Hearing how Ireland’s position in relation to Israel’s invasion of Gaza is commonly described, you would imagine that all of the European Union is fervently pro-Israel, with Ireland left in the cold as a lonely and isolated contrary voice. This is not the case. Ireland is not an outlier in the EU.
Ireland sits among a group of member states that have similar positions on the Israel-Palestine conflict. This group is not an isolated minority. The weight of opinion within the EU tilts towards them, even if most countries are less outspoken.
The balance was illustrated in last month’s vote in the United Nations. Ireland was among eight EU countries to vote with the global majority for a ceasefire, along with Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Spain and Slovenia – a particularly strong voice on the issue.
The bulk of the EU countries chose to abstain, but just four voted against: Austria, Croatia, the Czech Republic and Hungary. It is not a fringe European view when even French president Emmanuel Macron has been calling for a ceasefire.
Ireland v Fiji player ratings: Bundee Aki bounces back, Caelan Doris leads by example
David McWilliams: The potential threats to Ireland now come in four guises
The album that nearly finished U2: The story of How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb and its new ‘shadow’ LP
‘I know what happened in that room’: the full story of the Conor McGregor case
The perception that Ireland is far out of step with the EU as a whole is because of the influence that four countries have on shaping its policy towards the conflict: Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic and Hungary.
These countries have firmly pro-Israel positions. Hungary quietly wields its veto, diplomats say, while the rest are highly active in propounding their views. They push for changes to texts to shape EU declarations to adhere more closely to their positions, and veto statements or actions that deviate too much.
From the outset they have firmly insisted that the EU must back Israel’s right to defend itself, and have pushed back against declarations that could be seen to equivocate on that. They have nixed calls for restraint in Israel’s response to the Hamas attacks and are highly cautious about the emphasis and timing of demands for things such as the observance of international law.
Most recently, this played out in the debate over the language the EU could use to call for some kind of stop in the fighting.
Germany, in particular, obstructed calls for a “ceasefire” or anything that could be a euphemism for ceasefire.
When the 27 leaders met in Brussels to discuss it, the leading voice pushing back was not Ireland, but Spain. Spanish prime minister Pedro Sánchez led the charge in arguing that the EU should make a stronger statement in calling for fighting to stop.
It’s not an isolated example. While the Irish Government has said it favours moving towards recognising the state of Palestine but is weighing the consequences, Sanchez recently declared it a priority for his new term in office.
Neither is Spain the only case. When Human Rights Watch chose one EU country to single out for praise for its position on the conflict, it was not Ireland, but Belgium. Senior Belgian government figures have gone further in criticising Israel than the Irish government has been willing to.
“It is time for sanctions against Israel. The rain of bombs is inhumane,” Belgium’s deputy prime minister Petra De Sutter told Nieuwsblad newspaper earlier this month, backing a stance that the Dáil has rejected.
Tánaiste Micheál Martin has been cautious in his statements about an ongoing investigation by the International Criminal Court, stressing that it is vital that the court be seen as impartial and not prejudiced by political agendas.
In contrast, Belgium’s minister of development co-operation, Caroline Gennez, made clear in a recent interview what she thought the findings of the investigation would be. There must be an investigation “into whether the laws of war have been violated here”, the minister told Het Laatste Nieuws. “All elements point in that direction.” She accused Israel of “collectively punishing” innocent civilians for the Hamas attack.
The European Commission – the EU’s civil service – has done much to create the public image that the EU as a whole is pro-Israel because of its German president Ursula von der Leyen. The former defence minister has a position that is firmly within the German domestic mainstream, but does not represent a balanced pan-EU view. Statements by other senior figures, such as the foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell and the European Council president Charles Michel, have been much more nuanced, but overshadowed.
The split among member states on the issue is reflected within EU institutions, and plays out every day as they contend with policy decisions related to the conflict.
Von der Leyen’s stance has repeatedly caused internal uproar, particularly among diplomatic and foreign affairs staff. Most recently, 2,223 employees of EU institutions signed a letter in 40 hours calling on leaders to “act immediately to stop the loss of innocent lives in Gaza and the West Bank”.
Many people in Ireland seem to enjoy the idea that the country is uniquely outspoken on the Palestinian issue. However, it doesn’t suit Irish representatives abroad to be regarded as pro-Palestinian and diplomats have been striving to counter this impression. They believe if Ireland is seen as a partisan, non-neutral actor from the outset, it is less credible in pushing for things such as humanitarian access and respect for international law. If Ireland is inherently biased, it can be easily dismissed.
Articles that set out that Ireland has an ingrained sympathy for the Palestinian cause for historical reasons are met with a groan. Like pro-Palestinian demonstrations and the flying of Palestinian flags, they are not seen as helping Ireland’s credibility as a supposedly neutral actor. Irish diplomats would rather that Ireland’s position be seen as the result of a dispassionate analysis of the facts on the ground. “Our position is not a pro-Palestinian position, our position is pro-international humanitarian law,” one diplomat put it.
“If we are seen as simply picking a side, all it does is make it much easier to dismiss the Irish position.”
