Was Bono morally wrong to accept a US medal of freedom? It's not that simple
Bono
has got plenty of abuse over a 40-year career straddling pop and politics. So the heat he has been feeling over his stance, or lack of stance, over
Israel-Palestine
must come as no surprise. The role the
U2
frontman played in Northern Ireland politics featured in the recent BBC series Simon Schama's Story of Us in which the British historian also examined the pressure put on
Seamus Heaney
to take sides in the Troubles. Bono defended Heaney's refusal to engage in political rhetoric, saying 'he is trying to get you away from the obvious topsoil; he is saying: dig deeper into who you are'.
Bono took a more literal approach on the North, repeatedly condemning both republican and loyalist violence, and pouring scorn on those misty-eyed Irish Americans who helped to fund the
IRA
's bombing campaigns. On the Middle East, he has been studiously even-handed. In an
article in The Atlantic
timed for publication with his receipt of the US presidential medal of freedom in January, Bono wrote 'freedom must come for the Israeli hostages' but also 'Israel will never be free until Palestine is free'.
Such comments cut little ice with critics of Bono's decision to accept the award from
Joe Biden
, with several peers in the music industry
accusing him of selling out
. Bono's purported crime was one of omission, not of commission. He should have turned the award down, critics say. Failing that, he should have used the opportunity to condemn Biden over America's arming of Israel. In short, the problem was not that Bono did something; it's that he did
not
do something.
It's perfectly legitimate to criticise someone over an act of omission. However, the moral calculation appears to be more opaque, because for every act you perform there are an unlimited number of acts you don't perform.
READ MORE
Sins of omission are central to a new critique of the left by Eric Heinze. In his latest book, Coming Clean: The Rise of Critical Theory and the Future of the Left, the London-based law professor examines a key contribution that liberals have made to our understanding of the world. Critical theory is the name given to a school of thought that places current affairs in the context of inherited power dynamics or systemic injustices.
A boy and a girl sit by the ruins of a destroyed building in Gaza City. Photograph: Omar al-Qattaa/AFP via Getty
Heinze thinks critical theory is a good thing but believes it should be applied consistently. In recent years, left-wing activists have championed social reforms through scrutiny of structural biases and 'histories of racism and colonialism' – the #MeToo movement, Black Lives Matter and LGBT+ solidarity can be seen as products of critical theory. But Heinze wants us to look at all histories, not just those in which the villains are pale-skinned western European men.
He brings the critique to bear on the Middle East, saying 'either all these histories [of discrimination] are relevant or none of them are'. There should be no free pass, he suggests, for activists who are 'insisting that they have no truck with Hamas,
Hizbullah
, Iranian mullahs ... or other such entities' but who 'ultimately recapitulate these entities' stances on Israel, again with little reference to a long history on the left of supporting repressive powers'.
Speaking to The Irish Times, Heinze says he is not trying to call out hypocrisy – this can be found across the political spectrum. Nor is he trying to answer 'who was worse?', left or right? Rather he argues 'that once we start down this road of critical history then, by definition, we cannot pick and choose only the histories that advance our preferred political aims'.
'So yes,' he says, 'it is legitimate to examine
Gaza
with reference to generations of Euro-American imperialism, neocolonialism, capitalism, and racism. But then we must equally examine it with reference to the devastatingly violent and repressive role played, for example, by a Kremlin that, for decades, enjoyed at least overall legitimacy if not zealous support from major currents on the left.'
Cases of anti-Semitism are sometimes reduced to 'the actions of only a small minority and not the real left', he writes, but 'this is not a distinction that leftists ordinarily draw'. He cites the examples of George Floyd and Stephen Lawrence, murder victims in the US and UK respectively, who 'are seen on the left as victims not of a small minority of racists but of broader, unconscious, and structural biases'.
[
Unthinkable: In times of war, 'we have a duty to hope, as without hope all is lost'
Opens in new window
]
Heinze's thesis acts as important corrective – even if it does run the risk of being reduced to 'whataboutery'. Not the usual 'whataboutery' where ideological foes list off opposing atrocities. But rather a 'whataboutery' that says you need to demonstrate sufficient self-scrutiny of your ideological biases before I'll bother listening to you. (Heinze does not advocate this stance but there are prominent commentators on both the left and the right who do.)
[
Unthinkable: Why free speech should be the most highly valued human right
Opens in new window
]
Some may feel that the scale of horror in the world today calls not for humility nor self-examination but rather pure anger. But Schama reminds us of Heaney's example. Amid 'the din of shouting, cursing and mutual hatred', the historian observes, Heaney was committed to a belief 'that we have more in common' than in contrast – and that this can be revealed by digging deeper 'into who you are'. Schama says: 'Right now what the world feeds on is exactly what Seamus Heaney didn't do, in other words, being installed in mutually warring tribal camps and degrading your enemy.'
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
Sarah Harte: The Government cannot continue to pay lip service to atrocities in Gaza
There are many other conflicts in the world, such as the humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan. Yet, we find commonalities in our shared history with the Palestinians. This can be linked to what Fintan Drury, in his new book, Catastrophe Nakba II, terms us being 'indelibly marked by the experience of being colonised by Britain'. The folk memory of the famine that transformed Ireland lives on, when entire communities were wiped out, which perhaps heightens our reaction to the current famine in Gaza, including the nightly images of emaciated children and starving babies. As TCD academic Brendan Ciarán Browne has written, blockaded humanitarian aid trucks waiting to get into Gaza should remind us of British colonial ships laden with crops and livestock departing our shores while our ancestors at home starved. So, we, the Irish people, empathise with the Palestinians. Still, as international agencies operating in Gaza have run out of superlatives to describe the hell there, hard questions are being asked of many European governments, including our own. The Germans are struggling with reconciling the genocidal ideology that paved the way for the mass genocide of European Jews, and their response to the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Many German Jewish writers have objected to the conflation of antisemitism and criticism of Israel (as have scores of intellectual Jewish thinkers), and they have suffered as a result, including being defunded and not awarded literary prizes. Small potatoes, you say, but not if it's your livelihood. In that situation, the moral luxury of commenting becomes costly. Spare a thought for the many Jewish people, who abhor the genocide in Palestine. To ever escape a cycle of violence necessitates acknowledging suffering on 'the other side'. What must that be like, go to bed, turn off the light, and be left trying to square the outsized tragedy of your past, the visceral fear the Hamas attack on October 7 provoked, with knowledge of the massacre and famine in Gaza supposedly carried out in your name? Tide may be turning in Germany The tide may finally be turning in Germany. Last week, its foreign minister Johann Wadephul warned that the fight 'against antisemitism…and full support for….the state of Israel must not be instrumentalised for the conflict and the warfare currently being waged in the Gaza Strip'. He said they are thinking carefully about what 'further steps to take'. They need to hurry up. Of course, many Western countries persist in seeing only what they want to see about the current phase of the Zionist mission. A question that must be posed to the Irish Government is what concrete steps they are going to take to object to the complete annihilation of the Palestinian people? Omar Shaban is the founder of Palthink for Strategic Studies and a senior analyst and development expert with extensive experience in Palestine. Mr Shaban has led humanitarian and emergency programmes for Catholic Relief Services in Gaza for 10 years and worked with UNRWA for another 10. He was born and lives in Gaza. Mr Shaban suggests that the Irish Government request that EU states stop supplying arms to the Israeli military. The Social Democrats in Germany have just called for the German arms exports to Israel to be halted to avoid German complicity in war crimes. Germany is the second-largest weapons supplier to Israel after the US. He asks that the Irish Government work to pressure Israel to open the Rafah crossing with Egypt to allow patients, injured children and their families to be evacuated. It doesn't seem like a lot to ask. He advocates that Ireland works closely with other EU states that share the same position to declare a clear joint statement asking Israel to stop the war immediately and to allow the flow of aid through international organisations such as UNRWA and WFP. This statement should include an ultimatum that if Israel doesn't do this, then the EU will impose trade sanctions. The EU can suspend sections of the EU-Israel Trade Agreement under Article 2. According to European Commission statistics, the EU is Israel's biggest trading partner. Some 34.2% of Israel's imports came from the EU, while 28.8% of the country's exports went to the EU. Of course, practically, that leaves our government with a problem. As reported in The Irish Examiner last week, Ireland is Israel's second-largest trading partner. Israel's exports to Ireland have exploded since 2021. As Patrick Bresnihan and Patrick Brodie exposed, for all our performative statements, meaningful sanctions on the Israeli economy would jeopardise our economic position. As reported, the vast majority of what we are buying are 'electronic integrated circuits and microassemblies,' mainly used in tech and pharmaceutical manufacturing. Ambassador Adel Atieh, who lives in Ramallah, is the director of the European Affairs Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Palestine. He suggests that if the EU Council fails to take responsibility for reviewing the EU-Israel association agreement, and if the European Commission continues to neglect its legal obligations regarding agreements with Israel, Ireland should consider asking the European Court of Justice to investigate and provide a legal opinion. Furthermore, Ireland should issue a public warning to settlers holding Irish citizenship, urging them to withdraw immediately from settlements due to their involvement in war crimes and crimes against humanity. Mr Atieh says that this stance could encourage other EU member states to adopt similar positions, potentially leading to the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of settlers from the West Bank. This month, the UN General Assembly will vote on granting Palestine full membership status. Even if a US veto blocks Palestinian statehood at the Security Council, the General Assembly retains a critical pathway through the 'Uniting for Peace' resolution. This mechanism allows the Assembly to convene an emergency session when the Council fails to act due to a veto, and to recommend collective measures. Our Government must exert public pressure on other countries to accede to this. Silence of Irish professional bodies Back home on Irish soil, the questions for our government extend to professional medical bodies, including the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO) and the Irish Hospital Consultants Association (IHCA). The management of their relationships with Israeli counterparts and their deafening silence in calling out the genocide, as I've written before, raises serious questions about them. Dr Angela Skuse, a GP working in Inclusion Health in Dublin with homeless people, says none of the Irish medical organisations have issued a statement that includes the words 'genocide' or 'Israel'. Any statements issued have been careful not to 'take sides', and as Dr Skuse said, could equally refer to a natural disaster. 'Why is the medical profession so silent? Doctors are one of the most trusted professions. If we won't speak out and say that it's wrong, that it's a genocide and Israel is committing it — who will?' She adds that hundreds of healthcare workers have been murdered. Trinity College has just ended academic co-operation with Israeli institutions. The medical organisations should follow its lead and expel Israel from the World Health Organization and the World Medical Association. Ultimately, it will never be enough for the Irish Government (or professional bodies) to mouth support for international law from the sidelines. If we do nothing concrete, we engage in a problematic form of empathy or virtue signalling. Just as many Jewish people have the hardest of choices about whether to speak up, we and other Europeans are presented with choices too. The question is, what choices will our Government make in our name?
Irish Examiner
an hour ago
- Irish Examiner
Why is it so difficult to discuss genocide?
Genocide. It's a difficult word. It's a triggering word. Even a dangerous word. One that is used frivolously and vexaciously in equal measure. It is a loaded word. Sometimes loaded with moral indignation and sanctimonious tartuffery. But it is a word that should be handled with great care and respect. Because it is a legal word. It carries legal weight and meaning with precise terms and conditions attached. To use it otherwise, is to do a great disservice to those who have suffered or are suffering from the hands of genocide and also to those who have fought to have it accepted into modern international legal practice. The International Criminal Court (ICC) as we know it today, first established by international agreement under the Rome Statute of 1998, holds the legal jurisdiction over genocide, amongst other international crimes. The statute mirrors many other international agreements and codes of practice which have established binding principles between countries, such as the Geneva Convention 1949, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. There are others. They address the most serious crimes of international concern that affects the human race, complementing national laws. However, they are founded on the same single principle of what it means to be human. Workers collect human remains after an Israeli strike on a home in Khan Younis killed nine of a doctor's 10 children while she was at work in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip, last month. Photo: Gaza Civil Defense via AP As fellow citizens of our planet, we, the homo sapiens have decided collectively what we will not allow or should not allow to happen to our fellows. For one reason only — that we are human. Unfortunately, these laws and code are only 'agreements' between parties, often tenuous and delicate depending on the government of the day in each country. They lack any real or meaningful power to uphold a decision by the ICC or equivalent, outside of the national laws. Compliance is key. Additionally, countries signed to such agreements, though not under investigation, must also comply with the directions of the ICC within the appropriate jurisdiction. However, countries do not have to agree to be governed by this or any other statute and, may depart from it ad hoc, as seen recently by Hungary. Proof of intention Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute govern the crimes of genocide, crimes against Humanity and the Laws of War respectively. Like many serious crimes, there is a separation between the act itself (actus reus) and the intention or guilty mind behind the act (mens rea). The Actus Reus is usually self-evident with much overlap between the individual Articles. Reasonable doubt about what happened is not often at issue. For criminal acts governed by Articles 7 and 8, the proof that they occurred is enough, subject to certain conditions. However, acts within the meaning of genocide require further proof of intent. Article 6 states: 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group'. Motivation is irrelevant, as there is no justification for such intent. Once the act is proved, there follows the onus to prove intention or the purpose behind the atrocity. This is the most challenging part. Aggressors will attempt to justify the act, but as stated, there is no acceptable justification for such intent. Propaganda Instead, we typically see a greying or obfuscation of the facts and a blurring of the lines around truth. This is propaganda. Propaganda drives war and conflict, because it falsely justifies its continuation. So important is propaganda for the survival of a war effort, that any attempt to counter it, is typically met with aggression and labelling often with threatening overtures. This in turn silences people. Silenced out of fear. Fear and silence in turn sustain the propaganda, perpetuating it, akin to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thus, a 'new truth' evolves. Well-intentioned people are too often afraid to use the word 'genocide' with all its implications, out of fear of an aggressive backlash. They are likely to be labelled as 'against' the higher moral cause as professed by the propaganda machine. The war supporters will attempt to justify their acts, supported by institutions of power. Because it serves a cause, separate to, but requiring the genocide for completion. People and countries are fearful of being labelled as 'against' the aggressor's cause which in turn automatically associates them 'with' or at least 'sympathetic' towards an 'enemy'. It is simplified as a binary, albeit delinquent philosophy of 'either with us or against us'. Silence Reasonable people want to speak out in support of the truth. In support of humanity. Remaining silent, or silenced, is often easier, less risky and a path of lowest resistance, than to be labelled as something which they are not. Derogatory 'labels' often carry associations of enormous historical proportions. Governments too, often remain silent than to risk international condemnation. Thus, our collective conscience is silenced. Silenced by defamatory name-calling. But, this is of no concern to the perpetrators of the genocidal acts. Silence is the goal. Silence comes from fear, and fear is powerful. The same weaponisation of fear is seen throughout all crimes and taboos. Domestic violence, child abuse, institutional abuse, gang violence. Morgan McMonagle: 'As fellow citizens of our planet, we, the homo sapiens have decided collectively what we will not allow or should not allow to happen to our fellows. For one reason only — that we are human.'. Picture: Denis Minihane Silence is the weapon. If propaganda drives it, then fear and silence sustains it. Nourishes it. And truth is suppressed. Silence prevents advocacy. Advocacy for the facts and the truth. It stops us from upholding the values of what being human really means. Its values. Its morals. This in turn dehumanises a group of people and, subconsciously, our own moral compass too. Both the victims and the perpetrators are dehumanised, while we, the onlookers turn a blind eye and remain silent. As humanitarians, we carry the responsibility to advocate. We advocate for nothing but the truth. Real and meaningful advocacy is not about blame. It is about utilising our responsibility to speak out for the truth, regardless of the purpose or motivation of any other party in an armed conflict. Truth advocacy is the antidote to the fear and the silence. To deny truth is to deny justice. And to deny justice is to deny what it really means to be human. Morgan McMonagle is a trauma, vascular and humanitarian surgeon at University Hospital Waterford, Ireland and St Mary's Hospital & Imperial Healthcare London. He is fellowship trained in trauma surgery from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA and recently gave the prestigious George H. Clowes, Jr Trauma Lecture and Visiting Professorship at Boston University and Boston Medical Centre in May 2025, where he lectured on the ongoing issues surrounding current world conflicts. He has been on several humanitarian missions to conflict zones, including Ukraine, Lebanon and most recently Gaza, when the recent ceasefire was breached and Nasser Hospital targeted by a missile strike. He continues to advocate for the truth during war and conflict. He is also a law graduate from the Honourable Society of King's Inns, Dublin. Read More Famine in Gaza is hardening rhetoric in Israel
Irish Examiner
an hour ago
- Irish Examiner
Central Bank 'cannot impose sanctions' on Israel, Oireachtas committee to hear
The head of the Central Bank is to tell politicians that it cannot refuse to approve the sale of Israeli war bonds despite mounting pressure to do so. Gabriel Makhlouf will say that the Central Bank is required to approve a prospectus where it meets the standards of completeness, consistency, and comprehensibility under the legislation. "Our legal obligations are clear and we do not need guidance to follow them," he is due to tell the Oireachtas Finance Committee on Wednesday. "The law is also clear that, by approving a prospectus, the Central Bank does not endorse the issuer and does not endorse the securities. "Rather, it means the Central Bank is satisfied that the issuer has disclosed the required information, in the required manner, to potential purchasers of the securities, so that investors can make their own informed investment decision." Mr Makhlouf will say that claims that the Central Bank could refuse to approve the Israeli bond prospectus on the basis of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) provisional rulings in the ongoing South Africa case is "incorrect". "The Central Bank cannot decide to impose sanctions for breaches or alleged breaches of international law," he is expected to tell the committee. Meanwhile, the Government will not be supporting a cross-party motion demanding the Central Bank end the facilitation of Israeli war bonds and will instead table its own counter motion. Calls to provide Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael TDs with a free vote on a motion supported by four opposition parties have also been ignored by the coalition parties ahead of a Dáil debate on Wednesday. The Social Democrats, Sinn Féin, Labour, and People Before Profit-Solidarity have united behind the motion that demands that the Government enact emergency legislation to explicitly force the Central Bank to stop facilitating the sale of Israel Bonds. It also calls on the coalition to advise the bank that "by acting as the enabling cog in Israel's fund-raising machine in the EU it is putting the State at risk of a charge of complicity in genocide". Read More Irish Medical Organisation joins calls for Government to help get aid to people in Gaza
