In Ireland, support for the Palestinian liberation struggle has always been mainstream and strong, even if it has never been so loud and visible since 7 October. This is perhaps a product of a common history of settler colonization. After all, the mechanisms of occupation that shape daily life today in occupied Palestine – armed military patrols in the streets, military checkpoints, isolated cities, separation walls – are the same as those once used by the British in Northern Ireland. It’s almost the same as the one I was using. Indeed, Britain’s settler colonial strategy in Ireland is thought to have served as a blueprint for the Israeli occupation, as Rashid Khalidi, among others, has argued. This is why the Irish people broadly empathize with and enthusiastically support the Palestinians in their fight against Israeli occupation and oppression.
While it is clear to whom the Irish people’s loyalty lies, the same cannot be said about their loyalty to the country’s political representatives.
Irish President Michael D. Higgins has long been a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights and has explicitly called for a permanent ceasefire since October 7. But his role is largely symbolic, and he cannot force the government to act.
Since October 7, there have been mixed messages from the Dail and current government leaders. Meanwhile, our Prime Minister Leo Varadkar and Tánaiste Prime Minister Michael Martin were earlier than other European leaders to condemn the escalating violence in Palestine and call for a ceasefire. They also accused the EU of double standards towards Palestine.
Irish Aid, Ireland’s official international development assistance program, is a long-term donor to UNRWA, the United Nations humanitarian agency for Palestinian refugees, and has been a long-term donor to other local and international human rights and development organizations working in Palestine. We have also supported organizations. Following recent decisions by the US, UK and several other governments to suspend funding for UNRWA, Ireland reiterated its commitment to support UNRWA.
The Irish government also voted in favor of a UN General Assembly resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire in October 2023 and a ceasefire in December 2023.
But beyond resisting calls to halt aid and supporting calls for a ceasefire, Irish leaders have taken little action that could bring about significant change on the ground in Palestine.
The Occupied Territories Bill, which would ban the importation of Israeli products produced in illegal West Bank settlements into Ireland, has stalled in the Dáil for years, despite significant support from Palestinian solidarity groups and NGOs. Since October 2023, further motions submitted by opposition parties to parliament calling for the severing of diplomatic relations with Israel and economic sanctions against Israel have been rejected without alternative proposals from the ruling party.
The government has refused to follow the example of countries such as South Africa and Bolivia, which have moved to sever or at least suspend diplomatic relations with Israel. They also opposed calls to exclude Israel from this year’s Eurovision song contest.
The Taoiseach initially seemed skeptical about the merits of South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). He cautioned against using the word “genocide” to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza and said Ireland would not intervene in the case, as it did in Ukraine’s case against Russia. Following the ICJ’s decision on interim measures on 26 January, the Irish government changed its stance and announced that it was considering possible intervention. Ireland, speaking at a separate ICJ hearing on the legal consequences of the Israeli occupation, condemned Israel’s excessive use of force since October 7, but stopped short of calling it genocide.
The failure to apply the same coercive measures against Israel in response to the Gaza war that were urgently and without hesitation imposed on Russia in the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine clearly demonstrates Western hypocrisy and a deliberate undermining of international law that is supposed to protect it. This is an example. its allies. In the case of Ireland, it also goes directly against popular sentiment and speaks to the political elite’s continued loyalty to the Empire.
For a country that still defines itself through the lens of colonial suffering and victimhood, and takes pride in its armed struggle for independence against the British Empire, modern alliances with and dependence on imperial powers are both problematic and inevitable. This undermines efforts to show solidarity. Some people, like the Palestinians, are still resisting colonial oppression.
The most obvious reason for Ireland’s failure to take a more principled stand on Israel and Palestine is its continued economic dependence on Britain, the United States and Europe. Ireland, a small island nation on the edge of Europe, relies on foreign direct investment from multinational corporations to survive economically, which has severely hampered its ability to take a meaningful stand against empire on the world stage. hindering.
But the limits of Ireland’s support for Palestine are not determined solely by contemporary capital demands. There is another, more complex and deep-seated obstacle to genuine solidarity with other colonized peoples. It is an identity crisis that stems from Ireland’s particular processes of racialization and its long history of complicity and participation in European imperialism across the Global South.
This identity crisis is most evident in the country’s contradictory attitudes toward immigration. Anti-immigrant sentiment in Ireland has been festering for at least two decades, reaching violent peaks in the past two years. Successive governments have actively subscribed to alarming rhetoric about the influx of so-called “economic migrants,” sought to limit their access to citizenship through constitutional reforms in 2004, and supported active far-right movements. We have turned a blind eye to growth and activity. Targeting refugee and immigrant communities of color with violence.
The irony is that for two centuries Ireland’s greatest export has been its people, most of whom were “economic migrants” eager to escape crushing poverty and lack of jobs, housing and opportunity. These immigrants embarked on easy journeys rarely afforded to immigrants from the Global South to pursue better lives in countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Despite being stigmatized as “inferior whites” and facing considerable discrimination as a result, Irish immigrants as a whole have absorbed the white supremacist discourses and laws that prevail in English-speaking regions. , and have benefited from it. When juxtaposed with other racialized peoples in these regions, whether indigenous, aboriginal, or enslaved, Irish people are seen as fully human in all cases and other racialized groups enjoyed civil rights that had been denied them well into the 20th century. Over time, White Irish immigrants successfully assimilated into settler society and actively participated in the settler-colonial project, resulting in large-scale expulsion and dispossession of indigenous peoples and indigenous peoples from their ancestral territories. has been brought.
Even more controversial are Ireland’s links with the Caribbean world of the Atlantic slave trade, where Irish people profited as merchants, plantation owners, and slaves. Although archival work is increasing to trace these connections, information and discussion are often confined to academic circles and rarely reach the popular media.
Even in the early 20th century, when Ireland was a beacon of hope in the anti-imperialist struggle, Irish leaders sought to differentiate themselves from other colonial states as a self-governing nation that “deserved” independence. mobilized whiteness. In later years, as Ireland began to emerge on the world stage as a wealthy European nation, other postcolonial countries’ struggles in economic development were attributed not to their embedded populations but to their “laziness” and/or “corruption.” The government and people were always to blame. Imperialist injustice to the economic world order served to reinforce the perception of Ireland as a racially superior nation.
Several historians and independent academics, such as Liam Horgan, are now actively interrogating Irish whiteness, discussing Irish complicity in the slave trade on social media, and writing about Irish history. and are starting a long-awaited conversation about identity. They are also countering the Irish slave meme mobilized online by white supremacists to delegitimize demands for U.S. slave reparations. Even Joseph has also helped address contemporary issues of race in Ireland, which account for the complexities of our colonial history, through popular media and public anti-racism work. Nevertheless, these efforts have so far been insufficient to address Ireland’s postcolonial identity crisis and its impact on engagement with other peoples who still suffer under imperial occupation. Not proven.
South Africa’s case against Israel at the ICJ has been widely interpreted as an effort by emerging Global South powers to challenge the double standards of international law and the imperial order. Ireland’s political and economic elites attempted to do little more than adopt the most benign attitude towards the genocide.
Rather than forging genuine solidarity with other postcolonial states in the Global South, it has once again chosen to align with and emulate Ireland’s former masters and current hegemons, the United States and Britain. It’s a shame to see. He was one of the most decisive figures in taking action against Israel’s genocide and settler colonial plans in Palestine. The challenges we face today include the undeniable atrocities being committed in Gaza and the West Bank, and the growing demands of our people for a permanent ceasefire and an end to the occupation of Palestine. The second question is how long they will continue to do this.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.