Reformatted entire for Rebel Breeze from article same title in his Substack
Iran, in response to Israeli aggression against it, launched a series of missile attacks. We should be clear that in this case the aggressor is the Zionist state and the Iranian response is a justified defence of its sovereignty in response to an act of war.
There can be no doubt about it.
But one of its missiles supposedly hit a hospital in Beer Sheva and Israel didn’t waste time in denouncing the attack on the hospital. Without blushing they said that attacks on hospitals are a war crime banned under International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
Their hypocrisy is plain to see, given that there is not a hospital left standing in Gaza thanks to the Nazis in Tel Aviv. But what does IHL say about hospitals?
Article 18 of The Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of Warstates
Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.[1]
It is not as simple as it would seem though. A hospital is protected but that protection is not just the responsibility of the attacking force, but of everyone. So, Israel is also obliged to not expose the medical installations to the danger of an attack. The same Article 18 reads
In view of the dangers to which hospitals may be exposed by being close to military objectives, it is recommended that such hospitals be situated as far as possible from such objectives.[2]
This means Israel should not place military targets near hospitals. And beside the hospital in Beer Sheva there are various military depots.
One of them is the HQ of C4i, the intelligence agency that controls the computer systems of the Zionist armed forces and communications in the battle field, i.e. a key part of the war against Iran.[3]
There is also the technological park Gav-Yam Negev which functions as C4i’s centre of technological development and the area is the epicentre of Israeli military industries.[4] A legitimate target in a war. In fact, Iran justified the attack for that very reason.[5]
Undisputed diagram developed by Iranian broadcaster Tasnim News. (Image sourced: The Cradle on Telegram)
Even in such situations the attacking force is obliged to ensure that it doesn’t damage civilian or protected installations under IHL, but there is a shared responsibility with those who violated IHL by placing military targets in the vicinity of a hospital.
And it is clear that the hospital was there first and then came the military installations. Israel uses them as human shields, something expressly prohibited by the Geneva Convention (IV). Article 28 bans it.
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.[6]
Hospitals only lose their protected character under IHL if they are used as military installations. This does not mean that there are many soldiers in the hospital receiving medical attention, nor even if there are many soldiers present protecting them.
Article 19 of the Convention is clear about when a hospital becomes a military target.
The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy.[7]
It would seem that there was no base under the hospital just key installations for the war in the vicinity of the Soroka Hospital.
Al Ahli Hospital Gaza attacked by Israel April 2025, one of around 40 hospitals and medical centres in Gaza attacked by the IOF (Photo cred: Olga Cherevko/ OHCHR)
Up till now the only power in the region that has violated IHL by deliberately attacking hospitals protected under the Geneva Convention is Israel, with its attacks in Gaza that have destroyed all of the medical capacity in the zone.
Israel’s hysterical denunciation is more a confession than an accusation.
I was relieved by my attendance at the Raise the Roof housing demonstration in Molesworth Street in Dublin City Centre. That was because I learned from speakers that just by voting in ‘a Left Government’ we could receive the housing we need.
Raise the Roof is a coalition of trade unions with its address at the Labour Party-orientated ICTU and a number of housing NGOs. The coalition also contains political parties: Sinn Féin; Labour Party; People Before Profit/ Solidarity; Social Democrats; Independents4Change.1
A view of the protest in Molesworth St. Leinster House is in the background across Kildare Street with access prevented by police barriers at the end of Molesworth St with a special gate to allow entry and exit for customers of the hotel on the corner. (Photo: D.Breatnach)
Previously I’d thought that either we’d need a revolution or a country-wide campaign of direct action occupying empty properties. This is because the housing crisis is deliberately constructed for the benefit of profits for big landlords, vulture funds and the banks that finance them.
And since they keep making massive profits out of the situation, they won’t want it to change as it would if, for example, were the State to seize empty properties2 for conversion to housing along with a massive public housing for rent construction campaign.
And if the profiteers don’t want that, naturally their (sorry, ‘our’) government will make sure not to do anything of the sort.
So it was great to learn that we won’t have to really fight and break the law, going to jail and all that. Phew! Just change the parties in the Government at the next election! Elect a Left Government!
Visual accidental irony comment in the same street. (Photo: D.Breatnach)
But… lately I have to admit I’ve been having doubts about this solution. First of all, there’s the question of numbers of TDs available to form this aspired-to government. There are overall 174 TDs in Leinster House (the Parliament of the Irish State) and a fragile majority requires 88.
The Sinn Féin party has 39 TDs and People Before Profit/ Rise/ Solidarity five in total, a combination of 44 still needing another 44 to reach the 88 minimum. FG and FF, formerly opposition parties but now in government have 86 votes between them and needed some extras to run the Government.
But I’ve got a much bigger doubt really, and that’s whether SF will stand up to the bankers and property magnates.
SF has for decades being setting out its stall that it is safe pair of hands to run the system, in other words that the profiteers have nothing to worry about. And to tell the truth, I believe them. Though some of their followers think SF is fooling the system, I think it’s the followers being fooled.
View of the Raise the Roof protest in Molesworth street. (Photo: D.Breatnach)
So … after further consideration, it really does look like a revolution will be required to end the housing crisis — or at least something so near as to make the managers of the system believe that unless they resolve the housing crisis, there will be a revolution. So I’m worried again.
Anyway, it was interesting seeing the amount of Tricolours in what was predominantly a left-wing rally of hundreds (despite a small contingent holding an Aontú banner) and there was some nice music with singers including Lisa O’Neill and Jimi Cullen (with his Homes for All composition).
On Friday the ‘Israeli’ state launched an unprovoked and unjustified attack on Iran. Apart from any any liking or disliking of either attacker or attacked, this is a fact. And if this be acceptable, then it can happen to any country.
Of course, in this century and in the last it has already happened to many countries – and in general, it is imperialist states or their proxies who have been responsible. Also in the case of ‘Israel’ in Lebanon and Syria while practising genocide in Gaza.
The western mass media could not deny that Iran’s attack is retaliation to an attack by ‘Israel’, nor could they just omit that context in their reports. So instead, they called the Israeli attack a ‘pre-emptive’ strike,1 which usually means that one had to act first as was just about to be attacked.
But no, that is completely misleading; any time Iran has attacked ‘Israel’ it’s been in retaliation to an ‘Israel’ attack on them first. And in fact the Zionist regime was overdue a retaliation due to their attack on Iran in October last year.
There are many regimes around the world of which I do not approve and some which I detest but that does not give me or others justification for attacking their countries. Stopping genocide does provide justification and, according to international law, actual obligation but only Yemen acted.
Iranian retaliatory missiles striking Haifa (‘Tel Aviv’) 14th or 15th June 2025. (Image sourced: Online)
The ‘Israeli’ ‘justification’ for their attack is that Iran posed a threat to their state. This was based on the often-stated belief of the Iranian authorities that the Zionist settler colony is a threat to the whole Middle East and should be eliminated. But is an expression of an opinion a real threat?
It is not, unless followed by action (such as for example the genocidal and racist statements of Israeli Government ministers as the IOF carries out their wishes in practice).
And in fact the Zionists have themselves verified the correctness of the opinions of the Iranian authorities by their history since 1948 (and for some time before that too). But how was this alleged threat to be carried out? By Iran developing nuclear weapons, claimed the Zionists.
Netanyahu has been claiming over ten years, against all the evidence, that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, despite numerous Iranian denials and official inspections. The Western powers are apparently also very concerned about the possible development of nuclear weapons by Iran.
Wait a minute! France, UK and the USA are concerned about Iran possibly having nuclear weapons some day? All of those are nuclear weapon-holding states! What gives them the right to decide who should and who should not have nuclear weapons?
We could ask too what gives the Israeli State, which has secret nuclear weapons, such a right?
Yes, the Zionist State has had nuclear weapons since the 1960s, although it keeps it secret and its nuclear weaponry is not open to any inspection. Israeli peace activist whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu, a former nuclear scientist, confirmed this to the British press in 1986.2
Vanunu was lured to Italy by Mossad, drugged, kidnapped and flown to the Zionist state where he was tried in secret. He has spent 18 years in jail, 11 of them in solitary confinement (despite there not being any such sentence in the ‘Israeli’ penal code) and is not permitted to leave the country.
Leaders of the USA have expressed the fear that Iran may one day develop nuclear weapons and attack Israel with them. This worry is being expressed bythe only state that has used nuclear weapons to attack another state – and did it not once, but twice!
In August 1944 US bombers exploded atomic bombs over two cities of Japan, with which the US was at war. One study estimates the number of dead, mostly civilians at 199,0003 but many continued to die from radiation poisoning in following years.
ALTHOUGH IRAN HAS THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS – THEY WEREN’T DOING SO
Not only was there no evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, and that they repeated many times that they were not and a number of observers and investigators had confirmed their statements – but the Supreme Leader of Iran had issued a fatwa4 against such development!
Trump in his many statements seemed to confuse the terms enrichment with nuclear weapon, using them alternately. Now we can see that it was never about nuclear weapons: it was the enrichment that the western allies wished to stop, in order to cripple Iran’s nuclear energy development.
What we are seeing in this conflict is international bullying in which threats, economic sanctions, assassinations, bombing and war (not to mention genocide) are fine with the western powers as long as they (or their proxies) are committing them.
This is the alliance that the Irish gombeen ruling class wants us to join, either through an imperialist EU ‘defence’ (sic) force or through NATO. And the supreme irony is that they will use the very wars they start as ‘evidence’ of the need for us to join them!
As I write, Iran is hitting back, completely justifiably. A number of waves of missiles so far, striking Zionist regime buildings and military establishments. Of course, it is not a sneak attack and most of leaders and ‘Tel Aviv’ residents are in bomb shelters.
The Zionists cannot be paid back in their own preferred coin of leadership assassination. At the moment, it’s not certain where war criminal and child-murderer Netanyahu is but he did visit one of the sites hit by Iran from where he poured out further threats.
So far, Iran has not attacked US bases in West Asia although the US is clearly complicit in the attack on Iran, for which no further evidence is required than that the missiles came through Iraq’s totally USA-controlled air space. And Trump has been boasting about US involvement too.
Recent news is that the Genocidal State has asked for help from its allies in its defence against just retribution and that the UK responded positively. The western imperialist bloc is about to reveal its collusion with the genocidal state even more openly than recently.
What will happen next? How will the rest of the world act over the coming months? It is hard to predict but we can definitely say that the world is in a different place from now on.
WHERE DO WE STAND?
So far the population of most of Ireland has managed not to be recruited into the western imperialist bloc but the government of the Irish state continues to be complicit and the six-county colony is under UK occupation — and therefore officially part of US/ NATO.
Simon Harris, Tánaiste, Irish Government Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and for Defence was reported today saying that “Iran has consistently been a danger to the world.”5
Er … Iran? Not the aggressor (and genocider) Israel, which attacked Iran first, also attacking Syria and Lebanon and in the past Jordan, Libya and Egypt?
Not the USA (201 military actions in 153 countries after WW2)? Not the UK or France, colonial masters and currently major imperialist states?
I suspect that some socialists will find it difficult to stand in solidarity with the people of Iran; they found it impossible to do so with the people in the secular regimes of Libya and Syria – and Iran is a theocracy with many social regulations to which they would be strongly opposed.
On the other hand, Iran is being attacked by imperialist-backed Zionism because of its insistence on sovereignty and support for anti-imperialist struggles in West Asia. Apart from the Ansarallah regime of Yemen, Iran is the only state to stand up to Zionism in the region.
For genuine anti-imperialists and anti-Zionists then, for all democratic people, our stance and demand is clear: HANDS OFF IRAN!
End.
Footnotes
1Even this ‘background explanatory’ piece, which starts off recounting a decades-long list of ‘Israeli’ sabotage and assassination operations against Iran, later turns to defend ‘Israel’ by referring to the Hamas-led 7th October breakout and tenuously connecting Iran to that operation through their solidarity with Hamas. For context of that solidarity the journal would need to go back to all the attacks on the Palestinians by ‘Israel’ but of course it does not do. https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/timeline-of-tensions-and-hostilities-between-israel-and-iran-1773045.html
A large number of tenants organised by the Community Action Tenants’ Union (CATU) from a number of Dublin City Council housing estates gathered outside City Hall on Monday 12th May evening to lobby the monthly elected Councillor’s meeting.
Those attending for the most part came from public housing blocks and estates from Ballymun to the Liberties and Coolock to Pearse Street. They carried placards and demanded that Dublin City Council negotiate with them.
A section of the lobby outside City Hall facing Parliament Street (note on top extreme left of photo plaque commemorating two leaders of the Irish Citizen Army shot dead in 1916). (Photo: D.Breatnach)
The recently-appointed Assistant Chief Executive over housing and community came out to receive the Union’s demands and petitions from tenants organising within their complexes and areas andthe lobbyistsalso forced the issues onto the agenda of the council meeting that night.
The protest was organised by the Dublin city CATU branch with wide support from community organisers and was attended by a number of elected councillors from some political parties and independents.
(Photo: D.Breatnach)
The problems CATU representatives listed verbally and in writing included a general low level of maintenance and upkeep of their estates and blocs, of the actual dwellings, communal areas, playgrounds and rubbish chutes. Rat infestations were a problem in some.
Damp leading to mould, rainwater penetration, inadequate proofing, badly fitting windows and doors were also listed at a number of sites, as were inadequate insulation leading to high heating costs and a need for overhaul of the heating system itself.
Among the slogans chanted was: Dublin City Council – Negotiate!
(Photo: D.Breatnach)
Included in their demands was that DCC officials recognise the right of their tenants to be represented by CATU as their union, which they stated was not always respected and they sought formal meetings with named officials responsible for the areas in question within one month’s time.
Although apparently currently not members of CATU, the organisation had invited the Pearse House Residents’ Committee to attend and speak at the lobby. Their chairperson Neil Maloney did so, addressing the issue of the long overdue regeneration of their housing bloc.
(Photo: D.Breatnach)
Maloney described the “blow to the community” when funding for stage two of the regeneration project to eliminate overcrowding was withdrawn, after their hopes had been raised by presentation of a regeneration timescale and a physical design in August of the previous year.
Ironically, the housing crisis was implicated in the Government’s reason for refusing to support the regeneration going ahead, in that the increase in inner space of the dwellings would reduce the number of actual housing units.
(Photo: D.Breatnach)
The Pearse House chairperson commented that “the current bedsits are illegal” and that their homes currently don’t meet European standards, going on to state “a real need for bigger homes to address overcrowding and family needs.”
“This was always going to be a challenge for this protected structure, but in phases 2 and 3 of the regeneration plan, there would be 2 additional blocks built. The additionality that the Government is seeking would be gained through the social homes gained during the decanting process.”
Pearse House residents attended CATU’s protest “to highlight our anger and what we see as another block on this project,” Maloney said. And note that although DCC has committed to redesigning the project for submission to the Government there is no guarantee this will be successful either.
(Photo: D.Breatnach)
“Ireland is still in breach of the European Charter for social housing and our human rights. Our community has seen the redevelopment and construction of new buildings, offices etc. and Pearse House is the eyesore in the middle of our community.”
“We were the community before all this redevelopment, and we will be the community when it’s all over,” concluded Maloney, voicing a common complaint along the south Dublin dockside. 1
A section of the lobby outside City Hall viewed looking down Dame Street. (Neil Maloney is pictured after his speech). (Photo: D.Breatnach)
Public Housing Background
There was little public housing in Dublin under British rule and the big town houses of the rich had been sold and sub-divided for rent by private landlords (including some who were elected councillors (or aldermen).
The new State built “2,000 local authority homes by 1924, a feat all the more remarkable in the context of a shortage of State funds, and the need to rebuild much of the infrastructure damaged in the War of Independence.”2
But of course it was not keeping up with the existing need or population growth and 40% of the population were forced to emigrate in the first 50 years of the Irish State.3
However 1924 too was the introduction of legislation facilitating state money subsidising the building of private housing.4 “In the decade after 1932 some 82,000 homes were built, the vast majority (public and private) with State subsidies.”5
Prof. Kenna relates that by 1940, some 41% of the Irish housing stock had been built by local authorities, far higher than that in England and Wales (25%) and also comments on the effect this had on subsidiary employment not only in construction but in sourcing and supply of materials.6
Although by 1964, a further 74,000 private and 63,000 local authority homes were built with State support and that between the 1950s and 1960s a million people had left the country, there was still a housing shortage and rents on private properties dug deep into workers’ incomes.7
Prof. Kenna comments that little attention was paid to the need for housing estate management, amenities, shops and the social, educational or other needs of the new community established there. That this should coincide with a boom time for property developers should not surprise us.
(Photo: D.Breatnach)
Government schemes to facilitate the purchase of their local authority accommodation from the 1950s resulted in the disappearance of much public housing stock into the private sector.8 Theoretically they would be replaced by new public housing builds but that didn’t happen.
Public land and land held by NAMA9 has been increasingly sold or even given away to private developers on promises of provision of a low percentage of public housing and often those individuals or consortiums do not even keep their earlier promises.
The Report of the Commission on the Relief of the Sick and Destitute Poor in 1927, Prof. Kenna reminds us, found 3,257 homeless people including 901 children, while in January 2021 there were 5,987 homeless adults and 2,326 homeless children in Ireland.
The Far-Right has jumped on the opportunity of the current housing crisis to blame it – not upon lack of public housing construction, big landlords, property speculators and vulture funds – but on migrants.
The Left in Ireland has until now in practical terms left this ground for exploitation of racists.
One of a number of speakers, photographed from across the street as too crowded there. (Photo: D.Breatnach)One of a number of speakers, photographed from across the street as too crowded there. (Photo: D.Breatnach)One of a number of speakers, photographed from across the street as too crowded there. (Photo: D.Breatnach)
GOING FORWARD
CATU seemed pleased with the lobby turnout and announced their intention to organise a housing protest march on Saturday July 5th. In the meantime they will no doubt be following up on the meetings they requested with area housing managers and agreeing objectives and deadlines.
Hopefully, seeing the initial results in the attention of DCC housing and amenity officials, and reflecting on their numbers when they take joint action, tenants of DCC will take heart and grow in confidence in their ability to ensure provision of decent housing and services for their needs.
Of course, the Far-Right won’t like that as it distracts from their targets – but the extension of this campaign does provide some hope of something like a solution to the current terrible grinding crisis of both housed and homeless.
End.
One of a number of speakers, photographed from across the street as too crowded there. (Photo: D.Breatnach)
APPENDIX: I916 Battleground
It might or might not have been mentioned (I couldn’t hear much of the speeches) that City Hall, outside of which CATU were protesting, had been a 1916 resistance centre, occupied by a small force of the Irish Citizen Army, known in some circles as the first workers army in the world.
Unaware of the extremely low British garrison on the Castle that day, the ICA had failed to take the complex and retreated to City Hall and some outposts in Dame Street and Parliament Street where they resisted until overwhelmed by British Army reinforcements.
The symbolism of the Castle, the administrative seat of the British occupation in insurgent hands, resulted in a ferocious assault on the ICA garrison and it fell on the Monday/ Tuesday of that week. One of the statues inside bears what appears to be a bullet hole to this day.
A steel plaque on the right of the outside front of the building lists the names of the ICA garrison of the area, around 50% of which were women. An older cast plaque at the east corner lists the names of two of the five who were killed there, Sean Connolly (OC) and Sean O’Reilly (2i/c).
The 1916 Rising was followed by the election of the First Dáil in 1919 with its Democratic Program affirming that all right to private property must be subordinated to the public right and welfare, and that no child should suffer hunger or cold from lack of food, clothing, or shelter.10
That was followed by the War of Independence and the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and the new State that came into being had no intention of fulfilling the promise of the Democratic Program but rather a determination to suppress any who tried for that fulfilment.
Footnotes
1For example the construction plans for the Irish Bottle Glass site (sold by Nama to the Ronan consortium) contain no components of public housing and units at expected prices will not be affordable by most local people.
I was jarred recently hearing the Irish actor and Palestine solidarity activist Liam Cunningham mention “700 years of British occupation”.1 And I have heard others not from Ireland speak admiringly of the “Irish freedom struggle of 700 years.”
Quite a few of those from other countries who quoted the “freedom” after “700 years” did so admiringly and may not be well acquainted with our nation’s history.
Liam Cunningham in Italy with two of the humanitarian activists about to sail on the Mayleen’s expedition to Gaza.
The foreign occupation of Ireland is normally dated from the Norman invasion of 1169 (although we could add to it the foreign occupation of Dublin by the Vikings from roughly 853 AD to 1170 AD).
I’m aware that I can be somewhat challenged in mathematics but after checking and re-checking I find that 856 years have elapsed since 1169, which means that the British-based occupation of Ireland has continued for well in excess of the 700 years quoted by Cunningham and others.
So where did the “700” years figure come from? It occurred to me that in some people’s heads this might be based on the creation of the Irish State and an assumption that was the point at which we threw off the British colonial yoke. Well, even then it would be 752 years but o.k, that might be it.
So, all of Ireland was occupied for centuries, then after numerous uprisings, in 1921 the British ceded 26 counties to Irish State control. But Ireland has 32 counties – what happened to the missing six counties? Well, we know, they remained occupied.
The Irish State in 1921 abandoned the people of the Six Counties, in particular the 34%+ who were of Catholic background; abandoned them to institutional sectarian religious discrimination in housing, employment and representation — and to repression.2
And in fact, the fairly recent 30 Years War was precisely about that occupation. Inevitably, the people rose up against their repression and oppression. The Irish State formally claimed those Six Counties but took no steps to regain them and cooperated with the colonial forces.3
Clearly we can’t change history but we can choose not to collude with injustice. We can refuse to conceive of Ireland as missing six counties, as only four-fifths of its actual landmass. We used to have a word for the thinking that had a Six-County blind spot – we called it ‘partitionist’.
In other words, an attitude that agreed with, colluded with or merely accepted the partition of the Irish Nation.
The Irish State that was born in 1921 was dominated by a capitalist ruling class which was pro-British and socially conservative, even beyond the social conservatism of Britain. And the social conservatism of the colonial Six County regime was even more extreme.
The agreement to abandon the Six Counties was a good indication of the servile nature of the ruling class of the Irish State which became even more evident as the State developed — and even under a later government of former opponents of the State, the Sinn Féin split of Fianna Fáil.
The Irish economy was neither developed nor diversified. Emigration continued unchecked as it had for centuries under British rule and. Irish State obeisance in turn switched to the USA and then to the EU. Currently the Irish ruling class is trying to eliminate any Irish State neutrality.
In 1845 Ireland was able to feed over 8 million but today in 2025 cannot even feed a little over 7 million in (over 5.3 million in the Irish state, nearly 2 million in the Six Counties). Yes, we must import food in order to eat.
Most large companies and banks within the state are foreign-owned, including such national brands and flagships as Aer Lingus, Guinness (including Harp and Hop House lagers and Smithwicks ale), Jameson and Paddy’s whiskeys,4Erin Foods, our telecommunication system5.
Most financial institutions within the state such as insurance companies in health, life, accident, motors, travel are also foreign-owned, including the now ironically-named Irish Life. The health, transport and mail systems and infrastructures are increasingly penetrated by foreign companies.
Foreign-owned hotels, housing apartment and office blocks are the rule and growing while vulture companies gobble up the properties of people who already paid the construction costs of their homes.
In economic policies and in foreign political policy it is clear that the Irish State remains close to the major Western Powers. Responding to popular feeling over the genocide in Gaza, its political leaders may posture a little away from the pack but in effect?
The Irish State imports productsfrom the Israeli State (US$4.15 Billion in 2024),6 allows genocidal state munitions through the State’s ‘neutral’ air space, US munitions and personnel through Shannon International Airport while maintaining all normal links with the Zionist state.
What we believe and say is important
In his interview with The Group Chat Cunningham, with the agreement of the panel, stated that no state was fulfilling its legal duty to practically oppose genocide. This was an unjustified slur on Yemen, which has shut down Israeli inward or outward Red Sea traffic and hit the state itself.7
It is very interesting that even among the many condemnations of Israel by media commentators and politicians we rarely hear acknowledgement, never mind commendation of the anti-genocidal action and sacrifice of the Ansarallah state and the Yemeni people.
Perhaps the contrast is too painful.
However, in an interview during a Palestine solidarity march in Dublin8 Cunningham referred to 800 years. Was that a slip of the tongue, or were the references to 700 centuries instead the slips? Interestingly he also referred to foreign vulture funds and landlords in the same interview.
Liam Cunningham speaking about the seizure by the ‘Israeli’ navy of the humanitarian mission ship Mayleen. (Source photo: The Irish Star)
It is important that an actor in a popular drama series speaks up for Palestine and also for the Irish people and Cunningham has been doing so for years.
What we say and how we recall history is also important because they have an impact on the present and on the future. On what we aspire to. On how we act and think, on how those around us act and think.
Ireland is partitioned between a colonial ruling class and an Irish foreign-dependent ruling class. We fought the Viking occupation for 300 years and the British occupation for well over 800 years – and we are still fighting it. Without sovereignty we cannot develop our economy.
Without sovereignty we will be dragged into imperial and colonial conflicts but never to our historical and traditional place – on the side of the Resistance.
2It also abandoned the Protestant majority, including many descendants of the United Irishmen particularly in Antrim, to a sectarian, bigoted, racist and colonial ideology that helped maintain them for decades with the worst housing and lowest wages in the UK of which they were part.
Petro’s government announced another measure against Israel, or to be more precise the Foreign Minister Laura Sarabia, who despite all the criticisms we made of her seems more trustworthy than the erratic Petro, made the announcement.
Colombia will require an entry visa for Israeli citizens.
Before celebrating another blow to Zionism and a gesture of solidarity with the suffering people of Palestine, we have to read the reasons behind it. It is not a response to the genocide, but rather because Israel unilaterally imposed a visa on Colombians from May 14th of this year.[1]
Laura Sarabia, Foreign Affairs Minister in the Petro government, at work. (Photo sourced: Internet)
When Colombia broke off diplomatic relations with Israel last year, at the very least it should have required a visa from Israelis travelling to the country. But Petro learnt very well the lesson of the nuns in the schools that it more important to appear to be than to be.
And he and his government appears to be the most progressive on the planet and an adversary of the Zionist state. But it is not true. It is not the case in migratory issues nor on economic issues and despite Colombia announcing it would no longer export coal to Israel, it continues to do so.
What is the point of requiring a visa from Israelis when many have double nationality and can enter with another passport? We have to be more radical.
Firstly, Colombia should state that those who have Israeli nationality automatically lose their Colombian citizenship. There are many countries in the world that do this, amongst them Nepal and India.
There are others that do not accept double nationality, you can only have one passport, though the loss of citizenship is not automatic. And further still there are countries, such as Ireland, that accept triple nationality.
Colombia should not recognise double nationality when the second nationality is Israeli. It could go even further.
Some countries, especially the USA, restrict visitors who have travelled to countries such as Iran or Cuba. Colombia could deny entry to anyone who has an Israeli passport, regardless of whether they enter with that document.
There are certain difficulties when it comes to implementing this, but there are legal implications for the person that uses another passport to enter Colombia if they are an Israeli citizen. With that alone they would close the brothels in Taganga and the sex tourism of Israeli soldiers in Colombia.
But neither Petro, nor Sarabia, when she stands in for the drunkard, aim to do anything like that. What they are about is appearances and this is to be seen in the economic measures taken against the genocidal state of Israel.
Gustavo Petro in handshake with Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Palestinian Authority, the repressive Israeli and US proxy regime in the Palestine West Bank. (Photo source: WAFA)
With great showmanship they announced the end of coal exports to Israel.
But a recent communiqué from a group of trade unions and social organisations, amongst them the oil workers union, USO and the coal workers union, Sintracarbon, show that they continue to export coal to Israel.
According to the communiqué, based on data from Colombian Customs and Tax Office (DIAN) they exported 905.666 tonnes of coal to the tune of US $90 million since August 2025 when Petro issued his decree.
It is worth pointing out that Petro’s statement gained him fans in many parts, the Progressive International that includes personalities such as Walden Bello and Jeremy Corbyn reproduced an article from the US social democratic magazine Jacobin.
The article pointed to Colombia as a model to copy and that 60% of Israeli coal came from Colombia and that
…the Israeli power grid depends on coal for 22 percent of its output. The same grid supplies electricity to Israel’s illegal settlements and arms factories as well as the infrastructure used by the Israeli military in perpetrating genocide…
…this decision is not only a victory in symbolic terms but shows the enormous impact that a wider energy embargo could have in ending Israel’s genocide in Gaza.[2]
In fact, according to data from the DIAN, between January and April 2024, i.e. before Petro’s decree US $101,658.000 worth of products were exported to Israel and in 2025 for the same period US $ 75,247,000 was exported.
This represents a reduction but it is clear that Colombia not only continues to export coal but many other products to the Zionist genocidaires.
So, what does it matter if Israelis are required to have a visa? What the government says is that it is going to impose a visa on Israelis because they did it first.
But the Zionist soldiers can come on other passports or even on an Israeli passport, providing they have a visa, i.e. the response to the genocidaires is a bureaucratic inconvenience when what we really need is to ban the entry of all Israelis to Colombian territory.
And to close all the brothels in Taganga and other places that function as places for the “rest and recreation” of the murderers after their “exploits” in Gaza.
For many years the Starry Plough flag in Ireland, associated with socialist Irish Republicanism, was the form of the Ursa Mayor1 constellation in white or silver stars on a blue background, from the time of the Republican Congress (1934-’36).
Somewhat later a different design including an actual plough following the stars and shape of Ursa Mayor on a green background began to be seen. But which was the original? And how, when and why did the other version come into existence?
It is not disputed that the Starry Plough was designed for the Irish Citizen Army, nor that it came to be designed in 1914, as the ICA was reorganising following the defeat of the Dublin workers in the 1913 Lockout. Whatever its colour, that was clearly the original.
It is beyond dispute that the Starry Plough was raised above Clery’s building, across the road from the GPO, during the 1916 Rising. It survived the burning of the building even though one witness spoke of a melted glass stream from its windows running across O’Connell (then Sackville) Street.
The flag disappeared thereafter. A British officer claimed to have taken it as a trophy. If there was more than one copy of that flag at the time, no-one has spoken of it.
When the Republican Congress was founded in 1934 the need for its own flag was felt. The Starry Plough of the ICA seemed appropriate and former members of the ICA were consulted as to the original design and colour and it appears that memories diverged on that issue.
Some remembered the background colour as green, some as blue. Prominent in the latter group was playwright Sean O’Casey, who had been Secretary of the ICA for a brief period in 1914 and presumably was present when the flag design was approved.
Whether or not, between April 1914 and April 1916, surely the flag had been paraded through the Dublin streets on a number of occasions and in any case it had flown over Clery’s in O’Connell Street for five or six days.
Nevertheless when the former members of the ICA were consulted in the 1930s there appeared to be uncertainty about the background colour – was it green or blue? Possibly the majority remembered it as blue or perhaps the opinion of O’Casey, who insisted on blue, was taken as the most valid.
In May 2022 former IRSP comrades of former leading IRSP activist Mick Plunkett stretch the blue Starry Plough version over the coffin containing the remains of the latter. During the 1970s-to the 2000 the blue version of the flag had been particularly associated with the IRSP.(Source photo: Seamus Costello Memorial Committee FB page).
So the flag of the Republican Congress was made a plain blue background with the shape of Ursa Mayor outlined in white or silver stars (and no actual plough design). That design was flown in Irish Republican colour parties from the 1960s at least and adopted too by the Irish Labour Party.2
A problem for the claim that the original was blue arose in the 1950s when an ex-British Army officer offered the Irish National Museum what he claimed to have been the Starry Plough which he said he had removed from the ruin of Clery’s. The background colour was green.
O’Casey was contacted by the NMI and insisted it could not be the original, maintaining that had been blue. To bear this out, he submitted a watercolour of what he claimed was Megahey’s (original artist) design work, in which the background was blue but did include a plough.3
The watercolour submitted by O’Casey which he claimed was the original design of the man who designed the flag, William Magahey. (Copied from article about the conservation of the original flag in History Ireland).
There was no way to prove the provenance of the watercolour. Nor was it impossible that a change of mind had led from a blue background on a design artwork to green on the produced flag. But O’Casey insisted that not only the artwork but the finished product had been blue.
Well then, why not investigate the artefact, the one claimed to be that which had been taken back to England by the British officer?
The original flag in the possession of the NMI back to front prior to conservation work. (Copied from article about the conservation of the original flag in History Ireland).
The NMI curator invited former members of the ICA only4 to view the artefact and although distressed at the state in which they saw it they confirmed that it matched their recollection. For the curator it seems that was the clincher and he then authorised its purchase in 1956.5
Around 2012 (the article does not give a date) an NMI curator charged with preserving the artefact set out to carry out modern method analysis of the material and its construction, paint and the more than 50 holes in it corresponding to .303 machine gun bullet impacts.6
The original Starry Plough flag in correct orientation (Photo sourced: NMI on line)
Former ICA members had remembered a golden edging on the flag, traces of which were indeed found on the green specimen. It all checked out. A clever hoax? Possibly, but for an eventual price of £150, a relatively small amount even back in 1954?
The ICA members viewing the artefact believed it was the original, the British Officer testified as to his having taken it and also produced an Irish Times account by himself dated 11 May 1916.7 The NMI tests all pointed to the conclusion that it was the original flag – and the background was green.
But O’Casey was adamant that it had been blue. And what about the blue watercolour, allegedly the artist’s design?
It’s possible that between the design outline and manufacture, a change in the desired background colour had taken place. But not only colour – the plough design on the watercolour is very different from that on what we must now conclude was the original flag.
We have no evidence to verify that the watercolour was the original designer’s. O’Casey might have painted it himself, from his mistaken memory, for example. Or is it possible that he falsified its origin in order to convince the NMI that the flag had been blue and not green?
Any such effort would not have been about an aesthetical judgement in favour of one colour over another but rather about removing the colour associated with nationalism.
O’Casey resigned from the ICA in a dispute8 about allying with nationalism but more tellingly, he disagreed after the fact with Connolly throwing himself and his forces into an uprising against colonialism9 – a nationalist rather than socialist uprising, as O’Casey would have seen it.
Connolly’s thesis was that the advance towards socialism was not possible in a colony such as Ireland without allying the socialist forces with the most progressive and revolutionary national bourgeois forces, i.e the IRB and the Irish Volunteers.10 O’Casey could not agree with that.
In Innisfallen Fare Thee Well (1949)11 he wrote: “The Easter Rising had pulled down a dark curtain of eternal separation between him and his best friends: and the few that had remained alive and delightful, now lay deep, with convivial virtues, under the smoking rubblement of the Civil War.”
The symbolism of the original green, the colour of Irish Republicanism since the United Irishmen of the late 18th Century would have been anathema to the later O’Casey. Was he indulging in revisionist wishful thinking?
Or perhaps trying to ensure that in any future conflicts, the Irish Republican and Socialist trends would be kept firmly separate?
Two green Starry Ploughs on view among other flags carried by a section of marchers at the Bloody Sunday massacre commemoration March for Justice in Derry in January 2025. The one in centre of photo is a mass-produced reproduction whereas to the left one can see part of a quilted sewn individual one. (Photo: D.Breatnach)
There are others who strive to ensure the exact opposite, who as Connolly did, see in the combination of those two strands Ireland’s only chance for freedom from colonialism, neo-colonialism and an advance towards a socialist society.
For them, the original design and colours of the Starry Plough is their flag and its entire symbolism points the way forward.
End.
FOOTNOTES
1In the USA this constellation is commonly referred to as “the Big Dipper”.
2Rarely used by the Irish Labour Party nowadays. It was popular with the Irish Republican Socialist Party for decades but nowadays a version in white stars on a black panel on a red flag is flown by the organisation.
7‘The rebels, on taking possession of the Imperial Hotel in Sackville Street, hoisted their flag over the building, and there it remained intact on one of the ridges of the front wall while the entire contents of the premises were being consumed by fire. At great personal risk the flag was eventually brought down by second Lieutenant T.A. Williams of the 9th Reserve Cavalry, Kildare Barracks, assisted by Inspector Barrett, Dublin Metropolitan Police.’https://historyireland.com/citizen-armys-starry-plough-flag/
8https://www.dib.ie/biography/ocasey-sean-a6553 O’Casey objected to the enrolment of Constance Markievicz in the Irish Citizen Army because she was also a member of Cumann na mBan, which had been set up as a female auxiliary organisation to the Irish Volunteers. O’Casey proposed that membership of the ICA precluded joint membership with any Irish nationalist organisation. Having had his motion defeated, O’Casey resigned from the ICA in July 2014.
9‘[Connolly’s] speeches and his writings had long indicated his new trend of thought, and his actions now proclaimed trumpet-tongued that the appeal of Caitlin Ní hUllacháin—“If anyone would give me help, he must give me himself, he must give me all”—was in his ears a louder cry than the appeal of the Internationale, which years of contemplative thought had almost written in letters of fire upon his broad and noble soul. Liberty Hall was now no longer the headquarters of the Irish Labour movement, but the centre of Irish National disaffection.’ https://historyireland.com/sean-ocaseys-battle-of-words-with-the-volunteers/
Like many others through much of the genocidal attack on Gaza since October last 2022, I’ve been attending pickets, demonstrations and vigils organised by others. I’ve also written some reports on those events and analyses of the solidarity movement.
But in addition, I’ve been drawing cartoon comments in a sketch book, most unpublished and I thought I would publish a selection here.
One of the poorest states in the world, Ansarallah is the only one to uphold its duty to prevent genocide, which it does by putting heavy pressure on the Zionist state’s economy through maritime blockade. For this, the UK and USA rain missiles and bombs down upon it. But it does not yield.This one is at least as much placard as it is cartoon but I never got around to making the placard. Ansarallah escalates to attack the ‘Israeli’ state directly, then again in response to Zionist airforce bombing of Yemen.The USA Navy sends two aircraft carriers to assist the genocidal state by attacking Yemen. Ansarallah attacks the US Navy, forcing the retreat first of one aircraft carrier followed by capitulation of the US which offers Ansarallah to end attacks on Yemen if they end attacks on US Navy. The deal makes no provision for defence of the Zionist state and is accepted by Ansarallah.Facing some of the most heavily armed forces in the world but somehow, it’s always the national liberation forces that must disarm. For the sake of peace, of course.The physical war against the Palestinians by the Zionist State was armed by a number of western imperialist states but also ideologically by the whole western media. In the face of real and ongoing genocide the WMM reported propaganda, repeated lies and framed its reports in the Zionists’ terms of reference – while courageous journalists reporting from the actual killing grounds were picked off by the IOF.The western imperialists promote the two-states solution (sic) and a Palestine colony of Israel as a ‘Palestinian State’. This would be run by Zionist proxies such as the Palestinian Authority with its Fatah boss, Mahmoud Abbas, who recently publicly insulted the national resistance fighters of Hamas, calling them ‘sons of dogs’.
The declared preparedness of a number of states, including the Irish one, to give formal recognition to the State of Palestine is widely seen as a step in favour of the Palestinian people and generally opposed by the Israeli state.
So on that basis many people who support the Palestinians may think that recognition of the State of Palestine is a good thing. How can it be otherwise? And yet …
Recognition of the Palestinian State is predicated upon the “two-state solution” (sic), in which the Zionists and the Palestinians supposedly get to live in separate states as neighbours, everybody happy. Except that the Zionists get most of the land and water while the indigenous get the least.
Effectively “Recognition of the Palestinian State” as advocated is to agree to
Zionists occupying 80% of Palestinian land
Palestinians getting 20% of their land
With least water
Forever under Zionist surveillance
and Zionist guns.
Area in pink shows territory notionally available to the “Palestinian State” in a “two-state” proposal; however the Zionist state is not in agreement and nor are many Palestinians. (Image: BBC)
In any case, Zionism is a colonial settler project and inherently expansionist; even in the unlikely situation that the two-state proposal were accepted by Zionists and Palestinians, the Zionists would always be looking to expand as even now they are extending further into Syria.
Currently the ‘State of Palestine’ is represented by the Palestinian National Authority,1 widely seen as the Israeli occupation’s proxy, run by Mahmoud Abbas and backed by the Fatah party. Its police force attacks solidarity demonstrations, arrests and even kills resistance fighters and critics.
The PA was created as part of the Oslo pacification process2 and supposed to hold elections every five years thereafter. The first elections3 saw the Fatah party elected to govern the West Bank and Gaza. But as the Second Intifada4 erupted against Oslo, the popularity of Fatah plummeted.
The Fatah administration was widely considered corrupt, repressive, violent and collusive with the Occupation.
The next elections, in 2006 saw Hamas win most seats across both areas. But Fatah would not accept the popular verdict and in 2017 Hamas removed them in Gaza after a brief struggle5 but however did not do so in the West Bank. Abbas has not held another election since.
At a special conference allegedly of the PLO (which was attended by none of its organisations apart from Abbas’ lackeys), Abbas called the leading organisation of the Palestine national resistance, Hamas, “Sons of Dogs.” (Cartoon: D.Breatnach)
The PA kept the grants it was getting from other states including those intended for the administration of Gaza, western powers cut off funding, Israel and Arab states initiated punitive economic sanctions against Gaza and Israel began a siege with periodic massacres.
In the West Bank, the PA’s security forces have suppressed demonstrations in solidarity with the Resistance and also against the PA’s brutality. They have jailed Resistance activists and fighters, including killing a number of them. This year they began and then colluded in the siege of Jenin.
Recognising the State of Palestine means supporting this corrupt and brutal Israeli State proxy and also accepting 80% of the land of Palestine going to the Zionist colonial occupation which, with the ‘two state proposal’ is also the policy of the PA.
There may be some, including probably some Palestinians, who think to accept it would be better than nothing, especially if it stops the genocide. But genocide is the basic program of the colonial invader: to take the land, the indigenous must be enslaved and if not enslaved, removed.
How else is a colonial minority to rule in security? The other option is not to rule but to share, in a democratic secular state of Palestine with equal rights for all of whatever background. Yes, but that is not ‘the Palestinian State’ being promoted.
The Zionists say they are in an existential fight and in a sense they are right. The Palestinians are in a fight for their life as a people too. A huge difference is that the Zionists have the option to stop being racist colonial occupiers oppressing the indigenous people.
For a few years also the PA has been mooted as the ‘Palestinian’ governing force for Gaza to replace the elected choice of the people, Hamas, with a proxy of the Occupation. This has been suggested by envoys of the US and also more recently by Egypt (although opposed by ‘Israel’).
This would find favour with some Arab client states and all of the European imperialist states who can’t see any other way of stability for the Middle East in particular and for their exploitation of the world in general. Without that ‘peace’ their whole imperialist world could be endangered.
The option of a democratic, secular all-Palestine state is not going to be supported by the imperialists because such a state would encourage the masses of Arab states to carry out their own revolutions. However it is the option for all democratic and revolutionary people to support.
To support ‘the Palestine State’ is to encourage the continuation of colonialism, genocide and ethnic cleansing, enable the current specific Zionist plan for Palestine and to support the US imperialist and Egyptian proxy plan to have Gaza run by the traitorous Palestine Authority.
1Usually referred to just as The Palestinian Authority.
2With South Africa’s, this was the beginning of a wave of imperialist pacification processes starting in the 1990s that went around the word wherever national liberation struggles had strong popular support. Those who had succumbed to it were used to encourage others to do so too: the ANC and Fatah attended annual congresses of Sinn Féin to recommend it to Irish Republicans; Sinn Féin and S. Africans in turn ‘sold’ it to the Basques and to the FARC in Columbia; there were attempts to get the Kurds in Turkey, the Tamils in Sri Lanka and some of the Philippines fighters to accept it. Wherever the process took hold the resistance split first between those who would collaborate and those who would not but the latter also fragmented further. None of the movements that embraced the process won anything more than the partial release of prisoners, with the exception of S. Africa where the people won universal suffrage (but also experienced increased imperialist exploitation and poverty).
3The first legislative elections were held in 1996, won by Fatah; the next in 2006, won by Hamas; there have been none since.
4In 2000, against the Zionist Occupation, the collusion and corruption of Fatah, against denial of the right of return to the refugees.
5Represented in most Western mass media and online history sources as “Hamas seized power in Gaza”.
Gearóid Ó Loingsigh (reprinted intact from his substack and reformatted for Rebel Breeze)
(Reading time: 5 mins.)
Once more Trump has acted like the lunatic he is and ambushed the president of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, stating that the country was undergoing a real genocide of whites.
Many have commented on the effrontery of Trump to talk of a fictitious genocide of whites in South Africa, whilst his main ally Israel is carrying out one in real time every day on the news shows.
Trump used images from the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country more than 4,500 kilometres away, to show that they were killing whites in South Africa.
Trump also lied about the land question in the country, accusing the government of stealing the whites’ lands when the reality is that the whites continue to be the owners of the greatest part of the land in the country.
It is worth saying that Ramaphosa defended himself partially, and only partially as behind the new legislation on the matter there is the hidden failure of the peace process when it comes to resolving the land question.
When the Apartheid regime was ended, the country was one of the most unequal on the planet and the whites were the owners of the greatest part of the agricultural lands. Around 60,000 whites were the owners of 86% of all the agricultural lands, some 82 million hectares.[1]
The agrarian reform proposed by the ANC in its White Paper of 1997 was a market-driven reform, i.e. the voluntary sale and purchase with some help from the government without the government being a buyer.[2] Blacks could also ask for the restitution of lands stolen by racist laws since 1913.
A whole land bureaucracy was set up, not unlike what Colombia has, Land Claims Courts where all those who registered could make their case with three possible outcomes, the restitution of the land, the handover of alternative land or a financial compensation.
In 1992, the ANC had put forward a document in which they argued for the expropriation of lands and other non-land market mechanisms. But by 1997 they had accepted neoliberal discourse and adopted the land market as the cornerstone of their policy.[3]
Initially the ANC government had proposed handing over 30% of the agricultural lands held by whites to blacks within five years. But they kept postponing it.
By March 2011, they had handed over 6.27 million hectares, and of that 45% was not agrarian reform, properly speaking, but rather land restitution.[4] The government didn’t just fail regarding land, but on everything. Inequality rose since the fall of Apartheid.
The Gini[5] rose following the end of Apartheid in 1994 and now is situated in 0,67 making it the most unequal country on the planet in terms of income, where just 3,500 people own 15% of all the wealth of the country.[6]
SA President Ramaphosa looks on while US President ambushes him publicly with alleged ‘evidence’ of persecution of white people in S. Africa (Photo cred: Kevin Lamarque Reuters)
There is also a high concentration of land. “Currently 72% of farms and agricultural holdings are owned by white individuals, who make up 7.3% of the population, while black Africans, constituting 81.4% of the population, own only 4% of the land.”[7]
The whites continue to be the owners of the land, the black middle class through Black Economic Empowerment programmes reached agreements with those whites and the companies in the agricultural sector to integrate themselves into the neoliberal economy.
This is the so-called ‘white capitalism’ and South Africa became a leading country in the agribusiness sector of the continent. In 2015, of the 10 largest agribusiness companies on the continent, eight were South African.[8]
Ramaphosa himself is an excellent example of the new South African businessmen, the former fighters against capitalism who now profit from the blood and sweat of those who were once the grassroots militants of the organisations they led.
Between 1994 and 1998 he acquired a portfolio of more than 40 million Rand[9] (some 8 million dollars at the time) and ended up as an extremely wealthy man (some 700 million dollars) thanks to his controversial investments and acquisitions in the mining sector.
Ramaphosa is also the owner of the McDonalds franchise in the country. The former leader of the National Union of Mineworkers became a magnate in the sector.
In 2013 the Police murdered 34 miners in the midst of a strike at Lonmin, one of the companies where he was a director, being the owner of 9.1% of the company. [10]
South African police move forward to kill more striking miners at Lonmin 2012 while in background other police stand over miners killed already(Photo cred: Sephiwe Lebeko/ Reuters)
And just like in the times of Apartheid, the Farlam Commission, those charged with investigating the Marikana Massacre found nobody guilty. Nobody! Blood is washed from the hands of a black capitalist just as easy from those of a white capitalist.
When he took over the presidency of the country, there hadn’t been any great advances made regarding agrarian reform there. The failure to meet the promises of the transition and the political programme of the ANC cost them electoral support.
So much so that they now govern the black masses with the support of a white party, the Democratic Alliance, a right-wing party that strongly opposes any expropriation of land without compensation and in practice is opposed to any great change in land policy.
It is in this context that Ramaphosa launched his new campaign and new land law. The ANC say they want to implement the Freedom Charter, but it is not so. Mandela himself had discounted that in his speech to Davos.[11]
He didn’t explicitly refer to the document but he never again spoke of the nationalisation of resources such as mines and land.
Ramaphosa’s law proposes various measures that already exist in almost all capitalist countries, the expropriation of property with compensation for public purposes or where there is a public interest i.e. the compulsory purchase or as they say in the USA, the heart of capitalism, eminent domain.
These norms exist in almost the entire world. As is the case in many capitalist countries, it also includes elements to reduce the amount of compensation or not pay it.
It is another thing to believe that Ramaphosa aims to do what the ANC never wanted to since the first government. He does not want to fight with so-called white capitalism as he knows that so-called black capitalism is the same thing and one depends on the other.
What Ramaphosa is about is a public relations manoeuvre to strengthen a weakened and discredited ANC. There will almost certainly be more such initiatives. But the ghosts of Marikana tell us that this traitor has no intention of doing anything for the black masses.
Trump talks of a genocide that only exists in the sick mind of Elon Musk and of a land theft that Ramaphosa does not want. If he steals the whites’ lands, who will he sip cognac with then? White power is still in control of South Africa.
It dominates the economy in alliance with the not so new black bourgeoisie, the black apparatchiks that control the scaffolding of the state, and the growing presence of foreign capital.
We all recognise Trump as the enemy and idiot that he is. The problem is that sometimes we acknowledge those he attacks as friends when in reality they are the same enemies, except some are more intelligent, cultured and refined.
Ramaphosa when he was a trade union leader said “There is no such thing as the liberal bourgeois. They are all the same. They use fascist methods to destroy workers’ lives.”[12]
Workers’ blood is washed from the hands of all the capitalists, blacks, whites, Russians, Arabs or Yanks: Ramaphosa in Marikana or Trump everywhere. The whites in South Africa, the Elon Musks have no reason to fear their friend Ramaphosa, despite the stupidities from Trump.
[9] Bond, Patrick (2000) Elite Transition: From Apartheid to Neoliberalism in South Africa, London & South Africa, Pluto Press and UNP, End Note No. 7, Chapter 2 page 266.
rebelbreeze 