The Stumbling Block to Brexit

Your correspondent Peter Hill is gung ho about the success of Brexit - deal or no deal.  The snag is that our Disunited Kingdom is now split down the middle.  Our remain Prime Minister converted to leave has done her level best to sort out the wishes of the 52% but, after two years of talks, things are at a pretty pass.  She has failed miserably and MPs are taking over to see what they can do.

In addition, two of our kingdoms voted leave and the other two voted remain.  From last week's excellent Radio 4 programme called 'Brexit and Ireland: What's at Stake?', about 30% of N Irish voters vote DUP that is propping up London's government and there are about equal numbers of English nationalists in N Ireland wanting to remain with England, as there are republicans wanting nothing done to distance themselves from the Republic of Ireland.  Ireland and the border barely got a look in three years ago in the referendum campaign.  We now learn that this matter is a major stumbling block to Brexit.  A week or two ago, dissident republicans exploded a car bomb in Derry/Londonderry.  It seems that they are getting very on edge about English nationalists in their own community and in England voting for Brexit that may destabilise the twenty year old Peace Agreement that brought sensible compromise, a cessation of violence and Paisley and McGuinness being called the Chuckle Brothers they got on so well in government.

Will Brexit now bring about the 'Troubles, Part 2' in N Ireland?  Are we all a good deal wiser about a break up that may have deadly consequences for N Ireland, in particular?  I, certainly, am better informed.

My comment on Harry Leslie Smith's piece in the 'Guardian'

from: 'IAdmireAngelinaJolie':

"He has been dead a long time now, but I doubt very much that he would want to lay a wreath at the

Cenotaph. He was opposed to all forms of aggression... and the memorializing of such aggression. The

folly of man is best forgotten." (the comment that 'IAdmireAngelinaJolie' comments on, now:)

Yes. Well. Amos Oz said:The only alternative to continuing the Israeli military operation is simply to follow 

Jesus Christ and turn the other cheek. I never agreed with Jesus Christ about the need to turn the other 

cheek to an enemy. Unlike European pacifists I never believed the ultimate evil in the world is war. In my view 

the ultimate evil in the world is aggression, and the only way to repel aggression is unfortunately by force.

That is where the difference lies between a European pacifist and an Israeli peacenik like myself. And if I may

add a little anecdote: A relative of mine who survived the Nazi Holocaust in Theresienstadt always reminded 

her children and her grandchildren that her life was saved in 1945 not by peace demonstrators with placards 

and flowers but by Soviet soldiers and submachine guns.

http://www.dw.de/oz-lose-lose-situation-for-israel/a-17822511

SELF:

This is similar to the non-violent, English Baptist member of a Christian Peacemaker team who was 

kidnapped by al Qaeda in Iraq and then was rescued by the SAS.

I do find it strange that an Israeli peacenik, Amos Oz should write, "In my view the ultimate evil in the world is  

aggression, and the only way to repel aggression is unfortunately by force."

Is not using force or violence, aggression also?  Both Israelis and Palestinians accuse the other of just that -

aggression.  It gets them nowhere but to yet more revenge violence.  Revenge is so sweet for the victim of

aggression.  However, when the victim of aggression hits back, we call that terrorism.  Hence, al Qaeda, the

Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic State, some Palestinians are all terrorists.  Our side - NATO and Israel - 

are the peaceniks, the peacemakers because we use our violence and aggression - whoops, I mean force - 

to bring peace out of aggression by our military might is right!

This is all absolutely absurd.  Better to talk to terrorists, who are people like us and get a negotiated,

permanent settlement - as in N Ireland.  Netanyahu and Abbas may then become the Israel/Palestinian 

Chuckle Brothers like Paisley and McGuinness were in N Ireland.  That is even more absurd!

Revenge is so sweet for us all, especially for Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Friday, 20 December 2013

Revenge is so sweet for us all, especially for Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Am I as evil and as much beyond the pale as Anjem Choudary, in writing the following?

It is very hard for only one side to be expected to show no revenge, esp when there has been twelve years of killings, violence and aggression against that one side.  Yet this was what John Humphrys was expecting of  Anjem Choudary, the founder of Al-Muhajiroun, whom he repeatedly demanded should condemn the killing of Lee Rigby.  For centuries, both Muslims and Christians have never been noted for condemning acts of violence.  Rather, they have been at the centre of promoting aggression, killing, murder and violence.  All the children of Abraham - Jews, Christians and Muslims are still at it.  And the Christian nations and their individual adherents have been the worst.  Last century was a particularly heinous and horrendous example.

This morning’s interview was similar to so many conducted by BBC journalists of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness in the 1970s, 80s and 90s.  I think it was the case that in all those interviews, not once did Adams or McGuinness condemn even one individual on their side for his violence that Humphrys and co were insisting that they should.  They themselves, like Anjem Choudary, were careful to take no part in violence but eventually, Adams and McGuinness argued the case for ballot, never bullet.  Consequently, it was they and not the men of violence who eventually won the day with their major contribution to the Good Friday peace agreement of 1998 that brought a huge lessening of the violence in N Ireland.

It is unreasonably for us to expect Choudary to condemn violence when our side never does, either (except for the violence of our enemies and other nations like Russia).  In fact, we are the worse offenders in doing domination, aggression and violence!  Doing it is far worse.  And of that, we are particularly adept!  To condemn violence and then to carry on doing it, is particularly reprehensible and hypocritical.

It could, in fact, be seen that the two Michaels were fulfilling the very words of Scripture, the very words of Christ, no less - “those who take the sword will die by the sword.”  They killed a killer and then wanted the police to kill them in fair return.  “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, as one Michael said on camera to explain why he did it - and, quoting Holy Scripture.  This time, the police failed to kill their man.

We had one man of violence killing another man of violence in a war that our side brought to Muslim lands and a third man of violence is expected to condemn someone on his side who killed.  Only a man of non-violence, as I am, can honourably condemn the Woolwich killing without being accused of being a hypocrite.

We have to be very careful not to excuse our own killing because we are on the side of right, of good, on the side of God and on the side of law.  We act as though al Qaeada, the Taliban and al Shabab are most definitely not and killing them is fair game.  Our side are the heroes, the Muslim fighters are evil and must be wiped off the face of the map.  No wonder, the very occasional, maverick Muslim gets so angry at his brethren being killed that he gets his own back on their killers - like Lee Rigby.  And, with the international nature of British society, we rub shoulders with Muslims every day of the week who many not like what is being done in their name.  Hence, Lee Rigby was an easy target.

John Humphrys and Lord Carlisle were particularly aghast/offended at Choudary being opposed to democracy.  How on earth can any reasonable, sensible, sane person be against democracy?  Yet, I am no longer voting for any of the war parties for I see that as being unethical and encouraging them in their aggressive foreign policy around the globe.  Does that make me as equally reprehensible as Choudary is to them?  I have to trot along to the polling station and put an ‘X’ against, ‘Re-open nominations’ or ‘None of above’ or ‘Abstain’.