And this same party heaps endless praise on those who ordered and orchestrated sectarian murder of the other side.
There are alternative nationalist parties with no such bad blood, but they are never first choice from the other community, it seems.
It is regretful but the message is understood.
I really don't think this is true.
It's widely believed that some former high ranking IRA members still are involved in the party leadership, but nowhere near the extent that they could be said to "control" the party
> Sinn Fein is the Provisional IRA,
The ceasefire was 25 years ago, there is a whole generation of SF members who have never been in the IRA, so no, they are not the same organisation
> and proud of it
Yeah, there's pride at having held off the British Army for decades, but also a lot of very mixed feelings
There is good evidence to indicate that the IRA Army Council is still heavily involved in running Sinn Fein. And it is no wonder, because the links between the two organisations are pretty tight and always have been. The party still calls itself "the political wing of the Provisional IRA". In response to an audience member shouting "Up the 'RA", Gerry Adams famously replied with glee "They haven't gone away you know".
Sinn Fein to this day praises and commemorates former IRA murderers. Michelle O'Neill comes from a family of proud IRA members. I could go on.
Endorsing the organisation now is endorsing its history and aims, which haven't diverged despite the young faces and heavy layers of PR gloss.
> pride at having held off the British Army
And a lot of civilians who guarded prisons, happened to be going to work, were 'suspected' touts, were buying fish and chips, or were watching military parades to commemorate real sacrifice like that made in WWII.
Real reconciliation would be possible with moderate nationalists, not people who call Unionists "bastards" in private, or say "equality is a trojan horse for Nationalism".
You're talking as if this happened recently and not nearly 30 years ago
>Sinn Fein to this day praises and commemorates former IRA murderers.
So what? How often do unionists have a bad word to say about the British forces that have spent centuries terrorizing and murdering Irish people? How are nationalists supposed to reconcile with people who by and large vote for political parties that do not support the GFA (presumably they would prefer to go back to armed conflict? perhaps the protestant supremacist state formed in 1921?) or turn up en masse to prance about in July with the deeply unpleasant orange order?
All the evidence points to the aims having changed - the aim of violent overthrow of British rule seems to have been abandoned, as evidence by the last 25 years.
But look... If you think no reconciliation is possible then there's no real point in saying any of this to you
What would be good enough grounds, in your view?
> If you think no reconciliation is possible then there's no real point in saying any of this to you
If you think I mean reconciliation with nationalists is impossible, that is not the case at all. If you think reconciliation is possible with a party that has admitted in private that its public friendly persona is a trojan horse, I won't be taken for a fool.
That's getting a bit hypothetical. I'm just working with the evidence available to me right now. If strong enough evidence appears to the contrary then I will change my mind
And look... If you think that whatever off the cuff comments are actually the defining statement of the party's essence then ok, go with that.
Would you at least agree that choosing an alternative party without these connections and connotations would be a better gesture from the Nationalist community to Unionists?
> off the cuff comments
I would say that an address to a party audience by the party founder addressing party strategy gives the comments significant weight, yes. If Jeffery Donaldson made comments remotely like these they would make headlines for weeks.
> party's essence
Sinn Fein - Ourselves Alone.
> reliable intelligence that indicates that the IRA Army Council directs both PIRA and Sinn Fein strategy
Again, I _think_ I'm aware of most of the relevant evidence and to me it indicates that some former high ranking IRA members still are involved in the party leadership, but nowhere near the extent that they could be said to "control" the party
> Would you at least agree that choosing an alternative party without these connections and connotations would be a better gesture from the Nationalist community to Unionists?
Yeah I see your point. But, let's face it, neither community has been all that good with gestures. I could go on about speeches made by the founding member of the DUP, but, you know what, that shit is in the past, I'd rather just move on.
> Sinn Fein - Ourselves Alone.
Ouch... That's not the literal meaning... Not easy to explain. Irish is a tricky bitch of a language, best just leave it out.
That's not an issue unique to one side of the conflict though. The DUP are hardly moderates, and were always suspected to have links to the UVF.
One of the saddest parts about the post Good Friday/Belfast settlement was how it ended up with the more extreme parts of each community splitting power between them.
The unionist party run by the UVF is the PUP and it is barely a rounding error in the polls.
Sinn Fein has many members of senior IRA rank and calls itself "the political wing of the PIRA".
The two are not identical.
Name one. I don't disagree that this definitely used to be the case (Martin McGuiness as the classic example), but I can't imagine Mary Lou McDonald as a member of the PIRA.
Like, I'm kinda disgusted with myself to be defending Sinn Fein, but one could argue that the necessity of political/violence co-operation was larger for the nationalists, given where they started. It was certainly the perception that the organs of the state were not religion-blind. How many Catholics were in the RUC, for instance?
Michelle O'Neill had no personal involvement, but her father was in the Provisional IRA. It's not uncommon for republican families to split duties in that way.
But even if I couldn't name any, it is very clear that the two organisations are deeply and inextricably linked.
> How many Catholics were in the RUC, for instance?
I get what you're saying. We should note that some of the low numbers was down to anti-policing attitudes in their own community. Indeed there are still areas run by republican paramilitary factions today where you don't call the police, or you'll have two problems.
I would need to consider the pre-1973 history in better depth, but I would agree that I wish there was better accommodation with the nationalist community in the predominantly unionist state, if it would've helped avoid what happened. But consider that the unionist attitudes were driven by fear of the other side too, this would've affected their decisions. The Northern state was intended as a compromise for Unionists, who looked South and saw their population in the ROI drop from 15% to around 1%.
Even with that said, I can never sympathise with people who bombed, intimidated and targeted civilians in the way that the various IRAs did. There is no cause for pride or celebration here, even if one accepts it as necessary. I don't see mournful regret when I see Sinn Fein members reflect on the names of those tied to that aspect of the past.
The level of violence and its many knock on effects took a tremendous toll on the unionist population, and we cannot forget who was responsible.
Ah now, Gerry was never a member of the IRA ;)
> Michelle O'Neill had no personal involvement, but her father was in the Provisional IRA. It's not uncommon for republican families to split duties in that way.
Sins of the father, eh?
> I would need to consider the pre-1973 history in better depth, but I would agree that I wish there was better accommodation with the nationalist community in the predominantly unionist state, if it would've helped avoid what happened. But consider that the unionist attitudes were driven by fear of the other side too, this would've affected their decisions. The Northern state was intended as a compromise for Unionists, who looked South and saw their population in the ROI drop from 15% to around 1%.
I'm definitely not disputing that at all, the Free State was a deeply hostile place to Protestants post-independence, for a bunch of reasons, most of which are pretty bad. Like, almost every village/town in the Republic has decaying Protestant churches, which shows you how much changed when partition happened.
That being said, there were real civil rights issues for Catholics in the North and that's the context for how Provisional SF/IRA got started.
> en with that said, I can never sympathise with people who bombed, intimidated and targeted civilians in the way that the various IRAs did. There is no cause for pride or celebration here, even if one accepts it as necessary. I don't see mournful regret when I see Sinn Fein members reflect on the names of those tied to that aspect of the past.
Neither do I. Do I possibly understand what drove some of those people? Yes. Do I agree with their actions? Hell no, in fact a hundred times no. Not in my name (speaking as a citizen of the Republic). I've felt this way for a really long time, back in the 1990s when stuff was still happening.
That being said, it definitely wasn't one-sided, and remember that SF were not the only organisation killing people for no good reasons, and indeed any state sponsored violence would typically not even be counted in the "terrorism" figures.
>The level of violence and its many knock on effects took a tremendous toll on the unionist population, and we cannot forget who was responsible.
The violence fucked up everyone, that's what violence does. Like both sides suffered a whole bunch of trauma, and should Catholics never forget the UVF/UDA et al? Should they never forget the irredentist Paisley who shut down the original power-sharing plans which could have prevented thousands of deaths?
Like, ultimately it needs to end, and hanging onto grudges rarely works out well for anyone.