This is the anniversary of the massacres in Israel in 2023, and we are witnessing the Israeli response. It is interesting to consider comparisons with not dissimilar outrages in the past.
After the New York Twin Towers were destroyed in 9/11, the Americans felt a similar outrage and an intense desire to do something in response, which led to the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This has hardly turned out well, to say the least! Then, almost as an afterthought, it was decided to get rid of Saddam Hussain in Iraq too, thereby (though no-one seemed to think of this at the time) had the effect of getting rid of the Number One enemy of the Iranians; the consequences of which are still with us.
In summer 1914, the Austrian government was justifiably outraged by the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne, and resolved to destroy the state of Serbia, which appeared to bear some responsibility for the killing. The result was the First World War, devastating much of Europe and preparing the ground for even more destruction in the Second.
By comparison, this is also the 40th anniversary of the Brighton bomb, when several people were killed or crippled and the I.R.A. came within an ace of killing Mrs Thatcher and her entire cabinet. It is interesting to see how the British government responded to this outrage - or, more pertinently, did NOT respond. We did NOT target the Sinn Fein leaders with assassination, did NOT shell the Bogside after ordering civilians to evacuate the area, and did NOT bomb I.R.A. bases in the Irish Republic. Looking back, I have wondered why not; and have come up with the following possible reasons for this restraint.
It was believed that such actions would be morally wrong
It was believed they would be politically counterproductive
The Americans wouldn't have let us
- and there is a fourth possible reason, whch I shall discuss later
After the October 2023 massacre, by contrast, the Israelis did conclude that bombing of Gaza and Lebanon and the assassination of Hezbollah leaders was both morally right and strategically valuable, regardless of how many civilian casualties might result, and the Americans, after some initial doubts about the bombing, let them go ahead. At the time of writing, the bombing of Iraq looks likely to go ahead. This is where the fourth possible reason comes in, which is as follows:
When all is said and done, the Irish are white people, whereas the Palestinians, Syrians and Iraquis are not. Surely no-one believes the Israelis could behave like this if they were attacking white people?(See also, how the Israelis will be permitted to bomb Iraq, whereas the Ukrainians are forbidden to bomb Russia)
Results of the contrasting policies: British restraint has led to peace in Ulster: Israeli responses look to continue war in the region for the foreseeable future. We can only hope that the long-term consequences do not resemble those of 1914.
