Opinion
Ireland: a model for Israel
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Andy Boegel:
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
BELFAST — In West Belfast, much like in the West Bank, there is a huge wall dividing two different ethnic populations. The Catholic neighborhood of Clonard touches the South side of the wall, while the Shankill, a Protestant area, encroaches from the North. Many Catholics, or Nationalists, do not consider the British government to be the legitimate power in Northern Ireland and they wish for Northern Ireland to unite again with the Republic in the South. Protestants, or Unionists/Loyalists, wish for Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom.
From the late 1960s until just recently, the conflict has been fierce. Thousands have died on both sides, mostly innocent citizens, but Northern Ireland still remains a part of the United Kingdom.
Thankfully, violence has subsided in this divided community and for much of Northern Ireland during the last decade, mostly because of paramilitary ceasefires and the Belfast Agreement of 1998, which, among other things, guaranteed power sharing in the Northern Ireland government for both Protestants and Catholics. It did not solve all the problems, but it was a great first step in ending this centuries-long conflict.
What was so amazing about the agreement was that virtually every political party on both sides, no matter how radical, was invited to the talks, and all the major parties but one signed the agreement. On the Catholic side, the SDLP (Social Democratic Labour Party), led by John Hume, and Sinn Féin, the political wing of the IRA (Irish Republican Army) led by Gerry Adams, were signatories. On the Protestant side, David Trimble’s UUP (Ulster Unionist Party), which represented the vast majority of Protestants, not only signed the agreement, but also acknowledged that Sinn Féin would no longer be considered an associate of the IRA and would be a legitimate Catholic party that would play a part in the new government. Only one major Protestant party, the DUP (Democratic Unionist Party), did not sign the agreement.
What was the result of having all of these players at the table? The Agreement was supported by more than 71 percent of the people of Northern Ireland in a May 1998 referendum. John Hume and David Trimble won the Nobel Peace Prize, and stability was restored to an otherwise violent region of the world.
Then something strange happened. By 2003, the radical Catholic and Protestant parties, Sinn Féin and the DUP, had more seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly than their moderate counterparts. Since the DUP does not recognize the agreement and will not talk to Sinn Féin, the peace process is at a bit of a standstill. This may be a good sign, however. If any new and better deal is to be reached, the two radical parties will have to initiate the dialogue because their majority is slim, and the electorate has proven that it will respond to agreements reached with both sides involved.
If no new agreement is reached, the parties will eventually fall out of power.
There are many similarities between the “troubles” in Northern Ireland and the conflict in the Middle East, and leaders from both the Israeli and Palestinian camps can learn much from the success in Northern Ireland. First, and most importantly, a ceasefire on both sides needs to be in effect if any progress is to be made. Second, if and when talks do begin in the Middle East, every major party must, no matter how radical or moderate, be involved in the debate as long as those groups represent a clear majority of the combined Israeli and Palestinian electorate. Hardliners will be accepted and more willing to come to the table if there is a ceasefire.
Finally, the parties involved must be able to deliver on any promises made. This means that groups within both the Israeli and Palestinian camp need to reach some sort of consensus on what they collectively want before talks begin. That way they can be united as they sell the results to the electorate.
Recent positive events, most notably the death of Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s shift in priorities from mainly playing to his base to making the future of the Jewish state the most important issue (hint to our president), have led me to believe that a dialogue between the Israelis and Palestinians is possible. I am not advocating any solution but what I am in favor of is a deal that the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians can agree on, tolerate and uphold.
A conclusion to the conflict in the Middle East may be decades away, but at least we know that peace is possible.
Don’t believe me? Just look at Northern Ireland.
Andy Boegel (aeboegel@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in political science, international studies, and history. He is currently studying abroad at the National University of Ireland, Galway.
13 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Fans of Waits will not be disappointed
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
SPRING SUBLET: 1 bedroom in 2 bedroom at the Aberdeen. Rent negotiable. Email arkramer@wisc.edu
GENTLE WOMEN...THROUGH the lens of Douglas J. Nesbit, newly released book now available for holiday gifts! www.gentlewomen.us
Andy, there's one important point that negates the comparison. England never had an ancestral claim to Ireland. The Jewish refugees who settled in Israel after the Holocaust do have a historical claim to Israel. Jews occupied Israel long before Muslims and Christians came along.
but yes, it would certainly benefit everyone in Israel if all were represented in any peace negotiations, as long as everyone mutually agrees that not everyone will necessarily get what they ask for. While we're at it, let's ensure that outside influences on the wheeling & dealing don't meddle. The parties involved--the Israelis and the Palestinians--have to reach an agreement that is acceptable to each other, not to any outside interests.
While I agree with the gist of this, there is a problem. By including all sides in the discussion, should Hamas be included? This should be an obvious no. The path to something at least resembling peace in the Middle East is simple. 1) Terrorist attacks on Israel either end completely or at least to a point where they are become a rarity instead of a common experience. 2) The Palestinian authority has to actively hunt down terrorists, removing them from the Palestinian border. There seems to be a solid chance of this, as Arafat would often incite terrorists to attack Israel when speaking in Arabic.
Here would be my plan, a cease fire for one year, unless attacks on Israel by terrorist groups reached a heinous level again. How this level could be determined is beyond me, maybe a sheer number or frequency system, maybe number of people killed, maybe amount of damage done in dollars, maybe a mixture of the 3 and other factors. That year will be for Palestine to assemble their own infrastructure to take care of terrorist organizations residing within their borders on their own. After that, begin talks.
Beyond that, though, there is another difference between Northern Ireland and the Middle East. The Catholics in Northern Ireland just want to be free from UK rule. A large number of Palestinians want Israel to cease to exist, and would continue to desire that even if there was an immediate creation of a Palestinian state today.
Considering the radically different histories of the regions, their is no comparison between the two conflicts.
England colonized Ireland, Israel was formed by refugees. The religious divide in the Middle East runs much deeper than that in Ireland.
Palestinians are relegated to dense refugee camps in small swaths of land and want their own country. The Irish already have their own country; the IRA simply wanted the return the colonized part of it back to Ireland.
There's really no comparison, other than both conflicts involve(d) an occasional exploding vehicle.
Another difference - the Palestinians will not stop until the Jews are driven into the sea. It's memorialized in the Palestinian constitution.
If the Jews would just agree to be driven into the sea, then we'd have peace. Why can't they be more accommodating of this simple request?
Along the lines of what the above poster said, all the IRA separatists want is reunification with Ireland. They don't object to the ethnic English continuing to live there.
Has the IRA or Sinn Fein ever had a suicide bomber?
These comments sound like the Israeli government. I didn't know they had so many mouth pieces oon Campus.
Only Palestinian Jews have historical claim to the Land of Palestine. Just like Palestinian Muslims and Christians. German, Polish, Russian, and Ethiopian Jews are just that; German, Polish, Russian, and Ethiopian.
Trying to exclude groups and factions from negotiations is only a tactic to preempt peace and dialogue. Hamas and others must be included, they have legitimate demands, and must be heard. Regardless of they are going about them now, they must be included in negoatiations, otherwise, they'll keep going the same way.
Stop claiming Palestinains are to push Jews into the see, if you are goin to use that blather all the time to avoid talking to them, how will you know what they want.
All those claims are just divergance from reality, if you any of the comentators are sincere about peace, they they didn't show it here. Dialogue id the way to get there, not to brand all Palestinains to be in favor of fighting to jutifie the ethnic cleasing campiagn against as carried out by the partheid state fo Israel.
Andy, good analysis, I just think you views of Arafat's death, and Sharon's shift are too simplistic. Arafat was not the proble, he never had the power to be dictate the discourse, Israelis with the strong military confined him to a building, and carried out a massive attack of destruction and ethnic cleasing, whcih empowered radical groups, and made fighting back against the occupation, the only sensible thing to do. Thye had to die to live.
Sharon is not shifting, he's manuvering. His plan, is meant to take pressure off of him deplomatically, until the end of his term. It won't be implimented, that's why he's putting for a refrendum after another, in the past, he took Israel into war without any consultation. If implemented, the paln is going to make Gaza into a massive Ghetto, a concentration camp, that the Israeli army controls from all sides, and now we see they started forcing Palestinains musicians to play background music to the murdur of others by the Israeli army, as did the Nazis.
These comments sound like the Israeli government. I didn't know they had so many mouth pieces on Campus.
Only Palestinian Jews have historical claim to the Land of Palestine. Just like Palestinian Muslims and Christians. German, Polish, Russian, and Ethiopian Jews are just that; German, Polish, Russian, and Ethiopian.
Trying to exclude groups and factions from negotiations is only a tactic to preempt peace and dialogue. Hamas and others must be included; they have legitimate demands, and must be heard. Regardless of they are going about them now, they must be included in negotiations, otherwise, they'll keep going the same way.
Stop claiming Palestinians are to push Jews into the see, if you are going to use that blather all the time to avoid talking to them, how will you know what they want?
All those claims are just divergence from reality, if you any of the commentators are sincere about peace, they didn't show it here. Dialogue is the way to get there, not to brand all Palestinians to be in favor of fighting to justify the ethnic cleansing campaign against as carried out by the apartheid state of Israel.
Andy, good analysis, I just think you views of Arafat's death and Sharon's shift are too simplistic. Arafat was not the problem, he never had the power to be dictate the discourse, Israelis with the strong military confined him to a building, and carried out a massive attack of destruction and ethnic cleansing, which empowered radical groups, and made fighting back against the occupation, the only sensible thing to do. They had to die to live.
Sharon is not shifting, he's maneuvering. His plan is meant to take pressure off of him diplomatically, until the end of his term. It won't be implemented, that's why he's putting for a referendum after another, in the past, he took Israel into war without any consultation. If implemented, the plan is going to make Gaza into a massive Ghetto, a concentration camp that the Israeli army controls from all sides, and now we see they started forcing Palestinians musicians to play background music to the murder of others by the Israeli army, as did the Nazis.
"Stop claiming Palestinians are to push Jews into the see, if you are going to use that blather all the time to avoid talking to them, how will you know what they want?"
That "bather" is what they say, write and teach their children.
Hamas routinely says that its ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. It backs up that talk with barbaric acts. Anybody who still doesn't know what Hamas wants is just too stupid to be worth considering.
"Only Palestinian Jews have historical claim to the Land of Palestine."
What about the Egyptian, Iranian, Iraqi, Jordanian, etc. Jews who were expelled from the lands of their birth - can they live in the small sliver of land allocated to the Jews called Israel? Or is it the sea for them?
"What about the Egyptian, Iranian, Iraqi, Jordanian, etc. Jews who were expelled from the lands of their birth - can they live in the small sliver of land allocated to the Jews called Israel? Or is it the sea for them?"
They are refugees, international law and the UN Chrater gaurantee thier right of return to their countries, just like Palestinian refugees.
Lizzy, Hamas just offered a 10-year truce, will Israel take it up on the offer?
Let's make a deal, if Israel take it, then they are working towrards peace, if they don't, that emans they are only interested in war, destruction, and ethnic cleansing of Palestinains.
It would be breathtakingly stupid for Israel to make any agreement with Hamas. If Hamas is offering a truce, it only means that Israel is winning and the savages want a breather so that they can rearm.