PoliticsAnalysis

Irish Government’s response to Israeli bombardment of Gaza underlines lack of unified EU policy

European Union’s position seems likely to fracture further, rather than coalesce, as conflict in enclave continues to intensify

Despite its pretence of having a common position on the Middle East, the EU includes a spectrum of sometimes competing analyses and allegiances. Photograph: iStock
Despite its pretence of having a common position on the Middle East, the EU includes a spectrum of sometimes competing analyses and allegiances. Photograph: iStock
Pat Leahy's picture
Pat Leahy
Fri Nov 03 2023 - 18:05

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar’s description of the Israeli offensive against Hamas in Gaza as resembling “something approaching revenge” confirms Ireland’s position as the most pro-Palestinian EU country – and also underlines the lack of a unified EU policy towards the conflict.

Varadkar’s comments – while he was careful to lay responsibility for the current bloody phase of the conflict with Hamas – represent the nearest the Irish Government has come to condemning Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip.

Both Varadkar and the Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin have been consistent in their condemnations of Hamas (something not widely echoed across the Irish political spectrum) and have also constantly asserted Israel’s right to defend itself – including the right to “go after” Hamas into Gaza.

But as the bombardment of the enclave has intensified, and civilian casualties among the Palestinian population there have mounted, the Irish Government has edged from insisting that international law must be observed towards criticism of Israel when it appears to be clearly violating that law. (Israel, it should be said, denies it is breaking international law, blaming Hamas for surrounding itself with human shields.)

READ MORE

[ Israel war resembles something ‘approaching revenge’, Taoiseach says ]

Varadkar’s “something approaching revenge” comments suggest a further edging toward criticism of Israel, and was reported across the world by Reuters, who described it as “some of the strongest criticism of Israel by a leader of a European Union member state”.

Further evidence, if it were needed, that despite its pretence of having a common position on the Middle East, the EU includes a spectrum of sometimes competing analyses and allegiances.

As Varadkar was making his comments in South Korea, Robert Habeck, the German vice-chancellor and a leading Green in that country’s government, posted a speech on Twitter that emphasised Germany’s historic responsibility toward the Jewish people and its continuing commitment to Israel’s defence.

Furthermore, Habeck warned against the rise in anti-Semitism in Germany and elsewhere, as protests against the war in Gaza spread, asserting that anyone who praises Hamas or burns Israeli flags would be prosecuted or – if applicable – deported.

In underlining Israel’s right to self-defence, he also noted the need to do so in accordance with international law. But in a diplomatic dance where nuance is everything, it was clear where Habeck was coming from: Germany stands with Israel, come what may.

[ Germany takes tough line on anti-Semitism after incidents rise ]

In truth, a week after EU leaders agreed on a common approach to the conflict in Gaza – with a statement coming out of a summit which called for “humanitarian pauses” – European unity on this most pressing of foreign policy challenges is a mirage. It didn’t even last 24 hours – the day after the summit agreement in Brussels, EU countries split on a UN resolution calling for an immediate truce, with some (including Ireland) voting in favour, some voting against and the rest abstaining.

As the Israeli pursuit of Hamas intensifies, and the toll mounts on the civilians of Gaza, the EU’s position seems likely to fracture further, rather than coalesce.

Last night, Martin was less pungent than Varadkar – as is usually the case – but also clearly critical of Israel.

“Whilst [Israel has] a right to go after Hamas after the horrific attack on the people of Israel, nonetheless necessity and proportionality are essential prerequisites of international humanitarian law. In my opinion, that proportionality and necessity is not being applied,” he said.

“That was revealed in terms of the bombing of the Jabalia camp and other bombings across Gaza . . . Too many civilians are losing their lives, too many children are losing their lives.”