Oops! For someone who didn't want to trigger whataboutery, I'm alarmed to see how quickly we worked our way back to 1169!

Declan's last comment says it best, and he rightly points to the underlying logic of the peace process, which is that we have to draw a line under the past and start again, recognising that both sides have grievances and forgiveness has to grow organically. (The corresponding step taken in South Africa was probably of even greater magnitude. My regret about Israel/Palestine is that from the time of Sharon's advent to power, the parties have returned to tit-for-tat murder rather than building on the fragile basis for reconciliation.)

I wasn't trying to be one-sided, Teribus, and I regret the inflammatory GUEST posting. But I do sincerely believe that the BA was a disproportionately important factor in the slide from a non-violent civil rights campaign (inspired more by Martin Luther King than Patrick Pearse) into a nasty guerilla war in which vicious deeds were perpetrated on all sides. Its role in this regard was partly due to its modus operandi which, I suggest, retrospectively vindicated the initially ridiculous hostility to it on the part of the IRA. If the UK government had been able to accept a more neutral force used to peacekeeping and with a UN mandate, the people who took increasingly lethal potshots at the would-be peacekeepers would probably never have got started.

If I dwell on the past, it's not to attribute blame, but rather to see what we can learn for the future for other situations. The key lesson which I draw from recent history is the need for an effective and respected UN, and that is probably the single reason why I get so hot under the collar about Bush. And the lesson which I draw from 1169 is that small countries should be slow to look for help from powerful neighbours, as they may continue to interfere in your business rather longer than you want them to.