When Empathy Becomes Controversial
- Anna Saladino
- Mar 18
- 6 min read
Ireland, Israel, Palestine, and the Politics of Selective Suffering
What happens when empathy itself becomes controversial?
When acknowledging one group’s suffering is seen as betrayal of another?
This is where truth gets buried… and division takes root.
History has a quiet way of whispering across generations, asking whether we are listening or simply choosing sides.
On March 17, 2026, New York City Mayor Mamdani delivered remarks connecting Irish historical suffering to contemporary global struggles, including that of Palestinians. The response was swift and polarized. Some interpreted his words as antisemitic provocation. Others saw an attempt to build empathy through shared historical experience.
The intensity of the reaction reveals less about the speech itself and more about a deeper global fracture: the growing inability to hold multiple truths at once.
What Was Actually Said
In the official transcript, Mamdani spoke of Irish resilience and extended that narrative outward, referencing “a continued obligation to one another and to all those who still weep” (New York City Mayor’s Office 2026). The language centers on solidarity, shared suffering, and moral responsibility, not incitement.
The controversy, then, is not rooted in the text alone, but in how audiences interpret empathy when it crosses political fault lines.
Ireland: A Legacy of Colonization, Famine, and Resistance
The Irish historical experience is not symbolic. It is documented, measured, and devastating.
The Great Famine (1845–1852) resulted in approximately one million deaths and another million forced to emigrate, reducing Ireland’s population by roughly 20–25 percent (Ó Gráda 2009, 7). British colonial policies exacerbated the crisis, as food exports continued while mass starvation unfolded (Kinealy 1994, 354).
Irish identity today still carries the imprint of dispossession, forced migration, and cultural suppression. It is precisely this history that has led many Irish leaders and citizens to express solidarity with other populations experiencing displacement and suffering.
A Tradition of Irish Global Solidarity
Mamdani’s remarks reflect a broader tradition within Irish leadership that connects Ireland’s own historical trauma to global human suffering.
Former Irish President and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson has consistently spoken about suffering across regions including Palestine, Iran, Lebanon, Sudan, and Ukraine. During the same St. Patrick’s Day event, she emphasized the need for unity in a time of increasing global division, reinforcing the idea that rising polarization ultimately serves no one (Fox News 2026).
Robinson has also addressed the Israeli–Palestinian conflict directly, describing humanitarian conditions in Gaza as “unconscionable,” while simultaneously condemning the October 7 attacks and affirming the need to protect civilians on all sides (Robinson 2025).
This dual recognition is critical.
Robinson’s position reflects a consistent human rights framework:
The protection of Israeli civilians from terrorism
The recognition of Palestinian suffering under war and occupation
This is not contradiction. It is coherence.
In this context, Mamdani’s remarks align with an established tradition of Irish internationalism, one that views historical suffering not as justification for exclusion, but as a call to solidarity.
Israel: Trauma, Survival, and Existential Threat
Jewish history is marked by profound and well-documented suffering.
The Holocaust resulted in the systematic murder of six million Jews, leaving an enduring trauma that continues to shape Israeli national identity and security concerns (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum 2023).
More recently, the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel killed approximately 1,200 people and involved hostage-taking and deliberate targeting of civilians (Human Rights Watch 2023). These acts have been widely documented as violations of international humanitarian law.
For many Israelis and Jewish communities worldwide, this attack reinforced a long-standing reality: antisemitic violence is not confined to history.
Palestinians: Displacement, Occupation, and Humanitarian Crisis
Palestinian suffering is also extensively documented, though often more politically contested in public discourse.
Since 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have experienced displacement in what is known as the Nakba (Khalidi 2020, 15). Today, millions live under conditions shaped by occupation, blockade, or refugee status.
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs continues to document civilian casualties, infrastructure destruction, and restricted access to basic necessities in Gaza (OCHA 2026). In the West Bank, tens of thousands have been displaced in recent years due to settlement expansion and conflict-related violence (Reuters 2026).
At the same time, Palestinians have also suffered under their own leadership and armed groups. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented repression, arbitrary detention, and abuses by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (Human Rights Watch 2018; Amnesty International 2023).
It is essential to state clearly: Hamas is not the Palestinian people. Conflating civilians with armed groups erases the lived reality of millions who neither participate in nor support violence.
The Danger of Selective Empathy
Each of these histories carries real trauma, real loss, and real human consequence.
Yet public discourse increasingly demands exclusivity. To acknowledge one narrative is often perceived as denying another. This binary thinking transforms empathy into a political liability.
The U.S. Department of Justice has warned of rising antisemitic, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and anti-Palestinian hate crimes in the aftermath of recent conflicts (U.S. Department of Justice 2023). This reflects a broader pattern: when societies cannot hold complexity, they default to division.
Selective empathy does not resolve conflict. It sustains it.
The Genocide Debate and Legal Complexity
The question of whether current events constitute genocide remains legally unresolved and actively contested.
In January 2024, the International Court of Justice determined that claims brought under the Genocide Convention were “plausible” and ordered provisional measures to prevent potential genocidal acts and ensure humanitarian access (International Court of Justice 2024).
While not a final ruling, this affirms that the issue is serious and legally grounded. At the same time, states including the United States have rejected the genocide characterization.
This is not a settled issue. It is an ongoing legal and moral debate.
Holding the Full Picture
The evidence across all sides leads to an uncomfortable but necessary conclusion:
Hamas committed atrocities against civilians.
Antisemitism remains a real and dangerous global threat.
Palestinian civilians are experiencing significant humanitarian suffering.
Israeli military actions have resulted in large-scale civilian harm.
Palestinians have also suffered under their own governing authorities and armed groups.
These realities coexist.
And it is precisely this coexistence that challenges us.
Conclusion: The Courage to See All Sides
Empathy is not endorsement. Recognition is not justification. And acknowledging suffering is not betrayal.
If anything, the refusal to see the full human landscape is what perpetuates cycles of violence.
History does not ask us to choose which suffering matters. It asks whether we are capable of recognizing all of it.
Because when empathy becomes conditional, peace becomes impossible.
Sacred Earth Journey Round Table: Community Questions
If you were an Irish citizen during the Great Famine, how would you want the world to respond to your suffering? What would solidarity look like?
If you were an Israeli citizen on October 7, how would that experience shape your understanding of security and survival?
If you were a Palestinian civilian today, how would daily life shape your view of justice, resistance, and hope?
How does conflating civilians with governments or armed groups distort our understanding of conflict?
What role does historical trauma play in shaping modern policy and identity?
Can empathy for multiple groups exist without diminishing one? If not, why?
At what point does loyalty to a narrative become a barrier to truth?
How do media and political rhetoric influence whose suffering is recognized?
Reference List
Amnesty International. 2023. Palestinian Authorities and Armed Groups: Patterns of Abuse. London: Amnesty International.
Fox News. 2026. “Mamdani References Palestinian ‘Genocide’ during St. Patrick’s Day Event.” March 17, 2026. Photograph.
Human Rights Watch. 2018. “Palestine: Authorities Crush Dissent.” October 23, 2018.
Human Rights Watch. 2023. “Hamas-Led October 7 Assault on Israel.” December 2023.
International Court of Justice. 2024. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (South Africa v. Israel): Order on Provisional Measures. January 26, 2024.
Khalidi, Rashid. 2020. The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Kinealy, Christine. 1994. This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845–52. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan.
New York City Mayor’s Office. 2026. “Transcript: Mayor Mamdani Hosts Breakfast to Celebrate Saint Patrick’s Day.” March 17, 2026.
Ó Gráda, Cormac. 2009. Famine: A Short History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Reuters. 2026. “West Bank Displacement and Settlement Expansion Report.” March 2026.
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). 2026.
Humanitarian Situation Report, March 6, 2026. New York: United Nations.
U.S. Department of Justice. 2023. “Addressing Anti-Semitic, Anti-Arab, Anti-Muslim, and Anti-Palestinian Hate Crimes.” October 2023.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. 2023. Holocaust Encyclopedia.
Robinson, Mary. 2025. “Statements on the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict and Global Human Rights.” The Elders.
Comments