We think we ve had it bad in Northern Ireland. There have been times, of course, when the British army and the RUC have been responsible for appalling atrocities. Perhaps the worst of these, the killing of thirteen civilians on Bloody Sunday in 1972 is currently the subject of the Saville Inquiry as a result of which we may belatedly find out what really went down on that shameful day.
It ll be a long time before they have a similar kind of enquiry in Palestine. Indeed, it s unlikely that they ever will. Over the last eleven days, approximately eighty Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military. You can imagine the scale of the outrage that would inevitably ensue, if a similar example of State violence at its most brutal were to occur in Northern Ireland. The Irish government would be rattling every cage in Washington and Brussels, as well as with the United Nations, to have the British brought to book. And yet, our own government s response to the slaughter of Palestinians by Israel has been disgracefully muted.
It may be a measure of just how compromised our foreign policy is by the extent to which we have relied on the United States for diplomatic assistance and intervention in the North. Certainly, to observe the utter lack of principle in the response of the United States to Israeli aggression is nothing short of sickening. Not that it comes as a surprise, or anything like it. The foreign policy of the United States, under President Bill Clinton, as under every president before him, is based purely on US self-interest. It doesn t seem to matter what kind of atrocity the Israelis are guilty of: from a US perspective they seem to have been given a carte blanche to do whatever they want to quell disturbances or protests by Palestinians even if it includes the use of assault helicopters, ground-to-air missiles and other forms of heavy artillery to crush people who are for the most part, using rocks and petrol-bombs in response.
The actions of the Israelis in Palestine are intolerable. The greater military might of Israel is used and abused, in the most appalling manner to assert supremacy over the indigenous inhabitants of the place. Parts of Palestine remain occupied territory, patrolled by heavily armed Israeli military. Routinely, excessive force is applied to grind the Palestinians down. Over the past eleven days, in particular, excessive force has been used, again and again, and the consequences are there for all to see: eighty dead, and rising. And the imminent threat of a war that could plunge the whole world into chaos.
It is hard to know where to look for even a glimmer of hope. Israel has the upper hand, and while diplomatic initiatives might persuade them to cool it marginally, it seems quite clear that they will not relinquish the stranglehold they have exerted in the region, without someone putting manners on them. The US is effectively the only candidate for that role. Therefore it will not happen.
During the past twelve months, it seemed that perhaps just perhaps the impetus for change might come from within Israel itself. There, a peace movement seemed to be gaining ground, under the Peace Camp umbrella, that would favour a policy of rapprochement with and respect for the Palestinians. However, the latest disturbances, and the ferocity of Palestinian anger expressed through them, seem to have halted the momentum being generated by the Peace Camp movement. It is what happens within a community that feels that it is under siege at the first sign of threat, even the toughest of political adversaries bind together against the other . But it is necessary for the people who call themselves Israelis to go beyond that, and to find a way out of the ghetto that they have carved out for themselves.
It is, of course, no mere accident that this latest bout of murderous violence should have at its centre an issue of religious iconography. In the old city of Jerusalem is a hill that Jews refer to as Temple Mount, and that is known to Muslims as Haram-Al-Sharif. Amid the tortured hostilities of the region, the concession by either side of sovereignty over this holy ground has attained a disproportionate symbolic importance.
It could be said that in attempting to deal with the issue, the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and the Palestinian leader Yasar Arafat set the terrible events of the past two weeks in train. But that, of course, would be unfair because it is necessary, at some stage, to confront the demons at the heart of the conflict and to make progress in finding some genuine sense of accommodation between the opposing peoples.
For now however, it has proven to be a bridge too far. To which I can only add, ain t religion a hell of a thing.