Here is an article from the New York Times explaining the difference between the US position on Northern Ireland and its position on the Israel/Palestine conflict.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29abunimah.html?_r=1

"The United States allowed the Irish-American lobby to help steer policy toward the weaker side: the Irish... At times, the United States put intense pressure on the British government, leveling the field so that negotiations could result in an agreement with broad support. By contrast, the American government let the Israel lobby shift the balance of United States support toward the stronger of the two parties: Israel"

Whereas US representative George Mitchell was able to insist the IRA were involved in the Irish talks, he has to oppose the involvement of Hamas. Whereas he could override protestations of 'IRA terrorism' from the Brits, he has to take it from the Jews when they talk the same hypocritical talk about Hamas. Whereas the British and the Irish point of view were fairly well supported in America, you nearly always hear just one side on Israel/Palestine. This article by Ali Abunimah is a rare exception. Why is that? It is because Jews in America have too much power. You won't read that in the New York Times - that's why you need this site and others like it.