Sir, – The current debate around the Occupied Territories Bill and the Government’s continued resistance to meaningful sanctions on Israel raises a deeper question about economic complicity.Systems of oppression are rarely sustained by violence alone. They survive because other countries continue to trade, invest, finance and normalise relations long after the abuses are known.Apartheid in South Africa endured for decades in part because foreign governments and corporations continued doing business with the regime despite full awareness of racial segregation and repression. Augusto Pinochet’s Chile likewise maintained international economic relationships while torture, disappearances and political persecution were widely documented.This is the uncomfortable issue now facing Ireland and Europe in relation to Palestine.The EU-Israel association agreement states that human rights are an “essential element” of the relationship. If that principle means anything, it cannot simply be ignored when politically inconvenient.South Africa also demonstrated something else: sanctions, divestment and international isolation helped make apartheid economically and politically unsustainable. Economic relationships are never morally neutral. They can help sustain systems of oppression, or help bring them to an end.History judges societies not only for the crimes they commit themselves, but for the crimes they choose to economically enable, excuse or ignore. – Yours, etc, Ian Dodson,Bray, Co Wicklow.Sir, – Last Thursday you reported that the Government was back announcing the proposed enactment of the Occupied Territories legislation (“Occupied Territories Bill to ‘move forward’ – but without restriction on services,” May 21st). On reading this, one would be forgiven for thinking there was an election approaching. Wait a second, there was – the very next day. – Yours, etc,Brian Ó Longaigh,Greystones,Co Wicklow.Sir, – David Woods (Letters, May 23rd) chooses to disrespect the protesting participants in the Samud flotilla by describing them as provocateurs intent on inciting an Israeli reaction. Given they were miles from Israel in international waters and seeking to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, their arrest, detention and subsequent deportation reflect more accurately the disdain that Israel holds for anyone who protests against the violent destruction of Palestine and its people.To characterise the protests as self-indulgent gimmicks by middle-class narcissists is unworthy of any right-thinking person..– Yours, etc,Michael Kenna,Knocklyon, Dublin 16.