Recently an Irish Palestine solidarity organisation posted a report that 20,000 Palestinian children have been killed in 23 months, an average higher than one child per hour.1 “Have been killed”? Traffic accidents? Unknown causes?
They were killed by Israel, isn’t that the case? Then why not bloody say so! They were murdered by a genocidal European Zionist settler colony called Israel and itcontinues to murder them, along with their older siblings, parents, extended families and neighbours.
We can find different ways to present the facts of the ongoing genocide in order to try to shock but it does not alter the fundamental and well-known truth that a genocide is being committed before our eyes. Why is this continuing despite what everyone knows? Well, because it can!
Israel will continue to do what it does because it can and the cost of doing it is not high enough, as Ali Abunimah said three months ago.2 Or to turn that a little, the Irish Government will continue doing what it does in collusion with the genocide because the cost of doing so is not high enough.
The EU is the biggest importer of Israeli goods and the Irish state is the highest importer in the EU, also the 2nd single biggest Israeli goods importer in the world. And still the weapons of genocide fly through our skies. The Irish Government continues collusion because the cost to them is low.
Marches and pickets show solidarity towards a beleaguered people suffering genocide and in that they are very important. They also show us our strength in numbers. But they do not cost our government much. Not even enough to really stop the Central Bank assisting genocide.
In England, Palestine Action raised the cost of collusion in genocide by targeting the Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems in Bristol. Activists were arrested but they kept doing it. This Zionist death company has now closed its targeted Bristol factory.
While this was happening, the British Government, in support of Elbit and others and in collusion with the genocide of Palestinians, not only arrested and charged Palestine Action people but designated the organisation as ‘terrorist’ and any supporters as people supporting ‘terrorism’.
People defied that designation and were arrested for holding a placard saying they were opposed to genocide and supported Palestine Action.
Placards in Westminster August 2025 (Photo credit: Mike Kemp In Pictures/ Getty Images)
Following that action and repression, 1,500 gathered in London on Saturday 6th September 2025 to continue that solidarity and to defeat the attack on civil liberties. By midnight, the last arrest recorded by the police for the day, they had arrested nearly 390 people.
The ‘crime’ of nearly all was to display placards stating “I am opposed to genocide. I support Palestine Action.” The police were unable to arrest them all as it took them 11 hours to arrest the 390. The organisers continued the action in London and other parts of the UK.3
More recently there have been other such acts of public defiance, organised by the Save Our Juries campaigning group and the numbers now arrested on charges of “assisting terrorism” (sic) have reached at least 2,269.
In addition, eighteen arrested Palestine Action activists were jailed, refused bail with some embarking on hunger strike4 of whom two were recently admitted to hospital.
The closure of Elbit Systems, the mass defiance of the terrorist categorisation of Palestine Action and the prison hunger strikes are raising the cost of supporting genocide of Palestinians and criminalising Palestine solidarity action, hitting collusion where it hurts, politically and practically.
We in Ireland are the most-pro-Palestine country in Europe … but we are not doing that.
We are not raising the cost high and despite that being clear to us and to our political and solidarity organisations and trade unions, made clear well over a year ago, we are still not doing it. Until we raise the cost high enough to make them stop, our government will continue its collusion.
And until the external cost is raised high enough to make them stop, Israel will continue its ethnic cleansing and genocide. But marchers attempting to blockade Dublin Port in early October were pepper-sprayed without warning and savagely batoned, with some arrested.
Gathering outside Dublin courthouse in solidarity with two Palestine solidarity activists assaulted and charged by Gardaí during early October attempt to blockade Dublin Port (Photo: R. Breeze).
A trio of activists were arrested in May for invading Shannon Airport to protest the ‘neutral’ Irish State’s collusion with US military flights through there4 and last weekend another three young people were arrested for a similar action.
Activists in Ireland are slowly starting to raise the cost of collusion for the State. However, they are not supported by the leadership of the mass movement which, while aware its tactics are not forcing the Government to end its collusion, nevertheless persists solely in repeating them.
End. Note: If you found this article of interest, why not register with Rebel Breeze for free, so that you will be notified by email of subsequent articles. You can de-register any time you wish.
2Director of the Electronic Intifada, speaking on 29 August at a public meeting organised by the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign in Dublin and hosted by the FÓRSA trade union. The other guest speaker was Abubaker Abed from Gaza, now studying in Ireland after being a journalist for the EI and threatened with assassination by Zionists.
3The Six Counties are at the moment in the UK but the British colonial gendarmerie went very lightly there in dealing with Palestine Action supporters – the rulers do not wish do have Palestine activists as political prisoners while they contain also Irish Republican prisoners.
Diarmuid Breatnach (edited from article posted in Rebel Breeze 2014)
(Reading time: 6 mins.)
Part 1 – who and what gets ‘remembrance’
In the lands under the direct dominion of England, i.e. the “United Kingdom”, and in some others that are under its influence, the dominant class calls the people to join in a cultural event in November which they call “Remembrance”.
The organisation fronting this event in the ‘UK’ is the Royal British Legion and their symbol for it (and registered trademark) is the Red Poppy, paper or fabric representations of which people are encouraged to buy and display — and indeed often pressured to wear.
In some places, such as the BBC for personnel in front of the camera, they are forced to wear them. In many schools and churches throughout the ‘UK’, Poppies are sold and wreaths are laid at monuments to the dead soldiers in many different places.
Prominent individuals, politicians and the media take part in a campaign to encourage the wearing of the Poppy and the participate in the ‘Festival of Remembrance’ generally and of late, to extend the Festival for a longer period.
High points in the ‘Festival’ are the Royal Albert Hall concerts on the Saturday and the military and veterans’ parades to the Cenotaph memorial in Whitehall, London, on “Remembrance Sunday”. (Also a focus for commemorations by the British far-Right and fascists).
“The concert culminates with Servicemen and Women, with representatives from youth uniformed organizations and uniformed public security services of the City of London, parading down the aisles and on to the floor of the hall. There is a release of poppy petals from the roof of the hall.1
An embroidered version of the poppy emblem (Sourced: Internet)
“The evening event on the Saturday is the more prestigious; tickets are only available to members of the Legion and their families, and senior members of the British Royal Family (the Queen, Prince Phillip, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York [not this year!] and the Earl of Wessex). 2
“The event starts and ends with the British national anthem, God Save the Queen3(and) is televised. Musical accompaniment for the event is provided by a military band from the Household Division together with The Countess of Wessex’s String Orchestra.”4
The money raised from the sale of the “Poppies” and associated merchandise is said to be used to support former military service people in need and the families of those killed in conflict. On the face of it, military and royal pomp apart, the Festival may seem a worthy charitable endeavour.
Also one which commemorates very significant historical events — therefore a festival which at the very least, one might thing, should not be opposed by right-thinking and charitable people.
Yet the main purpose of this festival and the symbol is neither remembrance nor charity but rather the exact opposite: to gloss over the realities of organised violence on a massive scale and to make us forget the experience of the world’s people of war.
And to prepare the ground for recruitment of more people for the next war or armed imperialist venture – and of course more premature deaths and injuries, including those of soldiers taking part.
Video and song “On Remembrance Day” from Veterans for Peace lists British conflicts (including Ireland) and condemns the Church of England for supporting the wars, calling also on people to wear the White Poppy (see Part 3 for the White Poppy)
Partial Remembrance – obscuring the perpetrators and the realities of war
The Royal British Legion is the overall organiser of the Festival of Remembrance and has the sole legal ‘UK’ rights to use the Poppy trademark and to distribute the fabric or paper poppies in the ‘UK’.
According to the organisation’s website, “As Custodian of Remembrance” one of the Legion’s two main purposes is to “ensure the memories of those who have fought and sacrificed in the British Armed Forces live on through the generations.”
By their own admission, the Legion’s “remembrance” is only to perpetuate the memories of those who fought and sacrificed in the British Armed Forces – it is therefore only a very partial (in both senses of the word) remembrance. More recently it tries to hide this exclusivity.5
It is left to others to commemorate the dead in the armies of the British Empire and colonies which Britain called to its support: in WWI, over 230,500 non-‘UK’ dead soldiers from the Empire and, of course, the ‘UK’ figure of 888,246 includes the 27,400 Irish dead.
Cossack soldier volunteers WWI. Imperial Russia was an ally of Britain and France; the war was one of the causes of the Russian Socialist Revolution 1917. The following year, the war ended. (Image sourced: Internet)
The Festival excludes not only the dead soldiers of the British Empire and of its colonies (not to mention thousands of Chinese, African, Arab and Indian labourers employed by the army) but also those of Britain’s allies: France, Belgium, Imperial Russia, Japan, USA … and their colonies.
No question seems to arise of the Festival of Remembrance commemorating the fallen of the “enemy” but if the festival were really about full “remembrance”, it would commemorate the dead on each side of conflicts.
German soldiers playing cards during WWI. Photos of Germans in WWI more readily available show them wearing masks and looking like monsters. (Photo sourced: Internet)
That would particularly be appropriate in WWI, an imperialist war in every respect. But of course they don’t do that; if we feel equally sorry for the people of other nations, it will be difficult to get us to shoot, bomb or stab them in some future conflict.
A real festival of remembrance would commemorate too those civilians killed in war (seven million in WWI), the percentage of which in overall war casualty statistics has been steadily rising through the last century with increasingly long-range means of warfare.
Very recently, the Royal Legion has tried to claim that the “acknowledge innocent civilians who have lost their lives in conflict” but add “and acts of terrorism.” Since we know that that ‘terrorism’ is a highly politicised word and for imperialists has mostly meant resistance struggle, that is hardly welcome.
Civilian war refugees in Salonika, NW Greece, WWI (Photo sourced: Internet)
Civilians in the First World War died prematurely in epidemics and munitions factory explosions as well as in artillery and air bombardments, also in sunk shipping and killed in auxiliary logistical labour complements in battle areas.
And through hunger, as feeding the military became the priority in deliveries and as farmhands became soldiers.
In WWII 85,000,000 civilians died in extermination camps or forced labour units, targeting of ethnic and social groups, air bombardments, as well as in hunger and disease arising from the destruction of harvests and infrastructure.
Air bombardments, landmines, ethnic targeting and destruction of infrastructures continue to exact a high casualty rate among civilians in war areas.
One admittedly low estimate up to 2009 gave figures of 3,500 dead in Iraq during the war and aftermath and another 100,000 dead from western trade sanctions, along with 32,000 dead civilians in Afghanistan.
Another review up to 2011 gave a figure of 133,000 civilians killed directly as a result of violence in Iraq and “probably double that figure due to sanctions”.6
The number of civilians injured, many of them permanently disabled, is of course higher than the numbers killed. Most of those will bring an additional cost to health and social services where these are provided by the state and of course to families, whether state provision exists or not.
Real and impartial “remembrance” would include civilians but not even British civilians killed and injured are included in the Festival of Remembrance, revealing that the real purpose of the Festival is to support the existence of the armed forces and their activities.7
And contributing at the same time to a certain militarisation of society and of the dominant culture.
If the Festival were really about “remembrance”, they would commemorate the numbers of injuries and detail the various types of weapons that caused them.
But that might reflect unfavourably on the armaments manufacturers, who run a multi-billion industry in whatever currency one cares to name, so of course they don’t.
Australian soldiers who survived gas attack but injured by it awaiting hospitalisation, Northern France, WWI 1916. (Photo sourced: Internet)
And if really concerned about death and injury in war, they would campaign to end such conflict – for an end to imperial war.
But then how else would the various imperial states sort out among themselves which one could extract which resources from which countries in the world and upon the markets of which country each imperial state could dump its produce?
So of course the Royal British Legion doesn’t campaign against war. That’s not its role. Quite the opposite.
End. (Parts 2 and 3 to follow).
Note: If you found this article of interest, why not register with Rebel Breeze for free, so that you will be notified by email of subsequent articles. You can de-register any time you wish.
FOOTNOTES:
1Sourced from the British Legion’s website in 2014, its WW1 centenary year.
Currently the Palestinian Resistance is engaged in an important struggle to eliminate four Israeli-proxy militias. This type of militias of colonial and imperial powers have a long history, not least in Ireland from the 1800s to the present.
SETTLER AND NATIVE MILITIAS IN IRELAND
The British colonial occupation of Ireland had an army to quell native resistance but many settlers also organised themselves into armed bands (as in Palestine), such as the Hearts of Steel or Hearts of Oak in the late 18th Century in order to resist the big landlords.
The United Irishmen were successful in uniting a number of these, both native and settler bands such as the Whiteboys and Hearts of Oak, particularly in Antrim but the Peep O’Day Boys went mostly with the sectarian and royalist Orange Order.
The settlers also organised yeomanry militias which they labelled ‘Volunteers’, initially to defend against a feared invasion from Napoleonic France. Some of those contained Republican sympathisers and some quite the opposite.1
In response to the successful uniting efforts of the mostly Protestant-led United Irishmen, the Orange Order was founded by British loyalists and soon received official support in organising anti-Catholic pogroms and in exposing United supporters, especially among the Protestant communities.
LOW INTENSITY OPERATIONS AND “PSEUDO-GANGS”
During the three-decades war towards the end of the 20th Century mostly in the 6 Counties, the British Occupation also organised proxies such as the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association. These were recruited among the Protestant/unionist community.
But not only among civilians.
As has been a pattern among colonial possessions, the occupying power organised a gendarmerie, i.e an armed police force under central command of the occupying power. In Ireland that was the Royal Irish Constabulary which came to prominence in the suppression of the 1867 Fenian rising.
After the partition of Ireland by the British in May 1921, the RIC within the remaining direct colony of the Six Counties was renamed the Royal Ulster Constabulary2. British Intelligence used this force to channel intelligence, arms and recruits into the Loyalist gangs.
In addition, many members of the disbanded RUC’s semi-militia, the part-time B-Specials, were reorganised into the RUC Reserve of the colonial police or recruited into the British Army as the newly-formed Royal Ulster Regiment, from which the Loyalist militias could be supplied as before.
Brigadier Frank Kitson was a leading colonial counter-insurgency strategist who had served in Kenya and Malaya before he was sent to the Six County colony to coordinate the Loyalist militias and the official armed forces and gendarmerie, no doubt in coordination with MI5.
Kitson published Gangs and Pseudo-Gangs (1960) and Low Intensity Operations (19713) based on the experience of colonial resistance repression in Malaya and Kenya, going on to introduce these ideas organisationally in the occupation of the Six Counties.
Pseudo gangs give the occupying power deniability and, being generally from the occupied country,4 have local knowledge. They can carry on terrorism and assassinations at ‘a remove’ from the occupying power.5 In the case of criminal gangs, they have an existing organisation.
Such gangs may have family or other social relationships with some in the targeted community, introducing allegiances and communal fragmentation as has been occurring to some extent in Gaza. However, in Ireland, the gangs were all originating from the unionist community.
Frank Kitson (now Brigadier) in 1971 (Photo source: Internet)
Jeffrey Sluka summarises6 “… beginning in 1972, there has been a vicious, continuous campaign of sectarian assassination against Catholics in Northern Ireland waged by Loyalist paramilitary groups (the Ulster Defence Association [UDA] and Ulster Volunteer Force [UVF]) …
“… and their associated death squads (the Ulster Freedom Fighters [UFF], Red Hand Commandos, Protestant Action Force, etc.), who have killed nearly 700 innocent Catholic civilians – the largest category of casualties in the war.
“Thousands of other Catholics have survived Loyalist attempts to murder them.
“The existence of this campaign has never been publicly acknowledged by the British authorities, who have ignored it, downplayed it, and actively misrepresented it …
“… to influence the media and public in this regard, both at home and abroad, as an integral part of their counterinsurgency strategy.
“The official position of the British authorities is that there is no state terror in Northern Ireland, and certainly no death squads. When pressed, they admit that there is Loyalist terror against Catholics, but insist that they have nothing to do with it.
“When pressed with evidence such as the fact that hundreds of members of the Security Forces have been convicted of involvement with Loyalist paramilitaries, they claim that this collusion is informal – individual acts by rogue soldiers and policemen
“- and not a reflection of government policy or military strategy. All of these are political lies.”7
SEPOYS
The use of military forces recruited among the occupied people dates back further even than the Roman Empire and the British Empire used them extensively in India, where they called them ‘Sepoys’,8 which is what the Basque pro-independence people call the Basque Autonomous Police.9
In India, one of the most serious uprisings against British rule was sparked by a mutiny of its Sepoys.10
In Palestine, the ‘Zipaios’ equivalent are the police of the Fatah-controlled Palestine Authority. They are bad enough, brutally suppressing dissent, spying on and even attacking Palestine organisations in the West Bank, arresting and even killing critics.
The Royal Irish Constabulary in Ireland were a gendarmerie mostly composed of sepoys and of course there were many Irish regiments in the British Army and Irishmen also served in other British Army units, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.
WORSE THAN SEPOYS
The militias in Gaza are however even worse. Based on criminal gangs and social groups, they have consistently looted aid trucks coming into Gaza before Israel closed all the gates, then selling the goods at high prices to the hungry population as Gaza starved and medicine became scarce.
According to reports there are currently four Zionist-linked militias in Gaza: Abu Shabab around Rafah in southern Gaza; Husam al-Astal in Khan Younis, Ashraf al-Mansi in Beit Lahia in the North, and Rami Heles in eastern Gaza.
Sourced from The Cradle based on Sky News investigation.
Their looting, supported by the Zionist state, was even used to try to blame on the Resistance, with Israeli spokespersons claiming that Hamas was stealing the aid. Conversely, as the Resistance strove to counter the proxy militias, the fighters were targeted by the Israeli Occupation Force.
Consequently it was almost impossible for the Resistance to suppress the proxy militias – until the current ‘ceasefire’. Now, able to operate to some extent more openly, the Resistance is settling accounts with the proxy militias. And it is very important that they do so.
Not only for what they have done, the plundering of emergency aid, attacks on displaced persons, torture and murder of famed journalist Salah al-Jafarawi.11 But because they are a serious infection, injected into Gazan society by the Zionazi occupation in order to cause serious harm to the society.
According to reports, undercover operatives of the Resistance have infiltrated the gangs and managed to appropriate a large number of weapons and vehicles of the gangs donated by the IOF or by the United Arab Emirates.12
Hamas advertised a truce for gang members to hand over their weapons and surrender themselves to the authorities, which some have done but many have not. The Resistance has operational clashes with the militias and has captured many. Some were publicly executed by gunshot.
Whether full-scale war returns to Gaza after this ‘ceasefire’ (full of IOF bombings, shelling and shooting) or not, their presence in Palestinian society cannot be tolerated, not by the civil government, nor by the broad community, nor by the armed resistance.
End.
Note: If you found this article of interest, why not register with Rebel Breeze for free, so that you will be notified by email of subsequent articles. You can de-register any time you wish.
APPENDIX:
A Sky News investigation has revealed that Israel is backing four Palestinian militias inside Gaza to weaken Hamas as part of what militia leaders call “Project New Gaza.” Hossam al-Astal, head of one of the groups, said the militias are coordinating their efforts to remove Hamas from power.
He claimed that Yasser Abu Shabab and Ashraf al-Mansi, leaders of other groups, have also joined the project. All four militias are reportedly positioned along the yellow line in areas under Israeli control.
Astal told Sky News his headquarters is only 700 meters from an Israeli military outpost and that an Israeli coordinator had agreed to establish a “Green Zone” free of shelling or gunfire. Footage reviewed by the outlet showed militia vehicles with Hebrew markings scratched off.
Astal admitted the group receives logistical support and ammunition from outside Gaza and has bought Hamas weapons on the black market. A senior fighter in the Abu Shabab militia also said Israel had enabled the smuggling of guns, cash, and vehicles.
The militias reportedly coordinate their movements with Israeli forces at Kerem Shalom to bring in supplies, while western powers are said to provide indirect material support. Two of the militia leaders are former Palestinian Authority security officers.
While the Mansi militia denied direct contact with the Israeli military, it acknowledged coordination with Israel’s District Coordination Office. Abu Shabab previously told Army Radio he was open to working with Israel, calling Trump’s ceasefire plan “a way to end the war.”
“Soon we will achieve full control of the Gaza Strip,” he told Sky News.
(Summarised by The Cradle online news updates on Telegram 26 October 2025).
FOOTNOTES
1The yeomanry militias deployed in Wexford, such as the North Cork, proved to be the most vicious and indisciplined of the Occupation’s forces and are noted in a number of songs in English and Irish: “… He led us on against the coming soldiers,And the cowardly yeomen we put to flight…” (Boolavogue, Patrick McCall, 1898);
“… Is go gcuirfeam yeomen ag crith in a mbrógaibh Ag díol a gcomhair ar Shliabh na mBan.” (Sliabh na mBan, believed byMícheál Óg Ó Longáin, 1798).
2Since then renamed the Police Service of Northern Ireland (sic).
3The same year that mass internment without trial was introduced by the British Occupation and that the Ballymurphy Massacre of protesting nationalist civilians was carried out by the Parachute Regiment.
4Sometimes even from the oppressed native community.
5They are more easily dispensed with too, should they be no longer needed or their relationship become too public.
6In his own chapter For God and Ulster: The culture of terror and Loyalist Death Squads in Northern Ireland in Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror, Ed. Jeffrey Sluka (200), USA.
8The term in Persian originally denoted ‘soldier’ but borrowed into Urdu and Hindi and under British rule, denoted native soldiers and their units in the British armed forces.
9The Ertzaintza. The Navarran police (‘Forales’) could also be called ‘Sepoys’ but are more usually called by other uncomplimentary names.
A wave of “recognitions of the State of Israel” have occurred around much of the world. Though at first glance these appear politically progressive, in fact they are all tied to supporting the colonial alleged “Two States Solution.”
This is quite apart from the fact that not one practical step is being taken by any of those states in order to prevent the ongoing genocide and massive displacement of Palestinians which many of the states are actually aiding.
The fourth image is what is available for the Palestinians in the imperialist two-state plan. (Image sourced: Internet)
Soon all but 30 member states of the UN will have recognised the Palestinian state (yet to exist) and they include western imperialist states such as Australia, Canada, France, Spain, the UK, supported by political parties both in government and opposition,1 all proposing a ‘two-state solution’ (sic).
This proposal involves accepting the ‘right’ of a European colonial settler regime to invade and occupy a land,2 subjugate most of the indigenous people, racially discriminate against them, set up an ethno-state, then carry out ethnic cleansing, genocide and further expansion.
This while simultaneously proposing 20% of the land with least water as a reservation for the indigenous people, under the guns and surveillance of the genocidal Occupier, with its borders, water and electricity supply all under the Occupiers’ control.
Many liberals and social-democrats will support the imperialist ‘solution’ being foisted upon the Palestinian people of the occupation of Gaza by a client regime and the creation of a formal Bantustan3 colony – the “Palestinian State” (sic).
This ‘solution’ was insisted upon at the three-day UN Conference in July, mandated by the UN General Assembly through resolutions ES-10/24 and 79/81 and sponsored by France and Saudi Arabiab, backed by the General Assembly President, Philémon Yang.
Also by Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, stating that the “… only just and sustainable path forward is the establishment of two independent, democratic States – Israel and Palestine – living side by side in peace and security, with Jerusalem as the capital4…” 5
Firstly, we’d have to say that there is nothing “just” about that path and secondly ask why is that the ‘”only sustainable solution?” Why cannot a democratic state of the entirety of Palestine, as pre-1948, be sustainable? Is it because the Zionists and their imperialist won’t let it be?
Then we’d be entitled to ask whether Guterres and Yang speak for the world or instead for the imperialist states and their clients and allies. In fact, since there can be no peace without justice, a democratic state of Palestine on pre-1948 territory is the only just and sustainable solution.
This scrambling to recognise the ‘Palestinian State’ within a “two-state” framework was also reflected in the recent United Nations vote for a ceasefire, which was tied to the acceptance of the two-state solution, emphasising that it has nothing to do with justice but is all about management.
The imperialist states and their allies, with the particular exception of the US and Israel, are very worried that the legacy of the current genocide will threaten their interests in Western Asia in the near future, including the regimes they depend upon to control the Arab people.
To some extent the western states are also concerned at the exposure of their regimes to their own populations in terms of collusion with genocide, financial implications , suppression of information and, in many cases, repression of democratic rights to protest.
The western states want to save West Asia for imperialism and they think that the USA and current behaviour of Israel are endangering it.
The two-state plan is not at this point supported by the Zionist state and the chief imperialist, the USA, though the plan seeks to impose what they also want: stability within the imperialist system.
Recently another international conference was held to discuss the way to resolve the situation of Western Asia and crisis in Palestine, this conference organised by Qatar following Israel’s bombing of their capital Doha in an assassination attempt against the Hezbollah negotiating team.6
The Iranian representative pointed out at the conclusion that although they supported some of the resolution adopted they could not agree to recognition of a Palestinian state within or adjacent to Israel, since that meant de facto recognition of the right of the genocidal Zionist state to exist.7
Recognition of the Palestinian State as is being done now is also recognition and acceptance of the totally unrepresentative and undemocratic Palestinian Authority and in fact, Palestinian Embassies (such as the one in Dublin) and Consulates are run through the Authority.
Leaflet issued by an Irish solidarity organisation for a picket of the Palestinian Authority Embassy last year – subsequently there was a broad protest held outside. (Image sourced: from my archives)
Although Palestine has been officially occupied by a Zionist colonial settler regime since 1948, it has had an imperialist and Zionist client Palestinian regime since the conclusion of the Oslo process (overseen for US imperialism by Bill Clinton): the Palestine Authority.
What would one expect from such a client regime? Collusion, spying, pacification? Certainly, the PA came to represent all those things. But in addition: bullying and brutal suppression, along with widespread corruption. It was managed by the Fatah leadership through the PLO.8
Whatever we may think of the Fatah leadership, they were by far the majority choice of the Palestinian people in the legislative elections of 1996. But by the time of the next elections in 2006, most of Palestine society had become sick of Fatah and elected Hamas instead.
A 2007 decree by President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas disqualified from election any party that did not recognise the leading role of the Fatah-dominated PLO, thereby disqualifying Hamas which denounced the decree as undemocratic and illegal.
There is a long history of imperialism choosing tame representation for occupied peoples, including British colonialism doing the same thing in Palestine.9
Fatah, unprepared to accept the loss of their power and corruption opportunities, refused to leave their governing positions until they were helped to leave by Hamas in a short, sharp struggle in 2007.10 Whereupon the Zionists blockaded Gaza and imperialists paid their grants instead to the PA.
However Hamas did not force the issue of their election in the West Bank, which continued under the rule, not to say dictatorship of the Palestinian Authority.
The corruption of and repression by the PA is not an opinion of the Palestinian resistance organisations alone but is widely acknowledged by all kinds of western observers, including enemies of the Resistance,11 which is one reason the imperialist are calling for its ‘revamping’.
Meanwhile Abbas, ‘President’ of the PA since its inception in 2003 (and ensuring no elections since) is already laying out how democratic the rule of the PA in Gaza would be. Unlike two decades ensuring no elections in the West Bank, Abbas has been enthusiastically preparing for them in Gaza.
He seems to feel quite confident in the outcome of elections which is perhaps not surprising since he has stated that only those in agreement with the imperialist positions and the traitorous one of the PA will be allowed to stand or field candidates.
Regarding weapons, Abbas’ statements have seemed a bit contradictory. On the one hand he said that the Palestinian State alone should hold weapons while on the other he declared that the Palestine State will be unarmed.
However we can understand this to mean that Abbas and his types will ensure they are armed so as to control the Palestinians but will never use weapons against the Zionist Occupation. Even had we not the record of the Palestinian Authority to draw upon, this is clearly not a deal to support.
But it will be supported – in the first place by most of the imperialists and their client states and perhaps later by the Zionists who fear even a mention of a Palestinian State and also by those ‘friends of the Palestinians’ among the liberals and social democrats because it will bring ‘peace’.
And for them, hopefully eliminate or reduce the influence of Muslims (in particular those who are sworn to resist colonisation and imperialism). And isn’t it after all better than genocide by starvation and bombing? And so on.
We in Ireland know – or should know – that such patch solutions don’t work for the people. Our nation’s similar makeover in 1921 resulted in civil war and, within the colonial statelet, pogroms, greater poverty than anywhere in the UK, civil rights marches and sectarian assassinations.12
And of course, internment and an ultimately unsuccessful national resistance war of three decades. On the other side of the British Border, it meant years of underdevelopment, emigration, clerical domination and imperialist appropriation of natural resources, labour and infrastructures.
The alternative being offered to the Palestinians was summed up by a patriot at his trial, where he was convicted and sentenced to hang:
“If we are to be indicted as criminals, to be shot as murderers, to be imprisoned as convicts, because our offence is that we love our land more than we value our lives, then I do not know what virtue resides in any offer of self-government held out to brave men on such terms.
Self-government is our right, a thing born in us at birth, a thing no more to be doled out to us, or withheld from us, by another people than the right to life itself, than the right to feel the sun, or smell the flowers, or to love our kind.
It is only from the convict these things are withheld, for crime committed and proven, and my land, that has wronged no man, has injured no land, that has sought no dominion over others, my land is being treated today among the nations of the world as if she were a convicted criminal.
If it be treason to fight against such an unnatural fate as this, then I am proud to be a rebel, and shall cling to my ‘rebellion’ with the last drop of my blood.
If there be no right of rebellion against this state of things that no savage tribe would endure without resistance, then I am sure that it is better for men to fight and die without right than to live in such a state as this.
Where all your rights have become only an accumulated wrong, where men must beg with bated breath for leave to subsist in their own land, to think their own thoughts, to sing their own songs, to gather the fruits of their own labours …
and, even while they beg, to see things inexorably withdrawn from them then, surely, it is a braver, a saner and truer thing to be a rebel, in act and in deed, against such circumstances as these, than to tamely accept it, as the natural lot of men.”13
It seems to me that throughout history there have been people that it was crucial for the dominant system to defeat but of which their resistance was difficult for the system to overcome.
The culture of these people resisted domination and, like grass flattened by passing footsteps, sprang up again. And again and again.
Perhaps it was the strength of these peoples’ cultures, the way their stories of themselves could not be supplanted by the stories of the invader, of the occupier, or perhaps it was some special quality of their leaders.
Perhaps it was their ability, as leaders and as people, to draw others in under the banner of resistance.
These people fought their occupiers, occasionally winning, often defeated in battle but rising again and again. Where leaders compliant to the Occupation arose, they were overthrown or sidelined, the people again taking the road of resistance. As a people, they rejected ‘peace’ in bribes or chains.
The examples of such people that march and flock into my mind as this thought occurs to me include in ancient times perhaps the Gauls, certainly the Irish and in modern times the Irish again, the Indigenous American Cheyenne, Sioux, Apache – and the Palestinians.
Cartoon by D.Breatnach
It is something to see now, all the European imperialists and the imperialist client regimes of the Arab world in a united front to try to pacify the Palestinians, to occupy Gaza and to force the resisting Palestinians under their client manager of the ‘Palestine’ Authority.
It is doubtful that they will succeed and we should hope that they don’t, not only for the sake of the Palestinians and other people of West Asia (the ‘Middle East’) but for our own sakes, fighting the oppression of imperialism and colonialism and the exploitation of our labour by capitalism.
For as observed earlier, the struggle of the Palestinians has destabilised the imperialist system, exposed the fraud of an international humanitarian legal system and in its member states exposed the frauds of capitalist democracy, free press and government representing the will of the people.
Solidarity with the Palestinians and outrage at Zionist genocide and imperialist collusion has brought millions of previously uninvolved people into street action which bodes well for the future and ill for the imperialist system. It’s been an education we need to continue.
End.
NB: If you found this article interesting you may wish to subscribe to the blog free of charge, after which you would receive a notification in your email every time an article was published. You can unsubscribe any time you wish.
Footnotes
1Within the Irish state this is also the position of Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Social Democrats and Labour.
2Commenting on this and in particular on the Australian Prime Minister’s statement on the question, Ali Albunimah of the Electronic Intifada podcast on 25/09/2025 pointed out that the question of ‘right’ was only mentioned once, and that was in reference to Israel’s alleged ‘right to self-defence’, never with regard to the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (a right recognised in the UN Charter, unlike the ‘right of a state to self-defence’ which does not exist).
3AI summary: A bantustan was a politically created territory for black Africans in South Africa and South West Africa (now Namibia) during the apartheid era, officially termed “homelands” or “black states”. The policy aimed to segregate and control the black population by granting them limited self-governance within these ethnically defined areas, which were never recognized internationally and were reincorporated into South Africa in 1994. The term “bantustan” was a critical term coined from “Bantu” and the Persian suffix “-stan” (meaning “land”).
4 “… based on pre-1967 lines and in line with international law and UN resolutions.”
8The Palestine Liberation Organisation, in its time comprising the secular liberation organisations of Fatah, PFLP and DFLP. The PA has repressed alternative resistance organisations and suppressed freedom of speech, even to arresting people for criticising it or posting other material on social media. Its forces have killed a civilian critic and a Resistance fighter.
10Mass media sources usually represent this as the “Hamas takeover” which conceals the fact that they were elected to replace the previously-elected Fatah administration, whose officials refused to concede the popular will.
12In case of misinterpretation, innocently or otherwise, let me state that by ‘sectarian assassinations’ I mean those carried out by British colonial proxies, i.e. Loyalist murder gangs.
13This was part of the speech of Roger Casement at his trial; my only change was to substitute the words “my land” for his own: “Ireland.” Casement’s was the 16th execution arising out of the 1916 Rising in Ireland though he received a criminal trial instead of military court and was hanged instead of being shot by firing squad, as were the earlier 15.
For a few days it has seemed a little like an invasion around Dublin city centre by Vikings and Steelers. Not Scandinavians as of old with some others1 but fans of two competing teams of the American National Football League.
One of the banners at the Drumcondra/ Clonliffe junction around 2.45pm.(Photo: D.Breatnach)
There is little social following for the game called ‘American Football’ in Ireland, where we have a massive following for Gaelic football and soccer through their respective associations, the Gaelic Athletic Association and the League of Ireland (the latter in particular much underfunded).
Years ago, in his capacity as Minister of Arts at the time, Michael D. Higgins, presiding at an event, criticised what he called “US imperialist cultural penetration” of Europe. This has been ongoing for decades mainly through cultural products of films and soap operas, cartoon films and comics.
Prior to that, we were subjected mainly to British cultural products in magazines, comics, films and soap operas. And of course the Irish state only set up its own TV broadcaster in the 1960s.
For years these products have been impacting on our consciousness and subconsciousness, including on some of our speech patterns in English. But attempts to promote NFL have failed; however, never before has such a big effort been made and with such financial backing.
The small group at the Drumcondra/ Dorset St junction and Canal/ Railway bridge as I approached it just after 1pm. (Photo:D.Breatnach)
For this one game, the Irish Government has awarded just short of 10 million euro in funding – i.e.one third of their funding for the entire sports sector in Ireland last year. While of course this is being promoted as a revenue opportunity for business, there are stronger reasons.
The NFL is a strong supporter of the imperialist US military and the US itself shows signs of gearing up for another war – against whom is unclear but Venezuela, Iran or China are likely targets. In addition, the US is the main supplier of arms and political backing to Israel.
One of the banners at the Drumcondra/ Clonliffe junction around 2.45pm. (Photo: D.Breatnach)
And where does the Irish ruling class want us? Why, with the USA of course! No more of this skulking around! Make Shannon officially a US military airport, have the RAF and UK Navy officially patrolling our seas and airspace, where arms for Israel can also fly through officially!
The often discussed ‘Triple Lock’ is all that appears to be holding back the Irish ruling class from dumping the state’s tattered neutrality2 — and they are working on that. But meanwhile, they seek to orientate us towards the leader of the western imperialist pack – through US sport.
The NFL will be doing their part, apparently going to make sure every child in the Irish school system will receive an NFL pack. Hey! USA! Leave our kids alone!
This weekend, the Irish Gombeen3 ruling class, through their State, supplied extra police to keep the US visitors safe around the city and on Saturday around Croke Park, while police helicopters kept eyes in the skies. And there was extra Garda tolerance also for UStater illegal street-drinking.4
At the Clonliffe/ Drumcondra Road junction at 1.00pm, announced rallying time. (Photo: D.Breatnach)
THE PROTESTERS
Many – including I – only learned on Saturday of the protest called by the IPSC5-allied Sports for Palestine campaign group against the NFL game programmed for Croke Park on Sunday between the Vikings and Steelers teams. A call-out to attend with flags and placards.
That seems a bit unfriendly towards visitors, sports enthusiasts, right? Fans just happy to support their teams and visit lovely Ireland at the same time, right?
Apart from the considerations of imperialism and war-orientation listed earlier, the USA is openly backing politically and supplying militarily a daily genocide against Palestinians. NFL is a significant cultural representation of the US and as such must be prepared to suffer for it.
Small group of protesters further down Clonliffe Road at junction of road leading up to Croke Park entrance, approached by an NFL fan (Steelers?) who wants his photograph taken with them. (Photo source: Participant)
While most of the Palestine solidarity protesters, maybe 60 at its highest point congregated at the junction of Clonliffe and Drumcondra roads, a small group of four took up position at the road leading to the Croke Park Stadium entrance and stood there with Palestine flags.
I headed for the railway and canal bridge at the Dorset Street junction, where I could see a Palestinian national flag and a placard calling to “Free America from AIPAC control.”6 On the way I passed NFL merchandise sales and young women handing out free canned energy drinks.
Greeting the other two at the Bridge, I extended my flagpole bearing the Starry Plough flag and took up station with them. Some passing traffic beeped our flags in solidarity.7 My standard litany to the passing NFL fans was: “Shame on the USA, supporting genocide! Shame, shame, shame!”
A comrade near me denounced “The United States of Israel”, alternating with attacking US responsibility for and complicity with genocide, while the other shouted about how wrong it is to be killing children. After awhile another comrade joined us but we never had more than four there.
Two of the Special Branch of the Gardaí, ‘spotting’ for the State. (Photo: D.Breatnach)
REACTIONS OF NFL FANS
The reactions of the passing fans to what we were saying varied considerably.
By far the majority of them attempted to ignore us while some looked at us with seeming curiosity but no other reaction. Some seemed embarrassed, covering the feeling with a smile. A small minority said they agreed with us, some even saying they were ashamed of the USA.
A tinier minority still exhibited hostility and outrage towards us, as in waving us away or giving the hand gesture for “blah, blah” (which a few verbalised also). A few laughed but that was their mistake, as I then shouted “Laughing about genocide? LAUGHING about GENOCIDE!”
One big man insulted us in an Irish accent but received as good from us, while an NFL fan who spoke in support of ‘Israel’ wilted under a barrage of “Genocider!” shouts. Another who mentioned “the hostages” was asked whether he was referring to “the 9,000 Palestinian prisoners?”8
Yet another accused us of generalising but received a response about arming Israel, to which he responded that we (Ireland, presumably) are feeding Israel. Another still wanted to avoid responsibility by saying that he’s “a Democrat” but was asked what that had to do with anything.
One other said he was from Belfast and yet another from England but the latter in particular got nowhere with that, considering Starmer’s support for the Zionazis. An older US man supported by two women claimed that we were being fooled by Hamas propaganda – there is no genocide!!!
It seems likely that those UStaters who encountered protesters and who are already opposed to what the US leadership is doing will return home at least a little strengthened in their position but also with some stories to tell people there about how the US is being viewed in a part of Europe.
Those who are unsure about what they think will probably doubt the leaders of the USA and dominant rhetoric even more. Some will be mostly unaffected and some may even harden their hostility to all critics of the USA. On the whole, I think the effects will be of a positive nature.
But even if so, of course nothing we did will be stopping the genocide for even one minute. Only states have the power to do that and were the Irish Government to ban all imports from ‘Israel’ outright, that would have a huge and immediate impact on the genocider’s economy.9
Another of the banners at theDrumcondra/ Clonliffe junction around 2.45pm. (Photo: D.Breatnach)
Sunday’s was a useful but minor action in the propaganda part of the liberation war – Palestinian national liberation, of course but also part of our own. However it could have had much greater visual impact. Drumcondra Road is on a much-travelled road including for Airport traffic.
The road also carries bus public transport routes from and to various Dublin destinations. There are three possible routes off it for access to Croke Park. We only covered two, one with a minimum presence. The size of the concentration at Clonliffe junction was understandable but unnecessary.
The source of much of this weakness appears to be the very late call-out to the protest – only the day prior for many, possibly most. Yet the NFL game must have been planned for many months.
end.
Note: If you found this article of interest, why not register with Rebel Breeze for free, so that you will be notified by email of subsequent articles. You can de-register any time you wish.
1Ireland was raided by Vikings from Scandinavia from 795 CE, they later establishing settlements in Dublin and along the south-east coast, also along the Shannon river and in Cork. Viking power in Ireland was broken by the 1040 CE victory of Brian Boru’s coalition (which included some Vikings, probably Norse) over the Leinster-Dublin coalition of mostly Dublin Danes, Leinster Irish and Viking mercenaries from Manx and Orkneys. The battle lasted 12 hours not far from the Croke Park stadium and part of the Viking mercenaries were caught and killed on their retreat to their ships nearby.
2Three requirements to be met before the Irish Government can send a military mission consisting of more than 12 personnel from Ireland to any part of the world.
3A pejorative term from the Irish language Gaimbín equivalent in meaning to ‘carpet-bagger’, huckster, etc. applied to the Irish neo-colonial (and neo-liberal) capitalist ruling class.
4City regulations forbid drinking of alcohol in any public place.
6The mostly Christian Zionist alliance that plays a heavy financial role in promotion of candidates for election in the USA.
7Yet in one hour outside the US Embassy or standing at Annesley Bridge the normal count of solidarity car-horn sounds would be in the fifties – among the tide of NFL fans, we just weren’t that visible to approaching traffic.
8There may be more but of those, around a third are now held under ‘administrative detention’ orders, without even the farce of an Israeli military court trial.
EU Vice-President Kallas referred to a number of state leaders meeting in China as ‘autocratic’, accusing them of challenging the ‘rules-based order’ of the Western states. But what is that ‘order’ and what are the ‘rules’ upon which it is based?
Kallas, in the course of her mostly economic briefing on behalf of the EU: While Western leaders gather in diplomacy, an autocratic alliance is seeking a fast track to a new world order. Looking at President Xi standing alongside the leaders of Russia, Iran, and North Korea in Beijing today.
These are not just anti-Western optics; this is a direct challenge to the international system built on rules. And it is not just symbolic: Russia’s war in Ukraine is being sustained by Chinese support. These are realities that Europe needs to confront.1
Leaders of states to which Kallas objected (without North Korea’s), L-R: Vladimir Putin, Xi Jianpeng and Masoud Pezeshkian, leaders respectively of Russia, China and Iran at the Victory of Japan (WWII) parade in Beijing following the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation conference. (Photo: CNN)
Who are the ‘western leaders’ to whom Kallas is referring? Presumably they are leaders of the “Western states”, a term usually understood to describe a bloc of the European Union, UK, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
A number of the European Union collection of states are imperialist and some of those are generally considered to be the leading members of the whole EU, in particular Germany and France.
Most of the European states also have a recent record of colonialism and some still rule those external colonies in part or wholly, viz: UK, France, Spain.
In addition, some have practised internal colonisation, forcing nations to submit to their integration within and submission to the particular European state; in this regard there should be added Italy and Belgium in addition to the three examples above.2
The principal non-European states of the western alliance are all European settler colonies in origin, all having practised genocide upon the indigenous people, all with a record of racism towards their indigenous and other people and one, the USA, having stocked huge slave plantations.
Given the record above, it is not surprising that these states also have a record of colonial wars and even wars upon their neighbours. In WWI, Germany and Austria fought the UK and its Dominions of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, along with France, Belgium and the USA.
In WWII, Germany and Austria with some allied states went to war with most of the remaining states of Europe and the USA and countries further afield in North Africa and the Middle East.
SINCE WWII, the UK3 has fought 41 external conflicts and a three-decades war internally (against the Resistance in a colonised part of Ireland);4 France fought 34 external conflicts5 and the USA 57.6 The vast majority of these conflicts have been fought in lands outside Europe or the US.
Katja Kallas, Vice-President European Commission, who sanctified Western states in her statement and looking saintly in this photo. (Photo sourced: Internet)
So, on past historical threat record, how do these “autocratic states” compare to the states Kalas complains of? They don’t even come close, of course. Ah, but wait, we are told that they do things by rules – they are part of a “rule-based order”, which those “autocratic states” are not, apparently.
Therules under which the Western states operate for decades have not prevented them supporting – including in many cases with actual arms — a European settler colony carrying out apartheid, constant war crimes and recently genocide against the indigenous people in Palestine.
The rules have allowed these Western states, as distinct from “autocratic states”, to censor news and twist media reporting into Zionist propaganda, to forbid Palestine solidarity demonstrations and beat up participants, categorise solidarity actions as ‘terrorism’ and jail Palestine supporters.
The rules have permitted the state hosting the United Nations building to decide who cannot attend; to regularly veto votes of the majority member states; to ignore decisions of international courts and sanction its officials and to have the UN humanitarian agency de-funded and staff killed.7
In fact, we have been taught that this ‘order’ is based on the following rules: Any member of the Western states club can do what it likes so long as a) the club leader, the USA agrees to it and b) the other members of the club don’t take any real practical adverse action (which they haven’t).
2Arguably Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Isle of Man and the Six Counties in Ireland are nations or parts thereof colonised and incorporated into its state by England; Brittany, northern Basque Country, Corsica and Pau by France; southern Basque Country, Galicia, Catalan Countries, Andalusia, Asturies by Castille/ Spain; Sicily by Italy …
3The UK includes the nations of Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and part of Ireland, essentially ruled by England and by that understanding the 30 Years War in Ireland was ‘internal’. The Isle of Man is not formally part of the UK but is effectively under its control. France also fought an ‘internal’ war against the Basque national Resistance but that was nothing like the degree of intensity of the British one in the northern Six Counties of Ireland.
I wish to briefly clear up what I believe to be some confusion about the terminology in the title, basing not so much on opinion but relying in the main on fact as illustrated by history.
I will attempt to show thereby that Republicanism and Irish Republicanism are different things ideologically and that socialism is different from both of them.
Republicanism entered the world as a political aspiration and, after revolutions in Britain, France and the USA, practised as a system of Government. It proclaimed electoral democracy for its citizens (at first men but later women) – but quite clearly the bourgeois class ruled society.
George Washington, Republican, being presented with the flag of the early American Republic. (Image sourced: Internet)
It was a democratic bourgeois (essentially capitalist) ideology characterised by individual choice,1 opposition to feudalism and monarchy and separation of church and state. It was not essentially socialist nor even anti-colonial, as we can clearly see from its early examples.2
Republican government was overthrown in Britain (English and Scottish administrations), the monarchy restored and in time a kind of compromise monarchy-democratic system evolved. The republican system in France and the USA remained and is with us to this day.
Painting of Oliver Cromwell, an English Republican whose name became part of a curse in Ireland (including for Irish Republicans!). (Image sourced: Internet)
Irish Republicanism also developed as a bourgeois ideology (drawing on English, French and US Republican thinking)3 but it was clearly also in favour of Irish sovereignty and therefore against the colonialisation of Ireland.4 Once measures of reform were blocked it became revolutionary.
This gave rise to the revolutionary organisations of the United Irishmen of the 1790s and early 1800s and the Young Irelanders of the middle of the 19th Century; also of the Irish Republican Brotherhood of the later 19th.
The IRB or Fenians however had a strong working class character and were admitted to the First International Workingmen’s Association, the first international socialist organisation. However, Irish Republicanism remained a bourgeois ideology albeit democratic and revolutionary.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, founders of scientific socialism. (Image sourced: Internet)
Socialism
The ideology of socialism has a long pedigree but was made more concrete under and in opposition to capitalist society. It found development on a scientific ideological and organisational basis particularly with the work of two German migrants to Britain, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.
This ideology emphasises communal over individual ownership of the means of production, distribution and use/ consumption and sees the socialist state as a stage on the way to communist society. Its mantra is: From each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution.5
In terms of implementation the Paris Commune of 1871 was the first socialist capture of a city and the October Socialist Revolution of 19176 in Russia the first time a country was taken by socialists.7
Irish Republican ideology continued into the early decades of the 20th Century with its military organisation first the Irish Volunteers of the 1916 Rising and later, the Irish Republican Army of the War of Independence, whose leadership split over the English offer of autonomy with partition.
Ireland had been kept under-industrialised by colonialism but socialist political organisation was developing slowly in some urban areas. In 1896 Connolly and others founded the Irish Socialist Republican Party in Dublin and in 1912 he and Larkin also the Irish Labour Party.
In 1911 Larkin had founded the Irish Transport and General Workers Union.
The employers strove to break the ITGWU and implemented a Lockout of union members or supporters in 1913; attacks on the workers by the Dublin Metropolitan Police led to the defensive creation of the Irish Citizen Army – the first workers’ army in the world.8
Some Irish Republican leaders and followers sympathised with the strikers and some did not but the Republican movement did not mobilise in their support with the exception of a number of members of Iníní9 na hÉireann, which would later split between the ICA and Cumann na mBan.
In 1916 the IRB organised an insurrection with the participation of its Irish Republican military forces of the Irish Volunteers, Cumann na mBan and Na Fianna Éireann united with the Socialist force of the Irish Citizen Army (including women members).10
The War of Independence 1919-1921 was led by the Irish Republican movement with some support, particularly in intelligence and arms smuggling, by the Irish Citizen Army.
The Civil War 1922-2311 followed the British offer of autonomy with partition, as the leadership of the Irish Republican movement, including a section of the IRA split. The ICA had lost its leadership but did not join the neo-colonial side and in subsequent years faded organisationally.
The main opposition leadership to the State returned to being nationalist in the shape of Sinn Féin and the Anti-Treaty IRA, both of which split again with a substantial number joining the De Valera-led Fianna Fáil, which would soon show itself to be also neo-colonial in outlook and practice.
In this period a Socialist current grew within the Irish Republican movement, responding to international and domestic events including the growth of fascism. The short-lived Republican Congress attempted to combine the Socialist and Irish Republican currents in one broad front.
The Irish Republican movement leadership and substantial sections of its membership was however socially conservative and largely dominated by Catholic Church influence. The IRA responded to the Republican Congress with a new anti-communist rule and the expulsion of Congress members.
Frank Ryan, IRA and International Brigades, Socialist (Image sourced: Internet)
This sad part of the history of the Irish Republican movement illustrates very clearly the separate nature of Irish Republican and Socialist organisation. The IRA of the 1930s were Irish Republicans but anti-socialist and those who joined Congress had begun as Republicans but were now socialists.
Or Socialist Republicans perhaps but with the emphasis on socialism. Henceforth other variants would exist, of Republicans who were socially conservative, or liberal, or socialist-influenced … but Irish Republicans first and foremost.
Such an ideology would allow them later to unite to focus on a war against the colonial occupation of one-sixth of the nation but to largely neglect the social, economic and cultural issues arising from a socially conservative neo-colonial regime affecting the majority of the Irish population.12
There may be a tragic illustration of the difference between revolutionary Irish Socialism and revolutionary Irish Republicanism in the last of the Dublin 1916 executions, on 12th May, of the socialist James Connolly and of the Irish Republican Brotherhood organiser Seán Mac Diarmada.
Connolly was one of the leaders of the ITGWU and its Irish Citizen Army which had fought the bitter eight months against the Lockout to smash the union. Mac Diarmada is reported opposing the workers’ action, believing that Irish manufacture and trade would lose out to English competition.13
CONCLUSION
There are Irish Republicans who are revolutionary socialists and Irish Republicans who are not. There are also some revolutionary Irish socialists who are not strictly speaking Irish Republicans. All can and should join in the struggle against British colonialism and other imperialism.
A sovereign Irish Republic on a united 32 Counties would be a great progressive step, for democracy and against imperialism and colonialism. It would not, however, be socialist just because it was Irish Republican, even if it adopted some socialist measures.
A socialist Ireland would be one in which the working class ruled and its measures would include socialisation of all productive enterprises including factories, agricultural and construction enterprises and distribution centres, i.e any which employed workers not of the owner’s family.
And socialisation of all transport and communication networks and social and health services in addition to financial services.14
If it did all the above the regime in Ireland would be socialist and would not even need to call itself ‘Republican’.15 If it were not socialist then it would be capitalist and the struggle for socialism would need to confront the Irish state which would in turn seek to repress the socialist struggle.
Republicanism and Irish Republicanism are different things and socialism is different from both of them.
If people wish a socialist society they should not expect Irish Republicans to present them with that but will instead need to educate, organise and lead their own revolutionary socialist forces while simultaneously participating in the broad anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles.
2English Republicanism did not in general envisage the right of Ireland to self-determination, nor France agree with the national rights of the Breton and Basque nations, nor of the colonies abroad for independence; nor the USA of the rights of the Indigenous not to have European settlers occupy their land.
3Largely adopted by sections of business and professional classes of the Occupation, i.e settlers and descendants of settlers.
4Many Irish Republicans were historically able to collude in English settler colonialism in Australia and early colonial occupation of America, as well as later USA settler colonialism into lands still held by the Indigenous Americans.
5However, in communist society, it was understood that the second half of that slogan would be ‘to each according to their needs.’
6The earlier February Revolution had been a workers’ strike and bourgeois uprising against war and the absolutist power of the Tsar. Incidentally it had been only the second revolution against world war, as the 1916 Rising in Ireland had been the first.
7I am not discussing its development or degeneration here, which would take us away from the central topic of discussion.
8Most armies chiefly recruit from the working class but the ICA was specifically for as well as of the workers.
10That they were distinct forces is clear in their development and leadership but in the membership the differences would not always be so clear-cut. The Constitution of the ICA was Irish nationalist but required all members to be trade union members and people chose an organisation to join on the basis of family and social circle loyalties.
A video clip of Tom Barrack, US Ambassador to Turkiye giving a press conference in Lebanon, in which he accused the journalists of ‘animalistic’ behaviour and threatened to be ‘out of there’ if they continued has led to much criticism.
I’d imagine Tom Barrack was tired and his patience thereby more easily stretched – I know myself how that can be. But in that circumstance, his diplomatic training stalled and out slipped his real inner attitude to the people to whom he had been sent as ambassador – the Arabs.
The journalists accepted it meekly but according to reports, the Lebanese Press Editors Syndicate called on US envoy Tom Barrack and the US State Department to issue a public apology to the Lebanese media. Some Lebanese politicians and ordinary civilians reacted even more angrily.
Lebanese in the south held a protest rally and scrawled on the ground in large letters that “Barrack is animal” and reportedly had baskets of tomatoes ready to throw at this man who is not only the USA’s Ambassador to Turkiye but is in fact also their envoy to much of the region.
Protest at Barrack’s comments in southern Lebanon where he had been intending to go but then cancelled his visit. (Photo sourced: Online)
As a result Barrack had to cancel trips to other Lebanese regions. Most media reporting and criticism has focused on Barrack’s description of the reporters’ behaviour as ‘animalistic’ but his following words were actually more insulting and had wider implication.
“This is the problem with what’s happening in the region,” he said. In other words, the allegedly “animalistic behaviour” of the reporters was symptomatic of the Lebanese in general, in Barrack’s opinion and further, one can reasonably speculate Barrack meant, of the wider Arab world.
Of course in Barrack’s mind the USA is the epitome of civilisation, the standard by which to judge all others. A European settler colony of 250 years built on genocide of the indigenous inhabitants through massacres, disease, starvation, ethnic cleansing and racist culturecide.
The USA built up an extensive agricultural plantation system maintained on slave labour, both kidnapped and imported and also raised domestically.
The colony expanded aggressively to the lands colonised by other settlers, such as the Spanish, French and the Mexican Empire, bringing legalised slavery to lands where it had been abolished, then declared the whole southern sub-continent a sphere of influence for itself alone.
This epitome or high point of civilisation is $1.8 trillion in a debt1 that rises annually, has among the highest prisoner per population ratio in the world,2 one of the highest ratios of murders3 and of number of fatal gunshot incidents per population and of regular massacres by lone gunmen.
Most of the citizens of this state will be unaware of these facts: surveys have revealed time and again the low level of geographical, political and historical awareness of even high school students in the USA.4
Tom Barrack (centre, next to US Ambassador to Lebanon) in meeting with President Lebanon, Joseph Aoun in June 2025. (Photo: Reuters)
So where does this attitude of superiority in an ambassador of this state come from? The USA became a world power after WWI through its industrial and military power, its oil and gas reserves and possession of the Atom Bomb. Might is not only right but the right – the right to decide!
The right to decide for others whether and how they should live. And inevitably with that must accompany the attitude of the unfitness of others to make those decisions for themselves. Not just ‘manifest destiny’ for the USA but to decide the destiny of the rest of the world.
Of course, there are categories among the unfitting and, since the settler colony was of Europeans, all other ethnic groups are even less fitted, in the US imperialist mentality. Hence the attitude toward Arabs, which annoyingly are sitting on even more oil and gas reserves than are the US.
The contribution to this attitude by the despised themselves is not to be underestimated. The ruling elites of nearly all Middle Eastern/ Eurasian states, by their servile and self-interested complicity, have contributed to the superior feeling of the rulers of the USA exhibited by Tom Barrack.
The behaviour Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun and Foreign Minister Joe Rajijehplays to the feeling of USA superiority. While Israeli planes bomb their land daily, drones assassinate people, troops invade, on what are they focused? Why on what the US wants, the disarming of Hezbollah!5
The first report on the Barrack meeting with Aoun from the Lebanese Presidential Office was of glowing servility and did not mention Barrack’s insulting behaviour,6 while a second statement reacting to the outrage apologised on Barrack’s behalf without mentioning him by name.7
Everybody who has played the servile yet threatening ‘nigger’, the drunken and dangerous ‘paddy’, has justified the superior attitude. All who abandoned their language and aped their conquerors did so too. But it is a process that can be reversed – at least by and for the subjugated.
You’ll be able to recognise those reversing the process by their descriptions in the western mass media – they will be the ‘militants’, ‘diehards’, ‘extremists’ and even the ‘terrorists’. They will usually also be described as ‘proxies’ of some state to which the Imperial West is opposed.8
End.
If you found this article interesting you may wish to register to receive articles straight to your email. It will be free of charge and you are able to de-register any time you wish to.
APPENDIX
Tom Barrak is the son of Lebanese immigrants to the USA and has built his career initially around law, then property and other investments and politics, as a political and business fixer for high-level Saudi and US interests.
He has never been mistaken for a friend of the people, as opposed to of ruling circles, whether in the US or in the Middle East.
Whether a sense of shame at his origins and wanting to aspire to the values of the modern USA or his sense of entitlement as a US Government official is the cause of his attitude to the Arab Middle East world is unknown.
5The US-backed Israelis, whose daily violations of the Lebanon-Israel truce (guaranteed by the US!) have reached thousands, want areas of South Lebanon for permanent occupation and want the Lebanese Government to resettle their populations, according to reports of recent talks.
6President Joseph Aoun received a US delegation, which included Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Representative Joe Wilson, in the presence of US envoy Tom Barrack, Ms. Morgan Ortagus, and US Ambassador to Lebanon Lisa Johnson.
The meeting reviewed the situation in Lebanon and the region, as well as the outcomes of the delegation’s tour, in addition to the talks held by Envoy Barrack and Ms. Ortagus in Israel and Syria.
During the meeting, President Aoun renewed his gratitude to the US administration and Congress for their continued attention to Lebanon and their commitment to assist it, in line with the directives of US President Donald Trump.
He was also briefed by the delegation members on the results of their visit to Damascus, expressing great satisfaction with what they conveyed regarding Syria’s readiness to establish the best possible relations with Lebanon. He emphasized that this reflects a shared will and desire between the two countries.
President Aoun also reaffirmed Lebanon’s readiness to immediately address outstanding bilateral issues in a spirit of brotherhood, cooperation, good neighborliness, and the historic ties between both peoples, stressing Lebanon’s full support for the unity and territorial integrity of Syria. (Reported by The Cradle)
7The Presidency of the Republic regrets “the words that were inadvertently spoken from its podium by one of its guests today. It emphasizes its absolute respect for human dignity in general, and wishes to reaffirm its full appreciation for all journalists and accredited media correspondents in particular, extending to them its greetings for their efforts and dedication in carrying out their professional and national duties.”
8An old trope to rob the opponents of their own motivation and legitimacy. The insurgents of 1798 and 1803 in Ireland were described by the British as agents of France; the insurgents of 1916 as agents of Germany.
US Imperialism is currently meeting resistance in two Middle Eastern/ West Asian states as, through pressure on their governments, it tries to disarm the guerrilla organisations.
People in most Western states are familiar with political binaries of Right and Left but in many parts of the world, though that exists, the dominant binary is sovereignist or clientist1, the former placing national interests above all and the latter aligning with the interests of imperial powers.
LEBANON
This country is known as the heartland of Hezbollah but many may not be aware that this resistance movement is fairly new in historical terms, coming into existence as it did in opposition to the ‘Israeli’ occupation of 1982 and instrumental in forcing total IOF withdrawal by 2000.
Hezbollah has been described more recently as “a state within a state”, with its Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc political representation and its Jihad Council army. It works in alliance with the Amal Party, also majority Shia and the Free Patriotic Movement (mostly Christian).2
Lebanon had been earlier occupied by French colonialism and its colonial elite was typically among the Catholic Christian sect known as Maronites,3 as were half the population then, the reason why the Constitution (National Pact of 1943) gives half the seats to Christian candidates.
However no population census has been carried out since 1932 and many believe that a census today would not justify half the Parliament seats allocated to Christian representatives, even in a sectarian Constitution. The others sects are Muslim (Shia and Sunni) and Druze.
This has been the case in Lebanon which, outside of the Civil War of 1975-1990, has been governed in a balance of these forces, with the recent former President, though a Maronite, sympathetic to the country’s sovereign interests and therefore also to Hezbollah and the Amal party.
On the clientist side (but proclaiming Lebanese ‘independence’) are the remains after its 2016 dissolution of “the March 14 Alliance,” consisting now of the Lebanese Forces party, with the largest parliamentary representation4 and of the Ketaeb, the fascist Phalangist party of the Civil War.
The main political representation of the Druze community, the Progressive Socialist Party, has supported one bloc or the other at various times.
The Lebanese Constitution (National Pact) stipulates that the President must be a Maronite but cannot be a serving member of the military. On 9th January, Josef Aoun was elected President of the Government, for which he had to give up his position of Commander of the Armed Forces.
His election and cabinet choices were not good news for the sovereignists since the USA, as in many countries had been penetrating the armed forces through weaponry and recruitment grants and Aoun was considered their proxy – a description which his conduct has done nothing to refute.
Josef Aoun (centre right) in discussion with US Envoy Tom Barrack (middle left).
On 5th August the Lebanese Parliament began to discuss the question of who is entitled to bear arms with a clear intention to follow the US lead that it should be the State only.5 Many in the West would perhaps think this a normal position but only Hezbollah fighters have defended Lebanon.
Since the ‘Israeli’ armed forces attacked Lebanon on 1st October 2024,6 not once has the Lebanese Army fought them. Hezbollah fought the IOF to a standstill in the south of Lebanon, also bombing troop concentrations in northern ‘Israel’7 in support of Gaza and causing large settler evacuations.
The IOF had to beg for a ceasefire, to which Hezbollah and the Lebanese Government (also US, France …) agreed and which the IOF, true to form, has violated since thousands of times in bombing flights, drone assassinations, invasion of Lebanese land and kidnapping of Lebanese civilians.8
Hezbollah and Amal’s representatives walked out of the Government disarmament discussions, accusing their reigning opposition of failing to stand up to US threats and seeking to disarm the Resistance while at the same time failing to confront ‘Israeli’ occupation and ceasefire violations.
The Government went ahead and tasked the Army with preparing a plan – not to defend Lebanon against the occupation and constant attacks by the IOF but instead to disarm Hezbollah.
No observer thinks the Government or Lebanese Army are capable of disarming Hezbollah and serious commentators view this move by US proxies as seeking to delegitimise the Lebanese Resistance and blame them for the attacks of the IOF upon targets in Lebanon.
Hezbollah in fact is the only force that has fought the Zionist occupation9of 1982 after the PLO left, also during later IOF invasions of 1993 and 1996. Josef Aoun is widely believed to have asked Hezbollah to defend Lebanon’s western border with Syria against infiltration from ISIS.10
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi commented on the reason for trying to disarm Hezbollah “is that it has shown its capability on the battlefield”, and “that the positions of the party and its Secretary-General are strong showing the Resistance’s steadfastness in the face of pressures.”11
The Lebanese Foreign Minister accused Araghchi of “violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty,”12 which might have been considered fair comment, were it not for the fact of Lebanon’s government’s acting under admitted US pressure and toleration of ‘Israeli’ bombing and assassinations.
This kind of dialogue continued up to very recently as Ali Larijani, Iran’s Secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Council visited the country but he pointed out in public statements that interference in Lebanon’s internal affairs is not by them but rather by others in an overseas faraway office.
Nightly protest demonstrations,13 including huge motorcades have been carried out in many areas since the Government’s decision, mostly by young people, often flying Hezbollah flags.
An opinion poll taken between 27 July and 4 August 2025 indicates that 76% wouldn’t trust diplomacy with ‘Israel’, 71.7% don’t believe the Lebanese Army is capable of defending the country against ‘Israel’ and 58% don’t think Hezbollah should surrender its weapons at this point.14
On Saturday, the Lebanese army said an explosion at a weapons depot near the Israeli border killed six soldiers as troops were sent to dismantle Hezbollah infrastructure in the area as part of a disarmament plan; the Government is now mourning them but blaming Hezbollah.
However, observers note that people in the south are angry that the Government never had a word to say about all the Lebanese civilians killed by the IOF since October 24 or about the Hezbollah fighters that fell fighting the ‘Israeli’ invasion then.
IRAQ
The position in Iraq is very different, although the USA is also keen to restrict arms to the State there only. The US armed forces have a base in Iraq and in addition, control its air space.15 However, the resolve of the Iraqi Government is different to that of Lebanon’s.16
US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce criticised the recent visit of Ali Larijani, Iran’s Secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Council and the signing of a joint security pact between Iraq and Iran. Iraq’s Embassy in New York replied that they are a sovereign state.17
Let us recall for a moment that Iraq was ruled by the Sadam Hussein regime, first a client of the US when it went to war with the Islamic Republic of Iran 1980-1988 but an enemy when, in pursuit of his own policies in 1990, his armed forces invaded Kuwait, a US client state.
In order to justify their regime-change war of 2003, political leaders of both the USA and the UK lied to their populations claiming that Iraq held WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) which were an imminent threat. The subsequent war overthrew Hussein but destroyed the country for years.
The US occupation was widely criticised even by sources within the imperialist camp for its absence of an integrated governing policy and structure to replace the Hussein regime, with jihadist and Kurdish warlords ruling different areas and at times in conflict with one another.
Until the US forces agreed to pull out in 2011,18 the US proxy Iraqi administration and armed forces, along with the armed forces of the US itself faced constant attacks from both Iraqi national resistance organisations and Islamic jihadists, including by roadside bombs and suicide bombers.
The independent or citizen armed forces19 mostly came into existence during the war against the ISIS invasion of Iraq in 2014, being instrumental not only in defence of Baghdad but also in taking the war to the sectarian jihadists at a time when much of the Iraqi armed forces were failing.
Most of the media commentary on those Popular Mobilisation Forces characterises them as proxies of Iran and raises fears about their integration into the state armed forces without being under direct control of the military command, instead answerable only to the President.
While such media raises concerns about dangers to Iraq’s sovereignty from the militias, the same media sees no problem with the USA control of Iraq’s airspace, of foreign troops installed on their land past the date they agreed to leave, and openly pressuring Iraq on how to deal with the militias.
With regard to the call that all armed forces should be unified under the State, that generally suits the USA since they often arm, train and educate the armed forces in countries where they have influence, not to mention actual military bases.
The position of Western powers that only the State should have weapons is hypocritical given their history of supporting armed insurrection to topple regimes they consider unfriendly, also with regard to the right for citizens to bear arms in the USA’s own Constitution.
The hypocrisy of the USA and Western powers is exposed not only in that but also by the fact that they sponsored Muslim fundamentalist terrorist forces to overthrow secular regimes such as Assad’s in Syria, including supporting a prominent former ISIS commander to take over that state.
The multitude of militias under the self-proclaimed current President of Syria, Al Julani, former second-in command of the Nusra Front,20 have been massacring Alawites, Druze and Christians but despite some murmurs of concern Macron welcomed Julani to the Elysée Palace in Paris.
For the US and the Western imperialists then, the real issue is not about a need for one effective central military command or state sovereignty, but rather about whether or not all the armed forces within the State are under a command over which the imperialists can exercise control.
And even more so, whether the guerrilla groups or at least their commanders are orientated towards the western powers or instead towards an oppositional centre, whether that be a state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, or an internal force in favour of national sovereignty and anti-imperialism.
4According to the National Pact sectarian allocation of seats between the various religious communities. However, as noted, there has not been a census since 1932 and many suspect that the Christian community no longer has dominance in numbers.
9And the main force that drove the Zionist occupation out in 2006.
10Hezbollah is reputed to have refused, not surprisingly, while the current Lebanese regime is following US dictates (which is the major cause of the presence of ISIS in Syria) and demanding the disarmament of the Resistance.
12Ibid: “The recent statements made by Iranian Foreign Minister Mr. Abbas Araghchi, in which he addressed internal Lebanese matters that do not concern the Islamic Republic in any way, are rejected and condemned. They constitute a violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty, unity, and stability, and are considered interference in its internal affairs and sovereign decisions.
Relations between states can only be built on the basis of mutual respect, equality, non-interference in internal affairs, and full adherence to the decisions of legitimate constitutional institutions. It is completely unacceptable for these relations to be exploited to encourage or support internal parties outside the framework of the Lebanese state and its institutions, and at its expense.”
15Over the protests of the Iraq Government, the US used its airspace from which to bomb Iran in the recent attack.
16Though one might not think so from the predominance of current media headlines announcing government and resistance groups’ alleged acquiescence.
17‘Iraq is a fully sovereign state and has the right to conclude agreements according to its constitution and laws, without being subject to any country’s policies‘. Details of the agreement remain unknown.
19This excludes the Kurdish peshmerga who fought ISIS mostly to defend their areas and many with a desire to create an independent Kurdish authority there.
Even as European imperialists and imperialist client Arab states try to save the Zionist state with a proposal to disarm the Palestinian Resistance and put the quisling Palestine Authority in charge of Gaza,1 many Israeli Zionists are signalling that it’s too late.
Middle East Spectator reports that six hundred members of the ‘Commanders for Israel’s Security’ (CIS) have written a letter to President Trump urging him to pressure Benjamin Netanyahu to stop the war in Gaza due to Israel’s ‘desperate situation’ regarding ‘global legitimacy’.
The MES source is TheJerusalem Post. The ‘Commanders’ consists of former senior officials from the IDF, Mossad, and Shin Bet, which is to say the ‘Israeli’ armed forces, external and internal state intelligence services.
On the popular free-to-air Channel 12 TV, ex-general Noam Tibbon complained that ‘Israel’ was facing international isolation through its starvation of Gaza while its unsuccessful “Gideon Chariots”2 military campaign has resulted in the deaths of 50 of its soldiers.
Cartoon by D.Breatnach
Actually the Zionist army’s deaths are almost certainly under-reported3 as are the 6,145 wounded stated by the IOF, in comparison to the Defense Ministry’s Rehabilitation Division reported 18,500 soldiers and other security forces wounded with varying severity.4
In addition, seven of its soldiers took their own lives during July this year. Seventeen IOF suicides were recorded in 2023 and twenty-one in 2024 with another 17 already this year. Those figures do not include reservists taking their lives in periods after military duty.5
The IOF’s losses in damaged tanks, armoured bulldozers and personnel carriers are also high. Despite this situation, the Zionist State is also carrying out military operations in Syria and Lebanon and its leaders talk about resuming its war with Iran, which had disastrous results for ‘Israel’.
Palestinian Resistance operations of various factions occur every day, while every second day or so ‘Israeli’ media reports “a security incident” in Gaza, their coded description for a Resistance operation resulting in the death of at least one IOF soldier.
In addition to the armed resistance of Palestinians particularly in Gaza putting a strain on the armed Zionist Occupation, it has strained also the relationship between the latter and the Government coalition led by Netanyahu, as discussed on Zionist Army radio and reported by The Cradle.
IOF Army Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir is quoted as saying that the Zionist army lacks clear strategic direction from the Government and that it favours a deal with Hamas allowing it to return to Gaza’s periphery as before October 8th and to ‘exhaust’ Gaza.6
As a practical alternative the IOF could occupy the whole of Gaza, which Zamir says can be done in a period of months but the ‘clearing’ of the Resistance above and below ground (in the tunnels) would take years and though he left it unsaid, would drain the IOF to cracking point.
The Resistance is fighting a long war of attrition. While the IOF can and does kill civilians in thousands it cannot operate with impunity on the ground against the Resistance fighters, despite its high technology and drones, both for surveillance and attack, in addition to artillery and air cover.
2IOF Codeword for the military operation since they broke the ceasefire agreement in March this year and restored the genocidal blockade, along with bombing of residential areas and ethnic cleansing of whole districts.
6What this term entails is not clear but could be a return to the conditions of constant power cuts, restriction on food entry to the minimum and heavy restrictions on entry and departure, along with regular raids in force to capture or kill Palestinians.
rebelbreeze 