4 ms·

You probably know a lot more then me about this, and I apologize for speaking above my weight here. I will back down on this issue, thanks for informing me. Ho

You probably know a lot more then me about this, and I apologize for speaking above my weight here. I will back down on this issue, thanks for informing me. However, I want to keep talking about the Irish. To claim they got their independence via compromising is very simplistic. They were only able to compromise after 2½ years of violent resistance following the Easter Uprising, and even after the Anglo-Irish treaty in 1922 they still suffered almost a year of civil war as a consequence of that compromise. If not for the Easter Uprising, there would not have been an Anglo-Irish treaty, and the British would have gotten all they wanted. Ireland would probably have to wait until the decolonization period of the 1960s or the 1990s for any sort of political avenue for their statehood prospects. I’m pretty sure there were people during the onset of the 1920s claiming that the IRA was “sabotaging” any peace treaty, especially since (unlike Hamas) they actually didn’t want to cede Belfast. And unlike Israel, the British negotiated despite the IRA not wanting to compromise. The IRA fought other nationalists in a civil war over this (and so did Hamas,,, kinda).

invalidname 3y ago
I'm not saying that all violent resistance is wrong. In fact the analogy of the PLO fits here perfectly. In the 70's PLO terrorists invaded the north of Israel and killed children. They were brutal. Yet Israel came to terms with them, some of which hold to this day. The split between the two sides is also a good analogy. The Irish here are a bit in the middle between Israelis and Palestinians. I think this is one of the main reasons Palestinians keep loosing and Israel keeps winning. During the resistance years to the British occupation of Israel/Palestine, both Palestinian and Jews had groups. Palestinians remained divided to familial groups which is a division that holds to this day. They are rivals and never truly unified under compromise of a single ruler. OTOH the more extreme Jews were led by Begin, they conducted terror attacks (which are moderate by today's standard) but still extreme. This led to several attacks from the moderate side led by Ben Gurion. This included turning in the extremists to the British (effectively betraying their own people) and even shooting at one of their ships. Here Begin showed his greatness. He surrendered. He understood that if he continues there will be a civil war. The country unified around Ben Gurion and Begin was cast into opposition for 30 years. This willingness to sacrifice his ideology in favor of unity and compromise is one of the most important reasons Israel is unified to this day. Palestinians don't have figures like that. Never have. Arafat was fantastically rich. Abu Mahazen is famously corrupt. The leaders of Hamas are living off in Qatar in a lavish style with millions they stole from their own people (they used to charge a heavy fee to smuggle through their tunnels). The problem is that the structure of Palestinian society makes it very difficult to anyone who isn't corrupt to rise to the top and hold power. The right wing in Israel usually say's that there's no partner for peace. I think that's a terrible excuse but they do have a point. > since (unlike Hamas) they actually didn’t want to cede Belfast Hamas won't cede any part of Israel so the IRA seems far more moderate. I'd say the analogy would be like the IRA demanding the entire UK.

invalidname 3y ago

I'm not saying that all violent resistance is wrong. In fact the analogy of the PLO fits here perfectly. In the 70's PLO terrorists invaded the north of Israel and killed children. They were brutal. Yet Israel came to terms with them, some of which hold to this day. The split between the two sides is also a good analogy. The Irish here are a bit in the middle between Israelis and Palestinians. I think this is one of the main reasons Palestinians keep loosing and Israel keeps winning. During the resistance years to the British occupation of Israel/Palestine, both Palestinian and Jews had groups. Palestinians remained divided to familial groups which is a division that holds to this day. They are rivals and never truly unified under compromise of a single ruler. OTOH the more extreme Jews were led by Begin, they conducted terror attacks (which are moderate by today's standard) but still extreme. This led to several attacks from the moderate side led by Ben Gurion. This included turning in the extremists to the British (effectively betraying their own people) and even shooting at one of their ships. Here Begin showed his greatness. He surrendered. He understood that if he continues there will be a civil war. The country unified around Ben Gurion and Begin was cast into opposition for 30 years. This willingness to sacrifice his ideology in favor of unity and compromise is one of the most important reasons Israel is unified to this day. Palestinians don't have figures like that. Never have. Arafat was fantastically rich. Abu Mahazen is famously corrupt. The leaders of Hamas are living off in Qatar in a lavish style with millions they stole from their own people (they used to charge a heavy fee to smuggle through their tunnels). The problem is that the structure of Palestinian society makes it very difficult to anyone who isn't corrupt to rise to the top and hold power. The right wing in Israel usually say's that there's no partner for peace. I think that's a terrible excuse but they do have a point. > since (unlike Hamas) they actually didn’t want to cede Belfast Hamas won't cede any part of Israel so the IRA seems far more moderate. I'd say the analogy would be like the IRA demanding the entire UK.