Northern Ireland: A brief background to the conflict 

FAQs ABOUT NORTHERN IRELANDIreland's history is a long story of suffering, suppression and poverty, but also one of strong people who refuse to give up and who manage to see things from a humorous side in the face of hardship. After most of Ireland got its freedom from Britain, the northern part remained in union with England, Scotland and Wales. In the following text we will look at some frequently asked questions (FAQs) in connection with the situation in Northern Ireland. What is the difference between Ireland and Northern Ireland?

Ireland – or the Republic of Ireland as it is officially named – is now a completely separate country and has no longer any formal bond to the UK. Northern Ireland, on the other hand, is still a part of the UK (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), together with England, Scotland and Wales.

 

Why is there so much talk of Catholics and Protestants in the conflict in Northern Ireland?

The Republic of Ireland is historically a Catholic country and a large majority of the Irish are Catholics. Many people in Northern Ireland are descendants of the original population of this region and are also Catholics. However, the majority of the Northern Irish have forefathers who emigrated from England and Scotland and these two countries have been Protestant for almost 500 years. Therefore, we end up with a rather confusing situation with a split population from two different cultural and religious backgrounds.

Why has this separation between the two Irish nations taken place?

Ireland is one of England’s first colonies. Already in the 1100s, England started to gain control over this region. Since that time the Irish have continued to rebel against their oppressors.

The English had a particularly difficult job in ruling the Irish in the northern corner of the country (called Ulster). To increase their control, they sent Protestant Englishmen and Scots to settle in this area and simply take over land from the Irish. This immigration proved very effective and by 1703, less than five per cent of the land of Ulster was still in the hands of the Catholic Irish.

In 1801, the Act of Union made Ireland a part of the United Kingdom. The Catholics were suppressed through discriminatory laws and regulations, and they started several uprisings which were swiftly crushed by the police and the British Army. The wish for independence grew stronger and stronger and England had more and more difficulty in controlling the rebellious Irishmen.

After a period of guerrilla war, an agreement was reached with England about Irish independence in 1921. The only condition was that the six counties in the north (Ulster) were to remain in the union with Great Britain. This was of done because the majority in the north was Protestant and wanted to keep the bond with Britain. In Ireland this decision stirred strong feelings and disagreement threw the country into a civil war. Many Irish felt that giving up the North would mean to betray that region. The civil war

did not change the decision. Ireland was liberated, but divided in two. Now, more than 85 years later, the situation is still unresolved.

What do the Catholics and the Protestants want in Northern Ireland?

The Catholics want to be reunited with the rest of Ireland and to leave the union with England, Scotland and Wales. The Protestants, on the other hand, wish to remain within the UK because they feel culturally and historically a part of this union since their ancestors emigrated from England and Scotland hundreds of years ago.

Is the conflict a religious one?

The conflict is primarily a social and cultural one. Religious teachings are not an issue between the Catholics and Protestants. They do not believe in different gods. Historically, the Catholics have been poor, oppressed and often unemployed. On the other hand the Protestants have represented the oppressive British side consisting of the privileged classes in society with better jobs, brighter opportunities, and better wages. So the conflict is cultural, social and historical rather than religious.

What is the IRA and the Sinn Féin?

The IRA (the Irish Republican Army) is a Catholic paramilitary organization whose goal is to force the British out of Northern Ireland and to be reunited with the Republic of Ireland. This organization has existed since 1919 and is said to be responsible for the deaths of more than 1,700 people between 1969 and 1993. Violence against civilians has been accepted by the IRA as a means in the fight for independence, but this has changed in recent years.

Sinn Féin is the political party in Northern Ireland which has had the closest bond to the IRA. This party has official MPs who are legally elected for Parliament in London. However, they have refused to take their seats there as a protest against British political and military presence in Northern Ireland. To go to London would mean that they accept being part of the union and that they would swear loyalty to the Queen.

What are the ‘Troubles’ and why are there British soldiers in Northern Ireland?

After Irish independence was a fact in 1921, the struggle continued to get Ulster back from the British. The biggest obstacle was that the majority of people in this region did not want to be liberated; they were Protestants and were happy as citizens of the United Kingdom.

In the 1960s the confrontations hardened. The Catholics felt suppressed and demonstrated for civil rights and equal treatment with the Protestants. Protestants, however, saw this action as a provocation against them as a group and the situation got out of control. The period after 1968 has been called the ‘Troubles’. British soldiers came in 1969 to bring order to society, but unfortunately took sides and the discrimination against Catholics went on. Terrorism and murder were carried out both by extreme Catholics and extreme Protestants. Many civilians have been hurt or killed. People suspected of being terrorists could be kept in internment (in practice the same as jail) for years without a trial. Most people who were brought in were Catholics. The soldiers’ presence in Northern Ireland is extremely provoking to the Catholic side. 

How do people in Northern Ireland react to the use of violence?

The majority on both sides are tired of all the violence and the personal losses caused by it. More than 3,500 people have been killed in this conflict and with a total population of just 1.5 million this is a very large number.

Many saw the Good Friday Peace Agreement in 1998 as a milestone for peace, since it was signed by the most important political leaders on both sides. The referendum following this showed that approximately 3 out of 4 said 'yes' to the agreement. The political leaders Catholic John Hume and Protestant David Trimble later received the Nobel Peace Prize for their contribution.   

What about the future?

The Peace Agreement and the optimism it created was soon followed by the worst terrorist action in the history of Northern Ireland. On 15 August 1998, terror struck in the quiet village of Omagh. A car bomb of 650 kilos went off in the middle of the main street. Twenty-nine people were killed and more than 200 wounded. The terrorist group behind the bomb was against the peace process and wanted to ruin the productive communication between the two sides by creating new hatred. They were not successful.

There has been some progress as a result of the Good Friday Peace Agreement, but the terrorist organizations who acknowledged it have not kept their deal entirely, which was to hand in their weapons without delay. Many weapons have been returned, but not enough to satisfy the opposing side. Therefore, communication has broken down several times, but they have continued their cooperation and the fact that both sides actually keep a dialogue instead of killing each other is a positive sign. Northern Ireland has had its own assembly ('parliament') in the period following the Peace Agreement. 

Why do not the Catholics move south to Ireland?

A lot of people wonder why the Catholics who feel suppressed simply do not move down south to the Republic of Ireland where they would be among their own. And some people do move, but obviously, to many Catholics this is a too simple solution to a very complex question. The Catholics of the northern region feel that the area is theirs and they do not accept to turn their backs on it just to avoid difficulties. Also, it is important to remember that the actual fighting is limited to a small part of Northern Ireland. Most people who live in the countryside do not witness the violence in any other way than TV viewers around the world. Belfast and Londonderry are cities with many Catholics and Protestants. It is here most of the fighting has taken place. They are both small cities and to compare them to Norway, even the capital Belfast is smaller than Oslo.   

How do people live in Belfast?

Certain parts of the city are Protestant whereas others are Catholic. Some of these areas are physically divided by a wall, absurdly called the Peace Line. Enormous paintings on various buildings show which area you are in. It can still be dangerous to be in the neighbourhoods of the other side, but there are also neutral districts in Belfast. Although there are some integrated schools, many children go to separate schools and a lot of inhabitants have never spoken to Protestants or Catholics, respectively. Still, they are convinced that the other side is wrong. Many people in Northern Ireland are born and bred with scepticism and even hatred towards those on the other side. It is still the hope that more integrated schools and the fact that people are tired of violence may lead to reconciliation, although this may take a generation or more to achieve. As always, the hope for a better future lies with the children, who are not as overpowered by hatred as adults.1

1 http://passage-new.cappelendamm.no/c453153/artikkel/vis.html?tid=498532

A SYNOPSIS OF THEISRAEL/PALESTINE CONFLICT

The following is a very short synopsis of the history of this conflict. We recommend that you also read the much more detailed account, "The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict."

For centuries there was no such conflict. In the 19th century the land of Palestine was inhabited by a multicultural population – approximately 86 percent Muslim, 10 percent Christian, and 4 percent Jewish – living in peace.[1]

Zionism

In the late 1800s a group in Europe decided to colonize this land. Known as Zionists, they represented an extremist minority of the Jewish population. Their goal was to create a Jewish homeland, and they considered locations in Africa and the Americas, before settling on Palestine.[2]

Historic Palestine

more maps

At first, this immigration created no problems. However, as more and more Zionists immigrated to Palestine – many with the express wish of taking over the land for a Jewish state – the indigenous population became increasingly alarmed. Eventually, fighting broke out, with escalating waves of violence. Hitler’s rise to power, combined with Zionist activities to sabotage efforts to place Jewish refugees in western countries[3], led to increased Jewish immigration to Palestine, and conflict grew.

UN Partition Plan

Finally, in 1947 the United Nations decided to intervene. However, rather than adhering to the principle of “self-determination of peoples,” in which the people themselves create their own state and system of government, the UN chose to revert to the medieval strategy whereby an outside power divides up other people’s land.

Under considerable Zionist pressure, the UN recommended giving away 55% of Palestine to a Jewish state – despite the fact that this group represented only about 30% of the total population, and owned under 7% of the land.

1947-1949 War

While it is widely reported that the resulting war eventually included five Arab armies, less well known is the fact that throughout this war Zionist forces outnumbered all Arab and Palestinian combatants combined – often by a factor of two to three. Moreover, Arab armies did not invade Israel – virtually all battles were fought on land that was to have been the Palestinian state.

Finally, it is significant to note that Arab armies entered the conflict only after Zionist forces had committed 16 massacres, including the grisly massacre of over 100 men, women, and children at Deir Yassin. Future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, head of one of the Jewish terrorist groups, described this as “splendid,” and stated: “As in Deir Yassin, so everywhere, we will attack and smite the enemy. God, God, Thou has chosen us for conquest.” Zionist forces committed 33 massacres altogether.[4]

By the end of the war, Israel had conquered 78 percent of Palestine; three-quarters of a million Palestinians had been made refugees; over 500 towns and villages had been obliterated; and a new map was drawn up, in which every city, river and hillock received a new, Hebrew name, as all vestiges of the Palestinian culture were to be erased. For decades Israel denied the existence of this population, former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir once saying: “There were no such thing as Palestinians.”[5]

UN Plan of Partition

more maps

1967 Occupati

onmore maps

1967 War & USS Liberty

In 1967, Israel conquered still more land. Following the “Six Day War,” in which Israeli forces launched a highly successful surprise attack on Egypt, Israel occupied the final 22% of Palestine that had eluded it in 1948 – the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Since, according to international law it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war, these are occupied territories and do not belong to Israel. It also occupied parts of Egypt (since returned) and Syria (which remain under occupation).

Also during the Six Day War, Israel attacked a US Navy ship, the USS Liberty, killing and injuring over 200 American servicemen. President Lyndon Johnson recalled rescue flights, saying that he did not want to “embarrass an ally.” (In 2004 a high-level commission chaired by Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, found this attack to be “an act of war against the United States,” a fact few news media have reported.)[6]

Current Conflict

There are two primary issues at the core of this continuing conflict. First, there is the inevitably destabilizing effect of trying to maintain an ethnically preferential state, particularly when it is largely of foreign origin.[7] The original population of what is now Israel was 96 percent Muslim and Christian, yet, these refugees are prohibited from returning to their homes in the self-described Jewish state (and those within Israel are subjected to systematic discrimination).[8]

Second, Israel’s continued military occupation and confiscation of privately owned land in the West Bank, and control over Gaza, are extremely oppressive, with Palestinians having minimal control over their lives.[9] Thousands of Palestinian men, women, and children are held in Israeli prisons.[10] Few of them have had a legitimate trial; Physical abuse and torture are frequent.[11] Palestinian borders (even internal ones) are controlled by Israeli forces.[12] Periodically men, women, and children are strip searched[13]; people are beaten; women in labor are prevented from reaching hospitals (at times resulting in death)[14]; food and medicine are blocked from entering Gaza, producing an escalating humanitarian crisis. Israeli forces invade almost daily, injuring, kidnapping, and sometimes killing inhabitants.[15]

According to the Oslo peace accords of 1993, these territories were supposed to finally become a Palestinian state. However, after years of Israel continuing to confiscate land and conditions steadily worsening, the Palestinian population rebelled. (The Barak offer, widely reputed to be generous, was anything but.[16]) This uprising, called the “Intifada” (Arabic for “shaking off”) began at the end of September 2000.

U.S. Involvement

Largely due to special-interest lobbying, U.S. taxpayers give Israel an average of $8 million per day, and since its creation have given more U.S. funds to Israel than to any other nation.[17] As Americans learn about how Israel is using our tax dollars, many are calling for an end to this expenditure.2

2 http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/

Sunni v Shia: why the conflict is more political than religiousAcross the Middle East, sectarianism has always been linked to the battle for power, resources and territory

 A Shia supporter shouts slogans during a Hezbollah meeting in Beirut. Photograph: Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty ImagesIan Black Middle East editor

Time was, across the Arab world, that it was simply rude to ask people their religion or sect, even if it was obvious from their name, their accent, from where they lived or worshipped or the pictures on their walls that they were a Sunni Muslim, Shia, or Christian.

In the glory days of the post-colonial era the focus was on creating an overarching Arab and national identity. Syria, with its mosaic of Sunnis, Alawites, Druze and many Christian communities, boasted of being the “beating heart of Arabism”. Even in Lebanon, with its elaborate power-sharing arrangements, confessional identity remained a private matter. Intermarriage was common.

The Ba’ath party, which ruled in both Baghdad and Damascus, was the creation of a Christian ideologue, Michel Aflaq. Two radical Palestinian leaders, George Habash and Nayef Hawatmeh, were Christians. So was George Antonius, the great historian of Arab nationalism.

In Iraq, carved by the British out of three Ottoman provinces, a poor, largely rural, Shia majority, a Sunni minority, and the Kurds were the predominant groups. Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, tried to co-opt them all; all were oppressed.

Change was driven by Iran’s Islamic revolution of 1979, a cataclysmic moment in Middle Eastern history and an inspiring one for downtrodden Shia everywhere. Saddam’s invasion of Iran in 1980 was billed as an Arab war against Persians – and was bankrolled by the Arab and Sunni Gulf states. In 2003, when Saddam was overthrown, Iraqi Shia celebrated by invoking the martyrdom of their revered Imam Hussein at the hands of the Sunni Umayyads at the battle of Kerbala in 680.

Sectarianism reflects real religious differences and defines “otherness”, but it has always been linked to power, resources and territory. In Bahrain, the Sunni Al Khalifa dynasty rules over a Shia majority denied its rightful place in the system, but Manama blames Tehran for fomenting unrest. Saudi Arabia similarly accuses Iran of causing trouble in the Shia-dominated east. In both cases the accusation masks genuine local problems.

Over the past four years the vicious war in Syria has amplified sectarian sentiment so that Alawites are now identified en masse with Bashar al-Assad and Sunnis with the opposition. Lebanon’s Hezbollah, a militant Shia group backed by Iran and supporting Assad, reinforces this binary narrative. But disputes exist of course within sects while other ties transcend religious identity.

Extremist Sunni preachers based in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait abuse Shia as “idol-worshippers” – the intolerant language of Wahhabi exclusivity. Iranians are scorned as “Safawis”, a pejorative reference to the 16th-century Safavid dynasty. Fanatical jihadis such as the Islamic State justify the killing of “apostates” under the doctrine of “takfir”.

In its heyday, al-Qaida targeted the “far enemy” – America in particular. But the Islamic State has placed anti-Shia sentiment at the centre of its poisonous ideology. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, its “caliph”, has ignored pleas by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s successor, to refrain from the indiscriminate killing of Shia and, instead, to attack the Shia-dominated and Alawite regimes in Iraq and Syria.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the influential Sunni cleric given a platform by al-Jazeera TV, famously denounced Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah (the “party of God”) as the leader of the “party of Satan”.

So sectarianism has certainly raised its ugly head in recent years – but a lot of people have worked hard to make that happen. And social media has made it easier than ever to spread toxic and intolerant messages.

Yet sectarianism is not the main cause of divisions in the Middle East. Yemen’s deepening crisis involves the rebel Houthis of the Zaydi sect, linked to Shia Islambut close to the country’s majority Sunni doctrine. The support they get from Iran is primarily about winning allies and projecting power – the main reason the Houthis face armed intervention from Saudi Arabia.

To say that Iran backs the Houthis for religious reasons “is like assuming that Scottish Presbyterians will always support Southern Baptists because both are forms of Protestantism”, says Juan Cole, a US academic and commentator on the Middle East. It is the geopolitical context that gives this conflict its sectarian hue, not the other way round.

Egypt’s Muslims are monolithically Sunni but the 2011 revolution and its divisive and repressive aftermath have seen the Coptic Christian minority identified as supporters of the old regime and targeted by Islamist extremists.

In the Maghreb, where the Arab spring began so hopefully with the Tunisian uprising, sectarianism is not an issue, though extremism has spread back poisonously from the war in Syria and the growth of Isis. In Libya, Morocco and Algeria, Berber rights and identity are important, but not the focus of a crisis.

It is worth remembering that the Arab awakenings began everywhere with calls for secular reform. “Whatever tribe, clan, religion, sect or ethnic group they belonged to, citizens asked for ‘dignity’ before anything else,” wrote Talal Salmanin the Lebanese paper al-Safir. “It was only over time that sectarian tendencies came to the forefront. As transitions appeared to be regressing, people increasingly chose to identify themselves along tribal or confessional lines, rather than political ones.

“Arabs today are like brothers and enemies at the same time. Each subgroup brandishes its religious or ethnic identity to confront the other subgroup in a futile war, in which all will lose … In short, the fall of Arabism as a unifying identity will mark the start of a series of civil wars among brothers. And once those wars start, nobody knows when or how they will end.”3

3 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/05/sunni-shia-why-conflict-more-political-than-religious-sectarian-middle-east

Tens of thousands of Muslims flee Christian militias in Central African RepublicBy Sudarsan Raghavan February 7, 2014  

BANGUI, Central African Republic – Tens of thousands of Muslims are fleeing to neighboring countries by plane and truck as Christian militias stage brutal attacks, shattering the social fabric of this war-ravaged nation.

In towns and villages as well as here in the capital, Christian vigilantes wielding machetes have killed scores of Muslims, who are a minority here, and burned and looted their houses and mosques in recent days, according to witnesses, aid agencies and peacekeepers. Tens of thousands of Muslims have fled their homes.

The cycle of chaos is fast becoming one of the worst outbreaks of violence along Muslim-Christian fault lines in recent memory in sub-Saharan Africa, tensions that have also plagued countries such as Nigeria and Sudan.

The brutalities began to escalate when the country’s first Muslim leader,Michel Djotodia, stepped down and went into exile last month. Djotodia, who had seized power in a coup last March, had been under pressure from regional leaders to resign. His departure was meant to bring stability to this poor country, but humanitarian and human rights workers say there is more violence now than at any time since the coup.

“Civilians remain in constant fear for their lives and have been largely left to fend for themselves,” Martine Flokstra, emergency coordinator for the aid agency Doctors Without Borders, said in a statement Friday, adding that the violence had reached “extreme and unprecedented” levels.

On Friday, thousands of Muslims hopped aboard trucks packed with their possessions, protected by soldiers from Chad, and drove out of Bangui, as

Christians cheered their departures or tried to loot the trucks as they drove through Christian areas. At least one Muslim man, who fell from a truck, was killed by a mob. Meanwhile, thousands more Muslims huddled at the airport in a crowded hangar, waiting to be evacuated.

“They are killing Muslims with knives,” said Muhammed Salih Yahya, 38, a shopkeeper, making a slitting motion across his throat. He arrived at the airport Wednesday from the western town of Yaloke with his wife and five children. “I built my house over two years, but the Christians destroyed it in minutes. I want to leave.”

Christians have also been victims of violence, targeted by Muslims in this complex communal conflict that U.N. and humanitarian officials fear could implode into genocide. Several hundred thousand Christians remain in crowded, squalid camps, unable or too afraid to return home.

But attacks on Muslims in particular are intensifying, aid workers said.

Djotodia’s departure weakened the former Muslim rebels, known as Seleka, who carried out deadly attacks on Christians after they grabbed power in March, prompting the birth of Christian militias called the anti-balaka, or “anti-machete” in the local Sango language. The armed vigilantes have used the power vacuum to step up assaults on Muslims.

Now in disarray, the Seleka are no longer able to protect Muslims from the Christian vigilantes. The roughly 6,500 French and African troops authorized by the U.N. Security Council to intervene have been unable to stop the violence.

“In the northwest and in Bangui, we are currently witnessing direct attacks against the Muslim minority,” Flokstra said. “We are concerned about the fate of these communities trapped in their villages, surrounded by anti-Balaka groups, and also about the fact that many Muslim families are being forced into exile to survive.”

Fleeing to Chad

According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), more than 60,000 people, most of them Muslim, have fled to neighboring countries since Dec. 5, when violence erupted after an uprising by the Christian militias and former government soldiers. The number of departures escalated after Djotodia’s resignation. Muslims make up roughly 15 percent of the country’s 4.5 million people.

Most have fled to Chad and Cameroon, while others have gone to Nigeria, Niger and Sudan, according to IOM statistics. The numbers include foreigners who work in the Central African Republic as well as citizens. In this region, people often have social and economic ties across borders. Many families here, for example, have relatives in Chad, Cameroon and other neighboring nations.

IOM officials are concerned about those leaving. The vast majority, roughly 50,000, are headed to Chad, a mostly Muslim country that is also among the poorest in the world.

“What kind of support will they get from the Chadian authorities? Are they going to be able to reinsert themselves into society there?” said Giovanni Cassani, the emergency coordinator for IOM. “50,000 is a small town. And there is more on the way, and there will be more, unless the situation improves here.”

The Central African Republic, Cassani said, is already reeling from the economic shock of Muslims departing. Many are traders and shopkeepers who imported staples. They also ran the meat industry. “It’s going to have a massive effect on society here,” Cassani said. “Prices are going up. . . . It’s been extremely difficult to find beef in the capital.”

Many of the clashes have occurred in northwestern towns. In a village called Bozoum, 2,500 Muslims fled Wednesday, according to Doctors Without Borders. And Bouar, a Muslim town of 8,000 people, “remains effectively imprisoned” by anti-balaka militias, according to the agency.

Homes looted, taken apart

In Bangui, the capital, Chadian special forces and former Seleka rebels guarded the convoy of trucks carrying Muslims out of the city toward the Chadian border. The Muslims were picked up at the airport, at mosques and from an area called Kilo 5, one of the capital’s last remaining Muslim enclaves. In some cases, French and African soldiers had to fend off looters. A few trucks had to be abandoned.

The man who fell off one of the trucks was viciously slain by a mob that cut off his genitals and hands, said Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director for Human Rights Watch.

“The French keep trying to say the situation is stabilizing, but it actually isn’t,” Bouckaert said. “The only areas that are stabilizing are areas where all the Muslims are gone.”

Only two weeks ago, Bouckaert said, the Muslim neighborhood of Miskine was untouched by the anti-balaka. Today, the area is deserted, mosques and Muslim homes looted and taken apart brick by brick. About 10,000 Muslims lived in the town of Bossangoa in December, he added. Only a few hundred are left.

At the airport, Muhammad Abdirahman, 62, was waiting to leave. His village, Jbawi, had been burned down by the anti-balaka and nearly everyone was dead, he said. Fortunately, he had left with his wife and 12 children before the massacre, and arrived at the airport last week. Originally from Chad, he has lived here for the past 50 years.

“I don’t even know Chad,” he said. “But what can I do? If I stay, the Christians will use every opportunity to kill me and my family.”4

4 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-flee-christian-militias-in-central-african-republic/2014/02/07/5a1adbb2-9032-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html