SEAN GANNON,
Sir, - In criticising the Israeli government for having "its feet firmly stuck in the mud of history", John Sheedy (July 1st) makes it clear that he has not so much as dipped his big toe in it himself. His analysis of the current situation in the Middle East is so devoid of historical context as to be unfathomable to all but those who believe that the conflict began two weeks ago with Operation Determined Path.
Mr Sheedy blames Israel for the fact that there is "no political process in being", but one need go back no further than the year 2000 to establish that it was not Israel which abandoned Oslo and replaced its words with war. Ehud Barak illustrated his willingness, at Bolling, Stockholm, Camp David and Taba, to engage seriously in the search for a final settlement with the Palestinians. His original ideas for peace may have been unacceptable and there was undoubtedly room for improvement in the offer presented at Camp David, but opening positions are there to be negotiated, something which, by all accounts - Israeli, American and Palestinian - Yasser Arafat refused to do.
Mr Sheedy writes that the Palestinians were left with "no other option" but violence in their quest for justice. But this ignores the fact that Israel held 38 meetings with them in the two months subsequent to Camp David and was, as Miguel Moratinos's account of the Taba talks confirms, still willing, almost four months after the launch of the "intifada", to continue negotiating and to compromise further on all outstanding issues.
Not so Arafat who, during this critical period and as his Fatah organisation murdered Israeli civilians, effectively rejected the Clinton bridging proposals on which the discussions were based, deferred crucial meetings and, with a blistering attack on Israel at Davos, helped scupper the signing of a declaration of principles planned for Stockholm. Yet, two weeks ago, Arafat told Ha'aretz that he now accepted Clinton's parameters as a basis for a settlement. If he considers them an option now, why not then? Israel's refusal to bow to his campaign of terror may offer a clue.
Chairman Arafat has only himself to blame for his current predicament. In a recent interview, Sari Nusseibeh had this to say of his leader: "Arafat. . .is not someone who believes only in non-violent action.He believes in the usefulness, the utility of force."
But surely even he can see that this strategy has led only to the election of Ariel Sharon and the near collapse of the Israeli peace lobby. While most terrorist leaders strive to bomb their way to the negotiating table, Arafat has succeeded only in bombing himself away from it. - Yours, etc.,
SEAN GANNON, Derryherbert, Letterfrack, Co Galway.