Madam, - Sean Love's letter of May 27th disproves his own claim that Amnesty International's assessment of Israel's conflict with the Palestinians is "impartial and the closest you will get to an accepted neutral analysis".
His delineation of what he calls "the bigger picture" behind the recent violence in Gaza is so completely partisan as to be tantamount to pro-Palestinian propaganda - proof that Amnesty's evaluation of the situation owes more to its political agenda than to an objective review of the evidence.
In concentrating solely on the grievances which he says are behind the attacks perpetrated by what he euphemistically calls "Palestinian armed groups", Mr Love completely decontextualises Israel's military incursions, implicitly presenting them not as vital defensive operations but as acts of wanton aggression. Thus he writes scathingly of demolitions, closures and curfews, yet is silent on the arms-smuggling, shootings and suicide bombings which necessitate such measures. And his characterisation of them as "illegal" depends on a selective reading of international law.
Furthermore, in writing of "the killings and mutilations inflicted by the Israeli Defence Forces or Palestinian armed groups", he equates the Palestinian terrorist onslaught against Israel with Jerusalem's defensive reaction against it. This is PA polemic pure and simple. And his description of "indiscriminate" IDF tank-fire into a "peaceful Palestinian protest march" takes no account of Israel's version of events in which the protesters were not deliberately targeted and in which the march was being used by gunmen to advance on Israeli infantry units.
It is, therefore, difficult to disagree with the conclusion of a recent NGO Monitor.org press release that the "one-sided public relations activities" of organisations such as Amnesty International "have contributed significantly to the distortion of events and the demonisation of Israel during its anti-terror operations in Gaza".
This is not to say that Operation Rainbow did not cause hardship to the residents of Rafah; that is did is indisputable. But a study of the "bigger picture" reveals that ultimate culpability for last month's destruction lies with the Palestinian groups which continually use the city's civilian infrastructure to smuggle in weaponry and launch terrorist attacks against Israel.
Last summer the IDF offered to cease operations in Rafah if the PA took action against the smugglers, but the PA did nothing. Why? Because, as Mr Love admits, some of those involved are "closely linked" to Chairman Arafat himself. In the light of PA inaction, how does Amnesty International believe Israel should have responded to intelligence regarding the landing in the Sinai of a shipment of rockets and missiles destined for Gaza through the tunnels of Rafah? Is it suggesting that Israel should have just sat back and done nothing?
With 1,000 killed and 6,000 horribly wounded in the past three-and-a-half years alone by weapons smuggled into the territories during the Oslo era, Israeli inaction in this matter is no longer an option. - Yours, etc.,
SEÁN GANNON, Irish Friends of Israel, Charlotte Quay Dock, Dublin 4.