Sir, - There are three reasons why people in Ireland and other parts of Europe have difficulties in addressing the situation in Israel and Palestine.
Firstly, there is a fear of being accused of anti-Semitism. This is understandable: there are anti-Semitic critics of Israel and there is a long and shameful European tradition of anti-Semitism, which has always found echoes in Ireland.
Secondly, there are people who respect the Jewish religion as a precursor of the Christian one. The "Holy Land" is a Christian concept, but it recognises the prior presence there of the Jews and the fact that Christ himself was a Jew. It is a short step from a sense of empathy with the Jewish people to a willingness to defend indefensible policies of the state of Israel.
The third reason is more sinister. A combination of European racist and sectarian attitudes sees the Israelis as being "more like us" than "Arabs". A biased press applies terms such as "fundamentalist" with a mixture of abandon and ignorance. Israel is in, but not of, the Middle East, the "only democracy" there (it even enters the Eurovision Song Contest). Israelis are advanced, high-tech. The newspapers portray them as victims, David against Goliath. Their story carries a powerful resonance for Europeans - above all, after what Europeans did to them in the Holocaust, how can we now criticise them?
All of these factors inhibit an open debate. Lazy journalism shows itself in the use of terms such as "total war", as if there was a kind of parity between teenagers with stones and policemen with small arms, on one hand, and a state with helicopter gunships and nuclear bombs, on the other.
More than 100 people have been killed in the past couple of weeks. But in rightly condemning the atrocity in Ramallah, we forget that nearly all those killed have been Palestinian. They have died because of a typical, not an unusual, feature of Israeli policy: the routine use of massive and inappropriate force. Israel is backed by the only remaining superpower, whose the main presidential candidates are falling over themselves in declaring their complete support for anything it does. That state is itself a paradox, nominally a democracy but fatally flawed by the sectarian/ethnic reality that it is a Jewish state controlling the lives of second-class citizens and non-citizen non-Jews.
Why are Palestinians rebelling now? The reason is obvious. They have not ended the "peace process" through their violence. Rather, that process has ended because it has failed to deliver peace and security to them. That does not excuse the irrational and cruel violence of some, now or in earlier times, but it is essentially a reaction born of frustration.
Imagine your family are attacked in your house; some are killed and some are forced to squat in the scrubland at the bottom of the garden. Then, even that patch is occupied. Most of its meagre resources - especially water - go to the occupiers, who use it to water their own gardens and swimming-pools. Later a powerful neighbour suggests you should get used, not only to the original expulsion (or, as we say in Europe, "ethnic cleansing"), but also to the fact that the occupation of the scrubland, which everyone acknowledges is illegal, will also continue. You might get back a few disconnected bits of ground, but you must not call it your land and your occupier will continue to assert his right to control your movements and your freedom at all times.
That was what the 1993 Oslo agreement meant to Palestinians. Yet they persevered, though they were offered nothing on the status of Jerusalem, the dismantling of illegal settlements, or the return of refugees. The problem with the Palestinian leadership, apart from its undemocratic nature - Arafat is an autocrat surrounded by corrupt cronies - is that it has been far too moderate. The American/Norwegian "peace process" has always been a sham.
We should now get back to UN resolution 242, requiring Israel to leave all of the 1967 occupied territories. The state of Israel is a fact of life and cannot and should not be overturned; this must also be recognised. But Israel should compensate those whom the policy of ethnic cleansing forced out of their own homes, and refugees should at least be allowed to live in the new Palestinian state. A "united Jerusalem" is a travesty, as it does not reflect the realities on the ground and the legitimate aspirations of all of the parties.
Israelis and Palestinians cannot share the same house, at least for many years, but neighbourly relations are possible with a degree of honesty and good will. - Yours, etc.,
Piaras Mac Einri, Model Farm Road, Cork.