Shane Ross: Simon Harris may live to regret hounding his Fianna Fáil colleagues over college fees and housing
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
11 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Will recognition of Palestine as a state make a real difference?
Analysis: The growing wave of recognition of Palestine marks a strategic turning point which could open new opportunities for Palestinian statehood The recent recognition of Palestine by France has attracted global attention and has subsequently influenced the stance of the UK, Canada and several EU member states. This follows the recognition of Palestine as a state by Ireland in May 2024. While most countries have welcomed these decisions, viewing them as important tools to pressure Israel to halt the genocide in Gaza, many pro-Palestinian groups see these acts of political recognition as merely symbolic and performative. The US and Israel oppose the recognition of Palestine, claiming it undermines rather than helps conflict resolution. Will this recent wave of recognition of Palestine make a real difference? From RTÉ Radio 1's This Week, will a promise by three G7 countries to recognise the State of Palestine change anything in Gaza? What does diplomatic recognition mean? Diplomatic recognition is seen as a double-edged phenomenon in world politics. It can lead to the birth or even the demise of a state. It can be the cause of both war and peace. It can be a source of justice, but it can also lead to discrimination and oppression. It can act as a constraint on expanding the state and international order, but it can also foster collective self-determination and liberation. In essence, it can reinforce existing state systems but also serve as an open space for normative change and emancipation. The recognition of a state is loosely regulated in international law, and it has been subject to many debates and controversies. There is no consensus on who is entitled to statehood and recognition, who is authorised to recognise states, how many and whether diplomatic recognition makes states. States do not have codified policies and often coat their political decisions with different normative and geopolitical justifications. Thus, recognition has always been and likely will continue to be a flexible political instrument: a bargaining chip for national interests, a retaliatory measure to discipline norm-breaking states, a symbol of shifting alliances, or, on the positive side, an empowering act to foster peace, justice, and address past injustices. 'A powerful tool in diplomacy' Yet diplomatic recognition has proven to be a powerful tool in diplomacy time and again. Opponents of Palestine recognition tend to minimise the significance of such acts, while supporters view it as insufficient to end the war, establish peace and achieve Palestinian statehood. But both are mistaken. Although recognition might be a performative speech act, it is not disconnected from the real world. It is a spoken and written declaration that creates new political realities and has tangible real-world consequences. Recognition acts as a foundation for diplomatic relations. It is a commitment that forms contractual ties, sets expectations, and has legal and political consequences, paving the way for other connections. Therefore, contrary to sceptics, Palestine's recognition by Ireland, Norway, and Spain last year, along with the recent announcements of recognition by France, the UK, Canada, and others carries legal, diplomatic, and moral significance. A stepping stone to full UN membership? For states such as Palestine, membership of the United Nations is far more than a mere badge of diplomatic prestige. It is a vital bulwark against the coercion and marginalisation that non-member territories so often endure. As a collective recognition of statehood, UN membership confers not only moral legitimacy but tangible legal protections. From RTÉ News, what does Ireland's formal recognition of the state of Palestine actually mean? By contrast, states locked out of the UN fold - barred not by choice, but by the vetoes and veto-wielding politics of more powerful capitals - find themselves condemned to limbo. They are cut off from essential UN agencies and trade networks, vulnerable to annexation and isolation and prey to the geopolitical whims of patron states. However, Palestine has been recognised bilaterally by more than 75% of UN member states. It warrants full UN membership on both normative and procedural grounds. Nonetheless, the US remains the main obstacle to full membership as it holds the veto power in recommending Palestine's admission to the UN General Assembly. Yet, due to extensive bilateral recognition, primarily from Muslim states and the Global South, Palestine has held non-member Permanent Observer status at the UN since 2012, granting it nearly full membership rights and access to UN bodies and agencies. Now that France and the UK are likely to formalise their announced recognition of Palestine, the US will be the only UN Security Council permanent member to block Palestine's UN membership. From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland, Eithne Dodd speaks to Palestinians in Ireland about the Government's formal recognition of a Palestinian state Recognition by France, the UK and other countries can be a game changer. It will lead to further isolation of Israel and make it harder for the US to continue supporting Israel's destructive policies unconditionally. It also indicates that European powers are capable of exercising their strategic autonomy from the US and are not merely vassals to the US grand strategy despite close transatlantic ties. The current wave of recognition may also have regional implications, where the EU might gradually distance itself from Israel in terms of trade, research, and security. Furthermore, the growing support for Palestine sparked by the Gaza genocide, coupled with the increasing diplomatic recognition of the State of Palestine, may create opportunities previously thought unattainable. There will be heightened global focus on Israel's occupation and violence against Palestinians, alongside increased backing for the realisation of a viable Palestinian state. But, it is unlikely to secure full UN membership unless the US changes its position. The increasing cost of independent statehood While states might have an inalienable right to self-determination, their recognition by other states is unfortunately not a given. While some states or entities might be lucky and receive diplomatic recognition without much struggle, it is a very painful, unpredictable and costly endeavour for many groups. From Bangladesh and Eritrea to Timor-Leste, Kosovo and South Sudan, newly formed and recognised states have achieved their statehood only after enduring genocide-like repression by the base state. The more states recognise Palestine, the more they become invested in supporting the realisation of Palestinian statehood Palestine is perhaps an extreme case of securing gradual diplomatic recognition as compensation for decades-long suffering and injustices. The more states recognise Palestine, the more they become invested in supporting the realisation of Palestinian statehood. The power of recognition is not merely symbolic, but it can preserve the hope for statehood for cases such as Palestine. It can reverse the occupation of Palestinian territories and serve as moral compensation for the collective failure to protect civilians. But as long as issues related to statehood and recognition remain unregulated and governed by arbitrary state practices, we are likely to witness more prolonged statehood conflicts and higher costs for diplomatic recognition.
RTÉ News
14 hours ago
- RTÉ News
'Terrifying' - US man recalls being kidnapped in Haiti
A US citizen who was held for ransom by a gang in Haiti for 43 days has said negotiators will have a "hard time" pretending to Irish woman Gena Heraty's kidnappers that she is a "no one". Jeff Frazier said he lost 22.5kg while being held captive in 2023, while being provided with just a little food and water, which he described as "problematic". Mr Frazier said his "heart absolutely goes out" to her family. He described it as a "deeply jarring experience to go from free to captive, especially in such a terrifying environment, with guns in your face and lots of screaming". He said despite Ms Heraty "probably keeping her cool" due to being in intense environments while working in Haiti over the years, cortisol levels can get very high while being held captive. Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Mr Frazier said: "I imagine within 72 hours you kind of settle with the idea of being captive, but it never goes away." He said that by now a fluent Haitian speaker would be established as the primary negotiator, with Ms Heraty's family and organisations associated with her liaising with the negotiator. He said he believed that the gang has already made its initial demands. "The negotiating team has for sure dismissed those and called them ridiculous and then the dance will begin," he said. He added: "Unfortunately, because the national and global press has picked this up already, she is going to have a hard time pretending she is no one". Mr Frazier added: "Luckily, my team hid me and scraped everything off the internet, quickly, and began the ruse of making sure that the gang thought that I was alone and had nobody to help me and wasn't going to get any money from the US." He stressed that the involvement of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Harris can be a "good thing" but only if it is in secret. "Obviously it is not now (a good thing). The reason it can be good is that you can start leveraging non-monetary forms of persuasion. "Things that the gang may or may not want and you can get them quickly," he said. The only way to get out quick is to pay a large amount and even then, it is rare that they let you out, he said, adding that often the gang will "just make you pay again". "Many of the people that I was in with, we watched pay four or five times. "Luckily my team was wise to that and didn't fall prey. "We did pay once, that was a failed ransom attempt," he said. While he would not disclose the fee, Mr Frazier said it was a very small sum of money. On the publicity surrounding Ms Heraty's captivity, Mr Frazier said it increases the value of the hostages, which the kidnappers will use as leverage, either monetarily or non-monetarily. "However it got public was certainly a misstep," he said. He said not only "money talks" but "time talks", stressing that you can keep your amount low and leverage high if you have patience. "My team knew that there was no way of getting me out quickly. So, they kept saying very tiny numbers, $3,000, $4,000, $7,000 and over weeks, knowing that there was no way they were going to let me out before 30 to 60 days," he said. Mr Frazier said Ms Heraty and the other captives should remain hopeful, adding: "She will get out".
Irish Examiner
a day ago
- Irish Examiner
Hezbollah threatens to resume firing at Israel if it intensifies Lebanon action
The leader of Lebanon's Hezbollah warned on Tuesday that if Israel intensifies its military operations against his group, the Iran-backed armed faction will resume firing missiles toward Israel. Naim Kassem's comments came as Lebanon's Cabinet was meeting to discuss Hezbollah's disarmament. Beirut is under US pressure to disarm the group that recently fought a 14-month war with Israel and was left gravely weakened, with many of its political and military leaders dead. Since the war ended in November with a US-brokered ceasefire, Hezbollah officials have said the group will not discuss its disarmament until Israel withdraws from five hills it controls inside Lebanon and stops almost daily airstrikes that have killed or wounded hundreds of people, most of them Hezbollah members. Israel's interest is not to widen the aggression because if they expand, the resistance will defend, the army will defend and the people will defend. This defence will lead to the fall of missiles inside Israel Israel has accused Hezbollah of trying to rebuild its military capabilities. Israel's military has said the five locations in Lebanon provide vantage points or are located across from communities in northern Israel, where about 60,000 Israelis were displaced during the war. Since the ceasefire, Hezbollah has claimed responsibility for one attack on a disputed area along the border. In a televised speech on Tuesday, Kassem said Hezbollah rejects any timetable to hand over its weapons. 'Israel's interest is not to widen the aggression because if they expand, the resistance will defend, the army will defend and the people will defend,' he said. 'This defence will lead to the fall of missiles inside Israel.' Since the war ended, Hezbollah has withdrawn most of its fighters and weapons from the area along the border with Israel south of the Litani river. Last week, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun reiterated calls for Hezbollah to give up its weapons, angering the group's leadership. The ceasefire agreement left vague how Hezbollah's weapons and military facilities north of the Litani river should be treated, saying Lebanese authorities should dismantle unauthorised facilities starting with the area south of the river. Hezbollah maintains the deal covers only the area south of the Litani, while Israel and the US say it mandates disarmament of the group throughout Lebanon. Kassem said Hezbollah rejects a government vote over its weapons, saying such a decision should be unanimously backed by all Lebanese. 'No one can deprive Lebanon of its force to protect its sovereignty,' Kassem said. Hezbollah's weapons are a divisive issue among Lebanese, with some groups calling for its disarmament. The Israel-Hezbollah war started a day after the October 7 2023 Hamas-led attack against Israel from Gaza. It left more than 4,000 people dead and caused 11 billion dollars (£8.3 billion) of damage.
