A little out there, but it is quite effective for prolonging war. So long as you try and keep it balanced and proportionate, it will never end, and I think that’s pretty fine for a lot of people.

Your proposal, then–short of using force– offers what answer? (BTW, annihilation of Israel isn’t part of any solution!)

I agree that CIVILISED inhabitants of the beleaguered MiddleEast, as well as the world, don’t desire incessant war.

So why does the fighting continue?

Just because you got sovereignty, doesn’t mean you can demand a seat at the table or the teat.

As for sources of information for my claims, it’s good that you mentioned that. Because I already did a little research on the IRA. Not much, only a few hours, but it was educational. I’ve already checked the consistency with the behavior of Brits on other fronts, so the information is consistent and it is plausible. Research is at my blog via this link, dodgy.

http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/2006/06/ulster-orangemen-death-squads-and-ira.html

It all comes down to the basic question of, “what does the IRA get in return for peace that they couldn’t get via war”. Because the IRA is different from the Palestinian, Iranian, and Syrian deathsquads, even if someone took your propositions about how Britain made peace with the IRA at face value, it still is not relevant to you or the Brits giving advice to Israel on how to deal with their terroists.

Know your enemy, dodgy. A simple phrase, but a complex concept.

Feb 9 1996, the IRA broke a ceasefire with a huge bomb in the London Docklands.

>The IRA specifically targeted people who have killed Irish folk, for assassination. The Islamic Terroists kill any Jewish people indiscriminately.

And what was the specific target of the Omagh bomb then?
Who are these Irish folk?
The IRA were responsbible for a very large number of sectarian murders and blew up innocent British civillians time and time again. The IRA wern’t assassins, they were politcal and religous terrorists, and counted British civillians as legitimate targets.

>The British tried to order the SAS to conduct the assassinations, but the SAS refused. One of their members said that they weren’t members of death squads, and that if British intel wanted someone dead, they should do it themselves.

Got any sources for this tall story?
I don’t deny that there were times when the British co-operated with the Unionists but wasn’t to the extent you’d have us believe. If you disagree with that too, feel free to source it?

It seems to me you have no understanding of the very complex manner in which we got the state we have today. I don’t pretend to know all the facts about the more recent peace deals – but the IRA certainly didn’t just give up because they knew the British were stronger.

>Israel needs to give the Palestinians the same choice we gave the Japanese. Either give up now and join politics, or be annihilated to the last woman and child.

That fact you believe that really disturbs, sickens me.
When you have a demorcratically elected party (Hamas) being dismissed as a terroist organisation whats sort of message does that send do you think?

At least Sinn Fienn was entertained.

I think those of you who think Israel’s actions have been justified & proportioned are clearly deluded.

Dodgy then said, Nothing I said was innacurate.

Now, Dodgy would of course believe that those who disagree with him are deluded and that it would be an accurate statement, simply because he agrees with himself.

Then there’s the matter of accuracy. Since Britain did not respond to the IRA threat by bombing the IRA nor attempting to broker peace deals, how can this be said to be “accurate”? AN accurate rendition of Dodgy’s fabrications, perhaps, but that’s it.

I think it’s you that need some lessons in the subject.
When dodgy finds me historical footage that said how the British attempted to bomb the IRA after honest peace deals were violated by the IRA, then Dodgy might have some advantages over me.

Because there are plenty of IRA sympathizers in the US.

That’s an effective argument. Implying that defenders of Israel cannot do so honestly because the defenders support terroists.

Obviously Dodgy looks upon defenders of Israeli policy as being deluded, although he tends to limit the hostile tone of his writing to a trickle. The British, as I’ve seen, also point towards their domestic ‘troubles’ with the IRA and attempts to take a moral high ground with Israel and the defenders of Israel, by making an arbitrary and forced equivalency between the IRA and Hamas/Hizbollah.

The reason why that is wrong is many, but here is one. The IRA specifically targeted people who have killed Irish folk, for assassination. The Islamic Terroists kill any Jewish people indiscriminately. It is in the culture. The Irish attempted to selectively target members for assassination. Their bombs, one of the most anti-tamper proof bombs in the world, were probably their weapon of choice. Because those bombs killed civilians and because the IRA did not care so long as their targets were taken down, made the IRA terroists defacto. When the IRA gave up the arms, ‘because’ they know the SAS and British were too powerful for them to fight and because the IRA wanted to defend their Irish family and citizens, it puts them in a very different light than Islamic Jihad. Islamic Jihad doesn’t care about their children, women, and family. They want Heaven, and jihad is their way. Suicide bombing also pays a lot.

The IRA ended things because the IRA knew the British were going to indiscriminately kill the Irish off or let the Ulster Unionists do it to avoid a bloody hand. British intel services employed several Ulster Unionist deathsquads and assassination gangs in order to proxy terrorize the IRA. Simply because the British did not want to be seen as directly connected with punishing IRA members through extra-judicial means. The British tried to order the SAS to conduct the assassinations, but the SAS refused. One of their members said that they weren’t members of death squads, and that if British intel wanted someone dead, they should do it themselves. Since British intel didn’t want the spotlight, they hired Ulster Unionists. Nothing particularly surprising given the cloak and dagger nature of intel organizations of states.

Because the IRA knew that Britain ahd the power of the SAS, an elite organization that could have taken the IRA down in months if not weeks had the British declared war on the IRA and recognized them as legitimate opponents (The British didn’t do that for a reason, figure it out), the IRA gave up. Israel needs to give the Palestinians the same choice we gave the Japanese. Either give up now and join politics, or be annihilated to the last woman and child.

That’s what the IRA feared, and that’s what the SAS were capable of had war been declared. The IRA were not willing to sacrifice their families by pushing the British into declaring war on them and using the SAS to “target and terminate” the IRA command and control heirarchy.

Not only do the British have no right attempting to “advise” from their non-existent moral high ground, but their advice is totally wrong. It’s not what they did, and it is not going to help Israel.

No, Dodgy, I really do need educated. You may be right that force is not the answer, but allowing itself to be pushed into the sea is not the answer either. I’m always troubled by those who say that use of force will only strengthen the support of Israel’s enemies, because I don’t believe the logical extreme of that argument — that if Israel will just be really, really nice its enemies will decided to let it exist. If Israel is really, really nice, its enemies will capitalize on the the weakness and destroy it completely.

I’m not sure there is a way out of the dilemma in the Middle East that allows Israel to continue to exist, simply because I can’t see its enemies giving up on destroying it, at least so long as they enjoy so much support (financial and otherwise) from so much of the world. Israel’s only hope, and it is a thin one, is that it can make life so painful for its enemies that the enemies grow tired of the fight and decide to allow Israel to exist. I don’t see this happening, but I don’t see any other course for Israel. At least an aggressive defense may allow it to continue to exist for a time, and buying time in itself is worthwhile.

In the end, what would you have Israel do that you honestly believe will persuade its enemies to allow it to exist in peace?

Not when there was a sustained mainland bombing campaign.

A response like Israeli’s would have only served to strengthen the support for the IRA, and the same will happen with Hezbollah. Unless Israel plans to wipe out all the Lebonese, Palestininas, Iranians and Syrians force really isn’t the answer.

When the British Para’s messed up and shot 13 demonstrators dead on Bloody Sunday it only served to increase the terror threat.

>P.S. I’m not the one who said you need history lessons; I’m the one who asked you for a history lesson and got back condescension.

For that I apologise. I was mistaken in thinking your comment carried sarcasm.

P.S. I’m not the one who said you need history lessons; I’m the one who asked you for a history lesson and got back condescension.

In Northern Ireland, however, we are talking about an effort to break away a portion of the country, not an effort to eliminate the contry in its entirety, as is the case with Israel. That is why my comment focused on England. The threat in Northern Ireland is limited to Northern Ireland. The threat to Israel is to the destruction of the whole country.

Even taking your description of the Northern Ireland problem on its face, I would have had no problem at all with Great Britain acting as Israel has and believe they should have. It might well have saved the 30 years of killing you talk about. Israel, where the existence of the entire nation is at stake, has a right to take far harsher actions to preserve its own existence.

Your comment on Hezbollah misses the point, because the Palestinians had been lobbing rockets into Israel for years, in recent months from Gaza (before Israel began the current offensive), and I don’t see any reason that Israel should distinguish between Hammas and Hezbollah in formulating its response.