No, I've not missed any factors. And I'll remind folks again that I am from a Catholic family myself in Northern Ireland. 🤔
"First, the British government changed their view of the Catholic/Irish population from inferior to the Protestant population, to having equal rights."
No, the British Government held no such view and Northern Ireland was self-governing from 1921 to 1972.
"This meant that they stated that they no longer had a ‘selfish’ interest in NI..."
No, the actual phrase is "self strategic" and not "selfish". In other words, Northern Ireland wasn't militarily required by the Government.
"The Prime Minister, on behalf of the British Government, reaffirms that they will uphold the democratic wish of the greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland. On this basis, he reiterates, on the behalf of the British Government, that they have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland."
Yet the above has always been UK Government’s position since 1920:
"I come now to the more vexed question of Ulster. Here we had all given a definitely clear pledge that, under no conditions, would we agree to any proposals that would involve the coercion of Ulster.....Therefore, on policy I have always been in favour of the pledge that there should be no coercion of Ulster.
We have never for a moment forgotten the pledge—not for an instant. That did not preclude us from endeavouring to persuade Ulster to come into an All-Ireland Parliament."
- David Lloyd George, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 14 December 1921.
Irish Republicanism, on the other hand, completely abandoned the words of Michael Collins:
"There can be no question of forcing Ulster into union with the Twenty-six counties. I am absolutely against coercion of this kind. If Ulster is going to join us it must be voluntary. Union is our final goal, that is all."
It took Irish Republicanism until 1998 to accept they cannot coerce Northern Ireland.
But the British Government has always been in favour of coaxing Northern Ireland into a united Ireland. And, quite correctly, had always strongly opposed attempts to force it into one.
Indeed, the possibility of a vote to join a united Ireland had been in UK legislation long before 1993.
So, the 1993 Downing Street Declaration you referred to didn't represent a change of view on the part of the British Government itself.
"....would no longer treat Protestant wishes as more important than Catholic ones, and would treat both equally."
Again, this didn't occur by the British Government since Northern Ireland was self-governing.
"And so would allow reunification of the majority of the people wanted it."
This has always been UK Government policy, hence the statements about how there can be no coercion of Ulster in the '20s onwards. This is the principle of consent which was always a recurrent feature of UK Government thinking - Whitelaw's 1972 paper is another example of it. Republicanism, on the other hand, sneered that it was the "Loyalist veto" until they accepted the principle of consent which hadn't actually changed. 🤦♂️
"Second, and most importantly, from the late 70s onwards the British largely acted with restraint. They aimed to win ‘hearts and minds’. They did not react to IRA bombings by attacking IRA supporting areas or communities. They did not drop bombs on the Falls or Ardoyne, even if the majority supported the provos. Instead, they acted with restraint so the IRA looked like the bad guys."
PIRA didn't have anywhere close to the military capabilities of Hamas, so it was never going to be the case where the British Government was going to bomb single streets or use full military capabilities.
Indeed, PIRA only managed to murder 0.5% of the total British Army deployment. Road traffic accidents claimed another 0.5% of British Army personnel - this was actually marginally higher than PIRA murders.
You're correct the Army acted with restraint (more likely to be arrested than killed) but the shift in tactics from 1974 onwards wasn't really based on "hearts and minds". It was based on undermining PIRA and UVF from within - hence Operation Eagle targeted Republicans and Operation Torniquet targeted Loyalists.
The hearts and minds wasn't necessary as Republican and Loyalist terrorists didn't have majority support across Northern Ireland as a whole. Far from it.
So, the use of Special Forces against terrorist groups is one method - this is how the UK did it. Exactly why the 14 Intelligence Company was formed by SAS members and why RUC Special Branch formed E4HSU. Both were very effective. 14 Int Coy is now SRR so that intelligence methods learned during the Troubles wasn't lost. SRR does operate throughout the UK to this day.
Israel, on the other hand, is facing a very different kind of terrorist threat. Hamas makes PIRA look like a nursery group! Consider how PIRA murdered 1,800 in total over nearly four decades yet Hamas murdered 1,200 on just the 7th October 2023!
Hamas is backed by a rogue State (Iran) whereas PIRA was an enemy of the Republic of Ireland Government as well as the UK Government.
Hamas are embedded into the social fabric of Gaza in a way PIRA and UVF were not in Northern Ireland. Indeed, PIRA would have loved to have been that deeply embedded.
That's without talking about Hamas' weapons arsenal and military strategy. Again, they blow PIRA right out of the water!
My point is what worked against PIRA in Northern Ireland won't really work against Hamas in Gaza.
I don't think any State would have much of a coherent long term strategy for dealing with a terrorist group like Hamas.
Much less one for long term peace.
Indeed, it took the British Security Forces a while to develop an effective strategy against PIRA - about 4-5 years. There is ZERO reason to think it wouldn't take Israel a while to develop an effective strategy against Hamas too.
If peace is to occur, Hamas will have to either be comprehensively destroyed with any umbilical cord to Iran cut or they'll have to be brought so close to defeat they cannot operate effectively which demoralises the ranks.
A long lasting peace settlement will be far more complicated than the Belfast Agreement actually is. For 35 pages, it's not all that detailed and much was actually left out of it kicked into the long grass.
An equivalent for the Middle East will run for considerably more than a mere 35 pages. It will have the involvement of neighbouring Arab States, especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia in addition to the West and Israel. Land For Peace has been done in the past by Israel. Water For Peace will be the future.
And this is what Europe did post-1945 - coal and steel for peace.