The General Election in Ireland, the Working-Class, and the Palestinians

I am a little late doing this, but here are links to two articles about the recent election in the South of Ireland (the Republic).

1. An article about how Sinn Fein is a working-class party. About 15 years ago in another election there about 1/3 of SF candidates had some connection to the trade-union movement.

2. A post by Juan Cole about how Ireland is overwhelmingly in support of the Palestinians and a Sinn Fein government might turn that into policy.

Because of some things in the first article and the fact that in the PAST Cole has attacked the IRA, I want to link to a post on my blog where I explain that the IRA were not terrorists.

Also, it looks certain that there will be another election there, the numbers just don't add up to a 80 without so many different parties and independents that I doubt it will be a stable government. And, since SF didn't run many candidates, if there is another election, they might get a large plurality- hopefully seats taken from FF and not the left, but in any case it might make it more likely SF can form a government.

Also, SF is very much against anti-semitism, although it's a bit complicated. There's some stuff about that here, here, and something a little more critical here. UPDATE Another critical piece is here.



Something I wrote elsewhere:

In a recent post on his blog Juan Cole talks about SF and the Palestinians and says that unlike Germany with it's Nazi history, Ireland will be able to support the Palestinians without that kind of baggage. But That is not entirely true since Ireland was neutral and the IRA accepted aid from Nazi Germany. Unless SF has admitted recently that the IRA was wrong to do that, they are vulnerable to attacks. I go into more detail about that here. But multiple things indicate that SF IS VERY much against anti-Semitism (although it's not all favorable and some of it is ancient history much of this post is about SF and anti-semitism) and I wanted to make that even clearer to people who will criticize them over supporting the Palestinians. (I just did a google search for news about SF's current stance on the IRA and Nazi Germany, and subscribed to the Irish Times and searched that site and found nothing about SF changing it's stance on this (I found something from 2004 indicating that SF was still defending what the IRA did (using Google Advanced Search, I searched SF's web-site and found nothing, although several possibly relevant documents seemed to have been moved or removed (they probably can't archive everything (I also used the search function on SF's web-site and didn't find anything)))))

**********

UPDATE 2/22/20 First, there is an article here you read. Between this, and the WWII stuff, if Juan Cole is right, SF will be destroyed by Trump and AIPAC and much of the Left in America will look the other way because of the IRA/Nazi Germany thing.  A moderate Dem will be more merciful, but even a progressive supporter of the Palestinians like  Sanders will be pressured to criticize  SF. And AIPAC can use Congress to hurt SF. SF really needs to say that the IRA was wrong. As I said in a recent email to the TD mentioned in that article (I am typing a post about her tweets), what if the Israeli government in the 1970s offered the Provisional IRA money? Also SF needs to understand how much Americans like what we did in WWII.

 

Strategically Comprehensive

In a recent poem I created this rhyming couplet about Sinn Fein and the IRA (if you're not familiar with my poems, I should explain that I almost always write with someone else's voice, not my own)- “We started with defending our areas, now we’re on the offensive/The republican struggle is strategically comprehensive.” (The first line isn’t relevant to this but I think it’s a good rhyme) (it's a reference to the diversity of their tactics and strategy, for more on that keep reading). Not long after that I discussed with a friend in Dublin (who is also a left-wing supporter of Sinn Fein) the calls by some for SF MPs in the British Parliament (now, *7* of them!) to take their seats (the Democratic Unionist Party took 10 and there is one independent unionist). The argument that I read here and there in favor of SF doing it is that, in the context of a conflict over Brexit between most N. Ireland voters and most British voters (including what must be a majority of the Tory party), N. Ireland needs representation from more than one anti-Brexit politician (the DUP are pro-Brexit and the independent Unionist is anti-Brexit). More generally and especially after the DUP used it’s MPs to prop up the Conservative government, the argument is also that N. Ireland needs anti-Tory representation to try and help stop more austerity and other Tory initiatives.

My friend in Dublin felt that abstention should be seen as a tactic and that SF could embarrass the DUP in the state-wide Parliament and reduce the strength of the Tory/DUP arrangement.

Initially I wrote the following:

“I’ve been thinking of SF and abstentionism. My opinion of Devlin-McAliskey is not hurt by the fact that she took her seat, but I’m inclined to go with what SF says about them taking their seats. I mean, clearly their voters seem just fine with that policy. I also wonder, what is behind that policy? Would they see it as recognizing British rule over the Six-Counties? is it that they have [outside the European Parliament] absolutely zero desire to vote on laws that effect the British people the way British politicians [in the Westminster Parliament] pass laws that govern Irish people [in the North]? Also, isn’t there a good chance it would result in another split in SF- not necessarily a tiny one?

I’m open-minded about what you’re saying, but so far I’m more inclined to just back whatever decision they make about it.”

(although I usually read a LOT about N. Ireland current events in the Irish News and the BBC News, I don’t have the money or time to also read more than a few things a month from republican sources of news and opinion and thus am not REAL familiar with the current thinking in SF)

(Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey is described here)

I’ll return to talk of abstention TODAY shortly.

After the 1981 Hunger-Strike which saw prisoner Bobby Sands elected to Westminster, SF started contesting elections in N. Ireland- I believe for the first time since the ’69/’70 split that saw the Provisionals created. This was a major step forward strategically for the Republican Movement (what back then would have been called the Provisional Republican Movement and what are called in more recent decades Sinn Fein and the IRA). I believe that during most of the years 1982-1997 the PRM was doing almost everything they could do to A) put pressure on the British and the Unionists, B) strengthen their movement, and C) help people. (although I wasn’t doing N. Ireland activism at the time, I would have supported the 1994-96 cease-fire by the IRA (the now permanent cease-fire started in 1997))

I’ll be briefly describing (and here and there evaluating) each part of this effort.

Armed Struggle

First, I did some research and some estimating and some math and concluded that only in .3% of their operations did the (P)IRA attempt to kill civilians. A post about that is here. Also, even though SF’s vote was only (on average) 40% of the Nationalist vote this is not the end of the story. There is plenty of evidence that almost the entire nationalist community supported the 1981 Hunger-Strikers (see the middle third of this). There is also evidence that almost no one in the Nationalist community went to the police about crime and instead almost everyone went to the IRA (this is supported by a statement by Eamonn McCann on pages 22-23 of the 1993 edition of his book “War and an Irish Town” and by an article around 2003 in the Irish Times). Most Nationalists who didn’t support the IRA’s campaign nonetheless agreed more or less with the IRA’s goals and wanted Volunteers (IRA members) around- for defense during times of sectarian tension and for when crime HAD to be dealt with violently.

Armed struggle was many things. It was a statement to the world that (independent of  how that statement was made) Republicans and Nationalists in general had serious problems with being ruled by Britain and with the inequality they experienced at the hands of the British and most of their Protestant neighbors. It was a refutation of Thatcher’s “Normalization” policy. The deaths of British soldiers, RUC officers and UDR (a locally recruited British Army unit) members made the news and underlined the occupation as such (and kind of suggested the possibility that if it weren’t for the British Army the IRA could defeat the local security forces and loyalist paramilitaries to such a degree that it would change the attitude of the Unionist population towards (and in) negotiations with their Nationalist neighbors and the Southern state). Those deaths were also aimed at sapping the will of the British to remain in N. Ireland. The bombing campaign in England had similar goals- sapping the will of the British, making the news and occasionally (in ways that RARELY resulted in civilian death) giving the British people some small sense of the terror their Army inflicted on the Nationalist population. Bombing of economic targets specifically in both England and the North was aimed at pressuring the business community into pressuring the British and the Unionists to change their attitude to negotiation with SF (bearing in mind what I write in the next paragraph (with parentheses), some IRA bombs in the North and in England were aimed largely at just disrupting life for people, to hopefully put more pressure on British and Unionist politicians). Armed struggle might have shown the security forces that they couldn’t  brutalize the Nationalist community with impunity.  Attacks on loyalist paramilitaries were relatively infrequent and probably rightly so- I think an argument has been made that they helped the British with their propaganda about being peace-keepers between two mutually hate-filled tribes.

(about 99% of the time that the IRA bombed civilian property the plan was to place the bomb, leave, phone in a warning, the place would be evacuated, and the bomb would go off. About 99% of the time that that was the plan that is what happened)

When I offered .3% as a relatively solid estimate for IRA operations where civilian life was targeted, I was not counting their efforts to help keep loyalist mobs outside Catholic areas and (towards the very beginning of the conflict) their efforts to help keep the security forces outside of some Catholic areas. The former saw them viewed as defenders of the Nationalist community. The latter made the “no-go” areas (especially Free Derry) possible for about two years. Including that stuff would lower it from .3% to something like .2%

As part of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission process after the first democratic election in South Africa, the ANC partly justified it’s use of force by saying that by attacking the infrastructure and security forces of the Apartheid state they were encouraging others to resist in other ways- that is, they showed that it was possible to strike at the state oppressing them.

Mass Struggle

Mass Struggle might be defined as the mobilization of large numbers of people for non-violent political conflict where their numbers (not arms or money or political power) are their weapons and public spaces are their battlefields- what we saw with the civil rights movements in both the US and N. Ireland. Marches and rallies around the prisoners issue (roughly 1978-1981) were organized (frequently by members or supporters of the Provisional Republican Movement). In terns of getting people in the street it was a massively successful effort, but when the prisoners struggle was over mass struggle appears to have decreased. The nationalist community broke back down into it’s constituent parts and marched separately or not at all. But SF still did organize marches and rallies and such and some WERE very large. Such actions demonstrate how DEEP a movement’s support is, and can result in helpful confrontations with the security forces, in a way more widely accepted than armed struggle.

Young People Rioting

I don’t know how many of those young people were members or supporters of the PRM but I think this is very relevant to putting pressure on the British. This was closer to being mass struggle than armed struggle was and could have been the result of mass struggle. But it also contained some plusses that were found more with armed struggle. It was probably more likely to get in the news than mass struggle, it could have resulted in serious injuries for the security forces (and often did) and even in the absence of an injury it could have sapped the will of the non-local part of the British Army, who were reminded more deeply than usual that they were unwanted in certain areas. But as it was less lethal than armed struggle and less likely (probably a LOT less likely) to result in civilian deaths caused by nationalists and republicans, it was more acceptable than armed struggle to many people.

Elections

Although I feel safe assuming that the PIRA campaign had the support of about 40% of the nationalist community in the 1970s, it is helpful to be able to point to votes for SF as proof that almost half that community DID support the PIRA’s armed campaign in the years 1982-1997. I believe in both “parliamentary” and “non-parliamentary” methods for creating political change but I, and a LOT of people attach a lot of value to how much popular support underground armies have. Election campaigns also give another chance to interact with voters and with the media and explain a party’s platform. Elected politicians, even those who don’t take their seats, might get more respect and/or a larger audience of (for example) potential converts and and might get more assistance of one sort or another from other politicians or activists, etc. (although less relevant, elections were also contested in the South)

Local Government Battles

SF not only contested local government elections, when elected they took their seats. This resulted in two different kinds of important battles engaged in by SF councilors and activists. First, to gain equality within the council- MANY SF councilors were blocked from access to the chamber, and/or to funding they and their areas were entitled to. Second, battles over issues relevant to local government. For example, around 1990 (according to the 1993 edition of McCann’s “War and an Irish Town” (p. 43)) a SF councilor in Derry led a successful campaign against the building of a toxic waste incinerator outside the city. Lastly, in general I think that sitting on local government councils proved that they were willing to try non-violent democratic engagement with their Unionist political opponents.

Propaganda

Propaganda is often defined neutrally and just means putting out a party’s message. SF did one newspaper during this time. One thing that might be sort of unusual in such situations was the HUGE number of murals in areas that were at least heavily if not mostly republican. Murals about the IRA, murals about international struggle, murals comparing the experience of nationalists to the experiences of people of color elsewhere, murals about community issues like poverty or eating disorders, murals about other topics. (I am almost certain that at least 90% of those murals were commissioned by SF, SF members or SF supporters)


International Solidarity

SF has done a fairly good job of generating international solidarity with them and with the nationalist community in some countries outside Ireland and Great Britain. But as I have explained elsewhere on this blog, in my opinion they are handicapping this work by making their approach in America much more moderate than progressive. (although significantly different, semi-successful efforts were made to mobilize supporters in Britain)

There is one tool that was used against Apartheid and that is being used against Israel that they have not pushed and that is boycott of, divestment from, and sanctions against the UK (not UN sanctions of course because of the veto the UK has in the Security Council). SF might have been silent about BDS because they knew that they didn’t have enough support globally to make it work. I go into that in a post here, starting with the paragraph that begins with “Was S. Africa much worse?”


One reason I have done this post is to say that members and supporters of the Republican Movement (and others in the Nationalist community in the North, but I have focused on SF because I support them) have done almost everything they could do to get the British out. Which makes it even more infuriating when I think of how little was done by the Left in western Europe and by the Left in America.


Abstention Today

Going back to abstention in Westminster today, exchanging some emails about it with my Dublin friend got me thinking more about SF taking their seats. I wonder if Westminster could be/should be seen by SF as just another battlefield on which to push the peace process, equality and even Irish Unity. In general it could be a forum to raise those issues. Also, it could help build a broad-based movement of British people supporting the Nationalist community if SF were to consistently vote progressively on things affecting British people like austerity, the environment, etc. (there’s a small mystery for me- the Troops Out Movement, which had good relations with SF, seems to have evaporated??????)

I should say that I believe that what we are talking about here are tactics and strategy but not principles (I have supported the 1997 IRA cease-fire since day one). I believe that the PRM usually did a great job of using them during the conflict and has usually been doing a great job using most of them since the conflict died down and basically ended (I would say around 2005) (with the exception of armed struggle and rioting the others are still being used by members and supporters of SF).

IF SF decide to take their seats, I would not criticize them about that (possibly about some of their votes, but with the exception of abortion I doubt even that would happen).

Israeli Apartheid and Palestinian Civil Disobediance

Yesterday I found a very interesting and encouraging article on the BBC web-site. It's about a civil disobedience action by Palestinians, which highlights the fact that Apartheid IS an appropriate term for Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

Tom  

UPDATE 11/17/11
I forgot to mention a few other things about using the term "Apartheid" when referring to Israel. I don't remember the details, but there are laws that make it very difficult for married couples to live in Israel if one of them is from certain parts of the Middle-East (including the Occupied Territories) and the other one is an Israeli citizen. (UPDATE 1/12/12 More on that here)

And it's not just buses that are basically segregated, there are also roads that are segregated, too. (UPDATE 12/3/12 More on segregation here (In all fairness, they canceled that policy, see this)) UPDATE 3/9/20 An article about this is here, and here are some more of my thoughts on this. I'm not saying there aren't legitimate security concerns among settlers, but A) the hostility from Palestinians is largely because of their treatment by Israel, and this is just one more reason that needs to end; B) if they don't want to be around Palestinians, maybe they should live somewhere else, besides what used to be called Palestine, and C) these policies of segregation only reinforce the anti-Arab bigotry that, to one degree or another, most Jewish Israelis are afflicted by.

And then there is the fact that the State is officially defined by a Jewish identity. People who support that should be asked if they think there will ever be an Palestinian-Israeli Muslim or Christian or Druze President or Prime Minister in Israel (according to the Israeli government at some point in recent years around 17% of Israel's population is Muslim). More generally, the Palestinian-Israeli population does experience a fair amount of inequality.

UPDATE 11/27/11
As the article I link to above says, Israel says that keeping Palestinians without permission outside Jerusalem is for security reasons. But instead of banning the small minority of Palestinians who Israel could credibly consider security risks, the burden is placed on all Palestinians to get permission. In a similar situation (both areas include natives and a settler populations of one sort or another) even the British didn’t go that far in relation to N. Ireland (they only banned a small number of nationalists from Britain, which was bad enough). The policy that Israel has is very similar to the S. African Apartheid laws about controlling the movements of Blacks and generally keeping them out of white cities unless they had permission to be there.

(UPDATE 12/5/12 I forgot to mention that, whether they're going to Jerusalem or somewhere else in Israel, Occupied Territories Palestinians have to pass through some number (probably around five) of security checkpoints)

If security is the motivation, I’d also have to ask, what about extremist settlers? MANY of them FREQUENTLY clash with the Israeli security forces (in both the West Bank and in Israel), and it was a supporter of settlers who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Are any of them, for security reasons, not allowed into Jerusalem? I didn’t think so. (UPDATE 12/15/11 here's a recent article about this sort of thing) (UPDATE 8/7/15 After a Palestinian baby was killed by settlers Israel has announced that  measures usually reserved for Palestinian suspects will be used against suspects in this case; see this) UPDATE 2/12/20 A relavent article is here. See another article about hate crimes against Palestinians and the response of the police.

So, security is not the reason. Bigotry is. (UPDATE 12/4/12 Another article about anti-Palestinian racism (I believe the idea behind the loyalty oath is to discourage Palestinians from trying to get citizenship and to encourage Palestinians who are currently in Israel to leave; The thing is, in a self-defined Jewish State, the Palestinians are 2nd Class citizens and would likely and reasonably feel uncomfortable swearing loyalty to such a state)

UPDATE 2/5/12 To be fair, SOME action is NOW taking place against the settlers, but it's new and seems pretty limited- there is still a huge gap between how specific Israelis suspected of militancy are treated, and how pretty much the entire Palestinian population of the Occupied Territories is treated. The article is here.

UPDATE  1/23/16 An update from the US Ambassador on (among other things Israel is doing wrong) how the Israeli criminal justice and security systems are treating Palestinian  and Jewish settler militants differently.

******

UPDATE 12/11/11 Juan Cole wrote a great essay about the Palestinians, largely aimed at the idea that their identity is invented and therefore they have no claim to Palestine.

******

UPDATE 12/5/12 There is also something Apartheid-esque about the withdrawal of settlers and soldiers from Gaza- the South Africans created several ostensibly independent states for blacks, but they weren't really independent.

UPDATE 3/2/14 I need to nail this down, but an Israeli leftist said that when she visits her Palestinian friends in the Occupied Teritories, she is breaking the law.

UPDATE 3/17/14 An article about why the Palestinians won't recognize Israel AS A JEWISH STATE.

UPDATE 4/29/14 An article that goes into some detail about the Apartheid comparison (That article includes a link to another important one here).

UPDATE 11/13/14 A post at Informed Comment about talk by the Israeli PM suggesting that Palestinian-Israelis should be stripped of their citizenship. UPDATE 3/5/20 Articles here and here explain that Israel's longtime and current and maybe future PM believes, essentially, that Palestinian-Israeli MKs (MPs) shouldn't be counted when it comes to forming a government. An opinion column here is also worth reading (the author is described here).
 

UPDATE 3/28/15 Another relevant article about the treatment of Palestinian-Israelis.

UPDATE 5/27/18 A couple days ago I was at an event about Palestine when a member of the audience said that it's illegal for Palestinians to convert to Judaism. I did a search and might do more and found an article here (I've been told the site is both conservative and pro-Israel). If this is true, to any degree, that is sickening and completely racist.

UPDATE 8/3/18 The biggest piece of evidence in favor of using the word Apartheid- see this. This also has some important things to say.

 UPDATE Feb. 2020 One more article, this one about suppressing the Palestinian vote inside Israel.

UPDATE Feb 2020 An article about efforts to reduce the % of the Israeli population that is Palestinian. Although it doesn't change my opinion of Netanyahu, here is an important update.

UPDATE 2/9/20 An article touching on the fact (or at leat that people including Palestinian-Israelis, can be blocked from running for office if they feel so strongly about supporting the Palestinians that they support attacks on Israeli soldiers. A very senior politician also says she should be in the Palestinian parliament, not the Israeli one (she's an Palestinian-ISRAELI). It also mentions that inciting racism can get you disqualified, but I as far as I can tell it has only been applied to members of one ridiculously small and ridiculously bigoted Zionist party.

UPDATE 2/12/20 Although this isn't news I just confirmed something I was pretty sure of anyway. Read this article about Israel demolishing the homes of Palestinian terrorists, especially the following part:

"A similar "standard" was never applied to a Jewish terrorist. For instance when a Jewish settler, Baruch Goldstein, slayed 29 Muslim worshipers in the Cave of Patriarchs, no one suggested to demolish his home as a deterrence."

UPDATE 2/27/20 An article here about how the Israeli government is helping settlers break the law in the West Bank by not destroying illegal settlements, and at the same time destroying Palestinian structures.

UPDATE An article describing a poll showing a lack of support in Israel for key elements of a democratic society and political system. That's a reference to such things in Israel and although those who are unconcerned about, for example, civil liberties probably are anti-Arab, if they're so unconcerned about democracy for the Israeli population in general (which is 80%) Jewish, I can only imagine what they would say if they were asked about these things exclusively in relation to the Palestinian-Israeli population or the Palestinians in the West Bank.

UPDATE 2/29/20 I wish it were more explicitly about anti-Arab racism and anti-Muslim bigotry, but a senior figure in the Likud party says "hate is what unites our camp," and although it appears to be hatred on several topics, I have no doubt that part of it is about Muslims and Arabs.

UPDATE 3/6/20 An article about Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza normally allowed into Israel to work, are barred on and around national and Jewish holidays, while Jewish settlers in the West Bank can continue to enter Israel.

UPDATE 3/7/20 An article about how a government minister apparently wants to expel the Palestinian-Israeli population (I am transitioning to use that term instead of the apparently inappropriate term "Arab-Israeli").

UPDATE 3/13/20 An article more or less about the Nation State Law.

***************

UPDATE 3/14/20

From an article about a US State Department report on Jerusalem:

The human rights report, however, did express criticism of the Jerusalem Municipality for not providing adequate services to Palestinians living in the eastern half of the city.

“The Jerusalem municipality failed to provide sufficient social services, education, infrastructure, and emergency planning for neighborhoods where the majority of residents were not Israelis, especially in the areas between the security barrier and the municipal boundary,” it said.

Even though Palestinians in East Jerusalem make up 38% of the city’s more than 900,000 residents, the Jerusalem Municipality only invests 10-12% of its budget in their neighborhoods, according to Daniel Seidemann, an expert on Jerusalem affairs.

I think that when the PA complains about using the word "Arab" instead of "Palestinian" that is largely just about resident of Jerusalem. On the other hand, I am probably going to get off my butt and change "Arab-Israeli" on my blog to "Palestinian-Israeli" which I know is to one degree or another preferred.

***********

UPDATE 3/1/4/20 Even the US State Department accused Likud of anti-Arab racism.

UPDATE 3/14/20 An article about an effort to change two things about how the leader of the opposition is treated by the State. The idea is to deny them intelligence briefings the usually get, and, even worse, deny them a security detail from the domestic security/intelligence agency Shin Bet and this is explicitly because that position might soon be held by a Palestinian-Israeli MK (MP). The part about intelligence briefings is just basic racism, but the part about a security detail takes it to a new level. That can't be construed in any way as a threat to national security, they just like the idea of a high-profile Palestinan-Israeli MK being killed by right-wing Zionists.

***********************

My best post in support of the Palestinians is here.

***************************

UPDATE 3/29/16
As you might know there is a lot of controversy about using the word "Apartheid" in relation to Israel's relationship with the Palestinians. Some part of the European Union even said it's anti-Semitic to do that. I think I do a pretty good job here of proving that it's accurate enough that it's definitely not anti-Semitic. But since I have kind of stepped up my criticism of Israel with this post, I thought I should repeat here something I've said twice elsewhere on this blog, something that might be the most important thing to explain if you want to defeat the actual anti-Semites among us Palestine supporters. And that is that Jewish-Americans are only a tiny minority of those Americans who strongly support Israel, and the rest have their own interests/agendas and not some kind of allegiance or compliance to a majority of the Jewish community as their reason(s) for supporting Israel. There are tons of Christians motivated by obscure Biblical reasons to support Israel and there are tons of people (both atheists and Christians) who support Israel for foreign policy reasons (their views of Israel's role in the Cold War and more recently the "War on Terror"). And on a related note, there is a growing minority of Jewish-Americans who are critical of Israel in support of the Palestinians.

(At the risk of being silly and patting myself on the back too much for being a good Christian ally, I want to high-light that I did a post here that you might want to note. A) in general it shows that I go to extraordinairy lengths to oppose anti-Semitism, and B) I describe the NUREMBERG LAWS (specifically and not Nazi anti-semitism in general or the Final Solution) as creating "a kind of Apartheid for German Jews")