Madam, - As in 1996, there is only one word that needs to be said to all those contributors, well meaning and otherwise, who write to defend and excuse Israel's barbaric behaviour in the Middle East. Qana. - Yours, etc,
JIM O'SULLIVAN, Rathedmond, Sligo.
Madam, - After Qana can there be any doubt that the Israeli armed forces are terrorists? - Yours, etc,
Dr COLM STEPHENS, St Patrick's Terrace, Drumcondra, Dublin 3.
Madam, - With the latest massacre perpetrated by the Israelis, surely the time has come for the civilised world to publicly show its disgust at such violations of the most basic principles of international law. We can no longer go on treating the Israeli state as a normal member of the international community. We must now publicly and clearly distance ourselves from such horrific assaults on the most innocent and vulnerable members of the Lebanese population.
The fact that this indefensible attack came just days after the killing of four unarmed members of the UN only underlines the Israeli government's complete indifference to all norms of international conduct and human rights.
I believe the Irish Government should lead the way by calling for the exclusion of Israel from next year's Eurovision Song Contest. This may sound like a trivial action, especially when set against the appalling massacre of children perpetrated by the Israeli state, but such a move would be a very public and high-profile indication that Israel cannot be considered a normal member of the international community while it persists in ignoring that community's most basic precepts. If Israel is not excluded, I believe Ireland should boycott the event.
Israel has placed itself outside the pale of normal civilised conduct. The state of Israel should hang its head in shame, as should any state that defends or excuses it. - Yours, etc,
BRIAN MACGABHANN, Béal an Daingin, Connemara, Co Galway.
Madam, - Alan Shatter (July 29th) makes some telling points about the position of the Irish left on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and by implication on the wider issue of the struggle between the West and growing Islamic fundamentalism. There is confusion, and some plain bad politics, being propagated by some on the Left on these important questions. As an active member of the Labour Party I hold a different view.
However murky, heartbreaking and confused the war and politics in the Middle East may be, the issue is the right of the state of Israel to exist within the pre-1967 borders. This right is denied to it by both Hizbullah and Hamas. The other issue is the growing hold of theocracy, fanaticism and fascism on many Islamic people. The question is where people of the left should stand on these matters.
The struggle going on today between reactionary fundamentalism and the West is a continuation of the conflict which started in Europe over 300 years ago between those who pined for a return to the certainties of pre-Enlightenment politico-religious systems and those who believed, with the likes of Thomas Paine in, the rights of man - liberty, equality and democracy - despite the uncertainty they bring.
There is an unfortunate tendency on the left to identify all who oppose America as objectively progressive. This has often been so, but is not always the case. In the matter of Islamic medievalism and its aggressive political and military manifestations it is certainly not the case. The US has made many mistakes and has needlessly alienated potential allies in this struggle, but it is on the right side this time.
It is the job of all those on the left to be clear where they stand on the basic principles of liberty and equality; to criticise where necessary the American/Israeli actions; to support those elements in the Middle East and elsewhere who oppose the growing fanaticism and fascism in their own societies; and not to confuse anti-Americanism with progressive politics. - Yours, etc,
Cllr JOHN McMANUS, Novara Road, Bray, Co Wicklow.
Madam, - It is ironic that Alan Shatter (July 29th) attacks Michael D Higgins for a "lack of objectivity" in his comments on Israel's military action in Lebanon. Mr Shatter's own contribution owes more to propaganda than to objectivity.
He rightly points out that under international law a state has the right to defend itself and its citizens from attack. By his logic, Lebanon should by now have taken military action against Israel. What exactly has Israel been doing other than attacking the state of Lebanon and its citizens? Israel has not simply sought to overcome the terrorist threat from Hizbullah in a limited military operation. Instead Israeli forces have launched a brutal assault on the civilian population centres of Lebanon.
Israeli politicians claim to have no quarrel with the Lebanese people, yet over 400 Lebanese civilians have died due to Israel's military action. Israel claims to support deployment of the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon, yet Lebanese soldiers perished in an unprovoked Israeli attack on a military base in the first week of the current conflict.
Certainly Lebanon would have the right to defend itself by force and to call in aid from Israel's enemies in Syria and Iran. The world should be thankful that Lebanon's moderate government has called for a ceasefire, instead of exercising the right to defend itself which Mr Shatter has correctly identified.
Mr Shatter also conveniently ignores the unlawful killing of four United Nations observers by Israeli forces at Khiam last Tuesday. This Israeli action showed at best a reckless contempt for human life and at worst a deliberate determination to eliminate UN observers from the scene of the conflict. It is no surprise that apologists for Israeli militarism should wish to gloss over the appalling and possibly deliberate attack on the UN.
Mr Shatter calls upon Michael D Higgins to wake up "to the type of world in which we live" and to the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Such propaganda seeks to justify Israel's actions at all costs. Israel's supporters would do well to wake up to the reality that terrorism will never be defeated by the slaughter of innocent civilians or UN observers. - Yours, etc,
JOHN WALSH, Dunshaughlin, Co Meath.
Madam, - For the past two weeks your Letters page has been filled with many versions of the history of the conflict in the Middle East, depending on the point being argued. Now all this all pales into insignificance as we learn of the latest war crime committed by the Israelis.
The sequence of events was as follows. The Israelis ordered all residents in southern Lebanon to leave. The United Nations requested a three-day ceasefire to allow civilians to leave the area. This was refused by the Israelis and now scores of civilians - old people, women and children - have been killed as they slept, by a bomb probably made in the United States.
This pattern of Israeli behaviour had been reported earlier in the conflict. They order people to leave their homes and when they do they are attacked. This is a war crime to add to the many already reported. There is no excuse for this, no justification whatever. What type of nation would allow or even order its armed forces to behave in such a way and how can the Israelis possibly believe that such behaviour is conducive to good relations with their Arab neighbours in years to come? Have they lost all sense of reason and decency?
When are we going to apply the same standards of criticism to Israel as we do to other countries? When are we going to stop feeling residual guilt over the Holocaust? The Israelis and Zionist organisations have used the Holocaust - and I repeat "used" the Holocaust - as a stick with which to beat public opinion and as a cover for the atrocities committed by successive Israeli governments.
It is time to call a spade a spade. If it looks like a war crime, if it smells like a war crime, the chances are it is a war crime. - Yours, etc,
ALAN McPARTLAND, Grange Court, Rathfarnham, Dublin 16.
Madam, - Few can deny the distress that Lebanese and Palestinian civilians are enduring due to the Israeli offensive against Hizbullah and Hamas but it is disingenuous of commentators to argue that the Israeli response is disproportionate. How should they respond to organisations whose raison d'être is to wipe the Israeli nation from the map?
After Israel withdrew from both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, both Hamas and Hizbullah with their incursions have provided casus belli. Israel, as the only true democracy in the Middle East, is entitled to exist peacefully with its neighbours and, difficult as it is to acknowledge for many of us in the West, the endowment of human rights in the region is a two-way process that involves both the recognition of Israel's right to existence and the creation of a Palestinian state.
The real problem lies with Iran and Syria which continued to fund Hizbullah and other other Islamic fundamentalist organisations while Israel was slowly moving towards withdrawing from the West Bank.
There is now no room for moderates in the Middle East and it is unlikely that we will see further acts of withdrawal by Israel, whose very existence has been challenged again. What would you do in Israel's position? - Yours, etc,
CATHAL McCANN, Riverstown, Dundalk.
Madam - Ivana Bacik (July 25th) writes that "the tragic consequences of such a disproportionate reaction to Hizbullah provocation make the inaction of the international community, including our own Government, wholly indefensible".
Arguably it has been the continued inaction over the past six years by the United Nations which, along with many Western governments including our own, turned a blind eye to the arming of the terrorists by Syria and Iran, perhaps for short-term political gain, that has led us to this dreadful conflict. - Yours, etc,
DAVID M ABRAHAMSON, Trinity College, Dublin 2.