There is a particular political talent that deserves more recognition: the ability to denounce violence with solemn gravity in one context while authorising it with brisk efficiency in another. It requires a straight face, a flexible vocabulary and a memory for audiences rather than principles.
At home, violence is condemned as barbaric, counter-productive, corrosive to democracy. Abroad, it is rebranded as necessary, strategic, regrettable but unavoidable. The same act can be terrorism when carried out by enemies and “security operations” when carried out by allies. Civilian suffering becomes either a moral outrage or unfortunate collateral depending on who issued the order.
This is not simply hypocrisy; it is a calculated double standard. Politicians understand that voters like clear lines between good and bad, us and them. So they draw those lines with a ruler that stretches. They speak the language of peace when seeking legitimacy and the language of force when seeking leverage. Principles become situational. Ethics become negotiable.
The result is a slow erosion of credibility. If violence is truly unacceptable as a tool of politics, that judgement cannot be switched on and off like a press conference microphone. People notice the inconsistency. They notice when leaders mourn victims selectively, when outrage is rationed, when calls for restraint apply only to adversaries. Over time, this selective morality breeds cynicism. It tells the public that power, not principle, is the real compass.
There is also a practical cost. Double standards encourage escalation. Opponents quickly learn that moral arguments are often masks for strategic interests. Why heed lectures about non-violence from those who keep their own options open? Why trust negotiations framed by leaders who reserve the right to bomb if talks stall?
Consistency is not weakness. It is the foundation of legitimacy. Politicians who want violence to lose its appeal must show, in word and action, that the rules apply universally — especially when it is inconvenient.
Unionists have always shown rank hypocrisy when it comes to political violence, they still do actually. They flock to worship Trump (mass murderer) they grovel at the altar of British military history (mass murder) and of course sit day and daily with loyalist groups. All the while pontificating about IRA violence. Not forgetting their weird obsession with Israel.
A thoughtful and challenging piece. An open discussion about the history of violence and the abuse of power is needed. Those with a vested interest in the state or the existing world order will support State violence both here and in places like Israel. They are indoctrinated from an early age. State violence is always justified in their view of the world. What we have we hold-at all costs is their policy. To maintain the state will require the use of force and assassination as well as unjust laws and a compliant judicial system. Those who support Trump have no problem with the use of force and military might to achieve their objectives. Those born into a different tradition will have a different understanding of violence. They will be opposed to the violent nature of the State and its attitude to the poor and excluded, They will be against the use of military might or the cooperation with any form of military actions. Some will adopt the way of non-violence and passive resistance. Others may resort to armed rebellion against the State. Some will not support this response but they will understand why it happens. and will work to bring about justice by peaceful non-violent means. We living today in Ireland have much to contribute to a just and lasting peace in our own country and in our divided world. The truth will set you free. Thanks Jude for speaking the truth.
Traces of Ai ??? Do I detect achange of style ?