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.
No, I’m not being sarcastic – I am quite serious. Thank you for making it clear that you support the Irish State joining the imperialist alliance of NATO.1 I take it that opinion is at least widespread among your social class.
After all you are among the biggest of the native Irish monopoly capitalists, right? Number eight of the eleven richest people in Ireland.2
From the statements and actions of politicians I had assumed your Gombeen neo-colonial class was of that opinion but I suppose there was always a slim chance that the politicians were out on a limb, going it alone, not representing their bosses … but sure now you’ve confirmed it yourself.
I see you’re concerned about the defence of Ireland. That’s really good – so am I. Hold on, you just mean the Irish state – the 26 Counties? Oh, of course, that’s right, the Six Counties are already in NATO. They didn’t get to vote on that, did they? But we will here, of course.
Wait now, didn’t Mícheál Martin say he didn’t believe it would have to be voted on? And isn’t the Government now trying to get rid of the Triple Lock stopping us sending many soldiers anywhere without approval of the government, a majority vote in Leinster House and a UN mandate?3
The Government and majority vote shouldn’t be a problem for you, should it? You’ve got a comfortable majority in Leinster House on abiding by the Western Imperialist stance. Ah you have, Denis, you have – sure isn’t the Irish State the biggest customer of Israel, next to the USA?
Getting a UN mandate might be a bit trickier, especially these days. After all, a lot of UN members have been at the sharp end of NATO, or that of the USA, or UK, or France – which is all pretty much the same thing. The Security Council would work if Russia or China didn’t veto it.
Anyway, back to defending Ireland. We should really discuss what that means. Defending our physical lives and homes? A lot of our homes belong to the banks and vulture funds so I’m thinking maybe THEY should defend them.
Or maybe defending our natural resources and public infrastructures, i.e the ones that our governments for decades have been giving away to native and foreign monopoly capitalists. I think you’ve benefited from a bit of that yourself, Denis. Ah you have, you know you have.
Many of those foreign monopoly capitalists taking over our industry come from NATO countries too, as it happens.
Cartoon by D.Breatnach.
Defending our physical lives? The thing I find hardest to understand, however, Denis, is how you think we’d be safer within NATO, of which the UK is a major part. I mean, since Britain invaded us in 1169 it has caused wars in Ireland, famines, genocide, linguicide, sectarianism and division.
You could say that’s in the past but it’s not, is it though? And they do say that the best predictor of future behaviour is previous behaviour, after all.
I know you’re concerned about the undersea cables. I’m not just worried about the UK in NATO – the top boss of NATO is the USA. And their record is more of sabotaging undersea pipes than protecting cables! I know, I know … no concrete evidence. But who else had motive, opportunity and capability?
Now, you want to see the Irish armed services expanded. But I can’t see why we have to be a part of NATO to do that. And if, as part of NATO, our armed services go to war, will you be ok with your grandchildren Meghan, Catherine, Denis, Michael, Kevin, and Patrick risking being killed?
Of course, I do know that big capitalists generally ensure that it’s the lower classes they send to the battlefield while they guarantee safe positions for their own family. I think you’d want to emulate John Redmond,4 whose son joined the army of a foreign King and Country but didn’t die for it.
Unlike the 35,000 other Irish who were killed in the British Army in WWI, not to mention the Irish wounded and permanently disabled, for which figures apparently do not exist.
However, I have to say, credit where credit is due: I did think the account of your visit to Venezuela was interesting and how the officer in charge of the President’s Office there was impressed by Ireland’s solidarity with Palestine and other stands, probably in support of underdeveloped countries.5
Thanks for that, it was very interesting – and heart-warming, to be honest. But I wonder, would the Venezuelan diplomat have been as friendly to you, Denis, if the Irish State, your point of origin, had been a member of NATO, practising imperialist wars and supporting genocide?
4In 1914 John Redmond was leader of the Irish Parliamentary party, representing the native Irish colonial capitalist class. He not only delivered thousands of Irish to the British Army for WWI but also supported the suppression of the 1916 Rising.
5O’Brien charted his own experience in subsea communications cables, starting with an Esat Telecom funded cable between Land’s End and Wexford in the late 1990s, and several projects in the Carribean, including the $75 million (€64 million) Deep Blue One cable in Trinidad which was completed last year.
O’Brien recalled how – due to a “cock up” – the cable had been designed to run through contested waters between Venezuela and Guyana.
“When the Venezuelan government got wind that our cable laying ship was about to start they sent us a cease and desist letter,” he said. O’Brien explained how he then flew to Venezuela to meet Jorge Elieser Marquez who was in charge of office of the presidency to “fall on his sword” and apologise.
“He graciously accepted my apology but then to my surprise he started to talk about Ireland and how we had supported the Palestinians, like Venezuela, in their quest for a two-state solution in Gaza,” he said.
“For some reason, he knew everything about Ireland and our principled stand over many decades – dating back as far as when Brian Lenihan senior was minister for foreign affairs.
(23/ 07/ 2025: Continuing conversation on the control deck of the USS Fitzgerald, a destroyer of the US Navy in the Sea of Oman, off the coast of Iran.)
…. Sir, that course takes us into Iranian waters.
That’s right son. We’re the US Navy. We go where we like. Stay on course.
Yes sir, steady on course.
Sir, an Iranian helicopter is buzzing us, wanting us to turn back.
Signal the pilot to move off or we’ll shoot him down.
Yes, sir. Signalling.
Sir, he continues buzzing us.
Signal the pilot we’re a destroyer of the US Navy. He should move off or we’ll shoot him down.
Yes, sir. Signalling.
Sir, he continues buzzing us, says we’re heading for Iranian national waters and ordering us to turn away.
Warn the god-damn pilot again. We’ll shoot the fucker down.
Yes s … Sir, message received from the Iranian shore.
What does it say?
Sir, message reads “Your ship is in the cross hairs of our missile battery. Stop threatening our airforce pilot. Turn around and leave Iranian territorial waters. Repeat. You are in the cross hairs of our missile battery. Desist and turn away from our territorial waters forthwith.”
Sir? …
Sir?
Change course away towards international waters. Full speed.
Sir? Away from …
Yes! NOW, goddamn you! Back to international waters!
Yessir. Changing course now, sir.
End.
The idea for the cartoon was a good one, showing the confident sailing towards Iran and then the sharp turn away after warnings. The panels would have probably worked best in black and white: The blue in No.1 overwhelmed the overall image and in No.2, trying for a lighter touch, still did not work all that well. (Cartoon: D.Breatnach)
(Reformatted entire for publishing in Rebel Breeze from article of same title in his Substack
(Reading time: 6 mins.)
The saga of the Occupied Territories Bill (OTB) has been dragging on for years now. It was first put forward by Senator Frances Black in 2018 and was approved by both houses of the Oireachtas (parliament) but never enacted.
The Irish capitalist class that is resolutely on the side of the Israelis, despite the illusions of many and the odd PR stunt, dragged its heels on the issue, even boasting that it had effectively blocked it.
Simon Coveney who was the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time said during a visit to the Zionist state in 2019 that:
We don’t believe that it is legally sound because trade issues are EU competence as opposed to national competence in Ireland. And because we don’t believe it’s legally sound we have effectively blocked the legislation from moving through parliament as it normally would…
It’s essentially frozen in the process and it isn’t making progress. And I don’t expect that it will make progress, either, unless the government supports it, and the government won’t be supporting it.1
A demonstration outside Leinster House, parliament of the Irish State recently. (Image chosen and sourced: by RBreeze on line)
This came as no surprise to anyone paying attention. Ireland is not an independent capitalist state; it is what Marxists term a neo-colony with 88% of all corporate tax paid by foreign companies and just three companies accounting for 38% of all corporate tax.
Foreign corporate tax in turn represents 29% of the total tax take in the country.2 It is entirely dependent on the US and also the British state.
Many months prior to Coveney’s boast, the then Taoiseach (prime minister), Leo Varadkar had written a grovelling letter to Joe Biden to apologise for the behaviour of Irish politicians who had voted for the bill. In it he stated:
The Government has consistently and strongly opposed the Bill on both political and legal grounds and will continue to do so… Can I take the opportunity to reiterate my deep appreciation for the strong bonds of friendship between Ireland and the US, including our growing and mutually economic ties.3
There is no world in which the Irish state will stand up to the US. It won’t stop US planes shipping arms to Israel through Shannon Airport, just like it allowed the US to use the airport during the Iraq war.
Putting the OTB to parliament was not a bad idea, believing that is how we would achieve something concrete was.
They are now attempting to water it down further and exclude services from its remit, limiting it to only goods. (Note: at the time this article was written campaigners were still fighting an attempt to limit the bill in that way – Rebel Breeze)
IBEC (the Irish Business and Economic Confederation) came out with a statement that it would harm the Irish economy to enact the bill, whilst paradoxically accepting that trade in goods with Israeli “settlements” in the West Bank only amounted to €240,000.4
On the radio the Government reminded us that we are a trading nation, as if any of us thought that everything we buy in the country was made here and we exported nothing.
The reason they can make these statements of course, is because of the limited scope of the bill itself and the intentions of those pushing for its enactment.
The Irish government was at great pains to say that it would only apply to the territories occupied in 1967 and not to Israel itself i.e. not to the territories occupied in 1948 during the Nakba and the foundation of the Zionist state.
If you accept the legitimacy of the state of Israel or if you are one of those liberals still prattling on about a Two State Solution then all of this makes sense. It could have even been argued when it was first proposed that it was a stepping stone to a wider boycott of Israel, not that any of them said that.
For those who believe in the two-state solution (sic) the map shows what’s available for a Palestinian State (sic). (Image chosen and sourced: by RBreeze on line)
Events have overtaken our liberal friends and they shudder at the consequences. There is no longer any case to be made for a bill that limits business dealings with modern Zionist invasions of the West Bank.
Francesca Albanese in her recent report made it abundantly clear that many companies doing business with Israel are profiting from or contributing to the genocide.5 Now is not that time for half measures. Israel, just like the Nazis is carrying out a genocide.
Asking for a boycott of goods from the Warsaw Ghetto, rather than Nazi Germany would have seemed stupid at the time and actual calls for a boycott of the Nazis were portrayed as anti-German.
Some Jewish organisations opposed the boycott and the US government response to violence against German Jews was that the
U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull issued a mild statement to the American ambassador to Berlin complaining that “unfortunate incidents have indeed occurred and the whole world joins in regretting them.” He expressed his personal belief, however, that the reports of anti-Jewish violence were probably exaggerated.6
We know how this ended. The Nazis in the face of the timorous and timid response from the US and other western powers would eventually enclose Jews in ghettos, then camps and then push six million of them through the ovens.
Now is not the time to repeat history but to be bold and decisive. Now it is equally ridiculous to meekly petition, those who grovelled to Genocide Joe in 2019, to restrict goods from the West Bank.
In the midst of a genocide there is only one option on the table: a complete and total severance of all trade, military and diplomatic ties with Israel. There are no “settlements” without the Nazis in Tel Aviv, without the Israeli military, without the companies that keep Israel going.
A Banner on the IPSC National March 19th April 2025 in Dublin, appearing to show a believed organic connection between the enacting of the OTB and ending the Zionist genocide in Palestine. (Image sourced and chosen: R.Breeze)
Total isolation of the entire regime is needed. Not an orange, not a single electronic component, not a kilobyte of software. Such isolation should continue not just till the acts of genocide have ceased.
They will cease when the repugnant reality that Israel has run out of Palestinians to murder comes to pass.
Israel should be isolated until all those involved have been tried, had all their assets confiscated, given lengthy prison sentences or hung until dead, depending on the actual degree of participation.
This is not an outrageous proposal, it is what was theoretically done at Nuremberg, though many of the businessmen were given back their assets after a number of years and only a handful of Nazis got the actual death penalty and most never saw the inside of a jail.
No such leniency should be shown to the Zionists.
Those campaigning on the OTB will never make such a call. They will continue to petition the government. They do have another weapon to hand in fighting the Nazis in Tel Aviv, but they won’t call for that either.
The Irish Council of Trade Unions denounced the government’s handling of the OTB and called on the Oireachtas to reject the “business lobby scaremongering” and to pass the OTB.7
Of course, the unions don’t need to persuade the Zionists who dominate the coalition parties, they could just have told their members in 2018 to refuse to handle all products coming from the Occupied Territories, or indeed the entire Zionist state and that would have settled it.
They would have to organise that and back all their members who engaged in such boycotts. But under no circumstances will the fat cat bureaucrats ever confront the government over this issue.
If they are not prepared to fight for decent wages, a proper health system, public housing etc, all of which directly affect their members, less still will they fight for Palestinians. They are traitors to their class and also betrayers of the Palestinian people, despite all their lofty statements.
The OTB was a nice propaganda measure whose time has passed. It is, in the midst of a genocide, no longer fit for purpose, neither is a solidarity movement which limits itself to half measures. We need to be bolder.
The fact that the Irish Times reported ‘tens of thousands’ on Saturday’s march in Dublin was telling, avoiding their usual euphemism of ‘thousands’ or even ‘hundreds’ for a demonstration’s great multitude.1
Even so, it was much larger, the organisers claiming 70,000 participants.
It was huge, without a doubt. From the D’Olier Street northern corner, the front of the march organised by the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign had gone to the gates of Trinity College while the rest of it could be seen northwards the length of O’Connell Street and possibly beyond.
In the distance marchers may be seen along the length of O’Connell Street. Behind the photographer, a section of the march is proceeding while the front has reached the Trinity College gates. (Photo: D.Breatnach)
This was the 16th national mobilisation in Palestine solidarity since October 2023 organised to take place in Dublin, while many smaller marches, pickets, vigils, public meetings, talks, film shows and other solidarity events have been held weekly across the nation.
BANNERS, FlAGS & PLACARDS
In addition to local branches of the IPSC, banners on the march also proclaimed party, trade union and professional body allegiance, along with specific declarations and calls for actions.
Placards included the professionally-printed but also a wide range of the ‘home-made’ examples and these can be of particular interest, such as the one that declared that “Blaming Hamas for firing rockets at Israel is like blaming a woman for punching her rapist.” Indeed.
“Gaza is a death camp”. (Photo: D.Breatnach)
As the marchers passed the iconic General Post Office a small group organised by socialist Irish Republican organisation Éirigí held up giant letters spelling SAVE THE GPO.2 A group wearing blue tops with PRESS on the back marched and held up photos of individual journalists in Gaza.3
The PBP-Solidarity contingent carried a banner calling for the enacting of the Occupied Territories Bill which seemed a rather tame demand of the Irish State from an organisation claiming to be revolutionary socialist (see Irish State Options section).
A bagpiper playing amongst the marchers. (Photo: D.Breatnach)
The most popular non-party flag on the march was of course the Palestinian one but the Irish Tricolour has been making a greater appearance on these marches of late and not before time.4 I noted only one Starry Plough, in green with the Plough design in gold and white stars.
DESTINATIONS AND ROUTES
The IPSC marches tend to begin at the Garden of Remembrance and end near Leinster House,5 seat of the Irish State’s parliament, or occasionally at the Department of Foreign Affairs. Saturday’s march also went to Molesworth Street but through a longer circular route.
This route saw the march take in part of Dame Street, then the whole of South George’s St. and Aungier Street, turn left towards Stephens Green and proceed along the Green’s west side, then along part of its southern side before turning down Dawson Street.
(Photo: D.Breatnach)
Molesworth Street was full of marchers already but IPSC stewards hustled marchers off Dawson Street, eventually giving up their usual endeavour to push the crowd past the Schoolhouse Lane junction so the Gardaí could erect barriers across that section to enclose the marchers.
The unusual route on this occasion avoided the temptation to march up the pedestrianised shopping area of Grafton Street, which the Gardaí do not like and at which there was a confrontation during the previous IPSC march when a number of protesters tried to take that route.
One of the supporters of the march. (Photo: D.Breatnach)
Despite the crucial role of the USA as chief supplier of arms, funding and political cover for the genocidal Zionists of the ‘Israeli’ state, since 2023 the IPSC have approached Dublin’s US Embassy only twice, no doubt respecting the Gardaí wish not to have the main road outside blocked.
On those two occasions the IPSC halted the march in a street behind the Embassy and away from one of the main roads into Dublin from the south (and along which the ill-fated Northumberland Fusiliers marched in April 1916). Marches to the Israeli Embassy were rare during the period too.6
(Photo: D.Breatnach)
IRISH STATE & OPTIONS
Both leaders of the Irish Coalition Government7 have built up some kudos with many anti-genocide people around the world for publicly stating that Israel is committing genocide – the first leaders of an EU or indeed Western state to say so.
In addition, the Irish Government joined with those of the Spanish and Norwegian states in a failed attempt last week to have the EU remove ‘Israel’ from its preferential trade agreement for violation of the human rights conditions of the Agreement.8
(Photo: D.Breatnach)
However, as a number of speakers at the IPSC rally and some marchers’ placards declared, the Irish State is in fact complicit in genocide by allowing military equipment for ‘Israel’ to fly through Irish airspace and by not enforcing its neutrality on US military transit through Shannon Airport.
And in allowing the Central Bank of Ireland to process ‘Israeli’ war bonds, which was the target of a number of representations including its huge logo on the march and a speech by Gary Gannon, DCC Councillor of the Social Democrats party.
(Photo: D.Breatnach)
The glacial progress of the moderate Occupied Territories Bill,9 delayed and then attempted weakening of it by removing services from the ban,10 is another hallmark of the Irish Government’s collusion (notwithstanding expressed Zionist rage and bullying by some US Congressmen).
Next to the USA, the Irish state is the biggest importer of ‘Israeli’ goods and a ban on these would greatly affect the genocidal state not only morally but also practically. In the absence of government action, the trade unions could impose a ban on their members handling those goods.
The contradiction is that the Western state most overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian is the biggest importer of ‘Israeli’ products and having hardly any practical effect towards preventing the genocide against the Palestinians, contrary to what the majority in Ireland actually want.
End. Note: For the photos in this report I concentrated on the more unusual of those participating.
(Photo: D.Breatnach) (Photo: D.Breatnach)Molesworth Street, the destination, is full from one end to the other. (Photo: D.Breatnach)
4The Irish far-Right of fake patriots has been permitted illegitimately to almost monopolise the Irish Tricolour.
5‘Near’ rather than at Leinster House, because the Gardaí set up a crowd barricade at the end of Molesworth Street across the street from the House and that is as far as the march goes and also where the speakers’ platform is set up.
6This was so even before the Israeli Ambassador abandoned her Dublin post in disgust at popular Irish hostility to genocide and prior to the reputed closure of the Embassy (despite which the site has a 24-hour Garda guard).
7Taoiseach (Prime Minister equivalent) Mícheál Martin of the Fianna Fáil party and Tánaiste (Deputy PM equivalent), also Minister of Defence Simon Harris of the Fine Gael party. The Green Party is also a member of the Coalition.
The Zionist state’s latest genocidal plan involves driving the inhabitants into a densely-packed area in the south of Gaza where they will be examined on the way in and then never allowed to leave unless to emigrate to another state.1
This plan was announced recently by ‘Israeli’ Minister of Defence (sic) Israel Katz and has been enthusiastically approved by a number of ‘Israeli’ politicians, including Finance Minister Smotrich.
It’s being suggested Katz’s plan is to be run by the GHF food-and-bullets organisation and to connect to Trump’s earlier remarks about turning Gaza into a seaside resort once the Palestinians had left. However, Trump and his administration have declined to comment on this latest plan.
The Gaza Humanitarian (sic) Foundation, responsible for the deadly food traps in Gaza, has been suggested as the organisation to run the concentration camp (also being called Humanitarian Camp). (Image: Cartoon by D.Breatnach)
But wasn’t Gaza previously a concentration camp? Well, it has been called “the largest open-air prison in the world”2 due to its intensified blockade since 2007 with Israeli control over who went in or came out.3 The intention was to make living intolerable but the Palestinians managed.
The refugees who came there from the Nakba in 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli War built houses, shops, community centres, mosques and churches, shops and markets, schools, colleges and university, farmed land and grew produce in polythene tunnels, dug wells, desalinated sea-water …
The IOF have destroyed nearly all of that (even roads and sewage treatment facilities) and now of course with water, fuel and food blockaded and frequent forced internal displacement, Gaza conditions are much much worse, with starvation andcontagious disease spreading.
This new plan however, is to compress the population into a smaller and smaller area, a concentration camp within that prison.
CIVILIAN CONCENTRATION CAMPS
The plan announced by the Zionazis is a concentration camp for civilians and this was in fact admitted by an Israeli journalist on one of their news channels. It’s fascist and racist but it’s not a new idea, having been practised by others including the British, USA and the Turks previously.
Concentration camps for civilians were used by the Nazis and Spanish fascists4 for example; in those cases their punitive function was clear. But during WWII the British interned Germans (including Jewish refugees) and allowed the Poles to run camps for dissidents in Scotland.
‘Concentration Camp’, drawing by David Ludwig Bloch. (Image sourced: Internet)
The British too built two Jewish concentration camps in Germany to prevent them from emigrating to the British Protectorate of Palestine, where the Zionists, encouraged to emigrate there by the British originally, were now destabilising British control and antagonising the indigenous people.6
The British also held Jewish civilians in a concentration camp in Cyprus, many of them Holocaust survivors who had tried to enter Palestine without British authorisation.7
During their war in Malaya (1948-1960) also the British ran civilian concentration villages, a model which the USA were to adopt later in Vietnam. These British measures were under the Briggs Plan and formed part of widescale repressive measures including forced deportations of Chinese.8
Those interned by the British in Frongoch concentration camp after the 1916 Rising were not all military personnel but included civilian members of Irish nationalist organisations.
The USA interned Japanese ethnic minority people during its war with Japan, allegedly as a purely security non-punitive measure. 1,862 deaths (out of 180,000) were recorded in those camps9 for which the USA did not apologise until 197610 or pay reparations until 1998.
The Imperial Japanese forces during the same war period established concentration camps in their conquered territories for civilians, mostly Dutch and British colonial settlers, administrative officials and their families. More than 140,000 of those died in the camps.11
Previously the USA had briefly used concentration camps against Native Americans but later shifted to removal and reservations policed by state-appointed officials. They also interned civilians, tens of thousands dying, in the US-Philippines War of 1898-1914.
In its war against the PKK (1978-2025) the Turkish State forced the evacuation of Kurdish villages where it felt unable to prevent guerrilla penetration, forcing relocation of the people and placing them under a collaborator administration in the new residential location.
The Turks also created a paramilitary police force to operate in the local areas but responsible centrally to the State which they called the Jandarma. In fact this was on the model of similar gendarmerie of the British in Ireland, of the Spanish, French and Italian states.12
Large rural areas of Turkish Kurdistan villages were cleared and relocated forcibly by the authorities. Arguably, despite the difficult conditions, the final defeat of the PKK was internal through adoption of a pacification process under the orders from captivity of their leader Ocalan.13
The village had Turkish-appointed guards and the headman was expected to ensure that the guerrilla forces did not enter and, if they did, to inform the South Vietnamese authorities (and through them the US military). Presumably he was also charged with informing them of ‘disloyal’ villagers.
Of course this put those recruited by the authorities in danger from the insurrectionary forces who viewed the guards and any collaborating headman as traitors. On the other hand, the headman might come under great pressure from the authorities to comply with their plan.
The USA’s version in Vietnam, the Strategic Hamlet Program was practised in 1962 during their War through their proxy, the South Vietnam government.14 Villagers either had their hamlet fortified or more often, they were forcibly relocated to a fortified location.
The Program was reportedly sabotaged but it is doubtful if it would have succeeded in any case as the forced relocations alienated even those who did not already sympathise with the insurrectionary forces. It marked President Kennedy’s last attempt to fight their war in Vietnam ‘indirectly’.
The living conditions in Israel’s version currently being contemplated for Palestinians in Gaza will be intolerable and the clear intention is for those who survive to want to emigrate – so, once again ethnic cleansing within a genocidal framework.
Israel Katz, Minister for Defence (sic) in centre of photo on his sally with IOF into Lebanon with IOF occupying troops. (Photo sourced: Internet)
It will also be very dangerous for those trying to enter, especially men, having to pass the interrogation process at the gate. Those suspected of Resistance activities – or even related to such suspects – will be deeply interrogated and many no doubt interned without trial.15
Families which have survived the genocidal bombing and starvation will be broken up as some enter and some refuse to enter (or are refused).
Overall, the historical experience of people confined in civilian concentration camps has been oppressive but for many a death sentence also. Despite the suffering, as a measure of repression against insurgency amongst the population, it has largely been ineffective.
Actually, there is one recorded case of the civilian concentration camp being successful in a counter-resistance context and that was of the British (again!) against the Boers of South Africa. In the Second Boer War the British (who had been defeated in the first) killed Boer livestock and burned their farms.
The British constructed a civilian concentration camp16 in which they placed the abducted Boer women and children in order to get their menfolk to submit. (The IOF are not above using relatives also, frequently arresting relatives in order to coerce a ‘wanted’ resistance person to surrender.)
80,000 Boer civilians were interned and, in separate camps, 115,000 African servants of the Boers. Due to the conditions, between 18,000 and 28,000 Boers died, 80% of them children. The British kept no records of African deaths but their losses are believed to have been similar.17
However, the British-Boer wars were between one group of settlers and another. So far, for all the suffering it causes, the record of the civilian concentration camp as a repressive measure by an occupying state against a resistant nation is one of failure.
2David Cameron, Prime Minister UK called it a prison in 2010, as did others, including Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine Director Human Rights watch in 2022. As late as 2023, so did British-Israeli historian and emeritus professor of International Relations at Oxford University Avi Shlaim who said it had evolved into “an open-air graveyard” at the time of his writing (there are numerous sources for the description by various people).
4The civilians in General Franco’ hugely overcrowded camps and jails contained large numbers of Basque, Catalan, Galician nationalists, Republican, Communist non-combatant nationalist civilians in addition to opposition military.
12The RIC (later RUC now PSNI in the British colony) in Ireland, the Guardia Civil in the Spanish state, Gendarmerie in France and Carabinieri in Italy. Those forces in the last three named operate throughout the different nations that are incorporated in those states.
rebelbreeze 