That should read:
I condemn the terrorism that was perpetrated by the Zionists' extremists towards that end.
It appears to me that this thread has strayed off Sophia's original, and in my view, excellent insight. Namely that the struggle of the Palestinians against the Israeli occupier has many similarities to that of the Irish against the English. Both struggles had their violent radicals and their more political adherents. Both posed cruel moral and political dilemmas for the stronger power.
Terrorism occurs in history as a favored tactic of the weak against the strong. The Zionists themselves used it expertly in the early years of their struggle against the British and Arab governing structures in the land they were trying to seize.
What are the lessons of the Irish struggle that may have some applicability to the current struggle between Israel and the Palestinians (or whatever one may wish to call them)?
The struggle can last for centuries - as long as the injustice continues.
The weak can prevail against the strong.
Demographic trends can dominate political ones.
Terror can exhaust the stronger power and cause its people to reexamine their motives.
Terror eventually corrupts its practitioners morally, and those who use it must eventually deal with a cadre of people who merely kill out of habit and who will continue long after the original cause is fulfilled.
Similarly, the suppression of terror can corrupt the stronger power, taking him to ever worse action that may threaten his own values.
Thanks, georgeoB1, for your thoughts relating to the topic. I didn't know quite how to ask for the discussion I desired-- but you have hit on it.
Any of the items (lessons of the Irish struggle) you posed would be a good subject for examination.
These really caught my eye:
Terror can exhaust the stronger power and cause its people to reexamine their motives.
Terror eventually corrupts its practitioners morally, and those who use it must eventually deal with a cadre of people who merely kill out of habit and who will continue long after the original cause is fulfilled.
Wow.
IRA says ceasing all armed activity in N.Ireland By Jodie Ginsberg
Thu Jul 28, 2:42 PM ET
DUBLIN (Reuters) - The Irish Republican Army formally ended its 30-year armed campaign against British rule in Northern Ireland on Thursday, in a potentially historic move that could take the gun out of Northern Irish politics for good.
ADVERTISEMENT
But, mindful of a string of previous broken IRA promises, politicians cautioned the pro-Irish guerrillas would need to match words with action. And its Protestant opponents warned that restoring local government would take months at least.
The IRA, responsible for half the 3,600 deaths caused by bombs and shootings during the three-decades "troubles," said in a statement it would cease all armed activity and pursue its aims through politics. The move is crucial for kick-starting talks on a lasting political settlement in the province.
At time when Britain faces a new kind of violent threat following suicide bombings by suspected Islamic militants, Prime Minister Tony Blair said the statement heralded the hope for lasting change in Northern Ireland.
"This may be the day which finally after all these false dawns and dashed hopes peace replaced war, politics replaces terror on the island of Ireland," he said in London.
The IRA arsenal, used to fight campaigns for a united Ireland until a 1997 cease-fire, has long been the main obstacle to a political deal in the province. IRA-backed crime also moved up the agenda this year after a high-profile robbery and murder.
Political ally Sinn Fein called in April for the guerrillas to end their armed struggle after suspected IRA members killed Catholic man Robert McCartney. The killing damaged the IRA's support from traditional backers, notably in the United States.
Washington, which helped to broker the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, gave a cautious welcome to the IRA move.
"This IRA statement must now be followed by actions demonstrating the republican movement's unequivocal commitment to the rule of law and to the renunciation of all paramilitary and criminal activities," the White House said in a statement.
ROUGH JUSTICE
But the IRA made no explicit reference to crime nor did it promise to disband, a move it sees as akin to surrender and many doubted its members would be willing to give up all their arms.
"They're certainly not going to get out of it because it's far too good, too profitable," said James Dingley, terrorism lecturer at the University of Ulster.
Sinn Fein's main Protestant opponents, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), said this lack of detail did not inspire confidence.
"They have failed to explicitly declare an end to their multi-million-pound criminal activity and have failed to provide the level of transparency that would be necessary to truly build confidence that the guns had gone in their entirety," it said.
The pro-British DUP refuses to talk to Sinn Fein, let alone sit in government with it, until the Catholic politicians end links with paramilitaries.
The 30-year "troubles" compounded decades of distrust and hatred between Northern Ireland's Catholics and Protestants.
Assuring the DUP and its firebrand leader Ian Paisley, who did not sign up to the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement, will be a major task.
Much of the "anti-terror" legislation introduced to combat the IRA and Protestant paramilitaries in Northern Ireland is now being used to fight the new threat from Islamist militants.
PROOF CRUCIAL
The IRA said it would engage with an independent arms decommissioning body to verify it had put its massive arsenal of guns and explosives beyond use, but gave no date for completion.
"All IRA units have been ordered to dump arms. All volunteers have been instructed to assist the development of purely political and democratic programs through exclusively peaceful means," the IRA said in its statement.
Britain's Northern Ireland Minister Peter Hain said the Britain and Ireland had asked the province's cease-fire watchdog to produce a report in January so progress could be assessed.
And he said the sides now needed to concentrate on getting agreement on policing. The IRA's historic mistrust of the mainly Protestant police force has always been used to justify its armed presence in its Catholic strongholds and Sinn Fein has so far refused to take seats on the province's policing board.
Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams said the statement meant the British and Irish governments now had no excuse not to re-establish the power-sharing government in Northern Ireland.
"Republicans should not be surprised that our opponents will continue to try to defeat us," he told a briefing.
"And in the short-term initiatives by the IRA are unlikely to change the attitude of those who oppose us whether in London or Dublin or within unionism. We can expect this to continue until we succeed in our endeavours."
(Additional reporting by Paul Hoskins and Kevin Smith)
georgeob1 wrote:It appears to me that this thread has strayed off Sophia's original, and in my view, excellent insight. Namely that the struggle of the Palestinians against the Israeli occupier has many similarities to that of the Irish against the English. Both struggles had their violent radicals and their more political adherents. Both posed cruel moral and political dilemmas for the stronger power.
It's not entirely the same.
In the Israeli/Palistinian situation, there are no Palestinians that support the Israeli occupation.
In the NI situation, there are Northern Irelanders that would prefer NI to remain a part of the UK. The last I heard of this situation in the late 90s, the population of NI was divided in half, making it impossible for a referendum to bring about a solution.
Maybe the situation has changed. Perhaps we should hold another referendum and see whether there is a significant majority that would want one or the other.
I read a newspaper article recently that made some interesting points that may be relevant to this thread.
Over the three decades of the 'troubles', about half of the fatalities -1800 people approx - were victims of the IRA, and about 600 of those, were Irish civilians. This of course doesn't include the number of people injured, which was significantly higher. Apparently it wasn't just the British who suffered at the hands of the IRA, it was the Irish as well. A recent murder case in Belfast, in which a gang of IRA men murdered an innocent catholic civilian outside a bar, being one example of how there is a fine line between 'freedom fighter' and 'terrorist' or 'gangster'. You may be familiar with the case - the victims sisters visited DC on St Patrick's day.
I understand that it is also dangerous to stereotype people as 'Irish' or 'British', 'catholic' or 'protestant', when discussing Irish history. The 'plantation' for example, included many catholics. It wasn't exclusively protestant. Many protestants also have a history or ancestory in Ireland that goes back many centuries before the plantation. In short, it would be difficult, if not impossible to say that the catholics are more Irish than the protestants. They have a shared history, despite religious or cultural differences.
In summary, the situation in Ireland is much more complicated than many people imagine. It is not simply a matter of Irish versus British, or catholic versus protestant. That viewpoint would be extremely simplistic. As someone said to me, if you think you have the answer to the Irish question, then you didn't understand the question!!
I would imagine that any victims of violence in Ireland, irrespective of which group was responsible for it - protestant or catholic, republican or loyalist, would probably view the violence as anything but 'freedom fighting'. If you are a victim of a car bomb, and your legs have been blown off, you probably wouldn't shrug your shoulders and say, "No hard feelings", simply because you later discover that it was an IRA bomb, and you are a catholic.
On a related issue, a few days ago I was reading the news about the IRA ceasing violence and going political. In light of everything that has happened in Ireland for the last 30 or 40 years, and the stated objectives of the IRA to use force to get the British out of Ireland, does this week's news mean that the IRA have sold out? The British are still in Ireland and there is still a border. Was the IRA's violent activity a waste of time? Should they have used politics instead, and avoided thousands of victims, or IRA prisoners spending years in jail and so on? No wonder many IRA supporters have mixed feelings about their sacrifices, when it is difficult to see what the IRA has actually achieved, except for killing a lot of people.
I see the historical similarities between the Irish and the Palestinian conflict. Both areas were conquered and occupied by the British, and in both cases a different population was brought induring british rule. Protestant scots settled in Ireland, and Jews settled in Palestine. Terrorism prolifferated in both conflicts.
From there the two conflicts seem to have followed different paths though, and the current situation in Palestine, with an independent Israel occupying Palestinian territories, seem to me the equivalent of the stormont government of an independent northern ireland occupying the rest of the Island.
My possition is the same in both conflicts, I'd like to see two independent sovereign states. In Irelant this has been accomplished, in palestine it has not.
