RAYMOND DEANE,
Sir, - David Horovitz correctly claims that we live in "a world turned upside down", and proceeds to give us a textbook demonstration of such topsy-turvydom at work (Opinion, April 24th).
At no time in his tirade does he acknowledge that Israel, far from being a reasonable negotiating partner thwarted all along the line by Arab intransigence and terror, is in fact an international outlaw in breach of some 70 UN Security Council Resolutions - in particular 242, which 35 years ago demanded an end to its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories.
Indeed, Israel's admission to the UN was premised on its acceptance of Security Council Resolution 194, which asserts the "inalienable right of return" of Palestinians; its consistent refusal to concede such a right testifies to such contempt for the UN that its expulsion would have long since been a fait accompli were it not for the coercive backing of the United States.
We read of Yitzhak Rabin's having magnanimously "halted large-scale settlement activity in the occupied territories", as if such activities weren't already in flagrant breach of international law (indeed I have long protested at the omission of the adjective "illegal" in Mr Horovitz's reporting on the settlements). We read of the "then irrelevant" Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount (significantly, Mr Horovitz exclusively employs the Israeli name for the Haram esh-Sharif) as if he were a mere solitary stroller, rather than a living symbol of anti-Palestinian butchery flanked by a massive phalanx of Israeli soldiers.
We read of "terrorists" who "publicly delighted in ambushing 13 Israeli reservists", a usage that automatically robs the word "terrorist" of all meaning: if those who attack soldiers are as guilty of "terror" as those who target civilians, then all resistance is terrorism (the usage favoured by the Nazis in occupied France).
We read of "the pervasive myth now routinely peddled" "that Mr Barak offered far less generous terms" than those outlined by Mr Horovitz, whereas the reality is that Barak's supposed "generous offer" has been the most ubiquitous propaganda ploy used by apologists for Israel since the collapse of the Camp David/Taba talks. Now that this myth has been comprehensively exploded by (among others) Robert Malley, President Clinton's Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs and a member of the US team that participated in those talks (hence far from an "ill-informed Middle East commentator), one or two other public figures (Jimmy Carter, Anthony Lewis) have accepted that nothing truly acceptable was on offer - but for Mr Horovitz this apparently constitutes a massive propaganda triumph for the devious Arabs.
Similarly, and in an almost parodic inversion of reality, we read of "slick Palestinian spokesmen" daily making assertions "from the platforms granted to them by the deferential news channels". Now that the very slick David Horovitz has unmasked himself as an unapologetic apologist for the Israeli state, will the deferential Irish Times fulfil its obligations to its readers and replace him with a less biased reporter? - Yours, etc.,
Raymond Deane, Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Dame Street, Dublin 2.