Palestyńczycy wciąż pamiętają, jak działacz polityczny i obrońca praw człowieka Nizar Banat, otwarty krytyk korupcji w Autonomii Palestyńskiej (AP), został pobity na śmierć przez funkcjonariuszy służb bezpieczeństwa AP w Hebronie w 2021 r. Do dziś nikt nie został ukarany za zabicie Banata. Na zdjęciu: Ubrani po cywilnemu funkcjonariusze służb bezpieczeństwa PA biją mężczyznę w Ramallah 26 czerwca 2021 r. podczas demonstracji protestacyjnej przeciwko zabiciu Banata. (Zdjęcie: Ahmad Gharabli/AFP via Getty Images)

Dlaczego Palestyńczycy nie będą mieli nowych przywódców

Bassam Tawil
Tłumaczenie: Małgorzata Koraszewska

Przywódcy Palestyny mają długą historię represji wobec swoich politycznych rywali i oponentów. Przez ostatnie trzy dekady przywódcy Autonomii Palestyńskiej (AP) i Hamasu systematycznie atakowali działaczy politycznych, dziennikarzy, użytkowników mediów społecznościowych, studentów, profesorów i obrońców praw człowieka w ramach trwającej kampanii mającej na celu uciszenie krytyków i odstraszenie innych od wypowiadania się przeciwko brakowi demokracji i wolności słowa.

W 2017 r. Magdalena Mughrabi, zastępczyni dyrektora ds. Bliskiego Wschodu i Afryki Północnej w Amnesty International, ostrzegła, że “w ciągu ostatnich kilku miesięcy nastąpił gwałtowny wzrost ataków na dziennikarzy i media ze strony władz palestyńskich na Zachodnim Brzegu i Hamasu w Strefie Gazy w celu uciszenia sprzeciwu”. Dodała: “To przerażający krok wstecz dla wolności słowa w Palestynie”.

Od tego czasu sytuacja tylko się pogorszyła, gdyż coraz większa liczba Palestyńczyków staje się celem ataków zarówno Autonomii Palestyńskiej, jak i Hamasu.

W 2018 r. Human Rights Watch (HRW) opublikował raport ujawniający 86 przypadków arbitralnych aresztowań i tortur pokojowych dysydentów przez Autonomię Palestyńską i Hamas, oparty na osobistych wywiadach z ofiarami i ich rodzinami. Tortury obejmowały bicie, odosobnienie, bicie po stopach, groźby i drwiny oraz zmuszanie zatrzymanych do przyjmowania różnych bolesnych pozycji przez dłuższy czas. HRW skomentował, że “nawykowe, celowe, powszechnie znane stosowanie tortur, stosowanie podobnych taktyk przez lata bez podejmowania działań przez wysokich rangą urzędników władz w celu powstrzymania tych nadużyć, sprawia, że praktyki te stają się systematyczne”.

W innym raporcie Amnesty International, opublikowanym w 2019 r., stwierdzono, że “palestyńskie siły bezpieczeństwa na Zachodnim Brzegu i w Strefie Gazy rutynowo i bezkarnie stosowały tortury i inne formy złego traktowania”. Odnotowano również, że w ciągu tego roku (2019) zgłoszono 143 zarzuty stosowania tortur na Zachodnim Brzegu i 156 w Strefie Gazy.

Stosowanie siły i tortur wobec własnych obywateli przekształciło kontrolowane przez AP obszary na Zachodnim Brzegu i w Strefie Gazy rządzonej przez Hamas w palestyńskie dyktatury podobne do tych, które od dawna istnieją w większości krajów arabskich. Ponadto doprowadziło to do stłumienia możliwości pojawienia się nowych przywódców zdolnych do poprowadzenia Palestyńczyków w stronę bezpieczeństwa, stabilności i dobrobytu.

To jest główny powód, dla którego dzisiaj jedynym wyborem Palestyńczyków są obecni liderzy Autonomii Palestyńskiej i Hamasu. Trudno znaleźć palestyńskich działaczy politycznych na Zachodnim Brzegu i w Strefie Gazy, którzy zgodziliby się publicznie wypowiedzieć przeciwko Autonomii Palestyńskiej lub Hamasowi, lub choćby domagać się reform i demokracji. Ci działacze boją się wyrażać swoje opinie publicznie, ponieważ nie chcą skończyć w więzieniu Autonomii Palestyńskiej lub Hamasu. Inni boją się śmierci lub zwolnienia z pracy w palestyńskim sektorze publicznym.

Palestyńczycy wciąż pamiętają, jak działacz polityczny i obrońca praw człowieka Nizar Banat, otwarty krytyk korupcji w Autonomii Palestyńskiej, został pobity na śmierć przez funkcjonariuszy służb bezpieczeństwa Autonomii Palestyńskiej w Hebronie w 2021 r. Do dziś nikt nie został ukarany za zabicie Banata.

Rodzina Banata wezwała Międzynarodowy Trybunał Karny (MTK) do ścigania osób odpowiedzialnych, twierdząc, że stracili zaufanie do sądownictwa AP. “Dla tych z nas, którzy żyją w skorumpowanych krajach, gdzie prawdziwa sprawiedliwość jest poza zasięgiem, MTK pozostaje naszą nadzieją na nieupolitycznione dochodzenie i ściganie przestępców” — powiedział brat Banata, Ghassan, przed sądem w Hadze. “Sposób, w jaki [funkcjonariusze służb bezpieczeństwa AP] go zabili i próbują uniknąć kary, odzwierciedla poziom bezkarności i korupcji moralnej, które nękają ten reżim [AP]”.

Rodzina zamordowanego działacza politycznego była na tyle naiwna, by wierzyć, że Międzynarodowy Trybunał Karny albo jakakolwiek inna organizacja międzynarodowa odda im sprawiedliwość.

Międzynarodowy Trybunał Karny nie przejmuje się zbrodniami popełnionymi przez Palestyńczyków przeciwko własnemu narodowi. Zamiast tego antysemicki prokurator sądu jest zajęty poszukiwaniem sposobów ukarania premiera Izraela Benjamina Netanjahu i ministra obrony Joava Gallanta za odwagę walki w wojnie rozpoczętej przez Hamas 7 października 2023 r. Wtedy tysiące terrorystów z Hamasu i “zwykłych” Palestyńczyków najechało Izrael ze Strefy Gazy, mordując 1200 Izraelczyków i raniąc tysiące. Wiele ofiar zostało zgwałconych, ściętych, torturowanych lub spalonych żywcem, podczas gdy 240 innych zostało porwanych do Strefy Gazy, gdzie 101 pozostaje w niewoli.

Represje ze strony AP i Hamasu nie wróżą dobrze przyszłości Palestyńczyków mieszkających na Zachodnim Brzegu i w Strefie Gazy. Palestyńczycy ci zostali pozbawieni nie tylko dużej części międzynarodowej pomocy finansowej – skradzionej przez skorumpowanych przywódców palestyńskich (tutaj, tutaj i tutaj) – ale także prawa do wybierania nowych przywódców i przedstawicieli w wolnych wyborach.

Ci, którzy mają nadzieję, że pewnego dnia władzę obejmie nowe (i pragmatyczne) palestyńskie przywództwo, mogą się rozczarować. Nawet po odejściu 89-letniego prezydenta Autonomii Palestyńskiej Mahmuda Abbasa jego kumple i najbliższe otoczenie nadal będą rządzić. W żadnym wypadku nie podzielą się tortem z innymi Palestyńczykami.

Jeśli społeczność międzynarodowa chce zobaczyć nowe twarze w palestyńskim kierownictwie, musi wywrzeć presję na Abbasa i kierownictwo “starej gwardii”, aby przestali atakować młodych działaczy politycznych, dziennikarzy i obrońców praw człowieka. Można to zrobić na przykład poprzez groźbę zawieszenia lub odcięcia pomocy finansowej.

To samo dotyczy Palestyńczyków w Strefie Gazy. Żaden Palestyńczyk nie zgodzi się na odgrywanie jakiejkolwiek roli w administracji Strefy Gazy po obecnej wojnie Izraela z Hamasem, dopóki wspierana przez Iran grupa terrorystyczna i jej przyjaciele nadal istnieją. Dlatego konieczne jest całkowite wyeliminowanie Hamasu i upewnienie się, że straci on swoje zdolności wojskowe, polityczne i cywilne w Strefie Gazy. Może to potrwać kilka miesięcy lub lat, ale jest to o wiele lepsze niż zakończenie wojny w sposób, który utrzyma Hamas u władzy.

Bassam Tawil – muzułmański badacz i publicysta mieszkający na Bliskim Wschodzie.

Islamophobia concerns are attempts to silence critics of Muslim antisemitism

Jonathan S. Tobin

Students pray at the Gaza solidarity encampment at George Washington University, in its 12th day, Washington, D.C., on May 6, 2024. Photo by Allison Bailey/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images.

It’s possible to argue that anything the Biden-Harris administration does in its final weeks in office is irrelevant and may soon be overturned by President-elect Donald Trump once he is sworn in next month. That may well apply to the announcement last week of a “National Strategy to Counter Islamophobia and Anti-Arab Hate,” issued by the White House. It is nonetheless noteworthy because it reinforces the myth about an American epidemic of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hate that is routinely published and broadcast by the mainstream media. Equally important, it gives the imprimatur of government approval to a false analogy to the very real problem of antisemitism about which Biden and Harris also issued a “National Strategy” paper last year.

Any discussion of Islamophobia in America must be prefaced by an acknowledgment that hatred directed against racial, ethnic and religious minorities exists. And like any form of prejudice that leads to discrimination or violence, it is deplorable.

Even as we condemn any act in which an Arab or Muslim-American is targeted because of their ethnicity or faith, it is essential to understand that the attention given to Islamophobia is not being driven by anything that could accurately be described as a crisis. Rather, it is part of a false narrative that seeks to divert us from an unpleasant but vital fact about the subject. Most of what those who promote this issue consider Islamophobia is not anti-Muslim or anti-Arab hatred but merely criticism of Muslim and Arab hatred of Jews.

A fake problem

So, while the lame duck administration’s report may be considered a pious affirmation of opposition to prejudice, it doesn’t deserve even the tepid applause it has received. On the contrary, it is a conscious effort to balance a genuine problem with one that is bogus. And in doing so, it undermines the minimal and largely ineffective efforts undertaken by the government to address the very real surge in Jew-hatred that has been building in recent years and then exploded after the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

The notion of an Islamophobia crisis in the United States dates back to the aftermath of the terror attacks carried out by Islamists on Sept. 11, 2001. Seeking to build a broad international alliance against Muslim extremists, President George W. Bush took pains to differentiate what he described as a “war on terror” from a war against Islam. At every possible opportunity, he always described Islam as a “religion of peace,” emphasizing that the efforts to destroy Al-Qaeda and the subsequent military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq were not a civilizational clash between the West and Islam. This was technically accurate about the nation’s post-9/11 foreign policy and security goals as well as a reflection of the basic decency of both Bush personally and America’s modern political culture that opposes religious prejudice.

But the harping on the “religion of peace” line tended to obscure the fact that Islamist terrorism was not just the bad behavior of a tiny minority. It was rooted in a widely popular, though not universally supported, version of that faith that had mainstream support in much of the Arab and Muslim world.

There were real-world consequences of this effort. After 9/11, American corporate media and the nation’s cultural institutions prioritized a message that seemed to treat American Muslims as victims. That meant Hollywood largely avoided showing Muslims or Arabs as the bad guys in films or television shows—the opposite of what usually happened in the past when America was at war. It also buttressed the claim that there had been a post-9/11 backlash against them in the United States, despite the complete absence of any objective study or statistics that might have backed up that assertion.

Indeed, when plans (that eventually fell through) for the building of a Muslim community center and mosque in the footprint of the fallen World Trade Center towers were announced in 2010, any objections about the insensitivity and bad taste of the idea were deplored as a form of vile prejudice.

At the time, it was pointed out that the FBI’s statistics about religious hate crimes debunked the idea of such a backlash. Throughout the decade after 9/11, attacks on Muslims were dwarfed by those against Jews. Though the numbers have moved up and down to some extent in the nearly 15 years since then, antisemitic crimes continue to vastly outnumber those that can be connected to Islamophobia. Nevertheless, this fact has consistently been condemned by much of mainstream liberal opinion as wrongheaded, if not prejudicial. Groups that continued to promote the idea of a backlash, like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), continued to gain influence rather than being dismissed for being the source of misleading propaganda that aimed to silence critics of Islamic Jew-haters.

False moral equivalence

That became obvious when CAIR was tapped as an official consultant to the Biden-Harris effort against antisemitism, though no Jewish groups were asked to give similar input to the Islamophobia strategy. That this happened despite the group’s origins as a political front for fundraisers for Hamas terrorists and its embrace of antisemitic positions was shocking. But to an administration seeking re-election that regarded Muslims and Arabs as part of the Democratic Party’s base, it was simply good politics. Like Bush’s “religion of peace” mantra, Biden and Harris never seemed able to mention the explosion of antisemitism that happened on their watch without reflexively including a mention of Islamophobia.

After the barbaric atrocities that occurred when Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists infiltrated Israel on Oct. 7, the administration’s obsession with Islamophobia could no longer be dismissed as either meaningless or routine partisan politics.

As the report on Islamophobia that is part of the new national strategy makes clear, Biden and Harris bought the CAIR line that treated the situation on American campuses after Oct. 7 as one in which both Jews and Muslims were at risk. But there is no moral equivalence between the rights of Muslims to advocate for the genocide of Jews with the rights of Jewish students to be able to get to classes and other areas on campus without being blocked, harassed or even subjected to violence.

The situation of Jews and Muslims during the last 14 months is not one of two groups experiencing discrimination or threats. It’s the exact opposite, where the Jews have become the victims of religious and ethnic harassment and assaults. And it is Muslims—along with non-Muslim students, faculty and school employees who subscribe to the toxic beliefs of intersectionality and critical race theory that label Jews and Israelis as “white oppressors”—who are attacking them.

Despite the seemingly innocuous claims of opposition to religious prejudice in the Biden-Harris strategy paper and those who applaud it, the whole point of the exercise is not what it seems. It’s about silencing criticism of Muslim and Arab antisemitism, and treating support for the destruction of the one Jewish state on the planet and the genocide of its population as a reasonable point of view rather than an expression of deplorable hatred that deserves condemnation.

A new backlash myth

Groups like CAIR that purport to represent Muslims and the Biden-Harris strategy paper both seem to be putting forward a new myth about a post-Oct. 7 backlash against Muslims that is even more shameless than the one about 9/11. Whereas the previous myth merely promoted a false claim about Americans targeting Muslims, this new one is actively seeking to deny the reality of a surge in Jew-hatred among Muslims and Arabs while implicitly minimizing or even denying the reality of a surge in antisemitism.

America is not yet like the Netherlands or elsewhere in Europe where anyone, even government officials, who point out that Jew-hatred is mainstream opinion in the Arab and Muslim world can be subjected to prosecution for committing a hate crime. But that is the ultimate goal of the discussion about Islamophobia. The notion that Muslims are under siege when, in fact, they are the ones engaging in hate speech and hate crimes, is problematic. It inevitably leads to efforts to censor or sanction those who point out that those who cry the most about Islamophobia are generally the same people who defend or rationalize antisemitism.

Indeed, in addition to propping up the myth—unsupported by any real data—of Muslims and Arabs facing widespread prejudice, the Biden-Harris document also sounds an ominous note about silencing critics of Islamism. It specifically calls for social-media platforms to “de-rank and stop recommending” content that Muslim groups oppose. In most cases, that references efforts by Jews and others to highlight the way Muslims and Arabs have been promoting antisemitism. That’s a throwback to the way this same administration colluded with Silicon Valley oligarchs to de-platform critics of their repressive and largely useless COVID-19 pandemic policies.

At this point, the clamor about Islamophobia is no longer a politically correct, harmless talking point. It is now part of a general effort to shut down discussion of the engine of the all-too-real uptick in antisemitism.

President-elect Trump has a strong record of support for Israel and opposition to antisemitism on college campuses, as well as Islamist terrorists, and has been falsely branded as a hate-monger by the left for doing so. But like any president, his second administration will be eager to win over critics and voters of all kinds and might be vulnerable to pressure to kowtow to the Islamophobia myth in order to demonstrate that he wants to protect all Americans. That would not only be wrong but would undermine his plans to root out the woke diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) catechism that is at the heart of the left’s war on American history and Western civilization.

The Islamophobia myth needs to be rejected not only by the federal government but by all institutions and persons that claim to oppose the Jew-hatred that it seeks to cover up. There is no moral equivalence between antisemitism and Islamophobia. Anyone or any group that is truly willing to fight against anti-Jewish prejudice must understand that such a stand is incompatible with efforts to promote a false narrative about Muslims being the true victims of 9/11 or 10/7.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of the Jewish News Syndicate, a senior contributor for The Federalist, a columnist for Newsweek and a contributor to many other publications. He covers the American political scene, foreign policy, the U.S.-Israel relationship, Middle East diplomacy, the Jewish world and the arts. He hosts the JNS “Think Twice” podcast, both the weekly video program and the “Jonathan Tobin Daily” program, which are available on all major audio platforms and YouTube. Previously, he was executive editor, then senior online editor and chief political blogger, for Commentary magazine. Before that, he was editor-in-chief of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and editor of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. He has won more than 60 awards for commentary, art criticism and other writing. He appears regularly on television, commenting on politics and foreign policy. Born in New York City, he studied history at Columbia University.

#MeToo’s Silence on Hamas’ Sexual Violence Exposed: ‘#MeToo, Unless You’re a Jew’

Gregory Lyakhov

Partygoers at the Supernova Psy-Trance Festival who filmed the events that unfolded on Oct. 7, 2023. Photo: Yes Studios

The #MeToo movement, once a beacon of hope for survivors of sexual violence, now faces accusations of selective advocacy. Its muted response to the mass atrocities committed during Hamas’ Oct. 7th, 2023, attacks on Israel has brought global criticism. While the movement has supported victims in other instances, its lack of acknowledgment of Israeli victims underscores troubling ideological biases and risks undermining its credibility.

On Oct. 7, Hamas launched a brutal assault on Israel, leaving 1,200 people dead. Survivors and investigators documented horrifying accounts of sexual violence targeting women. Videos , including many circulated by Hamas terrorists, confirmed acts of rape, mutilation, and abduction. By their scale and intent, such crimes violated individual rights and attacked human dignity.

Despite its mission to confront gender-based violence, the #MeToo movement’s leadership remained silent for weeks after the attack. When a statement was finally released, it referred broadly to “civilian atrocities,” avoiding explicit references to the sexual violence or acknowledgment of the crimes’ anti-Jewish motivation. The vague language was an apparent attempt to avoid fully condemning the attacks, and to dilute the specificity of the suffering endured by Israeli women.

While the #MeToo movement was swift and decisive in condemning cases like Hollywood’s Harvey Weinstein scandal or Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, a study of its public statements exposes a pattern of prioritizing narratives that only align with left-leaning ideologies, particularly those critical of Israeli policies.

An explanation for #MeToo’s silence may lie in the broader feminist and human rights communities’ frequent alignment with Palestinian causes. While critiques of Israeli governmental policies can be legitimate if they’re aimed at specific Israeli policies but recognize Israel’s right to exist (and don’t spread lies about things like “genocide”), equating such issues with the need to address violence against Israeli women is a dangerous misstep. This approach effectively sidelines survivors based on their nationality or religion, violating the principle of impartial advocacy.

Dr. Einat Wilf, an Israeli academic and former Knesset member, explained this phenomenon as the “intersectional paradox,” where advocacy for human rights is applied selectively. “The refusal to unequivocally condemn Hamas’ actions,” she noted, “suggests that for some activists, the identity of the victim or perpetrator matters more than the act itself.”

The fallout of this selective advocacy is deeply personal for Jewish survivors of sexual violence. Many who once viewed #MeToo as a haven for survivors now feel alienated.

Esther Cohen, an Israeli feminist activist, shared her disapproval: “When Israeli women needed solidarity the most, the movement that stood for ‘believing all survivors’ turned away.”

On university campuses, Jewish students have reported similar feelings of betrayal. Organizations that once encouraged their voices are now hesitant to engage when their narratives challenge popular political stances. This exclusion not only erodes trust in #MeToo, but also weakens the broader feminist movement by dividing it along ideological lines.

The politicization of #MeToo’s advocacy undermines its stated mission to dismantle structures enabling sexual violence. By failing to stand unequivocally with Israeli survivors, the movement effectively normalizes selective outrage. Such an approach could discourage other marginalized communities from seeking #MeToo’s support, fearing their story might be ignored if it doesn’t align with the “correct” narrative.

Moreover, selective advocacy means the#MeToo movement is labeled as hypocritical.

#MeToo has repeatedly called for perpetrators to be named and held accountable, yet it purposely avoided naming Hamas. This reluctance resembles patterns of denial and doubt that the movement initially sought to dismantle.

#MeToo must reaffirm its commitment to universal justice to restore its credibility. Advocacy groups like Jewish Women International have previously called on the movement to condemn all acts of sexual violence, regardless of the victim’s identity or the perpetrators’ political affiliations.

Legal scholar Irwin Cotler has also emphasized the importance of depoliticizing human rights work. “Sexual violence is not a political tool — it is a universal crime that demands a universal response,” Cotler said in a recent interview.

The #MeToo movement faces a defining moment. Its response to the Oct. 7 attacks has revealed deep issues in its approach to advocacy. While it has achieved remarkable success in amplifying survivors’ voices, its reluctance to condemn violence against Israeli women demonstrates the act of selective solidarity.

If #MeToo aspires to remain a credible force for justice, it must end its ideological biases and return to its founding principles of inclusivity and impartiality. Only by doing so can we build a world where all survivors feel seen, heard, and valued — without exception.

But for now, it’s #MeToo unless you are a Jew.

Gregory Lyakhov has written for The Times of Israel, and is a passionate advocate for Israel. He runs a political blog focusing on elections, law, and Israel.

Ireland: Refuge of WWII Nazis

February 14, 2024
Author: Shane Paul

Following D-Day in June 1944 when the Allies began to attempt to liberate France from its Nazi invaders, the Nazis were pushed back from areas of France they had controlled for four years.

In the Brittany region, the Nazis had been supported by local fascist Breton paramilitary groupings which hoped to later gain independence from France. 

One of these was the fascist Bagadou Stourm paramilitary ‘stormtroopers’ unit founded and led by a Breton artist and sculptor, one Yann Goulet, aka Yann Renard-Goulet.

Before retreating from towns and villages, the Nazis decided to “cleanse” them of locals suspected of being members of the Resistance and they used the Breton collaborators to identify and detain suspects, not least because Breton paramilitaries spoke the Breton dialect and knew their neighbours.

Chief among these Nazi collaborators was a local Breton extremist and paramiltary Yann Goulet who had formed and led the Bagadou Stourm in support of the Nazis and in particular the Waffen SS.

Goulet was also associated with another Breton paramilitary group known as Bezon Perrot named after an extremist Breton Catholic priest previously assassinated by anti-fascists.

The litany of massacres was far from over on July 10, when 18 resistance fighters were shot in Ploumagoar, in the Malaunay woods, after having been savagely tortured.

On July 9, 1944, 300 Germans combed the Bourbriac area.  There are SS people there from Rennes, Bezen Perrot, members of the Selbstschutzpolizei.

More than 10 resistance fighters were arrested: tortured in Uzel, 6 or 7 of them were executed in the Lorge forest on July 14.

The others, a dozen, were taken to Bourbriac and finally murdered in Garzonval-en-Plougonver on July 16.  Among them, we note the name of Albert Torquéau, college professor and FTP leader.

After the German retreat in August 1944, near the German airfield of Lannion-Servel, 37 bodies of FTP resistance fighters and hostages were found.

Similarly, at Butte-Rouge, in the L’Hermitage-Lorge forest, there were 55 bodies piled up in 11 graves, victims all brought from Uzel before being slaughtered.

La Gestapo Française, Philippe Valode, Gérard Chauvy, 2018

Yann Goulet had served the Nazis in Brittany for four years during which he and his fellows identified Jews, Communists, Resistance fighters, Resistance sympathisers and any other ‘undesirables’.

These were days marked by the pain, the horror, the terror whipped up by the arrival of the Allies, the German troops accelerated the deportations, increased the executions and atrocities against the resistance fighters, the hostages, simple villagers, with the support of Bezen Perrot who actively participated in the raids and interrogations.

On June 13, the Gestapo and the Feldgendarmerie of Saint-Brieuc executed 31 hostages in the forest of Boudan en Plestan.

In Saint-Vincent sur-Oust, 6 resistance fighters were shot on June 22, 1944, after having been tortured, probably by a group from the Perrot Formation.

A German court martial sat in Faouët, in the heart of a land of maquis, and pronounced the death penalty for more than sixty resistance fighters between June 23 and August 2, 1944.

In Côtes-du-Nord alone, there were 12 executions in May 1944, 88 in June, 146 in July, 69 as of Aug 15.

Histoire de la Bretagne et des Bretons, Tome 2, Joël Cornette, 2005

As the Allies’ advance proceeded, Yann Goulet and other Nazi collaborators had to decide – flee to Germany or else to the Republic of Ireland where he had friends in the IRA movement going back many years.

Yann Goulet and a gang of other Nazi collaborators decided to flee to Ireland by way of Wales where they had the support of sympathisers who were members of the Welsh National Party, Plaid Cymru.

Yann Goulet had for many years been a proponent of the association of “Celtic Nations” – Breton, Cornish, Welsh and Irish – and had long been an admirer of the IRA.

He managed to get to Wales along with his wife and children and from there to Ireland.

Yann Goulet was sentenced to death in absentia for his collaboration with the Nazis, but was safe in the sanctuary of the Irish Republic under the warm gaze of Taoiseach/Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs Edward/Éamonn/Éamon de Valera – who had himself been sentenced to death by the British after the failed 1916 Irish Volunteer ‘Rising’ in Dublin.

Yann Goulet was warmly welcomed by not only the IRA leaders but also by the smaller grouping back then known as Saor Eire.

He counted a former IRA Chief of Staff (1936) among his close friends – Seán MacBride – and IRA veteran Con Casey.

Goulet was granted Irish citizenship in 1952 with no objections being raised as to his Nazi background and death sentence passed by Rennes Tribunal of Justice in France.

He invited the later President de Valera’s son to his daughter Brigid’s wedding.

Yann Goulet was far from the only Breton Nazi Collaborator given sanctuary in the Republic of Ireland – a whole gang of Breton Nazis settled in Ireland, including leaders of Bezen Perrot.

Note that Yann Goulet (on right in photograph), granted Irish citizenship, continued to wear his fascist Bagadou Stourm SS uniform black shirt, white tie and beret – Goulet never expressed any regret for his collaboration with the Nazis.

Goulet managed to resurrect his career in art and sculpture in Ireland counting on guaranteed preferment and advancement by his powerful political ‘Old IRA’ patrons for whom he produced ‘Old IRA’ memorial sculptures:

• Custom House Old IRA Memorial, Dublin.
• Kerry Old IRA Memorial, Tralee.
• East Mayo Brigade Old IRA Memorial, Kilkelly.
• Provisional IRA memorial at Crossmaglen, Co. Armagh.
• Christy Ring GAA Memorial, Co. Cork.
• His private portrait commissions included President and Mrs. Eamon de Valera and Irish Taoiseach/Prime Minister Charles Haughey, T.D.

Modern Provisional IRA Sinn Féin had no objections to Goulet’s background as a Nazi Informer or to his betrayal of his co-citizens in the French Resistance to the Nazis when they paid him to produce the Crossmaglen Provisional IRA sculpture… [No Suprise There.]

Yann Goulet not only regularly exhibited at the Royal Hibernian Academy where there were no objections to Nazi collaborators, but he also became a Professor of Sculpture there.

Ultimately, Yann Goulet was awarded the highest Irish accolade of [private] election to Aosdána – an Irish Government body, funded by the Irish Government, to offer preferment and a free annual salary/pension/stipend (Cnuas) to artists of some £17,000 back then which has risen to over £20,000 now.

Note that the Aosdána biography of Yann Goulet censors his Nazi background entirely, referring only to his having “left France in 1947” – which is effectively a Big Lie by the tax-payer-funded body which gave a warmest welcome to Nazi Goulet.

Yann Goulet and the OIRA, PIRA and INLA

IRA leader Joe Cahill recounted that it was Yann Goulet who initially set up the Provisional IRA’s connection to Libyan Dictator Colonel Gadaffi who later armed and financed the Provisional IRA.

Yann Goulet kept all the versions of militant Irish republicanism on side – he was a pallbearer at the funeral of murdered former Official IRA member and later founder of the Irish National Liberation Army, Seamus Costello, and also designed the headstone atop Costello’s grave in Little Bray, County Dublin.

He made various claims about his IRA connections in the 1960s:

But a few months later, an embassy charge d’affaires learned from another source that one of the [Nazi] refugees, Heussaff, was a meteorologist at Aer Lingus, and he concluded:

“The authorities of the local Ministry of Justice “failed” to inform the French mission last year of Mr. Heussaff’s membership in an official Irish service.  This fact provides concrete proof of the duplicity of the Irish police services which, under the aegis of the Ministry of Justice, openly protect the Breton autonomists who have taken refuge in Ireland.”

 In another dispatch, he described the general attitude of the Irish towards the Breton autonomists:

“In the name of Pan-Celtism, we will always be ready in Ireland to give credit to Breton grievances, without ever verifying their merits, and we will offer almost unlimited moral and material support to the “persecuted”, even in certain official circles, of the  police in particular, carefully avoiding anything that could create incidents with the French government.”

The diplomat’s irritation is partly explained by the fact that Yann Goulet took great pleasure in taunting the French authorities.

A few weeks earlier, he had given an interview to France-Soir, where he explained that “the Irish welcomed us like brothers”.  In fact, after his naturalization in 1955, he became a renowned sculptor and even received several commissions from the Irish government.

Better still, he made a bronze bust of Eamon de Valera, and invited one of his sons to the wedding of his daughter, Brigid Renard-Goulet.

This displeased the French authorities because, at the same time, he claimed responsibility for bomb attacks on French territory in the name of the FLB, and made embarrassing statements to the press.

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, he declared that he had traveled to Brittany several times in a sailboat, even though he was banned from staying in the Breton departments. 

According to Fouéré, he brought explosives from France to Ireland, which were used by the IRA to blow up Nelson’s Column in Dublin in 1966.

La France et l’Irlande : destins croisés (16^e – 21^e siècles), Édité par Catherine Maignant

It is past time that Ireland’s public spaces were cleansed of Nazi sculptures – for that is what Goulet’s works are – but don’t hold your breath since Ireland has always had a grá for those most extreme enemies of The Brits, the Nazis… 

United States Ambassador David Gray Warns de Valera

The United States Ambassador to Ireland throughout WWII, David Gray, despised Prime Minister/Taoiseach Éamon de Valera and recorded that de Valera and other political and religious leaders in the Republic of Ireland were convinced that Hitler would win the War [and that Ireland, which had remained Neutral, would be rewarded for its neutrality by the gift of Northern Ireland – thereby achieving the Old IRA’s dream of a United Ireland].

Gray had warned de Valera against giving sanctuary to ‘on the run’ Nazis following the War.

Gray’s memoir later gave the following account of the widespread Irish belief that Hitler would win the War:

The Taoiseach’s office (pronounced popularly ‘tee shack’) and surroundings were all as they had been so often described by interviewers. He himself was the tall, gaunt figure with the suggestion of Lincoln, and ironically in the corner stood the O’Connor bronze statue of Lincoln which John McCormack, the singer, had given to the Irish government. The office was bare, the flat-topped desk was bare and Mr de Valera was dressed in his invariable black clerical-looking suit with black string tie.

He was always neat and his linen was always fresh. His grave eye trouble excited sympathy. It was said that he suffered from glaucoma. From time to time he removed his spectacles and put his hands over his eyes, and from time to time he showed the appealing smile that I had heard about and the suggestion of his peculiar charm. Why Mr de Valera replied to my English speech in Irish was a question not difficult to answer. Both languages are sanctioned by the new Constitution, but Mr de Valera and his Separatist group were anxious to impress on the outside world that English is only an unfortunate and temporary makeshift and that Irish is the true and natural tongue of the nation, though today only one person in six speaks it. Very few Irish politicians speak Irish except as American High School students learn to ‘speak’ French, but they usually begin their speeches with a paragraph in Irish, which they have memorised, and then continue in English. It is the badge of being ‘Irish’ Irish, like the Gaelicisation of proper names.

1916 leaders turned out in tails and white ties

The official dinner in the state apartments of the Castle that evening was as elaborate and well done as the ceremony in the morning. Food, wines, service, cigars, all were unexceptionable. The de Valera revolution had been to a large extent a ‘social movement’. It appealed to the ‘common man’ and repudiated the symbols of privilege. Mr de Valera banned the ‘topper’ and wore the black ‘cowboy’ hat. He and his Cabinet constituted the surviving nucleus of ‘The Sixteen’ and the left-wing IRA faction that had staged the Civil War. Almost every man present had been condemned to death or jail either by the British government or by the Free State government, yet only eight years after coming to power this new aristocracy had all turned out in tails and white ties in the best London tradition, I had never sat down to dine with so many people who had been ‘martyred’ and thrown into prison, nor with so many politicians, who after having been down and out had ‘come back in’ and stayed ‘in’. It had its embarrassing side. It was like dining in a house in which there has been a highly publicised domestic difficulty.

Just as I would have wanted to ask my host whether he really beat his wife as alleged, I wanted to ask the questions to which every historian of the period was trying to find the answers. I wanted to ask why Mr de Valera had not abided by the majority action of his own parliament; why he appealed to the gun and started a Civil War. How he escaped being shot for rebellion, first by the British and then by the first Irish government ever to be recognised by the comity of nations. I wanted to ask him whether Michael Collins had been the chance victim of an ambush or the designed victim of an assassination; and if he knew who murdered Kevin O’Higgins. Of course I asked none of these questions.

The German Ambassador

Herr Hempel – the German minister to Ireland – had a charming house and garden at Blackrock, a suburb on Dublin harbour. His chancery was an ugly, modern red brick house in Northumberland Road. It was here that I called upon him. Herr Dr Hempel received us with great courtesy. He was somewhat over-civil and did not ring true. He spoke fluent English with little accent. I was conscious of being ill at ease. Hempel might be doing his duty as he saw it but he was serving a Führer whose hands were red with the blood of Jews, Poles and Norwegians, on whose conscience was the annihilation of Austria and Czechoslovakia. I was naive enough at seventy to be shocked by these things.

We exchanged pleasant commonplaces. I was not to re-enter the German legation at 58 Northumberland Road till I took possession of it in the name of the United Nations at the end of the war and found the wires of a radio sending set and other interesting items. The Irish government had seen to it that we did not gain admittance until the files had been destroyed.

Collaboration with the Germans

Mr de Valera’s conviction that Hitler would win the war was stupid in view of the opportunities he enjoyed for obtaining authoritative information as to what was going on in the United States. It was doubtless due to the fact that he knew few if any Americans, only ‘Irish in America’. As a matter of fact he himself never told me that Hitler would win, though he scoffed at the suggestion that the United States would become involved. But his deputy Joe Walshe told me. Further, Mr Walshe was confident that at the worst, Hitler would not lose. Cardinal MacRory told me that Hitler would win. Count Plunkett, the patriarch of the IRA, expressed the same opinion. We know from the German papers that one of Mr de Valera’s generals was collaborating with Hempel. Belief in German victory was in the Dublin air. At the end of the war a former Lord Mayor of Dublin, ‘Paddy’ Doyle, a very ‘decent’ man, said to me ‘You know, at the beginning we were all sure Germany was going to win’.

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/extract-mr-de-valera%E2%80%99s-conviction-that-hitler-would-win-the-war-was-stupid-663097-Nov2012/

“A Yankee in De Valera’s Ireland: The Memoir of David Gray is edited by Paul Bew. Paul Bew is a member of the RIA and Professor of Irish Politics at Queen’s University Belfast. A historical advisor to the Bloody Sunday inquiry, he was appointed an independent cross-bench peer in 2007 and is a member of the British–Irish Parliamentary Assembly.“