GoshAnne
An interesting question to ponder, looking back into the recent past, say, since 1970. I will give myself the luxury of ignoring all history prior to 1970, and any rights that people might have had before then.
When the UK was under attack from various IRA factions, would it have been better for the Royal Navy to blockage the Republic of Ireland, on the grounds that it was harbouring these people, and the RAF to bomb Irish towns, cities, villages and sewage works in order to teach the IRA that they couldn't win?
Would it have been better for the UK to build a large wall and put all the Catholics behind it, and to seize the land of Catholic farmers within Northern Ireland, and to distribute it to Protestants? Would it have been better for the British Army to invade and occupy large swathes of the Republic, and to place illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories, taking care to ensure that the settlers had access to far more water and other resources, and the best land, and, shall we say, blowing up wells and reservoirs used by the farms, villages and homes of the indigenous people?
If the UK had done that, do you suppose the UK would have suffered unpopularity among the citizens of the world? What if the RAF had bombed homes, schools and hospitals in, say Dublin, describing them as "surgical strikes" and expressing regret that the majority of people killed and maimed were not IRA men, but innocent citizens?
Now, to my mind, that would have been wicked and inhumane, and pretty well unthinkable, but do you suppose it could be argued that the UK was forced to behave in this way to defend itself against terrorism? Do you suppose it would have led to a peaceful co-existence and to power sharing?