Awkward neighbors
When Ireland (the Republic) first joined the United Nation’s general assembly in 1955, the Irish delegation were warmly welcomed by their two neighbors, Iraq and Israel. As the counties of the UN assembly were seated in alphabetical order, the Irish quickly realized that their presence removed a very awkward neighbor for both the Iraqis and the Israelis.
This story comes from one of the Irish delegation, Conor Cruise O’Brien, who had a very distinguished career as a historian and political writer. This was in addition to his diplomatic, and later political, career. He recounted this encounter in this book The Siege, The Saga of Zionism and of Israel (1986). He was strongly pro-Israel, and there were, and are, some very pro-Israel voices in Irish media and public life. This is worth stating because the pro-Palestinian sentiment is Ireland is probably the highest in any European country. It might be said that some of this is local, virtue signaling and provoking rivals – in Belfast, it is common to see both Palestinian and Israeli flags alongside Irish and British ones.
As of 2024, relations between Ireland and Israel are at a very low point. Things reached a new level in May this year when Israel withdrew its ambassador from Ireland (and from Spain and Norway) because these three countries recognized a Palestinian state. However, prior to that, there were some incidents that marked a deteriorating relationship. One was the expulsion of an Israeli diplomat from Ireland for forging Irish passports. Some of these faked Irish passports were used by the assassins of Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai in 2010.
Another trivial incident happened when the Irish female basketball team refused to shake hands with their Israeli opponents in February 2024. The standoff was due to one of the Israeli players stating before the game that the Irish team were anti-Semitic. The incident gained some attention on social media. With pro-Israeli voices saying that the Irish team’s actions proved that they were anti-Semitic. Nothing particular was proved, except deep mutual mistrust.
Historical commonalities?
There have been some commentary about commonalities between Ireland and Israel. It is true that President Hertzog’s father Chaim (who also served as president) was Irish. Both countries have attempted to revive an ancient language (very successful in Israeli’s case, not so in Ireland’s), and both have a large diaspora, most especially in the United States. That said, the relationship between American political elites and Ireland are largely, and harmlessly sentimental. They have entailed trips to the ‘homeland’ by presidents Kennedy, Reagan, Obama, and Biden. The annual Patrick’s Day celebrations at the White House are not about political power; whereas AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) annual policy conferences most certainly are.
America’s political relationship to Israel is strategic and militaristic, although, as often in American politics, it is expressed more in semi-religious rhetoric. Our American Israel (2018) by the late Amy Kaplan argues that Israel is seen as a ‘mirror of America’, sharing both exceptionalism and a ‘fusion of moral value with military force’. Many of America’s security and intelligence community are very critical of Israel, but not being vocally pro-Israel is political suicide for ambitious members of the Congress or Senate.
Where Ireland and Israel do have commonalties is in the history of British Imperialism. Both counties can trace their modern statehood to events during the First World War. Ireland, still ruled by Britain, had been promised limited independence, so called ‘Home Rule’. There were two failed attempts to pass a Home Rule bill (in 1886 and 1893) and a third passed in 1912, but it was suspended with the outbreak of the Great War in 1914. In Easter 1916, Irish nationalists took matters into their own hands and rebelled violently. The rebellion was a military failure, but it created a nationalist martyrdom and powerful nationalist movement.
A year later, in 1917, Britain made another promise, the famous Balfour Declaration, which stated – in deliberately vague wording – that the government ‘view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people’. At the same time, the British were leading the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire. The Arabs were promised a state of their own as soon as the war ended; that was their price for them fighting for the British.
There was an inherent contradiction here; there was no way to balance Zionist and Arab nationalist aspirations. Furthermore, the British, like their French allies, wished to exert their own influence in the region when the Ottomans were defeated. Their imperial aspirations were agreed in the secret Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916. In the words of historian Anthony Bruce, “…the British took another decisive step that was to erect a more permanent barrier to Arab objectives and give rise to the political and military instability that has plagued the area in the post-1945 period and is likely to continue to do so.” (The Last Crusade, The Palestine Campaign in the First World War, John Murray, 2002).
British Mandate Palestine was established in some measure in 1920, and confirmed in 1923. It would run until 1948, having been superseded by The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. At much the same time, Ireland fought a guerilla-like War of Independence (1919-1921), and the country was partitioned in 1922. Partition was resisted by some forces, leading to a bitter civil war. The partition remains in place a century later.
By the mid-1940s, the Yishuv (Jewish community in Mandate Palestine) were fighting their own guerilla-like war against the British, even borrowing Irish tactics. Future Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir (1915-2012) took as his nom-de-guerre, ‘Michael’, after the Irish guerilla leader, Michael Collins (1890-1922). Both countries fought British Imperialism, and both had political leaders with a very ambiguous relationship to political violence.
The longer perspective
Taking a boarder historical view, it is striking to see two countries of approximate size and with some historical commonalities moving in such diametric directions. Ireland, now much changed due to economic progress and large numbers of migrants, is losing its historical sense of victimhood (speaking very generally here) and moving away from a deeply conservative religious ethos towards social liberalism and secularism.
The conflict in Northern Ireland (1968-1998), a consequence of partition, has been over for 25 years. Despite some tensions, peace has become the norm. With further NATO expansion, now even including the ‘moral superpower’ Sweden, there are few neutral countries left in Europe. Ireland is one. The ‘fighting Irish’ (to use the old cliché) now have an inadequate defense force, with few willing to join the military. In international terms, the Irish are very trusting of institutions like the EU and United Nations (though still not NATO).
Israel’s leaders are openly hostile to international institutions, most especially the UN. Um-Shmum was a phrase that David Ben Gurion used to dismiss the UN. Prime Minister Netanyahu has been less polite, calling the General Assembly an “anti-Semitic swamp”. Such statements come from a deep sense of victimhood, of which voices like Gideon Levy are highly critical.
As a country, Israel has become militarized to an extraordinary degree. Yes, much of it is necessary, given the hostility of several neighboring states over the decades. But it seems to have internalized militarism deeply. The IDF is the chief institution of socialization in Israel, and military prestige is invaluable for a political career. But the big failure here is in regard to the Palestinians, with a military response favored over diplomatic or political resolution.
Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza began at much the same time as ‘The Troubles’ in Northern Ireland. One conflict is over, however; the other has never looked as bad as now in 2024.
