'Note' by Thomas J. Horan

Dr. Chaim Weizmann,¹ President of the State of Israel, to which we have accorded de facto recognition, died on Sunday last, 9th November, 1952. On that day the Minister addressed a message to the Minister of Foreign Affairs at Tel Aviv conveying sympathy with him, his colleagues and the relatives of Dr. Weizmann on the death of their ‘great leader and statesman’.

It will be observed that in the message which was sent the phrase ‘your colleagues’ was used instead of ‘the Government of Israel’. Neither did the message refer to Dr. Weizmann as ‘President of Israel’ but simply, ‘Dr. Weizmann’ the ‘great leader and statesman’.

The Press has so far given no indication of when the funeral will be held, but presumably it will be held next Sunday, 16th November, 1952, for on that day it has been announced in the Press that a Service will be held in the Synagogue at Adelaide Road.

It is a point for consideration whether there should be any official representation at that service in the Synagogue. On such occasions either the President, the Government, or the Minister for External Affairs, or all three could be represented.

It would not seem desirable that the President who, when he sends a message of sympathy on the occasion of the death of a Head of State or other distinguished person usually conveys not alone his own sympathy but also the sympathy of the people of Ireland, should be represented at this Service. On our advice the President did not send a message of sympathy on this occasion as in his lifetime Dr. Weizmann was not recognised as a Head of State by the President. The representative character of the President who, on such occasions, acts and speaks for the people of Ireland, must be borne in mind. We do not accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel and, while the question of the Holy Places has not been settled, there is, doubtless, a not inconsiderable proportion of our people who might not approve of the President’s being represented at such a Service. In view of these considerations, it seems clear to me that it would not be appropriate for the President to be represented at the Service in question.

I feel that the same considerations apply to the representation of the Government and that it would not be proper for them to be represented at the Service.

The question then is: Should the Minister be represented thereat? The main consideration for the sending by the Minister of a message of sympathy to the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Tel Aviv was the distinguished character of Dr. Weizmann, who was a leader of his people, the founder of Zionism, which eventually led to the foundation of the State of Israel, and an outstanding international personality. In view of these considerations, some expression of sympathy was called for on his death. Moreover, though we have not recognised the State of Israel solely because the question of the Holy Places has not been settled to the satisfaction of the vast majority of our people, nevertheless our relations with the State of Israel, to which we have formally given de facto recognition, are not unfriendly: some time ago we were even on the point of concluding a Trade Agreement with it. We have in this country a Jewish Community, all, or nearly all, of whom are Irish citizens and whose relations with their fellow citizens are extremely harmonious. Moreover, a member of the Jewish community, Deputy Briscoe,² is a member of Dáil Éireann. Though the Jewish Community are nearly all Irish citizens, they, no doubt, feel sympathetically disposed towards the State of Israel and its Government and all of them almost certainly regard the late Dr. Weizmann as President of that State and an outstanding leader of the Jewish people everywhere in the world.

Doubtless, they would not be displeased if there were some official representation at the Service; whether they would expect any official representation is a matter on which it is not possible for me to express an opinion. The Minister might feel disposed to consult Deputy Briscoe on this point since he is a member of the Jewish Community and presumably is in a position to interpret their views and feelings.

On the other hand, we must not overlook the possibility that any official representation at the Service might be unfavourably viewed by a not inconsiderable body of opinion in this country. Indeed, such representation might be liable to be misconstrued and imply a degree of recognition of the State of Israel which we do not accord. On this point the Minister might feel disposed to ask for the views of the Political Division.

Should the Minister decide to be represented, he could be represented by Deputy Briscoe, who is a member of the Jewish Community and who, it may be assumed, will in any event attend the Service.

The British Embassy have enquired whether the Minister will attend or be represented at the Service, for, if so, the British Ambassador, they say, would feel obliged to attend also, or to be represented.

The British Embassy have also enquired whether there will be any half-masting of Flags on the day of the funeral. I have intimated to them that I do not think so. It seems to me, however, that a gesture of sympathy in the matter of the half-masting of Flags would not be inappropriate, and we could, on the day of the funeral half-mast the Flag on a building, e.g. Government Buildings, where Flags are normally flown. However, if the funeral takes place on a Sunday Flags are not normally flown on these buildings and I would see no necessity in the circumstances to half-mast them on such a day.