A Word for Irish Catholics on Conclave and Gaza

As I begin to write this entry at 10:30 AM on Wednesday morning, the cardinal electors are just entering the Sistine Chapel for conclave. My thoughts are with the Irish Catholic community in particular at this juncture. Yesterday I listened to EWTN News Foreign Correspondent Colm Flynn sit down with Bishop Robert Barron in front of St. Peter's Square in Rome to talk about the upcoming conclave and who could be the next Pope. Then, later in the day, I listened to Taoiseach Martin describe Israel's blockade of humanitarian aid into Gaza as a war crime. Plainly, the next pope must lead the Catholic Church through a difficult phase in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim relations, especially as these relate to the Question of Palestine.  

Up until the breakdown in the latest ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, I remained more or less on side with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Now I find myself torn. I think Netanyahu may have taken a wrong turn on 2 March 2025 when Israel halted aid into Gaza. This wrong turn was reinforced on 18 March 2025 when Israel broke the ceasefire. Now it seems to me that Taoiseach Martin, even if he is not entirely correct, certainly has a stronger argument against Prime Minister Netanyahu overall. I think South Africa does, too, at the International Court of Justice. I don't mean to say that Netanyahu is "clearly" guilty of genocide, or any other war crime or crime against humanity, but I do think the situation has become rather more unclear for some stalwart American friends of Israel. Jeremy Bowen, International Editor with BBC News, puts it this way: "Netanyahu's plan for Gaza risks dividing Israel, killing Palestinians and horrifying the world."

Marjorie Cohn has written a strong op-ed on Truthout titled US and Hungary Stand Alone at ICJ in Favor of Israel’s Blockade on Gaza. Cohn writes:

Just days after the World Food Programme said it had run out of food in Gaza, the hearing commenced at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. Thirty-nine states, the United Nations and three other international organizations presented oral arguments. All states but two — the U.S. and Hungary — condemned Israel’s denial of humanitarian assistance to the starving people of Gaza. Although Israel refused to orally address the ICJ, it filed a written statement with the court. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said that Israel decided “not to take part in this circus” and called the ICJ hearings part of a “systematic persecution and delegitimisation of Israel.”

While I disagree with many points subsequently raised against Israel by Cohn, I also disagree with the approach to the ICJ hearings taken by Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar. In my view, Israel should certainly have addressed the court orally in person. While I empathize with Israel's perception of "systematic persecution," I don't think the solution is contempt for the ICJ. The world court in collaboration with the UN General Assembly is, after all, the closest thing we have to a formalized conscience of humanity in the sphere of international relations (cf. UN General Assembly resolutions represent ‘the conscience of humanity’, President says | UN News). This is not to say the court is infallible. It is susceptible to bias. It has made mistakes. But so has the government of Israel. This doesn't mean that Israel is illegitimate, or dysfunctional on the whole. 

Yes, Israel hates being singled out by the court. But this is not necessarily anti-Semitism, at least not when theologically considered. Israel will always be held to a higher standard - especially with regard to its stewardship of the land - by God first, and then by man.