Has President Higgins overstepped the mark?

A few people like yourself don't like him... meh

Peter Casey convinced people on here that he was right for the office of President, solely because he used travelers as a dog whistle in the campaign.

The thread on here about that election was full of people praising him for 'finally saying it' and a lot of the same voices are on here acting with righteous indignation at the current President overstepping the bounds of the office, in their view.

Someone also said that if a future President said something that those of us who are fans of Michael D disagreed with, we'd be then complaining that he was stepping out of bounds so let me just respond to that. If a future President says for example that climate change is a myth or counter to the economic need of the country I won't complain about because they said it, I will complain about what they said. There is a massive difference here. One that I think those trying to use the minutiae of the role to counter his speaking out here are also doing, without either admitting it or maybe even recognizing it.

Seeing people claim with certainty that people are sick of him actually makes me laugh a little because it was what was said at that last Presidential election (very vocally on here) and yet re won easily.

Politicians have to be diplomatic.

Whether NATO or neutrality, one thing should be clear. Ireland needs to do more.

Also, one can't really make a point for Irish neutrality if the British RAF is taking to the skies if a Russian warplane comes close to Irish airspace.

I also think public opinion is too polarized on defence matters, thus no real political solution can be found which pleases all.

Could we see Higgins and the Ambassador debating the issues out on Prime Time ?

Reminiscent of Russia's response to calling Russia out.

So he hasn't condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Didn't waste any time with Israel.

Old school Trotsky.

Well we know where he stands.

Nothing like his cuddly public image then.

Stephen Donnelly reiterating government backing on Higgins's remarks and saying the comments of the Israeli ambassador were inappropriate. I can guarantee you they have lots of internal polling on this issue in general.

😂😂

How did you not know if you heard it quite recently? From who exactly...ah never mind...

Let's get Mickey D out and Bertie in.

There's a man with the right moral fiber to be the country's figurehead.

As for his comments as president, who really gives a f**k?

It's a ceremonial role, I think he should be still allowed to speak with the voice of a mid-level Irish celebrity, as comes with the role.

No harm to call out Isreal's war crimes, or FFG's efforts to undermine our neutrality.

When did 'this thing' start? Two weeks ago?

Coveney is now rowing in behind the president after the Israel ambassadors attempt to silence him.

Israel-Gaza war: Israel ambassador's comments about Irish president 'unhelpful' - BBC News

Irish Enterprise Minister Simon Coveney told RTÉ that the "pointed" comments by Ms Erlich were not helpful.

"I think Michael D Higgins has reflected the view of many in Ireland," the former foreign affairs minister added.

You want me to condemn the Hamas attacks too, is it?

Foreign policy is government responsibility. Look at what happened to Cosgrave… choppy waters and rightly or wrongly we rely hugely on US FDI. Feck that up and it’s the 80’s all over again.

His comments are entirely consistent with Irish foreign policy.

Give me a break.

I'll use a USA organisation to clear it up for you.

What International Law Has to Say About the Israel-Hamas War | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)

#1 Hamas

The atrocities Hamas committed against Israel on October 7 have sent shockwaves around the world. Hamas’s killing of at least 1400 Israeli civilians (including children) during its surprise attack on Israeli territory violated provisions of international humanitarian law that are designed to protect civilians and their property during war.

#2 Israel

Israel has fundamental legal obligations to abide by during its campaign against Hamas. Heavily charged statements by some Israeli officials need to be separated from sound legal policy. In brief, Israel must meet several standards:

• It must not use starvation (including deprivation of food, water, and other essentials for survival) of Gaza’s civilian population as a weapon of war against Hamas or for any reason.
• It must take every possible step to target only Hamas militants and their military infrastructure, and to minimize civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. The Israeli air and artillery campaign, as well as its ground warfare, must be guided by the immutable legal principles of humanity, distinction, proportionality, and military necessity.
• It must allow for the return of displaced civilians after the conflict. While a temporary evacuation of civilians from a theater of combat can be legally requested, it would be unlawful to permanently displace the civilian population from their homes. The circumstances in Gaza today create enormous hardship for hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians, and Israel should take measures to ameliorate these difficult conditions. The visits of U.S. President Joe Biden and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken to the Middle East this week focused in part on what Israel and other nations and organizations can do to address the humanitarian plight of Palestinians in Gaza.

They have already broken bullet #1.

As the surgeon in Gaza said this morning, when the generators stop working, the ICU patients die.

Whether anyone in Hamas or Israel is prosecuted for war crimes or not is a totally different question.