The Irish have always been pro-terrorist Palestine.
They see Israel as England.
Their anti English bias is based on them being the oppressed poor v rich English.

What's never mentioned, is the Irish CHOICE of using politics to empower the poor only. That is, tall poppy syndrome. No-one in politics is allowed to be rich. They choose to be politically poor. What they can't figure out is how to be a rich nation beyond politics.
As Germany said of Ireland. How can any European nation take an island of professional drunks seriously?

So Ireland is its own worst enemy, like Palestine. Blaming a richer neighbour for its own problem.

Irish are indeed politically stupid.

‘Deep Slander, Defamation’ – Ireland Hits Back at Israel’s ‘Antisemitism’ Claim

President Michael D Higgins says accusations of anti-Semitism are ‘gross defamation’


Ireland’s intervention in the genocide case against Israel in the International Criminal Court was the latest in a series of “steps, initiatives, statements” that have caused the Israeli government to regard Ireland as “the most extreme country against Israel internationally” and to close its embassy in Dublin, the Israeli ambassador Dana Erlich has said.

Her comments come as President Michael D Higgins hit back at claims from Israel that Ireland’s position was motivated by anti-Semitism as “gross defamation”.

In an interview with The Irish Times, Ms Erlich also said that concern in Jerusalem about the Occupied Territories Bill was a “big factor” in the decision to close the embassy. The Bill is regarded by friends and critics of Israel as a significant step in isolating the country and is likely to be reintroduced by the next government.


more here:

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/12/17/ireland-is-extreme-against-israel...

... the British mandate ended, and the United Nations voted for a two-state solution: one Arab state and one Jewish state. Israel’s legitimacy is historically, legally...

Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine.

The Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question was established by the General Assembly shortly after the issuance of the UNSCOP report in order to continue to study the problem and make recommendations. It found that “the General Assembly is not competent to recommend, still less to enforce, any solution other than the recognition of the independence of Palestine, and that the settlement of the future government of Palestine is a matter solely for the people of Palestine.”

It concluded further that the partition plan was “contrary to the principles of the Charter, and the United Nations have no power to give effect to it.” The U.N. could not

deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country…. The United Nations Organization has no power to create a new State. Such a decision can only be taken by the free will of the people of the territories in question. That condition is not fulfilled in the case of the majority proposal, as it involves the establishment of a Jewish State in complete disregard of the wishes and interests of the Arabs of Palestine.


The partition plan put forth by UNSCOP sought to create within Palestine a Jewish state contrary to the express will of the majority of its inhabitants. Despite constituting only a third of the population and owning less than 7 percent of the land, it sought to grant to the Jews more than half of Palestine for purpose of creating that Jewish state. It would, in other words, take land from the Arabs and give it to the Jews. The inherent injustice of the partition plan stands in stark contrast to alternative plan proposed by the Arabs, of an independent state of Palestine in which the rights of the Jewish minority would be recognized and respected, and which would afford the Jewish population representation in a democratic government. The partition plan was blatantly prejudicial to the rights of the majority Arab population, and was premised on the rejection of their right to self-determination. This is all the more uncontroversial inasmuch as the UNSCOP report itself explicitly acknowledged that the proposal to create a Jewish state in Palestine was contrary to the principle of self-determination. The plan was also premised upon the erroneous assumption that the Arabs would simply acquiesce to having their land taken from them and voluntarily surrender their majority rights, including their right to self-determination.

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel, by Jeremy R. Hammond

A lesson there for the Palestinians.
Alas, a lesson they will never learn.