Madam — Rachel Moiselle’s painful lament (‘Listen to Irish Jews when we tell you we are being betrayed’, December 28) evoked the deep sense of belonging that Irish Jews have always felt towards Ireland.
She cites an emotive reflection by Robert Briscoe’s granddaughter, Vivienne, on his deep patriotism and contribution to Irish freedom and ponders how he would consider the position his contemporary co-religionists find themselves in today as their very Irishness is openly challenged.
Sadly, however, as the biographer of Briscoe (Robert Briscoe: Sinn Féin Revolutionary, Fianna Fáil Nationalist and Revisionist Zionist, 2016), I would argue that from his first days in the revolutionary movement to the end of his long political career, he was aware that to be Jewish was to have one’s loyalty constantly questioned.
In an attempt to protect his immense contribution to the evolving state, he carefully compartmentalised both his personal and political archive, donating only selected documentation to the National Library of Ireland.
Tellingly, the overwhelming amount of documentation relating to his Herculean international efforts at saving, in his own words, “a remnant of European Jewry”, were donated to the Jabotinsky Institute in Tel Aviv.
Perhaps that fact alone supports Ms Moiselle’s supposition that, in some sections of Irish society, Jews have never been truly accepted.
Kevin McCarthy, Killaloe, Co Clare
Madam — Rachel Moiselle poses the rhetorical question concerning former Dublin mayor Robert Briscoe: “Would he be proud that a litmus test is placed on Jews in Irish society — denounce connection to the Jewish ancestral homeland or face ostracisation?”
I believe this framing sets up a false premise. To my knowledge, no one in Irish society has called on Jewish people to renounce any connection to heritage or identity. What many Irish citizens object to is not Jewish identity, but the actions and policies of the current Israeli government.
Furthermore, the phrase “Jewish ancestral homeland” is deeply loaded, given over a century of conflict in Israel-Palestine and the complex historical and political realities involved. Using such language risks over-simplifying a nuanced issue.
Our shared goal should be to foster dialogue that condemns injustice without alienating communities, and to ensure that criticism of Israeli government policy never spills over into prejudice against a people.
Steve Rawson, Dublin 5
Madam — Rachel Moiselle rightly highlights the worrying rise of antisemitism in Ireland and globally, and the need for societies to combat all forms of racism. However, her article omits an important dimension: the geopolitical context.
While antisemitism can never be justified, many observers note that the actions and rhetoric of the Israeli government, such as illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank supported by the IDF, the destruction of infrastructure and the enormous number of civilian casualties in Israel’s pursuit of Hamas terrorists, are widely reported and influence public sentiment worldwide.
Acknowledging this complexity helps frame the discussion honestly. Combating antisemitism and addressing legitimate concerns about Israeli government policies should go hand-in-hand to foster understanding and reduce hostility.
Fergus Moloney, Ennis Road, Limerick
Madam — Having claimed that “the Irish Jewish community now feels intimidated out of public life”, Rachel Moiselle rightly asserts that Irish Jews “are not a foreign intelligence or lobbying entity”.
She then spoils her case by lobbying for Israel, a state accused of genocide before the International Court of Justice.
The intimidation of Irish Jews has, apparently, “strengthened the case for Zionism”, a discriminatory ideology that gives Jews “an exclusive right to national self-determination” in Israel (according to its 2018 Nation State Law) at the expense of Palestinians’ rights.
It is precisely this conflation of Jewish identity with the state of Israel that provides antisemites with an excuse for their prejudice.
Raymond Deane, Broadstone, Dublin 7
Madam — I was not surprised by the Sunday Independent/Ireland Thinks poll findings that 70pc of Irish people believe Ireland does not have an antisemitism problem.
To know whether antisemitism exists, you must be able to recognise it. How many of the survey respondents could do this? Few, I suspect.
How are the public to recognise it when so many with a voice in Ireland are part of the problem? Self-proclaimed anti-racism groups turn a blind eye to antisemitism because opposing it is incompatible with their ideological beliefs.
Many Irish politicians — left and right, wittingly or unwittingly, through their words or their silence — are equally complicit. Our educational institutions are no better.
The voices of solidarity in Irish media, though welcome, are few and far between.
Madam — The recent article by Bryan Dobson left me disappointed (‘President’s presence at Herzog Park would have meant more than words’, December 21). As a journalist, he did not seem to have much empathy for the 273 Palestinian journalists murdered by Israeli forces these past two years.
I am wondering why he was not so exercised to write on that matter in the way he appears to be regarding the proposed renaming of Herzog Park.
Michael Clemenger, Trim, Co Meath
The U-boat war diaries in my archive show German submarines were the cause of several of these losses. In the case of the SS Ardmore, its loss can now be attributed to a mine laid by German aircraft in November, 1940.
The only claims for compensation agreed by the Germans for the actions of their forces against Irish ships was an attack on the SS Kerry Head on August 1, 1940.
However, as a consequence of post-war Germany’s diminished finances, a reduced compensation package was agreed with Ireland in relation to the German bombings at Campile, to the Kerry Head and the bombing incidents on the North Strand and at Arklow.
Annexe B of the agreement, dated July 25, 1953, indicates the Irish government was reserving its right to pursue in the future other claims for bomb damage.
The agreement was never intended by the Irish government to be a full and final settlement of all outstanding debts to Ireland in relation to the war, and the German delegation understood and accepted this position.
The doctrine of “military necessity” cited by the Germans as a response to past Irish claims for compensation cannot be upheld. In effect, attacks on neutral Irish vessels by German forces during the Emergency violated the Hague Conventions, the Proces-Verbal, the laws of war and Irish neutrality. They were aware that Ireland was a neutral country.
These attacks cannot be construed as materially and immediately contributing to a military success and cannot in any way be regarded as legitimate and identifiable military objectives.
Peter Mulvany, Clontarf, Dublin 3
Madam — With reference to David Quinn’s column (‘Irish EU presidency is a chance to ask what we want from Europe’, December 28), the headline alone deserves some reflection.
The opportunity I see for our upcoming EU presidency is to make all members of the union realise that the US is no longer Europe’s friend and that it is now more likely to co-operate with Russia against the EU than vice versa. One doesn’t even have to read between the lines of America’s recent national security strategy to realise these facts.
Yet I see no indication that this unthinkable transformation is under way.
Not being tied to Nato, unlike most of our European neighbours, may afford Ireland the opportunity to bring a wider perspective to how Europe must start to broaden and fundamentally review its thinking.
Michael Gannon, St Thomas Square, Kilkenny
Madam — I would like to thank David Quinn for his informative article on the EU and the battle between those who want more centralisation of powers and those who favour more national sovereignty.
Like him, I find it hard to imagine Micheál Martin or Simon Harris showing as much steel on our behalf as Belgium did with its refusal to use frozen Russian assets as collateral for a loan to Ukraine.
And what about our fishermen being curtailed further in our own waters? The likelihood of the Government pushing for debate on these issues is zero.
Mary Stewart, Ardeskin, Donegal town
Madam — Your report on junior health minister Mary Butler’s “knowledge exchange” visit to Iceland regarding trans healthcare prompts consideration of the adage that perceived conflicts of interest matter as much as actual ones (‘Minister and HSE doctor take trip to see Iceland’s liberal transgender policy’, December 28).
The minister chose to visit a jurisdiction that has adopted an unquestioning affirmation model, rather than visit Finland or Sweden, which have taken a more circumspect “watchful, waiting” approach.
A reasonable observer might perceive that Ms Butler, who has spoken publicly about her trans-identifying child, may be motivated, however unintentionally, to develop policies that validate decisions already made within her family.
The Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001 encourage office-holders to take due consideration of emotional, material and financial conflicts of interests, particularly where they could be seen as capable of influencing judgment.
Therefore, to maintain public confidence in the policies developed for this highly contested area of healthcare, the minister should recuse herself from the process.
Sandra Adams, Baldoyle, Dublin 13
Madam — Maeve Sheehan’s report notes that Mary Butler “is examining” Iceland’s gender-affirming model of care.
In a post after the Iceland trip, the minister contended that “central” to any new model would be the “lived experience” of transgender and gender-diverse individuals.”
The Icelandic model and the statement by the minister are in contrast to and negate the recommendations of the Cass report in the UK.
Are we seeing a solo run by the minister? The term “lived experience” is subjective, and although Dr Hilary Cass recognised that these personal experiences should be taken into account, she did not view them as the foundation of her evidence-based model.
The Programme for Government argues for a “transgender healthcare service that is based on clinical evidence, respect, inclusiveness and compassion”.
The Government has not directly accepted or rejected the Cass report, but the reference to “clinical evidence” is a clear nod to its conclusions.
Andy Hales, Kenmare, Co Kerry
Madam — Anthony O’Leary attacks what “the tyranny of the majority”, which he believes negatively affects atheists in living their lives free of religion (Letters, December 28).
He fails to notice the real tyranny in our education system, where the idea of “gender identity” has been promulgated as fact.
If we are going to have a secular state, surely we must look at the influence of quasi-religious ideologies as well.
Julia Anderson, Kilpedder, Greystones
Madam — Anthony O’Leary sounds bitter on the subject of school patronage. Since Ruairi Quinn was education minister, there have been concerted efforts by secularists to remove some of our schools from Catholic control.
These have consistently foundered, not because of opposition from the church, but because parents and sometimes teachers too have opposed these changes in individual schools.
It is hard to disagree with Mr O’Leary’s contention that religion is often taught in our schools by teachers who are non-believers, but parents still seem to prefer this to what the atheists might put in its place.
Jim Stack, Lismore, Co Waterford
Madam — Anthony O’Leary believes Christian doctrines on the resurrection and the virgin birth “belong to the Roman religion that emerged from Nicaea centuries later” (Letters, December 28).
In fact, references to the resurrection can be found in the epistles of St Paul, written 275 or so years before the Council of Nicaea; the virgin birth can be found in the gospels of St Matthew and St Luke, composed 250 years before the council.
In common with so many of Christianity’s critics, Mr O’Leary’s grasp of the facts about that faith is rather shaky.
CDC Armstrong, Donegall Road, Belfast
Madam — I would like to make one addition to Wayne O’Connor’s informative article on the mother and baby home in Tuam (‘Hunt for Tuam baby relatives extends to North America’, December 28).
It should be mentioned that the Bon Secours nuns operated the home on behalf of Galway County Council.
The sisters have been justifiably criticised for not affording many of the children who died at the home a proper Christian burial. What surprises me is that no criticism has been similarly directed at Galway County Council, which bore overall responsibility for the home’s maintenance and funding.
Read more on Irish Independent
