Madam, – Alan Shatter (January 13th) is correct to assert that the only meaningful long-term solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is a two-state strategy. I can empathise with his frustration over the lack of debate surrounding the behaviour of Hamas in the run-up to the current conflict. However, I believe that Israeli actions over the past two weeks constitute a retrograde step in the search for a peaceful settlement.
If anything, the current conflict has strengthened the hand of Hamas leaders, whose democratic mandate in Gaza, as Mr Shatter points out, is tentative at best. As with the conflict two years ago with Hizbullah in Lebanon, Israel must realise that this kind if trigger-happy diplomacy will only condemn it to another decade of conflict in the region. Israel has yet to accept that a majority of Palestinians do wish to live in peace and to live normal lives. In Richard Nixon’s term, they are a great “silent majority”. These people are the most frustrated when Israel rises to the provocation of Hamas by returning violence with violence, perpetuating conflict and strife.
I don’t see a final goal for Israel in this current military operation and I don’t believe there is one. Nor will this violence end with a conclusive “victory” for either side. For Israel to find a solution it must see the Palestinian people not as foot-soldiers for either Fatah or Hamas but as human beings with the same hopes, dreams and aspirations that they have. President Kennedy said in a famous speech during the height of the Cold War in 1963 that in its relations with the Soviet Union the US had to ask itself: “What kind of a peace do we mean and what kind of a peace do we seek?” Israel should not look for a peace with Palestinians that is imposed by armed stalemate or mutually assured destruction but a durable peace that, as Kennedy said, “makes life on earth worth living”.
I join the growing calls for an end to the current violence by both sides, but I hope for a peace that will mean more than a cessation of violence. A two-state solution is the only solution but it will never thrive under fear, suspicion and contempt. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – As reported in your edition of January 14th, Sinn Féin TD Aengus Ó Snodaigh described the contributions of Ireland’s only Jewish TD and the Israeli ambassador at an Oireachtas committee as being worthy of Joseph Goebbels. Mr Ó Snodaigh is described as his party’s spokesman on justice, equality and international affairs, surely the ultimate oxymoron.
One might have thought that he would steer clear of Nazi references, given his political forebears’ connections with that evil regime. Sean Russell sought the help of the Nazi murder machine and in fact died on a Nazi U-boat. Some IRA members illuminated parts of Belfast so that the Luftwaffe could carry out their bombing missions over an Irish city. And some Nazis who landed here were given succour by various IRA members throughout the land.
Maybe Mr Ó Snodaigh is not aware of those facts – or is he exhibiting the usual SF sins of amnesia and arrogance? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Alan Shatter says there is “ a tragic inevitability of civilian deaths in the current conflict”. That is true if military tactics such Israel’s are used. After 121 soldiers were killed in Lebanon in 2006, Israeli public opinion would not allow their soldiers to be killed on foreign battlefields in such large numbers again.
The Israeli army unites the state: all the “sons and daughters” of Israel must serve and the protection of those lives is paramount.So in Gaza, Israel has adopted the American “shock and awe” tactics which were so devastating for civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan but resulted in relatively few casualties for the “coalition of the willing”.
The deaths of women and children are not inevitable – unless, for instance, you shoot tank rounds into a UN school. Shock and Awe, second edition. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – We, the undersigned, are united in seeking the immediate expulsion of the Israeli ambassador to Ireland, Dr Zion Evrony. We believe the ambassador must leave Ireland until such time as there is a complete end to Israel’s war on Gaza and its continued slaughter of the Palestinian people. – Your, etc,
MAIREAD MAGUIRE, Nobel Peace Laureate; KATHY SINNOTT MEP; MARGARET CONLON TD; MAGGIE RONAYNE, NUIG; GERRY GREHAN, Chairman, Peace People; RAYMOND DEANE, BRENDAN BUTLER, NGO Peace Alliance; ROBERT BALLAGH, JACK O’CONNOR, general president, Siptu; Dr FINTAN LANE, RICHARD BOYD BARRETT, IAWM; KIERAN ALLEN, SWP; Dr STEVEN LOYAL, UCD; M.J. NOLAN TD; Dr THERESA URBAIN CZYK; UCD; JOE HIGGINS, SP; MARGARETTA D’ARCY; BRIAN O’CONNOR, Labour Youth; Prof MARY GALLAGHER, UCD; JOHN WADDELL, CHRIS ANDREWS TD; SHANE CULLEN; Dr SABER ELSAFTY, AILBHE SMYTH, UCD; TREASA NÍ CHEANNABHÉIN; PATRICIA McKENNA MEP; JOHN ARDEN; CHARLIE CULLEN, Senator IVANA BACIK; COLIN COULTER, NUIM; MICHAEL KILEMADE, TERENCE BROWNE, Dr FERGAL GAYNOR, UCC; NINA McGOWAN; TIM REDFERN, UCD; MAIRÉAD NI CHUIG, TG4; EAMON McCANN; MHAIRI SUTHERLAND; MICHAEL MOYNIHAN TD; BRIAN HAND; SEAMUS KEALY; Dr ANDY STOREY, UCD; PAUL MURNAGHAN; KATHARINA PFUETZNER, NCAD; ANNA MacLEOD, DIT; CHRISTY MOORE.
Madam, – I disagree strongly with current Israeli policy in Gaza and with most of what the Israeli Ambassador to Ireland, Dr Evrony, has had to say about the topic. I think Israel’s recent actions could fairly be described as examples of state terrorism and international war crimes.
But Mr Ó Snodaigh’s reported comments to an Oireachtas committee, in which he compared remarks by the ambassador and Alan Shatter TD to Goebbels, are egregious and unacceptable. Mr Ó Snodaigh does not speak for me – nor, I hope, for the majority of people opposed to what is happening in Gaza. Moreover, it is a little sickening to be lectured by a Sinn Féin representative on violence and the impact it has on civilians. They should know more than most about it.
Mr Chris Andrews’s call for the ambassador to be expelled is plain silly. The ambassador is there to represent his country’s views, whether we like them or not, and to report back on Irish policy and attitudes. He deserves every respect and a courteous hearing no matter how strongly people may disagree with him. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Has the time come for the whole Israeli war cabinet to be arraigned at the Hague for war crimes? How many more people have to be killed in order to protect the lives of Israelis who are occupying land which is not theirs. When does the rest of the world say stop? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I wish to clarify that Steven Corcoran, an Erasmus student whose letter on the Israeli offensive in Gaza you published on Monday, does not in any way represent or speak for the Centre Culturel Irlandais in Paris.
The views expressed are personal and those of us who represent this historic Irish College wish to explicitly dissociate ourselves from them. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Critics of the ongoing military activity in Gaza seem to be essentially concerned with what is considered Israel’s disproportionate response to rocket attacks by Hamas.
There are possibly other readers who share my feeling that some letter-writers are long on condemnation and short on constructive proposals. It might be helpful if they could describe, specifically, a response to Hamas that would satisfy the criterion of proportionality and at the same time allow Israel todeter attacks on its citizens.
I share the widely-felt compassion for all the victims of this long-running tragedy, both Palestinian and Israeli, but I confess that Hamas leaves me with the uneasy feeling that it has a somewhat larger agenda than the welfare of the unfortunate Palestinian people. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – The Israeli Ambassador to Ireland, Dr Zion Evrony, claimed to the Dáil European Affairs Committee on Tuesday that “Hamas were unlike the IRA and wanted to solely live by religious terms and were not open to change.” This is untrue. The Hamas “Founding Charter” of 1988 is much targeted by Israeli propaganda as proof of Hamas’s extremism. And it is true that the charter contains some extreme-sounding rhetoric, such as calling for the destruction of the Israeli state (not, mind you, the Israeli people). At that time of extreme Israeli violence and confrontation, the PLO was in exile and its leaders and members the subject of Israeli assassination, and Hamas was a marginal and radical underground resistance movement.
However, not unlike Sinn Féin and the IRA in Northern Ireland, in 2005 Hamas adopted a political path, called an effective ceasefire and contested the elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council of February 2006. It emerged as the largest party, winning 74 out of 132 seats.
Following their election victory, Hamas spokesmen made it clear they were seeking a long-term truce with Israel, the price being Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The elected Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniya, said in an interview with the BBC that Hamas would be prepared to work a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders. This was an opportunity for a more peaceful phase in the Middle East, but was rejected by Israel, which boycotted the elected Hamas government (shamefully supported in this by the EU and US), and launched a ferocious “offensive” which killed 700 Palestinians that year alone.
Again, in June 2008 a ceasefire brokered by Egypt was put in place, and until November last, as confirmed reluctantly by Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli prime minister, not a single Hamas rocket was fired into Israel and Hamas attempted to stop rocket firing by smaller groups.
That ceasefire was cynically broken by Israel on November 4th with a military strike on Gaza which killed six people. The ensuing rocket fire by Hamas provided the casus belli for Israel’s long-planned murderous onslaught of December 27th (a Hamas offer of December 23rd for a renewal of the ceasefire was ignored). This “offensive” has since claimed nearly 1,000 lives and injured and maimed thousands more.
Hamas and Fatah are both partners for peace, and partners for any peaceful and civilised initiative to end the terrible suffering of the Palestinian people. The bloody-mindedness of Israel is the only barrier. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Brendan Ó Cathaoir (January 13th) would have your readers believe that “the one thing Israel has not displayed is a willingness to accept UN Resolution 242 and return to its internationally recognised borders”. He suggests that “Mr Zion Evrony [Israel’s Ambassador to Ireland] is selective with the truth”.
However, clearly it is Mr Ó Cathaoir who is being selective with the truth – or has he forgotten Israel’s withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula in 1982? And has he, in common with many of your correspondents, forgotten that this resolution called for “the application of both the following principles: Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” [but not necessarily to its pre-1967 borders]; and “termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for . . . every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force”.
The Israeli government, unlike Hamas, has demonstrated its willingness to abide by this resolution. — Yours, etc,