Ireland’s ever deteriorating relationship with Israel continues to be the subject of much discussion.
On the basic issues at stake, this writer is most definitely in the pro-Israel camp.
In short, the Jewish people have a right to a state of their own in what is their ancestral homeland. They have a right to defend that state against the Islamic terrorists and tyrants who Israelis have the misfortune of calling their neighbours. In the aftermath of the October 7th attacks, Israel had a duty to pursue its enemies in Gaza, to degrade Hamas as a fighting force and to rescue the hostages. The moral responsibility for the awful suffering caused by this war rests overwhelmingly with Hamas and their funders in Iran’s theocratic mafia state.
These are not popular opinions. The clear consensus here is anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian. When President Higgins expresses sentiments to this effect, he is speaking for the majority of Irish people.
All that being said, Israel’s increasingly shrill and aggressive denunciations of Ireland’s position – such as the overreaction to the President’s participation in the Holocaust Memorial Day – are exacerbating an already bad situation.
Criticism of Irish neutrality is becoming particularly egregious.
In December, the Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar lashed out at President Higgins on X, and decided to add a historical hand grenade into his tirade.
“And if we are discussing historical truths, let us not forget that Ireland was at best neutral during World War II. At that time, the free world was fighting Hitler’s axis while Ireland sat on the side and did nothing,” Sa’ar said.[1]
In her recent interview with The Sunday Independent, Israel’s departing Ambassador Dana Erlich followed up with comments which suggest this will now be a recurring line of Israeli attack.
“Let’s admit Ireland is not neutral. In World War II, being neutral meant not helping the Allied forces against the Nazi regime. That is not neutral. You’re helping the Nazi regime by not helping Allied forces. There is a price to pay for so-called neutrality,” she said.[2]
This ignorance of Irish history and unfairness in assessing it from afar mirrors the worst of the anti-Israeli prejudice which is routinely heard in Ireland.
Firstly, Ireland in no way helped the Nazis in World War Two. On the contrary, any examination of the facts of what occurred between 1939-1945 shows that Ireland’s neutrality tilted heavily towards the Allied powers.
Overflight rights were granted to the Royal Air Force. Important meteorological reports were shared with the Allies, as was information about German activities and movements. When German planes crash landed in Ireland, the crews were detained; when British planes crash landed in Ireland, the crews were repatriated.
When Belfast was attacked by the Luftwaffe, De Valera dispatched fire engines to quench the flames, ‘neutrality’ be damned.
Irish agriculture fed hungry British mouths, Irish labour manned British munitions factories, Irish servicemen donned British uniforms and played an important part in the actual fight.
Ambassador Erlich’s claim that Ireland was “helping the Nazi regime by not helping Allied forces” is a calumny.
Secondly and perhaps more importantly, Ireland had a right to determine that it was neutral in 1939, in the same way that it has a right to be neutral today.
Many (myself included) do not support neutrality as a policy choice, but it is clearly the right of the Irish people to choose it.
In the world of 1939, when multilateralism was weak and nationalism was strong, many countries had the same attitude after Nazi Germany’s abominable onslaught against Poland.
Small European democracies such as the Scandinavian and Benelux countries chose as Ireland did to try to avoid being caught up in the destructive collision between Germany and its opponents. Sweden and Switzerland managed to achieve this, but as a result of Hitler’s wickedness, most of the other nations did not.
The greatest democracy of all, the United States of America, also chose neutrality, and for similar reasons.
Do Israeli diplomats make a habit of denouncing America for not being an active participant in the Second World War until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour brought them in?
Do they accuse America of having been pro-Nazi between 1939-1941?
In retrospect, it is a pity that America, Ireland and other countries did not immediately declare war on Germany when Hitler’s stormtroopers crossed the Polish border on September 1st 1939.
A unified front could have stopped the Nazis and prevented both the war and the Holocaust.
Modern-day nationalists who dismiss the importance of international bodies like the EU and NATO fail to recognise the value of ongoing international cooperation to prevent wars between European states.
That being said though, it is impossible to condemn the decisions taken by politicians in the very different world of 1939, whether those politicians were named Éamon de Valera or Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
These Israeli attacks are not just based on an inaccurate view of history, they also demonstrate a lack of sensitivity when it comes to Irish history.
The Ireland of 1939 was less than a generation away from total British occupation, and Irish nationalists in the North were still enduring daily degradation.
More importantly, the bitter memories of the First World War were too recent for anyone to have expected that Ireland would have followed Britain into war.
A quarter of a century earlier, many Irish nationalists had heard the appeal of John Redmond to enlist in the British military. Many had done so in the belief that Britain would honour its commitment to give Ireland the Home Rule it had sought over many decades through peaceful means.
The rewards from Britain for the sacrifice of tens of thousands of Irishmen were broken promises, the barbarism of the Black and Tans and the partitioning of our island.
No Irish leader, not de Valera and not anyone else, was going to emulate John Redmond in 1939.
Israelis should appreciate this, particularly given that they too fought a resistance struggle against British rule in the 1940s in order to bring about the creation of a national homeland which had been promised to the Jewish people in the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
It is not unusual for foreigners to fail to recognise the historical circumstances of other nations.
This is the nature of nationhood: a people bound together by shared memories of the national experience. Those outside the national family often do not understand.
The Irish government in the era of World War Two did what was best for Ireland and its people, and there is nothing for today’s Irish people to apologise for.
A key reason for the existence of Israel – and a key reason for my own Zionism – is that the Jewish people also require a government of their own to look after their own affairs and to defend themselves from their enemies.
At times this can lead to controversy.
Armenia is a case-in-point. In spite of the clear parallels between the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust, in spite of Hitler specifically drawing inspiration from the Turkish massacres when planning his own, and in spite of the contribution of Israeli historians in documenting what was done to the Armenians,[3] Israel still refuses to recognise the historical reality of the Armenian Genocide.[4]
The harsh realities of realpolitik mean that maintaining a good relationship with Turkey is more important to Israel than any moral considerations relating to the profound wrong which was done to Armenian Christians a century ago.
Israel has also profited handsomely from selling weapons to Azerbaijan which have been used to defeat Armenia’s military forces and achieve a de facto ethnic cleansing of the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region.[5]
Do Israelis hate Armenians? By not acknowledging the Armenian Genocide, are they to some degree complicit?
Of course not.
In a difficult neighbourhood, Israel has to take difficult and often unsavoury decisions. Given the appalling persecutions which the Jews have endured throughout history, and given the security threats they face to this day, a fair-minded Armenian observer could appreciate why Israeli decision-making is the way it is, even if they cannot approve. Such is life, and such is diplomacy.
It is a real pity that Irish-Israeli relations are so poor at present. In light of the (hopefully permanent) ceasefire in Gaza, there is an opportunity to rectify this, one which the new coalition should try to seize.
That requires a good faith diplomatic effort on both sides, however.
If the Israeli government instead wishes to continue to cast stones and misrepresent Irish history, then perhaps it is for the best that their Ambassador is leaving.
If she is this interested in 20th century history, maybe her next posting can be in Yerevan.
[1] X (2024), https://x.com/gidonsaar/status/1869131653777658124?s=51
[2] The Sunday Independent (2025), ‘‘Irish politicians are so blinded by hatred of Israel that they’ll hurt their own economy’ – Israeli ambassador Dana Erlich,’ https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-politicians-are-so-blinded-by-hatred-of-israel-that-theyll-hurt-their-own-economy-israeli-ambassador-dana-erlich/a1644609019.html
[3] Morris, B. and Ze’evi, D. (2019) ‘The Thirty-Year Genocide: Turkey’s Destruction of its Christian Minorities 1894-1924’
[4] The Times of Israel (2021) ‘Why Israel won’t follow Biden’s lead and recognize Armenian genocide,’ https://www.timesofisrael.com/why-israel-wont-follow-bidens-lead-and-recognize-armenian-genocide/
[5] The Times of Israel (2023) ‘’Israeli weapons quietly helped Azerbaijan retake Nagorno-Karabakh — sources, data,’ https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-weapons-quietly-helped-azerbaijan-retake-nagorno-karabakh-sources-data/