Higgins Gaza comments

[mollyfolk]

Interested to hear what people’s take is on this controversy. I agree with him (and I don’t agree that he was spreading misinformation) but I’m not sure if it was his place to weigh in on international politics.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41253022.html

Thank heavens for leaders like him. Collective punishment of unarmed civilians is a war crime and giving hospitals a matter of hours to evacuate before bombing them does not make it all ok

I’m not suggesting that what the Israeli authorities are doing is ok at all. I’m just suggesting he stood out of his place. I 100% agree with his comments.

Tbh Michael D has always considered it to be his responsibility and place to speak out against injustice, whether its the housing crisis here or war crimes elsewhere

I also agree with him. Notwithstanding the horror of the Hamas attack, the response of flattening an entire population is neither legal nor proportionate.

Perhaps I'm stepping out of my place too since this isn't my board but surely a President's place is to weigh in on international politics. If not who should be doing it?

When asked if she felt that President Higgins had spread misinformation, she agreed but said she could not criticise.
"I know the role of the President here and I know the importance in which he is held within the Irish public — but there is also a responsibility on politicians and the media, especially during a time like this.”
Ms Elrich agreed that President Higgins sympathised with the Palestinian cause and said she did not object to it.
But, she felt that in Ireland, the conversation has been "hijacked" and that "if you are 'pro-Palestinian', you have to be 'anti-Israeli'."

That is a very well measured and calm response. You can see why they are a diplomat.

Its how the role is laid out in the Constitution I think, the Government state Irelands postion on international politics (or national matters) not the President. That is more of a ceremonial role, though he does have the right to refuse to sign changes to the Constition etc and send back to the Dail. It isnt the same as the role of the American President say

Ah, thank you for the explanation. That makes sense.

I think Higgins is bringing the role of President into politics which is very hard for the Government to deal with. It’s not the role and while he seems to be on the “side” of many in Ireland, imagine if he was saying something against government or public opinion, e.g. being pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine.

Exactly this. It doesn't matter that he happens to be saying the 'right' things in this case - though of course not everyone would agree. Would people be so happy if a right wing demagogue type was speaking his mind/truth as he/she saw it? The precedent he is setting could easily result in that and anyone objecting wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they support President Higgins' stance. The role of the President is clear and President Higgins keeps skating over into areas in which he has no role. He is clearly a very bright man who likes to have his say, who revels in and is very good at the role of being a public intellectual. But that's not what presidency is..

He does have the right to speak though.
According to Wikipedia
"Every formal address or message "to the nation" or to either or both Houses of the Oireachtas must have prior approval of the government. Other than on these two (quite rare) occasions, there is no limitation on the president's right to speak. While earlier presidents were exceptionally cautious in delivering speeches and on almost every occasion submitted them for vetting, Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese made much more use of their right to speak without government approval, with McAleese doing many live television and radio interviews. Nonetheless, by convention presidents refrain from direct criticism and commentary of the government."

Ah bla sure who listens to him anyway? I mean he is only president cos nobody else decent was available. I just look at him the way I look at my dogs and kinda pet him behind the ears.

I suspect you may well be ageist @Neverinamonthofsundays.
Anyway, the Israeli ambassador did listen to him and took offence unfortunately.

The isreali ambassador clearly 🤣 Although I actually thought her response was quite mild compared to what the last guy would have said.

ah I love old miggeldy and I don’t disagree but I was surprised how much he laid into the EU.

He's not far apart from Varadkar's openly expressed criticism of Israel's actions in Israel, is he? And the Irish government's rhetoric has not been pro-Palestine, anti-Israeli. It's been anti war-crime and anti-terrorist.

So:

Speaking in line with his constitutional freedoms
Not contradicting government policy or rhetoric
Speaking on a matter of moral urgency

My heart goes out to all victims of this war and terror and I'm glad the Irish state condemns atrocities on both sides. That's not anti-Israeli. Good for him.

Not weighing in on politics as such but on a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. This is morality not politics as such.

2 million people could be made homeless. If some of them end up here I imagine a lot of the same people slagging off Mickey D will be ranting outside Direct Provision centres.

What last guy? the previous Israeli ambassador was a woman.

I’m possibly thinking of the person before - during the 2014 crisis. Boaz Moda'i