The Israel-Hamas conflict

Humanitarian crisis

Sir, – The main justification for the current Israeli military action affecting the hospitals in Gaza is that they are legitimate military targets, due to the presence of Hamas’s military infrastructure, in, near and under the same hospitals. Hamas has consistently denied these claims. One solution might be to send in international verification teams to establish if the Israeli claims are true or not. This would require local ceasefires or humanitarian pauses. Ideally it should be a UN mission comprising personnel from experienced peacekeeping nations, such as Ireland, from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, particularly the US, and Arab nations from countries with ties to the Palestinian Authority. If the Israeli claims are upheld, Hamas fighters should be given an opportunity to evacuate under a flag of truce, and UN protection, to a country prepared to accept them. Terms and conditions should apply.

If the claims are false, Israel should cease all military action in the designated areas and facilitate humanitarian support to flow to the hospitals.

Bringing war criminals to justice should be left to the International Criminal Court. – Yours, etc,

Col DORCHA LEE,

READ MORE

(Retired),

Navan,

Co Meath.

Sir, – John Cushnahan proposes that the Taoiseach and Tánaiste have the “moral authority” to represent the views of the Irish people, given their “consistent stances” on human rights violations in the Middle East (Letters, November 14th).

On the contrary, Micheál Martin’s Fianna Fáil have demonstrated anything but a “consistent stance” on such matters. They promised to enact the Occupied Territories Bill – a modest measure to end Ireland’s complicity in gross state-sanctioned criminality – but then dropped in the final stages of the Programme for Government negotiations of summer 2020.

As for Leo Varadkar’s Fine Gael, their mantra that “trade is an exclusive EU competency” failed to answer the strong rebuttal of legal experts including Michael Lynn, senior counsel in Ireland, and Prof James Crawford of the University of Cambridge, senior counsel in the UK, that exceptions applied “on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security, and the protection of health and life of humans”.

And so, the produce of illegal settlements – be they Israel’s illegal colonies in the West Bank, or Morocco’s illegal outposts in Western Sahara – remains on Ireland’s supermarket shelves.

Voters assessing the current government’s performance on this pressing human rights issue should contrast the pre-election stance of Fianna Fáil candidates with the party’s subsequent failure to take any concrete action to tackle trade with illegal settlements, and should contrast Fine Gael’s stonewalling of the Occupied Territories Bill with their readiness to endorse a multifaceted boycott in response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion and occupation of neighbouring Ukraine. – Yours, etc,

BRIAN Ó ÉIGEARTAIGH,

Donnybrook,

Dublin 4.

Sir, – In his excellent article “Could a Holy Land confederation offer a path to peace?” (Opinion & Analysis, November 11th), Patrick Smyth concludes by writing that “In the end, geographical separation politically may be the only realistic way forward; a two-state solution the imperfect, least-worst option”. He may well be right. It is, however, important to consider all possible solutions.

The German-Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) was famously opposed to the establishment of a Jewish nation state in Palestine, and during the war she advocated for the inclusion of Palestine in a multiethnic federation. However, after 1948 Arendt endorsed a binational solution for Palestine.

Arendt was concerned above all with statelessness, something she experienced in her life, and the threat of violence. It is worth reminding ourselves of the last paragraph from her book On Violence (1969): “Again, we do not know where these developments will lead us, but we know, or should know, that every decrease in power is an open invitation to violence – if only because those who hold power and feel it slipping from their hands, be they the government or be they the governed, have always found it difficult to resist the temptation to substitute violence for it”. – Yours, etc,

Dr VITTORIO BUFACCHI,

Department of Philosophy,

University College Cork.

Sir, – On November 18th, 2022, a political declaration on strengthening the protection of civilians from the humanitarian consequences arising from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA) was presented in Dublin. It was formally endorsed by 83 countries, including the United States, UK, Germany and France, and a conference was held in Dublin to highlight this important moment.

The Irish Government had worked hard in the background to support this and make it a reality. It was seen as a a significant achievement. Article 2.6 of this declaration says: “We strongly condemn any attacks directed against civilians, other protected persons and civilian objects, including civilian evacuation convoys, as well as indiscriminate shelling and the indiscriminate use of explosive weapons.”

One year on, we might wonder did this really happen. How is it possible that so many of the countries who signed the declaration have not taken major issue with the relentless bombing of Gaza and the mass deaths of civilians?

Indeed we might wonder has our own Government has forgotten about its own endorsement of the declaration and the commitment to implement it. – Yours, etc,

EAMON RAFTER,

Booterstown,

Co Dublin.