I grew up with violence. It was pervasive in private and public discussion, a daily news item, a touchstone in labelling individuals and, of course a political minefield. For decades, we were forced by circumstance and politics to take a ‘position’ on violence.

You were either ‘for us or against us’ – the complexities and contradictions of reality were cast aside in the demand for fundamentalist binaries on ‘both’ sides. The fact that there were multiple sides was dismissed as irrelevant.  Meanwhile ‘peace people’ were ridiculed...by ‘both’ sides.

Do you support the right of people in Ireland to take up arms as part of ‘the national struggle’?  Do you support the right of the states to fully defend themselves against terrorist violence’?  These were just two of the questions we were routinely forced to take a ‘position’ on.

The questions were designed to avoid both context and consequence. They were designed to bypass the horrific human and social toll of that violence, and the realities surrounding it (e.g. bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, torture, maimings to say nothing of increased hostility and hatred).   

For me, the parallels with the conflict in Palestine and Israel are obvious and unavoidably complex – anything but simplistic. Stated bluntly, we are being forced into the fake equation that the only way to tackle ‘their violence’ is to unleash ‘ours’ with ever increasing force. 

If you are critical of Israel’s current strategy, you are deemed an apologist for Hamas or you are, by definition, antisemitic. If you express solidarity with those victims of the atrocities of Hamas on October 7, you are then accused of being an apologist for militant Zionism and of denying the rights of Palestinians. 

Yet another set of vicious and dishonest fake equations.

We are being railroaded into accepting that there is no alternative to violence even though it is obvious that there are many, many alternatives. Depending on context, timing and opportunity, such alternatives include, at one level, temporary and permanent ceasefires (many supervised), agreed specific ‘de-escalations’ and, targeted embargos (especially on weapons).   

At another level diplomacy, negotiations (of various types), public and private strategic pressure, sanctions, boycotts, incentives, investments (and divestments) are tried and trusted options employed in many circumstances worldwide. 

Above all, what the conflict process in Ireland and its subsequent peace process taught many of us is that adopting fundamentalist positions (e.g. ‘there will be no negotiations until..., ‘they must lay down their arms’ and ‘we do not negotiate with terrorists’) is a zero-sum game for everyone involved. 

This is horrifically so for those who die or are maimed because of such fundamentalisms as is blindingly obvious in Gaza right now.  It defies belief that the ‘international community’ continues to duck and dive and wring its hands to avoid its moral, legal, and security obligations.  The stunning hypocrisy of many involved is deeply disturbing.

Just because it is a cliche doesn’t negate its underlying truth – violence only begets more violence. Continuously ramping up violence leads not to ‘total victory’ but to yet more ramped up violence. It seems as though the military agendas of Israel and Hamas to ‘destroy’ or ‘annihilate’ ‘the enemy’ have been transformed into an absolute dogma.

Each side relentlessly uses the atrocities of the other side to justify yet further atrocities. The hawks, militarists, and maximalists of each persuasion (and their allied networks) continue to support the use of violence as the ‘only’ means to end violence.

As highlighted by many Israeli, Palestinian and regional peace and human rights activists, by former military strategists and leaders, by many governments worldwide and, graphically by the UN’s Antonio Guterres, the main protagonists in the conflict are ‘playing with fire’.

The dangers of escalating regional conflict, the shockwaves that western responses generate in the Arab street, the potential damage Hezbollah could inflict on Israeli society, the lack of any viable plan for the ‘day after’ and the current humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza are systematically downgraded in the obsession with violence.

As stated by Ami Ayalon, former head of Israel’s domestic intelligence agency Shin Beth ‘…we have turned war into a goal in itself’ thus directly mirroring the strategy of the Hamas leadership.

In his acclaimed book The Sleepwalkers, Australian historian Christopher Clark detailed how European powers and more specifically their leaders, ‘stumbled’ into World War I, blind to the reality of the horrors they were about to unleash. Mistrust, miscalculation, and sheer arrogance all played a role in that stumbling. 

Despite history and geography having moved on since then, in the obsession with justifying violence and everything associated with it, the principal actors on both sides today are following in the footsteps of the sleepwalkers of previous times.

With still unfolding and devastating results.