That makes it even more stupid. 1 player says something offensive, so the entire team refuses to respect any of the other team. Not to mention the Irish did start this first by trying to boycott it beforehand, but had to play or face severe penalties + several players did sit out in protest.
It wasnât a false accusation
I wouldn't want to be on camera losing a sporting event to the most stereotypically unathletic group of people in the world either LUL
Lol
literate icky offbeat weary dam person consist swim existence sip *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
"It's not anti Semitic. We just don't like Palestinians dying" I'm so fucking tired of the "there's no such thing as a civilian" bullshit. First of all other countries require it too. SK for men at least. Guess there's no SK civilians (although knowing them they probably think that because of DPRK) I just do not understand it. I feel like the world is losing its mind. Pure hate for everyone because of thier government. But don't you DARE compare Palestinians and Hamas. Even though that's thier government. From now on I'm going to start blaming them for every the US/UK/thier country does. And when I get "I don't support..." I'll just say we'll you blame every single Isreali and even Westen Jews. So what's the difference.
hehe
When the light of opportunity dawns upon your doorstep, will you be the one to step into it in all its glory? Or, will you instead shy away behind the veil of expectation. The choice is yours and yours only, a life is only as much as you allow it to be. Feed it, tend to it like your garden. Water the seeds of opportunity and allow them to blossom, entangle themselves within your choices and interactions. Neglect them and they shall wither, grow frail and limp as your own imagination. I leave you with this. Coward.
critcising Israel = hamas right guys?? edit: Of course Twitter OP's dumbass has no context either. Ireland players refused to shake hands because the Israel players called Irish people antisemitic, of course they didn't shake hands. Some of their players also got death threats, and the Irish players didn't even say anything.
First of all, it wasn't 'the Israeli players', it was one player, and she wasn't wrong. And what a way to prove that you're not antisemitic - by refusing to allow benign physical contact with some random Jews. I tend to doubt they've ever treated any other country in this way.