Who is Proinsias de Rossa?

In the Irish Independent, David Quinn attacks the Irish left for its years of pro-Soviet agitation.

There has been something just a tad galling about some of the coverage of the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall this past fortnight. You would think, to judge from the coverage, that opposition to Eastern European communism was uniform throughout the Western world, including Ireland, when it was anything but.
In fact, many politicians, many commentators, and many academics were actively sympathetic towards the Soviet Union when it was still in existence. In this country, that included just about everyone in the old Workers Party.

One bit in Quinn’s column surprised me.
Or what about Soviet treatment of its Jewish population? Proinsias de Rossa once had the audacity to stand up in the Dail and explain that the Soviet Jews didn’t really have it so bad, even though they were doing their utmost to leave the USSR and they were overrepresented among the ranks of imprisoned dissidents.
All I could think of was “seriously?”. God help us, it turns out to be true. In 1984, when de Rossa was TD (a member of the Dail, the Irish equivalent of the British House of Commons), an all party motion was introduced, in view of the Helsinki accords, calling on the Soviet Union to allow Jews to emigrate and to be allowed religious freedom.
(1) Calls on the Soviet Government to permit all Soviet Jews applying to leave the Soviet Union for reunification with their families to do so without impediment and to ensure that the presentation of such applications does not prejudice or modify the rights of the applicants or of members of their families in the areas of employment, housing, resident status, access to social, economic or educational benefits or any other rights.
(2) Calls on the Soviet Government to permit Soviet Jews full freedom to pursue Jewish religious and cultural activities.

(3) Calls for the release of those Soviet Jews who have been imprisoned or exiled because of their desire to leave the Soviet Union or to exercise their right to freedom of religion and cultural expression.

You might think this not especially controversial, and happily the motion passed. Not however, without dissent. The link above to the motion also links to the debate, in which several TDs express their support, including Fianna Fail’s Ben Briscoe and Gerard Collins, Fine Gael’s Alan Shatter, Monica Barnes, George Birmingham, Peter Barry, and Liam Skelly, and Labour’s Mervyn Taylor. Not de Rossa. Here is a taste.
It was mentioned that this was an all-party motion. I was listening to the contributions on the monitor. Unfortunately, the proposers of the motion did not approach Deputy Mac Giolla [the other Worker's Party TD] or myself to see if we would be prepared to support this motion. We would have welcomed discussions on the form which this motion would take because we recognise that there is a problem of alienation of Jews in the Soviet Union. However, we do not go along with the terms of the motion as put forward because it is an over-statement and the case made to support it has not been proved. There are obviously two sides to every story and no case has been made for the defence. For that reason the motion is clearly not an all-party motion and we were not invited to participate in its formulation.
I am very conscious of the history and tragedy of the Jewish people throughout the world. They have been victims of pogrom and oppression on the basis of their religious faith for as long as their faith has been in existence. I am also very conscious of the fact that they have been the victims of genocide and that six million Jews were slaughtered during World War II by Fascist regimes. It is, therefore, bewildering to see the Jewish state of Israel involved in the oppression of minorities, the Israeli Arabs and the Palestinians. The Jewish people suffered so much oppression that it is puzzling that they should now be involved — not all of them — in a policy of discrimination against minorities in Israel. That is unacceptable, and on a number of occasions in this House I have spoken about my concern in that regard. Unfortunately because of remarks that were made in this House on a previous occasion I have to make a distinction between my concern about the policy of the Israeli Government, my opposition to that policy and my detestation of anti-Semitism and of any form of discrimination on the basis of a person’s race or religion. It goes against everything I believe in, and I wish to make that clear here today.
. . .
The case has been made that Jews in the Soviet Union are completely oppressed, are denied any rights and denied the facilities to practise their religion or to learn the Hebrew language. I have here some figures from an official Soviet source which to some extent at least refutes the assertion that all Jews in the Soviet Union are oppressed. I will go through those figures very quickly.

Out of a population of more than 270 million people in the Soviet Union there are, I understand, 1.8 million people who have declared themselves Jews, that is, approximately 0.7 per cent of the population. I understand that 5.2 per cent are engaged in cultural activities, 6.5 per cent in literature and the press, 3.4 per cent in medicine and 6.7 per cent in the legal profession. Clearly that is a representation way above the size of the population of Jews in the Soviet Union when compared to the population as a whole. That would not indicate to me there is deliberate or complete oppression of Jews in the Soviet Union.

There is a further figure of 300 Jewish students in higher education for every 10,000 Jews in the Soviet Union while the corresponding figure in respect of students of all nationalities in higher education is 187. That shows that there is almost double the number of Jews in higher education than the ordinary population as a whole. Again, that disabuses the claim that there is total and outright discrimination against Jews.

Religion in the Soviet Union is a private matter, and the State has no involvement in it, as I understand their Constitution. At the same time, there are 200 synagogues in the Soviet Union as well as many prayer houses. These statistics undermine to my mind at least the claim that there is total opposition to and oppression of Jews in the Soviet Union.

Mervyn Taylor’s response to this bit of Soviet propoganda was terse and blunt:
The Deputy knows what they say about statistics.
George Birmingham took longer, but was similarly outraged.
I intervene to say that I found the contribution made by Deputy De Rossa quite extraordinary. It is peculiar that in a debate which was supposed to centre on the plight of the minority in the Soviet Union, a contribution requires a Deputy to express his opinion on the policies pursued by the Israeli Government and State. I find that peculiar and in some sense unhealthy. Deputy De Rossa expressed the hope that there would be other opportunities in this House to debate other matters of foreign policy. That is a good idea. He said he hoped there would be a debate in the future in which members would be given an opportunity to express their views on apartheid. That is also a good idea. He said he thought his contribution was important to present a balance and that there were two sides to everything. I do not accept that. I hope that if an opportunity is given to the House to express its views on apartheid Members will be united in their opposition to it and will accept that there are not two sides to it. The interests of a balanced debate do not require any Member to come into the House and justify the way in which the South African Government treat their black citizens.
This debate is not enhanced by an attempt to justify the way in which the Soviet Union treats its minorities. I do not believe such a pretence does any credit to the party of which the Deputy is a member. It is in stark contrast with the claim made by that party that they are concerned with issues of humanitarianism and oppression in other parts of the world. It is strange that there are people in this country who believe justice and injustice are divisible, that one can turn a blind eye to injustice in certain parts of the world and that somehow oppression where it takes place under a regime of a particular ideological hue can be ignored and that all our concerns can be centred on other regimes which are acceptable targets because we do not like their ideology.

So, when de Rossa drools over the Goldstone report like a rabid dog, with puffery about human rights, remember this is the scum who defended Soviet oppression of the Jews.