The Primate of Ireland Has a Message of Hate for the Jewish State
Jan 5, 2025 2:00 pm
By Hugh Fitzgerald
12 Comments
Eamon Martin, the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, has come out with a message of hate for the Jewish state: “Irish Catholic Archbishop: Israeli response to Hamas ‘merciless and disproportionate,'” by Michael Starr, Jerusalem Post, January 2, 2025:
“International Humanitarian Law says that parties to a conflict cannot use disproportionate measures to achieve military objectives. The near-complete destruction of Gaza and the bringing of its population to the brink of famine is, by any standard, a disproportionate measure.”
We have heard every month since last March that “Gaza is on the brink of famine” or “imminent famine in Gaza” or “Gazans starving.” Then the UN has issued reports saying that there is “no famine” in Gaza. And then the dire warnings are given again, and again it turns out there is “no famine.” By dint of repetition, however, Hamas has convinced much of the media that there is indeed imminent “famine” or “mass starvation” in Gaza. The truth is otherwise. Israel has facilitated the entry into Gaza of tens of thousands of truckloads carrying 1.1 million tons of humanitarian aid, that is, food and medicine. The problem with that aid is not a question of supply, but of distribution. This problem begins as soon as those trucks are inside Gaza, where Hamas operatives proceed to loot the trucks, removing much of the food which is then taken to Hamas-run warehouses, to then be distributed to its own members and their extended families. Another part of that aid is taken by Hamas for sale at exorbitant prices to ordinary Gazans — the very people who were intended to receive the aid for free. That is a problem not of supply, but of misallocation of the food by the heartless and greedy members of Hamas. Even with Hamas’ thefts, there is enough left over to be distributed and to prevent that non-existent “imminent famine” we keep hearing about, and in which the Primate of All Ireland deeply believes. Eamon Martin ought to be denouncing not Israel, but Hamas for stealing so much of the food aid from those for whom it was intended.
Eamon Martin noted that others that had expressed similar views had been accused of antisemitism, and assured [sic] that he abhorred Hamas and other Islamist groups and supported the rights of Israelis to live in peace and security.
Assure away, Archbishop. But does someone who calls the Hamas atrocities on October 7, 2023 “egregious” express his “abhorrence” of the group, or merely disapproval? Martin tells us that he “supports the right of Israelis to live in peace and security” — that’s big of him — but apparently Israel is not to be permitted to achieve that peace and security by attacking a terror group that makes clear (see the Hamas Charter) that it is determined to destroy the Jewish state and kill its people. Let’s remind the prelate of a key metric in judging war-making: the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths. Has Israel been “disproportionate” in its campaign in Gaza? The UN has said that in all the wars fought since 1945, the civilian-to-combatant ratio has been, on average, 9:1. In Afghanistan, the Americans managed to achieve a 5:1 ratio, and in Iraq, 4:1. But in Gaza, the Israelis have managed to achieve a ratio never attained in the annals of war — a civilian-to-combatant ratio of 13:20, which is much less than 1:1. No wonder the IDF has been called “the most moral army in the history of warfare” by British Colonel Richard Kemp, and Professor John Spencer, an expert in urban warfare (the kind being fought in Gaza), has written that “Israel has implemented more precautions to prevent civilian harm than any military in history—above and beyond what international law requires.” There is nothing “disproportionate” about the IDF”s defensive war against Hamas.
However, the Catholic leader cautioned that the right had to be achieved with a “just peace” in which the rights of Palestinians were protected by international law.
What would constitute a “just peace” between Israel and those who would destroy it? I suspect that the Primate of All Ireland is in favor — so many are — of what is called a “two-state solution” (and if it is called a “solution,” then, of course, that’s what it must be). In this scenario, Israel will be pressured by the world to agrees to be squeezed back within the 1949 armistice lines, which Abba Eban once called “the lines of Auschwitz,” leaving Israel with a nine-mile-wide waist from Qalqilya to the sea. Reduced in that manner, this shrunken Israel, stripped of its critical defenses in the Jordan Valley and on the Golan, would be easy prey for an army invading from the east; an invading force could cut Israel in two in a matter of hours. But why should the Primate of All Ireland bother himself with that? |
