OJ Simpson defence lawyer says Ireland is 'most anti-Semitic country in Europe'
Alan Dershowitz is a former Professor of Law at Harvard having obtained his education at Yale.
The 86-year-old said that Ireland had 'become the most anti-Zionist, anti-Israel [and] anti-Semitic country in all of Europe.' An American lawyer has hit out at Ireland, saying the country made a 'horrible, bigoted, anti-Semitic choice' during the second World War when they chose to stay neutral. Pic: GENYA SAVILOV/AFP via Getty Images
The defence lawyer for OJ Simpson was on Newstalk Breakfast on Thursday morning discussing the verdict in the racketeering trial of music mogul Sean 'Diddy' Combs.
Somehow, Dershowitz turned the conversation to anti-Semitism in Ireland, as he hit out at the exportation of singers 'yelling and screaming 'Death, death to the IDF.''
Presenter Ciara Kelly was quick to point out that the music act who had made that chant during Glastonbury was actually a British artist, and clarified Kneecap 'often use the chant, 'Free, free Palestine.'' View this post on Instagram
A post shared by Newstalk (@newstalkfm)
Ciara said: 'I don't believe for a moment that Irish people believe themselves to be anti-Semitic, but I do believe that they are strongly against Israel's action in general in Gaza.
'Largely because, I think, as a post-colonial state ourselves, I think they identify with the Palestinians greatly.'
Dershowitz reiterated his belief that Ireland is 'the most anti-Israel country in all of Europe.' Presenter Ciara Kelly was quick to point out that the music act who had that chant during Glastonbury was actually a British artist, and clarified Kneecap 'often use the chant, 'Free, free Palestine.'' Pic: Newstalk/ Instagram
'There's a long history of anti-Semitism,' the lawyer claimed, 'Ireland is the only country in Europe, Western country, that refused to support the British and American war against Nazism.'
Ciara again interjected to explain: 'Ireland was neutral during the Second World War, as were other countries in Europe.'
Dershowitz branded the choice as 'outrageous,' adding that Ireland made a 'horrible, bigoted, anti-Semitic choice.'
A clip of the interview was shared to Newstalk's social media page with many responding to the conversation and hitting out at the lawyer.
One said: 'I'm not sure that a man who was closely associated with Jeffrey Epstein should be lecturing anyone else on morality.'
Another praised Ciara, while a third wrote: 'This person is garbage. Irish should not even discuss what comes out of him.
'Proud to be Irish and of Ireland's neutrality.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
Occupied Territories Bill must not 'disadvantage Ireland unduly'
Taoiseach Micheál Martin has said the aim of the Occupied Territories Bill must be to apply pressure on Israel to end the war in Gaza, rather than "disadvantage Ireland unduly". He said this meant the Government had to take into account, when framing its approach, anti-boycott legislation in the United States which was introduced to protect Israel. "We do have to factor in the presence of American legislation, the boycotting divestment legislation, which is already passed by numerous states in America, which would penalise any company that, from an American perspective, participates in boycotts," he said. Mr Martin made the comment when asked whether legislation currently before an Oireachtas Committee should be expanded to include services as well as goods. "There's no point in Ireland coming out worse if it has no impact on Israel. That's the only point I'm making, we have to be clear-eyed in terms of the impact. People should know about the impact."
The Journal
an hour ago
- The Journal
'It's not so much about the party': Micheál Martin says the presidency should be above party politics
LAST UPDATE | 2 hrs ago TAOISEACH MICHEÁL MARTIN has said Fianna Fáil's preference for the presidential election 'is not so much the party, it's the office should be filled by a person who will carry it off with distinction'. Speaking with The Journal in Osaka, ahead of his visit to Expo 2025, the Taoiseach said the party is still 'taking soundings' as to who it could run as a candidate. However, he said the office goes beyond party politics, stating: 'We are examining it. I'm talking to people in the parliamentary party, I'm talking to councillors. I'm listening to people on the ground. I would make the general point that you need somebody who can command a broad base of support amongst the electorate, that has authority. Advertisement 'It's a very important office, the highest office in the land. And it's not for the faint hearted. So the person would have to command a broad range of support. And we, our preference, is not so much the party, it's the office should be filled by a person who will carry it off with distinction, represent the country well abroad and lead with some sort of moral authority.' Former Fianna Fáil minister Mary Hanafin said this week that she was seeking the party's nomination. Meanwhile, MEP and former RTÉ presenter, Cynthia Ní Mhurchú, has dampened expectations she will announce her candidacy. The Taoiseach said that in previous elections, such as when Michael D Higgins was first elected, viable candidates fell away after a brutal campaign. 'What was interesting is there was a lot of early candidates in the race, and some of them were going very well, but by the time summer was over, they been torpedoed,' he said. Is Fianna Fáil nervous about running a candidate? As a result, asked if it makes him nervous running a Fianna Fáil candidate, he said: 'It is a factor that has to be taken into account.' Related Reads Chicken fillet rolls and Cork City: Taoiseach tries to pull the strings for more trade with Japan This Irish embassy in Japan is the state's most expensive building constructed outside Ireland Over Guinness and Enya music, Martin talks trade, undersea cables and 'Bakebake' with Japanese PM Martin went on to state that while a lot of names are out in the ether right now, he believes there are people interested in the job who have not yet come forward. 'I think there are still a number of people out there who will make very fine presidents, who perhaps have not surfaced yet and who haven't even been spoken about yet. But I think because of recent experiences, in recent presidential elections, particularly the one I mentioned, I do believe that that's a factor in people not showing their hand too early,' Martin said. With reports that some parties were looking to approach former Liveline presented Joe Duffy to ask him to run, when Martin was asked if Fianna Fáil would consider him a good candidate for the party, the Taoiseach said: 'I'm not going to get into specific individuals, although I know Joe, going back to my student union days,' he said. While Martin has ruled out running himself, The Journal asked if he would be interested in the job one day. 'Well, I think I've committed myself to this term in government and to this Dáil and beyond. But I haven't looked at or considered the presidency. I'm very active. I enjoy the job I'm doing.' Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
Irish Examiner
4 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Unreliability of Donald Trump's US means a cascade of nuclear armament is on the way
At first glance, the recent joint US/Israeli attack on Iran looks like yet another flare up of regional rivalries in a Middle East tortured by endless conflict, intense geopolitical competition, and mass murder. Unlike previous iterations of conflict involving Israel, this bout has not triggered a wider conflagration, as was the case in 1967 and 1973. But the war launched by Israel on Iran may prove extraordinarily important, not just for regional relations, but for international relations writ large. The attack highlighted the increasing lawlessness of both Donald Trump's administration and Benjamin Netanyahu's government in Tel Aviv. Since coming back to office, Trump has taken a wrecking ball to the rules-based international order which his predecessors put in place after 1945. The surprise attack on Iran, occurring amidst ongoing negotiations, was entirely lacking the required congressional approval. We know from extant studies of authoritarianism that regimes which attack and seek to suborn the criminal justice system in their own jurisdictions are more likely to behave aggressively in the international arena and exhibit scorn towards well-established principles of international law. The common denominator is that, in both cases, law is restricting — the courts constitute a confining block; the regime often cannot carry out its will and thus is prepared to flagrantly trespass on established norms to get its way. After the Second World War, the US managed to establish a global system characterised by increasing levels of inter-state co-operation and incremental investment in international institutions. That these were designed in the American image, and largely reflected US interests, was unimportant — over time the number of countries engaging in democratisation increased precipitously. This was parallelled in the economic sphere, where protectionism was jettisoned in favour of globalisation, which brought more and more countries into a rules-based international trading system. After 1945, such organisations as the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) became household names, as internationalisation took root. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Rome in 1998 signalled a determination to internationalise justice and, in particular, prosecute heinous war crimes and crimes against humanity. The cross-national integration pioneered in Europe via the European Economic Community (EEC) and later, the European Union (EU) developed into the most successful experiment with institutionalising cross national relations the world has ever seen. This pattern of ever denser internationalisation began to fracture in the early part of this century. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 constituted a singular moment of inflection: The world turned on its axis. Washington DC told outrageous lies, in order to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and lost an enormous amount of credibility in the process. The George W Bush administration demonstrated contempt for the very international standards and institutions which US governments had built and championed since the 1940s, showing great distain for the UN and the EU. It is now vastly worse: The Trump administration has destroyed crucial vestiges of international engagement, from ending USAID funding (already producing devastating consequences), and withdrawing from the WHO, the Paris Climate Change Agreement, the UN Human Rights Council, and UNRWA, to threatening sanctions on any country which complied with the ICC order for the arrest of Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant. The precipitous damage being done to the rules-based international order has been underlined recently when a number of countries, including Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Poland, and Ukraine all signalled an intent to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention on the prohibition, use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel mines. This is undisputably evidence of an accelerating breakdown in trust in international institutions. The biggest victim of this regression in internationalism, however, may be the ability of the world to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Iran's underground nuclear enrichment site at Fordo. Picture: Planet Labs PBC via AP The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has long been heralded as a cornerstone of the rules-based international order, with 191 states party to the treaty; its success in preventing widespread nuclear 'cascading' has been remarkable. Indeed, with the notable exceptions of Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea, no other nation has openly developed a nuclear arsenal. However, recent events, threaten to unravel decades of diligent non-proliferation work, pushing the world towards a more dangerous, nuclear-armed future. The assault by Israel, a nuclear-armed state, and not a signatory to the NPT, on a NPT member state (Iran) whose nuclear programme was under the stringent surveillance of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in the midst of on-going Iran-US nuclear talks, underscores a profound double standard. The inability or unwillingness of Western powers to undertake significant military action against Russia, a nuclear superpower, despite its aggression in Ukraine, is a powerful demonstration of the 'nuclear shield' in action. Similarly, direct military intervention against North Korea, another nuclear-armed state, is fraught with unimaginable risks. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, front right, meets with Russian security council secretary Sergei Shoigu, left, in Pyongyang, North Korea. Picture: Korean Central News Agency/Korea News Service via AP This perceived immunity for nuclear powers stands in stark contrast to the vulnerability of non-nuclear states, including Iran, which up until now had been adhering to international agreements, especially the NPT. This disparity fuels a growing, and increasingly vocal, sentiment within Iran: That possessing nuclear weapons is the ultimate and sole guarantor of national security. The argument gaining traction is that had Iran developed a nuclear deterrent, no nation would dare to attack or threaten its interests in the way that Israel and the US have. Consequently, the voices advocating for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon have intensified, culminating in the Iranian parliament's recent vote to suspend cooperation with the IAEA ,and preparation of legislation to withdraw from the NPT. Such a withdrawal from the NPT by Iran would be catastrophic for the global non-proliferation regime, inevitably triggering a cascade of similar actions. Regional rivals, notably Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, which possess the technological capabilities and geopolitical motivations, would likely follow suit, initiating a potentially dangerous escalatory nuclear arms race in one of the world's most volatile regions. Similarly, non-nuclear states like Japan and South Korea, facing a nuclear-armed North Korea, now exhibit a profound sense of vulnerability. They are almost certainly convinced that relying solely on security guarantees from an increasingly chaotic US, or the abstract protections of a rules-based international order is insufficient. The logical, albeit dangerous, conclusion for these nations is that the only reliable defence against a nuclear threat is the possession of their own nuclear deterrent. The policies of the Trump administration, particularly its unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, exacerbated this dangerous trend. Far from preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, these actions arguably strengthened the resolve of Iranian hardliners and inadvertently demonstrated to other nations that adherence to international agreements offers no guaranteed protection from external threats. This shortsighted approach, coupled with the actions of other actors, has inflicted potentially fatal damage on the NPT — arguably one of the most successful diplomatic achievements of the post-1945 rules based international order. John O'Brennan is a professor in the Department of Sociology at Maynooth University and director of the Maynooth Centre for European and Eurasian Studies Shamsoddin Shariati is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Sociology at Maynooth University
