The unenviable situation of Ireland and Israel at the dawn of their statehood cannot be overstated. Genocide and collective trauma, mass exodus and return, small size, unfavorable climatic conditions, insularity at sea or on land, bloody struggle for independence, mother tongues practically dead for centuries of alien rule – all this unites the historical experience of both states.
In the present, the two nations share influential global diasporas, strong diplomacy, status on the world stage disproportionate to their material capabilities, strong defense guarantees from the United States, economic prosperity, innovation, and – to varying degrees – unresolved conflicts with neighbors. What could the real, state-oriented Armenian elite learn from the Irish and Israeli founding fathers?
Unity above all else
Like the Armenians, the Jews and the Irish were once victims of targeted extermination. Long centuries of persecution and pogroms in a foreign land where Jews were perfectly integrated into social and economic life and were loyal subjects and then citizens, culminated in the Holocaust before the ideology of return to the biblical homeland, born out of constant oppression, became truly popular.
Unlike the Jews, the Irish were at first able to live in their homeland, albeit suffering many hardships under British colonial rule. It was only when the only thing they had a claim to in their own land – the potato, which formed the basis of their diet – was taken from them, and when more than 10% of their countrymen died in the Great Famine and another quarter crossed the ocean on coffin ships to escape starvation, that the Irish realized that dying for freedom was preferable to dying for lack of freedom.
Against the background of the losses suffered for independence, the realization of common destiny and the understanding that the nation is safe only in this territory and only under independent rule, ideological and even religious contradictions as well as private interests have fallen by the wayside. Republicanism for the Irish and socialism for the Israelis became ideas that could be temporarily sacrificed for the sake of the only valid goal – independence in their own land.
Israel’s founding father David Ben-Gurion, aware of the challenges ahead in preserving statehood, did not try to use the newly formed state as an instrument of enrichment and promotion of personal interests. Socialism and then democracy could not be an end in itself for him and his associates. Rights and freedoms and the separation of powers were certainly important values, but only to the extent that they contributed to Israel’s independence and security. At the same time, despite the absence of a constitution in its classical sense and a permanent state of emergency, no head of the executive branch allowed himself to abuse the powers entrusted to him.
The founding fathers of the Jewish state envisioned another absolute value inseparable from the state: a people’s army. The IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) has become more than an army.
The army is the cornerstone of the Israeli nation, the school of what it should strive to be: strong, committed to the common cause, disciplined, truly inclusive and politically neutral.
In practice, this was reflected in universal conscription for both men and women, and in the annual call-ups of reservists. The army also became one of the links between the nation and its elite, as well as between the diaspora and the state, epitomizing the principle of “in joy and sorrow”.
Dreams of the Impossible as Political Realism
Both societies, having learned the tragic lessons of their weakness, realized that half-measures and timid dreams are an unattainable luxury. Through a combination of global vision and understanding of their own place in the world both nations separately arrived at one of the world’s most remarkable symbioses of traditionalism, openness and innovation, advanced agriculture and high technology. They simply could not afford to waste human capital due to technological backwardness.
Ireland, as its founding father de Valera envisioned it, was a country that fought for freedom and justice under all circumstances. Although the Gaelic language has been slower to revive than de Valera had dreamed and the Catholic Church has lost its position in the country, religion, language, freedom-loving spirit and the desire to defend the oppressed remain pillars of Irish identity 80 years later, and the question of eventual reunification with the North is only a matter of time for the Republic. Much of this was also made possible by the equanimity of the elites who were able to set aside emotions and personal career ambitions and initiate a process of historical reconciliation between divided Irishmen and supporters of the various modes of struggle for independence and reunification. The ideological and territorial decolonization of the island continues to this day.
Many people know about the difficult conditions of Jewish survival in their own desert before and after independence. The indeolence of commentators forces them to explain this phenomenon of survival in the desert and surrounded by enemies at will: by metaphysics, mythical absolute unity, the presence of a strong ally in the face of the United States, which at that time was not yet such. Anything but the main thing: the presence of an elite that rallied the unorganized and disparate majority around nation-building. Entire nations are not born with the willingness to live and work as if there is only the future and the present does not exist.
However, national leader Ben-Gurion was able to convince every settler in the Land of Israel that the national “tomorrow” was more important than a personal “today.”
The Jews had one dream: to create a state, for without a state they were doomed to cultural and then physical annihilation. Jews who survived the Holocaust, who were ready and willing to undergo internal transformation so that they would never again be unarmed victims of the executioners, understood this especially well. They did not need to be persuaded that the state of Israel had to appear on the map at all costs. The borders could be adjusted later.
Faced with a state of war at the dawn of their independence, the Israelis, surrounded at that time exclusively by enemies many times their size, chose to be realistic and fight for their dreams. To do so, they had to put aside personal preferences and plans for their professional development and the future of their children.
Since the Arab world refused to recognize their right to political existence in the region, the Jews chose the only possible path of self-preservation: conquest of the entire Land of Israel.
From ethnic group to transnational political nation
The preservation of statehood required repatriation and mobilization of the entire potential. The Jewish and Irish diasporas are among the most influential in the world, largely due to their dispersal across the globe and their ability to build bridges between different cultures for the benefit of their country of residence.
The Irish diaspora became the guarantor of resources for the struggle for independence and reunification. Eamon de Valera was the first to demonstrate the political potential of the Irish diaspora when he visited the United States in 1919. The president of the “self-proclaimed” Irish Republic spoke in various American cities and states, assemblies and universities for 1.5 years. Although local diaspora leaders did not always believe in his chosen “missionary” approach and considered themselves more knowledgeable in U.S. decision-making, they did support his trip financially and organizationally. Although de Valera’s visit failed to win recognition for Ireland from the U.S., the traditional allie of the British crown, the newly formed Republic, represented by its adamant president, attracted the attention of the world’s media. De Valera returned home with more than $5 million raised by the diaspora to build an Irish state.
The second article of the Irish Constitution, drafted by the founding father, recognizes as an Irish anyone born on the island, despite the fact that Northern Ireland is now under British jurisdiction, as well as anyone who can claim Irish citizenship. It also emphasizes the special treatment of people of Irish descent abroad who share with the nation its identity and heritage. Thus, on the one hand, the importance of the Irish diaspora is emphasized, and on the other hand, some subordination of ethnicity to citizenship is constructed.
In turn, the Jewish Diaspora is the oldest in the world. Being successfully integrated into the socio-economic life of the countries of residence, it supports the importance of Israel in their foreign policy, including through references to biblical motives and the God’s chosen essence of the Jewish people. The balance between the interests of the state and the Diaspora was not found immediately. A number of Zionist figures, who stood at the origins of the Jewish state, had a rather strict approach to the Diaspora, who did not want to change the urban European and American comfort for the cultivation of the desert, especially during and after the Holocaust, which put millions of Jews in the position of a helpless victim and critically undermined the human potential of the Jewish people. In particular, Ben-Zion Dinur, one of the first ministers of education and culture in independent Israel, contrasted the Jewish nation with the galut – forced exiles, emigrants, captives.
Interestingly, the Armenian word գաղութ [gaghut’] is derived from the same Aramaic root and has two main meanings: colony (and its population) and territorial community abroad. Thus, Armenians for centuries considered themselves a “galut” on their own territory as well.
For Dinur, as for the authors of the Irish constitution, only those compatriots abroad who linked their fate to the state could belong to the nation. The heritage of all others, however valuable, could not find a place in Jewish culture and history, for there could be no living culture in exile, nor could there be life. It was on the Jewish people’s connection to the Land of Israel that Israel’s Declaration of Independence was based. Today, Israel and its Diaspora are two communicating vessels, where the state attracts returnees while nurturing a state-centered elite abroad. In this way, Israel is enriched both qualitatively and quantitatively by the resources of the Diaspora.
Thus, the Irish and Jews have formed the world’s only Transnational Political Nations (TPN). This arrangement of diasporic nations is characterized by the full consolidation of their potential to strengthen their countries of origin internally and to advance their interests in their countries of residence. The strength and influence of TPNs do not rest on the traditional pillars of power in international relations: geography, population and natural resources. Ireland and Israel not only build strategic relationships with their diasporas, trusting them to strengthen them both internally and externally, but also nurture their influence and credibility in their countries of residence through professional diplomacy, adherence to the rule of law and democratic principles of governance, and consistency in foreign policy.
There is no unorganized majority of any nation that can independently channel its energies and strength for the good of the homeland. Most Jews abroad will take ownership of their identity on Hanukkah and Passover (Pesach), the Irish on St. Patrick’s Day, Good Friday and over a pint in the pubs, just as most Armenians will do so only on April 24 and over a shot of Armenian brandy.
Therefore, the effectiveness of a TPN depends on the presence of a diaspora aristocracy that carries the civilizational codes of the countries of residence and at the same time thinks in terms of the national interests of the country of origin.
Armenian know-how
The Jewish and Irish peoples and their states devoted themselves to each other entirely and built transnational political nations that reliably protected their identity and security at the same time. The realization of a common destiny after national tragedies made them direct all resources into building independent states. Since it was impossible to survive being weak with their size and geographical location, they chose to tighten their belts but become strong. The preservation of their culture and identity was prioritized as a guarantee of survival. Diasporas, organized along values and statehood rather than ethnic lines, became the key guarantors of security and prosperity for those who chose to live in the homeland.
The Armenian know-how was to fulfill all these conditions the other way around. The country’s independence was a product of external events, not the consistent formation of an ideological demand for a unified and independent state. Neither Ireland nor Israel had the unquestioning support of the US when they built their states. Unlike Israel, which was broken by the Holocaust and built from scratch in the desert, Armenia began its new journey with a victory in the war and a serious scientific, technical and agricultural base. Instead of reinforcing this foundation with human capital from the communities based in developed countries, the Armenian “founding fathers” confined them to the role of “cash cow.” In doing so, they alienated from what was called the Armenian state both their own citizens and the communal Armenians who were barely acquainted with it and were already accustomed to an existence without an independent Armenia for centuries and largely identified with the lost Western Armenia.
It will not be possible to explain the failure of the leaders of the Third Republic to build a state and use the resources of Armenian communities for its benefit by unfavorable external conditions. The examples of Israel and Ireland convincingly demonstrate that the excuses of unfavorable geographical location, population and lack of hydrocarbons are nothing more than commonplace laziness.
