Madam, - Alan Shatter (August 10th) reiterates his allegiance to the neo-conservative view that Iran is the primary agent of conflict in the Middle East. This thesis serves two purposes: firstly, to soften up the world for a western attack on Iran, and secondly, to exonerate Israel.
He criticises those who call for sanctions on Israel because of its refusal to call a ceasefire for not demanding similar sanctions "on either Iran or Syria for using Hizbullah to provoke the conflict". This elides the fact that Hizbullah was founded as a response to Israel's long and illegal occupation of Lebanon, which Hizbullah successfully if only partially terminated in 2000. It elides the fact that the present assault on Lebanon has been in preparation for at least three years, a fact discussed openly in the Israeli media (cf Jonathan Ariel's article in Israel Insider, August 9th, with its chilling - and approving - comparison of the Israeli army to the Nazi Wehrmacht). It also elides the fact that Hizbullah has itself long since called for a ceasefire.
That Iran and Syria provide Hizbullah with funding and arms is as unquestionable as that the US provides the Israeli rogue state with infinitely more funding and arms. That Hizbullah dances to its sponsors' tune, however, is a neo-conservative fantasy belied by the massive popularity that the Islamic resistance organisation has now attained among all sectors and sects in Lebanese society, including those most wary of Iran and Syria.
Finally, Mr Shatter attempts to bolster his position by quoting Joschka Fischer, of all people. The former German foreign minister is notorious for having destroyed the German Greens as a progressive political force, and for having helped move the coalition government in which he served so far to the right that he has almost destroyed the Social Democrats in the process. He is now setting himself up as a pundit, relaying the default German posture of making the Arab and Muslim world atone for Germany's crimes against the Jews.
Mr Fischer's contention that Hamas and Hizbullah "fundamentally reject any settlement with Israel" is quite simply a lie. It is Israel that refuses to negotiate with anybody who doesn't qualify as a potential Quisling - a posture which, if it had been adopted in the North of Ireland, would have prevented whatever progress has been achieved there just as surely as it is ensuring the perpetuation of bloodshed in the Middle East. - Yours, etc,
RAYMOND DEANE, Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Dame Street, Dublin 2.
Madam, - Allow me to answer just some of the rhetorical questions posed by Colleen McDonnell and Dominic Larkin (August 10th).
Q: "Where were the Israeli soldiers captured - in Israel or on Lebanese soil?" A: In Israel. They were kidnapped near Moshav Zar'it in the Western Galilee, a fact which the UN has verified leading Hizbullah to backtrack on its initial claim that the soldiers were seized near Ayta al-Shaab.
Q: "How did those first four Israeli soldiers die - in a Hizbullah attack or by hitting a mine?" A: The first three soldiers to die were killed by anti-tank rockets during the initial Hizbullah raid. A further four were killed by a Hizbullah landmine. Any distinction escapes me.
Q: "What came first - the rocket barrage from Hizbullah or the Israeli bombardment?" A: The rockets. Hizbullah's July 12th attack began at 8am with a heavy barrage of katyushas and mortars aimed at Israeli communities straddling the border, a fact also confirmed by the UN. Six civilians were wounded.
Q: "Does Hizbullah deny the right of Israel to exist or deny the legitimacy of the state of Israel and its apartheid system?" A: Hizbullah has declared "an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth". According to Sheikh Nasrallah, the Jewish state is "an aggressive, illegal, and illegitimate entity, which has no future in our land." For him, "there is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel [ . . .which] will never be a neighbour or a nation. . .The conflict must end with the liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea."
Q: "Can the Lebanese army defend Lebanon or. . .is Hizbullah the only protection it has?" A: To drag a country into a war without the knowledge, let alone sanction, of its sovereign government and then claim legitimacy as the country's only defence against its attackers should replace "a parricide who begs the court for mercy on the grounds that he is an orphan" as the classic definition of chutzpah. The only force Lebanon needs protection from is Hizbullah itself.
Ms McDonnell and Mr Larkin conclude by saying that "the utter calumny of accusing Hizbullah of using women and children as human shields doesn't deserve formulation into a rhetorical question". Let me conclude with the words of UN humanitarian chief Jan Egeland: "Hizbullah must stop this cowardly blending. . .among women and children. I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men." - Yours, etc,
SEÁN GANNON, Chairman, Irish Friends of Israel, Ontario Terrace, Dublin 6.
Madam, - Charles Krauthammer has some nerve to criticise Ehud Olmert for seeking "victory on the cheap" in Lebanon, and not providing "Churchillian" leadership (Opinion, August 7th). Mr Krauthammer's screed is a long whinge about what the US has done for Israel, with the expected repayment that Israel must now fight to its last soldier.
A year ago, Lebanon was being hailed by people like Charles Krauthammer as the next democratic victory in the Middle East. Now it can go to the devil as far as he is concerned - the "devil" in this case being a new generation of Arab youths radicalised and ripe for terrorist recruitment. After their errors and incompetence have been exposed in Iraq, the Bush administration and its cheerleaders, of which Mr Krauthammer is one, have a desperate need to recoup their military fortunes elsewhere. An Israel-Hizbullah war is the quickest way to do that before the US November elections.
However, events are not playing to the script of a quick Israeli victory. One feels the Israelis will also play to their own script (as they should), not the American one. The result will probably be further erosion of the US position in the Middle East, plus renewed violence in Iraq and Afghanistan. The obvious US policy - pressure for an Israel-Palestine accord - has been abandoned in favour of military adventurism, first in Iraq, now in Lebanon. If the EU and Ireland have any influence (admittedly, not much), they must press for some sort of equitable solution in Palestine, the single biggest source of violence in the Middle East.
American support must await the next US administration (now just over two years away) - hopefully one that will reject the ideology of the Charles Krauthammers that has already done so much damage. - Yours, etc,
TOBY JOYCE, Navan, Co Meath.
Madam, - Louis Lentin (August 5th) castigates the Irish Film Institute for rejecting sponsorship from the Israeli embassy, and Alan McPartland (August 10th) applauds the IFI.
I am not too worried either way, but I would be very interested to hear if the IFI has ever done such a thing before - perhaps refused funding from the Russian Embassy over what happened in Chechnya, or returned funding to the Chinese Embassy because of the rape of Tibet.
If not, then I would be interested to hear why Israel was singled out for this treatment.
About a week ago I e-mailed the marketing and communications officer of the IFI asking him these very questions, but I have yet to receive an answer. - Yours, etc,
JONATHAN BAUM, Dargle Road, Blackrock, Co Dublin.
Madam, - Charles Krauthammer takes the unusual step of criticising Israel for its temerity in not going after Hizbullah in a full-blooded invasion of Lebanon. His memory, it seems, is short. Israel spent 18 years in southern Lebanon trying to defeat Hizbullah and failed. Its current prime minister, Mr Olmert, is mindful of this and of the potential loss of life to the Israeli people in what could be a long and fruitless conflict.
In that respect he is not "tremulous" but has more of a clue than certain American politicians who plough on, trying to attain unattainable goals, heedless of losses to their forces and the suffering of their people. - Yours, etc,
PAUL WILLIAMS, Kilkee, Co Clare.