Madam, - Brendan Archbold (December 20th) deserves credit as a veteran of the anti-apartheid movement. But his attempt, like that of James Bowen (December 18th), to transfer the terminology of the South African struggle to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is wholly mistaken.
The so-called "apartheid wall" (actually 97 per cent wire fence) has succeeded in its purpose of preventing suicide bombers from taking the lives of Israeli citizens, Jew and Arab alike, 525 of whom were murdered in 147 attacks after September 2000.
If by "ethnic cleansing" Mr Archbold means the 1948-49 flight of Palestinians from Israel, the reasons for this were complex, but there was no Israeli strategy to precipitate an exodus. Rather, its context was the war of extermination launched against the new Jewish state by six Arab armies. "Ethnic cleansing" would, however, be an understatement of the declared intentions of the Arab leaders, who, in 1948 as again in 1967, were calling for the massacre of every Jew.
The "land grab" mentioned (assuming he means Israel's acquisition of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967) was the perfectly legitimate conquest of territories in another war for Israel's survival against the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the PLO.
Under UN Resolution 242, Israel is under no obligation to give them up until durable peace treaties guarantee its security. Given the ascendancy of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, this seems a long way off.
Where is the parallel with South Africa? Rather than follow Mr Archbold's advice, trade unions would do well take their lead from the British TUC, and not from Ictu, and avoid any boycott of Israeli goods or services. Such measures are conceived in ignorance, born in blindness and fostered by prejudice. - Yours, etc,
DERMOT MELEADY, Dublin 3.