Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How would you say the conflicts compare and contrast? Why were the Irish able to get over their differences in 30 years (1967-1997) while it's taken the people in Israel and Palestine over 60 years (1947-present)?
At least on the surface, the two conflicts are similar. In essence, one people (the British and the Israelis) moved into a place that wasn't theirs (Northern Ireland, the coastal Levant), and the natives were unhappy about it.
Each group also has a different religion deeply tied to their sense of nationalism which makes/made the situation even more difficult.
Both conflicts are/were 'dirty wars' characterized by civilian terrorist insurgents (IRA, Hamas, etc) versus secret national military and police (Mossad, Loyalists, etc.)
One major difference would be the motivation of the settlers. The British presence in Ireland was largely a case of colonialism, the English very much doing the same thing to Ireland what they were doing to North America, India, Oceania, etc during the same era. The Jewish presence in the Holy Land had mostly to do with religious reasons at the beginning but after the Holocaust was simply a place they were offered refuge.
I would say that there is nothing remotely similar between the two, unfortunately I wouldn't even know where to begin outlining the differences other than to point out the the "Troubles" between England and Ireland predate any religious conflict nor has the root issue ever really been about religion to begin with. Although I suppose one could make an argument that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict really isn't about religion either. But as I stated before, I don't see any correlation whatsoever, but I'm eager to read what others have to say.
How would you say the conflicts compare and contrast? Why were the Irish able to get over their differences in 30 years (1967-1997) while it's taken the people in Israel and Palestine over 60 years (1947-present)?
.
Well, to be fair the conflict in Northern Ireland went back further than 1967. There was plenty of violence in the early 1920s following the partition of Ireland. And going back further than the War of Irish Independence--you can see the English-Irish conflict going way back to the Middle Ages.
Another element is that the Irish largely got what they wanted--at least in the south. A fully independent and sovereign Irish state. Even after partition, there was the support from the Free State of Ireland of border guerrillas in Northern Ireland, a brief IRA flirtation with Nazi Germany(and the English fear that they'd be used as a fifth column in the case of a German invasion of Ireland), and so on...
How would you say the conflicts compare and contrast? Why were the Irish able to get over their differences in 30 years (1967-1997) while it's taken the people in Israel and Palestine over 60 years (1947-present)? Previous to 1948 all residents of the mandate were Palestinians (Arabs, Jews, christians,etc). After the UN partition those on the Jewish partition became Israelis based on their declaration of Statehood. Thus the other groups who stayed are considered Israelis. The others who chose not to become Israelis became residents of the other parts of the mandate and never declared statehood based on their partition. Thus they call themselves Palestinians, but have never declared statehood. After the 1949 Armistice these lands were annexed by Egypt and Jordan and the UN did nothing.
At least on the surface, the two conflicts are similar. In essence, one people (the British and the Israelis) moved into a place that wasn't theirs (Northern Ireland, the coastal Levant), and the natives were unhappy about it. Previous to WW1 the Jews were living there as well as anyone else under the Ottomans. The Jews had ducumented ownership of land as well as other groups. The difference with the Jews was that they cultivated the land. So you had a Jewish family run a farm with numerous Arab workers. The Arabs on the other hand were sheperds so they had no need to hire fellow Arabs. Thus the Jews owned more land and on the the other hand hand the Arabs outnumbered them because they were the paid workers. Thus these Arabs who claim ownership have no documentation and squatted on the lands past 1948. The Arabs who had Ottoman documentation still own their lands even today.
Each group also has a different religion deeply tied to their sense of nationalism which makes/made the situation even more difficult. The Jews fought for the lands because they had no where to go. The Arab residents never fought for their part of the mandate. Instead the Arab neighbors decided to do a land grab and attack from all sides (Egypt, TransJordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon) thus after the Armistice annexation occurred and not statehood.
Both conflicts are/were 'dirty wars' characterized by civilian terrorist insurgents (IRA, Hamas, etc) versus secret national military and police (Mossad, Loyalists, etc.) Previous to 1948 the only military police were the British. Past that the Arabs and the Jews each had their own groups of civilian thugs.
One major difference would be the motivation of the settlers. The British presence in Ireland was largely a case of colonialism, the English very much doing the same thing to Ireland what they were doing to North America, India, Oceania, etc during the same era. The Jewish presence in the Holy Land had mostly to do with religious reasons at the beginning but after the Holocaust was simply a place they were offered refuge. Post WW2 the Jews really had no Eastern Europe to go back to. The majority came from Poland. But their lands were taken by Russia and were used to create Balarus. Thus any deeds they had were worthless since it was no longer in Poland. There were not that many German Jews (less than 250k) before the war and after the war there were few left and they were business owners rather than land owners. Thus the motivation for the Jews was existence more than anything else, since they had nowhere to go. The Arabs didn't have this type of motivation.
The NI issue is much less religious as well - no battle over the Holy land as such.
And of course, many IRA and Loyalist members were fairly non-religious and
I don't remember ever hearing about suicide bombers there , much more secular really.
Oh yeah for sure, I never said the conflicts are about religion, I just said that the religious faiths of the people in the conflicts makes the situation more intense.
Wow, you just want start a maelstrom don't you? Both of these conflicts could occupy volumes and ignite impassioned responses all on their own...
Quote:
Originally Posted by callmemaybe
How would you say the conflicts compare and contrast? Why were the Irish able to get over their differences in 30 years (1967-1997) while it's taken the people in Israel and Palestine over 60 years (1947-present)?
Well, first off, the Irish conflict goes back centuries. The English/British directly ruled Ireland for around 700 years beginning in 1169. The religious part of the conflict goes back to the reign of Henry VIII when the Irish resisted his reformation and remained staunchly Catholic which culminated in the "colonisation/plantationization" of Ireland between 1534 and 1691 to ensure Irish vassal loyalty to the Crown. The majority Catholic population of Ireland was suppressed and prosecuted and not allowed a voice in the government until around 1829 when bans on Catholics in government were lifted. From there it was a protracted struggle to create an independent Ireland beginning in the 1880's and not culminating until 1922 after the War of Independence was waged followed by the Irish Civil War between north and south. In 1937 the Irish Free State was formed and a consitution adopted, but the six northern counties remained in the UK. That set the stage for what was to follow in Northern Ireland which was widespread violence between Nationalists and Unionists which waged for nearly 30 years beginning in the 1960's. So, to put it mildly the Irish-British conflict is a much longer and more involved history.
What is happening in Israel/Palestine is a relatively new situation. The other main difference is that the Irish gained a free state/nation and it was only the northern counties that remained mired in conflict. The Palestinians do not currently truly have their own nation.
Quote:
At least on the surface, the two conflicts are similar. In essence, one people (the British and the Israelis) moved into a place that wasn't theirs (Northern Ireland, the coastal Levant), and the natives were unhappy about it.
The British occupied Ireland (the entire country), but the conflict you specifically cited was essentially between Irishman. One side supporting the Unionists, the other the Nationalists. The UK was involved because the territory was part of the nation, but it was part of it because certain elements in Northern Ireland want it to be part of the UK.
There were Jews in Palestine long before the Mandate expired and the Jewish inhabitants declared the State of Israel. The Arabs were given the opportunity to be part of the division of the Palestine Mandate, but rejected the idea of a Jewish state as a non-sequitor. The weakness of the UN and the British in enforcing a settlement basically allowed the Jewish population to carve out their own state and disenfranchise the Arab population. This was done in face of the protests of the Arab nations.
Quote:
Each group also has a different religion deeply tied to their sense of nationalism which makes/made the situation even more difficult.
True, but I think while the religion is a defining characteristic of the groups, the actual conflict is only nominally fought for religious reasons. More or less, religion is used as justification or an excuse for persecution, but the actual conflict is not about religion per se.
Quote:
Both conflicts are/were 'dirty wars' characterized by civilian terrorist insurgents (IRA, Hamas, etc) versus secret national military and police (Mossad, Loyalists, etc.)
Yes and no. Both conflicts have featured what are most definitely "normal wars" with conventional military forces battling. Both have also featured "insurgent style" wars.
Quote:
One major difference would be the motivation of the settlers. The British presence in Ireland was largely a case of colonialism, the English very much doing the same thing to Ireland what they were doing to North America, India, Oceania, etc during the same era. The Jewish presence in the Holy Land had mostly to do with religious reasons at the beginning but after the Holocaust was simply a place they were offered refuge.
The English possessed Ireland as a territory long before anyone had a concpet of "colonialism". The British view was that Ireland was an integral part of their "home territory", not a colony, though colonisation is certainly what happened when they disenfranchised the Irish Catholics and placed English Protestant Lords in control of the nation.
The Jewish presence in the Holy Land goes back for millenia. The current push for settlement and nationhood is directly attributable to the Zionist movements that gained traction in the 1800's. These movements were often encouraged by western governments. The Jews were essentially told they could have Palestine after it was taken from the Ottomans following WW1. Of course, they also promised the Arabs that they could create their own nations as well. A nascent Jewish community and desire for nationhood existed before WW2 and the Holocaust. Jewish settlement was certainly driven by those experiences but the Jews were not "offered refuge". If anything the British who controlled the territory did everything they could to stem the flow of refugees and disarm the Jewish militia's. The State of Israel essentially created itself, but it had backing from the west and historical precedent for a claim as well as having existing communities.
Overall, I see very little beyond casual similarities to the conflicts.
I can see similarities between Israel and Ulster. For a start in the propaganda stakes the attitudes are similar. Briefly speaking Israel is wrong and the Arabs are right. In Ulster republicans are right and Loyalists are wrong. I'm not saying this view is shared by everyone but broadly speaking that is the situation.
How can it be said there are "no similarities"? Both cases were, quite simply, disputes between two demographic identities which laid claim to the same territory, based on criteria that arose during different eras. They had the same cause, and the same impediments to resolution. The precise tactical mechanisms that unfolded differed for local reasons, such as geography or available technology or economic development or influence of allies, but the intent and objective of the participants remained the same -- to claim territory as an historical right. Southern Africa, which was boiling over at the same time, was a third contemporaneous example.
It is like saying there is "no similarity at all" between planets of the Solar System (which all arose from the same origin around the same star and behave in the same way and are the same shape), simply because some are colder or more gaseous than others.
Last edited by jtur88; 03-25-2013 at 07:57 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
