Is every comedian who is deemed to step out of line to be hauled before the committee?

You should have quoted the actual apology. Carr said:”…I’m sorry if anyone was offended but that is the sort of comedy I do…” That doesn’t sound like a grovelling and contrite admission of wrongdoing to me.

Tiernan’s statement was:

“As a private individual I am greatly upset by the thought that these comments have caused hurt to others as it was never my intention…”. If anything, Tiernan’s statement was more of an apology, and Carr sounds slightly more defiant.

And, I don’t see what was wrong with Carr’s joke. I can see why some might be offended, but the joke actually has a positive message about the fitness of these men and women to contribute and suceed after suffering their injuries.

I agree with Aidan.

Tiernan’s apology is the more genuine of the two.

But in my opinion neither should apologise as neither intended to cause offence. Manufactured controversies.

I find this post more offensive than either “joke” to be honest.

Carr’s material is always extremely edgy (“statistically 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape”) so I wouldn’t hold him up as a paragon of morality. On the other hand Tiernan’s comment has been dragged out of context. It was an, admittedly questionable, attempt at deconstructing stand-up comedy. I wouldn’t read too much into it.

Sensationalist tabloid fodder really. Liveline style at best. And, really, was the Belsen picture necessary?

NaRocRoc,

Yes, the Belsen picture is necessary – because it is Deaglán’s entire “argument”.

How apt that this blog links to the Daily Mail.

I could have linked to other publications, the Mail just happened to come to hand first. It was a straight report on a news event, the place of publication is not relevant in this case. I am well aware of the Mail’s political peccadillos.

What bothers me is the equanimity with which so many contributors and indeed members of the Irish public react to the Tiernan episode. There is clearly a problem of public education here. It is also a consequence of the negative and, frankly, anti-Semitic policies towards Jewish refugees seeking asylum here in the past, resulting in that community’s tiny representation among the general population.

Sad really.

The secret of being a good comedian is that you have the skill and subtlety to get away with jokes even when highly-sensitive topics are involved, e.g., Peter Cook’s quip, mentioned in a previous discussion.

Nearly every joke involves a put-down of some person or group but some persons and groups need more consideration than others because they are more vulnerable.

I don’t like it when a comedian singles out Jews, Travellers and the Disabled as the butt of his humour. There are more deserving targets.

What a pity Narocroc that you cannot discuss an issue without throwing the head and tossing insults around. Some growing-up required.

Deaglán,

Your argument here is that Tiernan and his defenders don’t understand the Holocaust like you do, and the plight of the “vulnerable” Jewish people. According to you, only the ignorant could laugh at this joke, as if I and others actually could find the slaughter of six million people funny!

Tiernan also made a joke about people with Down Syndrome a short time ago, but Tiernan had actually worked with people and families with Down Syndrome before he made that joke. Do you understand those people better? This wasn’t actually down to Tiernan’s failure to understand people with Down Syndrome, or ignorance. He made the joke BECAUSE of his knowledge of those people, and his feeling that they were being portrayed as perpetual victims (much like you wish to portray the Jewish people, which IMO is offensive to them).

In fact, for Tiernan to make the joke he did about the two self-righteous Jewish people, he HAD to say the most offensive thing he could think of to Jewish people which implies that he had to understand that mocking the Holocaust was the worst he could do. So, all your pictures (an odd method of education, by the way – do you think I and others haven’t seen some pictures?) are for nothing. He was being deliberately absurd and offensive for effect and he understood what he was doing.

The only people Tiernan was singling-out were the self-righteous moralisers. In the joke in question they just happened to be Jews (as the question was about anti-semitism), but they could just as easily have been Catholics (if the question was about anti-Catholicism) and the joke would have worked (with some equally deliberately offensive statement about Catholics inserted). I have no problem with Tiernan taking aim at these people. None at all.

Now, this is the point you seem to fail to grasp. If Tiernan had made an earnest statement about Jewish people, that he wished more of them had been killed in the Holocaust, I would be the first behind you in condeming him. I’m on your side against anti-semitism. But he clearly didn’t. He was being absurd for comedic effect. How could you possibly take a statement like his seriously!?

After that it is simply a matter of taste (as I demonstrated in the last blog about this), and no-one should have to apologise for not having the same taste as you.

To make your point, you are now taking the ground that many people in Ireland are basically ignorant in a way that you aren’t, which, as NaRocRoc says, is intellectual snobbishness.

The Holocaust was truly horrific. There is no dispute. Your argument that we don’t “get it” is arrantly absurd (and not even a little bit funny either). You’re desperately holding on to this absurd position and you should really drop it. It’s quite silly. If you’re looking to fight anti-semitism, there are far, far more deserving targets.

Deaglán,

In this instance, the comedian in question was picking on the self-righteous, who aren’t weak and vulnerable, and may even have blogs hosted by The Irish Times.

And even so, Jewish people aren’t weak and vulnerable! Ditto for disabled people and their families, many of whom are well able to make and take jokes, and would in fact take far more offence to your description of them as perpetual victims.

I’ve volunteered with people who have disabilites, and knowing the jokes that are made between these people and people who care for them, it is entirely comphrehensible how Tiernan made the jokes he did. Would you like to see a picture?

Deaglán,

You’re obviously hearing a lot of voices, and seeing a lot of demons. It’s going around at the moment.

You’re clearly unable/unwilling to defend your absurd point of view, that Tiernan was expressing an earnest opinion and that many people are defending him/laughing, because they think that killing more Jews in the Holocaust would have been a hoot!

Enjoy dressing up that strawman.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/nov/05/jimmy-carr-paralympics-joke

Deaglán: here is some required reading. Seems Carr thought his joke was perfectly acceptable, as I suspected, and his apology was somewhat out of the side of his mouth.

Showing Tiernan the way? Hardly. In fact, he seems to agree with Tiernan’s point of view. You should pay particular attention to the list of subjects he touches on and his reason for doing so.

Deaglán,

Remember this blog post was all about Carr “showing Tiernan the way”. With that in mind:

(a) Both comedians expressed regret for hurt cause, just in different words. The difference is purely semantic.
(b) I don’t think Tiernan has told the “joke” again either. So, as this blog is about the comparison of the actions of one comedian and another this is an utterly failed point.

(1) Tiernan and Carr are different types of comedian. I’m stunned. Tiernan was obviously trying to make a point, and be funny about it, Carr is more concerned about the laughter (which is possibly why he’s doing better than Tiernan at the moment).
(2) See point (b)

(3) Remembering that this blog is about Carr as a “good” comedian (one who apologises when he oversteps the “mark”) and Tiernan as a “bad one (one who doesn’t). So, with that in mind, here are the quotes you should have taken note off, starting with the HEADLINE!

‘I thought my Paralympics joke was totally acceptable’. Therefore his apology was qualified, and so was Tiernan’s.

(4) “‘Say what you like about those servicemen amputees from Iraq and Afghanistan, but we’re going to have a fucking good Paralympic team in 2012.” Pretty much standard-issue Jimmy Carr: tasteless, offensive, short, targeting disability – one of his key subjects alongside rape, paedophilia, prostitutes, homosexuality, Aids, the physical and sexual abuse of pets, sex of all kinds (but especially anal), penises, breasts, vaginas (“Where did you lose your virginity?” someone in the audience at Margate asks him. “In a vagina,” he fires back), excrement, the awfulness of the Welsh, the even greater awfulness of the Scots, fat women, fat children, fat pets, fat Scots, and people (fatness optional) with ginger hair.’”

So, Carr does not agree with your ideas about “targetting” vulnerable groups.

(5) “‘Carr says the storm was concocted by the media. “I played to 9,000 people that weekend. I did Manchester and Stockport, and two people complained. My audience aren’t offended, but this other audience that reads the papers are offended. They’re totally entitled to be offended by those kind of jokes, but they’re normally not exposed to those kind of jokes. I know what the rules are on TV – what you can and can’t say. There are a hundred jokes in the show that are worse than that, so if you want to be offended you can find a lot of stuff.”‘

All of which goes to my point that comedy can be harsh and you can find offence in many places if you look. This is what I tried to repeatedly tell you with “The Aristocrats” reference.

(6) “….The other reason not to tell it now is that people have heard it.”

I would say this is his biggest concern. The joke has lost its value from being overplayed and discussed. Of course you did mention that in point (b) as it didn’t suit you.

(7) “Carr, who has in the past visited injured soldiers in hospital and at the Headley Court rehabilitation centre in Surrey, reckons the squaddies themselves are on his side. “If you look at the young men and young girls who come to my gigs, a proportion are in the armed forces.” His defenders say his black humour precisely mirrors that of the troops, who have to laugh in the face of possible injury or death.”

You made a point that comedians like Tiernan (and others) tell offensive jokes out of ignorance. This is certainly not the case here, and only a fool would think it was the case with Tiernan (that Tiernan didn’t know how mocking the Holocaust was offensive to Jews! Still, a breathtakingly absurd point.)

(8) “The great thing about comedy is it’s not accountable. Is there a prefect of comedy that decides what can and can’t be said? It wasn’t broadcast. People came to the gig, and two people out of 9,000 that weekend – and I’ve told it to 100,000 people so far on the tour – said, ‘I didn’t pay to hear this kind of rubbish.’ But they did pay to hear that: they paid to be in that room with that group of people. They found one joke offensive because it applied to them [he thinks they had a friend or family member who had been wounded], but everything else in the show that was horribly offensive they laughed at.”

“…But the context is, you’re on stage, it’s about making people laugh, and it’s about the world we live in. I’m just an entertainer, but things have moved on and it can’t all be about nice stuff. My favourite noise in comedy is the laugh followed by the sharp intake of breath.”"

Carr agrees with Tiernan about the comedic stage being an unrestricted place. Again, in total opposition to your point of view.

***

So, you’ve hoisted up Carr as the “anti-Tiernan” when he made just as much of a qualified apology as Tiernan did, seems to totally agrees with Tiernan’s ideas about comedy, and in so-doing makes much the same points as your opponents on this blog.

Finally, you should take note of this quote…

“He thinks some people who object are being hypocritical. “Sometimes people get offended on behalf of other people, and you think, ‘You know what, don’t be a dick.’”

…because I think your ears are burning.

Deaglán.

See October 29, 2009, 12:25 pm. Both are qualified “apologies”, and Carr has since said that his joke is “totally acceptable”. Both comedians remain seemingly unrepentant. Carr and Tiernan have far more in common than you and Carr.

And! You hoist Carr up as someone who Tiernan should emulate (e.g. “show him the way, Jimmy!”), and then when it doesn’t suit you anymore you say that Carr is just a tawdry game-player who’s more interested in credibility and money than being earnest. That’s a breath-taking attempt to have it both ways.

You also say that you want Tiernan to stop making such remarks about the Holocaust, once again, as if Tiernan made these remarks earnestly. When are you going to concede that no-one in their right mind would have made these remarks earnestly. And I’m not aware of any other instance where Tiernan has made a similar joke so I don’t understand your call to “Stop”?

Deaglán, at this stage, it seems your argument is a bad joke.

The difference between “I’m sorry” and “I’m greatly upset” is infintesimal, and both comedians are unrepentant, so the “apologies” are pointless. If you don’t have great respect for someone you would do well not to hoist him up as some sort of example for others. Now of course he has gone on to disagree with almost everything you’ve said in your blog posts.

As I said before, I have no special affection for Tommy Tiernan. I’ve also said that if there ever was a real case of anti-Semitism I would be totally on your side.

Finally, Tommy Tiernan nor anyone else owes you a whit of an apology if they don’t happen to make you laugh. Simply steer clear, and stop writing ridiculous, baseless opinion pieces.

Examples of Anti-semitism?

Jerry Falwell stating that anti-Christ, when he comes, will of course be Jewish.

Mel Gibson’s assertion (however drunken) that the Jews started all the wars in the world.

Ahmadinejad calling the Jews the most despicable people on the face of the planet.

Holocaust-denial is rooted in anti-Semitism

The New Testament can be viewed easily enough as an anti-Semitic document.

I could go on, but suffice to say that the difference between these examples and Tiernan’s joke is that they are derive from an earnest racism or hatred of Jewish people and Tommy Tiernan’s “statement” is nothing of the sort. It was part of a joke where he was being deliberately absurd and offensive in an attempt to rile the self-righteous. The self-righteous in question happened to be Jewish.

The reason I call your opinion piece baseless and ridiculous (which isn’t vulgar, or abusive: cop on, you’ve said worse on this thread to me) is that your first job as a journalist was to establish if this was an earnest opinion of Tiernan’s, which of course you could not, as it was clearly a joke. For your argument to work at this stage we’d have to take Tiernan’s statement at face value, which would mean that one of Ireland’s top comedians has far more hatred of Jews than Ahmadinejad! Surely, you can see that this opnion is absurd.

Then of course you could argue that Tiernan is in bad taste, but as I showed you repeatedly “bad taste” is part of comedy (and indeed is part of Jimmy Carr’s routine as well) so you’re wrong to single out Tiernan – you could have written a piece about the general state of comedy, with Tiernan’s comments as a starting point, but, no, you made it about the demand for an apology from Tiernan, as if he was somehow way out of step with his contemporaries.

Boy, we are in a crabby mood today. Got out of the wrong side of the bed obviously.

I don’t see an iota of difference between Mel Gibson and Tommy Tiernan other than a few drinks, yet one is anti-Semitic and the other just an elaborate artistic construct in your view.

The problem with Gibson, Falwell, Tiernan et al is that they are, however unintentionally, breaking up the soil for the seeds of a possible new outbreak of mass anti-Semitism/racism/ persecution of ethnic minorities.

Tiernan’s other commnts on Travellers and People with Disabilities are in the same vein. You have no problem with these either, I take it. The more I delve into the world of Stand-Up with the likes of Jimmy Carr and his “jokes” about rape, the more disturbing it all gets. The debasement of public taste is proceeding apace.

I’m not being abusive when I say this, but you have a totally static view of the world. Read William Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and then come back to me. (By the way, I see you have a real problem with Christianity.)

If I’m on the same side as Dr Diarmuid Martin, Ruairi Quinn, Alan Shatter, George Hook, the Just for Laughs organisers, et al, then I’m not that lonely.

As I’ve said, I would prefer if more people had spoken out but the Friends of Tommy T are not as numerous. Apart from Hot Press, who did the interview, I can’t think of anyone else right now except for a few pseudonymous types like yourself.

You’re very aggressive and illmannered in the way you seek to impose your idea of what’s funny on the rest of us! I thought it was all about a good laugh?

Mike,

You’re now implying that Tiernan planted the guy who asked him the question about “anti-Semitism” just so that he could go on a anti-Semitic rant! Be serious!

The question JUST HAPPENED to be about anti-semitism, another questioner could have just as easily asked him about anti-Catholicism.

I’ve explained again and again, and posted clips from YouTube demonstrating that Tiernan is no more “insensitive” than many, many other comedians. So, I can only gather you are speaking as someone who is entirely ignorant of the comedic profession and what comedians can and do say, and you’re not even slightly interested in finding out.

Deaglán himself held up Carr as a paragon of decency for Tiernan to emulate without doing even a modicum of research into Carr. (I have to say, given Deaglán’s earlier posts about decency and sensitivity, and what I know of Carr, my eyebrows were raised a bit when I saw Deaglán citing Carr as “one of the good ones”). I can’t tell you how much I laughed when Deaglán wrote that the more and more he learned of Carr’s material the less he liked him! Ha! The point that I started with about Deaglán not doing any research into what Tiernan said about the comedic space gets more and more valid every time he posts.

You clearly didn’t read the interview with Jimmy Carr I posted. Read it. He answers your silly point about “do that joke in Tel Aviv” quite clearly. Here is the quote:

“I’ve had some controversy in the papers,” he says, in case I’d missed it. “It was really genuinely stressing.” This surprises me. He doesn’t strike me as easily stressed. But then he explains: “Radio stations and newspapers were phoning up the mothers of soldiers who’d been killed or injured fighting for their country, telling them a joke down the phone, and saying, ‘What do you think of this?’ I can’t think of anything more inappropriate.”

Mike, you lost this debate when you claimed that Tiernan was anti-semitic and then had to backtrack very sharply to a position which could be best described as “well we can’t know whether someone is or isn’t anti-semitic without evidence”, which is hardly a point worth making.

If Deaglán had a problem with Tiernan’s joke he should have used it as a springboard for a debate about modern comedy and the “offensive” things comedians say, because Tiernan is certainly not on his own in this sort of comedy. Deaglán, seems to be discovering with Jimmy Carr, and simultaneously shooting himself in the foot by saying that he is discovering it.

I’ve done a search too Deaglán, and nowhere do I state that I am a friend of Tiernan, or say that I support anti-Semitism, and yet this has not stopped you implying this and more repeatedly.

You however said in your headline that Carr was “showing Tiernan the Way”! Before I wrote something like that lauding him for his actions, I would have checked a couple of interviews of Carr’s to ensure that you wouldn’t be embarassed by Carr’s comedic style or opinion of comedy.

Carr is entirely unrepentant, and he has and will do that sort of comedy in the future. You, however, say that his empty apologies don’t bother you as long as the words “I’m sorry” are in there somewhere. Fair enough.

As regards the post on Adolf, I haven’t seen the play, I don’t know the author, and don’t have a good knowledge of plays that “tastefully” deal with the same subjects. Perhaps, though, if you provided some quotes out of context and a couple of war pictures I might give it an auld lash.

I see now that I put quotation marks on “one of the good ones”. I apologise for that. I meant it as a “phrase” rather than a quote.

I think it’s accurate to say that when you started this particular blog you were lauding Carr as one comedian who apologises for offence when offence is given (i.e. one of the good ones – not a quote) But, as you can see now, Carr builds his set on offensive material and his apology is total lip-service when placed with his subsequent Guardian interview. He said himself he could have been singled out for anyone of a hundred jokes he makes (as you are also starting to realise no doubt), and it just happened to be this one. He also said in his apology “this is the sort of comedy I do”, so that seems to indicate he will continue to make similar jokes in the future (just not THAT joke, which he explained has rather lost its force from overexposure).

As for “I’d be interested to see the reaction if he did”, if you remember from the interview he said his audience were goading and asking him to make the joke again. I expect you would find the reaction disheartening if you went to one of his shows.

In Carr’s own words:

“…but that’s the sort of comedy I do”

So keep believing that Carr won’t continue on as normal if you wish, and we’ll talk next time it’s some other comedian’s turn.

Aidan,

You keep attributing things to me that are off the wall, and then argue against them. Talk about straw men? You are the original haystack, and my previous observation that you were a troll and someone who simply likes to insult and show disrespect towards others – rather than accurately quote them and debate them on what they actually said – is again borne out.

I cannot believe I am actually responding again to your tactics. It only serves to reward you and thereby re-inforce your behaviour.

One final thing: Instead of posting your stuff for no benefit you should work for a propagandist outfit. You could never be beaten in an argument, because you are a master of straw men arguments, misinterpretations, red herrings, and ad hominems. Your mind is so blinkered that you openly admit that that you are unable to conceive of any possibility whatsoever that Tiernan is an anti-Semite, in the exact same way that some people cannot entertain the possibility that G-D does not exist, or that the earth is round. Your inability to imagine possibilities precludes any rational debate with you.

Aidan,

I’m looking forward to your comment “proving” that black is white, the earth is flat, pigs fly and the moon is made of green cheese.

Backed-up with links to the Guardian of course.

Shure what would you know about pathos, implication and evasion ?

You’re a gift from God, Mike, you really are.

You’re giving out about me citing a (perfectly reasonable) piece from the Guardian on a blog post that was begun by someone linking to the Mail Online! Ha!

That’s just too good. Thank you.

Aidan,

Methinks you are showing signs of paranoia, as I never mentioned anything about you citing the Guardian.

Get a grip.

Aidan,

I say again. I never “gave out about YOU citing the Guardian.” In fact I was responding to Deaglán. You are often right, but this time you are completely wrong. Shows you are human, and like us all in life we make embarrassing mistakes in our posts. I’ve made many myself.

Mike, you were responding to Deaglán who said this:

“Aidan,

I’m looking forward to your comment “proving” that black is white, the earth is flat, pigs fly and the moon is made of green cheese.

Backed-up with links to the Guardian of course”

You added to that point by saying this:

“But what annoys me are people quoting the Guardian, as if this meant something reliable, when it is not”

So Deaglán was talking about me, but in your reply you weren’t talking about me but some mysterious group of “people” who generally annoy you by quoting from the Guardian, but that group does not include me, even though I am the only one on this thread quoting from the Guardian and you were answering a point which was sneering at me for doing it? Are you for real? Come on.

How about instead of this silliness you stick to your principles. If you feel it is wrong for me to quote from the Guardian because you think it is hopelessly biased, isn’t it also wrong for Deaglán to link to the Mail for the same reason? Currently it seems you are against quoting from a paper when said article happens to have an opposite opinion to your own.

Also, do you and Deaglán understand the meaning of “personal insult”? I am beginning to think you don’t. I said this:

“But if you want to weasel away from the point you were making now that it has been shown to be hypocritical then by all means …”

There is no personal insult there. I said your POINT was hypocritical and that you were trying to weasel away from it. If I had said “you are hypocrite and a weasel” that would have been a personal insult. You and Deaglán seem to be incredibly sensitive. Imagine if someone was constantly trying to imply you were a racist! You’d probably blow your stack!

I disagree with you that the Guardian, “omits facts which conflict with its agenda”. It’s a quality newspaper with a clear editorial stance. So is the Telegraph. The reporting in both papers is of a very high standard, in my experience. As with any good paper, there are times one would quibble, of course.

Mike,
If you had given me a few examples of how the articles I had quoted or other articles had omitted “facts which conflict with [the Guardian's] agenda” then I would have felt challenged.

I agree with Deaglán. the Guardian, the Telegraph, and The Irish Times for that matter are all of a decent journalistic standard. You can quibble with that assessment, but it’s probably best to do so with examples of what you’re talking about.

Mike,

Is it this article you are referring to?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0106/1230936698370.html

Fintan O’ Toole wrote:

“Nothing compares to Nazism, and the extreme caution that must always be used in drawing analogies with that murderous regime has to apply a hundredfold when Israel is discussed. Whatever the outward similarities, the Gaza Strip is not the Warsaw ghetto.

Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, however deplorable, is not remotely comparable to the systematic policy of extermination implemented by Hitler. The extreme defensiveness of Israeli attitudes is fundamentally different to the extreme aggressiveness of Nazi Germany.

There are, however, two respects in which Israel’s current behaviour demonstrates attitudes that overlap with the Nazi mentality….”

and he goes on to detail those as “collective punishment” and “racism”.

Also, note as well that he says this:

“Hamas’s campaign of firing rockets indiscriminately into towns and villages in southern Israel is a terrorist crime. It is clearly wrong under international law either to target non-combatants in a conflict or to be recklessly indifferent to civilian casualties. But Israel’s response to this terrorism is not merely criminal in exactly the same sense. It adds a further dimension of depravity by playing a game of revenge in which one Israeli life is worth at least 20 Palestinian lives.”

…which would seem to contradict your assertion that Hamas are consistently portrayed as “peace-seeking”.

Deaglan,

Addendum:

On January 6th 2009, Fintan O’Toole, (See link below) under the initial cloak of claiming not to compare Israel to the Nazis, then went on to do just that, in two important respects: collective punishment and racism. In no other conflict to my knowledge had he ever used the Nazi analogy. Not in the case of any other nation-nation conflict in the world, involving Arab attempts to annihilate Israel, or African conflicts, or past East European conflicts has he described their behaviour as similar to the Nazis. This disgraceful and extremely offensive attempt to single out the Israelis for demonisation was despicable, and is one worthy of the usual demonisation tactics of the Arab propaganda machine that has been operating in the same vein for the past 60 years. I for one shall never forget it.

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:TURc-Wfhs3oJ:www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0106/1230936698370.html+fintan+o%27toole+israel+nazis&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

Deaglán,

I am afraid that your comments have shocked me.

So now O’Tooles peice is “interesting” that the Israelis have taken on the role of persecutors. It is as interesting as any piece of anti-Israeli propaganda.

They are now to be seen in the role of persecutors – not defenders of their right to live as a free independent nation. Not the role of a people who have been under the threat of extermination over 60 years, survived the abortion attempted on its birth 60 years ago, survived the 1967 attempt to strangle it, and the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Right. The Israelis have now become the “persecutors”!!

No nation on this earth in the modern age has had to withstand so much hate from its neighbours and attempts to annihilate them. And yet it is the Israelis who are castigated as “persecutors”. And of course, their attempts to put an end to the Gaza rockets was another act of perseuction, and the building of a barrier to stop suicide bombers was another one? No country or the UN for years ever helped Israel to stop the rockets, and when Israel does try to do it, it gets the blame! Well, Deaglán, I can tell you one thing: people – the Irish and the oh so neutral UN – can call Israel all the names under the sun (war criminals, persecutors, racists, genocidal killers) and you know what it proves? That it is only Israelis who will ever want to fight for the security of Israelis. Jews as fighters and defenders are to be condemned. There will never be a repeat of the walk of the millions to the gas chambers ever, ever again.

Aidan,

To claim as OToole did that Israel is playing “a game of revenge in which one Israeli life is worth at least 20 Palestinian lives.”,,is a most arrant anti-Israeli comment. It asserts in effect that Israelis regard an Israeli life, meaning one JEWISH life…. as worth 20 Palestinian lives. What kind of racism is this he is attributing to Israel?

Being anti-Israeli of course does not mean that one is anti-Semitic (although undoubtedly in many cases anti-Israelism is indeed motivated by anti-Semitism). In O’Toole’s stated example his comparisons are one Jewish life (as he does not intend to mean an Israeli Christian or Israeli Arab life, his comparison group being Palestinians) and 20 Palestinian lives.

Note how O’Toole has not attributed any racist motives to Hamas, these are reserved for Israel. Hamas methods are described as criminal, but Israel’s response “is not merely criminal in exactly the same sense”….” it adds a further dimension of depravity”…..and O’Toole then gives his attribution of racism to Israel.

Mike,

Well at least spell my name right please. There is no “h”. It’s Deaglán not Deaghlán.

Also, can you also make your comments on Fintan without applying unparliamentary labels please?