Soapbox « Thurles Information

Sport Should Not Be Asked To Carry The Whole Weight Of Politics.

The controversy around Ireland’s scheduled football fixtures against Israel in 2026 is real, serious and understandable. People are entitled to strong political and moral views. They are entitled to protest, to criticise governments, to question sporting bodies, and to demand consistency from international organisations.
But there is still an important principle worth defending: where possible, politics and sport should be kept separate.

That does not mean sport exists in a fantasy world, untouched by history or suffering. It plainly does not. Ireland knows that better than most.

In October 1936, Ireland played Germany at Dalymount Park, at a time when Hitler’s regime was already in power. The German team gave the Nazi salute before the match.
Looking back now, the images are deeply uncomfortable. Yet the match itself has also survived in Irish football memory as a sporting occasion, with Ireland winning 5–2, and the players on the pitch did what players are supposed to do; – they played football.

That example does not excuse the politics of the time. It does not make the symbolism harmless. But it does show the danger of making every football match a referendum on world affairs. Once we insist that teams may only play countries whose governments we approve of, sport becomes impossible to organise fairly. The rule will always be applied unevenly. Some states will be punished, others ignored. Some causes will become fashionable, others forgotten.

The recent Ireland match against Qatar also shows why consistency matters. Qatar has faced years of serious criticism over the treatment of migrant workers, especially around the 2022 World Cup. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have reported abuses including exploitation, unpaid wages, unsafe conditions and cases amounting to forced labour, even while acknowledging that some labour reforms have been introduced. Yet Ireland still played Qatar in Dublin in May 2026. That does not mean those concerns were unimportant. It means that, in practice, international football has continued to operate even when the opposing state has a deeply controversial human-rights record. If sport is to become a tool of political exclusion, the rule must be clear, consistent and applied equally; not selectively according to which controversy is most prominent at a given moment.

The players themselves are then placed in an impossible position. They are selected to represent their country in football, not to solve foreign policy. Asking them to carry the burden of international diplomacy is unfair. A footballer may have personal views, moral doubts, or sympathy with victims of conflict. But when a national team is drawn in an official competition, the decision to play should not be dumped on the shoulders of the players alone.

The same applies to supporters. Fans can protest. Fans can refuse to attend. Fans can display conscience. But the existence of protest does not automatically mean the fixture itself should be cancelled. A democratic society should be capable of allowing both: the match and the protest; the sporting contest and the political opinion.

There is also a practical issue. International sport depends on agreed rules. If Ireland refuses to fulfil a fixture, the consequences may not fall on the government whose actions are being criticised. They may fall on Irish players, Irish supporters, the FAI, and Ireland’s future standing in competition. That may satisfy a political demand in the short term, but it may do little to change the conflict itself.

None of this means sport should be morally blind. There are extreme cases where exclusion may be justified, particularly where international sporting bodies agree a clear, consistent and rules-based position. But that decision should be made transparently by the governing bodies responsible for the competition, not improvised country by country, match by match, under public pressure.

The lesson from Dalymount in 1936 is not that politics does not matter. It is that sport often becomes a stage onto which politics intrudes. The challenge is to prevent that stage from being completely consumed by it.
Ireland can condemn injustice. Ireland can speak strongly in international forums. Irish citizens can protest, campaign and argue, but the national team should not automatically become a substitute foreign ministry.

Football cannot fix war. It cannot settle borders. It cannot undo suffering. What it can do, at its best, is preserve a small space where people compete under rules rather than slogans.

That space is worth protecting, not because politics is unimportant, but because sport matters too.

History Rhymes – The Village That Chose to Save Children.

The True Story of Villa Emma – The Village That Chose to Save Children.

At a time when Israel’s very presence on the football field is again the subject of protest, including the disruption of Ireland’s friendly against Qatar in Dublin over upcoming fixtures with Israel, the story of Villa Emma carries a particular force. The protests are framed by many as opposition to Israel’s conduct in Gaza, but for Jews and Israelis they also echo a longer and painful history: a people repeatedly attacked, excluded, and told that even their children, athletes, and symbols of ordinary national life are not entitled to safety or normality. From the Jewish children hidden in Nonantola in 1943, to the children killed at Majdal Shams, to Jewish children reportedly targeted in Skokie, the question is not only political but moral: when Jewish or Israeli children and communities are made vulnerable, do bystanders turn away, join the hostility, or choose protection?

In the summer of 1942, a group of Jewish refugee children arrived in the small Italian village of Nonantola, near Modena.
They had already been on the run for years, fleeing Nazi persecution across Central and Eastern Europe. Most came from Germany, Austria, and the Balkans. Many had lost their families.
An Italian Jewish aid organisation, DELASEM, arranged for them to stay in an abandoned countryside mansion known as Villa Emma.
By the spring of 1943, their number had grown to around 70–73 children and teenagers, cared for by a small group of adult educators.

**Catholic Priest & Teacher, Don Arrigo Beccari.**

A fragile refuge.
For about a year, life in Nonantola was unexpectedly peaceful. The children attended lessons, worked, and gradually adapted to village life. Local residents helped furnish the villa, brought food, and supported daily life.
Two local figures became especially important, namely Don Arrigo Beccari, a Catholic priest and teacher, and Dr. Giuseppe Moreali, the village doctor. Both formed close ties with the children and helped organise their care.
At this stage, despite anti-Jewish laws, Italy had not yet begun systematic deportations in the same way as Nazi-occupied territories but that would soon change.

By September 1943: everything shifts. On September 8th, 1943, Italy surrendered to the Allies. German forces quickly occupied northern Italy.
The danger was immediate and clear. Within hours, the people responsible for the children realised that staying at Villa Emma would likely lead to arrest and deportation.
What happened next was decisive. A village acts. In less than two days, often described as under 36 hours, the children were dispersed and hidden. Younger children were sheltered in the local seminary Others were taken in by families across the village and countryside
Around 30–35 families, along with clergy and others, participated in hiding them.
This was not a centralised operation directed by a government or military. It was a coordinated local response involving priests, doctors, educators, and ordinary villagers.

Forged identities and a dangerous plan
Hiding the children was only a temporary solution. German patrols were active, and a search could happen at any time.
Beccari, Moreali, and others began preparing an escape. They obtained blank identity documents and created false papers to disguise the children’s identities. The plan was to move them north, across the Alps, into neutral Switzerland.

The escape.
Between early and mid-October 1943, the children left Nonantola in small groups. They travelled by train and on foot, guided through checkpoints using forged papers, and eventually crossed the Swiss border, often at night.Most of the group made it safely. One known exception was Salomon Papo, a boy who had been too ill to travel. He was later arrested and deported to Auschwitz, where he died.

Aftermath and consequences
The rescue did not go unnoticed. Don Arrigo Beccari was later arrested and imprisoned by Fascist authorities. He was interrogated and beaten but did not reveal information about the network that had helped the children.
He survived the war and returned to his life as a priest in the same community.

What this story really represents
The rescue of the Villa Emma children was not the work of a single hero. It involved Jewish organizers who arranged the children’s refuge – Local clergy and medical professionals and dozens of ordinary families willing to take risks. Together, they protected and ultimately saved the lives of dozens of young people.
After the war, many of those children emigrated to Palestine and later Israel, where they built new lives.

Why, then, are so many Christian communities silent? Perhaps because Israel has become politically contentious, and many fear that defending Jews or Israelis from hatred will be treated as taking a side in every aspect of the Middle East conflict. But this is a false moral trap. One can grieve Palestinian suffering and still condemn antisemitism. One can criticise Israeli policy and still defend Jewish children from intimidation, exclusion, and violence. The legacy of Villa Emma should make Christians especially uneasy about silence. When Jewish children were in danger, Don Arrigo Beccari and others did not hide behind complexity. They protected life. That remains the standard.

A legacy of quiet courage.
In 1964, Don Arrigo Beccari and Giuseppe Moreali were recognized by Yad Vashem as Righteous Among the Nations for their role in the rescue.
Today, the story of Villa Emma is remembered not just as an act of individual bravery, but as an example of collective moral choice. In a time of fear and occupation, a small rural community chose to help. and because of that, dozens of children survived.

Occupied Territories Bill, Martin Chooses Responsibility Over Political Opposition Rhetoric.

Senator Frances Black’s maximalism is no substitute for serious government and Micheál Martin is right to put Ireland’s interests before current Sinn Féin and opposition political theatre.

Taoiseach Micheál Martin deserves much credit for bringing a measure to Cabinet that is possibly legally focused, diplomatically serious, and economically responsible. In limiting the Israeli Settlements Bill to goods rather than extending it to services, he has done what responsible governments are supposed to do; distinguish between what is politically satisfying and what is actually implementable.

There is a world of difference between taking a symbolic stand and passing workable law. A ban on goods from Israeli settlements can be monitored through customs, import records, product origin and enforcement mechanisms already known to the State. It is narrow, targeted and legally intelligible. A services ban, by contrast, would be a minefield. What exactly is a settlement-linked service? A hotel booking? A cloud contract? A software licence? A payment platform? A professional service? A mapping tool? A multinational with branches in Ireland, Israel and the United States could easily be caught in a web of uncertainty.

That is why Micheál Martin’s warning matters. Ireland is not an isolated moral debating society. It is a small, open economy whose prosperity depends heavily on foreign direct investment, especially from American multinationals. To dismiss those concerns is not bravery; it is total recklessness. A government that casually exposes Irish jobs, tax revenue and diplomatic relationships to avoidable risk is not acting in solidarity with anyone. It is indulging in gesture politics at the taxpayers expense.

What has the now recovering but once alcohol dependent Senator Frances Black actually achieved in nearly ten years in the Seanad, apart from making opposition to Israel the centrepiece of her political identity? She has introduced bills and spoken on worthy causes, but there is little evidence of major, enacted legislation bearing her name that has transformed life for ordinary Irish people.
On the otherhand, Micheál Martin is accountable for the national interest; Senator Black is free to pursue activist politics without carrying the same responsibility for Irish jobs, Irish investment, diplomacy or Ireland’s relationship with the United States. That is the difference between government and protest.

This is where Senator Frances Black and others in the opposition are wrong. Their demand to include services may sound stronger, but stronger rhetoric is not the same as stronger law. It is easy, from the opposition benches, to denounce, condemn and demand the maximum possible measure. It is harder to govern, to take legal advice seriously, and to protect the national interest, while still making a principled foreign policy statement.

Senator Black has been consistent on this issue, and consistency is not in itself a fault. But her criticism of the Government’s bill as a “partial ban” misses the central point. Partial laws are often better than performative laws that collapse under legal challenge or produce unintended economic damage. The question is not whether a services ban sounds morally satisfying. The question is whether it can be defined, enforced and defended without harming Ireland more than the target it is aimed at. Micheál Martin has answered that question honestly.

Ireland also needs to be careful not to slide from criticism of settlements into an attitude of hostility toward Israel itself. Israel is a democratic state facing real security threats, including terrorism, regional hostility and the trauma of repeated attacks on its citizens. One does not have to agree with every Israeli government policy to recognise Israel’s right to exist, defend itself, trade, innovate and maintain normal diplomatic relations with democratic countries like Ireland.

Too much of the Irish debate has lost that balance. There is often immense passion for condemning Israel, but far less energy for acknowledging Israeli suffering, Israeli security fears, or the fact that peace will require negotiation, not one-sided denunciation. When Irish politicians speak as though pressure on Israel alone will solve the conflict, they offer the public a dangerously simplified picture.

Micheál Martin’s approach is more mature. He has supported Palestinian statehood. He has backed international legal processes. He has criticised Israeli actions where he believes criticism is warranted. But he has also recognised that Ireland must act within the limits of law, competence and economic reality. That is real statesmanship. It is not cowardice. It is the difference between governing or campaigning in support of terrorism.

The opposition’s approach risks turning Ireland’s foreign policy into a theatre of moral absolutism. The loudest voice is not always the wisest. The most punitive proposal is not always the most just. The most dramatic amendment is not always the most effective law. Senator Black and her allies should ask themselves whether they want legislation that can actually pass and operate, or whether they prefer a slogan that makes them feel righteous while leaving Ireland exposed.

There is also a wider diplomatic danger. Ireland has already developed a reputation in Israel and among many supporters of Israel as being disproportionately hostile. A goods-only bill is controversial enough. Expanding it to services could deepen that perception, damage Ireland’s relationship with Israel, and invite serious concern from the United States. A small country must choose its battles carefully. Moral conviction is important, but so is prudence.

Supporting Micheál Martin on this issue does not require abandoning compassion for Palestinians. It requires accepting that good intentions are not enough. Law must be clear. Enforcement must be realistic. Economic consequences must be weighed. Diplomatic relationships must be protected. And Israel, whatever criticisms may be made of its government, should not be treated as a pariah by a country that benefits enormously from international trade, technology and democratic alliances.

Micheál Martin has taken the responsible course. He has advanced a small targeted measure, while refusing to be pushed into an unworkable services ban. Senator Frances Black; Sinn Féin and that dwindling Trotskyist political party known as “People Before Profit”, together with others in opposition may prefer the politics of maximalism, but Ireland needs the politics of seriousness.

Mr Micheál Martin should travel to Israel, not to apologise for Ireland’s principles, but to repair a badly damaged relationship and make clear that Ireland is not anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, or indifferent to Israeli suffering. He should meet Israeli leaders, hostage families, survivors of the October 7th attacks, Irish-Israeli citizens, and Jewish community representatives. Such a visit would show that Ireland can criticise particular Israeli policies without demonising Israel itself, and that serious diplomacy means speaking directly to both sides rather than grandstanding from a distance.
A Taoiseachial visit to Israel, ideally alongside some engagement with Palestinian representatives, would be an act of real statesmanship; firm on Ireland’s values, respectful of Israel’s security and trauma, and determined to rebuild trust, where Irish political opposition rhetoric has done real damage.

But for God sake leave the gullible Mr Simon Harris; Mrs Helen McEntee and our President Mrs Catherine Connolly at home.

River Suir in Thurles: Fine Words Are Not Enough.

River Suir in Thurles; Fine words are not enough, while the river Suir remains in a state of further decline.

Looking skyward from Barry’s Bridge in Thurles, my eyes are drawn to the golden Laburnum I planted there in 1989, now grown into the full grace of maturity. Along the eastern bank of the River Suir, the Hawthorn too is in bloom, softening the riverside walkway with its delicate spring beauty.
Yet, for all this natural splendour, the exposed bed of the Suir successfully dims the scene, drawing the eye away from the quiet enchantment of tree, blossom, bridge, and river.

Reading a local newspaper report recently, one wonders, has Cllr Mrs Kay Cahill Skehan actually walked along the River Suir in Thurles recently and has she observed the current condition it is in?

The video shown below is only a small example of what people in Thurles are expected to look at: shopping trolleys dumped, plastic, debris, waste caught along the banks, and a general appearance that is simply unacceptable for a river running through the heart of a busy historic, midland town.

Two very large piles of shredded timber are currently located, dumped within approximately half a metre of the river’s edge, following recent tree-pruning works in the area.

This presents a serious environmental and flood-related risk. In the event of heavy rainfall or flooding over the coming months, the lightweight shredded timber is likely to float and be carried downstream. Once saturated, the material may also release tannins, resins and other wood leachate into the water, which can degrade water quality and harm aquatic life. Research on wood residue near aquatic environments notes that wood leachate can have harmful effects on fish and aquatic habitats.
As both piles appear to be located within a flood-risk area and immediately adjacent to the riverbank, they should be removed and relocated without delay. If immediate removal is not possible, the piles should at minimum be securely covered with heavy-duty tarpaulin and properly weighted or fastened to prevent displacement during heavy rain or rising water levels.
We won’t mention the nice piles of logs, as some smart individual might decide to bag them for use as firing next winter.

**Whatever other effluent is being washed into the river water, same forms a rich soapy caught by the overhanging vegetation..**

We have reported this matter to the Local Authority and request that urgent action be taken to prevent potential pollution, obstruction, and downstream environmental damage.

Cllr Mrs Cahill Skehan is correct when she says the River Suir is a huge issue for Thurles. She is also correct in stating that people notice it more when water levels drop. But the people of Thurles do not need more sympathy. What they crave is action.

There is also a wider issue here. Her brother, former Fianna Fáil TD and former Chair of the Oireachtas Agriculture Committee Mr Jackie Cahill, recently appointed Chairperson of the National Milk Agency by Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine Martin Heydon in April 2026, was also a prominent critic of the reduction in Ireland’s nitrates derogation from 250kg to 220kg organic nitrogen per hectare, warning of serious consequences for the dairy sector.

Indeed, no one sector should carry all the blame. But we also have to be honest. Nitrogen leaching, nitrates, agricultural run-off and intensive land use are a major part of the water-quality problem in the River Suir.
Farmers cannot be blamed for shopping trolleys dumped in the River Suir, but agriculture cannot be written out of the wider pollution picture either.

So where does that leave Thurles?
It leaves us with a river that is visibly neglected, environmentally under pressure, and politically talked about for the last 15 years with absolutely no action being taken.
Local Authority Waters Programme officials, (LAWPRO), may be sampling water. Reports may be being written. Presentations may be being given, but no one needs a scientific investigation to view shopping trolleys in the river. No one needs a catchment study to identify rubbish, plastic, clothing and debris sitting in plain sight. This is the work of highly paid Municipal District officials.

If Cllr Mrs Cahill Skehan is serious about the River Suir being an issue for Thurles, then the question must be asked; what immediate action is being demanded from Tipperary County Council and the other relevant authorities, to clean what is clearly visible today?
The public are tired of hearing that “work is ongoing”, while the river remains a total eyesore.

Thurles deserves better than this. The River Suir should be an asset to the town, not something people are embarrassed to walk past, holding their noses.

Responsibility must be shared, yes; but responsibility must also be acted upon.

Selective Outrage – Why Sinn Féin Consistently Struggles To Condemn Terrorism.

Sinn Féin is very quick to accuse Israel of “genocide”, but far less willing to honestly talk about Hamas using civilians, including women and children, as human shields or operating from underground tunnels in densely populated civilian areas. Even international bodies and Western governments have criticised Hamas for storing weapons near schools and hospitals or firing rockets from civilian locations.
At the same time, human rights organisations have also argued that Israel still has legal obligations to protect civilians regardless of Hamas’s actions, which to be fair has been extremly targeted to limit civilian deaths.

Both things can be true at once: Hamas can be guilty of terrorist tactics, and innocent Palestinians can still suffer terribly because of Israel’s military response.

The problem is that Sinn Féin often speaks about this conflict in a completely one-sided way. They condemn Israel loudly and constantly, but rarely apply the same moral standards to Hamas.

That raises an obvious question: Why?

The answer may lie closer to home. Sinn Féin has spent decades defending or justifying the IRA campaign by calling it “war” or “armed struggle” instead of “terrorism“. The party still struggles to give a clear moral condemnation of IRA violence, because doing so would undermine a central part of its political identity. Even today, senior republican figures continue to argue there was “no alternative” to the IRA campaign.

That creates a serious credibility problem. A movement that spent years defending bombings, shootings and civilian deaths as part of a “legitimate struggle” naturally finds it difficult to speak honestly about terrorist methods used by groups abroad. There is an obvious emotional and political overlap between the language used to defend the IRA in the past and the language now used to excuse or downplay Hamas.
For many republicans, admitting that the IRA committed terrorism would come with a huge psychological cost. It would mean accepting that innocent people were murdered in the name of politics and that many supporters defended or excused those actions at the time.
That is uncomfortable. So instead, a narrative is maintained, where the IRA were simply freedom fighters reacting to oppression and where the moral responsibility always lies elsewhere.

You can see echoes of that same thinking in discussions about Hamas. Violence against civilians becomes “resistance”. Terrorism becomes “armed struggle”. Murder becomes “context”.

None of this means every Sinn Féin voter supports Hamas or supported every IRA action. Many ordinary voters support Sinn Féin today because of housing, healthcare, inequality or support for Irish unity by peaceful means. But the party leadership under Mary Lou McDonald still depends heavily on a historical narrative that avoids a full moral reckoning with the IRA campaign.
That is why Sinn Féin can speak endlessly about Israeli wrongdoing, while appearing deeply uncomfortable discussing Hamas atrocities in equally direct language.

A serious and balanced position would recognise all innocent victims equally. It should be possible to say:
► Israeli civilians murdered by Hamas matter.
► Palestinian civilians killed in Gaza matter.
► Hamas using civilian areas for military purposes is wrong.
► Collective punishment and indiscriminate killing are wrong.
► Terrorism is wrong, whether it happens in Belfast, London, Tel Aviv or Gaza.

But Sinn Féin often appears selective in its outrage. And many people notice that the party’s attitude to groups like Hamas, mirrors the same moral ambiguity it still shows towards the IRA.
That is why critics believe Sinn Féin’s position is not really based on universal human rights principles, but on an old political worldview, where violence carried out by movements seen as “anti-colonial”, is treated more sympathetically than violence carried out by others.