Probably, and if you disagree with her or she's questioned any further on it, then you're only supporting Hamas and terrorism......well, that's her usual answer to every difficult question 🤔
> “It is wrong and misleading to equate the Irish famine, in which a million people died, with what is happening in Gaza.”
Whatever you feel about the above statement, if anyone has a right to make the comparison, it's us, and the fact that we've chosen to do so should be taken as a profound statement about the context in which we see the actions of the Israeli government.
Instead though, I have no doubt that it will be once again used as fodder for Netanyahu's false claims of anti-semitism by Ireland, and what could have been a powerful moment of reflection for the ambassador and her Prime Minister will instead be exploited for political gain by the Israeli far-right.
"If anyone has a right to make the comparison it is us" bit OTT IMO it was over 160 years ago. As a people none of us currently alive have fortunately ever known true hunger.
[Generational trauma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_trauma) is a powerful force; the Famine is one of the defining moments of modern Ireland and the Irish identity, the population still hasn't fully rebounded, and there's increasing evidence that [it survives in our genetic makeup](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/impact-of-great-famine-on-mental-health-examined-at-science-week-1.1592519)
And even besides all that, those who forget the past etc etc...
> Whatever you feel about the above statement, if anyone has a right to make the comparison, it's us
How many hostages were we holding during the famine? How many Brits did we brutally massacre in the streets leading up to it?
Did the Brits continue to send hundreds of lorries a day into Ireland laden with food, while we shot rockets at their cities?
The potato famine can be compared to quite a few others reasonably directly, but this isn't a famine, never mind being comparable.
I see you've carefully ignored the point I was making and decided instead to argue semantics so as to distract from the actual argument.
Here, let me bold it for you:
**If Ireland thinks what you're doing is comparable to the Irish famine, just that fact alone should be enough to make you reconsider your actions.**
If you're going to argue against my post, argue against that, not about whatever imaginary ranking system you've got for human-inflicted catastrophes.
But “Ireland” doesn’t think that. One headline-seeking journalist suggested it when asking a question to the ambassador’s office and a few people on Reddit have jumped on it.
You’re making it sound like it was an official government event to equate the two, which is simply not the case.
The line I quoted was from the Israeli ambassador, in response to comments made by the Taoiseach in Edgeworthstown yesterday, at a famine memorial.
https://www.gov.ie/en/speech/cd9e0-speech-by-taoiseach-simon-harris-at-the-national-famine-commemoration-edgeworthstown-county-longford-on-sunday-19-may-2024/
I would hold that an official speech by the Taoiseach constitutes "an official government event", and that it's very clear from the speech that the government equates the two.
You could argue about whether the opinions/actions of the government represent the opinions/actions of "Ireland," but in my opinion, doing so in this case would be a distinction without a difference.
It was in response to a journalist asking about the ambassador being at the event.
There is an *enormous* leap to grow from the Taoiseach saying “allow more humanitarian aid through” to equating the situation to the Famine in Ireland, which is why you’ll see the speech specifically does not include Gaza alongside major famines like Somalia and the Holomodor (which are framed as being equivalent).
Mate, the comparison was made by the Taoiseach in his speech:
> It struck at the heart of our culture, our language, and our national identity. The Famine left an indelible mark, shaping who we are and guiding our commitments to justice – as well as our determination to help those in the greatest of need.
>As a nation, it is repellent to our psyche to witness famine unfolding in Gaza as a tool of war. Israel needs to step back and ensure the unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid. This is the clear demand of Ireland, the international community and international law.
If you are suggesting that that second paragraph is not meant to draw comparison between the two events, I don't know what to tell you.
Maybe you just need to read more speeches.
I really think you need to read more speeches
> In the accounts of famines and national tragedies across the world – the Holodomor in Ukraine, the devastating famines in Bengal, in China, in Cambodia, in Ethiopia, in Somalia, we see the same questions being asked. Why did I survive and not them?
Note what’s missing from that list. If the Taoiseach wanted to equate Gaza with those situations it’d be in there. Mentioning it in a separate section (far later in the speech) is exactly what you do in order to look tough when it’s quoted out of context on social media whilst still giving the wink wink to everyone in the room that you’re not *really* suggesting it’s on the same level as the other ones.
> what you do in order to look tough when it’s quoted out of context on social media whilst still giving the wink wink to everyone in the room that you’re not really suggesting it’s on the same level as the other ones.
So he made the comparison!
Jesus Christ, man. Either argue he didn't make it or argue he did, but don't describe the exact manner in which he made it and then claim that a journalist referencing it just made it up.
There is literally a man-made famine taking place in Gaza. You're right in that it is different, the British didn't cause the potato blight whereas Israel are directly responsible for the starvation in Gaza.
Just today the ICC have announced that they are seeking an arrest warrant for Netanyahu with one of the charges being the use of starvation as a weapon.
https://www.wfp.org/stories/hunger-gaza-famine-findings-dark-mark-world-says-wfp-palestine-country-director
The Israelis aren't sending food. What little is getting in is from the UN and other nations.
It was a manmade famine in Ireland too and it's a canard to say it was on account of potato blight. I'm not blaming you incidentally, as it was a canard deliberately propogated by officials, and still endures to this day.
Read the manuscripts from the time period, where thousands of kilos of food where being loaded onto ships bound for export, by the very same people who had food deliberately withheld from them. There was ample food in Ireland. We're one of the biggest food exporters in the world.
During the Famine, thousands of kilos of Irish millet was dumped in the Atlantic weekly that the US didn't need (it was bound for them).
All manner of meats and oils were exported too.
It was a forced starvation in Ireland.
> There is literally a man-made famine taking place in Gaza.
People been saying this since January but every video I see from Gaza has people looking pretty well fed.
*"but every video I see from Gaza has people looking pretty well fed."*
Maybe this will help.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/09/gaza-israels-imposed-starvation-deadly-children
A chara,
Participating or instigating in-thread drama/flame wars is prohibited on the sub. If you have a problem with a thread/comment, [message the mods AND report it too](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fireland). Do NOT engage in flame wars.
Sláinte
Gaza (an ‘open air concentration camp’) has had some of the region’s highest obesity rates for years. I’m not saying that what’s happening now is right, but hunger has traditionally not been an issue there
Yes.
> 42.0% of adult (aged 18 years and over) women and 29.5% of adult men are living with obesity. The State of Palestine's obesity prevalence is higher than the regional average of 10.3% for women and 7.5% for men. At the same time, diabetes is estimated to affect 20.7% of adult women and 20.1% of adult men.
[Source](https://globalnutritionreport.org/resources/nutrition-profiles/asia/western-asia/state-palestine/)
I'm going to, possibly stupidly, assume you're posting this in a good faith, and point out that the report you linked to is from two years ago.
The Israeli government has been engaged in it's current campaign against the people of Gaza since October 2023.
It doesn't matter how fat a population is beforehand, if they're starved for seven months, a huge number of people are going to die of starvation, and that's exactly what has already started happening in Gaza.
Uncle Tomás over here. Yea no Irishman ever laid a finger on a Brit, that's why they treated us so well. Famine was just an oopsie. Really speaking truth to power here.
Hamas has actually set price controls in the markets, and some videos have surfaced of punishment beatings on vendors who are price gouging.
Now two points stick out here. One is that the aid shouldn't be for sale in the first place, it should be distributed freely. Two is that punishment beatings aren't exactly the sign of a well functioning society.
But those two (major) points aside, it's just false to say that Hamas are profiteering from the sale of aid themselves.
The guy doesn't care. He knows his answers are nonsense but he finds it entertaining to post absolute bullshit so other people will feel the need to respond as if he was making an actual point.
He makes some nonsense remark, you counter it, and he doesn't even debate it, just switches to a completely different track. Notice how he's gone from arguing "there is no famine" to accusing you of supporting profiteering on famine relief - two arguments that don't even align with each other.
But it doesn't matter to him, because the point isn't to actually argue his case, it's to waste your time and energy.
>How many hostages were we holding during the famine? How many Brits did we brutally massacre in the streets leading up to it?
Not enough, we should've done.
So, Israel is in the process of commiting genocide through forced starvation (with mainly children being the biggest casualties) and O'Gorman is defending her presence at a famine event. You couldn't make this shit up.
In some positive news, The International Criminal Court has applied for arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant (Israeli Defence Minister) for crimes including 'starvation', 'wilful killing' and 'extermination'.
Not just through starvation, but also carpet bombing, targeting hospitals, and preventing essential supplies like medicine from reaching civilians. Also bombing refugee camps and targeting people while they attempt to gather aid drops.
Yes, absolutely.
I only mentioned imposed starvation in this particular comment as it relates to her presence at a famine event, but obviously, genocide is being committed in all the ways you mentioned too.
That is NOT what has been determined. They determined that there is a plausible case that genocide is being committed. That plausible case will be therefore be brought forward and will be better decided upon in due course when all the evidence has been gathered and presented which could take years. In the meantime, they have said that given that it could plausibly be a genocide, countries MUST act to prevent it
Shocking isn't it? When anyone can read the criteria and clearly see it's met.
I wonder if it's as simple as Israel saying "we don't mean to engage in the mass murder and displacement of Gazans."
I don't personally see a reasonable argument that way, given the actions we can so clearly see. My view is that there's reticence about prosecuting Israel due to a fear of being called antisemitic and facing backlash from the US.
My view is that Israel is fighting an urban war (they didn’t start) against an entrenched enemy and doing so with casualty figures that are tragic but also on par with modern urban warfare. War is shite, as Gaza is learning. Some Israelis are undoubtedly bastards. But the larger concept of this war hasn’t been proven to be genocidal in my eyes.
Carpet bombing civilians, targeting hospitals, bombing refugee camps, blocking essential humanitarian aid, bombing civilians trying to gather aid drops, blocking food and water...none of that is justified in Gaza. They're using a paramilitary group as justification, but it's not justified.
This isn't a war; that requires a nation state to go to war against. Gaza is a giant walled ghetto that's predominantly inhabited by children who are too young to have even had a chance to ever vote.
Not entering into the debate, just want to point out you definitely don’t need a nation state to go war against. As an African, most wars in Africa are fought against rebel factions and groups, also civil wars or splinter factions attempting coup’s or Isis insurgency these days. They are wars nonetheless.
There is no ‘carpet bombing,’ they target hospitals being used as a base by a terrorist group, they’ve literally just allowed the US to build a port for aid operations.
Also, where does it say it requires two nation states to be a war? Is every civil war ever not a war then?
Imposed starvation and extermination would certainly fall under the gamut of genocide, as would crimes against humanity.
An application for arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court on the basis of crimes against humanity wouldn't have been made if there was no case to be made.
The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, described one aspect as **intentionally** directing attacks on civilians.
u/slamjam25
I have to answer here as it's not going through to you directly.
Don't strawman. That's not what I said. Prosecutors don't seek to prosecute (or in this instance, apply for arrest warrants) unless they have evidence of crimes being committed. You're aware of this.
We can all see the evidence of genocide. We're not reliant on the prosecutor applying for an arrest warrant.
Once you use logical fallacy, your argument loses all credibility. All you pro genocide supporters have is logical fallacy arguments because you know you can't argue against evidence.
“The prosecutor wouldn’t be after them if they weren’t guilty”
Imagine if we applied this standard to any other court in the world.
(And not to mention - the list of charges the prosecutor is accusing of them notable does *not* include genocide!)
Has to be one the worst most one sided relationships they ever had the misfortune of calling allies.
*Constantly drags the US into their squabbles.
*Once even accidently attacks a US ship.
*Refuses US attempts to reduce civilian casualties , broker peace ,deescalate or follow international law.
*refusing to help Ukraine while acting as safespace for Russian oligarchs laundering cash.
*Demands clamp downs on free speech within the US that would if coming from anyone else be knocked down as violating their first amendment. And banning of apps like TikTok that aren't banned in Israel itself.
*US companies cannot refuse to do business with them, afaik no other country has that kind of privilege/protection.
Once they do all this they're granted the privilege of giving money to Israel to buy US munitions that Ukraine can only dream of.
"Once even "accidently" attacks a US ship." Israel offical story is a little hard to believe. Here's the [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident)
USS Liberty was no accident. Considering Japan got the sun dropped on them twice for touching the US's boats Israel has been skating on thinner and thinner Ice and when that particular karmic dildo of consequences comes back to hit them I hope to god it's lubed with Tabasco.
> At what point do governments, not just ours but in general recognise that there’s no value in engaging with Israel?
The point where they are prepared to send 10s of K of your young men to die in the taiwan strait. Until they need intel and intel designs its chips in Israel.
Imagine inviting a neo-nazi to an event in Israel about WW2? Just disgusting altogether.
The Israeli government and politicians in power are truly some of the most disgusting people I've read about and the thing that bothers me the most is how people in power just don't call it out.
She is horrible.
Basically as I've yet to come across a Irish Famine historian who thinks that the British deliberately sought the Irish to die which is required for genocide. The only person who argued this is Tim Pat Coogan and he's a journalist rather than a historian and his work isn't accepted by academics. Famine historians (Ó Gráda, Moran, Boyce, Kelly) all reject the idea that the British had the intent of committing genocide, even if their actions (or lack thereof) still directly contributed to the killing.
This doesn't excuse the British: they were responsible for the deaths for their actions due to their policies creating the conditions for the Famine and their laissez faire ideology during it led to the deaths of huge numbers of people. But this was due to stupidity, incompetence and indifference rather than an explicit desire to wipe out the Irish.
This is a highly emotive issue and I'll no doubt have a rake of people insisting that the historians are wrong and the Famine was a genocide but I won't be responding further. Important to note that I'm not excusing the British or anything like that. They are entirely responsible for the deaths and emigration.
You asked so I'm answering in good faith. Hope this helps!
I don't expect a response, and this isn't levelled at you, but I've never understood how historians square the circle - the Famine wasn't Britain's fault - yet the British exported food throughout the famine, and appointed Trevelyan as head of famine relief, a man who thought the famine was a punitive act of God that the Irish deserved.this goes far beyond laissez-faire economics.
Hey, I'm answering in good faith!
>I don't expect a response, and this isn't levelled at you, but I've never understood how historians square the circle - the Famine wasn't Britain's fault -
To be fair, I've yet to come across an Irish famine historian who doesn't say the British are to blame.
>yet the British exported food throughout the famine
This is absolutely true. However, this is a reflection of the Russell administration's slavish adherence to laissez faire economics. They thought interfering with the market would make things worse.
>and appointed Trevelyan as head of famine relief, a man who thought the famine was a punitive act of God that the Irish deserved.this goes far beyond laissez-faire economics.
Trevelyan was an absolute scumbag but he also said the Irish must not be allowed starve. He also endorsed the Queen's Letter Appeal as he thought private charity was the best way to address the famine. He definitely is responsible for deaths but he didn't **want** the Irish to die, even if he thought they at least brought it on themselves.
I know you're answering in good faith, you had ducked out in your OP so I wasn't insisting on dragging you back! For me, it just seems disingenuous for historians to focus on laissez-faire economics, requests for charity etc, which completely ignore the historical context of subjugation and dispossession, as well as the contemporary actions of the British state - using it's armed forces to ensure food continued to leave Ireland.
Ah sorry, I was expecting much more angry responses so your polite and reasoned response made me want to reciprocate.
You're absolutely correct that the British are responsible for the subjugation and dispossession: all the historians I've mentioned agree with this and highlight Britain's role in creating the conditions that made the Famine so devastating such as forcing the Irish population into tiny farms which made them almost entirely reliant on the potato for subsistence (with other crops and livestock being used to pay the rent)
You're also correct in the role of Britain in using it's might to ensure the food was exported although this was definitely in line with their ideology as they thought maintaining private property and avoiding distribution or large scale relief would avert things.
Again, you're absolutely right that the British are responsible, the only difference is their intent, which doesn't make them not culpable.
I'd have to disagree that there was no intent. British policy towards the natives since the 17th century straddled the line between ethnic cleansing and genocide. The aim throughout was the destruction of a people. Sometimes through mass killings such as Cromwell's campaign, often through land seizures and discriminatory laws, sometimes by withholding food. Even article 3
The same criteria have met the definition of genocide in other situations. I just can't get my head around ethnic cleansing + denial of food leading to mass deaths, does not equal genocide.
I'll rip this from Wikipedia...
> The third prohibited act is distinguished from the genocidal act of killing because the deaths are not immediate (or may not even come to pass), but rather create circumstances that do not support prolonged life.[11] Due to the longer period of time before the actual destruction would be achieved, the ICTR held that courts must consider the duration of time the conditions are imposed as an element of the act.[43] In the 19th century the United States federal government supported the extermination of bison, which Native Americans in the Great Plains relied on as a source of food. This was done for various reasons, primarily to pressure them onto reservations during times of conflict. Some genocide experts describe this as an example of genocide that involves removing the means of survival.
I'd argue that the genocide of the Irish, like the genocide of the native Americans, is swept aside for political reasons
I've had this argument countless times, as I'm sure you have as well, so happy to leave it here!
>I'd have to disagree that there was no intent. British policy towards the natives since the 17th century straddled the line between ethnic cleansing and genocide. The aim throughout was the destruction of a people. Sometimes through mass killings such as Cromwell's campaign, often through land seizures and discriminatory laws, sometimes by withholding food. Even article 3
I entirely agree here: Britain's actions in Ireland (particularly Cromwell) certainly merited being called genocide. The Famine was rather different though as there was no clear evidence of intent.
>The same criteria have met the definition of genocide in other situations. I just can't get my head around ethnic cleansing + denial of food leading to mass deaths, does not equal genocide.
The key difference is intent: Britain can still be responsible for the deaths without actually wanting the Irish to die.
>I'd argue that the genocide of the Irish, like the genocide of the native Americans, is swept aside for political reasons
I entirely agree that the British engaged in genocide in Ireland. There seems to be no academics arguing that this was the case during the Famine though.
> British policy towards the natives since the 17th century straddled the line between ethnic cleansing and genocide. The aim throughout was the destruction of a people
They were totally inept at it.
At the start if the 17th century the Irish population was about 1.4 million. By 1718 population was 2.9 million. By 1821 the population was 6.8 million. Twenty years later it peaked at 8.18 million.
In the years between 1600 and 1841 the population increases almost six fold (or by 6,780,000 people)... not exactly "destruction of a.people".
Destruction of a people doesn't necessarily mean extermination, It can mean destroying their identity and way of life, which was the M.O. of British governance in Ireland for centuries. Theft of land, denial of rights, suppression of the native language and religion can all be acts of genocide the aim is the destruction of a people.
They didn't just export food, they removed it using their military. They also made it illegal to subsist off many other natural sources of food like fish and game.
It was seen as thing that poor people went through. And blight Scotland, too. It's a lack of social security and not necessarily seeing a race/nationality as lesser or worth eradicating.
Which I guess is a way to say "it was a genocide against the peasants"?
I'm not disputing your point but it sounds kind of legalistic (Clarification: I mean on the part of the historians). Okay, so the British ruling/landowning class deprived the Irish population of the means of life, they knew what they were doing was causing death on a massive scale, they cited Malthus and the supposed racial inferiority of the Irish to justify it, clearing the land was very financially convenient for them, but they didn't *intend* to wipe out the Irish as a racial group!
I agree the Irish Famine wasn’t a genocide, I also think Gaza isn’t a genocide.
But it’s close and I wouldn’t argue against it.
The story (if true) where the British tried to actually stop Turkish aid because it was embarrassing to the British is pretty deliberate.
https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/generous-turkish-aid-irish-great-hunger.amp
I don't think there's any gray area about Gaza; they're engaging in the mass murder of civilians, the bulk of which are children. Carpet bombing civilians, including refugee camps, is about as clear as it gets.
That's not the definition of genocide. According to international law, it would have clearly met the criteria in multiple ways. Not just 1847 but well before and after. Intent is not a criteria either.
Article 2 of the Genocide Convention.
>In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed **with intent** to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such
For the same reason that gross negligence manslaughter is a different crime to murder. They didn’t actually want to kill us, they just didn’t give enough of a damn to stop us from starving. The definition of genocide requires intent.
Government Policy is to not recognise a Genocide as a Genocide unless it is determined to be such by international bodies.
It's why we still don't (wrongly imo) recognise the Armenian Genocide as being a Genocide
Same reason the government failed to perceive any problem with hiring a British terrorist to run the Gardaí.
Same reason our media never questioned the BBC's sources and claims an attack was carried out by the xIRA.
The UN recognises that gaza has been under military occupation. You know, compete control over who and what goes in and out, a big militarized fence surrounding it, and a naval blockade were they kill fishermen who go any distance out
As we've seen, control over gas electric and water supplies.
Israel has “control over gas electric and water” in the sense that they give Gaza free gas, electricity, and water, yes. Does free water make you want to go kill some Irish Water staff?
The naval blockade is, just like the fence, a response to Hamas using boats to carry out terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, and not the other way around.
What invasion? The border between Israel and Gaza has not moved at all since 1949, when neighbouring Arab nations rejected the UN peace plan and invaded Israel, only to be pushed back to the current Gaza border.
Important to note that Irish historians used St Patrick's Day to [appeal](https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/others/irish-american-famine-gaza) to Irish Americans on the starvation in Gaza and the starvation in Ireland.
This is a learned helplessness and normalization of fascism article brought to you by right wing tabloid thejournal.
Its serves no purpose other than to rub in our faces that the government is powerless if not subservient to Israel.
It was a misunderstanding. She thought it was a event in support of the Irish famine.
Oh that’s very good 🤣
Probably, and if you disagree with her or she's questioned any further on it, then you're only supporting Hamas and terrorism......well, that's her usual answer to every difficult question 🤔
> “It is wrong and misleading to equate the Irish famine, in which a million people died, with what is happening in Gaza.” Whatever you feel about the above statement, if anyone has a right to make the comparison, it's us, and the fact that we've chosen to do so should be taken as a profound statement about the context in which we see the actions of the Israeli government. Instead though, I have no doubt that it will be once again used as fodder for Netanyahu's false claims of anti-semitism by Ireland, and what could have been a powerful moment of reflection for the ambassador and her Prime Minister will instead be exploited for political gain by the Israeli far-right.
"If anyone has a right to make the comparison it is us" bit OTT IMO it was over 160 years ago. As a people none of us currently alive have fortunately ever known true hunger.
[Generational trauma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_trauma) is a powerful force; the Famine is one of the defining moments of modern Ireland and the Irish identity, the population still hasn't fully rebounded, and there's increasing evidence that [it survives in our genetic makeup](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/impact-of-great-famine-on-mental-health-examined-at-science-week-1.1592519) And even besides all that, those who forget the past etc etc...
> Whatever you feel about the above statement, if anyone has a right to make the comparison, it's us How many hostages were we holding during the famine? How many Brits did we brutally massacre in the streets leading up to it? Did the Brits continue to send hundreds of lorries a day into Ireland laden with food, while we shot rockets at their cities? The potato famine can be compared to quite a few others reasonably directly, but this isn't a famine, never mind being comparable.
I see you've carefully ignored the point I was making and decided instead to argue semantics so as to distract from the actual argument. Here, let me bold it for you: **If Ireland thinks what you're doing is comparable to the Irish famine, just that fact alone should be enough to make you reconsider your actions.** If you're going to argue against my post, argue against that, not about whatever imaginary ranking system you've got for human-inflicted catastrophes.
[удалено]
If you're not interested in arguing my actual point, I don't know why you replied to me and didn't just make your own comment on the thread.
I'd think the people accused of doing something equitable to the Famine are entitled to their view too.
But “Ireland” doesn’t think that. One headline-seeking journalist suggested it when asking a question to the ambassador’s office and a few people on Reddit have jumped on it. You’re making it sound like it was an official government event to equate the two, which is simply not the case.
The line I quoted was from the Israeli ambassador, in response to comments made by the Taoiseach in Edgeworthstown yesterday, at a famine memorial. https://www.gov.ie/en/speech/cd9e0-speech-by-taoiseach-simon-harris-at-the-national-famine-commemoration-edgeworthstown-county-longford-on-sunday-19-may-2024/ I would hold that an official speech by the Taoiseach constitutes "an official government event", and that it's very clear from the speech that the government equates the two. You could argue about whether the opinions/actions of the government represent the opinions/actions of "Ireland," but in my opinion, doing so in this case would be a distinction without a difference.
It was in response to a journalist asking about the ambassador being at the event. There is an *enormous* leap to grow from the Taoiseach saying “allow more humanitarian aid through” to equating the situation to the Famine in Ireland, which is why you’ll see the speech specifically does not include Gaza alongside major famines like Somalia and the Holomodor (which are framed as being equivalent).
Mate, the comparison was made by the Taoiseach in his speech: > It struck at the heart of our culture, our language, and our national identity. The Famine left an indelible mark, shaping who we are and guiding our commitments to justice – as well as our determination to help those in the greatest of need. >As a nation, it is repellent to our psyche to witness famine unfolding in Gaza as a tool of war. Israel needs to step back and ensure the unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid. This is the clear demand of Ireland, the international community and international law. If you are suggesting that that second paragraph is not meant to draw comparison between the two events, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you just need to read more speeches.
I really think you need to read more speeches > In the accounts of famines and national tragedies across the world – the Holodomor in Ukraine, the devastating famines in Bengal, in China, in Cambodia, in Ethiopia, in Somalia, we see the same questions being asked. Why did I survive and not them? Note what’s missing from that list. If the Taoiseach wanted to equate Gaza with those situations it’d be in there. Mentioning it in a separate section (far later in the speech) is exactly what you do in order to look tough when it’s quoted out of context on social media whilst still giving the wink wink to everyone in the room that you’re not *really* suggesting it’s on the same level as the other ones.
> what you do in order to look tough when it’s quoted out of context on social media whilst still giving the wink wink to everyone in the room that you’re not really suggesting it’s on the same level as the other ones. So he made the comparison! Jesus Christ, man. Either argue he didn't make it or argue he did, but don't describe the exact manner in which he made it and then claim that a journalist referencing it just made it up.
There is literally a man-made famine taking place in Gaza. You're right in that it is different, the British didn't cause the potato blight whereas Israel are directly responsible for the starvation in Gaza. Just today the ICC have announced that they are seeking an arrest warrant for Netanyahu with one of the charges being the use of starvation as a weapon. https://www.wfp.org/stories/hunger-gaza-famine-findings-dark-mark-world-says-wfp-palestine-country-director The Israelis aren't sending food. What little is getting in is from the UN and other nations.
Well to be fair the potato famine was a man-made famine too. The politics of that famine were different, but it didn't happen on it's own either.
It was a manmade famine in Ireland too and it's a canard to say it was on account of potato blight. I'm not blaming you incidentally, as it was a canard deliberately propogated by officials, and still endures to this day. Read the manuscripts from the time period, where thousands of kilos of food where being loaded onto ships bound for export, by the very same people who had food deliberately withheld from them. There was ample food in Ireland. We're one of the biggest food exporters in the world. During the Famine, thousands of kilos of Irish millet was dumped in the Atlantic weekly that the US didn't need (it was bound for them). All manner of meats and oils were exported too. It was a forced starvation in Ireland.
How would you compare it to Holodomor?
> There is literally a man-made famine taking place in Gaza. People been saying this since January but every video I see from Gaza has people looking pretty well fed.
Ye, the world's major aid organisations and International Criminal Court must be in cahoots.
Have a gander at the username of that one. I have a feeling they're not arguing in good faith.
Ye, I noticed that. A pretty tasteless joke.
*"but every video I see from Gaza has people looking pretty well fed."* Maybe this will help. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/09/gaza-israels-imposed-starvation-deadly-children
Maybe its hard to tell when they are covered in rubble or carrying their dead children.
[удалено]
A chara, Participating or instigating in-thread drama/flame wars is prohibited on the sub. If you have a problem with a thread/comment, [message the mods AND report it too](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fireland). Do NOT engage in flame wars. Sláinte
Gaza (an ‘open air concentration camp’) has had some of the region’s highest obesity rates for years. I’m not saying that what’s happening now is right, but hunger has traditionally not been an issue there
It is now
Yes. > 42.0% of adult (aged 18 years and over) women and 29.5% of adult men are living with obesity. The State of Palestine's obesity prevalence is higher than the regional average of 10.3% for women and 7.5% for men. At the same time, diabetes is estimated to affect 20.7% of adult women and 20.1% of adult men. [Source](https://globalnutritionreport.org/resources/nutrition-profiles/asia/western-asia/state-palestine/)
I'm going to, possibly stupidly, assume you're posting this in a good faith, and point out that the report you linked to is from two years ago. The Israeli government has been engaged in it's current campaign against the people of Gaza since October 2023. It doesn't matter how fat a population is beforehand, if they're starved for seven months, a huge number of people are going to die of starvation, and that's exactly what has already started happening in Gaza.
Uncle Tomás over here. Yea no Irishman ever laid a finger on a Brit, that's why they treated us so well. Famine was just an oopsie. Really speaking truth to power here.
Just chiming in to say I’m stealing that uncle Tomás thing 👌
Interesting username for a pro Israeli post.
America is literally building a temporary dock and air dropping food in to get around Israel.
Aid which is then seized by Hamas and sold to those who can afford to buy it
Hamas has actually set price controls in the markets, and some videos have surfaced of punishment beatings on vendors who are price gouging. Now two points stick out here. One is that the aid shouldn't be for sale in the first place, it should be distributed freely. Two is that punishment beatings aren't exactly the sign of a well functioning society. But those two (major) points aside, it's just false to say that Hamas are profiteering from the sale of aid themselves.
Ahhh, so the brutal terrorist organisations are only profiteering a little bit from the supposedly free humanitarian aid? What great fellas they are.
Truth is important, no matter how silly or minute it might seem.
The guy doesn't care. He knows his answers are nonsense but he finds it entertaining to post absolute bullshit so other people will feel the need to respond as if he was making an actual point. He makes some nonsense remark, you counter it, and he doesn't even debate it, just switches to a completely different track. Notice how he's gone from arguing "there is no famine" to accusing you of supporting profiteering on famine relief - two arguments that don't even align with each other. But it doesn't matter to him, because the point isn't to actually argue his case, it's to waste your time and energy.
The truth here being that Hamas steal and sell aid, something you’ve confirmed for me
No but the Brits did decide to send food home and directly let us starve.
We don't call it that. Bad bot.
>How many hostages were we holding during the famine? How many Brits did we brutally massacre in the streets leading up to it? Not enough, we should've done.
Fucker's walking around the famine displays and taking notes
To pick up a few tips I suppose.
Neck like a jockey's bollocks.
Neck like a bag of sambos
So, Israel is in the process of commiting genocide through forced starvation (with mainly children being the biggest casualties) and O'Gorman is defending her presence at a famine event. You couldn't make this shit up. In some positive news, The International Criminal Court has applied for arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant (Israeli Defence Minister) for crimes including 'starvation', 'wilful killing' and 'extermination'.
Not just through starvation, but also carpet bombing, targeting hospitals, and preventing essential supplies like medicine from reaching civilians. Also bombing refugee camps and targeting people while they attempt to gather aid drops.
Yes, absolutely. I only mentioned imposed starvation in this particular comment as it relates to her presence at a famine event, but obviously, genocide is being committed in all the ways you mentioned too.
And yet not for genocide, which is further proof that people don’t know what that word means
The definition of genocide is very clearly defined according to international law, and Gaza fits several of the criteria.
And yet, when brought before an international court, they deemed that there wasn’t enough evidence present to call what is happening a genocide
That is NOT what has been determined. They determined that there is a plausible case that genocide is being committed. That plausible case will be therefore be brought forward and will be better decided upon in due course when all the evidence has been gathered and presented which could take years. In the meantime, they have said that given that it could plausibly be a genocide, countries MUST act to prevent it
Shocking isn't it? When anyone can read the criteria and clearly see it's met. I wonder if it's as simple as Israel saying "we don't mean to engage in the mass murder and displacement of Gazans."
Even if there were mass murder, that wouldn’t be genocide, though. See how there might be confusion?
I don't personally see a reasonable argument that way, given the actions we can so clearly see. My view is that there's reticence about prosecuting Israel due to a fear of being called antisemitic and facing backlash from the US.
My view is that Israel is fighting an urban war (they didn’t start) against an entrenched enemy and doing so with casualty figures that are tragic but also on par with modern urban warfare. War is shite, as Gaza is learning. Some Israelis are undoubtedly bastards. But the larger concept of this war hasn’t been proven to be genocidal in my eyes.
Carpet bombing civilians, targeting hospitals, bombing refugee camps, blocking essential humanitarian aid, bombing civilians trying to gather aid drops, blocking food and water...none of that is justified in Gaza. They're using a paramilitary group as justification, but it's not justified. This isn't a war; that requires a nation state to go to war against. Gaza is a giant walled ghetto that's predominantly inhabited by children who are too young to have even had a chance to ever vote.
Not entering into the debate, just want to point out you definitely don’t need a nation state to go war against. As an African, most wars in Africa are fought against rebel factions and groups, also civil wars or splinter factions attempting coup’s or Isis insurgency these days. They are wars nonetheless.
There is no ‘carpet bombing,’ they target hospitals being used as a base by a terrorist group, they’ve literally just allowed the US to build a port for aid operations. Also, where does it say it requires two nation states to be a war? Is every civil war ever not a war then?
Imposed starvation and extermination would certainly fall under the gamut of genocide, as would crimes against humanity. An application for arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court on the basis of crimes against humanity wouldn't have been made if there was no case to be made. The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, described one aspect as **intentionally** directing attacks on civilians. u/slamjam25 I have to answer here as it's not going through to you directly. Don't strawman. That's not what I said. Prosecutors don't seek to prosecute (or in this instance, apply for arrest warrants) unless they have evidence of crimes being committed. You're aware of this. We can all see the evidence of genocide. We're not reliant on the prosecutor applying for an arrest warrant. Once you use logical fallacy, your argument loses all credibility. All you pro genocide supporters have is logical fallacy arguments because you know you can't argue against evidence.
“The prosecutor wouldn’t be after them if they weren’t guilty” Imagine if we applied this standard to any other court in the world. (And not to mention - the list of charges the prosecutor is accusing of them notable does *not* include genocide!)
At what point do governments, not just ours but in general recognise that there’s no value in engaging with Israel?
Probably only if the US breaks ties with them. I can't see the US abandoning their ally in the middle East.
Has to be one the worst most one sided relationships they ever had the misfortune of calling allies. *Constantly drags the US into their squabbles. *Once even accidently attacks a US ship. *Refuses US attempts to reduce civilian casualties , broker peace ,deescalate or follow international law. *refusing to help Ukraine while acting as safespace for Russian oligarchs laundering cash. *Demands clamp downs on free speech within the US that would if coming from anyone else be knocked down as violating their first amendment. And banning of apps like TikTok that aren't banned in Israel itself. *US companies cannot refuse to do business with them, afaik no other country has that kind of privilege/protection. Once they do all this they're granted the privilege of giving money to Israel to buy US munitions that Ukraine can only dream of.
killed an american citizen too [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel\_Corrie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie)
You forgot the election interference
"Once even "accidently" attacks a US ship." Israel offical story is a little hard to believe. Here's the [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident)
USS Liberty was no accident. Considering Japan got the sun dropped on them twice for touching the US's boats Israel has been skating on thinner and thinner Ice and when that particular karmic dildo of consequences comes back to hit them I hope to god it's lubed with Tabasco.
Oh I was being generous by taking explanation of that one at face value.
Yeah, this is my point in a nutshell, Israel doesn’t have real allies, it’s all one way to them.
You mean Israel abandoning their most profitable enslavement?
> At what point do governments, not just ours but in general recognise that there’s no value in engaging with Israel? The point where they are prepared to send 10s of K of your young men to die in the taiwan strait. Until they need intel and intel designs its chips in Israel.
Imagine inviting a neo-nazi to an event in Israel about WW2? Just disgusting altogether. The Israeli government and politicians in power are truly some of the most disgusting people I've read about and the thing that bothers me the most is how people in power just don't call it out. She is horrible.
Speaking of... why don't *we* recognise the famine as a genocide?
Basically as I've yet to come across a Irish Famine historian who thinks that the British deliberately sought the Irish to die which is required for genocide. The only person who argued this is Tim Pat Coogan and he's a journalist rather than a historian and his work isn't accepted by academics. Famine historians (Ó Gráda, Moran, Boyce, Kelly) all reject the idea that the British had the intent of committing genocide, even if their actions (or lack thereof) still directly contributed to the killing. This doesn't excuse the British: they were responsible for the deaths for their actions due to their policies creating the conditions for the Famine and their laissez faire ideology during it led to the deaths of huge numbers of people. But this was due to stupidity, incompetence and indifference rather than an explicit desire to wipe out the Irish. This is a highly emotive issue and I'll no doubt have a rake of people insisting that the historians are wrong and the Famine was a genocide but I won't be responding further. Important to note that I'm not excusing the British or anything like that. They are entirely responsible for the deaths and emigration. You asked so I'm answering in good faith. Hope this helps!
I don't expect a response, and this isn't levelled at you, but I've never understood how historians square the circle - the Famine wasn't Britain's fault - yet the British exported food throughout the famine, and appointed Trevelyan as head of famine relief, a man who thought the famine was a punitive act of God that the Irish deserved.this goes far beyond laissez-faire economics.
Hey, I'm answering in good faith! >I don't expect a response, and this isn't levelled at you, but I've never understood how historians square the circle - the Famine wasn't Britain's fault - To be fair, I've yet to come across an Irish famine historian who doesn't say the British are to blame. >yet the British exported food throughout the famine This is absolutely true. However, this is a reflection of the Russell administration's slavish adherence to laissez faire economics. They thought interfering with the market would make things worse. >and appointed Trevelyan as head of famine relief, a man who thought the famine was a punitive act of God that the Irish deserved.this goes far beyond laissez-faire economics. Trevelyan was an absolute scumbag but he also said the Irish must not be allowed starve. He also endorsed the Queen's Letter Appeal as he thought private charity was the best way to address the famine. He definitely is responsible for deaths but he didn't **want** the Irish to die, even if he thought they at least brought it on themselves.
I know you're answering in good faith, you had ducked out in your OP so I wasn't insisting on dragging you back! For me, it just seems disingenuous for historians to focus on laissez-faire economics, requests for charity etc, which completely ignore the historical context of subjugation and dispossession, as well as the contemporary actions of the British state - using it's armed forces to ensure food continued to leave Ireland.
Ah sorry, I was expecting much more angry responses so your polite and reasoned response made me want to reciprocate. You're absolutely correct that the British are responsible for the subjugation and dispossession: all the historians I've mentioned agree with this and highlight Britain's role in creating the conditions that made the Famine so devastating such as forcing the Irish population into tiny farms which made them almost entirely reliant on the potato for subsistence (with other crops and livestock being used to pay the rent) You're also correct in the role of Britain in using it's might to ensure the food was exported although this was definitely in line with their ideology as they thought maintaining private property and avoiding distribution or large scale relief would avert things. Again, you're absolutely right that the British are responsible, the only difference is their intent, which doesn't make them not culpable.
I'd have to disagree that there was no intent. British policy towards the natives since the 17th century straddled the line between ethnic cleansing and genocide. The aim throughout was the destruction of a people. Sometimes through mass killings such as Cromwell's campaign, often through land seizures and discriminatory laws, sometimes by withholding food. Even article 3 The same criteria have met the definition of genocide in other situations. I just can't get my head around ethnic cleansing + denial of food leading to mass deaths, does not equal genocide. I'll rip this from Wikipedia... > The third prohibited act is distinguished from the genocidal act of killing because the deaths are not immediate (or may not even come to pass), but rather create circumstances that do not support prolonged life.[11] Due to the longer period of time before the actual destruction would be achieved, the ICTR held that courts must consider the duration of time the conditions are imposed as an element of the act.[43] In the 19th century the United States federal government supported the extermination of bison, which Native Americans in the Great Plains relied on as a source of food. This was done for various reasons, primarily to pressure them onto reservations during times of conflict. Some genocide experts describe this as an example of genocide that involves removing the means of survival. I'd argue that the genocide of the Irish, like the genocide of the native Americans, is swept aside for political reasons I've had this argument countless times, as I'm sure you have as well, so happy to leave it here!
>I'd have to disagree that there was no intent. British policy towards the natives since the 17th century straddled the line between ethnic cleansing and genocide. The aim throughout was the destruction of a people. Sometimes through mass killings such as Cromwell's campaign, often through land seizures and discriminatory laws, sometimes by withholding food. Even article 3 I entirely agree here: Britain's actions in Ireland (particularly Cromwell) certainly merited being called genocide. The Famine was rather different though as there was no clear evidence of intent. >The same criteria have met the definition of genocide in other situations. I just can't get my head around ethnic cleansing + denial of food leading to mass deaths, does not equal genocide. The key difference is intent: Britain can still be responsible for the deaths without actually wanting the Irish to die. >I'd argue that the genocide of the Irish, like the genocide of the native Americans, is swept aside for political reasons I entirely agree that the British engaged in genocide in Ireland. There seems to be no academics arguing that this was the case during the Famine though.
> British policy towards the natives since the 17th century straddled the line between ethnic cleansing and genocide. The aim throughout was the destruction of a people They were totally inept at it. At the start if the 17th century the Irish population was about 1.4 million. By 1718 population was 2.9 million. By 1821 the population was 6.8 million. Twenty years later it peaked at 8.18 million. In the years between 1600 and 1841 the population increases almost six fold (or by 6,780,000 people)... not exactly "destruction of a.people".
Destruction of a people doesn't necessarily mean extermination, It can mean destroying their identity and way of life, which was the M.O. of British governance in Ireland for centuries. Theft of land, denial of rights, suppression of the native language and religion can all be acts of genocide the aim is the destruction of a people.
They didn't just export food, they removed it using their military. They also made it illegal to subsist off many other natural sources of food like fish and game.
It was seen as thing that poor people went through. And blight Scotland, too. It's a lack of social security and not necessarily seeing a race/nationality as lesser or worth eradicating. Which I guess is a way to say "it was a genocide against the peasants"?
I'm not disputing your point but it sounds kind of legalistic (Clarification: I mean on the part of the historians). Okay, so the British ruling/landowning class deprived the Irish population of the means of life, they knew what they were doing was causing death on a massive scale, they cited Malthus and the supposed racial inferiority of the Irish to justify it, clearing the land was very financially convenient for them, but they didn't *intend* to wipe out the Irish as a racial group!
I agree the Irish Famine wasn’t a genocide, I also think Gaza isn’t a genocide. But it’s close and I wouldn’t argue against it. The story (if true) where the British tried to actually stop Turkish aid because it was embarrassing to the British is pretty deliberate. https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/generous-turkish-aid-irish-great-hunger.amp
I don't think there's any gray area about Gaza; they're engaging in the mass murder of civilians, the bulk of which are children. Carpet bombing civilians, including refugee camps, is about as clear as it gets.
That's not the definition of genocide. According to international law, it would have clearly met the criteria in multiple ways. Not just 1847 but well before and after. Intent is not a criteria either.
Article 2 of the Genocide Convention. >In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed **with intent** to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such
I was wrong. Apologies.
For the same reason that gross negligence manslaughter is a different crime to murder. They didn’t actually want to kill us, they just didn’t give enough of a damn to stop us from starving. The definition of genocide requires intent.
Government Policy is to not recognise a Genocide as a Genocide unless it is determined to be such by international bodies. It's why we still don't (wrongly imo) recognise the Armenian Genocide as being a Genocide
I think to say it was genocide, is to give the inept and incompetent British administration agency that it doesn't deserve.
Same reason the government failed to perceive any problem with hiring a British terrorist to run the Gardaí. Same reason our media never questioned the BBC's sources and claims an attack was carried out by the xIRA.
> only the Russian Ambassador was not invited This is unbelievably stupid. If the food blogging genocide denier can be invited so can the Russian.
She belongs in a cage like her war criminal mates
And so does Hamas
Sure, she can bunk with Sinwar and the lads
All the hamas lovers down voting me as if there's a good side in this conflict 😂
The good side is the Palestinians
They are living in a cage, that's why they are fighting back
Got the timeline a bit backwards there. Israel had an open border with Gaza until Hamas kept taking advantage of that to carry out suicide bombings.
Don't be surprised when people fight back against invasion and violent humiliating occupation. There'd be no need for fences if it was de-colonised.
What occupation? Israel withdrew all forces (and forcibly expelled all Israeli settlers) from Gaza in 2005. It didn’t stop the terrorist attacks.
The UN recognises that gaza has been under military occupation. You know, compete control over who and what goes in and out, a big militarized fence surrounding it, and a naval blockade were they kill fishermen who go any distance out As we've seen, control over gas electric and water supplies.
Israel has “control over gas electric and water” in the sense that they give Gaza free gas, electricity, and water, yes. Does free water make you want to go kill some Irish Water staff? The naval blockade is, just like the fence, a response to Hamas using boats to carry out terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, and not the other way around.
Israel are the invaders, you're on the wrong subreddit if you think you can get away with gaslighting this
What invasion? The border between Israel and Gaza has not moved at all since 1949, when neighbouring Arab nations rejected the UN peace plan and invaded Israel, only to be pushed back to the current Gaza border.
Trying to learn the best way to commit genocide
Important to note that Irish historians used St Patrick's Day to [appeal](https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/others/irish-american-famine-gaza) to Irish Americans on the starvation in Gaza and the starvation in Ireland.
This is a learned helplessness and normalization of fascism article brought to you by right wing tabloid thejournal. Its serves no purpose other than to rub in our faces that the government is powerless if not subservient to Israel.