No Clean Feed - Stop Internet Censorship in Australia

Bare Faced Liar

By DeusExMacintosh

Gerry Adams denies Wikileaks allegations

Gerry Adams has denied claims on WikiLeaks that he was an IRA leader and had advance knowledge of the infamous Northern Bank raid.

According to the latest US diplomatic cable leaks, the Irish government had “rock solid evidence” on the allegations. But Mr Adams said the claims were not new, that he had denied them at the time, and blamed Irish political rivalries with his Sinn Fein party for the allegations.

Mr Adams and Martin McGuinness were aware that the £26.5 million robbery at the Northern Bank in Belfast in 2004, which was blamed on the IRA, was going to be carried out, officials in Dublin told the US ambassador James Kenny. But Mr Adams said the claims were made publicly by the then Irish Premier and Fianna Fail party leader, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, and were denied by republicans at the time.

“I repudiated it then, as did Martin. It isn’t true,” said Mr Adams…

He said that despite WikiLeaks attributing the information to US diplomatic cables, the issue was never raised in Sinn Fein contacts with the White House.

“I worked very closely with, and indeed still work very closely with, American ambassadors and the US president at the time, vice president and other members of the administration going back 15 years or so,” said Mr Adams.

“They never raised this with me.”

Mr Kenny’s cable referred to a meeting with a senior Irish government official which focused on Mr Ahern’s concerns about the peace process.

The ambassador recorded: “He said that the GOI (government of Ireland) does have ‘rock solid evidence’ that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are members of the IRA military command and for that reason, the Taoiseach is certain they would have known in advance of the robbery.”

While Mr McGuinness, Stormont’s Deputy First Minister, has admitted being an IRA commander, Mr Adams has long denied he was even a member of the organisation.

- The Independent

42 Comments

  1. PAUL WALTER
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    Funny thing, if he’d been a pom, he probably would have been lauded as a great patriot and decorated for fighting for his people.

  2. Posted December 15, 2010 at 12:15 am | Permalink

    Not with a beard, it’s a bit too 70′s for modern British politics.

  3. Chris Bond
    Posted December 15, 2010 at 2:26 am | Permalink

    PW@1: “Funny thing, if he’d been a pom, he probably would have been lauded as a great patriot and decorated for fighting for his people.”

    I’ve just suffered total sense of humour failure. What an utterly crass comment. The IRA systematically blew men, women and children to pieces, terrorising us for at least 30 years. London still does not have rubbish bins on the streets because of the IRA’s poisonous legacy. They were and are terrorists, despicable murderous scum who still continue their “punishment beatings” and knee-cappings to extort money and power from their neighbourhoods. They deserve nothing but contempt, as do any other terrorists.

    Tell me, would you have suggested a similar thing about the Bali bombers? Or is it only the English who are fair game?

  4. PAUL WALTER
    Posted December 15, 2010 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Armageddon would be problematic, if you were a demon – you have a vested interest in status quo retention. Azriphale and Crowley sound like some of the people I’ve met up my local, elbows bent, fists round pints as they earnestly conclave together to sort out the world’s issues. Legal Eagle, “One person’s terrorist is an others freedom fighter” is indeed true, especially when you have recourse to centuries of history.

    Why one would bag Adams and not the British troops so unperturbed at the wilful attacks by Catholic Irish bodies on the innocent and whimsically fired off bullets of Bloody Sunday. Who were more victimised by statist “terrorists” and their Paisleyite militias, than the poverty stricken ghetto dwellers of Londonderry and Belfast, particularly the Catholics – in their own country! I say above as person not usually given to sympathy for Catholicism.

    But I find the Irish Catholics as having been in a situation not dissimilar to the Palestinians, eg something overtly repressive, intolerable, evil and unjust. No use tutting about the discomfort of the oppressors; If they got out of other people’s countries and stopped trying to micromanage the lives of people there, for often the most sordid and venal of reasons; if the real (usually statist) terrorism stopped, most people would be better off and only the mongrel elites unhappy, from plummeting ordnance sales.

  5. Posted December 15, 2010 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    On Irish troubles, it seems the last time they didn’t have a problem with English overlordship was under Richard III, who went over there before becoming king, merely as magistrate-on-steroids, and negotiated some sense into them.

    As I understand it, a few decades later, the Welsh and Irish sent armed men to England in support of a pretender supposedly from Richard’s family, against the Tudors. I’d have thought the Irish and Welsh having a soft spot for an English monarch ridiculous without the extensive footnotes in Kendall’s bio of Richard.

    So, either Rich 3 was extraordinarily competent, or more than half a millenium of English monarchs and PMs thereafter were totally incompetent.

  6. kvd
    Posted December 15, 2010 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    Chris@3 I don’t see any attempt at humor by Paul Walter. “Funny thing” does not reference humor; to me it is indicative of a rumination on the contradictions thrown up by life and circumstance. Nothing more.

    Anyway, PW does not need my defense for stating the obvious truth that history’s writers get to define the character of the losers. And in that sense, maybe in a hundred years, those writing history will indeed consider the Bali bombers to be “patriots”.

    Who knows? I hope not, but it is a dreadful possibility.

  7. kvd
    Posted December 15, 2010 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    Dave@6 I notice you didn’t mention Cornwall in your comments. I am wondering if they joined in with the Welsh and Irish? Maybe you could comment also on eventual devolution for the Duchy of Cornwall? I have the honour of a Cornish mother, and I married an Englishwoman (most definitely not a Pom as above) and was thinking to join the Cornish National Liberation Front in their efforts to blow up a Jamie Oliver restaraunt, except I read this 30 man force is now disbanded. Sad for a number of reasons.

    Or maybe they just retired to the pub, as Paul might suggest. Funny, that.

  8. Posted December 15, 2010 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    kvd@8: Dunno, but I don’t think Richard had anything to do with the Cornish, as he was based in the north except when troubleshooting ireland, and I think wales. My Kendall is on loan at the moment. The legalistic obstruction the Chartered York gave Henry 7 is worth checking out … As terribly polite a series of transparent nose-thumbings as you’ll ever see. “Love to sign, but the dog ate the ink last week, ate the document last night, the ink seller is on holiday until next year…”

  9. Posted December 15, 2010 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    PW@5 A kid in Manchester is not an oppressor and did not fire bullets on Bloody Sunday. And all that killing later, what is the result? Ulster is still part of the UK. Why? Because most of the inhabitants of Ulster want it to be part of the UK. That was always the fundamental problem with the IRA’s aims — it was trying to bomb Ulster Prods into becoming part of a state they did not want to be citizens of.

    As for its tactics, what else was going to work if that was your aim? But if your aim was to get a better treatment of Catholics in Ulster, then you had a whole lot of other options. So, it is both a strategy AND tactics fail, and what happened at a single demonstration justifies neither.

    As for Palestine, Palestinian politics was killing Jewish civilians before Israel even existed. Targeting Jewish civilians has never worked, not for 90 years. But still the tactic is persisted with. It is long past time people stopped making implicit or explicit excuses for this persistence in murderous failure.

  10. kvd
    Posted December 15, 2010 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    Basically, I think zealots of any kind are problematic, wherever they come from and whatever their stripe is. People who are prepared to kill innocents for their cause just worry me.

    Amen.

  11. Posted December 15, 2010 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    “They never raised this with me.”

    So? Is Berlusconi refuting claims his pants are too rarely above his ankles because US diplomats never raised it with him?

  12. PAUL WALTER
    Posted December 15, 2010 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    Ah yes, Owain Gryffud, of long- times, vaunted legend. I won’t pick on the Welsh or Cornish, because they are part of my bloodline, too, from an apparently rough coal mining town called Merthyr Tydfil.

    Lorenzo, thanks for your “balanced” response, I can always rely on you for a “balanced” pronouncement.

  13. Posted December 15, 2010 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    Ah, Merthyr Tydfil, a city noted for its most excellent cannon. So excellent, in fact, that its foundries supplied both sides in the US Civil War.

    And when are people going to realise that even when terrorism does work (the Irgun and the Stern Gang, for example), it creates a poisonous legacy? One of the reasons why support for Israel in Europe is so lukewarm is thanks to the activities of these two groups (who were not, I might add, sanctioned by the Israeli leadership or government in any way. They gave Ben Gurion apoplexy). The legacy came home to roost in Britain in a most dramatic way when — in an attempt to gain passage of the 1991 War Crimes legislation — a Conservative government (for the first and only time) was forced to make use of the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts to bypass the House of Lords.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_1991

    This had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the legislation, and everything to do with the King David Hotel, as was pointed out at the time.

    Every other group on the planet that fancies itself (or actually is) oppressed and decides on pursuing a course of terror ought to bear this in mind. If you do not fight freedom’s cause in freedom’s way, then you may win in the short term, but eventually your victory will turn into defeat. The former provos learnt this about 10 years ago; the Israelis probably learnt it about 30 years ago, and the various Islamist terrorists will no doubt learn it (assuming they are reasonably fast learners) in about 20 years from now.

  14. Mel
    Posted December 15, 2010 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

    “As for Palestine, Palestinian politics was killing Jewish civilians before Israel even existed. Targeting Jewish civilians has never worked, not for 90 years. But still the tactic is persisted with. It is long past time people stopped making implicit or explicit excuses for this persistence in murderous failure.”

    The Amazing Lorenzo gets it arse about as per usual.

    B’tselem is a Jewish group based in Israel and its stats show Palestinian civilians, including, children, are killed by Israelis at a rate that is many orders of magnitude greater than the other way round.

    Since Operation Cast Lead, for example, the kiddy kill ratio has been 18 to 1. From the commencement of the Second Intifada to just before Cast Lead it was 634 to 4. During Cast Lead it was 344 to 0.

    The Grand Kiddy Kill Count Totaliser is thus 996 to 5, with the victorious Israelis being awarded the Kiddy Kill Medallion of Honour with unanimous endorsement.

    See here for details. http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/index.asp

  15. PAUL WALTER
    Posted December 15, 2010 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

    Kvd, it sounds like the sad thing was, that they didn’t, re Oliver.

    Btw, on second thought, Lorenzo is quite right. A death in Manchester is no less than a death in ‘derry.
    I actually got a sense of the cold grey futility of it, from him. Manchester was only the culmination of treasure trove of tit for tat nastiness going back centuries. Before the Balkans wars of the nineties, Ireland was the benchmark for stupidity in a sophisticated society. They weren’t tribes of developing world people killing each other, but from the supposed cradle of civilisation, Europe.

    Thanks SL, for Sawaniuk link. You sure can pick a good story. What bizarre creatures humans seem to be, some times.

  16. Posted December 15, 2010 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

    Gee, and all *I* was doing was bitching about the man’s beard…

  17. Posted December 16, 2010 at 7:02 am | Permalink

    PW@18 If one wants to talk about the wider problems of Ireland, then Blame The English has a lot of “juice” to it. Ireland was just about the poorest place in Europe in 1840, which is why it was so vulnerable to the Potato Famine. It was poor mostly due to the way England had run it for the previous x centuries. The Potato Famine was not some deliberate English genocide-by-starvation but English policy created the conditions in which it could occur and then ballsed-up spectacularly the response to it.

    SL@16 People try to emulate Michael Collins’s success and do not notice how specific his targeting was. Or the realism which dominated his decisions. Of course, that was a realism which foresaw the likelihood of his own death. In my judgement, the most basic reason why Arafat was such a hopeless “peace partner” is he had no stomach to be Palestine’s Michael Collins — be willing to take the risk to sign a peace that could work but the zealots on his own side would murderously never accept.

    M@18 Palestinian ‘militant’ tactics has been aimed at ensuring any Israeli response maximises “collateral damage”. But whatever criticism one might make of Israeli policy does not get away from the elementary fact that targeting Jewish civilians was a tactic that predated Israel’s creation and has never worked in improving the situation of the Palestinian people.

    It does keep certain toxic cycles going, which has been useful for a certain style of Palestinian politics. I have no objection to casting a cold eye on Israeli policy, as long as we do the same on the Palestinian side.

  18. Posted December 16, 2010 at 7:12 am | Permalink

    SL@16 If you want to really grasp the situation of ordinary Palestinians, imagine a situation where your political choices — on your side — is either the Irgun or the Stern Gang: but worse.

  19. Posted December 16, 2010 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    Just to be absolutely clear, yes I am claiming that Palestinian civilian deaths IS a deliberate aim of the tactics of Hamas et al.

    If they attack, and the Israelis do not respond, it “proves” the Israelis are weak, on the logic enunciated by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide that Muslims:

    crucially need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.

    If the Israelis do respond, Hamas sets things up so the chances of Palestinian civilian deaths are maximised, “proving” the evil of the Jews.

    So, it’s a win-win for them. It just has nothing to do with the welfare of the Palestinian people. And Hamas is simply following in the footsteps of Holocaust-collaborator the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who used Jew-hatred to protect the situation of a landlord class who had nothing to offer for modernisation (economic, political, social …) and whose situation was threatened by the decline of debt bondage and influx of Arab migrants, both a result of the economic stimulus from the influx of Jewish settlers, their skills and capital. But those Palestinians who thought that some mutually benefit arrangements could be make with these useful newcomers were defeated in the 1930 “Arab revolt” by the Mufti’s forces.

    Anti-Zionism has always been about the interests of Arab elites against their own peoples. Just as anti-Semitism was “the socialism of fools” so anti-Zionism/blame Israel is the “Middle East analysis of fools”.

  20. Mel
    Posted December 16, 2010 at 9:55 am | Permalink

    The Amazing Lorenzo must surely be aware that today’s Likud, the dominant political party in Israel, is a descendant of the terrorist group Irgun.

    If it was the Palestinians and not the Jews who had the upper hand in Israel/Palestine, Likud would still almost certainly be Irgun. It ain’t difficult to put down your grenade and put on a shirt and tie when you sit in the driver’s seat.

    But ultimately I think they are all [ETHNICALLY DISTINCT AND CULTURALLY RICH DESERT PEOPLES WITH GREAT GENEROSITY AND HIGH INTELLECTUAL TRADITIONS - SOONED BY ADMIN DEM]- Jew and Muslim, Arab and Israeli- so much so that the whole Middle East should be allowed to rot without western interference or money.

  21. Posted December 16, 2010 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    Mel@23. Your last harsh paragraph seems to conflict greatly with other comments you’ve left here, unless I’ve missed the sarcasm indicators.

    There seems to be an ordering to the wikileaks, least explosive first. (The Age started with KRudd an annoying micromanager, now getting to US disbelief that asylum seeker rhetoric from KRudd was illogical, didn’t point out asymlum seeker numbers were insignificant, and the costs of Lib policy on refugees was enormous, and now that the US thought we overspent on defence toys).

    If my perception of this release pattern is correct, the Irish stuff will come out first, and cables about regions where there is still terrorism will come out later.

    If there is a hint about what’s coming from wikilwaks on the question of Israel, it’s probably KRudd’s mention, at an Oz/Israel friendship forum, that it would be desirable if israel let in nuclear weapons inspectors. I think KRudd might be putting a pillow over his bum pre-emptively before he cops a kicking on this issue – can’t think why he’d take such a sudden turn on the issue of the 100+ nuke warheads that have studiously ignored for so long.

    The thing is, why would the honesty of politicians today be any better than they are revealed to have been yesterday?

    Damn, if we want peace between cantankerous groups, politicians wouldn’t be allowed to speak in parliamwnt or at a press conference without being attached to a polygraph or fMRI.

  22. Mel
    Posted December 16, 2010 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    Dave,

    Well yes I was being melodramatic but the point is we would be best off staying out of the timeless and intractable ME disputes. Whether they decide to continue killing each other or strive for peace is up to them. Third party involvement is pointless.

  23. Posted December 16, 2010 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

    Mel@25: There are two difficult problems I know of that have had longer disputes- the basques (non PIE culture) and the tamils (from the aryan invasion of the subcontinent) … Peoples pushed to the edge of the ocean where they continue any further.

    The solutions to conflict between groups in the same area is actually logically simple: forced secular semisegregated secondary schools. In one school, boys from group A, girls from group B. In the other, only group B boys and group A girls. The combined force of a rational education and rampant teenage hormones would surely make any prejudice crumble in mere decades.

    The problem is instituting something so simple.

  24. Posted December 16, 2010 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    Dave, that doesn’t work (having encountered attempts at something similar during my days at the Home Office).

    What tends to happen is that rampantly sexist Muslim boys get picked up and spear-tackled by Afro-Caribbean girls because the former are incapable of keeping their hands to themselves and in the West Indies, women are expected to be (a) sporty and (b) bolshie.

    It was very amusing for everyone watching until a Pakistani boy had his neck broken in one school of which I am aware.

  25. Posted December 16, 2010 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    The blockquote should have ended at “pursue life”

  26. Posted December 16, 2010 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    M@25 Yes, I am aware that Irgun is part of Likud’s ancestry. But Likud is not the dominant Party in Israel — it is currently leading Party in the governing coalition, not the same thing. And Irgun is not its sole origins: Likud was only founded in 1973.

    And once again, the horrid nature of Palestinian politics gets blamed on The Jooos. Amazing people those Jooos. Responsible for their sins and everyone else’s.

    My point is that Palestinian politics have been horrid no matter what their circumstances. That is far and away the most important reason for the current problems of the Palestinian people: their appallingly bad leadership. At some level, ordinary Palestinians seem at least partly aware of this. Israel regularly tops an annual poll conducted by a Palestinian university of “most admired governments”. France and the US usually vie for second and third place.

  27. PAUL WALTER
    Posted December 16, 2010 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    Artsem, 27; artsem.
    Cant have the bloodstock jeopardised like that!

  28. Mel
    Posted December 17, 2010 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    Lorenzo:

    “And once again, the horrid nature of Palestinian politics gets blamed on The Jooos. Amazing people those Jooos. Responsible for their sins and everyone else’s”

    Actually no-one here has done that. You made an untruthful comment about civilian casualities and I set the record straight.

    Meanwhile Rabbis in Israel have banned Jooos from selling or renting property to non-Jooos, only to be criticised by non-Israeli Jooos – http://www.theage.com.au/world/rabbis-denounce-rent-ban-20101216-18zjz.html

    Really, Lorenzo, I admire the flexibility and balance required to so often put one’s boot in one’s mouth and hobble about on one leg without falling over.

  29. kvd
    Posted December 17, 2010 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    Come on Mel, why go personal every time? If you want to get a rise go talk to your boss.

    I don’t know Lorenzo’s parents, but I must say I sometimes do admire his forbearance.

  30. Posted December 17, 2010 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    M@31 My original comment was that killing Jewish civilians was a Palestinian tactic that predated the creation of Israel. This is true, and remains true. Nothing about the balance of Palestinian/Israeli deaths changes that. So, no my statement was not “untruthful”.

    That priests and clerics can engage in discrimination extends across the monotheistic religions in particular. I have blogged quite extensively about it. Your link is saddening but hardly enlightening, or particularly relevant.

    Since you wilfully misinterpret what people have to say, and are often remarkably unaware of your own ignorance about other positions, I am less than struck by the power of your observations.

    If it was the Palestinians and not the Jews who had the upper hand in Israel/Palestine, Likud would still almost certainly be Irgun. It ain’t difficult to put down your grenade and put on a shirt and tie when you sit in the driver’s seat.

    If that is not saying the nature of Palestinian politics is not the product of Jewish success, I am not sure what it is saying. The problem with the argument is, as I keep pointing out, Palestinian politics have remained consistent. The Mufti in the 1920s and 1930s used killing Jewish civilians as a tactic and organised the murder of fellow Palestinians to ensure his approach won out. Fatah and Hamas just kept the pattern going.

    The one bright element is that the current leadership of the Palestinian Authority does seem to (finally!) grasp that nation-building by the Palestinians themselves is the only likely path to success. Meanwhile, Hamas just wants to keep the Mufti’s model going and going and going …

  31. Posted December 17, 2010 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    This article captures the history that helped destroy any support for a shared state within the Zionist movement.

  32. Mel
    Posted December 18, 2010 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    The Amazing LOrenzo:

    “M@31 My original comment was that killing Jewish civilians was a Palestinian tactic that predated the creation of Israel. This is true, and remains true. Nothing about the balance of Palestinian/Israeli deaths changes that. So, no my statement was not “untruthful”.”

    Likud aka Irgun was also killing Arabs before the creation of the state of Israel. See the long, long, long list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks

    And so were various other Jewish militant groups.

    “This article captures the history that helped destroy any support for a shared state within the Zionist movement.”

    Fiddle faddle. Both sides pick “he started it first!” dates.

  33. Mel
    Posted December 18, 2010 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    Meanwhile Arabs in Israel are now subject to Rabbi imposed Nuremberg Laws, apparently with the implicit consent of the police:

    http://www.theage.com.au/world/arab-students-get-harsh-lesson-in-racism-from-holy-city-20101217-190rm.html

  34. Patrick
    Posted December 19, 2010 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    you still read the age?

  35. Posted December 19, 2010 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    M@36 It gets unseemly to compare killings, murders and massacres, but if you insist. In fact, the Arabs did “start it” as this list indicates. The Irgun were responsible for about 250 Arab deaths according to your source. About 5,000 Arabs were killed during that period. The biggest reason was a de facto civil war within the Arab community. Arabs were not only killing Jewish civilians, they were also killing Arab civilians, and in larger numbers.

    Zionist/Israeli history has two “internal” assassinations, the most famous of which was Yitzhak Rabin. Palestinian internal politics have been somewhat different.

    David Ben-Gurion thought Irgun was a menace, denounced them and eventually took strong action against them. Even the founder of the Irgun thought that Arabs should be integrated into the Jewish state.

    Conversely, the Mufti targeted those who sought cooperation with Jews and thought killing civilians and political opponents was just fine. Indeed, actively collaborated with the Holocaust. Hence my observation that Palestinian politics was as if one’s only choice was between the Irgun and the Stern Gang, but worse.

    As for your link, priests seeking to block intermarriage and inter-community felicity has a long history. Try St John Chrysostom, the patron saint of preachers homilies against the Jews for instance. The Orthodox rabbis are being noxious, but have yet to catch up with many of their contemporary Islamic counterparts.

  36. Posted December 21, 2010 at 2:26 am | Permalink

    Sorry, if you’re going to respect rights of conquest then you need to cede control back to the Romans (sorry, Italians). They conquered the place in a fair fight and created the Jewish diaspora.

  37. Patrick
    Posted December 21, 2010 at 2:50 am | Permalink

    How does that respect the rights of conquest? Their lickspittle descendants have since been conquered in every theatre they ever even got to…even the Palestinians could probably beat the Italians now.

  38. denuto
    Posted December 22, 2010 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    I know I come in late on this one and that the comment discussion has moved away somewhat from the original issue, but my comment is on the title and the original post.

    To which particular fact or issue does the “bare faced liar” tag attach? Knowledge of the “infamous Northern Bank raid”, membership of the IRA, or both? Have I missed something that is apparently common knowledge – that Adams’ denials are known (even proven?) to be false?

    Assuming that I’m not totally naive (never safe to judge such things about yourself!!) is the title meant to stimulate debate? Because there hasn’t been any debate on the assertion in the title. Maybe I am naive……I certainly am confused.

  39. Posted December 22, 2010 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    DEM@39 Palestine was only Muslim in the first place due to conquest. The UN had set up a division of Palestine, it was the Arab refusal to accept ANY deal followed by invasion which left the Israelis achieving their 1948 boundaries. It was the Arabs deciding to attack Israel which led to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. The Israelis have handed back Sinai, southern Lebanon and Gaza and Hamas is still repeating the original 1947 position of “nothing, nothing, at all”. The Arabs tried conquest (twice) and failed miserably (twice). That is not really a stick that only applies to the Israelis.

One Trackback

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by John Hacking, Legal Eagle. Legal Eagle said: Bare Faced Liar: Gerry Adams has denied claims on WikiLeaks that he was an IRA leader and had advance knowledge … http://bit.ly/dWrkbZ [...]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*