Neutrality & Zionism: The Nationalist Position

Irish Neutrality ShatteredForeword

The ability of a state to remain neutral was once a staple of the old European spatial order. When European states engaged in warfare, there was an assumed equality of status between the combatants, each of which was considered a just enemy. This recognition led to a reduction in wars of annihilation, and protected civilians and soldiers alike from extraordinary violence. A third party could remain neutral, as the majority of conflicts did not threaten the spatial order and the entities therein. A new spatial order emerged at the beginning of the last century, when war was redefined as a form of criminal activity and aggressors constituted enemies of humanity.

Thus, Ireland’s neutrality has been challenged in the modern world; liberal internationalists don’t tolerate those who wait on the sidelines, and fearmongering over security in Europe have given globalists an excuse to sell potential NATO accession or membership of a liberally-ordered continental army to the Irish public. Irish neutrality has increasingly been chipped away, and we may be only one crisis away from a drastic shift in our international policy.

The Meaning of Neutrality

Our neutrality today is a continuation of the political strategy of the de Valera government at the time of the Second World War. It relied on the axiom that small states would only be pawns in a fight between grand alliances and/or hegemonic superpowers. While the neutrality policy was in one way a product of pragmatism, it also stemmed from the articulated sentiments of Irish nationalists that predate the foundation of the Free State. “We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland” was not a blanket denouncement of royalism or an offhand quip, it was an everlasting declaration that Irish blood should only be shed in the defence and interests of a sovereign Ireland.

The Second World War marked the birth as well as the slow death of our neutrality in practice. Post-Nuremberg, neutrality in the face of a ‘hostis humani generis’ was no longer justifiable. Ireland’s neutrality in the national interest became irreconcilable with the prevailing liberal world order. If Ireland were to be assimilated into this new global order, these now-antiquated principles would have to be done away with. In recent years, this is exactly what has happened by the hand of our ideologically occupied vassal government.

“Ireland is not neutral; we are merely unaligned” said Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny in 2006. A thesaurus would suggest that “neutral” and “unaligned” are synonymous, but the first half of that sentence was enough to get the point across. Enda Kenny would go on to criticise the ‘triple lock’ mechanism for preventing the deployment of Irish soldiers to Macedonia; China vetoed the UN Security Council resolution, which would’ve been required in order to authorise the deployment. Enda Kenny’s old rival would issue a bolder statement several years later.

“We’re not politically neutral, but we’re militarily neutral” remarked Taoiseach Micheál Martin in relation to Russo-Ukrainian tensions, just a month before the 2022 invasion. This was the first time a distinction between separate forms of neutrality was made. His coalition partner, Tánaiste Leo Varadkar, doubled down when he stated that Ireland was “not neutral at all” on the question of Ukraine and Russia. If that wasn’t enough, the government would take a step further. A shipment of body armour was provided to Ukraine by the Irish government. Of course, the same life-saving equipment wasn’t afforded to the Russian soldiers; their corpses can be stacked as high as Carrauntoohil.

With the Irish government intervening to actively protect the lives of one side, and express indifference at best toward the lives of the other, we can say quite confidently that our neutrality is swiftly evaporating. The only thing keeping up the façade is the fact that Ireland hasn’t directly killed any Russian soldiers, and there’s not much middle ground left between that point and where we are now. The problem the government has is that neutrality is too popular, they’ll have to keep playing charades until they can get some sort of mandate to openly abandon neutrality.

A Mandate for Palestine?

Amongst the European nations, Ireland has been uniquely supportive of Palestinian interests, in the realm of both public opinion and public policy. Irish support for Palestine has steadily increased since the end of the First Intifada, which culminated in the creation of the Palestinian National Authority. The First Intifada led to another, and since 7 October 2023, Israel’s continued aggressive opposition to Palestinian self-determination in a reckless manner has come at an incredible cost to the Zionist project.

On 28 May 2024, the Irish government officially recognised the provisional State of Palestine. The joint declaration with Norway and Spain induced the biggest strain in Ireland-Israel relations to date. Pursuant to the declaration, the Israeli ambassador was withdrawn, and the Irish ambassador was given a formal reprimand. In line with the recognition, the Representative Office to Palestine would become an embassy, providing full consular services and bestowed with the diplomatic privileges and immunities of the Vienna Convention. In November, the newly appointed Palestinian ambassador was accepted by the Irish government.

A month later, Israel would make a retaliatory gesture to the Irish government. Their embassy in Dublin was announced to be closing, citing the government’s “extreme anti-Israel policies” and the “antisemitic” nature of the actions taken. Israel’s complaints have fallen on deaf ears; over the years, no serious resistance has been mounted against Irish policy on Israel domestically. It’s very unlikely that it’ll change, Ireland is only one of many countries that have sought to distance themselves from a fiercely antagonistic Israel.

The government’s stance against Israel may be motivated by genuine humanitarian grievances, but it also removes a winning issue from the bloc of Irish left-wing parties. Leftist organisations (such as Sinn Féin) have become so preoccupied with advocacy for the Palestinians that you’d nearly forget that they contest Irish issues at all. The international left have had a long-time affinity for the Palestinian cause, and for reasons that aren’t based on mere altruism or charity.

The Left and Palestine

As discussed in the previous article, the Soviet Union and Israel were violently adversarial during the Cold War. The Soviets cultivated the armed Palestinian resistance in order to threaten Israel’s interior. The constituent elements of the Soviet-sponsored Palestinian Liberation Organisation, which control the Palestinian National Authority and the State of Palestine, were all originally founded on a Marxist-Leninist platform. The Soviet Union may be gone, but its legacy is iconographically important to the modern and revised left. From the ashes of the Soviet Union, the new left took up the mantle of Palestinian liberation.

Soviet opposition to Zionism was grounded on ideological and strategic imperatives. As a form of nationalism, Zionism was considered ‘bourgeois’ and incompatible with communism. When Israel turned toward the United States, Britain, and France, the Soviet Union retorted by aiding Israel’s hostile neighbours and advancing revolutionary Arab socialism. The new left chooses to oppose Israel for different reasons; reasons that reach beyond the inaccurate and into the insane.

The left regards Israel as an imperialist/colonialist enterprise. These terms are anachronisms in the contemporary spatial order and fail to describe the configuration or orientation of contemporary states. Imperialism/colonialism in the old spatial order, from a juridical perspective, was more complicated than simply strutting into a piece of land, erecting a flag, and exploiting resources. Historically, states regulated imperialist/colonialist endeavours through the segregation of land types, with the validity and legal title of land appropriation varying based on the classification. Classifications were dependent on the presence of a political and social order in the land in question; that’s why German unification isn’t considered to be Prussian ‘imperialism’, or their integration of Alsace-Lorraine to be ‘colonialist’.

The concept of imperialism/colonialism belongs to a bygone era. No state, Israel or otherwise, conducts statecraft in this manner anymore. These terms entered the socialist lexicon as political signifiers, predominantly due to Lenin, and have lingered around past their expiry date. They have managed to retain currency as slurs within the secular leftist ethical code. Doctrinal ‘anti-racism’ and ‘anti-fascism’ have superseded traditional religion as the source of morality; transgression of these commandments transcend political disagreement and are instead held as a form of blasphemy in ‘polite society’.

The media, the state, and pseudo-intellectuals have maintained a hermeneutic of ‘anti-whiteness’ for the deconstruction and analysis of global phenomena. Each ‘white’ man or woman is born with the ‘original sin’ of racism, and imperialism/colonialism is one expression of this plethora of evildoings. These platitudes can often result in ridiculous assertions; the issue of Israel is where a particularly crude assertion is made. Not only is Israel an imperialist/colonialist state, the left alleges that Israel is a ‘white supremacist’ state too. Israel, of course, does not operate to the benefit of ‘white’ people; it operates to the benefit of Jews alone. Jews can automatically attain citizenship of Israel by virtue of being Jewish, while non-Jewish whites must navigate the naturalisation process like everybody else. Additionally, non-Jews are required to renounce any foreign citizenship before naturalising; Jews do not have to do the same.

Outside of citizenship, non-Jewish whites are still adversely affected by Israeli policy. Israeli airport security is notoriously strict, and racial profiling is one aspect of their security protocol. Israeli airport security considers a person’s ethnicity, gender, age, whether they’re travelling alone etc., and designates the person with a number from 1-6 (1 = minimal potential threat, 6 = maximal potential threat) which determines how much extra scrutiny they’ll receive. Jews normally get a 1; solo-travelling males from Islamic countries normally get a 6. Europeans normally get a 4; apparently, the ‘white supremacist’ Jewish state views Europeans as closer to Islamic fundamentalists than Jewish citizens.

Israel’s Basic Laws (the ‘constitution’ of Israel) unequivocally declares Israel as the home of the Jewish people. “The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was founded”, Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People proclaims. The Basic Law not only proclaims Israel as the home of the Jewish people, but as an advocate for international Jewish interests; “The state will strive to ensure the safety of the members of the Jewish people and of its citizens in trouble or captivity due to the fact of their Jewishness or their citizenship”.

Jewishness is so intrinsic to being Israeli that the Supreme Court of Israel has blocked attempts to re-evaluate the term ‘Israeli’ as a civic identity. On the Israeli population registry (their equivalent of the census), respondents can declare themselves as a Jew, an Arab, or a Christian etc. Secular Jews appealed to be recorded as Israeli, but the Supreme Court upheld the categorisations as an Israeli option could impact the country’s Jewish character.

The greatest irony in the leftist position may be that Jewishness, as distinct from whiteness, is a cornerstone of Zionist ideology. The Zionist progenitor Theodor Herzl, who is acknowledged by the State of Israel in their Declaration of Independence to be “the spiritual father of the Jewish state”, felt that a Jewish return to the Levant was a necessity as Jews could not be acculturated into European civilisation. Israel would not exist if Jews did not see themselves as a disparate body to the European peoples.

Israel and the Right

As nationalists, we understand that our primary objective is guaranteeing the existence of our nation and promoting the general welfare of our people. This can only be done by prioritising the Irish people over aliens within our own borders, and without furthering the interests of any foreign power. It has unfortunately become necessary to remind some people that dual loyalties only inhibit the advance of Irish and European nations in the face of those who seek to destroy us.

American influence can sometimes prove to be a pervasive element in European politics. For years, Zionist campaigners have wooed the American policy apparatus through clever lobbying efforts and the insinuation of popular figureheads into mainstream discussion. The effects of this marketing push have now trickled down into European affairs. European nationalist movements are expected to promulgate the neoconservative idea that support for Israel is a duty; that fidelity to Israel is warranted because they are “the only democracy in the Middle East”, or that Israel is a defender of Europe against Islamic extremism.

Does it matter to us as to how a foreign country selects their leader? Is it our obligation to liberate Saudi Arabians from a monarchy they support? Democracy doesn’t seem to have any meaning in political discourse; Russia, China, and Iran are castigated for their lack of democracy, but there is silence when it comes to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. In globalist phraseology, a ‘democracy’ is a descriptor for a friendly country that poses no threat to the existing world order. The same people who condoned regime change in Iraq and Syria on the basis of ‘democracy’ profess that the democratically-elected Viktor Orbán is a despot.

The status of a nation as a democracy does not confer special rights or privileges, or provide the ruling authority with moral superiority. Should we have welcomed the parliamentarian Cromwell as the liberator of the Irish people from the hereditary tyranny of King Charles and the English throne? It’s none of our concern whether Israel selects its government through universal suffrage or by pulling names out of a hat; our support for Israel, or any other country, is contingent on whether their exercise of power helps or hurts Ireland.

That is where our issue with Israel arises. Irish and Israeli interests rarely overlap, and Israel’s execution of their foreign policy intrigues have been particularly damaging to Ireland and Europe’s security paradigm. Israel has advertised its aggressive actions toward its neighbours as part of a wider war on radical Islamic terrorism; however, Israel has only exacerbated the formation and spread of these types of groups. Israel has utilised Islamic extremists as a destabilising force, most recently in the Syrian civil war. Fanatical Jews and Muslims playing ball may sound absurd or impossible; a recent article by Keith Woods on his Substack shows that it couldn’t be more real.

Not only have the Zionist-orchestrated coups in Syria and Libya allowed radical Islamists to flourish, they have opened the floodgates for massive migrant hordes to make their way toward Europe. These mass-migrations are not unintended consequences; Israel sees an Arab exodus as ideal, with Europe (and specifically Ireland) being totally dispensable to the Zionist project. After answering in agreement to the theoretical use of nuclear weapons in Gaza, Israeli Minister of Heritage Amihai Eliyahu suggested that victims of the fallout “can go to Ireland or [the] deserts”.

Our so-called protectors on the frontlines, the supposed bulwark against the migrant takeover, share culpability for the ransacking of Europe, and they celebrate it as a punishment for those who aren’t sufficiently compliant with the Zionist agenda. They shield behind the cloak of ‘antisemitism’ and accuse those who don’t swear absolute fidelity to be engaging in a conspiratorial plot of genocide against the Jewish people. This rationalisation, as bizarre as it may be, has been the raison d’être for the almost century-long suppression of nationalist movements across Europe. Zionist ideology exists in explicit contrast to Europe, and it has depended on perpetuating eternal guilt in European peoples for its survival. The immortalisation of this narrative is the reason never-ending equivalencies to Hitler and the Nazis are the crux of political debate, even where there is no relevancy.

As nationalists, Ireland is always first in our hearts and our minds; thoughtless external loyalties and personal biases shouldn’t compromise our mission as the vanguard of the Irish nation. This is true of all disputes, whether it be between nations or political organisations. The focus of this article on Israel is a product of two factors. Firstly, the left has dug in their heels on the side of Palestine, and it may be tempting for some to enter the battleground on the side of Israel for the sake of polemics or sheer contrarianism. The left has dictated the drawing of the battlelines for too long, and the right’s proclivity to knee-jerk reactions leads us to detrimentally plunge into futile bouts. The left has forsaken Ireland by dedicating their time to carrying the torch of internationalism, and Irish people are desperate for an alternative that represents them. If we are serious about rejuvenating the nation, we cannot fixate on following the left around the world and forgetting about the fight at home.

Secondly, no cause has been shilled more to the modern right than the Zionist cause, and Irish nationalists should respond with a wholesale rejection of Zionism. Zionism lacks any merit, its practitioners preach the destruction of the Irish nation, and its cardinal tenets and the way it indexes with the globalist world order is in contradiction to Irish and European existence; it is as incompatible with Irish nationalism as British unionism or liberal internationalism. It must also be noted that Zionism is not just Israel first; it is Israel only. The lobbies that Zionists administer function to redirect political energy toward Israel, supplanting authentic nationalist movements with ‘kosher conservative’ focus groups.

The vanguard of the nation is tasked with coming to the defence of the nation in its time of need; this requires us to foster an ideologically pure environment that produces competent members who are capable of serving the nation. When fighting an uphill battle, forging alliances is a must, and we have to be intelligent with whom we extend invitations of friendship. We must remember that not all our enemies will approach us with a closed fist; sometimes they’ll approach us with an open hand and a smile. We serve neither King nor Kaiser, and we don’t serve Israel too; only Ireland.

This article was submitted a National Party member. To submit an article for consideration contact us at [email protected]