IRELAND’S DECISION TO intervene in South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice and Israel’s subsequent decision to close its embassy in Dublin have been surrounded by false claims about the Irish government’s position on the war in Gaza.
Many of those claims have come from social media users but they have also come from official Israeli sources.
An online ad produced by an Israeli propaganda project called Israel Slingshot, using a well-known meme featuring the rapper Drake, has promoted two of the most prominent false claims being made about the Irish government.
Those claims are:
1. That Ireland has not condemned Hamas for its attack against Israel on 7 October 2023 or called for the release of hostages held in Gaza.
2. That Ireland wants to change the definition of genocide so as to make a guilty verdict for Israel in the ICJ case more likely.
The ad shows a picture of Drake with an Irish flag pasted over the image, reacting negatively to the phrase: “Denouncing Hamas for October 7 atrocities and the taking of hostages.”
The rapper is then shown reacting positively to the line: “Asking the ICJ to change the definition of ‘genocide’ so Israel can be found guilty.”
Slingshot Israel was launched by Israeli advertising firm AdFreeway in January 2024 and lists the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate and Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism among its partners.
“Slingshot promotes Israel across 200,000+ websites and platforms, bypassing social media, where we have reached more than 20 million unique people,” the project’s website reads.
The claim that Ireland is seeking to change the definition of genocide has been repeated by Israel’s foreign minister and its outgoing ambassador to Ireland.
Israel’s rhetorical attacks against its critics are not new and are not confined to Ireland, or even individual states.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in September called the United Nations General Assembly a “swamp of antisemitic bile”.
Before that, in May, Israel’s envoy at the UN, Gilad Erdan, shredded a miniature copy of the UN Charter into a small transparent box before the assembly.
“You are shredding the UN Charter with your own hands,” he said.
The ICJ, sometimes referred to as the World Court, is one of the UN’s six principal bodies.
The short answer is yes, repeatedly.
On 7 October 2023, in the wake of the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel in which 1,208 people, mostly civilians, were killed and 251 were taken hostage inside the Gaza Strip, Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin said: “I strongly condemn the firing of rockets into Israel by Hamas and attacks against Israel from Gaza. I deeply regret the loss of life and the impact on civilians. I call for an immediate cessation of all hostilities.”
He later told reporters, “This was in my view an appalling attack by Hamas, and one which they know the consequences [of] as well.”
Also on 7 October 2023, then-Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said: “The firing of rockets by Hamas and the loss of life in fighting is appalling, as is the impact on people going about their daily lives. We condemn attacks on civilians unequivocally. The fighting should stop immediately.”
The firing of rockets by Hamas and the loss of life in fighting is appalling, as is the impact on people going about their daily lives. We condemn attacks on civilians unequivocally. The fighting should stop immediately https://t.co/Zn8QxS7LrT
— Leo Varadkar (@LeoVaradkar) October 7, 2023
Then on 9 October 2023, as more information about the attack emerged and Israel’s retaliatory campaign was underway, Martin released a statement through the Department of Foreign Affairs saying: “I am horrified by the scenes that we have witnessed over the past few days. I again unreservedly condemn the attack by Hamas on Israel. The deliberate and systematic targeting of civilians can never be justified. The taking of hostages, including young children and the elderly is unconscionable. They must be released immediately.”
Martin said he also wrote to Israel’s then-foreign minister Eli Cohen “to express our deep condolences”.
Today marks the anniversary of the heinous terror attacks carried out by Hamas and other terrorist groups against Israel.
— Micheál Martin (@MichealMartinTD) October 7, 2024
The horror of these attacks remains imprinted in our minds. I reiterate Ireland’s unequivocal condemnation of them.
My statement ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/sApky3NSeb
Since those early condemnations of Hamas, Irish government statements have repeated the same position while also condemning Israel’s methods of war in Gaza, where the death toll now stands at over 45,000, around 17,000 of whom are children.
On the anniversary of the 7 October attack, Martin released a statement that began:
“Today marks the anniversary of the heinous terror attacks carried out by Hamas and other terrorist groups against Israel.
“The horror of these attacks remains imprinted in our minds. I reiterate Ireland’s unequivocal condemnation of them.”
On 11 December this year, the government of Ireland announced it would formally intervene in the case taken against Israel by South Africa at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
South Africa has accused Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza.
Ireland simultaneously approved intervention in another alleged genocide case at the ICJ, The Gambia vs Myanmar.
The Irish government’s announcement was met with outrage by Israel supporters online, with many falsely accusing Ireland of unfairly targeting Israel and seeking to redefine the crime of genocide in order to make a guilty verdict in the ICJ case more likely.
The ad referenced above also makes that false claim, but so have multiple Israeli officials, including Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and Israel’s ambassador to Ireland Dana Erlich.
“They worked to try to change the legal definition of ‘genocide’ in order to try to accuse Israel of genocide at the International Court of Justice,” Sa’ar said in a statement explaining his decision to close the Israeli embassy in Dublin.
Outgoing ambassador Erlich told RTÉ’s News at One on Monday that Ireland, in its statement about intervening, was “admitting that the legal definition of genocide needs to be redefined in international law in order to support these baseless claims against Israel”.
Those making the claim have cited a statement made by Micheál Martin about Ireland’s intervention in the ICJ cases. Martin described Israel’s military actions in Gaza as “a collective punishment of the Palestinian people”.
He said that by legally intervening in the case, “Ireland will be asking the ICJ to broaden its interpretation of what constitutes the commission of genocide by a State.”
He explained this by adding: “We are concerned that a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes genocide leads to a culture of impunity in which the protection of civilians is minimised.
“Ireland’s view of the Convention is broader and prioritises the protection of civilian life – as a committed supporter of the Convention, the Government will promote that interpretation in its intervention in the case.”
Finally, Martin said that Ireland’s intervention in both the Myanmar and Israel cases “demonstrates the consistency of Ireland’s approach to the interpretation and application of the Genocide Convention”.
Arguing for a legal interpretation of the Genocide Convention is not the same as arguing for the definition contained in the convention to be altered.
As The Journal found when speaking to international law experts following the publication of a report by Amnesty International that was targeted with the same false claim, historical interpretation of the Genocide Convention by the ICJ has been very conservative.
Amnesty’s report raised similar concerns about previous ICJ rulings to those expressed in Martin’s statement. While Martin used the word “narrow”, Amnesty described the interpretation informing ICJ jurisprudence as “overly cramped”.
Amnesty’s reading of the Genocide Convention and past ICJ judgements highlighted an ambiguity that is the subject of a growing debate among international lawyers and scholars, explained Mike Becker, assistant professor of international human rights law at Trinity College.
The debate centres around the ICJ’s test which must be passed for it to rule genocide is being committed.
“The test that the Court has developed is what is sometimes referred to as ‘the only reasonable inference test’,” said Becker.
In the absence of a black-and-white documented plan to carry out a genocide, a pattern of evidence needs to be established in order to prove genocidal intent.
This is no easy task, especially when genocide is allegedly being committed alongside other war aims (such as counter-terrrorism).
“The Court has said that the only reasonable inference, when looking at that evidence, has to be that there was the intent to commit genocide,” Becker said.
“That test is inherently problematic,” he said, because of how the word “only” has been interpreted historically.
Becker said the problem with the test, as some have understood it, “is that it suggests that if you could infer any other possible intention from a party’s conduct, it would defeat the inference of genocidal intent”.
In other words, based on the ICJ’s test as it currently exists, it would be almost impossible for a state to be found guilty of genocide if it was also simultaneously trying to achieve other war aims, for example a war of self-defence or a counter-terrorism operation, as Israel has argued.
As Becker said of the Amnesty report, “[Israel's] criticism assumes that the law is both static and interprets the existing law relating to the Genocide Convention in an especially conservative way.”
Dirk Moses, a professor of political science at the City University of New York and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Genocide Research, told The Journal that “military and genocidal intentions are fused, or run together”.
“Increasingly, legal opinion is recognising this empirical fact.”
The Journal’s FactCheck is a signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network’s Code of Principles. You can read it here. For information on how FactCheck works, what the verdicts mean, and how you can take part, check out our Reader’s Guide here. You can read about the team of editors and reporters who work on the factchecks here.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say