With our EU Presidency looming, we should lead the way with a balanced approach, writes Eamon Delaney
It is perhaps unfortunate that Ireland should last week drop its draft resolution on anti-Semitism at the United Nations - the first resolution of its kind - in the very week that the Redemptorist fathers in Limerick were apologising for what was probably Ireland's most famous anti-Semitic incident, namely the boycott of Jewish merchants in Limerick in 1904.
Ireland has a good record on the treatment of its Jewish population - the joke used to be that we were so preoccupied with the sectarian debate that we didn't have time for the Jews - but the incident in Limerick was a blot on this record, for which the Redemptorists have, in fairness, asked forgiveness.
It is unfortunate too, in the broader sense, that such a resolution was abandoned, since it would have been in marked contrast to Ireland's other statements at the UN and elsewhere, which have been quite critical of Israel. Of course, to be anti-Israel is not necessarily to be anti-Semitic but, given that for a lot of the world it is, it certainly would have helped vary the picture.
Among EU states, Ireland is seen as probably the most critical of Israel, an interesting position as we approach another EU presidency. This has been so for some time but, of late, especially so. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen, has been particularly critical and, when he visited the region, he specifically met the marginalised Palestinian President, Yasser Arafat, even though in doing so he knew he was precluding himself from meeting Israeli ministers. This tense relationship has existed for some time.
In a fascinating talk recently in TCD, Dr Rory Miller, an Irish academic now based at Kings College, London, gave an account of how Ireland's relationship with the Israel/Palestine issue has developed since the 1920s. In the talk, based on a book to be published next year with Irish Academic Press, Miller described how Ireland's approach was, understandably, to evade the issue and not get sucked into a difficult geopolitical dispute.
However, later, when Ireland did get involved, it was often dramatically so. Most famously,with then foreign minister Brian Lenihan, in Bahrain, speaking about the right of "self-determination" for the Palestinians, and thus accelerating the EU into similar recognition with the Venice Declaration.
Building on such initiatives, it would be nice if Ireland could now get the EU to face the dispute more robustly, rather than the usual Brussels attitude, which is to wait around to see how the latest US initiative proceeds and then throw money at the problem.
Given the bitter historic experience in Europe, that has in part led to the creation of Israel, and the subsequent conflict, one would have thought that the EU would be energised, even galvanised, to find a solution there. Instead oil politics, and timidity, have made it first stay away, and then lean too much to the Arab side to be seen as a honest broker. But there is no reason why this can't change.
In the context of the EU, Ireland is particularly equipped given our experience in conflict resolution, and the exhaustive efforts made to gain relative peace and stability in Northern Ireland. Many international commentators, indeed, have drawn parallels between the two "intractable" problems. Two years ago, the Guardian instituted a peace "conference", involving Israeli and Palestinian representatives, and politicians from Northern Ireland, including Martin McGuinness; and McGuinness himself recently gave the Yitzhak Rabin memorial lecture in Israel.
For older Israelis, Ireland's attitude to their embattled state is quite puzzling, given what they see as strong parallels between our history and theirs; two small newly-formed states fighting the British for their independence, and supported by an organised worldwide diaspora.
The guerrilla tactics of the Old IRA were a major inspiration for the Israeli Hagganah (or underground) and famously Yitzhak Shamir, the former prime minister, took the nom de guerre of "Michael Collins" when he was in the field. Éamon de Valera, meanwhile, who always valued his relations with the Jewish community, sent officials to Israel to study the successful revival of ancient Hebrew, hoping something similar could be done for the Irish language.
This parallel was cemented with the massive-selling novels of Leon Uris, romantic, nationalist dramas about the heroic struggle of the Irish (Trinity) and the Jews (Exodus). Israel has had an Irish president, Chaim Herzog, but by the time he visited Ireland, in 1985, relations had soured from those early days. The immediate cause was the tensions with Irish peacekeepers in the Lebanon, but in fact, long before then, Ireland was firmly in the critical camp. For decades, we also took our lead from the Vatican, and its ongoing concern about the holy sites in Jerusalem.
What better way to improve on the situation then, than by offering our valuable experience in achieving relative peace in Northern Ireland and the long and painful efforts at conflict resolution there. In 1996, when peace efforts in the North, and between Israelis and Palestinians, were threatened by violence in both regions, our then foreign minister Dick Spring made a passionate and eloquent appeal for the need to try harder, the greater the adversity.
Perhaps his successor, Brian Cowen, with our EU presidency looming, could lead the way with a more balanced, proactive approach and emulate not just Dick Spring, but also Brian Lenihan and his earlier dramatic contribution to the issue. After all the international energy spent on Northern Ireland, what better way to pay it back, than to offer our own hard-won models for peace, and thus strike a truly innovative and independent stance in the international arena.