Home > Melanie Phillips

Sunday 6 July 2008

Dare to dream and make your ultimate trip a reality

The latest culture as recommended by our staff

Liz Anderson

Liz suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value reader offers and events

Click here for the latest Spectator Wine Offers

A lethally flawed analogy

Wednesday, 24th October 2007

The former Northern Ireland First Minister, Lord Trimble, has produced today an important and timely pamphlet which shreds the glib analogy by which Northern Ireland’s ‘peace process’ is promoted as the template for ending the Israel/Arab impasse. The argument is that, just as Northern Ireland was pacified by the fact that British government suddenly changed tack and started talking to the IRA without preconditions, so the Israel/Arab conflict will only end if Hamas are brought into dialogue and negotiations. A variety of individuals and organisations in Britain, the US and elsewhere are spouting this ahistorical and ignorant view which has gained significant and alarming traction in the upper reaches of the British establishment. I am glad to see that in his pamphlet, Lord Trimble specifically singles out by name the ‘conflict resolution’ groups Conflicts Forum and Forward Thinking, as well as Peter Hain, Daniel Levy and Michael Ancram, who are busy promoting this view, every part of which is false. It is a lobby that I have previously written about here, here, here, here and here.

Much of the Trimble document is an account of the Northern Ireland peace process itself, and not everyone will agree with the conclusions he draws about whether it has actually left the province in the gratifyingly satisfactory state that public opinion generally deems it to be. Whatever one thinks about Northern Ireland, however, the points Trimble makes to show that the analogy with the Middle East are wholly false are entirely sound.

Broadly, there are two key differences. The first is that, whether or not people disagreed with the aim of a united Ireland and abhorred the terrorism used to achieve it, the goal itself was perfectly respectable, unlike the goal of Hamas to eradicate Israel and Islamise the region (I would add that Fatah shares the former aim). Much more important, however, is that that far from the Brits suddenly reaching out to the IRA, it was the IRA that suddenly told the British government ‘the war is over’ and asked to be brought into the political process. And that was because, as Trimble says, it had been beaten into a permanent stalemate. That is entirely different from talking to Hamas which is still attacking Israel through rocket attacks and suicide bomb attempts. In fact, as Trimble says, the British government did talk to the IRA in 1972 when it was still very much at war. The result was disastrous and merely intensified the IRA’s belief that everything was up for grabs.

As Trimble says, it is supreme folly to imagine that peace follows from talking to ‘biddable extremists’, and not just across the Irish sea or in the Middle East.

In Northern Ireland, this has helped to create an account of the past as Irish republicans would have it. The British Government, notwithstanding its achievements in Northern Ireland, has been remarkably acquiescent in this process; indeed, at times it has even encouraged it. In this regard, it is striking that the temptation to ‘buy off’ the loudest and most bombastic is also in evidence in the Government’s approach to the Muslim community in the United Kingdom. After 9/11, as Martin Bright has shown, the Government embarked on an ‘engagement’ with the British/Muslim community that rested on choosing interlocutors who were not genuine moderates but radicals, often of foreign origin. In an attempt to achieve the quiet life, it has made short-term and unsustainable deals, undermining more moderate partners on whom it must rely in the long term.

Absolutely. Appeasement has undermined relative moderates in Northern Ireland, in the Middle East and in Britain and has only served to strengthen and embolden the enemies of freedom and democracy. All those currently pushing ‘engagement’ with Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Islamists worldwide are merely helping them do their dirty work. The Northern Ireland paradigm is a lethal illusion.

Previous Back to Melanie Phillips Next

Blogs: Clive Davis | Stephen Pollard | Americano | Coffee House | Trading Floor

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (9)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Richard Dell

October 24th, 2007 4:22pm

The pamphlet may be found here: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/files/misundertanding_ulster_cfi.pdf I agree with Melanie's anaylsis. That the likes of Peter Hain should fall for the false analogy does not surprise me - the world view of such people airbrushes over the less savoury aspects of human nature, Michael Ancram is another matter - he really should know better. I hope William Hague takes note, as he has seemed pretty wobbly on this issue. The Arabs and Iranians, through their various political and military proxies, their media, their education and Mosques, have never proposed a solution that Israel could accept, fed their populations a diet of unrelenting hatred and usually negotiated in bad faith. After signing the O|slo Accords, Arafat mentioned the Treaty of Hudaibiya, little known to most Westerners, but well known to Muslims. The Treaty was broken by Mohammad, and this precedent amounts to justifying any deception, any lie that delays or confuses your enemy, while you regroup for the next assault. You can only deal with such people by negotiating from strength, because the slightest sign of weakness will encourage the other side to play for time.

Willow

October 24th, 2007 5:10pm

We can't be surprised at people like Peter Hain. Marxists just love to rewrite history, they don't know anything else. But Michael Ancram is just a shocker.

David Gibson

October 24th, 2007 5:37pm

I broadly agree...although, i am not sure their goal is 'perfectly respectable' given that it involves the removal of every vestige of our British id. They want Brits out...ie people like me. We are not allowed to fly the union flag, people are afraid to wear the poppy at work as people may take offence, the irish language campaign etc etc... Ironically, it was Trimble who went into govt with sf/ira before they decomissioned and before theY recognised the police and courts.

M.Lester

October 24th, 2007 5:42pm

We heard today of the shocking & vicious murder of a man in Belfast - a murder which bears all the hallmarks of the Provisionals. If this were proved to be so, it could bring about the unwinding of the agreement. I really don't understand how David Trimble, someone whom I respect, can really equate the N.I. situation with that in the M.E. In N.I. one has predominantly 2 communities who are branches of the same religion. True they've fought on various occasions. But apart from the odd accidents, the IRA didn't set about foregoing their own lives by obliterating the other community. To my knowledge, there's never been that level of hatred, spewed out by the imams, the controlled media, the politicos & the schools. The IRA never dragged a screaming mother from her car & killed her 4 girls in front of her eyes - an act which the PA populace expressed general delight (as with other such outrages). Before Israel or the West proceeds with further negotiations with the PA arabs, surely there must be some proof given of sincerity. So far there has been 100% proof of insincerity: every single agreement by the PA has been broken.

Rob Weatherill

October 24th, 2007 6:30pm

No. The Republican objective of a "united Ireland" was not at all 'respectable' and while not as global in its aspirations as Hamas, was intent upon an ethnic clensing of Northern Protestants, but it was stopped by the British army using fair means and foul (e.g. FRU)to contain and then infiltrate the armed groups. All the time, over 30 years, Britain was on the back foot, politically, criticised in every media. In the end the IRA could, in effect, do nothing but talk and even then they dragged things out over another ten years.

Michael

October 24th, 2007 10:54pm

Rob Weatjherill; please provide evidence of the Republicans' intention to "ethnically cleanse" NI of Protestants. As someone who has studied the conflict over several years, this is news to me. (I'm not asserting that you're either wrong or lying - sincerely, I would be interested to hear your evidence for this statement. I'm from a Northern Irish catholic family, now resident in England, and I'd like to say that I abhor the murderers, and find myself having more and more respect for Trimble. Here he says something that definitely needed saying, and says it with great authority and intelligence.

Robert

October 24th, 2007 11:51pm

We all recognise where the path of previous appeasement has led us before. Looks very like history will repeat itself only this time we have a fifth column already in place entrenched in strategic areas within most of our major cities. Sounds like the deal is already done in the UK and Europe and we will be subject to constant propaganda re Hamas , Fatah and radical Islam etc etc. Israel must feel very alone just now , its absolutely disgusting that we engage with terrorists period !!. God help us if these monsters defeat Israel ...guess whos next !!

field

October 25th, 2007 9:41pm

Yes. The world is now far too dangerous a place for anything other than principled democratic politics. That means supporting true democrats - even when they are a beleaguered minority - both at home and abroad. Robert - Agreed. The idea that Hamas and Hezbollah would take up olive farming after irradiating Israel and expelling its citizenry is to put it mildly the stuff of fantasy.

Simon Newman

October 25th, 2007 9:50pm

As I understand it the Fatah position re Israel is identical to the IRA/SF position re Northern Ireland - the Protestant/Jewish minority will be allowed to remain under Catholic/Muslim majority rule. I can't see how one is 'respectable' and the other not. Of course the reality in either case would likely involve at least some ethnic cleansing, but that's a different matter.