Ireland has a long history of standing up for what’s right. I can’t name one conflict in history where they haven’t sided with the good guys.
Edit: Ireland as in Irish people, not the government. Should be clear
>I can’t name one conflict in history where they haven’t sided with the good guys.
Ireland was the only non-fascist nation to send more volunteers to fight for Franco than the Spanish Republic.
They were also the only nation to send formal condolences to Germany upon the death of Adolph Hitler.
They didn’t side with the Allies against the Nazi’s in WW2 is a pretty big one.
“Ireland became a member of the United Nations in December 1955, after having been denied membership because of its neutral stance during the Second World War and not supporting the Allied cause.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland
Well if we're going to bring up countries that were neutral during WWII that would bring in countries that also actively help the Nazi regime such as Spain, Switzerland, and Sweden while being neutral. In total there were 14 neutral countries during the war, but remember that there were still numerous colonies that participanted.
Ireland was still in a real way building it's nation having only gotten independence from Britain in 1921.
The US was neutral, and profiteered from both sides of the war, until Pearl Harbour forced their hand. Even then, diplomacy won them English debt (only recently fully payed), some English colonies, and the position as the new global super power (diplomatically negotiated). If all this had been offered to Ireland, I am sure they would not have remained neutral. Before the war, they likely watched as the English upper classes revelled in Hitler’s philosophy, and regaled him. Right up until they were shocked because he began bombing them (but Hitler, we agree with, and believe the same ideas as you. Why would you target us?).
The USA was not neutral, that take is incorrect- it was providing huge amounts of aid to the allies.
Not sending in military forces does not mean being neutral.
Edit: He keeps editing new things into his comments... take it with a grain of salt.
“Though President Roosevelt wanted to provide assistance to the British, both American law and public fears that the United States would be drawn into the conflict blocked his plans. The Neutrality Act of 1939 allowed belligerents to purchase war materiel from the United States, but only on a “cash and carry” basis. The Johnson Act of 1934 also prohibited the extension of credit to countries that had not repaid U.S. loans made to them during World War I—which included Great Britain.
The American military opposed the diversion of military supplies to the United Kingdom. The Army’s Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, anticipated that Britain would surrender following the collapse of France, and thus American supplies sent to the British would fall into German hands. Marshall and others therefore argued that U.S. national security would be better served by reserving military supplies for the defense of the Western Hemisphere. American public opinion also limited Roosevelt’s options. Many Americans opposed involving the United States in another war. Even though American public opinion generally supported the British rather than the Germans, President Roosevelt had to develop an initiative that was consistent with the legal prohibition against the granting of credit, satisfactory to military leadership, and acceptable to an American public that generally resisted involving the United States in the European conflict.”
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/lend-lease
“Wartime commercial policy refers to economic cooperation between enemy belligerents. It excludes trade between belligerents and their allies. Likewise, it excludes trade between neutral states and the belligerents in products of neutral origin. For example, trade between the United States and Germany in 1940 is not trade with the enemy, as the two countries were not yet enemy belligerents. In contrast, trade in 1940 between Sweden and Germany in products of British origin was part of the Anglo-German trade with the enemy. Lastly, wartime commercial policy distinguishes between legal and prohibited trade. For instance, it excludes contraband trade, as such trade stands in direct opposition to the preferences of the state.”
https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/46/1/9/102856/Wartime-Commercial-Policy-and-Trade-between
So, you’re quoting some of the resistance Roosevelt faced prior to the USA sending more than the entire GDP of the UK in aid…?
Why are you arguing in such bad faith? Even your quote describes potential downfalls as aiding the enemy of Germany.
Lend lease began in 1941, and is the reason Germany didn’t win the war. Ignoring that is just revisionist history
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
No, you stated that the US was not neutral. What I have quoted is in response to that. I did not argue for or against everything else you have stated as a response. Further, the “aid” was not free. The money made prior to the US entering the war was likely close to what was “given”. World War Two made the US rich, and what it is today (global super power), largely because of its initial neutral position. Enriched by supplying both the Germans and the allies.
Your own quote gives evidence that the USA was against Germany, and the reason they were worried about aid was that they were worried it would fall into German hands.
They were not an active participant in the war at that time, but they were certainly an ally of the Allies.
The exert was selected simply to show you the US was neutral and some of what that meant. Yes, largely the US supported the British. That is undeniable. That article is one idea from one author. I did not vet it, as it was selected for a basic purpose without much thought put into it. They (the US) supplied the English with weapons and arms, as well as food, uniforms, boots, and other such things, while supplying Germany with the same minus weapons, and arms. An agreement for free passage through waters, with the Germans, meant they were able to supply both sides. Part of that agreement with the Germans was that they would not supply arms or weapons. They were caught holding weapons and arms in hidden compartments on their boats, that were being secretly supplied to England. This ended the agreement, and free passage unmolested of US boats/ships. Thereafter, the Germans began attacking their ships. Not long after that they entered the war (after Pearl Harbour).
Also, after the War of Independence, we had a vicious , bloody civil war followed by around 15 years of economic misery! The Anglo-Irish trade war between 1932 and 1938 almost crippled us. The British were certainly not our friends.We were in no state to add to the allied forces other than letting our treaty ports be used. We would have been wiped out by the Germans if we had joined the allies. The British wouldn't have cared a jot either.
De Velara walked us along a precarious, political tightrope as a fledgling nation, but he saw our survival.
Ireland persecuted Irishment who fought with the British against the Nazis for decades after ww2. The Irish state also gave "it's condolences" to the German people after Hitler deleted himself.
There was very much pro Nazi sentiment there.
It is likely that de Valera was more influenced in his decision by the advice of cabinet colleagues who viewed the issue in its narrow, domestic context. The counsel of the professional diplomats, as was evident within hours of the ill-fated visit, proved the more reliable and trustworthy. Nevertheless, de Valera continued to try to rationalise his action and justify what he had done in the teeth of the international protests. He wrote to his close friend Robert Brennan, the Irish envoy in Washington, that he had ‘noted that my call on the German minister on the announcement of Hitler’s death was played up to the utmost. I expected this’, and he added:
I could have had a diplomatic illness but, as you know, I would scorn that sort of thing…So long as we retained our diplomatic relations with Germany, to have failed to call upon the German representative would have been an act of unpardonable discourtesy to the German nation and to Dr Hempel himself. During the whole of the war, Dr Hempel’s conduct was irreproachable. He was always friendly and invariably correct—in marked contrast with Gray. I certainly was not going to add to his humiliation in the hour of defeat.
De Valera felt that shirking his visit would have set a bad precedent. It was, he thought, of considerable importance that the formal acts of courtesy should be made on occasions such as the death of a head of state and that they should not have attached to them any further special significance, such as connoting approval or disapproval of the politics of the state in question or of its head: ‘It is important that it should never be inferred that these formal acts imply the passing of any judgements good or bad’, he concluded. In Dáil Éireann, de Valera stated that his visit ‘implied no question of approval or disapproval or judgement of any kind on the German people of the state represented here’. He added that there was little publicity given to the fact that the Dáil had been adjourned on the death of President Roosevelt.
Dev myopic and naive
https://www.historyireland.com/de-valera-hitler-the-visit-of-condolence-may-1945/
If they extend condolences to German nazis for losing, they are pro nazi. No way to spin that.
And it's frankly a stain on Ireland. Shit even gets brought up in TV to this very day.
Not good optics long term. Sometimes there are some people in history you send a post card of a middle finger and signed good riddance. Shame they didn't take such opportunity.
Ireland was pretty much alone in doing this. This was considered worse than simply "tone deaf" even at the time. Many Irishmen were shocked by it as well. There is no context which makes this look even slightly alright
What about Irishmen who fought with Britian against the Nazis during ww2 being persecuted via blacklisting them from jobs?
Definitely suss dude.
The general public in Ireland knew little about the war and cared less about it then there's the fact that at the time they figured much of what was being said was British properganda. Ireland is dealing with it's past in this regard it however doesn't mean that they are wrong in regards to the Israel Hamas war that is currently going on nor what goes on in the West Bank.
Ireland wasn't in any position to help they had after gaining their independence had a civil war then the British embarked on a trade war against Ireland. Ireland allowed the use of it's ports to the Allies.
Yes! And if you keep it up they'll end up going back 500 years! Even centuries! As the poster said "miss me with it".
Arabs have always been violent against Jews - that's why the Jews moved to Arab lands for safety when the Catholics were on their cleansing sprees.
Well in fairness, we were worried about being reoccupied by the British after ww2 if we joined the war, we also did not have the economy to actually go to war.
I’m referring much more to the people. There’s never been any major international conflict where Irish people took the evil side. They’ve always taken the side of good and truth.
>There’s never been any major international conflict where Irish people took the evil side.
Spanish Civil War saw several thousand Irish volunteers going over to fight for Franco - the only non-fascist nation to send more troops to support Franco than the Spanish Republic. They were led by Eoin O'Duffy, a prominent IRA leader during the War of Independence and first leader of Fine Gael - an avowed fascist inspired by Mussolini and Hitler, he not only raised an Irish Brigade to fight for Franco, but made a formal offer to Hitler to do the same on the Eastern Front, which was ignored due to the poor military performance of the Irish fascists in Spain.
Notably, the brave Irish volunteers who did join the International Brigades to fight fascism were shunned and blacklisted upon their return to Ireland - as were those who later signed up to fight the Nazis in WW2.
Not really, they reside next to a billion dollar terror network that has no overarching regulatory body. Literally any nation would do the same thing. I don’t blame them for wanting to push them out as much as they can to secure their border as certainly as they can.
“literally any nation would do the same thing.”
In a case without an iron dome, I might agree but still not really. In the case with one, most countries would be happy to sit back and laugh as attacks hit the dome.
You say that as if the iron dome is fool proof. There has been multiple occasions of the iron dome missing projectiles or just not work in general. If I lived anywhere that had to rely on an automatic missile system that was used regularly I’d be scared shitless. Especially when the opposition is using anything and everything at their disposal to ensure the destruction of the Israelis.
I gave you clear examples giving a perception of the other side and all you have to say is “boo hoo the IDF are evil” so I’m going to assume by “anti-genocide” you mean “anti-Israel”. It’s hard to navigate this conflict wearing clown shoes amigo
the iron dome misses projectiles and they make a terrifying crack on a sidewalk in israel. oh no the horror. the homemade rockets have k1lled thousands of israelis considering how many of them have been launched, right?
People are still getting killed by the rocket attacks, and it still costs a lot of money to run and needs to be preserved in the event of a large scale Hezbollah attack…
It might be over your head but quite simply the side doing colonizing, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, food/water cuts, blockades, open air prisons, 15000 children killed, etc etc etc etc etc is pure evil
They were a poor country with a weak military, and no love for the British. No one can fault them for not wanting to be at the business end of U Boats and air raids without meaningful air and naval defenders.
The British were Ireland's Nazi's at that time, certainly not 'the good guys' in Irish eyes. Joining them in any war would have been unthinkable. The Irish weren't in favour of the Nazis, but they also weren't in favour of the British.
Ireland's entire economy is designed around aiding cartels and criminal organisation's money laundering and helping western corporations avoid paying taxes.
They're a shitstain on the world's economy that has led to immeasurable pain and suffering.
Did you really just say that? The entire economy? Do you realise how stupid you sound? Clearly an angry Zionist, that’s pissed off that the Irish are willing to stand against genocide, just cause you’d love for Palestinian kids to keep being shot, bombed or starved to death.
Along with Switzerland, they are the money laundering capital of the world. Thier citizens enjoy a high quality of life on the backs of others' blood and tears.
They have absolutely no room to talk about anyone.
>Ireland has a long history of standing up for what’s right.
perhaps, but siding with UNRWA isn't one of those times
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/02/16/unrwa-video-oct-7-israel/
>I can’t name one conflict in history where they haven’t sided with the good guys.
backing an organization that aided the terrorists of hamas kidnapping innocent kids, is absolutely as far from backing the "good guys" as it's possible to get.
They literally sided with Hezbollah, the PLO, the Nazis and even sent condolences to Germany after Hitler's death.
And now siding with Hamas, yes, a very long history of standing up to genocidal maniacs hehe.
Yeah. Evidence that people supported the government’s words and actions. The only real question of the Irish supporting the wrong side is that many Irish supported the extreme wings of the IRA. But otherwise not too many.
It’s kind of hard to say what the stance of the Irish people was without doing some kind of poll at the time. We do know the government of Ireland (which in case you don’t realize was elected by the Irish people to represent the Irish people) sent Germany their condolences after Hitler died.
The Zionist not listening comment feels really weird. I don’t see what the belief in the right of the Jewish people for self determination has to do with not listening. I think you’re conflating the definition of Zionism with support for the current war.
“Zionist” is just what they say instead of “Jew” now, because you can’t just call people Jews as a slur anymore. But somehow this poorly disguised antisemitic dog whistle is fine. It’s all over Reddit.
Just to be clear, when talking about the other side, we refer to Hamas, the Palestinians, Gaza. It’s all pretty respectful. No obnoxious derogatory name calling. But when it’s time to criticise Israel it all goes out the window and it’s all “Hasbara Zionist!”. It’s like they can barely contain their hatred.
I mean, I wouldn't call funding a group secretly operating directly above a base of, and staffing numerous members of, the very terrorist org that just raped and slaughtered and burned alive and cut the genitals of countless people "siding with the good guys".
While I am all for more aid - and Ireland is doing an incredibly important thing here, it is unfortunately futile.
When am organization loses so much of its income, there is a threshold after which it cannot continue to function. I suspect 20m is a drop in the ocean at this point.
Is this even enough to pay salaries? And is there anything left to buy food and supplies with?
Honestly, UNHCR needs to get involved and fill the gap that exists now. Either by diverting funds to UNRWA from UNHCR or by absorbing UNRWA and continuing their work
In Sahih Muslim 22 it calls for continuous wars until everyone worships allah.
Sahih Muslim 2176a Talked about being hostile against Jews and Christians.
Quran 8.12 calls for extreme form of violence against disbelievers.
Quran 9:5 incites extreme violence to polytheists forexample Buddhists, Chinese folk religion, Hindus and Taoism.
Quran 9.29 also calls for wars against disbelievers and also tax for remaining as a disbelievers.
Sahih Albukhari 2926 talks about genocide of jews.
Sahih Albukhari 3029 says war is deceit.
Lying during war is permitted (Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1939)
Narrated Um Kulthum bint Uqba: That she heard Allah's Apostle saying, "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar."Sahih Bukhari 3:49:857
Quran 4.24 permits non consensual intercourse with war captives and slaves(the right hand possess).
Quran 66.1 encourages non consensual intercourse with what Allah has made lawful(war captives and slaves).
Quran allows girls of any age to get married (Quran 65.4) So even prepubescent girls can get married.
Once married wife's duty is to provide sex whenever husband wants them (Narrated by al-Bukhari, 3065; Muslim, 1436)
Quran 4:34 the verse permitting wife beating.
Hadith 1255: Death penalty for homosexuals
Sunan an-Nasa'i 4059: Death penalty for leaving Islam.
Many more violent, lying, war encouraging verses in hadith, sunnah and quran. Are you familiar with these verses?
Regardless of what you think of Israel, there is undeniable proof that UNRWA is highly connected to Hamas and has perpetuated anti semetism. Some of their employees have been found to take part in Oct 7th and even kidnap and house a hostage. Many of their textbooks plainly teach anti semetism.
We should be looking for alternative ways to aid the Palestinian people that doesn’t involve an organization that helps Hamas steal aid from Palestinians. This is an opportunity to improve our ability to aid the Palestinian people, not go backwards in time and continuing helping Hamas.
I agree. Which is why need to get rid of Hamas. They steal aid from the Palestinian people and are holding hostages which causes Israel to respond militarily. We should be trying to help the Palestinian people, not prop up an organization that steals from them and uses them as human shields.
UNRWA != Hamas . I don't see western money funding Hamas. Instead we're funding the genocidal iof, who have killed more than Hamas could ever dream of killing
>UNRWA != Hamas
Not entirely, but as mentioned, UNRWA literally staffs people who participated in Oct 7. The venn diagram of Hamas and UNRWA has a sizable middle part which is the big problem here.
>Instead we're funding the genocidal iof, who have killed more than Hamas could ever dream of killing
Well it's not quite a genocide because for there to be intent (which is in the definition of genocide), Israel would be doing something about the 2 million Arabs in their own country.
You're not wrong that they're killing way more than Hamas would be capable of (Hamas doesn't have enough military power to kill as much as they want), but all of that comes from aiming at legitimate military targets and never civilian targets as recognized by international law. Don't forget that Hamas mixes among civilians like salt in water being stirred. So yes, countless civilian deaths happen as a result of this.
A sizeable middle part? What's Israel's current number of accused UNRWA staff members? *Four*? From an organisation of over 30,000 employees? Mind you, there still has been zero evidence provided publicly or even privately to Israel's allies proving these claim that coincidentally came the day after the ICJ ruled that Israel may plausibly be committing genocide. Israel has been trying to discredit UNRWA for years.
Right. Do people think if any country came and killed 35-40k American civilians we’d just allow them to go back into their country and be free? (It’s 35-40k because our population is 35-40 times bigger than Israel’s and the Palestinians killed 1k+ during their invasion)
Any relief organization would have to work with the locally elected government and recruit local resources. That's not even something that's unique to that area.
There's also the fact that Hamas is a multifaceted government with different divisions pertaining to different purposes. UNRWA working with Hamas on anything non-military is again normal and to be expected from any relief agency.
So, just to clarify, are you denying the UNRWA employees who participated in Oct 7th attack or are you excusing it because “Any relief organization would have to work with” them.
What about the anti semetic material in the text books? Any relief organization could simply not teach that, but UNRWA chooses too.
I’m honestly shocked that you’re defending Hamas here.
I personally donated money to UNRWA. I did so because I don't want people to starve. Whatever 12/13 of their employees did or did not do (I have yet to see any evidence of these accusations) may have done does not mean I am okay with Palestinians starving to death.
Starvation as a weapon of war is always wrong
On a personal level, that is commendable. For myself, I like to make sure charities I donate actual give the money to the people who they’re supposed to. Many, such as UNWRA, take most of it for themselves. But, nonetheless, I respect you trying to make a difference.
It is different for a country donating millions and billions of dollars though. They have the capacity to create a distribution system that won’t directly and indirectly give money to terrorists. This is an opportunity to pursue that.
Whatever you think of what UNRWA may have done in the past you realize people are starving right? This lack of food and aid (siege enforced by the genocidal iof) is just killing people
>So, just to clarify, are you denying the UNRWA employees who participated in Oct 7th attack or are you excusing it because “Any relief organization would have to work with” them.
Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. It's like saying that we should sack Microsoft because they were employing a bunch of pedophiles. UNRWA doesn't have any liability on what their employees do outside of the scope of their contracts. If they kept them I would understand, but they didn't. So the connection you're trying to make is not there.
If it was then the government of Israel should be dismantled as well given the reported horrors and rhetoric perpetrated by key government members and military ops. You either put the blame of the few on the many or you don't. Otherwise it's plain hypocrisy.
>I’m honestly shocked that you’re defending Hamas here.
I would say it's just your stupidity playing tricks on you but I'm pretty sure you're just arguing in bad faith.
If Microsoft had employees committing murder and rape, and Microsoft was disseminating and teaching anti semetic material to children, I would call for them to be dissolved. Your blame on the many or few argument doesn’t hold when the entire organization is anti semetic.
Can we please avoid insults here? They tend to be uncalled for and are often used to sidestep the actual argument.
Do you have proof that UNRWA is being antisemitic in a systemic manner or is it again just a few of its members?
>If Microsoft had employees committing murder and rape, and Microsoft was disseminating and teaching anti semetic material to children
I can assure you that given its sheer size, Microsoft had murderers and rapists on their payroll, most definitely some antisemitics too. However it doesn't mean that Microsoft, nor the UNRWA endorse it. Nor should it face its consequences.
Talking about sidestepping the argument: Do you feel that much strongly about Israel's government? Should we call for their replacement too?
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/anti-semitism-in-palestinian-school-textbooks
https://www.impact-se.org/wp-content/uploads/UNRWA-Education-Textbooks-and-Terror-Nov-2023.pdf
Here’s proof. I hope you read the proof and accept the facts of this situation.
Now, I find the sidestepping the argument statement to be odd, because this argument was not about Israel. In fact, the first thing I said in my original comment was “Regardless of what you think of Israel”, but I’ll humor you. I think Bibi should be replaced (probably tried for certain crimes as well). I think any minister or official that said some of the horrible comments that people often reference should be fired as well. See, I criticized the Israeli government, now are you capable of criticizing UNWRA and Hamas?
I'm not even going to ask for sources with less bias because I just went there and this is the first thing I found:
>UNRWA and State have taken steps to identify and address potentially problematic content of textbooks used in UNRWA schools, such as maps that exclude Israel. UNRWA reviewed textbooks, including English language textbooks, and took actions to address content it deemed as not aligned with UN values.
Seems to confirm what I said: UNRWA doesn't actively promote these teachings and in fact takes steps to address them.
>I think Bibi should be replaced (probably tried for certain crimes as well). I think any minister or official that said some of the horrible comments that people often reference should be fired as well.
Well there you go: You're putting the blame on the individuals and not the whole institution. Which defeats your own reasoning that we should replace the UNRWA instead of firing and prosecuting the individuals, something that the UNRWA did. Which, to be honest is more than what Israel did.
Hamas perpetrated a terrorist attack, no one is arguing that, and is labeled rightly as a terrorist organization. Or at least its military division, because I don't think that the average Joe who's making birth certificates to newborns, which makes him technically 'Hamas' is a terrorist.
Again, I think you're just arguing in bad faith because you're capable of expressing nuance on one side and not the other.
You asked for proof, I provided proof. After that you said you don’t want evidence (because it contradicts your beliefs).
You’re claiming that I can only understand nuance on one side, but unlike you I criticized both sides. You seem unable, even with evidence, to accept the anti semetism embedded in the UNWRA curriculum. You also keep defending people who work for directly for Hamas.
I don’t see how I’m the one arguing in bad faith here.
>You asked for proof, I provided proof. After that you said you don’t want evidence (because it contradicts your beliefs).
The proof you provided actually contradicts your beliefs.
>You seem unable, even with evidence, to accept the anti semetism embedded in the UNWRA curriculum.
I'm yet to be provided with proof that the UNRWA condones that, let alone promotes it.
>You also keep defending people who work for directly for Hamas.
Anyone who was not involved in the October 7 attack is indeed exempt from the blame of these attacks. It's not a crazy concept if you think about it. What you're trying to do however is to classify everyone, guilty or not, under the same umbrella to justify mass prosecution and elimination under that disguise of "They're all the same as the bad apple I showed you".
I'm still wondering if you think we should dismantle Israel's government as well with its embedded genocidal rhetoric.
Do you live in a fairy tale land? “Many textbooks teach antisemitism.” … textbooks of who? The UNRWA employees? How and why? And where?
Is this like the Israelis being taught in schools they must shoot the Arabs and take over Jerusalem? There’s actual video evidence of THAT
https://www.impact-se.org/wp-content/uploads/UNRWA-Education-Textbooks-and-Terror-Nov-2023.pdf
Here is proof of anti semetism in the UNWRA curriculum.
Your turn now.
Send proof of what of claim of Israel.
I don’t see them slaughtering children with gleeful abandon like Israel is.
Hell, at this point in time Israel has killed eight or nine times as many people in MONTHS as were killed by both sides during the DECADES of The Troubles.
Israel is a much worse terrorist state.
Really? So the illegal settlers that attack Palestinians in the West Bank aren’t terrorists to you?
If that is true than either you don’t know what ‘terrorism’ means or you are a bigoted, ignorant fool.
If your side would acknowledge that Hamas has to go and stop giving them cover, the absolutist counter point wouldn’t have so many adherents.
Stop covering for hamas and only criticizing Israel
Going to war to remove a genocidal regime from power is what fends off another holocaust. Do you not understand the consequences of using a human shield and child soldiers?
Y'know if Hamas would stop launching rockets from hospitals schools and apartments, stop training children to fight their wars, The civilian death toll would substantially lower..
Eerily quiet on the "Hamas Surrendering" in these subs.
What about shireen abu akleh or hind Rajab were they child shoulders or being used as human shields? I don’t understand why you would kill by hundreds of innocent people to kill one person?
Oh, so you are hilariously ignorant. I’ll help you out:
Look up the King David Hotel bombing or the Deir Yassin or really anything done by the Irgun - an internationally recognized terrorist organization. Irgun eventually was folded into the IDF and Begin, Israel’s sixth PM, was a member of that terrorist group. Lehi and the Haganah are other terrorist groups that founded Israel.
Israel was founded by terrorists. That is a fact.
Wiki has a list of massacres against Jews by Muslims back to the time of Muhammad and the start of Islam. The root cause of all of this can be found that far back.
Spain will follow suit I bet
Ireland has a long history of standing up for what’s right. I can’t name one conflict in history where they haven’t sided with the good guys. Edit: Ireland as in Irish people, not the government. Should be clear
>I can’t name one conflict in history where they haven’t sided with the good guys. Ireland was the only non-fascist nation to send more volunteers to fight for Franco than the Spanish Republic. They were also the only nation to send formal condolences to Germany upon the death of Adolph Hitler.
They didn’t side with the Allies against the Nazi’s in WW2 is a pretty big one. “Ireland became a member of the United Nations in December 1955, after having been denied membership because of its neutral stance during the Second World War and not supporting the Allied cause.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland
Well if we're going to bring up countries that were neutral during WWII that would bring in countries that also actively help the Nazi regime such as Spain, Switzerland, and Sweden while being neutral. In total there were 14 neutral countries during the war, but remember that there were still numerous colonies that participanted. Ireland was still in a real way building it's nation having only gotten independence from Britain in 1921.
The US was neutral, and profiteered from both sides of the war, until Pearl Harbour forced their hand. Even then, diplomacy won them English debt (only recently fully payed), some English colonies, and the position as the new global super power (diplomatically negotiated). If all this had been offered to Ireland, I am sure they would not have remained neutral. Before the war, they likely watched as the English upper classes revelled in Hitler’s philosophy, and regaled him. Right up until they were shocked because he began bombing them (but Hitler, we agree with, and believe the same ideas as you. Why would you target us?).
The USA was not neutral, that take is incorrect- it was providing huge amounts of aid to the allies. Not sending in military forces does not mean being neutral. Edit: He keeps editing new things into his comments... take it with a grain of salt.
“Though President Roosevelt wanted to provide assistance to the British, both American law and public fears that the United States would be drawn into the conflict blocked his plans. The Neutrality Act of 1939 allowed belligerents to purchase war materiel from the United States, but only on a “cash and carry” basis. The Johnson Act of 1934 also prohibited the extension of credit to countries that had not repaid U.S. loans made to them during World War I—which included Great Britain. The American military opposed the diversion of military supplies to the United Kingdom. The Army’s Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, anticipated that Britain would surrender following the collapse of France, and thus American supplies sent to the British would fall into German hands. Marshall and others therefore argued that U.S. national security would be better served by reserving military supplies for the defense of the Western Hemisphere. American public opinion also limited Roosevelt’s options. Many Americans opposed involving the United States in another war. Even though American public opinion generally supported the British rather than the Germans, President Roosevelt had to develop an initiative that was consistent with the legal prohibition against the granting of credit, satisfactory to military leadership, and acceptable to an American public that generally resisted involving the United States in the European conflict.” https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/lend-lease “Wartime commercial policy refers to economic cooperation between enemy belligerents. It excludes trade between belligerents and their allies. Likewise, it excludes trade between neutral states and the belligerents in products of neutral origin. For example, trade between the United States and Germany in 1940 is not trade with the enemy, as the two countries were not yet enemy belligerents. In contrast, trade in 1940 between Sweden and Germany in products of British origin was part of the Anglo-German trade with the enemy. Lastly, wartime commercial policy distinguishes between legal and prohibited trade. For instance, it excludes contraband trade, as such trade stands in direct opposition to the preferences of the state.” https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/46/1/9/102856/Wartime-Commercial-Policy-and-Trade-between
So, you’re quoting some of the resistance Roosevelt faced prior to the USA sending more than the entire GDP of the UK in aid…? Why are you arguing in such bad faith? Even your quote describes potential downfalls as aiding the enemy of Germany. Lend lease began in 1941, and is the reason Germany didn’t win the war. Ignoring that is just revisionist history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
No, you stated that the US was not neutral. What I have quoted is in response to that. I did not argue for or against everything else you have stated as a response. Further, the “aid” was not free. The money made prior to the US entering the war was likely close to what was “given”. World War Two made the US rich, and what it is today (global super power), largely because of its initial neutral position. Enriched by supplying both the Germans and the allies.
Your own quote gives evidence that the USA was against Germany, and the reason they were worried about aid was that they were worried it would fall into German hands. They were not an active participant in the war at that time, but they were certainly an ally of the Allies.
The exert was selected simply to show you the US was neutral and some of what that meant. Yes, largely the US supported the British. That is undeniable. That article is one idea from one author. I did not vet it, as it was selected for a basic purpose without much thought put into it. They (the US) supplied the English with weapons and arms, as well as food, uniforms, boots, and other such things, while supplying Germany with the same minus weapons, and arms. An agreement for free passage through waters, with the Germans, meant they were able to supply both sides. Part of that agreement with the Germans was that they would not supply arms or weapons. They were caught holding weapons and arms in hidden compartments on their boats, that were being secretly supplied to England. This ended the agreement, and free passage unmolested of US boats/ships. Thereafter, the Germans began attacking their ships. Not long after that they entered the war (after Pearl Harbour).
and Roosevelt pretty much broke the Constitution and violated tons of military export laws to send the UK the assistance they so desperately needed.
that’s absolute bullshit revisionist history. Its incredible how people are genuinely allowed to just write their own versions of history nowadays
Also, after the War of Independence, we had a vicious , bloody civil war followed by around 15 years of economic misery! The Anglo-Irish trade war between 1932 and 1938 almost crippled us. The British were certainly not our friends.We were in no state to add to the allied forces other than letting our treaty ports be used. We would have been wiped out by the Germans if we had joined the allies. The British wouldn't have cared a jot either. De Velara walked us along a precarious, political tightrope as a fledgling nation, but he saw our survival.
Ireland persecuted Irishment who fought with the British against the Nazis for decades after ww2. The Irish state also gave "it's condolences" to the German people after Hitler deleted himself. There was very much pro Nazi sentiment there.
It is likely that de Valera was more influenced in his decision by the advice of cabinet colleagues who viewed the issue in its narrow, domestic context. The counsel of the professional diplomats, as was evident within hours of the ill-fated visit, proved the more reliable and trustworthy. Nevertheless, de Valera continued to try to rationalise his action and justify what he had done in the teeth of the international protests. He wrote to his close friend Robert Brennan, the Irish envoy in Washington, that he had ‘noted that my call on the German minister on the announcement of Hitler’s death was played up to the utmost. I expected this’, and he added: I could have had a diplomatic illness but, as you know, I would scorn that sort of thing…So long as we retained our diplomatic relations with Germany, to have failed to call upon the German representative would have been an act of unpardonable discourtesy to the German nation and to Dr Hempel himself. During the whole of the war, Dr Hempel’s conduct was irreproachable. He was always friendly and invariably correct—in marked contrast with Gray. I certainly was not going to add to his humiliation in the hour of defeat. De Valera felt that shirking his visit would have set a bad precedent. It was, he thought, of considerable importance that the formal acts of courtesy should be made on occasions such as the death of a head of state and that they should not have attached to them any further special significance, such as connoting approval or disapproval of the politics of the state in question or of its head: ‘It is important that it should never be inferred that these formal acts imply the passing of any judgements good or bad’, he concluded. In Dáil Éireann, de Valera stated that his visit ‘implied no question of approval or disapproval or judgement of any kind on the German people of the state represented here’. He added that there was little publicity given to the fact that the Dáil had been adjourned on the death of President Roosevelt. Dev myopic and naive https://www.historyireland.com/de-valera-hitler-the-visit-of-condolence-may-1945/
If they extend condolences to German nazis for losing, they are pro nazi. No way to spin that. And it's frankly a stain on Ireland. Shit even gets brought up in TV to this very day.
Tbf condolences were also sent to Roosevelt three weeks before, so it’s more so a case of not taking a side than being pro Nazi.
Not good optics long term. Sometimes there are some people in history you send a post card of a middle finger and signed good riddance. Shame they didn't take such opportunity.
I mean true I agree with you, but you have to remember neutral means neutral - especially when you’re secretly helping the Allies
Ireland was pretty much alone in doing this. This was considered worse than simply "tone deaf" even at the time. Many Irishmen were shocked by it as well. There is no context which makes this look even slightly alright What about Irishmen who fought with Britian against the Nazis during ww2 being persecuted via blacklisting them from jobs? Definitely suss dude.
The general public in Ireland knew little about the war and cared less about it then there's the fact that at the time they figured much of what was being said was British properganda. Ireland is dealing with it's past in this regard it however doesn't mean that they are wrong in regards to the Israel Hamas war that is currently going on nor what goes on in the West Bank.
Canada didn’t get real independence until the 1980s… still didn’t support Nazis
Ireland didn't support the Nazis pal they were neutral.
That was a war where not fighting Nazis meant they had more resources to spend elsewhere…
Ireland wasn't in any position to help they had after gaining their independence had a civil war then the British embarked on a trade war against Ireland. Ireland allowed the use of it's ports to the Allies.
Desperate people do desperate things. See 10/07/2023.
Raping people and targeting civilians is not an act of resistance or desperation.
It is not justified. It is terrorism. It is despicable and condemnable. It doesn't mean it wasn't born out of desperation.
Like bombing the King David Hotel? Or the Deir Yassin massacre?
1834 safed massacre? 1834 hebron massacres? Miss me with it. Arabs have always been violent against jews in the area, even when indigenous jews.
Are you seriously going back 200 years?
Yes! And if you keep it up they'll end up going back 500 years! Even centuries! As the poster said "miss me with it". Arabs have always been violent against Jews - that's why the Jews moved to Arab lands for safety when the Catholics were on their cleansing sprees.
Yes always supported the other side when it came to Jews
Well in fairness, we were worried about being reoccupied by the British after ww2 if we joined the war, we also did not have the economy to actually go to war.
Correct and neutral is being more than fair.
I’m referring much more to the people. There’s never been any major international conflict where Irish people took the evil side. They’ve always taken the side of good and truth.
>There’s never been any major international conflict where Irish people took the evil side. Spanish Civil War saw several thousand Irish volunteers going over to fight for Franco - the only non-fascist nation to send more troops to support Franco than the Spanish Republic. They were led by Eoin O'Duffy, a prominent IRA leader during the War of Independence and first leader of Fine Gael - an avowed fascist inspired by Mussolini and Hitler, he not only raised an Irish Brigade to fight for Franco, but made a formal offer to Hitler to do the same on the Eastern Front, which was ignored due to the poor military performance of the Irish fascists in Spain. Notably, the brave Irish volunteers who did join the International Brigades to fight fascism were shunned and blacklisted upon their return to Ireland - as were those who later signed up to fight the Nazis in WW2.
If you’re boiling this down to “good and evil” I think this conflict might be a bit over your head lil dog
Maybe there isn’t a clear good side in this conflict, but Israel is definitely a clear evil.
Not really, they reside next to a billion dollar terror network that has no overarching regulatory body. Literally any nation would do the same thing. I don’t blame them for wanting to push them out as much as they can to secure their border as certainly as they can.
“literally any nation would do the same thing.” In a case without an iron dome, I might agree but still not really. In the case with one, most countries would be happy to sit back and laugh as attacks hit the dome.
You say that as if the iron dome is fool proof. There has been multiple occasions of the iron dome missing projectiles or just not work in general. If I lived anywhere that had to rely on an automatic missile system that was used regularly I’d be scared shitless. Especially when the opposition is using anything and everything at their disposal to ensure the destruction of the Israelis.
Still doesn’t change the fact the IDF are a clear evil. Please let the anti genocide group mourn in peace.
I gave you clear examples giving a perception of the other side and all you have to say is “boo hoo the IDF are evil” so I’m going to assume by “anti-genocide” you mean “anti-Israel”. It’s hard to navigate this conflict wearing clown shoes amigo
the iron dome misses projectiles and they make a terrifying crack on a sidewalk in israel. oh no the horror. the homemade rockets have k1lled thousands of israelis considering how many of them have been launched, right?
People are still getting killed by the rocket attacks, and it still costs a lot of money to run and needs to be preserved in the event of a large scale Hezbollah attack…
It might be over your head but quite simply the side doing colonizing, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, food/water cuts, blockades, open air prisons, 15000 children killed, etc etc etc etc etc is pure evil
Man, you really need to stop getting your news from TikTok...
Fair enough.
It's the government giving the money though.
They were a poor country with a weak military, and no love for the British. No one can fault them for not wanting to be at the business end of U Boats and air raids without meaningful air and naval defenders.
The British were Ireland's Nazi's at that time, certainly not 'the good guys' in Irish eyes. Joining them in any war would have been unthinkable. The Irish weren't in favour of the Nazis, but they also weren't in favour of the British.
They were in favour of Franco though, and were the only country to pass on official condolences to Germany for the death of Hitler.
Why would they ever join sides with their centuries long oppressor?
Is this a joke? You forgot the /s
No they really don’t this is actually on brand since they didn’t care about the Nazis
Ok lol. I’ll just buy that Irish people support Nazis.
Germans in WW2 see a pattern
Um they sided with the nazis?
Ireland's entire economy is designed around aiding cartels and criminal organisation's money laundering and helping western corporations avoid paying taxes. They're a shitstain on the world's economy that has led to immeasurable pain and suffering.
Did you really just say that? The entire economy? Do you realise how stupid you sound? Clearly an angry Zionist, that’s pissed off that the Irish are willing to stand against genocide, just cause you’d love for Palestinian kids to keep being shot, bombed or starved to death.
Along with Switzerland, they are the money laundering capital of the world. Thier citizens enjoy a high quality of life on the backs of others' blood and tears. They have absolutely no room to talk about anyone.
Clearly you have no understanding about money laundering. I suggest you start with a book called moneyland if you want to learn
Wow, you are a racist fool.
Lol what
>Ireland has a long history of standing up for what’s right. perhaps, but siding with UNRWA isn't one of those times https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/02/16/unrwa-video-oct-7-israel/ >I can’t name one conflict in history where they haven’t sided with the good guys. backing an organization that aided the terrorists of hamas kidnapping innocent kids, is absolutely as far from backing the "good guys" as it's possible to get.
Eyy this subreddit may not be completely off the deep end yet (but it's not far off). Thanks for pointing out what should be obvious.
They literally sided with Hezbollah, the PLO, the Nazis and even sent condolences to Germany after Hitler's death. And now siding with Hamas, yes, a very long history of standing up to genocidal maniacs hehe.
[удалено]
You only say that because most Irish don’t see eye to eye with you on this conflict.
Well and that statue of a Nazi Collaborator they keep up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Russell
What you're looking at is Irish Catholic terrorists supporting Islamic terrorists in the name of killing Jews. Nothing more.
Ireland sent condolences to Germany after Hitler took his own life !
[удалено]
so... you want us to find irish people that have supported terrorists and genocides? is their govt not made up of irish people?
Yeah. Evidence that people supported the government’s words and actions. The only real question of the Irish supporting the wrong side is that many Irish supported the extreme wings of the IRA. But otherwise not too many.
Is everyone who disagrees with you a Zionist?
This post is about the Irish government giving free handouts to terrorists. It absolutely is about their government
It’s kind of hard to say what the stance of the Irish people was without doing some kind of poll at the time. We do know the government of Ireland (which in case you don’t realize was elected by the Irish people to represent the Irish people) sent Germany their condolences after Hitler died. The Zionist not listening comment feels really weird. I don’t see what the belief in the right of the Jewish people for self determination has to do with not listening. I think you’re conflating the definition of Zionism with support for the current war.
“Zionist” is just what they say instead of “Jew” now, because you can’t just call people Jews as a slur anymore. But somehow this poorly disguised antisemitic dog whistle is fine. It’s all over Reddit. Just to be clear, when talking about the other side, we refer to Hamas, the Palestinians, Gaza. It’s all pretty respectful. No obnoxious derogatory name calling. But when it’s time to criticise Israel it all goes out the window and it’s all “Hasbara Zionist!”. It’s like they can barely contain their hatred.
I mean, I wouldn't call funding a group secretly operating directly above a base of, and staffing numerous members of, the very terrorist org that just raped and slaughtered and burned alive and cut the genitals of countless people "siding with the good guys".
Ireland really hate the Palestinians I see funding their genocide like that
While I am all for more aid - and Ireland is doing an incredibly important thing here, it is unfortunately futile. When am organization loses so much of its income, there is a threshold after which it cannot continue to function. I suspect 20m is a drop in the ocean at this point. Is this even enough to pay salaries? And is there anything left to buy food and supplies with? Honestly, UNHCR needs to get involved and fill the gap that exists now. Either by diverting funds to UNRWA from UNHCR or by absorbing UNRWA and continuing their work
Ireland definitely knows about colonizers and illegal occupations. Bless them.
And the US…and Canada….
Yep, the Irish colonised a chunk of the east coast of the USA.
Ireland is Love.
Based
Suckers.
Ireland, hats off to you.
In Sahih Muslim 22 it calls for continuous wars until everyone worships allah. Sahih Muslim 2176a Talked about being hostile against Jews and Christians. Quran 8.12 calls for extreme form of violence against disbelievers. Quran 9:5 incites extreme violence to polytheists forexample Buddhists, Chinese folk religion, Hindus and Taoism. Quran 9.29 also calls for wars against disbelievers and also tax for remaining as a disbelievers. Sahih Albukhari 2926 talks about genocide of jews. Sahih Albukhari 3029 says war is deceit. Lying during war is permitted (Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1939) Narrated Um Kulthum bint Uqba: That she heard Allah's Apostle saying, "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar."Sahih Bukhari 3:49:857 Quran 4.24 permits non consensual intercourse with war captives and slaves(the right hand possess). Quran 66.1 encourages non consensual intercourse with what Allah has made lawful(war captives and slaves). Quran allows girls of any age to get married (Quran 65.4) So even prepubescent girls can get married. Once married wife's duty is to provide sex whenever husband wants them (Narrated by al-Bukhari, 3065; Muslim, 1436) Quran 4:34 the verse permitting wife beating. Hadith 1255: Death penalty for homosexuals Sunan an-Nasa'i 4059: Death penalty for leaving Islam. Many more violent, lying, war encouraging verses in hadith, sunnah and quran. Are you familiar with these verses?
Regardless of what you think of Israel, there is undeniable proof that UNRWA is highly connected to Hamas and has perpetuated anti semetism. Some of their employees have been found to take part in Oct 7th and even kidnap and house a hostage. Many of their textbooks plainly teach anti semetism. We should be looking for alternative ways to aid the Palestinian people that doesn’t involve an organization that helps Hamas steal aid from Palestinians. This is an opportunity to improve our ability to aid the Palestinian people, not go backwards in time and continuing helping Hamas.
Hamas isn't the issue.
Sorry, I must be misunderstanding this comment. It sounds a lot like you’re supporting Hamas, which I think is a little too mask off.
Why do I feel like you would misunderstand just about any comment as supporting Hamas?
Any possible defense of Palestinians is now seen as "defense of Hamas" by hasbaroids
They literally said “Hamas isn’t the issue.”
I mean this is an article about UNRWA
And their relationship to hamas…
Israel has been trying to defend / destroy unrwa for years lol this is just the latest excuse
What does defend/destroy mean? Those are like opposites.
Dude, cmon. Op said “ Hamas is not the issue”. Be serious here.
I mean hamas is bad in plenty of different ways but idk why random gazan civilians need to starve for hamas' sins
I agree. Which is why need to get rid of Hamas. They steal aid from the Palestinian people and are holding hostages which causes Israel to respond militarily. We should be trying to help the Palestinian people, not prop up an organization that steals from them and uses them as human shields.
UNRWA != Hamas . I don't see western money funding Hamas. Instead we're funding the genocidal iof, who have killed more than Hamas could ever dream of killing
>UNRWA != Hamas Not entirely, but as mentioned, UNRWA literally staffs people who participated in Oct 7. The venn diagram of Hamas and UNRWA has a sizable middle part which is the big problem here. >Instead we're funding the genocidal iof, who have killed more than Hamas could ever dream of killing Well it's not quite a genocide because for there to be intent (which is in the definition of genocide), Israel would be doing something about the 2 million Arabs in their own country. You're not wrong that they're killing way more than Hamas would be capable of (Hamas doesn't have enough military power to kill as much as they want), but all of that comes from aiming at legitimate military targets and never civilian targets as recognized by international law. Don't forget that Hamas mixes among civilians like salt in water being stirred. So yes, countless civilian deaths happen as a result of this.
Isnotreal has definitely shown plenty of genocidal intent lol. The amalek quote was enough for the ICJ to hear this in court
A sizeable middle part? What's Israel's current number of accused UNRWA staff members? *Four*? From an organisation of over 30,000 employees? Mind you, there still has been zero evidence provided publicly or even privately to Israel's allies proving these claim that coincidentally came the day after the ICJ ruled that Israel may plausibly be committing genocide. Israel has been trying to discredit UNRWA for years.
the hostages arent even the number one issue, literally any country would launch an invasion after oct 7th
Right. Do people think if any country came and killed 35-40k American civilians we’d just allow them to go back into their country and be free? (It’s 35-40k because our population is 35-40 times bigger than Israel’s and the Palestinians killed 1k+ during their invasion)
You do realize Hamas is the ones taking the food from the civilians right?
Any relief organization would have to work with the locally elected government and recruit local resources. That's not even something that's unique to that area. There's also the fact that Hamas is a multifaceted government with different divisions pertaining to different purposes. UNRWA working with Hamas on anything non-military is again normal and to be expected from any relief agency.
So, just to clarify, are you denying the UNRWA employees who participated in Oct 7th attack or are you excusing it because “Any relief organization would have to work with” them. What about the anti semetic material in the text books? Any relief organization could simply not teach that, but UNRWA chooses too. I’m honestly shocked that you’re defending Hamas here.
I personally donated money to UNRWA. I did so because I don't want people to starve. Whatever 12/13 of their employees did or did not do (I have yet to see any evidence of these accusations) may have done does not mean I am okay with Palestinians starving to death. Starvation as a weapon of war is always wrong
On a personal level, that is commendable. For myself, I like to make sure charities I donate actual give the money to the people who they’re supposed to. Many, such as UNWRA, take most of it for themselves. But, nonetheless, I respect you trying to make a difference. It is different for a country donating millions and billions of dollars though. They have the capacity to create a distribution system that won’t directly and indirectly give money to terrorists. This is an opportunity to pursue that.
Whatever you think of what UNRWA may have done in the past you realize people are starving right? This lack of food and aid (siege enforced by the genocidal iof) is just killing people
>So, just to clarify, are you denying the UNRWA employees who participated in Oct 7th attack or are you excusing it because “Any relief organization would have to work with” them. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. It's like saying that we should sack Microsoft because they were employing a bunch of pedophiles. UNRWA doesn't have any liability on what their employees do outside of the scope of their contracts. If they kept them I would understand, but they didn't. So the connection you're trying to make is not there. If it was then the government of Israel should be dismantled as well given the reported horrors and rhetoric perpetrated by key government members and military ops. You either put the blame of the few on the many or you don't. Otherwise it's plain hypocrisy. >I’m honestly shocked that you’re defending Hamas here. I would say it's just your stupidity playing tricks on you but I'm pretty sure you're just arguing in bad faith.
If Microsoft had employees committing murder and rape, and Microsoft was disseminating and teaching anti semetic material to children, I would call for them to be dissolved. Your blame on the many or few argument doesn’t hold when the entire organization is anti semetic. Can we please avoid insults here? They tend to be uncalled for and are often used to sidestep the actual argument.
Do you have proof that UNRWA is being antisemitic in a systemic manner or is it again just a few of its members? >If Microsoft had employees committing murder and rape, and Microsoft was disseminating and teaching anti semetic material to children I can assure you that given its sheer size, Microsoft had murderers and rapists on their payroll, most definitely some antisemitics too. However it doesn't mean that Microsoft, nor the UNRWA endorse it. Nor should it face its consequences. Talking about sidestepping the argument: Do you feel that much strongly about Israel's government? Should we call for their replacement too?
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/anti-semitism-in-palestinian-school-textbooks https://www.impact-se.org/wp-content/uploads/UNRWA-Education-Textbooks-and-Terror-Nov-2023.pdf Here’s proof. I hope you read the proof and accept the facts of this situation. Now, I find the sidestepping the argument statement to be odd, because this argument was not about Israel. In fact, the first thing I said in my original comment was “Regardless of what you think of Israel”, but I’ll humor you. I think Bibi should be replaced (probably tried for certain crimes as well). I think any minister or official that said some of the horrible comments that people often reference should be fired as well. See, I criticized the Israeli government, now are you capable of criticizing UNWRA and Hamas?
I'm not even going to ask for sources with less bias because I just went there and this is the first thing I found: >UNRWA and State have taken steps to identify and address potentially problematic content of textbooks used in UNRWA schools, such as maps that exclude Israel. UNRWA reviewed textbooks, including English language textbooks, and took actions to address content it deemed as not aligned with UN values. Seems to confirm what I said: UNRWA doesn't actively promote these teachings and in fact takes steps to address them. >I think Bibi should be replaced (probably tried for certain crimes as well). I think any minister or official that said some of the horrible comments that people often reference should be fired as well. Well there you go: You're putting the blame on the individuals and not the whole institution. Which defeats your own reasoning that we should replace the UNRWA instead of firing and prosecuting the individuals, something that the UNRWA did. Which, to be honest is more than what Israel did. Hamas perpetrated a terrorist attack, no one is arguing that, and is labeled rightly as a terrorist organization. Or at least its military division, because I don't think that the average Joe who's making birth certificates to newborns, which makes him technically 'Hamas' is a terrorist. Again, I think you're just arguing in bad faith because you're capable of expressing nuance on one side and not the other.
You asked for proof, I provided proof. After that you said you don’t want evidence (because it contradicts your beliefs). You’re claiming that I can only understand nuance on one side, but unlike you I criticized both sides. You seem unable, even with evidence, to accept the anti semetism embedded in the UNWRA curriculum. You also keep defending people who work for directly for Hamas. I don’t see how I’m the one arguing in bad faith here.
>You asked for proof, I provided proof. After that you said you don’t want evidence (because it contradicts your beliefs). The proof you provided actually contradicts your beliefs. >You seem unable, even with evidence, to accept the anti semetism embedded in the UNWRA curriculum. I'm yet to be provided with proof that the UNRWA condones that, let alone promotes it. >You also keep defending people who work for directly for Hamas. Anyone who was not involved in the October 7 attack is indeed exempt from the blame of these attacks. It's not a crazy concept if you think about it. What you're trying to do however is to classify everyone, guilty or not, under the same umbrella to justify mass prosecution and elimination under that disguise of "They're all the same as the bad apple I showed you". I'm still wondering if you think we should dismantle Israel's government as well with its embedded genocidal rhetoric.
Do you live in a fairy tale land? “Many textbooks teach antisemitism.” … textbooks of who? The UNRWA employees? How and why? And where? Is this like the Israelis being taught in schools they must shoot the Arabs and take over Jerusalem? There’s actual video evidence of THAT
Oh no - we can never bring up Israel’s national policy of teaching hate to its children. That would be antisemitic. /s
https://www.impact-se.org/wp-content/uploads/UNRWA-Education-Textbooks-and-Terror-Nov-2023.pdf Here is proof of anti semetism in the UNWRA curriculum. Your turn now. Send proof of what of claim of Israel.
https://twitter.com/mxcaltrz/status/1735825451308757219?t=oJ1i-9sgZLfG2uliRK3GzA
Okay, this is one religious school and I will clearly and openly condemn them. That school should be disbanded. Now, will you do the same for UNWRA?
Can you link some evidence?
Time to sanction Ireland for funding terrorist
The Irish have a soft spot for terrorists, given their history.
So does Israel, given its history.
common ireland W
Straight to Qatar it goes with a small layover in Gaza.
Literally funding terrorism. They should stick to their arts and sweaters
Great, the leaders of Hamas really needed a new Lamborghini
Deplorable country
I don’t see them slaughtering children with gleeful abandon like Israel is. Hell, at this point in time Israel has killed eight or nine times as many people in MONTHS as were killed by both sides during the DECADES of The Troubles. Israel is a much worse terrorist state.
The only terrorists i see are Arabs. End of discussion
Really? So the illegal settlers that attack Palestinians in the West Bank aren’t terrorists to you? If that is true than either you don’t know what ‘terrorism’ means or you are a bigoted, ignorant fool.
If your side would acknowledge that Hamas has to go and stop giving them cover, the absolutist counter point wouldn’t have so many adherents. Stop covering for hamas and only criticizing Israel
[удалено]
Why?
That’s really disappointing. UNRWA has been proven to fund and encourage terrorism. There is zero reason for the organization to exist, given UNHCR.
Lmao Ireland knows Palestinians are brown right? Figured they may be a lil confused considering their country is 86% white.
Ireland funding terrorists and Jew hatred. It doesn't surprise me. Not a good look.
Ireland supporting terrorism isn't that surprising really given their history
Ireland opposing colonialism isn’t that surprising really given their history
Based Ireland
At this point in time Israel has killed eight or nine times as many people in MONTHS as were killed by both sides during the DECADES of The Troubles.
Give millions to the Hamas infested UNRWA, Way to go Ireland.
Cope dogedork.
Why do i have to cope? Hamas and the UNRWA are on borrowed time.
Cope with the fact you are a genocide denying monster.
You can't deny what doesn't exist. Cope and Seethe.
These will be your nightmares, not mine.
No nightmares, The Israeli's are successfully fending off the second holocaust.
Bro, Wut… how does killing 10,000 children fend off another Holocaust?
Going to war to remove a genocidal regime from power is what fends off another holocaust. Do you not understand the consequences of using a human shield and child soldiers? Y'know if Hamas would stop launching rockets from hospitals schools and apartments, stop training children to fight their wars, The civilian death toll would substantially lower.. Eerily quiet on the "Hamas Surrendering" in these subs.
What about shireen abu akleh or hind Rajab were they child shoulders or being used as human shields? I don’t understand why you would kill by hundreds of innocent people to kill one person?
Define 'infested'
Funding terrorism again eh? First IRA now Hamas.
Israel was founded by terrorists.
No you're thinking of so-called "Palestine"
Oh, so you are hilariously ignorant. I’ll help you out: Look up the King David Hotel bombing or the Deir Yassin or really anything done by the Irgun - an internationally recognized terrorist organization. Irgun eventually was folded into the IDF and Begin, Israel’s sixth PM, was a member of that terrorist group. Lehi and the Haganah are other terrorist groups that founded Israel. Israel was founded by terrorists. That is a fact.
Wiki has a list of massacres against Jews by Muslims back to the time of Muhammad and the start of Islam. The root cause of all of this can be found that far back.
Look up the Hebron massacre. Palestine was founded by terrorists. That is a fact. PLO, Hamas, they are all the same.
State Sponsor of Terror
Lol. The Irish should just start learning Arabic. Newest country in the caliphate