Irish and Islamist Terrorism

Not long ago a friend, speaking of what he called the "tensions in the Middle East", told me that eventually the Israelis and Palestinians would follow the example of the Irish and come to a "reasonable solution" that would no doubt lead to lasting peace. I thought this was more than little Pollyannish and suggested that the two conflicts were not at all alike. He, however, countered that there was little difference between the IRA and Islamist groups such as Hamas or Hezbollah or the Muslim Brotherhood or even al-Qaeda. "We just need to get them all together with the Israelis," he argued, "apply some serious diplomacy, and they will come to see that violence never leads to success." When I said that World War II was a rather obvious example of the successful application of violence, he got personal and said, "That's the sort of warlike talk I'd expect from you." (He knows I am a retired naval officer.) At this point I concluded there was little reason to continue our argument.

Sadly this all occurred before I read the following article by Clifford May, or my (rhetorical) weapons would have been considerably more effective. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on national security. The article appeared this week on National Review Online. I intend to share it with my friend, who I am certain does not read this blog or NRO.

Dublin — In 1978, I was a young foreign correspondent assigned to cover “the Troubles,” the conflict in Northern Ireland between Protestants and Catholics, between those loyal to the British Crown and those determined to make Ireland a united and independent nation. There were “paramilitaries” on both sides. Terrorism — bombings, assassinations, and other forms of violence targeting civilians for political ends — was among the principal weapons employed.

But in at least one way, terrorism was different then: Although I sometimes worried that I might end up on the wrong Belfast street at the wrong time, I was confident that no one saw me as a target. Journalists were neutrals. “Loyalists” and “Republicans” alike were eager to tell me their stories, and have me retell those stories to distant audiences. Without fear, I would sit down with hard men and ask tough questions.

At some point over the years since, new technologies and ideologies brought changes that became obvious when the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Pearl took his notebook and pen to a 2002 meeting with terrorists in Karachi. They had a different approach to shaping the narrative — one that would entail beheading Pearl on camera and posting the video on the Internet.

The Troubles wracked Northern Ireland for almost 30 years. More than 1,500 people were killed. In those days, that was a serious number. But early in the new century, nearly twice as many innocent people would be killed on a single day in New York, Pennsylvania, and Arlington, Va. Meanwhile, in Syria over the past year, a conflict with ethno-religious-political undercurrents has taken some 20,000 lives. Perceiving this as an inflationary trend does not inspire optimism.

Queen Elizabeth & Martin McGuinness, former IRA commande

George Will, the venerable columnist, once cited Northern Ireland as one of the world’s two “intractable” conflicts. The other was what was then known as the Arab–Israeli conflict, today more usually called the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, though in reality it is now Islamist regimes and movements that are most seriously waging what they call a jihad against Israel.

Will was wrong about Ireland. The Troubles ended with the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. Two Northern Irish politicians, John Hume and David Trimble, were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize — a rare occasion on which the awards were actually deserved.

Today, Northern Ireland remains British. But a good road connects the Republic in the south with the United Kingdom in the north, and no border guards or checkpoints impede travel between the two. Former terrorists, reformed if not repentant, serve in Northern Ireland’s government. Rightly or wrongly, Queen Elizabeth II shook hands with one earlier this year.

On a brief return to Northern Ireland this week, it was apparent that there are still tensions, still segregated neighborhoods, still pubs where Protestants and Catholics do not mix. But the Troubles ended when most people on both sides accepted the idea of an imperfect peace, when they came to see compromise as preferable to more killing and dying, and when they tired of the poverty and degradation that chronic carnage brings in its wake.

Should that give us hope that peace in the Middle East also is possible and perhaps even imminent? Absolutely not.

At its worst, the IRA never sought the destruction of Britain and never vowed to wipe Protestants off the Irish map. The most extreme Protestant paramilitaries did not argue that southern Catholics had no right to self-determination.

These days, it is fashionably multicultural and politically correct to assign blame in roughly equal measure to Israelis and Palestinians. It also is patently false. Time and again, Israelis have demonstrated their willingness to compromise in order to achieve an imperfect peace with their neighbors, not least those in Gaza and the West Bank.

Hamas, by contrast, is openly committed to Israel’s annihilation, attacking those who would settle for less as traitors and apostates. Fatah’s spokesmen, at least in Arabic, express solidarity with Hamas on that score. Meanwhile, Iran’s rulers, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood all continue to insist that they will never accept Israel, that they will not allow even the tiniest swath of the Middle East to be ruled by non-Muslims, least of all the despised Jews, who, it is charged with bewildering inconsistency, defied the Prophet Mohammed in ancient Arabia and have no roots in the region.

“There are fascist forces in this world,” David Trimble said in his 1998 Nobel Lecture. “The first step to their defeat is to define them.” In Ireland, enough people took that step, and what Trimble has termed “a sort of peace” has been the admirable result. In the Middle East, too many are still unwilling or unable to take that first step, and so no other steps can follow.

Here's a link to Clifford May's original article on NRO: Letter from Ireland

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The Ongoing War Against the "Infidels"

One of my interests, which I highlight regularly on this blog, is the growing persecution of Christians throughout the world. And it is truly a worldwide phenomenon. Christians seem to be the target of choice irrespective of who's doing the persecuting. Christians, for example, are persecuted by the communist rulers of China, Viet Nam and Cuba -- pretty much wherever atheism is the official policy of totalitarian governments.

But atheistic communism isn't the only source of such persecution. Far more subtle and less obvious forms of persecution are now increasingly common in Western Europe and Canada, and are even making inroads here in the United States. This persecution seems to originate among secular humanists who tend to view religion as an obsolete vestige of an unenlightened past and religious people as ignorant masses in need of reeducation. Its most obvious symptom is in the denial of freedom of speech to those who oppose the reigning political correctness.

But we also encounter persecution in some of its most violent forms from other religions, specifically Islam and Hinduism. So-called fundamentalist Hindus in India have been responsible for killing Christians of all denominations, destroying their churches, and turning large numbers of them into homeless refugees. Sadly the persecutors have for the most part gone unpunished by the Indian justice system. Persecution of Christians in Muslim countries is, of course, nothing new, but the increased application of sharia law and the growing influence of fundamentalist clerics has encouraged radicalized Muslims to act violently against Christian minorities. In Saudi Arabia, and increasingly in Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia and other Muslim nations, the governments themselves engage in overt persecution of Christians.

One logical conclusion of all this is that Christianity is perceived as the enemy by much of the world, regardless of the religious or philosophical beliefs of the persecutors. We should, of course, expect this since we were clearly instructed by the Lord that the world would persecute us because of Him. But that doesn't mean we should sit on our hands and say nothing. As Pope Benedict XVI has clearly stated, religious persecution of both Christians and non-Christians must cease. He has called on the international community to support him on this. But, sadly, most Western nations lack the courage to do so, or they simply do not care.

Clifford May has written two interesting articles in National Review Online that address the ongoing war waged by Muslims against Christians and other "infidels." They are well worth reading, and I've provided links below:

• The War Against the Christians.

• The War Against the Infidels.

Pray for our persecuted brothers and sisters throughout the world.

Pax et bonum...