Dying For Peace: Yitchok Rabin, Yasser Arafat, and Michael Collins

Prime Minister Yitchok Rabin & President Yasser Arafat shake hands as US President Clinton looks on, 1993

This blog’s theme of Michael Collins’ assassination, as well as his life and times, has occasionally made space for more recent history, which resonates with and elucidates his.

Most historians now recognize the role of peace talks in Collins’ last journey; although in some quarters it was denied for decades. A peace negotiator’s mission can be a hazardous one; as observed throughout history, into the present day.

Israel since Rabin and Arafat demonstrates the horrific cost of political killings.  Two great statesmen, with rare levels of credibility and political will needed to end what seems hopelessly endless conflict, determined to find solutions, at a central flashpoint of global military powers… were suspiciously removed.

Is it not their loss which has thrown the shadow of the Doomsday Clock across our world?  Does planetary survival totter, at this writing, because assassination derailed that peace process?

Yet, in the concurrent deluge of discussion on the Middle East, it’s shocking how little mention is heard of Rabin’s and Arafat’s respective suspicious deaths; or of the great hopes for a workable peace, which seem to have died with them.

(Quotations below are from The Assassination of Michael Collins: What Happened at Beal na mBlath unless otherwise noted.)

What has all this to do with Michael Collins?

“…a look at Béal na mBláth in the larger context of similar cases: involving similar types of leaders, at a similar moment in a similar struggle with a similar if not the very same foe … And Collins’ death will look very different; with a lot more to say …about who we are, where we’ve been, and where we could go from here. Because a story like his is for all people, everywhere, in all times.”

Not long before the Good Friday Agreement inaugurated lasting peace in Northern Ireland, the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize was shared between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchok Rabin, Palestinian National Authority President Yasser Arafat (Chairman of the Executive Committe, Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), and Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres; for their instrumental roles in bringing about the landmark Oslo Accords , which sought to create lasting political remedies to military conflict in Israel / Palestine.

But not everyone wanted peace. While the world applauded this epoch-making achievement, political opponents published death threats against Prime Minister Rabin. On 4 November 1995, he fell to bullets fired by a self-avowed Zionist fanatic, as he was leaving a rally, enthusiastic cheers of Israeli peace supporters ringing in his ears.

In 2004 Arafat, whom Rabin had called “the only Palestinian leader who can deliver peace” and whom the The Arab League designated “the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people” also died suddenly, under suspicious circumstances; which resonate remarkably with Arthur Griffith’s end . Definitive studies have raised serious questions that this, also, was political murder. “What Killed Arafat?” Al Jazeera Investigates

One of those who threatened Rabin is, at this writing, Israel’s Minister of National Security.  The right-wing government he represents, effectively placed in power by the murder of Rabin, has dominated Israeli politics ever since. It’s pursued the demolition of the Oslo Accords, continual military escalation, and genocidal policies against its Palestinian citizens. Many have died of these policies; yet that regime survives. Indeed, its longevity seems altogether extraordinary.

Clearly, continual war, with no other option in sight, is what someone wants. But who could possibly desire that? People on the ground in a war zone…?

Who gains? 
What few remember is that the British Empire was in no uncertain terms the architect of modern Israel; and of the festering permanent conflict which was built into its foundations. “Britain in Palestine 1917-1948”

“Britain has not made a declaration of war upon Egypt, neither has she made a declaration of war upon India. But is the war there less terrible for being undeclared?“
– Michael Collins 1922

For centuries, Palestine’s Muslims, Jews, and Christians co-existed in relative harmony; until the British Empire took over, following World War I’s regime change.

London’s prominent representative in that process was Lord Balfour: who played a key role in the design of Northern Ireland’s sectarian regime of apartheid terror against Catholics.

In Palestine, Balfour pursued a strategy of contradictory promises; which brought “both [zionist & Palestinian] communities [to believe] that they had been promised the land.” Meanwhile decisive support from Western powers’ heavily weighted the outcome in favor of an apartheid theocracy, dominated by Jews of white European extraction.

Balfour’s manouevering achieved the effective exclusion of Palestinians from the new state’s government. Even as he’d worked hard to exclude Catholics from government in the new statelet of Northern Ireland. (It has been postulated that Michael Collins was assassinated largely to make way for that British plan in the North.)

Thus in both Belfast and Jerusalem, colonialist regimes were established, by British power brokers, on a basis of cynical racial / religious persecution, displacement, and progressively increasing violent, genocidal aggression against a civilian population.

All of this led, predictably enough, in both Ireland and Israel, to what Michael Collins deemed the worst possible outcome of civil conflict: not only that their old Imperial masters might come back, “but that they would be welcomed back.”

It seems clear enough that, in some regions, endless war may be more than a regrettable side effect of departing colonialists.

But such murders never stand alone. They form part of a context of slaughter, which enable other deaths. In both cases, the elimination of one man, who represented millions of voters, enabled the mass murder of virtually an entire movement, along with him. This was no less true of Chile in 1973 than of Ireland in 1922.

In the case of Rabin (who was born in 1922, the year of Collins’ death) & Arafat, it’s evident enough just what kind of killing their assassins had in mind: what pogrom these two statesmen were removed expressly in order to unleash.

If there is an agenda in powerful quarters to keep the Middle East a permanent war zone… was that not originally a British agenda? More importantly, does it continue to be so today?

Read more:

The Balfour Project
balfourproject.org

***

Quotations in this blog post,
except where otherwise noted, are from: 

“The Assassination of Michael Collins:
What Happened At Béal na mBláth?”

by S M Sigerson
Paperback or Kindle edition here:
www.amazon.com/dp/1493784714

All other e-reader formats:
www.smashwords.com/books/view/433954

Read reviews:
http://www.rabidreaders.com/2014/12/03/assassination-michael-collins-s-m-sigerson-2/

Or ask at your local book shop

 

Will the Real Revolution Please Stand Up? Reconciliation and the Irish Civil War – Part II

1921 Battle of Dublin

(Also see linked posts:
“Reconciliation and the Irish Civil War” Pt I & Pt III  on this blog site.)

It’s been seen how even the most seemingly reasonable outlook, (such as “..there were wrongs on both sides,”) can be twisted into travesty, where unjustly applied.  Yet it must be said now that reconciliation over the Irish Civil War requires circumspection, and willingness to admit errors, in the proponents of both Free State (FS) and anti-Treaty (AT, ATI (/ AT IRA) views.

Among those who continue to support AT views, often the most frequent complaint is, “They (FS) turned the guns on comrades!” Yet the anti-Treaty faction was itself unquestionably the first to “turn guns on comrades“: away from British targets, toward fellow Irish. By the same token, the partition of the North remains a big issue on that table, and justly so. Yet with willful blindness to the fact that the joint pro- & anti-Treaty 1922 Northern Campaign, to reclaim the six counties on all fronts: diplomatic, political, and military, was ended expressly because of Civil War between comrades. Lest we forget, IRA units in the partitioned six counties did not take up arms against the Dublin government. It was crystal clear to them that such a policy, or any split in nationalist forces, would leave them at the mercy of the new, murderous, unionist regime at Stormont. And that’s precisely what happened.

In the Free State’s Civil War campaign “the rate of executions and imprisonment superseded that of the earlier struggle for independence.” (Prof Siobhra Aiken, Queen’s University Belfast) Spiritual Wounds: Trauma, Testimony, and the Irish Civil War   post on this site] That is to say, exceeded British violence in Ireland over a comparable time span. Dublin’s summary executions without trial violated international conventions on war and human rights, then and now. Yet the inheritors of the FS establishment applaud their founders without exception as saviours of the country from bloody anarchy. Or was the FS government itself a form of bloody anarchy?

All of this was avoidable. By June 1922, Ireland, contrary to the conventional wisdom of hindsight, was bidding fair to avoid civil war entirely; much to the displeasure of the London regime, particularly Churchill. (May 1922: Leaders Strive to Prevent Civil War  post this site]

Pro- and anti-Treaty representatives at 1922 Pact Elections meeting. Michael Collins, Arthur Griffith, Eamonn DeValera front row

The June 1922 “Pact Elections” proved a majority of the Irish public war-weary, and more than willing to accept, for now, the measure of independence won at the 1921 London negotiations. This result was freely admitted on all sides.

Just days after the poll was decided, two events overturned all laudable peace efforts, and hurled the country into full-scale civil conflict: the assassination of Sir Henry Wilson (post, this site) and the resulting shelling of the anti-Treaty garrison at Four Courts. ( Four Courts Bombardment – Who Gave the Order? post this site)

According to the [Four Courts garrison], they were loading their arms onto lorries and would have evacuated the Four Courts by 8AM in the morning. Had the shelling not started at 4AM, they say, there would have been no Civil War.
– John M Feehan

Four Courts siege 1922

Michael Collins has unjustly been scapegoated as having ordered both disastrous actions; despite marked lack of substantial evidence that he did so. ( Sir Henry Wilson Assassination 1922 post, this site) Both may be said to have led directly to his own killing, just weeks later. Hazy, contradictory details in the chain of command in those actions echo the mystery surrounding Collins’ suspicious death; as well as that of Arthur Griffith, Harry Boland, and Liam Lynch.

Certainly blaming the victim is ever an all too convenient cop out. But Collins did not survive years on the most wanted list, captain Ireland’s most successful assault on foreign occupation yet, all the way to the negotiating table, winning unprecedented liberties which voided the nefarious Treaty of Limerick and Act of Union… by being known for such monumentally suicidal blunders.

…There is as yet no adequate study available dealing with the role of the British secret service in the Civil War. No one really knows how far their promptings were responsible for starting the Civil War or indeed for the subsequent shooting without trial of so many republican prisoners.
– Feehan

Who was a traitor?
It’s necessary for commentators of all persuations to acknowledge that many well-meaning patriots supported FS and AT alike. Even as well-intentioned voters in Ireland today might vote for Sinn Fein, Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, the Labour Party, the Green Party, People Before Profit… as it may seem to them might best serve the country’s needs.

I disagreed with MIchael Collins about the Treaty. But he was no traitor.
– Kathleen Clarke

Kathleen Clarke

 

At the same time, Feehan’s call (above) for greater scrutiny of the role of clandestine British operations in the Civil War has remained a voice crying in the wilderness. While spies and “moles” (those who joined nationalist forces as operatives for the British) are freely discussed in histories of the Anglo-Irish War 1919-1921 (aka War of Independence / Tan War,) the topic with regard to the Civil War seems almost taboo. No one wants to admit that such operatives could have been active on their side.

Even as sincerity was in plentiful supply on both sides, it’s necessary to recognize that neither was either free from opportunists, even in the leadership of both sides: willing enough to exacerbate the situation, without regard to Ireland’s welfare; but rather with a view to their own subsequent post-war career. As history shows, some did very well for themselves by it.

Soul-searching among leaders of today would not be remiss: is there not reluctance to critique one’s own political forebears / founders of one’s own party? Certainly, in practical terms, every politician’s number one job is to raise a cheering section: to drum up support for their party. Whatever their programs, their sole means of pursuing them, is to gain power; which is to say, to gain popularity.

Who can blame them, if history may often be with them largely a tool for realizing such goals? How can they see a too-unsparing moral inventory of their founders as in any way related to that job?

Yet surely, any party which advertises itself as offering government for all, must move past a partisan position on the Civil War; and ought to do better than commemorating 1922 with a statement that “the shelling of the Four Courts started the Civil War.” As if no events preceded and led up to that turning point; as if members of the ATI garrison at Four Courts had no part in picking up the gun against their own countrymen, but were merely sitting on the quay, smelling a flower! As if both pro-and anti-Treaty leaders did not first carry on months of painstaking negotiations to avoid conflict.

“When choosing someone for a mission in which courage and judgement are equally required, I’d rather send a clever coward than a stupid hero.”
– Michael Collins

Michael Collins speaking in favor of the Treaty Clonakilty 1922

Perhaps the greatest service to Ireland possible, with regard to Civil War commemoration, might be for today’s prominent political representatives to cop on, and be an example of the good old democratic principle of criticism/self-criticism. To admit that, for all their sincere patriotic intentions, it was the ATI who first “turned guns on comrades“; and that their doing so never won a single further millimeter of Irish soil from British control. That however politically correct anyone might esteem them, their military strategy was a failure.

Let’s see the present Fianna Fail / Fine Gael (FF/FG) establishment issue a condemnation of the wanton executions, imprisonment, and torture practiced against the ATI under their successive governments; as well as their like failure to address or improve upon Ireland’s most imperfect independence, for the past 100 years.

Let’s be revolutionary. Let’s revolutionize the way we think of the Civil War; the way we deal with each other, and with that past.

R E A D    M O R E
on Irish History / Irish Civil War:
“The Assassination of Michael Collins:
What Happened At Béal na mBláth?”

by S M Sigerson
Paperback or Kindle edition here:
www.amazon.com/dp/1493784714

All other e-reader formats:
www.smashwords.com/books/view/433954

Read reviews:
http://www.rabidreaders.com/2014/12/03/assassination-michael-collins-s-m-sigerson-2/

OR ASK AT YOUR LOCAL BOOK SHOP

 

 

 

 

RECONCILIATION and The Irish Civil War Centenary 1922-2022

 

We will never tell anyone who we are until we know who we are.
We will never get anywhere until we know where we are.
– Malcolm X

The Civil War Centenary can hardly be a celebratory commemoration; yet neither dare we forget. Nor is it enough to repeat by rote time-worn rhetoric handed down from that day to this; depending on which side our forebears embraced; or on the political expedience of the moment.

(Also see linked posts: “Reconciliation and the Irish Civil War” Part II and Part III on this blog site.).

Like the Centenary of the Easter Rising, this is a priceless opportunity for deepening our understanding of who we are, where we’ve come from, and where we might go from here. A chance to re-examine the meaning of independence, patriotism, history; the meaning of Ireland itself.

It is offered that there can be no better means to commemorate that generation’s achievements & hardships, than a fearless moral inventory, and unsparing scrutiny of the Civil War in all its aspects, on all sides.

How could anyone more substantially express respect for their good intentions, reverence for their sacrifices, gratitude for the very same combattants’ immense achievements in the Tan War / War of Independence of 1919-1921?

The Civil War divide
As in any country which has suffered the tragedy of civil war, personal feelings or factional outlook may color Irish views. Bitter recriminations continue to resound over it, to this day.

At the same time, reconciliation has become a cornerstone of astounding achievements in Ireland wp.me/p43KWx-9z It’s been at the core of policies & dialogue which, in our lifetime, helped free Northern Ireland from the violent Troubles, which once seemed eternal & insoluble.

Courgeous people do not fear forgiving for the sake of peace.
– Nelson Mandela

Yet for all the amazing work done on reconciliation between Catholics & Protestants, between Nationalists & Unionists… never has anything been heard about reconciliation within Ireland, over the Civil War split, now a hundred years old.

There can be no reconciliation where there is no open warfare.
– M E Braddon

There remain those in Ireland for whom the clock stopped with the Second Dail (1922): who still refuse to accept the legitimacy of any subsequent Dublin government. On the opposite extreme are those who abhor the memory of any war with Britain, who objected to the commemoration of the Easter Rising, & even would seem to sigh for a return to the British Crown!

It’s said that truth is the first casualty of war. Truth recovery must therefore be both the first step and ultimate goal in any responsible remembrance: the alpha and the omega.

For the Civil War Centenary, this will require partisans of both sides to acknowledge not only what our side says happened: but also to listen to what patriots on the other side say happened. Not only to celebrate those whom we look on as the heroes of the day, not only to lament the wrongs they sustained; but also to hear heartfelt tributes and greviances from the other persuasion.

To hear that heroes of the independence struggle were shot by former comrades; others shot by former British soldiers in green uniforms, some by firing squads, and some by secret service assassins. Some were beaten and died in Free State custody. Some fell to anti-Treaty mines. Yes, and to hear that some elements in leadership, as history has taught us to expect, perhaps sold out the popular victory for a piece of London’s pie.

Now two Russias will be facing each other.
Those who were sent to prison. And those who sent them there.
– Anna Akhmatova

The Republic and the republican movement today have suffered from these flaws in their foundations. A lot of politics and policy have been based on fallout from the Civil War.

Yet, as Michael Collins’ story itself demonstrates, that period remains so controversial, that there is still a great deal of confusion about what in fact actually did happen. wp.me/p43KWx-7o That child-bed of the nation was so recent, so chaotic and volatile, that public discussion and public record about it has been distorted: both in flawed institutions of the south, in republican rhetoric of the north... and, dare we add, in British versions (so as not to say “coverups”.)

Eighty years of institutionalized inhibition of historical research often left the public with little but oral traditions to judge by. Without access to reliable, scholarly analysis, it has been all but impossible to make an accurate assessment of that era, or of its meaning for subsequent generations.

This has sometimes allowed mistaken analysis, misfired arguments, rumour, or open wounds to stand in the place of history. Such errors have in some quarters been carried on and enshrined like some sacred scroll; as Ireland wandered through the wilderness of the 20th century. Since the 1970s, new generations, wrestling with these legacies, have brought new hope, new conflicts, tragedies, and victories.

We are only beginning to unravel that story now. Perhaps the first lesson here is that the lessons of the Civil War have not yet been fully learned.  

Margaret Skinnider fought in the Easter Rising and served the anti-Treaty side in the Civil War

 

Our debt to the past
To those who lived through that crucible of fire, because it was the only path they could see to Ireland’s independence… we owe a great debt. We owe it to them to ferret out the painful truths of that crippling wound in the national psyche; or we’ll never get beyond it. Or their suffering would truly have been in vain.

Certainly such reassessment will not be possible without constructive, realistic criticism of the actors in those events.

I admired the men and the women [engaged in the Easter Rising]… I admire Connolly… Tom Clarke & [Sean] MacDiarmada… They have died nobly at the hands of the firing squads.

But at the same time… the actions of the leaders should not pass without comment… On the whole I think the Rising was bungled terribly, costing many a good life. It seemed at first to be well organised, but afterwards became subjected to panic decisions and a great lack of very essential organisation and cooperation.
– Michael Collins (private letter)

Can this generation well afford to do less by the Civil War, which continues to haunt, and even control, so many aspects of national life, than Collins did here for the Easter Rising? Is it not the duty of the survivors to learn all that can be learned, not only from the successes but also from the failures of those who went before?

Were there really any heroes in the Civil War? Certainly none who are universally revered. One side’s patriotic martyrs may still be regarded by descendants of the other persuasion as enemies of Irish freedom.

Whatever heroism there may have been in that hell paved with the good intentions of some of Ireland’s best and brightest… the Civil War certainly had no winners.

Is it time for all persuasions to openly acknowledge that this was a failed strategy, for both sides? Could this be a fertile occasion for facing up to its catastrophic consequences, which Ireland is still living with today? To candidly discuss who we are, where we’ve been, and where we might go from here, together.

May your choices reflect your hopes not your fears
– Nelson Mandela

This post includes excerpts from:
“The Assassination of Michael Collins:
What Happened At Béal na mBláth?” by S M Sigerson
Paperback or Kindle edition here:
www.amazon.com/dp/1493784714

All other e-reader formats:
www.smashwords.com/books/view/433954

Read reviews:
http://www.rabidreaders.com/2014/12/03/assassination-michael-collins-s-m-sigerson-2/

OR ASK AT YOUR LOCAL BOOK SHOP

 

“The Murder of Michael Collins” gets the Paddy Cullivan treatment

“The Murder of Michael Collins” is an online video by Paddy Cullivan; as well as a live performance piece. See www.paddycullivan.com for details, tickets, links, and itinerary. While this writer cannot completely concur with his analysis in every point, his presentation is extraordinary, in every sense of the word; and merits extraordinary notice.

If you want to tell people the truth, you’d better
make them laugh, or they’ll kill you.
– George Bernard Shaw

For those familiar with musical satirist Paddy Cullivan’s unique approach to Irish history, he needs no introduction; and… the very idea of the death of Collins in his hands is rather mind-boggling… fascinating… if not frightening! Still, quintessentially Irish, in his wry determination to stare down the bottomless travesties there, until they yield their reducto ad absurdum. Cullivan uses tears of laughter like a magic prism, enabling us to explore these agonies & ecstasies, triumphs & tragedies to new depths. Which perhaps we might never reach, without the liberating and envigorating tonic of humour.

My own book, The Assassination of Michael Collins: What Happened at Béal na mBláth?, www.amazon.com/dp/1493784714 was the first on this subject since John M Feehan’s landmark edition of 1991 (The Shooting of Micheal Collins: Murder or Accident?) My highest ambition, in writing it, was to build on Feehan’s work: like him, not to “sell” any one theory, but to help people study the case. To enable the public and future researchers to better examine the evidence fully, for themselves.

Since publishing it, I’ve waited, sometimes breathlessly, for the appearance of other new works on the topic to follow; especially as the 2022 Centenary of Collins’ death wp.me/p43KWx-96 drew nearer.

I hoped to see other works take up the tale in the same spirit; which would be penetrating, disinterested, disciplined, and illuminating.

Well, many are called, but few are chosen. Down the ages, discoveries of note have sometimes emerged from surprising places. I confess I’ve been pleasantly surprised to find more research of value, and more interesting analysis, in Cullivan’s persuasive pastiche of lecture, lampoon, & song, than can hardly be found in any work on the death of Collins to appear since my own. All of this richly illustrated with rare visuals from the period; including copies of orginal historical documents; some aired here for the first time.

Let me write a nation’s songs, and I care not who writes its laws. – Daniel O’Connell

Cullivan’s original songs for the show, and masterful music production, deserve air play of their own. I hope music radio is listening. In Ireland, his catchy pop broadside “Béal na Blah Blah Blah” https://youtu.be/Z9CvohYT-b0 could and should go right up the charts; especially for the 2022 Centenary year. Cullivan is a first-class musician, well-known (in Ireland) as vocalist, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, & producer. (Glad I’ve lived to see the day when performing artists can have their work in other fields taken seriously, such as in literature or politics.)

Cullivan manages also to make his video a kind of bibliography on the topic, giving on-screen space to a crowded bookshelf of sources. (While his particular comments on The Assassination of Michael Collins: What Happened at Béal na mBláth?, www.amazon.com/dp/1493784714 far exceed expectations, they could never win from the author any praise for Cullivan’s work, but that most richly deserved.)

Who IS Paddy Cullivan…?

History is a scholarly pursuit, but not an exact science. Proper academic researchers have been known to protest the popularity of mere mortals, with no letters after their names, poaching on their domains, so to speak. Raising the inevitable question:

Who IS Paddy Cullivan to dare trespass where academics have feared to tread in this history?

The truth is, institutions often fail us. Nowhere more spectacularly than in the death of Michael Collins.

That doesn’t mean we can do without them. Institutions are necessary. Expertise is necessary. The public needs protection from critical decisions & information affecting society being handed out by any Joe Blow, whether they have a clue or not.

At the same time, institutions are made by humans, run by humans; and therefore subject to all the usual human frailties. They cannot be treated like infallible deities.

Institutions are created to serve, not rule, humanity. Therefore they must continually satisfy the public that they’re doing their jobs. Admittedly, this can be problematic: how does the public judge experts’ performance, in areas where they have less expertise than the experts whom they must monitor? Not only in academic studies, but in such critical organs as law, government, medicine, science? These epistemological questions are at the heart of countless current controversies, as we speak.

Thankfully, experts’ work must be subject to constant peer review; as well as the universal tribunal of common sense. While these, too, can err, it’s the best we can do. Human society & human institutions are subject to these eternal margins of error, which we must all bear in mind.

This is precisely why the voice of Joe Blow is not without its place and value. Just as the innocent, uninitiated, uninformed may sometimes be the only one to step forward and candidly exclaim, “Look! The Emperor has no clothes!”

History is a field particularly vulnerable to such pot-shots from the peanut gallery of inquiry, so to speak. It is a field in which we are all swimming, all immersed; which we are all living with the profoundest consequences of, every day. It’s an area of study in which innovative, multi-disciplinary approaches may prove remarkably effective; especially where an “official story” regime has managed to stifle institutions.

I challenge any academic researcher to take in Cullivan’s work, to excel it, or even… to avoid relying on it!

But above all to explain how and why academics have managed to so completely fail and neglect the elephant in the room of modern Irish history: the death of Commander-in-Chief Michael Collins, erstwhile Chairman of Dublin’s first native Provisional Government… So as to leave it to be unearthed by the likes of your humble servant; and by such as the inimitable Paddy Cullivan… who at this time stands in serious danger of… becoming an Historian!

Look out for his personal appearances, bringing the live version of “The Murder of Michael Collins“, and other shows, to a venue near you.

Read more
“The Assassination of Michael Collins:
What Happened At Béal na mBláth?”

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1493784714

by S M Sigerson

Paperback or Kindle edition here:
www.amazon.com/dp/1493784714

All other e-reader formats:
www.smashwords.com/books/view/433954

Read reviews:
http://www.rabidreaders.com/2014/12/03/assassination-michael-collins-s-m-sigerson-2/

Or ask at your local book shop

The assassination of General Sean Hales, TD

General Sean Hales was the ranking Free State officer in the district encompassing Béal na mBláth. He was also a close friend of Michael Collins, since their youth in West Cork. His suspicious death followed closely upon that of Collins, and was directly linked with it. The story of his murder is routinely glossed over, even when cited as the pretext for subsequent killings of other great War of Independence heroes; his erstwhile brothers in arms, such a short time before.

(The following is an excerpt from “The Assassination of Michael Collins: What Happened at Beal na mBlath?”  www.amazon.com/dp/1493784714)

Hales immediately set about trying to organize an official investigation into the shooting of Commander-in-Chief Collins: seeking to have all members of the convoy returned to Bandon, so that a court of inquiry could be held. To obtain the necessary authorizations, he made several trips to Dublin, where he met with representatives of the Cabinet and army headquarters. They refused to cooperate.

He would not be dissuaded, but travelled to Dublin again to press his suit for a full investigation. His driver and constant companion Jim Woulfe told Feehan that Hales never accepted Dalton’s story. A letter from Woulfe to Feehan states, ” … His chief topic of conversation was Michael Collins. He told me that he would leave no stone unturned until he got an inquiry or inquest held on Michael’s death. … At this time he was about three times in Dublin but all to no avail. The ‘big brass’ in Dublin would not listen to him. He told me so himself.”

Hales took his appeal to the highest Free State civil and military authorities. This means that the lack of inquiry was no oversight, but was defended in the teeth of continued demand. It also directly implicates WT Cosgrave, Richard Mulcahy, Kevin O’Higgins and other key figures. Certainly these are the people Hales would have been speaking to.

Sean Hales statue Bandon, County Cork

Travelling again on this matter, Hales went to Portobello Barracks, where, as a general of the army, he normally stayed while in the capital. On his arrival, he was informed that the Barracks had no accommodation for him. This forced him to move to a hotel: on the doorstop of which he was assassinated the next day.

Witnesses saw two British soldiers at the scene, with their guns drawn. These same soldiers testified that Hales was shot by two unidentified assailants, whom no one else had seen. The British soldiers’ version became the official story, accepted at the inquest.

The IRA have consistently denied responsibility. Notably Moss Twomey, one of the top anti-Treaty commanders for Dublin at the time, “always maintained that no orders whatever were given to shoot Hales and it was not the IRA’s doing.” 

Hales’ death was seized upon by the Free State’s new Cosgrave-Blyth government (created upon the sudden deaths in quick succession of Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins): as a pretext for a wave of shocking summary executions. The men condemned by these newly-elevated functionaries were heroes of the War of Independence: Liam Mellows a leading socialist tactician, Rory O’Connor a prominent regional commander, later spokesman for the Four Courts Anti-Treaty garrison, Joe McKelvey, and Richard Barrett. The very revolutionaries responsible for the creation of the new, Dublin government; here proved so quick to put them to death without a hearing.

Liam Mellowes, Rory OConnor, Joe McKelvey, & Richard Barrett

Who can read this record, without wondering whom indeed did that particular Government really represent? 

In some circles, voices are sometimes still head to blame Collins for these atrocities; which in fact took place over his dead body. Few (including apparently few historians) read this fine print of history, inextricably .linking their deaths with his, and with that of General Sean Hales.

Read more
“The Assassination of Michael Collins:
What Happened At Béal na mBláth?”

by S M Sigerson
Paperback or Kindle edition here:
www.amazon.com/dp/1493784714
All other e-reader formats:
www.smashwords.com/books/view/433954
Read reviews:
http://www.rabidreaders.com/2014/12/03/assassination-michael-collins-s-m-sigerson-2/
Or ask at your local book shop

 

 

 

 

What is an assassination?

Assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, following the close of US’ Civil War  (public domain, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

Was the death of Commander-in-Chief Michael Collins an assassination?
Can military actions by Collins and the Irish Volunteers during the Anglo-Irish War (1919-1921) be termed “assassinations” themselves?
Did British authorities commit political assassinations in their domains?
These questions are part of a sometimes-heated debate; by no means merely historical, but with high political stakes, in Ireland and elsewhere, now.

 

He’s a Catholic, a Hindu, an atheist, a Jain,
a Bhuddist, and a Baptist, and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn’t kill,
And he knows he always will…  – Buffy Ste Marie “Universal Soldier”

All societies have their rules of operation; usually including express sanctions intended to inhibit killing unjustly, excessively, or indiscriminately. When first set forth, even “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” represented a major moral leap forward.

In modern times, international debate rages as to which wars are just or unjust. Following World War II, the concept of war crimes focused unprecedented scrutiny on the actions of both leaders and combatants in military conflicts. It meant that such actions could be judged and sanctioned according to global standards of martial conduct.

Ireland’s Revolutionary Era, which gave birth to its democratic Republic, was part of the same ideological maelstrom. During World War I, Irish thinkers pointed up the irony of Britain’s claim to be defending “small nations”; while it still held Ireland by force.

Controversies of this kind continue around the world today. The press and other public platforms often disagree as to which side to call white-hat “good guys” “freedom fighters” “security forces” etc and which to label black hat “bad guys” “terrorists” “warlords”, in hostilities which dot the globe as we speak.

The word “assassination” in English particularly denotes killing which is secretive, and targets a politically prominent person. That is to say, for political reasons.

The word originally came to English from French, where it simply means “murder” and has no other context. The same word & definition occur in Spanish and other Romance languages. The Irish equivalent “feallmharu” means secretive but not expressly political violence. Many languages have no word which means political murder per se.

“Even he who commands thousands of swords must fear one who commands dozens of daggers.” – Voltaire

We owe the word “guerilla” to popular resistance which opposed  Napoleon in northern Spain: literally “little war” in Spanish. They entered the dictionary by giving pause to an emperor whose forces vastly outnumbered and outgunned them. The word and the techniques have proved decisive in numerous theatres since, wherever poorly-armed locals defended their homes against overwhelming odds.

The right of individuals and nations to self-defense is one of the cornerstones of law everywhere.  Although unconventional in methods, the Irish Volunteers (aka Irish Republican Army) during the Anglo-Irish War aimed with remarkable fidelity and success at enemy combattants and spies, as acts of war against a violent foreign occupation force. 

Together, Collins, Arthur Griffith, and colleagues in the Dail’s shadow government-in-hiding understood that such a war could be carried on successfully in Ireland, only with great care to maintain an orderly campaign; which struck effective blows against British rule, while minimizing negative effects on the general population.

They realized also that the underdogs in that war hadn’t a chance, without the decisive weight of public opinion, at home and abroad, on their side. A tall order, while powerful British voices flooded the media with denials that this was a fight for national independence at all, dubbing the movement a mere “murder gang”.

“Our Government and our Army were not going to allow any man to be shot without the fullest possible proof.” 
– Frank Thornton, IRA GHQ 1919-1921
https://collinsassassination.wordpress.com/2019/09/21/michael-collins-squad-no-man-shot-without-full-proof-of-his-guilt/

In the link above, Frank Thornton of Collins’ GHQ Intelligence command, details the painstaking care which went into these actions. There’s little question but that it was this kind of discipline which won the field for the embattled Irish.

I am a war man in the day of war. But I am a peace man in the day of peace.
– Michael Collins 1922

While he continued after the Truce to cooperate with local IRA in the northeast, in their defense against unionist violence, there is no evidence that Collins participated in the killing of any public or private individual, unless military targets, in wartime. 

On the other side, the British establishment of the time viewed those they called subjects as meriting imprisonment or death, for any resistance to or questioning of the Crown’s right to rule in and out of season. Its routine executions of non-combattants and strictly political figures are legion, across the Empire, throughout history.

For decades, historians were non-committal regarding the violent death of newly-independent Ireland’s Commander-of-Chief in 1922. Since the appearance of the book “The Assassination of Michael Collins: What Happened at Beal na mBlath?” http://www.amazon.com/dp/1493784714 commentators have come more and more generally to look on it as an assassination.

Read more
“The Assassination of Michael Collins:
What Happened At Béal na mBláth?”
by S M Sigerson   
Paperback or Kindle edition here:
www.amazon.com/dp/1493784714

All other e-reader formats:
www.smashwords.com/books/view/433954

Read reviews:
http://www.rabidreaders.com/2014/12/03/assassination-michael-collins-s-m-sigerson-2/

OR ASK  YOUR LOCAL BOOK SELLER

 

Michael Collins and “Lawrence of Arabia”

Michael Collins and T E Lawrence (courtesy of @GeneralMichael4)

The great international conferences which led up to the Treaty of Versailles, were attended by many petitioners from “small nations”; including an Irish republican contingent. They lobbied vigorously for Ireland’s right to independence; particularly asking the American President Wilson to put pressure on London.

T E Lawrence also attended. His auto-biographical book “The Seven Pillars of Wisdom” concerning his experiences in the Arab Revolt, was later the basis for the award-winning feature film “Lawrence of Arabia”. He and Collins met, and their friendly acquaintance posed interesting possibilities for the British Empire.
(The following is an excerpt from “The Assassination of Michael Collins: What Happened at Béal na mBláth?” goo.gl/a0tgOr ):

Not entirely unlike Collins, Lawrence was also a legendary leader of indigenous insurgents. He also had accomplished amazing things, at a remarkably young age. He had been Britain’s man in the Middle East. And he was not happy.

Lawrence had been commissioned to organize disgruntled Arabs, with promises of civil rights and national independence. In a long and bloody campaign, he had led men to their deaths on the strength of those promises, and on his word. Then the Crown pulled the rug out from under him. They had no intention of abiding by engagements made to a lot of restless natives. The promised united Arab Middle East, never materialized. Instead, this populous, culturally and politically strategic region was divided into the problematic fragments, which have cost the world so much in constant turmoil, ever since.

Lawrence had been used, and he took exception to it. In a public presentation at Buckingham Palace, he mounted the royal dais to, figuratively speaking, fling his decorations back at the king. The gesture was quite shocking at the time. He resigned his commission and went into early retirement, turning his back on the army.

Lawrence was also, on one side of his family, partly Irish. For some time, Collins had been trying to persuade him to help the Irish cause. Imagine the implications! Here were two of the most able military strategists in Europe. Each of them individually had proved his capacity to organize an army, from the ground up, fit to overthrow the world’s top guns. Collins had already bested every British general they could throw at him. Lawrence in Arabia and Collins in Ireland!? By God, they’d have the Empire encircled! This was an alliance to mar imperialists’ rest.

Due to Collins’ untimely end, the world will never know what they might have acheived together. T P Coogan, although often dismissive of “conspiracy theorists” refered to Lawrence’ own death as “mysterious,” to an extent which “generated controversy.”

Read more
“The Assassination of Michael Collins:
What Happened At Béal na mBláth?”

by S M Sigerson

Paperback or Kindle edition here:
www.amazon.com/dp/1493784714

All other e-reader formats:
www.smashwords.com/books/view/433954

Read reviews:
http://www.rabidreaders.com/2014/12/03/assassination-michael-collins-s-m-sigerson-2/

Or ask at your local book shop

T E Lawrence’ book
“The Seven Pillars of Wisdom”
www.goodreads.com/book/show/57936.Seven_Pillars_of_Wisdom

Michael Collins, He For She: his early support for women’s rights

 

 

(left to right) Michael’s mother Maryann O’Brien Collins, his sister Mary Collins-Powell, and his grandmother Johanna McCarthy O’Brien co 1900

Among the great volume of commentary on Michael Collins, of all shades and quality, his intimate personal relationships, especially with women, have been a favorite focus for the lamentable number whose appetite for lurid gossip exceeds meticulous adherence to facts.

In honor of International Women’s Day, this excellent overview of Collins’ close connections with strong women and the women’s movement of his time is by P Prowler.

The product of a household headed by a hard-working single mother (after his aged father’s death when Michael was no more than seven,) Collins needed no lectures on women’s leadership potential.  His own highly competent, nurturing mother managed the family farm, labourers, construction crews; while doing much to encourage and support seven of her children in pursuing successful careers away from the farm. All while earning praise as “a hostess in ten thousand.”  Four sisters, much older than he, all doted on “The Big Fella,” as they affectionately dubbed the baby of the family,

The formative role of these many strong, competent, loving women in his childhood and youth produced a man who deeply respected women and thrived on female company of all ages. It also sometimes manifested in sensitive, nurturing care toward those he was responsible for. His qualifications of this kind were exemplified in his appointment as aide-de-camp to 1916 Rising organizer Joseph Plunkett, whose chronic health problems were a challenge to his presence at The Rising’s headquarters in the General Post Office.

It is perhaps no coincidence, therefore, that we have a woman to thank for the role Collins subsequently played in national events. Following the Rising, it was Thomas Clarke’s widow, Kathleen Daly Clarke, who singled out Michael to head up a re-organizition of the Irish Volunteers, for another go.  A good call, as it proved; for during Collins’ tenure at the helm (and at no other time, before or since,) Ireland won its greatest victories to date against the British Empire’s unwelcome colonial occupation.

Collins’ lifetime exactly coincided with a period of aggressive, mass agitation for women’s rights. The female suffrage movement was in Ireland often closely linked with the campaign for Irish independence. Many proponents belonged to both “camps”. Full enfranchisement for women became enshrined in the 1916 Proclamation, the legal founding document of the Republic of Ireland. It was the modern world’s first national declaration to do so. This was the political climate in which Collins grew up and prospered. Yet he remained one of the few great men of the time who did not omit to use gender-inclusive language in his speeches, and to explicitly acknowledge women’s contributions and concerns on a regular basis therein.

All of this belies the far-fetched “Mick the misogynist” quip which has been occasionally offered, (along with every vice and virtue that could be attributed to him.)

Collins’ predecessor in the independence movement, Charles Stuart Parnell, was defeated by a sexual scandal. Collins’ detractors have occasionally attempted to raise similar issues. Reported to have sown some wild oats during his teen career in London (albeit while living under the roof of an older sister,) no scandal concerning his sexual life has ever been substantiated.

His intimate connections appear to have been no less healthy, vigorous, and well-conducted than other aspects of his life: his relations with women affectionate and normal, providing no evidence either of inexperience, excess or aberration.

At the same time, he may be said to have been never without female companionship. He carried on dating and epistolary relationships with a number of women such as Susan Kileen and “Dilly” Dicker, who also worked with him in positions of great trust during the struggle for independence. Their correspondence shows that they remained on friendly terms until the end of his life.

In 1921-22, he became engaged to Kitty Kiernan,[36] and made plans for a normal family life after the war. Of their voluminous correspondence, more than 241 letters survive. They provide an important record, not only of their intimacy, but of his daily life.

Detailing his exhausting schedule, during the concurrent national crisis, their letters chronicle the challenges the couple faced in getting quality time together, under the circumstances. In so doing, they prove it quite doubtful that he could have simultaneously devoted much attention to any additional liaison. Allegations of affair(s) with English society women at this same time are unsubstantiated, and fraught with suspicious political connotations. Those concerning Hazel Lavery originate chiefly with that lady herself, and are unsupported by comparable evidence.

Read more
“The Assassination of Michael Collins:
What Happened At Béal na mBláth?”

by S M Sigerson

Paperback or Kindle edition here:
www.amazon.com/dp/1493784714

All other e-reader formats:
www.smashwords.com/books/view/433954

Read reviews:
http://www.rabidreaders.com/2014/12/03/assassination-michael-collins-s-m-sigerson-2/

Or ask at your local book shop

Also see:
“Michael Collins and the Women Who Spied For Ireland”

 

 

 

 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/157333.Michael_Collins_and_the_Women_Who_Spied_for_Ireland

“Michael Collins and the Women in His Life”

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/157335.Michael_Collins_and_the_Women_in_His_Life

The Assassination of Michael Collins: Which ones lied?

Cork Flying Column

There are a number of reasons why Michael Collins’ death continues to be viewed by many as suspicious and unsolved. The most obvious is the eye-witness testimony: no two witnesses’ statements are alike. Each and every one contradicts the others.

Having enjoyed the honor to be both quoted, and flagrantly misquoted, in a recent work on the topic, the author of the book “The Assassination of Michael Collins: What Happened at Béal na mBláth?” offers the following excerpts of what it actually says:

“Well, here you have a fair collection of statements from eyewitnesses, each contradicting the other on vital and significant points, and none of which can be accepted as a completely reliable version.”     – John M Feehan

Some observations we can make with confidence at this point:

1) Not all these inconsistencies can be attributed to the lapse of time, differences of perspective, or even carelessness. That is to say:

2) They cannot all be telling the truth, Which is to say:

3) Some of them were lying.

These answers, as answers often do, raise questions:

4) Which one(s) lied?

5) Why did they lie?

6) Did some have more reason to lie than others?

7) If two mutually negating points are both corroborated by more than one witness, how can we tell which is correct? (i.e. The convoy came under machine gun fire; the convoy did not come under machine gun fire.)

8) Can we decipher the answers to these questions from the information before us?

Emmet Dalton

If we compare all the testimony’s various contradictions and corroborations, in light of the possible interests and pressures at work in each case, we may separate out some chaff: Which witnesses have adhered only to facts which

were within their own knowledge? Which ones report events which happened when they were not present? Does the statement demonstrate that they were “coached” as to what to say? Did some deponents have reason to lie? Did some others have less reason? Do they stray so far from verifiable facts as to invalidate their testimony altogether?

Read more

“The Assassination of Michael Collins:
What Happened At Béal na mBláth?”
by S M Sigerson

Paperback or Kindle edition here:
www.amazon.com/dp/1493784714

All other e-reader formats:
www.smashwords.com/books/view/433954

Read reviews:
http://www.rabidreaders.com/2014/12/03/assassination-michael-collins-s-m-sigerson-2/

Or ask at your local book shop

Béal na mBláth Annual Commemoration

(Note: This post may be updated annually, with the date of the current year’s commemoration & other info.  Thanks for visiting!)

Michael Collins was one of the founding fathers of modern Ireland: soldier and statesman, chief strategist of the War of Independence, and co-author of the Constitution.  His official titles at various times included Chairman of the Provisional Government, Minister for Finance, Director of Intelligence, and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

Why have people gathered at Béal na mBláth, every year, since he died there in August 1922?

While his birth, in a remote country farmhouse, caused no stir, yet his death sent shockwaves around the world and down generations; which reverberate to this day.

Annual Michael Collins Commemoration
2019
Sunday 25 August 3PM
by the monument, at the ambush site
Béal na mBláth
near Crookstown, County Cork
Republic of Ireland

“…I grew up with a rich lore of family history and virtually total silence outside the family. … There was never a mention of his name in the discussion of national life, except on the occasion of a visit to Béal na mBláth in August. All of that changed …”
–  Mary Banotti (grand-niece of Michael Collins) **

The anniversary of one’s passing is an occasion very much observed in Irish culture; perhaps more than in any other country. Collins’ belongs to the nation. Yet he also belongs to people all over the world. “Because a story like his is for all people, everywhere, in all times.” ***

The Commemoration’s annual oration is always delivered by a national figure of note. These have included Former President Mary Robinson, as well as (Collns’ grandnieces) former legislator Helen Collins, and former Minister for Justice Nora Owen (now presenter of TV3’s “Midweek”). Recent years have seen the first time the oration has been given by Ireland’s serving President and by the Taoiseach (Prime Minister).

If you’re a Michael Collins fan, and you’re in Ireland in August, it’s not to be missed.

Visit the Commemoration website:
http://www.bealnamblathcommemoration.com

 

Commemorative edition: 90th Anniversary pictorial history
http://www.bealnamblathcommemoration.com/buy-the-book/

 

 

** Read the rest of Mary Banotti’s chapter in
“Michael Collins and the Making of the Irish State”
(Gabriel Doherty & Dermot Keogh, editors)
http://www.mercierpress.ie/irish-books/michael_collins_and_the_making_of_the_irish_state/

 

 

Read more: ***
“The Assassination of Michael Collins:
What Happened At Béal na mBláth?”
by S M Sigerson
www.amazon.com/dp/1493784714 
(Paperback or Kindle)

For all other e-reader formats:
www.smashwords.com/books/view/433954

 OR ASK AT YOUR LOCAL BOOKSHOP