Hamas attack on Israel

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is a common misperception that the President is strictly limited by the Constitution in what he can say and how political he can be. There is no requirement for "impartiality" and there are plenty of grey areas. There are some specific proscriptions laid down but many supposed rules are theoretical or self-imposed and have been loosening steadily since Mary Robinson took office. The President by convention avoids criticising the Government of Ireland but on this matter he appears to be aligned with the Executive. As the directly elected head of state, the President is exactly who many people would expect to intervene. How appropriate it all is would be a matter of opinion.
 

He’s selective though. He doesn’t speak on behalf of citizens or seek to respond to their collective concerns. He speaks on his own behalf, responding to matters that interest or concern him personally. He does not offer leadership.
 
Who was von der Leyen speaking on behalf of? There doesn't seem to be much criticism on here for her actions and words which, imho, were much more dangerous than those of Michael D but yet the posters on here seem more upset about what Michael D said. Strange world we live in.
 
She spoke in support of a democracy which was attacked my anti democratic fundamentalist extremists.
Our President continues to support terrorists, dictators and extremists. He refuses to refer to Russias war in Ukrainian as a colonial war or Russias behaviour in the countries it still occupies as those of a colonial power.

He is anti capitalist. That is his North Star. He supports anyone and any cause that claims to also hold that view, no matter how despicable they are or how abhorrent their actions. All will be excused with some whataboutery about the evils of their capitalist opponents.
 
Again, we know your views on Michael D, no need to keep repeating them. My point is, you don't seem to have any issue with what von der Leyen said or behaved. I believe her words were dangerous and did nothing to help the situation. Many leaders in the EU are coming around to the same opinion as our leaders who led the way in criticising her. Yet you and others on here don't see to have any issue with her behaviour.
 
I don’t think the two situations are mutually exclusive. I would also be critical of VDL for the unilateral position she expressed, effectively overriding the freedom individual member states have to determine their own foreign policies. It’s not the first time she’s acted unilaterally.

MDH was quick out of the blocks to condemn her actions and to say that she didn’t “speak for Ireland”. Ironically, he does (or at least should) but the views he expresses are his own and are not reflective of Ireland’s foreign policy or indeed the views of the citizens he purports to represent.
 
I’ve more interested in what our president says and does as his comments damage this country and undermine our government.
 
Condemning the Hamas attack but at the same time asking the Israelis to behave themselves sounds oh so balanced. Imagine our government making a similar statement after 9/11. We could wave good bye to American FDI.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Condemning the Hamas attack but at the same time asking the Israelis to behave themselves sounds oh so balanced. Imagine our government making a similar statement after 9/11. We could wave good bye to American FDI.
Click to expand...
And the US response to 9/11 worked out so well for them.

In fact I think the US response to 9/11 was justifiable, but at the same time counterproductive.

Even Joe Biden seems to think the same. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ing-israel-nod-mistakes-made-in-war-on-terror
 
Purple said:
Stephen Collins article in the Irish Times today is a good read on this topic.
Click to expand...
I turned to this with interest. Stephen Collins is someone with whom I seldom agree, nevertheless he is usually worth reading.

I was disappointed to see it's just another 'bash Micheal D.' outing. You could have written it yourself.

President Higgins stood for office and was elected to the highest office in the land. There is nothing in the constitution which restricts him from speaking out. The 'convention' Collins speaks of is nothing more than a bad habit developed by previous presidents when they were no more than party placemen (always men). We have moved on from that.
 
cremeegg said:
And the US response to 9/11 worked out so well for them.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the point I was making. Thankfully our leaders wouldn't have dreamt of telling the US to respond "proportionately" or "within international law". If someone close to you, or even not close to you, came to you in a very badly beaten up condition is the first thing you would say to them "don't overreact"?
That our leaders feel no such compunction in lecturing Israel along those lines is at best being sanctimonious but at worst, pandering to a widespread anti Israeli sentiment so graphically exemplified by our esteemed President.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: PMU
I'm a great fan of SC but on this occasion I am not so sure. I fully agree with @Purple in his distaste for Mickey D's opinions but I think it a tad disingenuous to play the constitutional card.
 
This is the link to the Collins opinion piece:

President Higgins’s pronouncements on foreign policy are reckless, inappropriate and dangerous

Collins spends a chunk of the article criticising MDH, then complaining that the Govt should do something, then inexplicably refraining from saying what he thinks the Govt should do.

His argument is muddled and dramatic. There is no law preventing MDH from commenting as he did. Conventions are not strict rules and they change over time. MDH's main duties are to uphold the Constitution and to represent the people of Ireland - which many would say he did by querying why VDL was purportedly speaking on our behalf.

The President should not undermine the Govt but Collins says himself that MDH and Varadkar expressed similar sentiments. So MDH was not on some solo run clashing with the Taoiseach.

Collins claims that MDH stepped "far outside his constitutional role as he has done repeatedly since taking office" and alleges that "from early in his first term President Higgins has pushed the boundaries of his office."

But MDH has been President for 12 years, so in all this time that he has allegedly been trashing Bunreacht na hEireann, why hasn't this caused a constitutional crisis? Why has he not been impeached?

If anything it seems what Collins is actually highlighting that the President's role may be different to what Collins and some others imagine it to be.
 
I criticised @Purple 's original post for being 'whataboutery' look at the terrible atrocity one side has committed, without considering the context.

I have said here and on certain other topics, that we all have access to the same facts and I don't wish to argue with people whose view of those facts differs from mine.

On the topic of the Irish vs British identity of unionists Purple recently showed me that the quote about Wellington 'being born in a manger doesn't make you a horse' was not as I had always thought something he said himself.

there is an article in todays Guardian on Israel/Palestine which shows something that I believe is the essential point of the whole situation and is, if not unknown largely unreported and does not form the background to any discussion as I feel it should.

‘The most successful land-grab strategy since 1967’ as settlers push Bedouins off West Bank territory

Herders report violence driving them from their homes in accelerating, aggressive and highly effective campaign
www.theguardian.com
 
cremeegg said:
I criticised @Purple 's original post for being 'whataboutery' look at the terrible atrocity one side has committed, without considering the context.
Click to expand...
A contention that I rejected. I find the blindly pro-Palestinian views which dominate the Irish media and left wing establishment to be based on a very selective view of history.
cremeegg said:
I have said here and on certain other topics, that we all have access to the same facts and I don't wish to argue with people whose view of those facts differs from mine.
Click to expand...
Facts are of little use without context. That’s what people debate.
The colonisation of the West Bank by fundamentalist Israelis is illegal, immoral and a danger to the future survival of Israel.
The extremists who run Israel now are trying to ensure that there is no chance of a two State solution in the future but they seem to ignore the reality that there is no military solution either now or in the future.
 
Purple said:
The colonisation of the West Bank by fundamentalist Israelis is illegal, immoral and a danger to the future survival of Israel.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I would go further and say that this is the most significant issue in the entire mess. If we are honest we must admit that the world will forget about a bombing here or there, but the expulsion of the Palestinians from the West Bank will roll on.
 
I agree with the previous two posts.

Regardless of history, the root of the current problem is Israel’s disputed borders.

Only two are settled, that with Egypt – since 1979 and that with Jordan – since 1994.

Unless the other borders have been agreed, the anarchy will continue.

Determination of remaining borders should involve talking, reasoned discussion and not violence and warfare.

Of course, it would not be easy, but that's never an excuse to give up.


I am reminded of the dignified and wise words of Martin Kimani, Kenya’s ambassador to the UN, addressing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“This situation echoes our history. Kenya and almost every African country was birthed by the ending of empire. Our borders were not of our own drawing. They were drawn in the distant colonial metropoles of London, Paris and Lisbon, with no regard for the ancient nations that they cleaved apart.

Today, across the border of every single African country, live our countrymen with whom we share deep historical, cultural and linguistic bonds.

At independence, had we chosen to pursue states on the basis of ethnic, racial or religious homogeneity, we would still be waging bloody wars these many decades later.

Instead, we agreed that we would settle for the borders that we inherited, but we would still pursue continental political, economic and legal integration. Rather than form nations that looked ever backward into history with a dangerous nostalgia, we chose to look forward to a greatness none of our many nations and peoples had ever known.

We chose to follow the rules of the Organisation of African Unity and the United Nations charter, not because our borders satisfied us, but because we wanted something greater, forged in peace.

We believe that all states formed from empires that have collapsed or retreated have many peoples in them yearning for integration with peoples in neighbouring states. This is normal and understandable. After all, who does not want to be joined to their brethren and to make common purpose with them?

However, Kenya rejects such a yearning from being pursued by force. We must complete our recovery from the embers of dead empires in a way that does not plunge us back into new forms of domination and oppression.

We rejected irridentism and expansionism on any basis, including racial, ethnic, religious or cultural factors. We reject it again today."
 

PMU said:
This is utterly incorrect and is typical of the propaganda that sustains Islamic terrorist groups and their antisemitic supporters.
Click to expand...

I quote German Chancellor Scolz in an address to the Bundestag on October 12th in my support

“Our history, our responsibility arising from the Holocaust, makes it our constant task to stand up for the existence and security of the state of Israel. This responsibility guides us,”
 
The Balfour Declaration was in 1917.

And what Scholz said isn't what you said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register