"He wrote one book the New York Times did not refer to in its Friday obituary.  It is a gargantuan book (nearly 800 pages) called The Siege: The Saga of Israel and Zionism, one of the three or four most authoritative and certainly the most literate in the field.  Maybe it is understandable, this coarse omission by the newspaper of record.  Zionism was O'Brien's last great passion, and I recall an evening at my house with Amos Oz when he tried to rekindle what he thought was the Hebrew writer's unaccountable pessimism about the dream.  But, as O'Brien himself wrote at the end of his grand opus, "what is not in sight is the end to the siege.""

It's "understandable" if you take for granted the NY Times passions for erasing Israel from its pages.  Much the same as they tried to erase the Holocaust while it was in progress.

I can' t wait for "the paper of record" to go out of business.

This is sad news. I remember reading his tnr contributions back in the 80's and always enjoyed them. Back in those days, I often needed a Conor Cruise O'Brien or Hendrick Hetzberg piece to salve the wounds inflicted by 80's tnr editors like Barnes and Kondracke.

I will miss his sharp mind, clear head, and measured approach. He was a really great write and journalist. May he rest in peace....

"O'Brien had been enchanted by the liberation of Africa and was particularly enmeshed with the independence struggles of the Congo.  But its leader, Patrice Lumumba, turned out to be a mindless Marxist and his antagonist Moise Tshombe, revolutionary leader of the separatist state of Katanga, was virtually an agent of the Belgians"

Patrice Lumumba , the "mindless Marxist", never got a chance to prove he was mindless or even a Marxist at all. He was snuffed out before he made a single policy in his newly independent Congo. In those days fighting Colonialists earned anyone a Marxist tag.

Just as O'Brien was an Irish nationalist, Lumumba was a Congolese nationalist, and I believe that was the attraction for O'Brien.  But Lumumba, the best hope Congo ever had, committed the crime  of fighting the mindlessly brutal Belgians for his country's freedom. He won that battle, but a Sergeant in his army - Mobutu - with the help of the Belgians and the CIA  killed him and installed himself president. We all know how that brilliant move turned out.

Anyway, may O'Brien rest in peace. Great guy.

Sad, very sad.  I shivered when I saw the headline.  (Well, it could also be the fact that it is -230 in Canadia ....)

His " The Great Melody" introduced me to a different, and far more comprehensive understanding of Burke, instead of the caricature of an anti-Revolutionary "Father of Conservatism", or the proponent of unbridled "parliamentary judgement" (as against congressional democracy).  O'Brien's passion for freedom, for fair treatment, for true justice and for reform comes through beautifully in his treatment of Burke's thoughts; through his eyes, you can see the Great Melody - the single thread of thought running through Burke's life and passions, which are or ought to be liberalism's passions - unfolding ...

There is much wrong with Irish "nationalism" - de Valera going to the Pope to have his constitution blessed and the Irish nationalists' murder of Michael Collins (among other things) certainly make the entire project suspect in my eyes; it is precisely the sort of attachment to "an abstract idea" that Burke excoriated in all his works (with O'Brien's admiration).  

Still.  The world is a lesser, sadder place in his absence.

"There is much wrong with Irish "nationalism" - de Valera going to the Pope to have his constitution blessed and the Irish nationalists' murder of Michael Collins (among other things) certainly make the entire project suspect in my eyes; it is precisely the sort of attachment to "an abstract idea" that Burke excoriated in all his works (with O'Brien's admiration)." icarusr

You use the present tense ""There is much wrong with Irish "nationalism"" but then go on to speak of it in the past tense, "de Valera going to the Pope to have his constitution blessed and the Irish nationalists'"

Moreover why did you put nationalism in quotes? Do you think it wasn't real?

 Critics of nationalism tend to confuse two different forms of nationalism.

The first form of nationalism is that of peoples without sovereignty. The Irish of the Poles for many centuries is one example, there were and are of course many other peoples without sovereignty.

The other form of nationalism is the kind that threatens the sovereignty of other nationalities: again Russians and Germans attacking Poland or the British the Irish.

The latter kind is damnable but not the former kind.

Some critics of a generalized form of nationalism don't want to make this kind of distinction because it threatened their world view of universe without sovereignties or rather a universe ruled by the intelligentsia or some other universal concept, be it the working class, the race, vegetarians, and among religious Christians, Muslims and ultra Orthodox Jews “God.”

All alternative forms of nationalism offered in the 20th century have been disastrous in practice.

Connor Cruise O’Brien knew that better than anyone.

jackson: Eire has been independent for eighty years; XXIst century Irish nationalism in respect of the Republic, if there is any, is probably not objectionable.  But the nationalism that led to the establishment of the Republic (and that saw the Republic sit out the greatest moral struggle of the Twentieth Century in a fit of pique), and the nationalism that propels the IRA and its splinters, is ugly and dangerous.

"Nationalism" I put in quotes because, as you note, there are quite a few versions of it out there (and, in the same community and sourced by the same waters, nationalism can branch out into various versions: Québec nationalism in the 60 was a liberating force; the same nationalist impetus that drove democratisation and secularisation led to Parizeau's infamous and ugly "money and the ethnic vote" statement after he lost the referendum, in 95.  And no, he was not technically referring to Montreal Jews, but there was no mistaking that they were included in the one or the other.)  I was, of course, referring to de Valera's sort, which was (and in Northern Ireland remains) simply exclusionary tribalism.  I don't think this is the sort of "nationalism" O'Brien approved of, which is another reason to put the term in quotes.

icarusr, thanks for the explanation.  I was just curious at your use of verb tenses above.

I agree for the most part with what you said.

Thanks.  Lots of good stories here.

I am surprised that I never came across the Cruiser in all my years  Really a great man.

This is why I come to the blogs here, lots of good comments too.

ick, I think that the image of "De Valera going to the Pope to get his constitution blessed" is somewhat of an oversimplification -- it's true that the 1937 Constitution enshrined the special position of the Catholic Church (that clause removed by plebescite around 40 years ago) and had a lot of implicit Catholic social teaching in the mix with everything else.  It's also true, however, that while De Valera to all intents and purposes handed up social and educational policy to Catholic domination, he clearly told the Church that they should keep their noses out of macro-economic, fiscal, judicial, and foreign policy, none of which was to concern them.  This unspoken deal was accepted, although many didn't like it, including some of the bishops, who thought they should have a say in many more areas of government.

I'm cribbing this from Tim Pat Coogan's 1995 biography "The Long Fellow," which is a very good read, as well as detailing De Valera's life in all its weirdness, evasiveness, and complexity.

Wonderful posting regarding a wonderful man and talented writer. Intellect coupled with gratefulness, what a blessing. Being Irish, I can't help feeling saddened at the almost total lack of attention to his parting. Again, tnr comes through.

Oh, and ick -- I agree about the Collins assassination, of course, but Michael Collins was also an Irish nationalist in every sense of the word, and he masterminded the guerilla warfare in the Irish towns and countryside (the British certainly thought of it as terrorism even if they didn't use the term) that eventually drove Lloyd George to negotiate.

It wasn't nice, but it was effective.

The Cruiser was born into that milieu, saw it split in bitter and irreconcilable ways as a boy and a young man, and came to reject its modern manifestation -- but he remained as many did in an ambivalent frame of mind about De Valera, the dominating political figure of the 20th c. in Ireland.

Irony: for once, I meant something literally - De Valera literally sought the benediction of Pope Pius for the Irish Constitution.  And his deal with the Catholic Church was not that special, in the context of Catholic-dominated governments of his time.  The Catholic Church ran social and educational policy of Québec until 1960, while the ostensibly secular authority dealt with fiscal and national matters; neither Salazar nor Franco handed over a scintilla of control over fiscal or foreign policy matters to the Church, even as on most domestic matters, the Peninsula was run by the Church.

Terrorism sometimes works - got Gerry Adams into the Northern Irish government ... and nationalist terrorism also works at times.  Collins I mentioned precisely because of his leadership position: a movement that does not even have mercy for its own, can't be trusted to govern well and to protect minorities - surely the most essential of the liberal qualities of a liberal democracy.  The assassination of Collins demonstrated the basic criminality of the nationalist enterprise, in m y view, regardless of how effective it proved in the end ... Putin, after all, is effective and no less a criminal for that.

I think there's no argument that the Irish nationalist movement (Sinn Fein and the IRA) split over the legitimacy of the 1922 Treaty with Britain, as that arrangement provided for the removal of six counties (that became Northern Ireland) from the newly quasi-independent Irish Free State, and NI became a Protestant statelet in practice if not in theory.  In the course of that split, the willingness to turn on one's comrades of last week and the low threshold of violence after two years of guerilla warfare led to a short but savage civil war in 1923-4 that overshadowed Irish politics for many decades and still, to some vague extent, distorts the political landscape.

That said, I think the term "criminality" for Irish nationalism, especially in that period, is both extreme and unjustified.  Despite the Collins murder (and other killings) the civil war was over in a few months, in contrast to the endless wars elsewhere.  The refusal of the anti-Treaty movement to join in normal politics and take their seats in the new Irish parliament (they stood for election but refused to take seats won) was eventually worn down by the moderate nationalist government of William Cosgrave.  The election of 1932 was won by De Valera's party and power was handed over peacefully, as has every transfer of power since.  The record of Ireland is quite striking, as is that of India, in handling a postcolonial situation with considerable political maturity and a respect for basic democratic rights and procedure.

One should note too that Irish nationalism has had both distinctive non-violent (Parnell, John Hume) and distinctive violent (the Fenians, the IRA) traditions, but they have sometimes been quite close, or have had a curious relationship that involved people with a leg in both camps.

The Siege is one of my favorite books. I first read it in high school and have reread it twice since. A good man lost.

"The assassination of Collins demonstrated the basic criminality of the nationalist enterprise, in m y view, regardless of how effective it proved in the end ... Putin, after all, is effective and no less a criminal for that."  Icarusr

Again, you say you are not attacking nationalism per se but you your generalizing rhetoric says otherwise.

Why go from De Valera to Putin?  Why even condemn Irish nationalism because of its internal struggles?

By that standard the American Revolution with its internal civil wars which drove tens of thousands to seek refuge in Canada was also a "criminal enterprise."  Yet most historians agree that the American Revolution was relatively benign.

Is there any socio-political arrangement that didn't originate in conflict?  

For all its faults the Irish Nationalists were not and are not the same as the Russian nationalists. Ireland doesn't seek any wider sphere of influence and there is no "near abroad" policy at play there.

Calling it a "cimiinal enterprise" is over the top, Icarus.

I give you 1932 and modify "basic criminality" to "deep seated criminality of key elements" - would that work?  I guess I'm letting my extreme antipathy towards the IRA, and unease with what has always appeared to me tacit support by the Republic of those thugs, affect my appreciation of Irish history.  Throw in De Valera and I might as well suspend any pretensions to rational thinking altogether.

The IRA and all of its splinters are, in my estimation, criminal gangs (I would not even deign to call them terrorists, for this implies at least some sort of political motivation), and they have been so since the split. (This is not to suggest that Ulster and the Orangemen are any better; pox and cholera and ebola and the plague on both their houses.) The civil war, though it might have ended well, betokens something essentially rotten at the core of Irish nationalism - and the IRA is the child of that rotten core, even if the Republic managed eventually to discard it.  I guess this is what I was trying to get at.

I wonder if Parnell would have met the same fate as Collins if he had not been politically destroyed othewise.  One of those imponderables of history.

As for India - a debate for another day.  I am not an expert on the subcontinent; I admire it, in some ways, for what it has achieved over the past sixty years.  I think the essential difference between the two is to be found in the different paths the fakir in the loincloth and De Valera took to independence - this is not to say, of course, that Gandhi's pacifism was triumphant in all respects, but that if you preach nonviolence, it is likely to lead to less violence than if you engage in assassinations, murders and a civil war.  Just saying ;-).

Icarusr, India is not the issue nor is the IRA solely the issue.

The issue is your attack on Nationalism.

Do you see the Irish Republic also as a "criminal enterprise?"

In any case, different Nationalisms will develop differently depending on the geopolitical context of that development.

Gandhi is not hero of mine. His kind of dreamy pacifism usually leads to extreme violence.

Let me offer you a stark contrast: Gandhi preached pacifism and the birth of India was accompanied by millions of deaths both Hindus and Muslims.

The Irish nationalists didn't preach non violence, but the number of deaths was much lower even on a per capita basis.

Also Gandhi the pacifist blamed the Jews for their fate during the Holocaust. ‘They should have resisted non-violently,’ pace him.  He also famously took the side of the Arabs in the Arab Israeli conflict.

The Irish government wasn’t exactly pro-Jewish but they never preached universal brotherhood of mankind.

I'm curious what you mean by tacit support, ick.  It's true that there has always been a segment of opinion in the Republic that supported militant (violent) nationalism, but there's a big distinction made between attitudes to the historical IRA (War of Independence 1919-121) and the post-independence IRA.  The former are not only tacitly supported but honored as the achievers of national freedom, while the latter, at least as far as the state has been concerned, have been prosecuted and convicted for crimes of violence (and, if I remember correctly, mere membership in the IRA is an offence in Irish law, but not in British law).

Irish governments of all stripes long ago determined that the position of Northern Ireland as part of the UK could not and should not be altered by violent means.  Below that level, however, there was a sense in which the Irish government could stand as a kind of protector/guarantor for the Catholic/nationalist minority in negotiations with Britain.  And there was of course a constitutional gesture toward a United Ireland in the Irish Constitution, that read like a sotto voce declaration of intent.  That was, however, also removed by plebescite a few years ago, as part of the peace process.

I believe Parnell (who died many years before the War of Independence) would have been personally unharmed no matter what political situation transpired in Ireland.  He was the unchallenged national leader in the 1880s and 1890s -- the Protestant leader of a Catholic people, incidentally.  The institution of Home Rule (on the Austro-Hungarian model), which was the objective of Parnell's Irish Party, would have certainly been contested by more radical nationalist elements, but it would have had massive popular support and a rejectionist camp would have been very small.  The fact that Home Rule ultimately became too little for most people outside the Northeast (Protestant-majority corner) can also be laid at the feet of Britain, that alienated much mainstream opinion and has never been able to deal intellectually with Irish national feeling.

irony:

"And there was of course a constitutional gesture toward a United Ireland in the Irish Constitution, that read like a sotto voce declaration of intent."  Well, yes, that was in the face of the oppostion of Ulster and in full view of the violent group working to make that constitutional gesture into reality.  Throughout WWII there were elements in the Republic who wanted to use the distraction of the War to bring about union with the North.  And I have difficulty to believe that the IRA could have managed to smuggle so much in arms and money, and crossed the border into the Republic so easily, without at least some official elements in the South giving it support.  The Republic's hands are not entirely clean in that area. (Not that the UK's hands are clean either.

jackson:

Gandhi's writings about the Jews in Germany are some of vilest and stupidest things I have ever read in my life, and in fact I use them in my courses to highlight the moral hazards of doctrinaire pacifism.  BUT ... "Gandhi preached pacifism and the birth of India was accompanied by millions of deaths both Hindus and Muslims." I don't think his preaching pacifism led to the millions of dead - it is, in fact, entirely possible that without Gandhi, the deaths would have numbered in the tens of millions.  As for your observation that, "The Irish nationalists didn't preach non violence, but the number of deaths was much lower even on a per capita basis," I wonder about its historical, moral and political wisdom.  After all, it would be entirely fatuous and immoral of me to say that Hamas' call for violence against Israel *reduces* violence in the region; in the same vein, I don't think Irish nationalist calls for violence resulted in less violence than would have accompanied Irish independence through non-violent means. (Admitting, all the while, about the inexactness of the analogy.  But still: Irish calls for violent resistance to Britain did not result in fewer deaths per capita than Indian calls for pacifism; each needs to be compared to its own counterfactual, which would be highly speculative in any event.)

The history of Canada - admittedly, far different from that of Ireland in some respects - is instructive.  There has been all of three "violent" uprisings in Canada's history since the end of the Seven Year's war ... and barely a hundred have been killed.  Canada's independence took fully ninety years to realise, but we managed to do it peacefully.  So did Australia and NZ.  Could Ireland have done the same thing?  The enormous weight of Irish history, and of Ulster, proved heavy, but I wonder, I really wonder if the same results - an independent Catholic Republic and a multidenominational Northern enclave - could not have been achieved over time with far fewer dead - and fewer drilled knee-caps and Irish-Colombian drug deals and muerderous terrorists claiming the mantle of ministerial responsibility ...

But then, I am deeply mistrustful of violent nationalism of any sort.  

“I don't think his preaching pacifism led to the millions of dead - it is, in fact, entirely possible that without Gandhi, the deaths would have numbered in the tens of millions.”

I am not sure, Icarus. It’s all speculation, of course, but had there been no Gandhi it’s possible that other Hindu liberal nationalists would have taken greater precaution against violence.

In any case, it is ironic that in a country whose leader was a world renowned pacifist millions of people killed each other. That was my point.

“As for your observation that, "The Irish nationalists didn't preach non violence, but the number of deaths was much lower even on a per capita basis," I wonder about its historical, moral and political wisdom.”

Well it is a fact and I stated it only be way of contrast to your comments about the superiority of pacifist politics.  There was no causality implied.

“After all, it would be entirely fatuous and immoral of me to say that Hamas' call for violence against Israel *reduces* violence in the region; in the same vein,”

Interesting point since not Hamas but their apologists in the West and mostly among the left keep telling us that violence would be reduced if only Israel gave in to the more reasonable of their demands.

My point here is that the violence perpetrated by Hamas is being excused in the West by the same crowd that sees Gandhi as a model statesman.

Rather than looking at a nationalist movement’s means by itself let’s start by looking at a movement’s goals:  The Irish nationalist goals were not to annihilate the British people, it was simply to gain independence and go their own way. The fact that they solved their internal problems violently is unfortunate but that didn’t stop them from creating a liberal Western society with all the attendant fault in evidence in such societies.

Hamas goals are clearly the annihilation of the Jewish State and the restoration of the dhimmi status of Jews.

A French thinker recently identified the revolt if Islam as a kind of counter revolution (a sort of counter-reformation) with the intended goal of restoring the pre enlightenment regime which the French revolution swept away.

This is context in which we should keep in mind when talking about Hamas.

"But then, I am deeply mistrustful of violent nationalism of any sort."  Icarusr

I am mistrustful of the use of violence for all political goals be they national or international. I am especially distrustful of people (this is not directed at Icarusr) who eschew violence but become apologetic for the violence perpetrated in the name of oppression. This used to be called revanchist politics and it stunk when it was practiced by Mussolini or Hitler and it stinks today when it is practiced by Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas or al Kaida.

Rick Richman pays tribute the Irish diplomat and scholar Conor Cruise O'Brien. He notes Martin Peretz's observation that the NYT in its obituary doesn't make mention of his book, "The Siege." O'Brien was a contributor to The Atlantic, and that magazine

"He notes Martin Peretz's observation that the NYT in its obituary doesn't make mention of his book, "The Siege."

It reminds me how, following Paul Newman's  passing away a few months ago, none of the major  (or smaller) papers, when relating his filmography, made mention of  "Exodus". The only ones remembering it were the Jewish magazines.

So I wonder if this i s a developing pattern  of avoiding and thereby silencing works that admire Zionism? Or just a coincidence?

"Rather than looking at a nationalist movement’s means by itself let’s start by looking at a movement’s goals" - the road to Hell, as they say ... as I have mentioned this before, I lived through the Iranian revolution.  Every single revolutionary I knew - even the religious ones - had noble goals and each justified the excesses of the revolution - the means - by reference to those goals.  And they continue to do so.  

I'm far from being a pacifist and I do think that we need to respond forcefully to violence and to threats to our existence.  But I cannot and will not justify resort to violence in pursuit of nationalist objectives - in any event, the record of the IRA in Ulster is simply outrageous and insupportable for any goal.

"Rather than looking at a nationalist movement’s means by itself let’s start by looking at a movement’s goals" - the road to Hell, as they say ... "

That's not all I wrote, Icarusr. It's not a question of means and ends, only.  The key words above  are "by itself."

Here is the paragraph in it's entirety:

"Rather than looking at a nationalist movement’s means by itself let’s start by looking at a movement’s goals:  The Irish nationalist goals were not to annihilate the British people, it was simply to gain independence and go their own way. The fact that they solved their internal problems violently is unfortunate but that didn’t stop them from creating a liberal Western society with all the attendant fault in evidence in such societies."

"It reminds me how, following Paul Newman's  passing away a few months ago, none of the major  (or smaller) papers, when relating his filmography, made mention of  "Exodus". "

I noticed that too.

The NY Times is treating Israel as a non country just as the Soviets used to treat those people it disapproved of as non persons.

May we be reading the NY Times obit soon in the last issue of the NY Times.

I do hope the few remaining readers of newpapers will treat the NY Times as a non newspaper.

"The fact that they solved their internal problems violently is unfortunate but that didn’t stop them ..."

I read the rest of the paragraph.  I applaud the Irish Republic for what it has become; I denounce the Nationalists' resort to violence in "solving" their internal problems - and we are still living with that legacy - literally in Ulster, and notionally elsewhere.  That approach was more than "unfortunate:, and the fact that there is a democratic Irish Republic does not and ought not blind us to its violent parents.  

By the way, did you know the street formerly called Churchill in Tehran (the street runs along the British Embassy) has been renamed "Bobby Sands" since 1980?  This is how powerful myths can become.

So long Conor. "He's gone for his tea", as me ma would say.

I used to read him in the Irish Independent, long ago. No former Labour minister can ever be bad. Although, his desperation for some crumbs of right-wing acceptance was unseemly towards his end.

Interesting thread as well.

I didn't know that Ick, a good story to tell tonight.

Merry Christ's Mass Spinesters!

"That approach was more than "unfortunate:, and the fact that there is a democratic Irish Republic does not and ought not blind us to its violent parents."

No one is excusing the use of violence by the IRA. I am merely saying that it's not the whole story.

My point is that in a world with so few liberal democracies  let's not sneer at those countries that have achieved it.

I am not sure I understand your point about the use of myth in the context of our discussions.  

And what about my point that  too many Western liberals seem to offer excuses for Islamic terrorists while saving all their hatred for "nationalists," as if Hamas' or Lashkar-e-Taiba goals were purer than those of then for example those of the  Indian nationalists.

I don't sneer at the Republic as such; it has a quirky and odd history, and to the extent that it manages to escape its quirks, more power to it.  And no violence is "the whole story", even that of Hamas.  But, for me, the violence of Hamas and the PLO and Hizbollah writes much of the story, just as the violence of today's IRA writes pretty much the whole story; if, by some fluke, a democractic state arises out of the West Bank or Gaza, or somehow Jerry Adams morphs into a semblance of a human being, one can admire the outcome, while still disappoving the means.

The IRA's revolutionary and "anti-colonial" mythology transcends the boundaries of the UK.  Its goals end up justifying its means in post-colonial and revolutionary societies.  So suddenly a criminal like Bobby Sands becomes a folk hero because he starves himself to death.  So yeah, it's great that the Irish are now democratic and secular, and that Northern Ireland might yet become civilized; we're still entitled to disapprove of how they got there.

As for the excuses some Western liberals make for terrorists - well, Reagan considered the contras "freedom fighters" and there are those in the conservative camp who glorify Cuban extremists.  Moral blindness and incoherence is not the exclusive province of liberals.  If you use terror - attacking civilian targets, for example -  as an instrument of politics, you're likely a terrorist regardless of your motivation.

I think context has to be carefully considered when considering "one man's George Washington is another man's..."

For example:

Jack - you get exasperated when you have to point out the differences between the early Zionist militants who used bombings against the British and Hamas today.

This isn't just about the degree of civilian deaths or sucide bombers. One of the big facts, reasons, motiviations, for Zionism is the depth of suffering that Jewish people had to endure from the Holocaust back. Never again! We will have our own country to ensure this never happens again!

Well, about 60 odd years before the 1916, violent, terrorist rising, half the country either emigrated or starved to death in the most severe  (per head of poplulation) famine in the history of the universe. The island today would have Gaelic as it's first language if it wasn't for that period. And you could argue all day that it was primarily economic (wrongly, in my opinion) not political, but from an Irish perspective that esoteric debate didn't really matter in the early part of the last century.

Taking that and other historical issues into perspective, the struggle for Irish Independence was by any measure, far less violent that it could have been. (More Irish men died at the hands of their former comrades in the civil war that the Black and Tans ever killed. And even that number is extremely small compared to most civil wars.)

So, context if you please.

And no violence is "the whole story", even that of Hamas.  But, for me, the violence of Hamas and the PLO and Hizbollah writes much of the story,….”

This is true and as you say “if, by some fluke, a democractic state arises out of the West Bank or Gaza,…. one can admire the outcome, while still disappoving the means.”  (as you can see I am trying to keep the two terrorist organizations separately).

I don’t believe that there will be much of a chance of a Palestinian State becoming democratic. And this too is part of my point.

Hezbollah and Hamas are counter democratic organizations. The PLO thought of itself as a Soviet type revolutionary organization. Whether that was merely for show to attract Soviet aid, or because they really believed in those principles is immaterial: neither organization believed or believes in liberal democratic values; besides both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood see democracy as a Jewish inspired con game.

This is why any comparison of Hamas with the early Zionists is both fallacious and ignorant.

Hence looking at the whole picture here means acknowledging that no matter the means the end result for the Palestinian people will be one kind of tyranny or another.  Hamas after all was elected in a “democratically” held contest.

The IRA is different and I noticed that you seem to conflate the 1916 uprising with the current Northern Ireland troubles.

“just as the violence of today's IRA writes pretty much the whole story; if, by some fluke, a democractic state arises …..(if)Jerry Adams morphs into a semblance of a human being, one can admire the outcome, while still disappoving the means.”

But the Northern Irish situation is much different from that of the South. In the South most Irish people did want independence or before that home rule. It’s British rule which was both undemocratic and brutish.

That Ireland was able to morph (to use your expression) into a democratic State also tells us a lot about the values of the people who made the rebellion of 1916.

I don't know Jackson - I don't think in 1916, 1923 or 1940 for that matter, it would have been possible to predict the Ireland of today; in fact, without the massive investment of the EC and the comfort zone of the Common Market, it is highly doubtful that Ireland would be what it is today: democratic, but probably more like Portugal than a country with the third or fourth highest GDP in Europe.  And just because you want to escape the bounds of an undemocratic and brutish rule, does not mean that you would or want to end up in a democratic society.  They wanted independence; they went about getting it in rather nasty ways; they were lucky to have been completely isolated from the effects of WWII and then being entirely coddled by Europe for thirty years before suddenly finding themselves prosperous and totally free of religious domination.  I don't think this was preordained.

I am not necessarily referring to 1916, by the way - I think Carson was an evil man and the uprising was probably just; I object to the civil war and the sustained period of terror that it followed, and the example these gave to the IRA in the North.

" I don't think in 1916, 1923 or 1940 for that matter, it would have been possible to predict the Ireland of today; in fact, without the massive investment of the EC and the comfort zone of the Common Market, it is highly doubtful that Ireland would be what it is today: democratic, but probably more like Portugal than a country with the third or fourth highest GDP in Europe. "

OK, Portugal. But Portugal wasn't exactly Fascist Italy or even Franco's Spain. Nor was it a Communist totalitarian backwater.

I did like you point about the myth of Irish rebels defeating an imperial power which has been used to inspire many third world bloody uprisings.

Still  it seems to me had there been no Irish rebellion these bloody minded rebels would have used other myths. There is no shortage of heroic martyr myths in the Muslim world and South America has had its share of rebels from Bolivar and San Martin to Benito Juarez and Augusto César Sandino.

Notice that the rebellions weren't always about gaining national independence. This was certainly not the case with Iran or the Sandinistas.

He he - but with Iran, most revolutionaries were not rebelling against a home-grown petty dictator who was not even that good in killing or dictating.  You know what the revolutionary slogan was? "Independence, Liberty, Islamis Republic."  Yeah, "independence" from the Yoke of the Great Arrogance and from Imperialist England; I am almost virulently anti-intellectual (in Paul Johnson's sense) because of the blather about "ridding Iran of the toxic influence of the West; claiming true intellectual independence from Westoxification" that Iranian intellectuals of the left and right used to spew.  Naturally, all of them ended up in the gallows or in exile.

So yeah, the IRA became a rather bizarre symbol for Iranian revolutionaries. (And particularly potent because of the Imperialist England angle ....)

"So yeah, the IRA became a rather bizarre symbol for Iranian revolutionaries. (And particularly potent because of the Imperialist England angle ....)"

Ok, but that's not the fault of the IRA of the 1916 rebellion.  

Your point about left wing intellectuals is well put. I have mo patience with them either.  Yes, the whole idea of cultural or economic imperialism was devised in order to give these second rate thinkers another excuse to hate.

In any case, from my point of view they are mere clerks of history and not real intellectuals.

I am currently reading Young Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore. Fascinating study of a self made "intellectual" who used his little knowledge to justify his violent nature which according to the author was part of the cultural heritage of the Caucuses.

I suspect you would know more about this than I do.

The point about Stalin is this:

Stalin was a Georgian nationalist (and poet) a Menshevik and then a Bolshevik and antinationalist. In all his ideological incarnations he used the same violent methods.

Stalin was a psychopathic thug; nationalism, menshevism and bolshevism were just means of justifying and advancing his violence. Just finished reading Khrushchev's biography by Taubman.  Of course, the entire Soviet apparatus was the triumph of second and third rate bloodthirsty tacticians, propelled and maintained by other second and third rate "thinkers".  The same sad spectacle is now repeating itself in Iran.  

"The same sad spectacle is now repeating itself in Iran. "

Sounds like it.

Any guesses about how many years this regime has before it too collapses?

Another generation, and there won't be any Muslims left in Iran.  14% drug addition rate, 20% unemployment, superstition and millenariasm run amok, economy in shambles, universities shut down ... it is not a sustainable proposition.  Good thing is, there is not much of a military left - they are all involved in smuggling ...

And yet they are building nuclear reactors

Russia is building a - one - nuclear reactor for Iran, and it has been in construction for 35 years now.  Iran has very little Uranium of its own, which makes the whole centrifuge thing even more baffling.  I have no doubt that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons technology; I have equally no doubt that it will not get there any time soon.