Letters to the Editor: What Michael D Higgins left out of his letter to Iran's new president
Warwick/pa D Is Michael James Criticism, Higgins A Not Above Suggests Picture: Reader
I can’t understand why our President decided to pick a fight with the Israeli Embassy over his now infamous letter congratulating Iran on its new president.
When asked by the press about the criticism of his letter, the President threw out a question to the media at the UN: “Why don’t you ask where it came from?” He then went on to accuse the Israeli embassy in Ireland of circulating his letter.
Who is briefing him? A little bit of research would have shown that his letter was released to the media by the Iranian embassy in London on July 28 last. In any event, it was not a private letter and is available under Freedom of Information.
The President didn’t like the criticism of the letter by the Israeli embassy and, for that matter, by some TDs, including Charlie Flanagan.
He didn’t like the embassy highlighting that, in his letter, he failed to criticise Iran for its constant call for Israel’s total destruction, for its funding and arming terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, not to mention its violations of human rights against its own citizens.
The President defended his so-called standard letter as ‘normal diplomatic protocol’. But Mr President, you are not above criticism.
I think you could easily have challenged the new Iranian president on some of the above issues. At a time when relations between Israel and Ireland are at a very low point, why did you choose to ignore who actually released your letter and wrongly blame the Israelis?
As for the Taoiseach weighing in behind President Higgins saying “he is not going to fall into the ‘trap from Israel’ of making letter into an issue”, he should reflect that it was the President that made the letter an issue, not the Israeli embassy.
Joe Brennan raises extremely important concerns regarding Ireland’s failed national energy policy. (Letters, Monday, September 23).
He correctly highlights the lack of vision of politicians in failing to create a totally owned national green energy industry resulting in Ireland being beholden to corporate boardrooms and the vagaries of the markets with the highest energy costs in the EU.
The sad reality is that historically our birthright was squandered by Fianna Fáil in the 50s when they gave away our entire offshore oil and gas reserves for a pittance.
We could have followed the Norwegian model, then a similarly poor country, and taken a 50% share in all exploration activities around our coasts. Today, as a result, Norway has the largest national wealth fund in the world, while we are lumbered with an unprecedented national debt of €230bn.
Ironically, Norway is using this vast wealth today in becoming a world leader in onshore and offshore renewables, while we are floundering with bureaucratic bungling, ideology, and incompetence.
Political expediency to accommodate the Greens drove the Coalition to cease issuing oil and gas licences off our coast in 2019, ensuring that we must continue to import over 80% of our energy needs at huge costs.
While I agree with Mr Brennan that green energy is the way forward, regrettably, having studied wind patterns in detail for several years, the practical realities of wind electricity generation, mainly its gross unreliability and inconsistency, means that Ireland, irrespective of future installed capacity, will always require significant back-up energy supplies, mainly of natural gas and oil to a lesser extent.
For instance, Ireland generated a mere 1.5GWh from wind on July 15 last and less than 10GWh during the last number of weeks, a tiny fraction of our daily electricity demand.
As Mr Brennan intimates, rather than making billionaires of those in the wind industry, Ireland today has the financial resources to make a paradigm shift in policy to take equity in wind projects off our coasts and to nationalise and quickly develop the proven oil and gas bonanza at Barryroe, which together would afford us a substantial level of energy independence well into the future.
In John O’Brien’s letter (Irish Examiner, September 23) he said the “vast preponderance of Irish people don’t wish to offend the Jewish people” and that we “condemn Hamas’ terror attack on Israel on October 7 that killed over 1,200 people”. John can speak for himself.
I, and many others, condemn first and foremost the Israeli occupation of 75 years. I condemn the murder of children. I condemn Israel’s terror attacks by soldiers, police, and armed religious fanatics. I condemn the theft of land, liberty, and life from an indigenous people.
These are all things very well-known to vast preponderance of Irish people. The last thing I would do is condemn the justified resistance of a people under occupation.
It bears remembering every time you hear a US politician say “Israel has the right to self-defence” that under international law they do not. No more than Britain had the right to self-defence during our own Rising (intifada in Arabic).
He also seems to think the occupation and the Israeli terror started with Netanyahu. It surely did not, and it will not end with Netanyahu. He writes pleadingly to Dana Erlich, the ambassador, about “the awful policies of the Israeli prime minister” as if she does not fully support and advance these policies, and the war on the Palestinian people.
What use is the indignity of pleading with war criminals?
Is Mick Clifford being a bit hysterical on his comments on Taoiseach Simon Harris’s comments on migrants and homelessness? (Irish Examiner, September 25) Surely migration into Ireland is having an effect on the accommodation and housing needs? Anyone with eyes in his head could see and accept this.
It is, of course, to be handled in a calm, reasoned manner and not hyped out of all proportion, as Mick seems to be doing here and maybe playing into the hands of others who like to hype and use such tactics to undermine reasoned argument.
Fleur Britten whacked the nail on the head when she wrote about our inherent Achilles’ heel — overconsumption/consumerism. Like many 40-something-year-olds, my grandmother was a make and mend lady, who on occasion sought out good-quality clothing which would last and last.
If I were to guess, she owned two coats, three skirts, a few pairs of shoes, and a handful of blouses. She knit her own jumpers and cardigans and mended her bought socks and underwear.
Between her generation and mine was the morphing of glitzy adverts, social media sells, influencers, and brand ambassadors, all competing for our pockets while their profits soar.
I refuse to buy from Amazon or Shein, etc, and instead seek out Irish retailers. I refuse to buy clothing that isn’t cotton or bamboo. Am I correct in saying I can compost these (I would love to know this answer)? I re-wear every item of clothing I have. I also gladly accept hand-me-downs, along with attempting rustic mends with a small sewing kit my late grandmother gifted me when I set off for college all those years ago.
My wardrobe consists of about 40 pieces, including coats, while my shoe rack hosts nine pairs of footwear, including a pair of slippers (and the majority of these items are over 10 years old).
For over a decade, my annual clothing budget comes in under €100 (the most expensive item I have ever bought was my wedding dress in 2010, for the pricey sum of €120).
As consumers we must take responsibility for our purchases and accept our actions have consequences.
As a retailer in Kinsale, I’m inundated with complaints on a daily basis at the lack of facilities in one of the premier tourist towns in Ireland. The proposed provision for public toilets will in no way meet the needs of visitors.
I would also draw your attention to recent UK government report: “To lay new law to halt the march of gender neutral toilets in buildings”.
Surely we should be prepared to listen to the findings of our neighbours and adjust our proposed facilities accordingly.
Stepping back just a little from the anticipated final cost of our new children’s hospital. Did anyone seriously think that a facility with over 5,000 rooms and all the ancillaries and with a projected lifespan of generations, would be built for about the same amount of money used to bail out our national broadcaster for just the next three years?