You can only make peace with your enemies after all

Some terrorists like Hamas insist on the destruction of their opponent. You can't make peace with someone who refuses to recognize your right to exist.

Whilst I see that criticism of Hamas as valid, the current Israeli government is engaging in the provocative new settlements policy, so let's acknowledge that both sides, Palestinian and Israeli have their faults. Jews and Arabs are supposedly all "children of Abraham" & still behaving at times like vicious, selfish children several thousand years later, imho.

Wait, right to exist? Since when was that a thing? Can you go back and trace that phrase, which is only used in reference to Israel.

Bill Clinton pays tribute: https://www.joe.ie/news/bill-clinton-martin-mcguinness-582325

PUP tweet sparks angry responce: http://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/row-erupts-progressive-unionist-party-12777057

(The PUP are a political party in Northern Ireland who support the Union with Britian, and are thus traditional enemies of SF/IRA)

For Belfast that's really quite a mild response.

As for MacGuinness, even if one assumes the best about him in his later life, does that work balance out his previous murders? He is beyond human judgement now, but there's a part of me that hopes the bastard suffered before he died. Be it from guilt or illness or both.

@Octavious, for very practical reasons, i believe we must negotiate with the likes of McGuinness, bring them into the democratic provess as he was, and forgive his previous crimes, because i don't believe we can have peace any other way. (That doesn't mean i will find myself voting for his political party).

That said, i can't help noticing the difference in reporting - this is history in the making, what people will remember - and the same organisation (in this case the sun) has two very different narratives on opposite sides if the Irish sea.

One bemoans the British Soldiers who were just trying to keep the peace (when sent to Northern Ireland, at the height of civil rights protests when Martin MacGuinness was about 19, before he joined the IRA) and how they are now being held to account for crimes committed against the Catholic population there (who were protesting for, you know, civil rights) - this spiralled into the 'troubles' - where our hero/villian joined and eventually became a leading figure within the IRA, an army/terrorist organisation (depending on who you ask) dedicated to protecting Catholics FROM the British army.

Later, with Bill Clinton, and Tony Blair, among others, Martin MacGuinness was a pivotal figures in ending these 'troubles' and establihing the power sharing agreement which seeks to ensure equal rights for all citizens of Northern Ireland (and thus prevent a return to the troubles). Which is Closer to the narrative being sold by the Irish Sun today.

I'd just like to highlight the massive difference in reporting by the same news-paper (Irish version carrying lots of the same stories, if you look at their websites you can see the similarities) - one story ignores the Imperialism which the UK brought to Ireland, and the other ignores the deaths caused by the IRA (or waves them away in light of the peace process). Both are heavily biased for a certain audience - and in a way promote unthinking uncritical nationalism (just in different nations).

https://www.thesun.ie/news/745726/martin-mcguinness-a-journey-from-ira-commander-to-deliverer-of-peace-and-hope/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3145980/why-should-evil-legacy-of-martin-mcguinness-be-forgotten-while-the-troubles-veterans-are-hounded-for-trying-to-keep-peace/

I know i bitch and complain about lies by countries ignoring their own crimes all the time, but this is a stark contrast; demonstrating the double speak from the sun. This is how history is written.

http://www.thejournal.ie/newspapers-reaction-ireland-3300079-Mar2017/

Oh yeah, and this actual journalism on the issue.

@ Ora

I agree negotiation are the best way forward. That's why we elect officials and appoint governments. So we have people who can do these jobs that the rest of us don't have the stomach for.

As far as the British Army goes, it has always contained a few bad sorts. More so after the war when its ranks contained more than its fair share of mentally scarred veterans who were kept on because they couldn't adjust back to civi street. That's no excuse though, and nor is there an excuse for the IRA warring on civilians.

What defines our emotional response, though, is not a balanced consideration of the issues. It's the memories of your best mate's dad having to check under the car with a mirror before a trip to the seaside. It's memories of your own dad shaking after a bomb scare at work and being the one who went back into the bank to search for suspicious bags. It's memories of a surprise day off from school when there was a bomb scare there.

And after that you don't care about the issues, as long as there's no surrender to the IRA

@Octavious, i'm not coming out in favour of the IRA, or their methods. I am first and foremost a pacifist.

I am also aware of my history, many IRA members were driven into their arms by the British Army in Northern Ireland. In theory they were there to secure peace (between Unionist factions and Republicans factions); in practice they were seen as the arm of British Imperialism in Ireland oppressing the people.

The Unionists had decades of self-rule where they oppressed the Catholic minority. The civil rights movement in the US in the 60s inspired a similar movement in Northern Ireland, unfortunately it ended in violence when the army was asked to do policing. Public order police work which an army is not suited towards. (Not that the RUC would have been seen as much better, given their history enforcing the oppressive Unionists policies).

It is a great misfortune that this choice by the British government (to send in the army) lead to the IRA recruiting massively and expanding its war to include bombings on the British mainland. But i don't blame individual soldiers who were in the wrong place at the wrong time (for bloody sunday, to cite a specific example). I blame policy decisions being made in London.

And it is little surprise that the nuance is lost when you centralise power into a capital. All Empires have made mistakes when it comes to local issues that they don't care enough about in their provinces. That is an inevitable consequence of Imperialism. (I suspect that in London they see the Unionists and Republican Nationalists are equally 'Irish' - while in the North they see the Unionists as British and the Republican Nationalists as Irish - such is the nuance in play).

dunno (honestly), how was British treatment in Northern Ireland worse (or the same as) treatment of Blacks in the American South up to the 1960s?

I don't know about London. I am aware that for a time it was the city with more Irish than any in Ireland, and probably ranks highly even today. In terms of capitals for Ireland it isn't a totally crazy choice. The way the country was run left a lot to be desired, but that's more process than geography.

I don't recall anyone I knew thinking of everyone as equally Irish. There were British Irish, Republican Irish, and terrorist scum. I don't recall much differentiation between Republican and Unionist terrorists either. If anything there was a deeper hatred for the Unionist terrorists as they were being scum and waving our flag whilst they were doing it.

There was also a general feeling of bafflement. Virtually everyone knew or was related to people from Ireland, who all seemed perfectly ordinary. Everyone knew Catholics and Protestants in England who never seemed particularly bothered about the differences. Why did it cause such problems over there?

It was similar i guess, but i doubt it was worse. Economic discrimination, segregration, gerrymandering of voting districts to keep Nationalist politicians out of power.

I don't know what the American South was like leading up to the 60s, but neither do i know the details of how the Unionist majority treated the Nationalist minority. I wasn't there, neither were the British government officials who pitied the Irish in their poverty... I do know that Unionist self-rule gave all the political power to one side from 1921. That the British government ended self-rule in 1972 presumably becase they were seen as a problem. (The Ulster Unionist Party held control of the North Ireland Government from its creation in 1921, until its' dissolution in 1972. A One-Party rule which didn't help).

The new Power-Sharing agreement (setup after the Good Friday Agreement in 1998) guarantees that both Unionist and Nationalist communities are represented in government. And this has been a vital oart of the peace process.

@Octavious, Dublin was the second largest city in the British Empire until the Industrial revolution and the growth of the likes of Manchester and Liverpool. And you know what happened to Dublin? Millions left the country due to famine, caused by a government in Westminster. 1840s. A million died, and 1.5 million emigrated. So yes, London did have a large Irish population, after that mismanagement (as did America).

But i'm only railing against Imperial mismanagement, i bear no grudge against individual english people. My first girlfriend was Welsh, I have friends who joined the RAF and fought in Iraq (yet grew up near me in the South East of Ireland).

Why did the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland have some trouble? It is pretty simple, the forced partition of the country in 1921. It left some protestant land owners in the now virtually independent 'Irish Free State' being burned out of their home, and fleeing back to England. But then quickly things quietened down. However in the North the Ulster Volunteer Force was recruited into the new Royal Ulster Constabulary, and ~50 years of political and economic oppression began.

The North had a much larger Protestant/Unionist majority (because of how the border was drawn). And the One-Party Rule started out badly (with IRA members having just won a partial victory in the South, still fighting for independence in the North); the Free State fought a civil war between those who accepted the partition and those who opposed it (and so was in no position to help the North). And the RUC effectively put down the IRA members North of the border.

Effective divide and conquer tactics on behalf of the British government in Westminster? And they were protecting the interest of their loyal Unionist citizens... But yeah, the Republic i grew up in is more like the Britian you grew up in, than either is to the North of Ireland, where hatred grew between the two factions for 50 years.

Also thanks for correcting me on the preceptions of the Northern Irish in England.

Also it seems obvious that Catholic and Protestant are just convienant flags, labels to discriminate against people. The origins of the conflict are political in nature, who holds the land (taken by force in the plantation of Ulster 400 years ago. The economics of land owning protestants (often living abroad in England) and tenant farmers (often Catholic) living on the land directly lead to value being extracted from the country and poverty. Which left poor irish farmers subsisting of of potatoes and wealthy English land owners exporting more profitable crops - and when the potato bligth hit Ireland and wiped out the crop, the Irish died (while in the British Parliament the discussion suggested that this 'natural' catastrophe was inevitable, as Malthusian population dynamics suggest, and decide it was actually in the best interest of the Irish to let them die - becausr a smaller population wouldn't be so poor? - at the same time Dutch farmers hit by the same potato blight did not die in similar numbers, because the Dutch government banned the export of food).

This of course lead to decades of land reforms, and eventually a home rule movement, which eventually passed the House of Commons in 1912, but the Lotds (probably many of them still Absentee landlords owning land in Ireland, or at least descended from those who did). Blocked home rule for two years.

And then World war 1 broke out and delayed it indefinitely.

In Ulster, home rule was viciously opposed by the protestant minority, and the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) was formed to resist any attempt to impose it by force) - they had benefited from the Ulster Plantation (then 300 years previous) displacing Catholic Irish from their homes; and they didn't want to see thepolitical power going to Carholics in Dublin. Who would at the very least continue the land reforms.

Of course the Irish Volunteers decided that they would also need arms, to oppose rhe UVF and the British army (if necessary).

The war came, and 100,000 of the Irish Volunteers joined the British army, hoping their loyal service to King and country would guarentee home rule. But when thry came back they found that the 3,000 or so Irish volunteers (and members of the secret IRB, Irish Republican Brotherhood) had started a course of action which would lead to independence (not just Home Rule), thus they were branded traitors...

So yeah, politcal and economic power, land ownership, jobs, mosmanagement by laise fair politicians in the British Parliament... All things to divide the Protestats and Catholics in North Ireland.

And that is the Irish propoganda we are taught in school which leaves us NOT bagfled at the violence in Northern Ireland.

Meanwhile most history classes the world over ignore the poor and their troubles. Be they immigrants, blacks, women, or lower classes. Did they teach you about the Duke of Wellington's time as prime minister and how it almost lead to civil war (but he eventualy relented, because he had seen enough war...).

He was Irish, and part of the 'Protestant Ascendancy', thus had very little time for the poor in England when they started protesting... But also a war hero who knew what the horros of war were like, so avoided it at all costs.

Just reading this bit if history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_civil_rights_movement

I'll respond properly when I have time. But regarding the Duke of Wellington neither his time as Prime Minister nor the Napoleonic Wars nor his role in India featured in our curriculum. We have too much history for the time available, especially as there's always been an insistence on having a large chunk of global history too.

I doubt most Brits are aware that he was a Prime Minister. Those that are know he was a bloody poor one, but very few know the details.

Well before you respond, let me admit again, Irish school history PROPOGANDA features heavily. Though upon reading the entire article on the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland, i am very saddened that the non-sectarian beginings and civil disobedience lead to sectarian conflict and a denial of more civil rights (internment by the British authorities).

I've only been in one British history class (when observing lessons in Bristol) and I can't say much for it (covered a bit of Cromwell, who is of course hated in Ireland...)

Though to quote John Stuart Mill (Writing in the 1860s about Ireland): "The landlords were a mere burden on the land. The whole rental of the country was wasted in maintaining, often in reckless extravagance, people who were not nearly as useful to the hive as the drones are, and were entitled to less respect."

Absentee landlords, living in England, off of the wealth of Irish estates.

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/England_and_Ireland
Some interesting reading.

(And finally: http://ourmaninstockholm.com/2017/03/21/there-was-only-ever-one-martin-mcguinness/ )

Ok, i can't help but adding this: https://mobile.twitter.com/dublinmuseum/status/844828565359263744
The day, in 1847, when the Choctaw nation sent food aid to the Irish, because Colonialism is shit, but at least thise oppressed peoples can help each other out.

Back to 'the troubles' and the trou le with biased media narratives: https://medium.com/@hiredknave/facts-an-obituary-f1c0d76f1cb3#.c30bzt8qf

Tl;dr the IRA mostly targetted British Security forces (like an army), the loyalists paramilitaries mostly targeted Catholic civilians (because it is hard to target military targets when your fighting insurgents).

Really well researched piece.

My apologies. Been distracted recently by events.

Your tl;dr I find a bit odd. It gives the impression that the ira targeted security forces and civilians were killed as collateral damage.

A better way is saying that the ira filth deliberately targeted large numbers of civilians, as did loyalist paramilitary filth. The ira also killed large numbers of the poor sods trying to stop the killing.

Hanging is too good for them.

Ok first, read the article, it really goes into some detail about the media narrative (in Ireland) and the data/statistics.

Second, the IRA had military and police targets to hit, so they hit them, the UDA/UVF had only civilian targets (because the IRA was hard to find) so they hit the Catholic community. That is a difference of circumstance, not of morality. But the raw data could well be used to support the idea that the IRA were a legitimate army (like the British Army) while the Loyalist paramilitaries were a bunch of thugs (i do not subscribe to this natrative).

I still condemn the use of violence in places like Iraq, when the British army was sent in; so even if the IRA was acting like a real army, i would condemn them.

That said, the British Army was not originally sent in to stop them. It is important to note, when the Army went in (and i still think it is a terrible idea to send in an army to do policing - but maybe it was the best bad idea the government in Westminster had at the time). They stood between the RUC (police) and the Free Derry protesters (Civil rights groups who started out as non-sectarian and peaceful).

This is a tacit admission that Westminster didn't think the RUC was doing a good job - but unfortunately didn't de-escalte the situation. At the time the IRA didn't have much support, but the escalation lead to the bloddiest day of the troubles, which the data shows as 1972-1976.

Anyway, there has been claims that the RUC supported Loyalist terrorists by giving them weapons and otherwise. And it is likely that some members of the British Army (as you put it a few had eggs) later joined this systemic discrimination against the Catholics (the IRA was targetting them after all).

So you can see that (if not exactly how) the situation moved from a peaceful non-sectarian civil rights movement (asking for things like "One Man, One Vote", and to address a housing issue) into a sectarian conflict where many Carholic Protesters (probably like Martin MacGuinness) moved from peaceful protest to supporting the IRA. (Of course before the cease-fire and peace process, Sinn Fein, the IRA's political party, did not have the support of even a majority of Catholics, because on both sides a majority did not support violence).

Still the constant discrimination, the state security apparatus supporting loyalist terrorists, and the RUC's failed policing, are the root causes that ignited this conflict. So i can equally see many IRA supporters saying, 'well the brits were killing us, so of course i supported the IRA fighting back'.

Like you i sympathise with the members of the British Army sent in to stand in the way. They were just following orders. They were not ordered to shoot anyone, but unfortunately that is what they were trained to do. And it was almost inevitable that, once they were sent in, the situation would escalate.

I would again cite poor governance from afar*; and the current power-sharing agreement is a far better situation. (Even if it means making peace with Former terrorists like Martin MacGuinness, and Sinn Fein or the Loyalist opposites).

*Devolution and Independence to avoid the worst effects of the British Empire. The worst being famine in India in the 1860s, which ou should really read about.

Thanks for your historical analyses and for pointing out the hypocrisy of The Sun (News Corp), orathaic. Great read.
Which one was the article that "really goes into some detail about the media narrative (in Ireland) and the data/statistics"?

This article: https://medium.com/@hiredknave/facts-an-obituary-f1c0d76f1cb3#.c30bzt8qf

Looks at the RTE story, and the data (RTE is the irish equivalet of BBC, fairly well respected by most and taken as reliable, but also government sponsored and paid for by a tv license... So it is THE media narrative in Ireland - though personally i have lost a lot of respect for it, since understanding Chomsky's 'Manufactuing Consent').

And yes, i should reapeat, this historical narrative is largely biased by my education in Ireland. That said the John Stuart Mill article (written around 1868) seems to compliment what i learned in school - and when you allies and enemies both agree on something the historians tend to trust it is true.