Taoiseach backs existing Gaza aid agencies after EU official suggests helping Israel provide aid
TAOISEACH MICHEÁL MARTIN has pushed back on an EU offer to assist Israel in replacing aid agencies in Gaza, saying the role of UN agencies in delivering aid in Gaza 'cannot be replaced'.
His comments come today after two Irish MEPs described the offer from the European Union's top diplomat as
'utterly shameful' and 'against what we stand for'.
On Wednesday, the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas said she
had offered the Israeli Foreign Minister help
from the EU to 'distribute the humanitarian aid if they don't trust the other actors there.'
Asked about the comments today by
The Journal
, the Taoiseach said he had not seen the statement, but that 'the role of UN agencies cannot be, in my view, replaced, or shouldn't be.'
He said UNRWA, which is the UN's agency in Palestine, and the World Food Programme are both 'essential' in Gaza.
'UNRWA is a key agency in enabling humanitarian aid to get into Gaza. It has the scale and the capacity to do that,' he said.
The Taoiseach made the point that non-governmental aid agencies have the expertise that is needed to deliver aid and also have independence, which 'avoids the weaponisation of humanitarian aid'.
'And what Israel is essentially endeavouring to do, in my view, is to weaponise – well, it already has weaponised aid by refusing aid to go in.
'But if it now starts taking exclusive control of the distribution of aid, I have no doubt that that would involve further weaponisation of aid, and that's not acceptable,' the Taoiseach said.
The Taoiseach was joined in Arklow today by Fianna Fáil MEP Cynthia Ní Mhurchú.
Advertisement
Asked by
The Journal
if she agrees with her MEP colleague Barry Andrews, who said Israel's proposal 'undermines established humanitarian actors', Ní Mhurchhú said:
'I certainly would like to study further the comments of the High Commissioner. She's a very measured Commissioner, and to date, she has done great work.'
Ní Mhurchhú said she thinks there 'might be a misunderstanding of the move and the issuance of this utterance' and that she would like to look into it further.
'But I do think that any solo run, and Barry Andrews was quite right if he called it out in the manner in which he did…would have to be looked at very carefully in the context of the fact that the collegiate and the College of Commissioners, they have to work together.'
Ní Mhurchú added that Europe will be 'looking very carefully at any intervention, but I wouldn't like it categorised as a solo run on the part of Commissioner Kallas.'
Solo run
The Journal
understands that Kallas made the offer without consulting her colleagues and that her remarks do not reflect the EU's official position.
Irish MEPs spoke to
The Journal
and expressed concern about Kallas' offer of EU assistance.
'Rather than offering to assist in their plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza, the EU should be imposing the most severe sanctions on Israel, and leading calls for a permanent ceasefire,' said Sinn Féin MEP Lynn Boylan.
Fianna Fáil MEP Barry Andrews said: 'Israel's current proposal to bypass and undermine established humanitarian actors and take direct control of aid distribution is deeply alarming.'
Both MEPs said assisting Israel in taking over aid distribution would go against core humanitarian principles and undermine the work of the United Nations.
With reporting by David MacRedmond and Christina Finn.
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More
Support The Journal
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
an hour ago
- Irish Examiner
ieExplains: What is Trump's new travel ban, and which countries are affected?
Nearly five months into his second term, Donald Trump has announced a new sweeping travel ban that could reshape the US's borders more dramatically than any policy in modern memory. The restrictions, revealed through a presidential proclamation on Wednesday, would target citizens from more than a dozen countries — creating a three-tiered system of escalating barriers to entry. The proclamation represents one of the most ambitious attempts to reshape the US's approach to global mobility in modern history and potentially affects millions of people coming to the United States for relocation, travel, work or school. What is a travel ban? A travel ban restricts or prohibits citizens of specific countries from entering the United States. These restrictions can range from complete visa suspensions to specific limitations on certain visa categories. Trump's day one executive order required the state department to identify countries 'for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a partial or full suspension on the admission of nationals from those countries'. His travel ban proclamation referenced the previous executive order, as well as the recent attack by an Egyptian national in Boulder, Colorado, upon a group of people demonstrating for the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza. What is a presidential proclamation? A presidential proclamation is a decree that is often ceremonial or can have legal implications when it comes to national emergencies. Unlike an executive order, which is a directive to heads of agencies in the administration, the proclamation primarily signals a broad change in policy. Which countries are listed in the travel ban? The following countries were identified for total bans of any nationals seeking to travel to the US for immigrant or non-immigrant reasons: Afghanistan Myanmar Chad Republic of the Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Haiti Iran Libya Somalia Sudan Yemen Trump is also partly restricting the travel of people from: Burundi Cuba Laos Sierra Leone Togo Turkmenistan Venezuela Why were these countries chosen? The proclamation broadly cites national security issues for including the countries, but specifies a few different issues that reach the level of concern for the travel ban. For some countries, such as Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and Venezuela, the proclamation claims that there is no reliable central authority for issuing passports or screening and vetting nationals traveling out of the country. President Donald Trump speaks during a summer soiree on the South Lawn of the White House, Wednesday, June 4, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) For other countries, such as Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Burundi, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo and Turkmenistan, the proclamation cites a high rate of immigrants overstaying their business, tourist and student visas in the US. Finally, there are several countries that are included because of terrorist activity or state-sponsored terrorism, including Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia and Cuba. In the draft travel ban plans that were leaked in March, the original list contained 43 nations across three tiers of restrictions. Now the ban has been filtered down to 19 countries. Among the puzzling inclusions is Venezuela, which the White House says lacks competent document-issuing authorities. Trump has recently pursued a thaw in relations with the country that has proven useful to his deportation initiatives– though the country's inclusion is likely tied to Venezuelans already in the US who have been a clear target for the White House. How does this travel ban differ from the one in 2017? The 2017 ban initially targeted seven predominantly Muslim countries before expanding to include North Korea and Venezuela. This new proclamation is broader and also makes the notable addition of Haiti. During his 2024 campaign for the presidency, Trump amplified false claims made by his running mate, JD Vance, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were 'eating the pets of the people that live there'. The proclamation falsely claims that 'hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens flooded into the United States during the Biden administration' and this 'influx harms American communities'. In fact, about 200,000 Haitians were granted temporary protected status, which gives legal residency permits to foreign nationals who are unable to return home safely due to conditions in their home countries. Also notable are the restrictions on Afghans, given that many of the Afghans approved to live in the US as refugees were forced to flee their home country as a result of working to support US troops there, before the full withdrawal of US forces in 2021. The agreement with the Taliban to withdraw US troops was negotiated by Trump during his first term. Last month, the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, announced 'the termination of temporary protected status for Afghanistan', effective 20 May. The restrictions will be reviewed every 180 days for potential modification. How will visa holders be affected? The FIFA club World Cup trophy sits between President Donald Trump and FIFA President Gianni Infantino during a FIFA task force meeting on the 2026 FIFA World Cup in the East Room of the White House, Tuesday, May 6, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein) Current visa holders remain largely protected: the restrictions only apply to people outside the US without valid visas as of 9 June. No existing visas will be revoked, the White House said. But new visa applications from people from these countries will be suspended or severely limited, with some exceptions for diplomatic visas, immediate family members and cases involving US national interest – one such example being the World Cup and 2026 Olympics. For employers, the ban threatens significant workforce disruptions across the tech, healthcare and education sectors, with companies unable to hire from the 12 countries targeted by a full ban. For the seven countries on a partial ban, employers can still hire on some work visas but cannot sponsor green cards, and visas will have reduced durations. The impact could be particularly severe for international Stem talent, medical professionals and academic recruitment. The education and health industries alone employ about 5.5 million foreign-born workers. Read More Donald Trump signs order banning citizens of 12 countries from entering the US
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Corporate tax receipts drop 30% as Trump's tariffs bite
Corporate tax receipts fell by 30 per cent in May, amounting to a loss of over €1.1 billion when compared to the same month last year, amid signs US tariffs may be denting the profitability of multinationals in Ireland. The latest exchequer returns for May, published by the Department of Finance, indicated that the Government collected just under €2.5 billion in corporate taxes last month, compared to almost €3.6 billion in May last year. The department insisted, however, that 'once-off factors' had boosted receipts in May last year which distorted the year-on-year comparison. Nonetheless with most EU exports currently facing a 10 per cent levy in the US, possibly rising to 50 per cent if negotiations between Brussels and Washington fail, exporting companies here may be predicting lower earnings READ MORE [ Subscriber Only Opinion Ireland cannot base its economic strategy on the 'Taco' theory – Trump Always Chickens Out Opens in new window ] On a cumulative basis, receipts from the business tax were up by €1.1 billion at €7.4 billion but this reflects once-off revenues from the EU court ruling against Apple. When they are removed, corporate tax receipts to the end of May were down 9.4 per cent at €5.7 billion. Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe said: ' May is one of the more important months for tax revenues, and the steady growth in most tax headings points to an economy that is in a relatively good position." 'The most notable feature of the May exchequer returns was in respect of corporation tax, which saw a marked year-on-year drop,' he said. 'While this reflects once-off factors last year, it nonetheless highlights the degree of concentration in the corporate tax base, wherein a small number of multinational firms can significantly impact on the overall tax yield,' Mr Donohoe said. 'In a context of unprecedented uncertainty in the international economic landscape, this serves as a timely reminder of Ireland's exposure to changes in the global trading environment, and of the vital importance of adhering to a sensible and sustainable budgetary strategy,' he said. Overall the latest exchequer data show the Government collected €38.2 billion in tax revenue during the first five months of the year. This was up nearly €3 billion or 8.5 per cent on the same period last year aided by positive increases in income tax and VAT. Income tax receipts, the Government's largest tax channel, generated €14.5 billion, €630 million more than last year, reflecting the State's strong labour market. Separate figures, published on Thursday, put the headline rate of unemployment near a historic low of 4 per cent. VAT receipts for the year so far were also up by €600 million at €11.4 billion. The sales tax reflects consumer activity. On the spending side, total gross voted expenditure for the five-month period amounted to just under €42 billion, up by €3.1 billion (8.1 per cent) on last year and €37 million (0.1 per cent) behind profile. At a headline level, an exchequer surplus of €4 billion was recorded compared to a surplus of €0.8 billion last year, an improvement of €3.2 billion. Excluding the once-off receipts arising from the Apple tax case, the underlying surplus was €0.7 billion.
The Journal
2 hours ago
- The Journal
Hungary's infamous ban on LGBTQ+ content deemed to be violation of EU law
A HUNGARIAN LAW that harshly restricts access to LGBTQ-related content is a violation of European Union law, according to the Advocate General of the EU's Court of Justice. By banning content about LGBTQ+ sexualities and gender identities from being available to under-18s, Hungary is infringing on the treaty that sets out the EU's fundamental principles, the Advocate General's formal legal opinion stated. The Treaty of the European Union outlines that the EU is 'founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities'. By calling into question the equality of LGBTQ+ people, Hungary has 'negated' several of the EU's fundamental values, Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta said. It has also 'significantly deviated from the model of a constitutional democracy'. In 2021, Hungary's parliament passed a bill that effectively banned communicating with children and teenagers about sexual orientations and gender identities . The impacts affected education programmes, meaning students could not be educated about LGBTQ+ identities, and media like books and movies, including movies that depict LGBTQ+ being classified as 18+. The European Commission brought an infringement action before the Court of Justice against Hungary over the law and Ćapeta has now set out her legal opinion that the Court rule the action is well-founded. She said the legislation infringed on the freedom enshrined in EU law to provide and receive services. Advertisement It also interferes with fundamental rights protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, namely the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex and sexual orientation; respect for private and family life; freedom of expression and information; and the right to human dignity. Capéta said these interferences cannot be justified by the reasons put forward by Hungary, which tried to argue for the law on the basis of protection of the 'healthy development of minors' and the 'right of parents to raise their children according to their personal convictions'. The Advocate General said the Hungarian legislation is not limited to shielding minors from pornographic content, which was already prohibited by the law in Hungary prior to the 2021 legislation, and goes as far as prohibiting the portrayal of ordinary lives of LGBTQ+ people. She said that Hungary has not offered any proof of a potential risk of harm of content that portrays ordinary lives of LGBTQ+ people to the healthy development of minors and that consequently, its legislation is 'based on a value judgment that homosexual and non-cisgender life is not of equal value or status as heterosexual and cisgender life'. The EU legal system recognises that there can be different visions among member states about how common values should be implemented in practice, and that disagreements about fundamental rights should not result in a finding of an infringement of the Treaty of the European Union. However, Hungary's actions in this case are not a matter of a 'disagreement', Capéta said. She said that LGBTQ+ people being deserving of equal respect in member states is 'not open to contestation through dialogue'. She said: Disrespect and marginalisation of a group in a society are the 'red lines' imposed by the values of equality, human dignity and respect for human rights. As such, 'by calling into question the equality of LGBTI persons, Hungary is not demonstrating a disagreement or a divergence about the content of the values of the European Union'. 'Instead, that Member State has negated several of those fundamental values and, thus, has significantly deviated from the model of a constitutional democracy, reflected in Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union.' An Advocate General's opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice but gives the Court a proposed legal solution to cases it is responsible for. Related Reads 'Weeping for this country': Struggle continues in Hungary as Ireland joins Europe in stance against anti-LGBT+ bill The judges of the court are now beginning deliberations on the case. If the Court of Justice finds a member state has failed to fulfil obligations of EU law, the the country must comply with the Court's judgment 'without delay' or face further action like financial penalties. 'No place in the EU' Dávid Vig, director of Amnesty International Hungary, said the Advocate General's opinion 'made it clear the [anti-LGBTQ+] law has no place in Hungary and the European Union'. 'The discriminatory law violates several human rights and promotes the idea that the life of LGBTI people is not of equal value,' Vig said. In March of this year, the Hungarian parliament passed legislation that restricts freedom of assembly and consequently prohibited LGBTQ+ Pride marches . LGBTQ+ rights organisation ILGA-Europe said the today's opinion from the Advocate General should mean the anti-Pride legislation is also considered to be violating EU law. 'The AG's opinion is very clear in that Hungary breaches EU law and the Treaties by enacting the anti-LGBTI legislation from 2021,' said ILGA-Europe's advocacy director Katrin Hugendubel. 'The new package of amendments adopted this year to criminalise Pride marches and their organisers builds directly on that unlawful legislation and must therefore also be considered a violation of EU law.' Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
