Madam, - It is interesting to note that Michael D. Higgins (Opinion & Analysis, July 27th) writes that "parties of the left have consistently rejected terrorist actions not only because of their impact on civilians but also because of the response they call forth from the powerful". It seems that in his world, such actions would be open to a lesser form of condemnation if those attacked did not respond and defend themselves.
This is a distinctly odd view of the fundamental principles of international law to which he proclaims himself to be committed. At the very centre of international law is the right of a state to defend itself and its citizens when attacked.
It is particularly depressing that some of those who proclaim themselves to be speaking on behalf of "the left", such as Michael D., are attached to an analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and of the current conflict in Lebanon which largely coincides with that of the most extreme fundamentalist elements in the Middle East, which have rejected every reasonable attempt to bring about a permanent and peaceful resolution.
"The refusal of the US", he writes, "to agree to talks with Syria, or to an immediate ceasefire, is reprehensible." He makes no mention of Iran in his article. What is truly reprehensible has been Iran's consistent opposition over the past 15 years to every attempt at developing a viable peace process in the Middle East and its sponsoring of annual conferences of the Rejectionist Front, attended by both Hizbullah and Hamas, in which those present proclaim their mutual commitment to the total destruction of the Israeli state or to, in the words of the Iranian president "wiping Israel off the map". The current tragic conflagration in Lebanon is essentially the proxy war of Syria and Iran against Israel.
The fundamentalist Hizbullah movement has been armed and financed by Iran and has, with Syrian complicity, established a state within a state in southern Lebanon. It is a sad reflection on Mr Higgins's lack of objectivity that he reserves his wrath for the European Union and the United States, while having nothing to say about the responsibility of both Iran and Syria for current events.
He also seems blissfully unaware that many Arab leaders, commentators, and political analysts are convinced that the leaders of Tehran and Damascus are using Hizbullah to divert attention from Iran's nuclear programme and from Syria's involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. These two countries have grossly violated the sovereignty of Lebanon and used Hizbullah as a proxy army to prevent the Lebanese government and army assuming control over southern Lebanon. They are responsible for the accumulation by Hizbullah of thousands of rockets, over 1,200 of which have hit Haifa and other Israeli towns and cities in recent days.
Hamas, like Hizbullah, is of course financed and sponsored by Iran.
While Mr Higgins is right when stating that Hamas formed a government after free elections, he fails to explain how the regular firing of Kassim rockets by terrorists from Gaza into the Israeli towns of Sderot and Ashkelon in the weeks preceding Hamas's kidnapping of an Israeli soldier contributed to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
The sad reality of the Middle East is that whenever Israel disengages from territory and attempts to advance a peace process, such behaviour is not viewed as a building block to peace but as a sign of weakness and a confirmation that terror works. While the leaderships of Hizbullah and Hamas are happy to join their sponsors in Tehran for the annual Holocaust Denial Conference, it remains their objective to perpetuate a second Holocaust. It is time that Michael D. Higgins woke up to the type of world in which we live and the threat posed not only to the Israeli state but to all of us in Europe by Islamic fundamentalism. - Yours, etc,
ALAN SHATTER, Upper Ely Place, Dublin 2.
Madam, - Michael Mac Guinness (July 28th) tells us that because "Israelis are using precision-guided weapons, most bombs do not kill civilians". He then informs us that "UN observers confirm that Hizbullah is using dwellings, schools and mosques to store munitions and launch missiles".
The figures show clearly that incomparably more civilians than fighters have been killed by such precision-guided weapons; furthermore, a few days ago, one of them killed four UN observers.
What a pity for Israel's defenders that facts have such an inconvenient habit of getting in the way. - Yours, etc,
RAYMOND DEANE, Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Dublin 2.
Madam, - In 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon to destroy the PLO there. The US supported this invasion and a subsequent agreement the following year between the Lebanese government and Israel. This was not acceptable to Syria, which engaged the Israeli army and lost.
Israel then proceeded to Beirut and the PLO was forced into a humiliating evacuation.
Syria regained its strength with Soviet assistance and escalated the conflict in Lebanon. Under fire, the Israelis withdrew to southern Lebanon, which they occupied until 2000. Iranian-inspired suicide bombers, Shia militants who would soon be known as Hizbullah, blew up US and French headquarters in Beirut, killing hundreds. The US withdrew its forces completely.
These events marked the period when Syria began to consolidate its control over Lebanon. This lasted until 2005. Since then Lebanon's communities have been trying democratically to reconstruct their divided state and avoid a civil war over the issue of Hizbullah's armed wing.
What the Lebanese needed then was robust support from the West to avoid such a scenario. What they have received has been the exact opposite. - Yours, etc,
Dr MICHAEL KERR, International History Department, London School of Economics.
Madam, - A US state department official, disingenuously attempting to play down his government's shameful opposition to international calls for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hizbullah, was reported in your paper on Thursday as saying that whether one describes the need for an end to hostilities as immediate or urgent was a question of semantics. I imagine that the hundreds of Lebanese civilians likely to lose their lives in the bloodbath over the coming weeks would beg to differ. - Yours, etc,
CONOR RODDY, Sallynoggin, Co Dublin.
Madam, - David O'Sullivan (July 27th) may be personally reassured that Hizbullah's violent questioning of Israel's right of existence "is insignificant next to its total incapacity of ever achieving its goal". But most Israelis would beg to differ. This is akin to dismissing Nazi German genocidal intentions in 1940 on the "technical" grounds that it could never really happen or that the ovens weren't then up to the job. It's grotesque and offensive.
If that wasn't bad enough he suggests the real comparison is the Goliath of Israel facing the David of Hizbullah. David won that battle; ipso facto, Hizbullah by his logic will thus achieve its genocidal goal. "Intellectually crass" indeed! - Yours, etc,
MOTTI RUIMY, Benburb Street, Dublin 7.
Madam, - One must commend the Israelis' restraint in the present situation, since they have not used nuclear weapons for their pinpoint attacks on targets in Lebanon. Their strong desire for peace in the region recently inspired them to bomb several ministries of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. Their deep respect for the international community is shown by the fact that they killed only four UN observers. The war on terror is taking mighty strides in our time. - Yours, etc,
MYLES McSWINEY, Belfast 9.