Case against Israel may have a wider impact
THE case being taken by South Africa at the International Court of Justice against Israel under the Genocide Convention could have implications for the governments of other countries.
In addition to defining genocide and specifying the duties of all states and individuals to prevent genocide, Article III of the Convention states: ‘The following acts shall be punishable: Article III (e) Complicity in genocide.’
In addition to the United States, Britain and other countries that are actively supporting the Israeli bombardment, ethnic cleansing, and killing and injuring of tens of thousands of Palestinian people, the Irish Government has been facilitating United States military support for Israel by allowing aircraft associated with the US military to transit from the States to the Middle East by refuelling at Shannon Airport and by transiting through Irish airspace.
Other neutral countries such as Austria and Switzerland do not allow such US military transit flights. The transit of such aircraft through Shannon and Irish airspace has continued since October 7, 2023, although the US military has no logistical need to travel through or over Ireland, except, arguably, to make this country complicit in its military actions in the Middle East and elsewhere. EDWARD HORGAN, Castletroy, Limerick.
Atheist riposte
IN REPLY to Richard Sirot (Letters), I did not refer to Christianity as a foolish belief system.
The point I was making was that if one believes in things that do not comport with reality, such as talking snakes and resurrections (or, indeed, fairies and unicorns), one is gullible by definition.
Theists are not necessarily unintelligent; they simply have not developed their critical thinking skills in one area, namely that of their religion.
I did not comment on the Koran because, unlike the Bible, I have not read it. But I would imagine its claims of divine origin are as lacking in proof as those of the Bible.
And, ironically, my first name is not actually Christopher. CHRISTIAN GREEN,
by email.
Parking rip-off
IN 2018 the HSE undertook a national review of car parking charges. It ultimately recommended a maximum daily rate of €10 to park at a hospital. More than that, the review said there should be further concessions for regular patients.
Let’s stop and think of the many people having to deal with chronic illness, or illness within their own family. I am heartbroken to think of the many patients being fleeced in our hospital car parks.
That same review also found funding of about €4.75million would be required to offset the reduction in income for hospitals as a result of these changes.
That was back in 2018. Recent reports now indicate that nothing has happened on foot of that recommendation. Not a single thing. In fact, it’s been ignored for so long, the HSE has to go back and do the maths all over again.
It all beggars belief because if you think about this issue morally, compassionately and humanely, it should have been an absolute piece of cake to resolve. A cap on hospital car parking charges, for people with cancer or their families, seems like a no-brainer.
Of course hospitals do need to be reimbursed and that’s where that €4.75million figure comes from. These onerous charges are something that would have a huge impact on the lives and the finances of parents who have a child with cancer.
A pensioner with a chronic illness who has weekly hospital appointments or a young man or woman who is in and out of hospital for dialysis to deal with organ failure would be unfairly charged for parking their car. All these people surely have enough to be dealing with without having to worry about the cost of parking.
To have to continually fork out to park one’s car as a prelude to a hospital treatment is to me beyond the pale. This is egregious, awful and shocking. All I can say to the Government is: ‘Actions speak louder than words.’ JOHN O’BRIEN, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary.