Years ago I elected to take a university course which purported to study the rise of national movements. Specifically we dealt with Irish and Arab nationalism, and of course Zionism. At that time of that course, there were a lot of goings on in the news concerning the issues which we were studying. Also at that time the 1973 war was long over but the aftermath which included the OPEC oil embargo had a significant impact in this country.
There was also about that time a particular incident of my experience which aroused my interest in certain events and I have ever since continued to hold them. The UN had formally declared Zionism to be a form of racism, and shortly just after that a member of the PLO (an actual deputy of Arafat) came to speak at my school. My student dues which were mandatory fees were actually used to pay this murderous contemptible person money to speak on my campus. I was outraged at the time. I wore my "I am a Zionist" badge (which was quite new at the time) as my simple protest.
Anyhow, during the course of that Nat'l Movements course, we actually had a few guest lecturers come to the class for the purpose of (surprise) giving a lecture. One lecturer in particular was a man who was said to be an assistant to the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations. I only recalled a small portion of what he said on that day in that small classroom. Essentially, he enunciated that there was a little hope of a long term solution to the Arab Israeli "problem." I found that to be dismaying, but after all this time, it seems still to be an accurate projection of the current situation and of the future concerning these matters.
Indeed things have certainly escalated since those days. Now in my view the entire world is witness to a new war which is unlikely to see a conclusive end short of world wide annihilation of all humanity. I simply see no way out of the situation without Divine Intervention, or a very serious and single minded assault on those purveyors of anarchy and destruction. I certainly would prefer to get it all over with quickly as I have an interest in not losing someone quite dear to me who is about to debark on a second visit to that what seems to be a God forsaken place. I assure you that I am not comfortable with this reality. I support a war which serves to protect us from insane maniacs. That is after all the purpose of Government in my opinion. Governments are for the protection of citizens. It seems such a simple notion to me.
I have seen enough terror on these shores in recent years, and not for nothing, but many relatives and friends of mine (their families) fled the British Isles in order to be spared the consequences of war and terror. The business concerning my own grandfather's involvement in the IRA cannot be authenticated, but if it could be, and if it were, I would rebuke him most vociferously. I will never have that opportunity and so assuming that I knew the rumors were true it is all still just an exercise in speculation.
I do not know of this Tim Pat Coogan fellow of who you wrote, but I shall look him up, and perhaps I'll read a bit of his works. I have read almost every book written by Leon Uris. I actually read Trinity two times, and the sequel once. I like Uris, but the last book that I read by him was quite lame, and I won't be reading any more of his work, needless to say since he is now quite deceased..
If you are interested in a bit of recreational reading you might consider Morgan Llewellyn's work "The Lion of Ireland." If you are interested in American historical fiction then there is no peer to James Michener. I have read most of his books, but the best of all in my view was Chesapeake. Chesapeake is unique in that it defines the lines of separation in America which came into being in the 19th century. Ultimately it describes the American Civil War from the perspective of a family that actually lived in the areas where the issues and battles were actually of most impact.
It is late here, and I'd like to respond to more of your post. Perhaps tomorrow or later. I wish you well.
I accidently saw the video by Kevin Sites and I was too stupid to decide for myself if the Marine was justified in his actions. Because it was on the TEE-vee I am forced to decide if the Marine was right or wrong (those are the only choices right? Because I can't handle it if there is a third, less simplistic possibility). If it's on the TEE-vee, it must be bad (because the media only shows bad things), so I really have no choice.
Anyway, I know that the Marines are over there protecting the even-numbered amendments to our constitution but I have to face the fact that this Marine is very bad. This whole thing has given me a headache. I have decided that my eyeballs are to blame for viewing this incident in the first place, so I have been left with no option but to scoop them out with a melon baller. I have mailed them to the Attorney General requesting that they be charged with treason.
I have to be careful that I don't accidentally overhear something that my brain is incapable of interpreting on NPR or some other Communist mouthpiece . . . I would hate to lose the ears at this point.
Yes, 'Connor' is normally spelled with two n's and some have, indeed, spelled Mr. Cruise O'Brien's name in that fashion. However, in his case, I do believe he does spell it with a single 'n'. A quick search on google for him will certainly settle this for you.
Well, personally I have no problem with Zionism. Especially considering the last 2,000 years. But then, I've always had a soft spot for things Jewish. I'm just saddened to see the Israelis squander the worldwide sympathy the holocaust brought them at such a terrible price.
As for your reaction to the PLO member who spoke at your school, I'm empathetic to your position. Arafat and his PLO in that time were terrorists and the murderers of innocents. I've never personally had much time for the Palestinian movements, although I've some sympathy for the suffering of the general population. I fault the Arabs more for Palestinian woes than I do the Israelis, but obviously it doesn't suit people in that region to view things in that light.
I've always been amazed by the American left's adoption of some Arab causes, considering that they represented, to my mind, beliefs that are utterly anathema to liberal thinking, while Israel on the other hand, not to mention American Jewry, have traditionally been far more representative of the dreams and aspirations of liberal thinking about civil rights and the protection of same. During the occupation of Lebanon, I've often pointed to the fact that fistfights broke out in the Knesset, which to me is a sign of real opposition politics, unlike our own houses of congress which have so often rubber stamped American foreign policies.
At the same time, while you point out your justifiable disgust at the PLO, the absence of comments about the murderous history of Ariel Sharon is striking. His disgrace in Israel was total and his return to political favour is quite phenomenal, imo.
On supporting a war which protects us from insane maniacs, who could disagree with that? The point upon which we would not agree, I've no doubt, is whether the current war is doing that. My contention would be just the opposite. The comment I neglected to include in my initial post addressed to you is that the final irony regarding the extreme Islamic movement in the Middle East is that it could never garner public support (aside from minimal spillover support as a reaction to Israeli problems), until Mr. Bush provided them with that support they had been longing for over more than 15 years. I do not mean to suggest that such a response to American activity in Iraq on the part of the regional inhabitants is reasonable or just, but that it was inevitable and foreseeable. They're subject to the local propaganda machines also.
I don't want to rehash the current political arguments with you, so I have no intention of pursuing this line beyond this current post, but the reasons for our war have nothing to do with protecting us from maniacs and everything to do with domestic politics, as explicitly stated by Mr. Bush himself in 1999. I'm sure you'll take me up on this and, please, have at me. :-) I'm going to try to resist the temptation to venture up this particular emotive alley myself, beyond the statements already made.
I appreciate your suggestions on books. No, I haven't yet read any Michener, but maybe now, reading your post, I will take a look. As for Leon Uris, I read some of his early works, but I haven't read him for years. I have one of his more recent books, but for some reason it hasn't appealed to me enough to read it. My guess pretty well coincided with your experience, so maybe I never will. Thanks for the recommendation of Morgan Llewellyn - I'm always on the lookout for good author's. Another author whose name I can't remember, but one with whom you may already be familiar, is that historian who wrote a series of novels based on the premise that the South won the Civil War. I've heard this guy makes for fascinating reading. I can find out his name if you're interested - as I say, you may well already know who I'm talking about and can remind me of his name.
Thanks for the response.