EU response to Gaza
Sir, – On Saturday, July 19th, 70,000 people took to our streets in solidarity with our brutalised Palestinian friends whose incessant, unremitting suffering is a blot on our collective humanity.
Prior to the election, our Government gave assurances of firm and swift action, assurances which have now been whittled down to vague expressions of hope for a united European response to the critical situation in Gaza.
Many Irish people will be completely underwhelmed by the joint statement released on July 21st by 17 EU countries, eight international foreign ministers and one European commissioner whose brief includes crisis management. The statement calls for an end to the war in Gaza and asks that Israel lifts restrictions on the flow of aid, enabling the UN and others to do their work effectively.
RM Block
Two days ago the residency permit of the senior United Nations officer for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the West Bank and Gaza, Jonathan Whittall, was revoked, and the office will have to leave Jerusalem. This follows the ban on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency on spurious grounds; because of the weak wording of this statement to which Ireland is a signatory, Israel will continue to act with impunity. – Yours, etc,
CAITRIONA LAWLOR,
Mount Merrion,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Less than a week ago, the EU foreign ministers again baulked at sanctioning Israel for breaches of human rights obligations, under the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Despite being given a range of options for action to sanction Israel, from full cessation of the agreement to lesser sectoral actions, the foreign ministers instead chose the path of least resistance: to ask Israel to provide more aid, which they would monitor.
On Monday, July 21st, 25 countries issued a statement condemning the “inhumane killing of civilians” seeking aid through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), going on to urge the Israeli government to “immediately lift restrictions on the flow of aid and to urgently enable the UN and humanitarian NGOs to do their life saving work safely and effectively” (“Israel expands Gaza assault, striking WHO building”, Irish Times, 22nd July). A statement Israel and its US ally condemned, and by implication have ignored.
What beggars belief is that 17 signatories of this latest statement, are members of the EU. The EU foreign ministers are all very keen to have their “strong” words recorded (covering their backsides), yet when the opportunity presented itself for direct, concrete and meaningful actions in sanctioning Israel were before them they yet again remained spineless; an absolute failure of leadership. – Yours, etc,
PHILIP BRADY,
Donnycarney,
Dublin.
NI Legacy Act
Sir, – Thank you for your comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of the controversy surrounding the Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy and Reconciliation Act.
You mention the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal’s decision in Dillon et al and point out that the court found the ability of the new Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) to grant amnesty to those who co-operate with it is “incompatible” with obligations under article two of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is also important to note that the court held the ICRIR process failed to comply with human rights requirements related to the participation of the next of kin in investigations and the power of the Northern Ireland Secretary of State to withhold sensitive information from them. That may be why just a small percentage of families whose loved ones were killed during the Troubles have engaged with the ICRIR. – Yours, etc,
EDWARD M NEAFSEY,
Avon,
New Jersey,
USA.
Underdogs and the vanquished
Sir, – Henceforth, when an underdog enters the fray, and is assumed beaten half way through the contest, but against all odds emerges as a victor, this underdog should be credited with the accolade of “Doing a Tipperary”. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL GREENE,
Spiddal,
Co Galway.
Sir, – I think it is so sad for the thousands of Cork fans who travelled to Croke Park to cheer on their team on Sunday, as well as everyone in the county who could not attend, that the players, managers, coaches etc made a decision not to have a welcome home event. Yes, they were beaten but a “thank you” to the supporters would have served them well. – Yours, etc,
LAURA O’MARA,
Stillorgan,
Co Dublin.
Role of the media
Sir, – Listening to The Irish Times podcast this week, I was reminded of the image of surgeons calmly discussing a patient’s worsening condition without ever considering whether they might be part of what’s keeping the patient sick.
The podcast offered reflections on several fronts: that public support for the Occupied Territories Bill is waning, with the implicit concern being not human rights but the possible wrath of the US economy; that the Government remains buoyant in the polls despite housing shortages and rising student fees; and that perhaps we’ve all just absorbed a sense that nothing will change. These insights were delivered with the usual polish, but absent from the conversation was any serious reflection on the media’s own role in constructing these public moods.
When the public doesn’t seem angry, when flawed policy garners little resistance, and when market fears are elevated above international law, the media cannot pretend it is a neutral observer. How we frame debates, whose voices we centre, what gets downplayed or normalised over time, these are not minor editorial choices. They shape the terrain on which politics plays out.
It is not enough to analyse public sentiment as though it emerges in a vacuum. To treat support for the Government as a curious social phenomenon, divorced from the steady drumbeat of headlines, commentary and omissions, is to miss the forest for the trees. It is, frankly, irresponsible for commentators so central to Ireland’s media ecosystem to ask, “Why are people not angrier?” without turning that question inward.
If we are serious about understanding political apathy, ambient frustration or misplaced priorities, we need space in Irish media to interrogate how journalism itself contributes to them. Not just in moments of crisis, but through years of framing and repetition. – Yours, etc,
GLENN FITZPATRICK,
Drimnagh,
Dublin.
Planning nostalgia
Sir, – That a single 22-storey tower in Dublin’s urban core warrants 1,800 words of hand-wringing tells you everything about how distorted the city’s planning discourse has become. Frank McDonald’s lament (Ticket, July 19th) reflects the same persistent nimbyism that helped engineer Ireland’s housing crisis. For decades, he has resisted height, density and modernity in the name of “character”, while rents soared and supply stagnated.
Meanwhile, Copenhagen – a city founded by the same Vikings who settled Dublin – has become a global exemplar of urban planning, design, and livability. It integrates bold architecture with historic fabric, embraces vertical growth in the right places (like the 29-storey Bohrs Tårn in central Copenhagen), and consistently ranks among the world’s best cities to live in.
Dublin, by contrast, clings to Georgian silhouettes as if British rule were a planning requirement. McDonald’s nostalgia is touching, but it won’t house nurses, teachers, or young families. Nor will Dublin’s sacred “vistas”, if left unchallenged, solve the city’s generational affordability crisis. Every great city has outgrown its original silhouette. Dublin’s refusal isn’t charm, it’s paralysis with real human cost. – Yours, etc,
EVAN CAMPBELL,
Harcourt Street,
Dublin 2.
Slurry not success
Sir, – Eamon Ryan writes (“Courts are the front line of the climate fight”, Opinion, July 22nd) that Irish farmers used 30 per cent less fertiliser in the first year of the Ukraine war and still maintained productivity, suggesting this as evidence of what is possible when we act sustainably.
But the 30 per cent reduction refers only to chemical fertiliser and was largely driven by big price increases, not policy or principle. At the same time Irish farmers continued to benefit from a special EU derogation allowing slurry to be spread at rates of up to 250kg of nitrogen per hectare, well above the standard EU limit of 170kg.
If yields were maintained, it likely reflects not a leap in efficiency, but rather the fact that fertiliser was being overapplied to begin with and a simple switch from chemical fertiliser to slurry.
Given that nitrate pollution from slurry spreading is now contaminating drinking water supplies, with many communities relying on bottled drinking water, it is misleading to present this as a climate success story. – Yours, etc,
PAUL O’SHEA,
Planet before Profit CLG,
Shankill,
Dublin.
Votes for the diaspora
Sir, – Gáibhin McGranaghan (Letters, July 22nd) excoriates Mary Hanafin for her suggestion on denying extending the voting in the presidential election to those living in Northern Ireland.
He notes that 141 countries allow presidential voting rights as his reason. I presume he realises that those countries allow “all” expats to vote.
His stance for Northern Ireland only, would seek to deny me as an expat, living in the UK, the right to vote, along with all Irish people spread around the world.
Should it be voting for all Irish nationals outside the State or none, or do I and the diaspora not have the same rights he aspires to have?
Distance from Ireland should not be an issue, after all is not Liverpool euphemistically known as Ireland’s second city. – Yours, etc,
JOHN BERGIN,
Wirral,
England.
Taxing Ireland
Sir, – Fintan O’Toole makes the case for widening the tax base (“Magic coins fill the coffers of paranormal Ireland”, Opinion, July 22nd), given we can’t always rely on the corporation tax windfall.
He ignores the fact that Ireland already has a very progressive tax base. He also overlooks the fact that Irish people pay for many essential items, which are typically covered by the state in other European countries.
Take healthcare. Approximately 50 per cent of the Irish population holds private health insurance, as they recognise it’s practically impossible to access the public health system. Even with that, the average Irish person pays €70 to see a doctor – if they can find one. They will still pay the majority of the cost of seeing a private consultant because if they waited for a public one, they might expire. Healthcare isn’t a luxury.
Secondly, school costs were borne mainly by Irish parents until recently. It took the Irish State a hundred years to provide free schoolbooks to its citizens. However, even today, most schools cannot survive without parental subsidies. Most parents who want an educational assessment must go privately due to excessively long waiting times.
So, before O’Toole calls for broadening the tax base, he might acknowledge that Irish people are paying de facto extra taxes. – Yours, etc,
BARRY HAZEL,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.
