Ireland Wants to Redefine ‘Genocide’

[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]

Ireland has been overtaken by the virus of antisemitism. It’s on display in the Dáil, in the cabinet, in the office of the Taoiseach, in the media and the universities. Recently, the Irish government chose to join South Africa in its charge against Israel at the International Court of Justice, hoping to have the tiny and embattled Jewish state declared guilty of “genocide.” Since Israel has not exhibited the “intent to commit genocide” which until now has been deemed essential for the charge to stick, the Irish government has expanded the definition of what constitutes “genocide.” Now it appears to mean something rather vague — “killing too many civilians in a war than we deem necessary,” and your intent, or lack of it, no longer matters; you can still be declared “guilty of genocide.” Using that definition, both the US, with its atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the UK, with the firebombing of German cities such as Dresden by the UK’s “Bomber” Harris, are both guilty of “genocide.”

Out of disgust with Ireland’s joining South Africa in accusing Israel of genocide, the Israelis have just closed their embassy in dear dirty Dublin, convinced that the antisemitism was too thick on the ground to deal with.

One Irishman who is appalled by the behavior of the Irish government, and by the antisemitism that is now so obvious to all (save the Irish who claim to be surprised that anyone could possibly accuse them of that) is Ian O’Doherty, an opinion columnist for the Irish Independent. He wrote the following piece, however, for the British magazine The Spectator. His view on Ireland’s anti-Israel behavior can be found here: “How Ireland declared diplomatic war on Israel,” by Ian O’Doherty, The Spectator, December 16, 2024:

Tis the season of goodwill to all men. Except for the Irish and Israelis, that is, who have seen their already frosty relationship plunged into positively freezing temperatures this weekend with Israel’s decision to close its embassy in Dublin.

Sunday’s announcement was unusually stark in diplomatic terms, but it reflects the growing resentment and, at times, genuine confusion felt by many politicians and diplomats in Jerusalem and Dublin about what they see as Ireland’s unfairly pro-Palestinian position since October 7th.

According to Israel’s foreign minister, Gideon Sa’ar, ‘Ireland’s extreme anti-Israel policy’ had reached the point where maintaining the embassy on Dublin’s Shelbourne Road had simply become untenable.

As Sa’ar put it: ‘The anti-Semitic actions and rhetoric that Ireland is taking against Israel are based on delegitimisation and demonisation of the Jewish state and on double standards.’

In a quite extraordinary broadside, he then continued: ‘Ireland has crossed all red lines in its relationship with Israel. Israel will invest its resources in promoting bilateral relations with the countries of the world according to priorities that are also derived from the attitude of the various countries involved with it.’

The response from Taoiseach Simon Harris was predictable. His bland and dismissive reply could have been generated by AI: ‘This is a deeply regrettable decision by the Netanyahu government. I utterly reject the assertion that Ireland is anti-Israel. Ireland is pro-peace, pro-human rights and pro-international law.’ Of course, you would be hard pressed to find any country in the world which doesn’t claim to be ‘pro-peace, pro-human rights and pro-international law’.

Ironically, Ireland’s very approach to international law was the straw that broke the camel’s back for Israel and convinced it to close down its Dublin operation. Earlier this week, Ireland, alongside that other titan of human rights and international law, South Africa, announced they would petition the International Court of Justice to ‘broaden’ the terms of genocide so that it can be more easily applied to Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

According to Tanaiste and foreign minister Micheal Martin, the Irish will ask the court to widen ‘its interpretation of what constitutes the commission of a genocide’ because as the law currently stands, ‘a very narrow interpretation’ is required to meet the legal threshold….

What the Irish want is a definition of genocide so broad that will fit Israel’s war in Gaza. since there is clearly no “intent” by the IDF to kill civilians, and the presence of “intent” is essential to the long-accepted definition of “genocide.” After all, the IDF makes tremendous efforts to minimize civilian casualties by warning civilians away from areas or buildings about to be targeted. By March, the IDF had dropped nine million leaflets, sent fifteen million text messages, and made sixteen million robocalls, all to warn civilians away from danger. British Colonel Richard Kemp, who fought in half a dozen campaigns, and commanded the British forces in Afghanistan, has described the IDF as “the most moral army in the history of warfare,” and West Point professor John Spencer, a specialist in urban warfare, has said that results are that in the Gaza war, the Israel has implemented more measure to prevent civilian casualties in urban warfare than any other military in the history of war.”

The ratio of civilian-to-combatant deaths is a key metric in judging whether a warring party has been insufficiently careful to minimize civilian deaths. According to the UN, in all the wars fought since 1945, the average civilian-to-combatant ratio has been 9:1. The American army brought that ratio down to 4:1 in Afghanistan and 3:1 in Iraq. But in Gaza, the IDF has managed to lower that ratio to less than 1:1. It is calculated as follows: 45,000 Gazans killed. Of those, 20,000 were Hamas members. Before the war, about 800 Gazans died every month from diseases and accidents; there is no reason to think that number has changed; over the 14 months of the war, then, about 11,200 of the deaths in Gaza were non-combat related. That means the total number of civilians who died as a result of the war to date are 13,800.

So the Israelis are now packing their bags in Dublin. Presumably at a later date the Irish will return the favour and we will be diplomatically separated from a country which should be our strongest ally in the region.

This is bad news for Irish trade – we need Israeli chip technology more than Israel needs Irish butter – but it promises to be even worse news when the ardently pro-Israel Trump takes power in the US in January.

With J.D. Vance already warning the Irish ambassador about the possibility of sanctions if hate speech laws are introduced here, and with fears of a mass exodus of American corporations from Ireland during a Trump presidency, the Irish government is playing a jaw-droppingly bad long-term game.

It’s not only Israel’s chip technology that might no longer be available to Irish businesses, but Israeli advances in dozens of areas, from AI to medical devices to weapons technology. The scientific and entrepreneurial strengths of the Israelis might be harder for Irish businessmen to access. And it is not only Israelis who might be less likely to do business with Ireland, but also many other people — not necessarily Jews — who find intolerable Ireland’s anti-Israel animus and are prepared to take their custom elsewhere.