1
   

How can one support the Palestinians and not the IRA?

 
 
Sofia
 
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 10:33 am
Across the boards, I have noticed alot of people, who support the Palestinians' 'terrorism' for freedom and rail against the IRA's same tactics against Britain.

Isn't this hypocritical? Aren't they in the same boat?

Thanks in advance for opinions. <And, I'll take this opportunity to say, newbie that I am, this is a wonderful community.>
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,768 • Replies: 106
No top replies

 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 10:55 am
These boards? And no, the Palestinians and the IRA are in very different boats. This is why the IRA terrorism is in decline.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 11:08 am
Sofia, What may seem similar on the surface changes dramatically when one looks at the details. Yes, both problems seems to be based on religious differences, but that's where the similarities end. What do you find similar between the Palestinians and the IRA's problems? c.i.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 11:18 am
I see terrorism as another similarity but agree that this is a whole different kettle of fish.
0 Replies
 
oldandknew
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 12:55 pm
Religion and Politics make for very uneasy bedfellows. Northern Irelands problems are receding. The problems in Israel/palestiine get worse.

As a born and bred Londoner, who has been to the Irish Republic, I have worked and socialised alongside a lot Irish people in London, always on very friendly terms, no problems. As far as I am aware, throughout the "troubles", both the everyday ordinary English and Irish people in London got along just fine. When the IRA let go with one of their bombs there were no riots of retribution against ordinary decent Irish people. Guinness was and is still brewed in London and drunk in vast quantities.
Life and relationships carried on as normal. No recriminations.
I feel that the whole of Ireland should be reunited and Governed from Dublin. The Protestant community in Ulster should be given the choice of either staying british or becoming fully fledged Irish.
Those in Ulster who claim to be loyalists to Britain and then go out shooting and bombing are not wanted by and do not represent the opinion of the vast majority of people on the mainland. They are not wanted on voyage. Splitting a small island into two separate countries, partition, was a pathetic compromise, because the politicians didn't have the balls to do the right thing. Give the whole of Ireland lock, stock and barrel to Dublin.

As to Israel/Palestine. I've been there as well and not just on a simple 10 day vacation. I Lived and worked out there. Suffice it to say that my sympathies are with the Palestinians
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 01:28 pm
When I referred to the 'boards', I meant the wider net.

Old and knew-- I was hoping to get a Brit or Irish perspective. Thank you so much. I am a member of a rowdy Brit board, and they are my primary source of info. They really hate Israel, but don't see the similarity that I see between the IRA and Palestinians.

I applaud your sensible views about releasing the Irish to self-governing!!! I wish it was shared by more people. And, I'm glad the Irish and Brits get along as well as you say.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Brits 'bussed' in Protestants as part of staking their claim of Ireland. Violence ensued as has been going on since. This, to me is a glaring similarity. People forced to live together--one has the upper hand, and violence is being used by the oppressed as a method of making their extreme displeasure known...

At any rate, I appreciate your input here. And, I want to clarify for the record-- I think terrorism is wrong, no matter the ideal or perpetrator.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 01:36 pm
sofia, i have zero objections to your post save one, "I think terrorism is wrong" without a workable definition of terrorism I am at a loss to make a discrimination.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 01:38 pm
The key difference IMO has been the British government's recent moves to end the conflict and not blindly insist that the IRA be "crushed". I do not hate Isreal and I do not support Palestinian terror. I do think Isreal avoids some actions that could help end the conflict due to the dream of some for a "greater Isreal".

The IRA's case was about self-determination as well but the British did not need to worry as much about definite borders etc as these are not primary stategic concerns.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 01:42 pm
Dyslexia--!!

How happy your almost zero disagreement has made me! Very Happy

I'm operating under my own definition of terrorism: individuals or groups perpetrating violence to forward an idea. ("idea" is pretty broad.)
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 01:48 pm
would the american revolution constitute terrorism?
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 01:48 pm
Craven de Kere--
In response to some of your points:
The Israeli gov could be seen as trying to appease the Palestinians with their endless Peace Accords and offers of land. What makes you infer Israel wants to "crush" the Palestinians?

I think your second point about borders proves my argument moreso than yours. Ireland was a free and independant country until it was colonized and inundated with a large group of English Protestants. It was all theirs, as Israel was all the Palestinians'...
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 02:00 pm
Sofia,

If you'd like to deeply analyze the Palestinian/Israeli conflict I'll be happy to oblige you on a topic better suited for that purpose. The comparison of Palestine and the UK is a pretty straighforward issue that I have addressed.

BTW I never said anything about "crushing" Palestinians. I did not infer it. I did imply that Isreal has a desire to crush the terrorism they face and that the methods they use are counterproductive.

If you'd like to know more about the "crush" part, just look up Sharon's quotes on the matter.

I will address my contention briefly but like I said, if you want to do it in depth it will go off topic and merits it's own thread:

Many contend that sequentialism is not a good plan for mideast peace and that parallelism is a better strategy. Isreal has steadfastly insisted on sequentialism. Some say this is to put off a resolution of the conflict.

Isreali extremists who dream of greater Isreal routinely oppose measures that would afford Israelis more security if they think it will compromise their territorial goals. An example of this is the situation when Ireal decided to build a fence. It was going to be far into Palestinian territories in some places (by this I mean the definition of Palestinain territory Isreal is operating under, not the Palestinian extremists' version) but still some opposed it fearing it would become a permanent border.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 02:09 pm
Quote:
I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian Child will be born in this area. The Palestinian Woman and Child is more dangerous than the Man, Because the Palestinian Child existence refers that Generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli Civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With One hit I've killed 750 Palestinians ( in Rafah, 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic Girls as The Palestinian Woman is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and Nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do
. - Ariel Sharon, In an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956
and yes you will find the equivalency from the Palistinians
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 02:21 pm
We have such lovely, well-selected, honorable allies, don't we, Dys.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 03:36 pm
The intent of this thread was to discuss and\or refute similarities between those fighting for freedom from Israel and Britain.

It seems to have gone off into a different direction. Which is OK, but not my area of interest. Feel free to continue.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 03:38 pm
Ok, I can stick to that.

A) Practically ALL Palestinians want to be free of Isreal's occumpation.

This is not the case in N. Ireland
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 04:12 pm
A) Practically ALL Palestinians want to be free of Isreal's occumpation.

This is not the case in N. Ireland
***************************
That's because many residents in N. Ireland are ancestors of the Protestants, who were transplanted in Ireland to achieve a pro-Britain populace.

N. Ireland Index


Overview
Ireland's Troubled History


Updated: April 1999


The first British involvement in Ireland began in 1169, when Anglo-Norman troops arrived at Bannow Bay in County Wexford. During the next half millenium, successive English rulers attempted to colonize the island, pitching battles to increase their holdings - moves that sparked periodic rebellions by the Irish.

As the English gradually expanded their reach over the island by the 16th century, religious persecution of Catholic Irish grew - in particular after the accession of Elizabeth I, a Protestant, to the throne in 1558. Oliver Cromwell's subsequent siege of Ireland in 1649 ended with massacres of Catholics at Drogheda and Wexford and forced the resettlement of thousands, many of whom lost their homes in the struggle. By 1691, with the victory of Protestant English King William III over the Catholic forces of James II, Protestant supremacy in Ireland had become complete.

Catholics in Ireland suffered greatly in the subsequent period of British occupation, enduring laws that prevented them from bearing arms, holding public office and restricting their rights to an education. While many of those rights were eventually restored, the animosity between Catholics and Protestants remained. With the passing of the Act of Union in 1800, a law that joined England and Ireland as one, the island became officially governed by London.

Home Rule
During the next century, several movements sprang up to push for a more independent Ireland. One of them, the so-called "Home Rule" movement founded in the 1870s, pushed for the establishment of a separate Irish parliament to govern domestic affairs. Through the early 20th century, Home Rule became the focus of political debate, drawing bitter opposition from the island's Protestants, who vowed to resist the movement with violence.

The intervention of World War I prevented the enactment of Home Rule, which was passed by the House of Commons for the second time in 1914. Still, the movement for Irish self-rule continued.

Easter Rising and the Partitioning of Ireland
In 1916, Irish nationalists stormed the General Post Office and other key buildings in Dublin during Easter week, proclaiming the formation of an Irish republic. The uprising failed and most of the leaders were eventually executed. However, the action would create a wave of sympathy for the recently formed Sinn Fein (which advocated Irish independence) and its leader Eamon de Valera, who had barely escaped execution for his role in the uprising. The popular support ran over into the 1918 general election: Sinn Fein won 73 seats to 31 for the Unionists and Independent Unionists, who supported governance from London.

The election mandate encouraged further separatist leanings as Sinn Fein boycotted Westminster the next year, declaring the formation of its own "Dail Eireann" or Irish Parliament in Dublin with de Valera as its President. Violence escalated as the Irish Repubican Army, led by Michael Collins, fought Britain in a bloody war for independence - one that ended with the partitioning of the northern and southern parts of the island by the Government of Ireland Act in 1920.

The partitioning would have a lasting impact on the island as the act provided for separate parliaments: one in Belfast serving six counties in the north and the other in Dublin for the remaining 26 counties. Created as a kind of demographic compromise, Northern Ireland proved to be an area that could comfortably hold a majority in favor of union with Britain. In December 1921, Sinn Fein and British officials signed the Anglo-Irish treaty, which created an Irish Free State over the 26 southern counties, and a northern state of six counties allied with Britain.

The partitioning, however, remained anathema to Irish Republicans, who were bent on the objective of securing a united, independent Ireland by force, if necessary. The IRA waged a violent campaign against the treaty in the 1920s, even killing former comrade Michael Collins, a treaty signatory. The IRA, which was declared illegal in the Irish Free State by 1936, continued its underground campaigns into the 1940s and 1950s.


Beginning of 'The Troubles'
Relative calm followed the Ireland Act of 1949, which created the Republic of Ireland in the south. By the 1950s, even Catholics in the North, still securely tethered to Britain, seemed ready to accept equality rather than pushing for securing a more united Ireland, scholars note.

But that changed after Northern Ireland's Catholics organized a large demonstration protesting discrimination in voting rights, housing and unemployment in 1968. A police crackdown followed, sparking months of violence and a reemergence of the Republican movement. The subsequent bloody riots between Protestants and Catholics marked the beginning of "The Troubles," the euphemism for the period of violence that would continue for years in Northern Ireland.

One of the most infamous acts came in 1972, when British paratroopers opened fire on a group of Catholic demonstrators and killed 14 people. Soon after "Bloody Sunday," Britain disbanded the parliament and would impose direct rule on Northern Ireland for the next 26 years.
*********************
The Palestinians had a bunch of people with different a religion smacked down in the middle of them- so did the Irish.
The Palestinians were there first- so were the Irish.
The Palestinians are outgunned- so are the Irish.
The Palestinians have fought with rocks and sticks, and some bombs, since their oppression began- so have the Irish.
The Palestinians' leaders are considered terrorists- so are the Irish's.
The Palestinians have no real representative political voice in their lives- neither do the Irish.


Or at least, that's the way I see it. Sad
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 04:16 pm
I don't use any past factors in my arguments'about Israel/Palestine. I care about the present and the future.

Historical similiarities IMO are not as relevant as current dissimilarities.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 04:22 pm
Historical similiarities IMO are not as relevant as current dissimilarities
***********************
If that is your measuring stick, I can see why you think they are dissimilar. The current 'troubles' don't compare to Israel/Pals...
My bold remarks at the end of my post illustrate my reasoning. Would you agree to those?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 04:45 pm
Regardless of whether I agree to them I disagree about the relevance. Your question doesn't use the word "support" in the past tense.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How can one support the Palestinians and not the IRA?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 02:39:24