Hello friends and subscribers. Welcome back to my YouTube channel. Daniel Rosal here bringing you this video today from Jerusalem in Israel. So over the weekend, I shared some really crazy extremist anti-Israel hate speech coming out of Ireland, specifically Richard Boyd, by ratio. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say is the most anti-Israel politician in Ireland, maybe even in Ireland's history, came up with a call for Intifada against Israel. I for those who don't know what Intifada means, it means the essentially a violent uprising. There were two, there have been so far two discreet Intifadas against Israel by Palestinians, which resulted in restaurants and buses being blown up, suicide bombings and countless Israelis killed in horrible campaigns of terror. So when Boyd Barrett openly on the streets of Dublin was recorded, calling for an Intifada, he called for Israel to be put down. He said that Israel was a monster, which the US had created, and I'm just reading here that Israel is a filthy barbaric, apartheid, colonialist enterprise. So I could really go on, but you get the idea. I shared those axtrex from that speech on Twitter and the Twitter slash X and my tweet ended up going pretty viral in Ireland the last time. I checked the analytics. It was viewed more than one million times and thousands of engagements and reposts and comments and stuff like that. A lot of debates, and I have to say the majority of comments, even from people who were broadly aligned in the pro-Palestinian camp, were quite critical of those remarks from Boyd Barrett and just the general hate-filled, bile-billius nature of his remarks against Israel. I put together a little press release to try to get some attention to these, to this extremist hatred rhetoric hoping that maybe somebody on the more sane part of the political spectrum in Ireland would issue a condemnation. And the first media outlet to pick it up was GRIPT.ie, which I understand is a relatively new online publisher in Ireland. And their reporter Ben Scallin posed the question to me, Hall Martin, of what he made of those comments. And more importantly, whether with this new revamped hate speech legislation that the Irish government is proposing in the wake of the horrible riots it took place in Dublin. They're looking at overhauling their hate speech legislation. Some people say it's already robust enough. And he asked him whether this type of rhetoric would fall under the purview of that legislation. Here's how that responds between GRIPT.ie and Michal Martin went. The only thing you can do with a state like this is resistance and bring it down. And that is what has to happen with the filthy, apartheid racist colonial secular regime that is Israel. So we've got to rise up the only answer to this is interfered. Revolution as I see you said, the collective revolution. So I'm just wondering as a senior member of the Irish government, would you intend your hate speech legislation to ban comments like that or would you see such statements being outlawed under the new hate speech bill? You're just obsessed with the hate speech. But anyway, I think a lot of people are not going on. The more serious thing I think his East speech is wrong. I think to identify a country as almost like one individual is wrong. To incite people to violence is wrong in terms of wishing people to participate in an interfered or to describe a country as a psychopath is wrong. I mean within Israel it's served there are many many different strands of political opinion. But instead of Israel, the state of Israel has a right to exist. It seems that it seems a Richard Bairer is denying the right of Israel to exist. Or indeed Israel is very people to live in Israel. That's the far more fundamental issue. But I'm not interested in that. I'm not interested. I'm not interested in that. What I think the Irish public are, I think the question is you're drafting this very controversial piece of legislation. My question is, is it the intention of your question is I know what your intent is. So could you answer it? Sorry, that as some answer to a question to you, I saw what happened in terms of how you create a context around that. You're not doing that no one relates to this question. I will answer your question the way I feel fit to answer it. And as far as I'm concerned, the more substantial and fundamental issue is the content and substance of what he said. And it needs to be challenged in terms of what he said, in terms of how he describes a country which in itself can be in my view, in its statement to violence, but also in my view, misses the point that within Israel there are different strands of opinion. You cannot describe it in the manner that he has done. And I would add, I have not seen him comment similarly in terms of the horrific attack by Hamas on October 7th. I haven't really seen the clarity or indeed the intensity of emotion that he's brought to other issues, which he can bring to the issue of Hamas, more during instance of the insiders. But those comments on everybody are quite viral. I just feel that was over the top and it was wrong and many people would see violent that, would see hate on that. And we saw before the war started in October 7th. We saw how Israel was very politically divided on issues to do with judiciary and so on. And what that illustrated was different strands of opinion within a given state. And you can't sort of describe everybody living in Israel or Israel as just one sort of, it's true, because of number one. I think it's very emotional. What do I make of all this? I think that from the perspective of Irish viewers, Meahal Martin's responses are probably going to dark criticism because a lot of people in Ireland, anytime that the freedom of speech is going to be restricted or there's considerations of some restrictions being posed on it, that draws a lot of worry that that power is going to be abused. So I think that for Meahal Martin to come along and say I'm not interested in this legislation and to just kind of throw out to the journalist that he was obsessed about it, it seems like very, very weak. Like that is a very legitimate question that he asked and I think that that response was a pretty weak deflection. I also think that from the Israeli perspective, from my side of the world over here, I think that I don't want to be too harsh on Meahal Martin because he did offer some kind of condemnation, albeit very kind of tepid. And he went on and on Israel being a pluralist society, which I think is kind of totally irrelevant in this conversation. But he did, as I say, offer some condemnation that those kind of remarks and incitement to violence is not helpful and unacceptable. It wasn't quite as clear a condemnation as I and many would have liked, but it's better than nothing. What do you think of the response and this whole episode if you have thoughts of your own, please consider leaving them in the comments section below. Thanks for watching and until the next video.