Most Palestinian deaths in the conflict are combatants while most Israeli casualties are non-combatants, writes Tom Cooney
Ali Halimeh's account (November 4th ) of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict bullies the truth through a PLO propaganda sieve.
The assertion by the Palestinian delegate to Ireland that Israel's presence on the disputed territories amounts to an "illegal occupation" is unsound. "Occupation" means the presence of a state's army in another sovereign state's territory.
No sovereign state had title to the West Bank or Gaza when Israel captured them in 1967. They had been part of Mandatory Palestine. In 1947 the UN recommended the partition of Mandatory Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state.
The disputed territories should have been integrated into a new Arab state when Britain abandoned the Mandate. That state did not emerge because Arab states repudiated the plan.
In 1948, Arab states tried to liquidate the nascent Israel. Egypt and Jordan seized Gaza and the West Bank, respectively. This annexation was illegal. In 1967 the Arab states tried again to liquidate Israel. In self-defence Israel took control of these stateless territories.
Israel has a right to hold these lands until its enemies sign a final treaty of peace
The Palestinian Authority emerged out of the Oslo accord of 1993, the Cairo accord of 1994 and the second Oslo accord of 1995.
Three areas were created: area A, where the Palestinian Authority had full civilian and military authority; area B, under PA civilian authority and joint PA-Israeli security control, with Israel having "overriding security responsibility"; and area C, which remains under Israeli control. But the accords say that residual responsibility for security is vested in Israel.
Mr Halimeh's claim that Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in 2002 "ignited" the war is not convincing. The war is part of a PLO strategic plan: in December 2000 the then PA Minister of Communications, Imad al-Faluji, said that plans for war began the moment the Palestinian delegation returned from Camp David, at the request of Yasser Arafat. In February 2001, he said: "Whoever thinks that the intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon's visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque is wrong . . . This intifada was planned in advance."
In August 2000, the then PA Justice Minister, Freih Abu Middein, advised Palestinians that "violence is near and the Palestinian people are willing to sacrifice even 5,000 casualties". The war started when Palestinian terrorists killed an Israeli soldier with a roadside bomb at Netzarim junction, in the Gaza Strip. Tawfik Tirawi, a commander of the PA General Intelligence Services and an Arafat man, was pivotal in creating a culture of impunity for terrorist groups.
The Palestinians' war is designed to terrorise Israeli civilians. At the end of October, out of 1,730 Palestinian deaths, 729 were combatants, amounting to about 43 per cent of Palestinian casualties. Out of 635 Israeli deaths, 126 were combatants, amounting to 20 per cent.
A total of 684 non-combatant Palestinians have been killed by Israel, just over 39 per cent of all Palestinian deaths. Palestinians have killed 495 Israeli non-combatants, in other words, nearly 80 per cent of Israelis deaths. This tells us that although most Palestinian deaths in the war are combatants, 80 per cent of Israeli casualties are non-combatants. Most Israelis have died while living their day-to-day lives, taking the bus to work or market, shopping, dining out or celebrating family or religious occasions.
Mr Halimeh blames Israel for attacks on Palestinian civilians. The fourth Geneva Convention sets out the principles for affixing responsibility when military activities occur in civilian areas. The PA and its associated terrorist groups are conducting a war of terror against Israel.
The principles of humanitarian law require combatants to separate themselves from the civilian population in military camps and to wear uniforms. Palestinian terrorists try to use civilians as flesh-and-blood camouflage. International law authorises Israel to strike at such military targets under these circumstances.
The PA has failed to take steps to deter the terrorists or bring those responsible to justice. A problem in this respect is that although the EU has ploughed money into developing a justice system, Arafat has simply wasted the money. Arafat and his regime bear responsibility for the atrocities that occur. Arafat has made the PA into a terrorist safe haven. It is inevitable that Palestinian civilians should feel the brunt of Israeli anti-terror measures.
Mr Halimeh complains that peace seems out of grasp, but he omits to say that Arafat turned his back on negotiations with Israel. At Camp David (2000) the US traced the parameters for peace. But Arafat lit the terrorist fuse. But it's hard to see peace through the mist of innocent Israeli blood.
What does Arafat really want? In May 2002, he spoke to the Palestinian legislature in which, after making an equivocal call for an end to suicide-bomb attacks, he appealed to Palestinians to remember the "Hudeiba Treaty". He said that this was "a minor treaty" which the prophet Muhammad had made with the tribe of Kuraish when he was in a weaker position in the battlefield. He pointed out that Muhammad understood that taking this step was the only way to prevent a loss, until the war situation changed for the better.
The idea was that on gaining the upper hand Muhammad would be obliged to break the treaty and attack his enemy, which is what Muhammad did. Arafat avowed this strategy. To parse his point: he is willing to sign an agreement with Israel with the intention of breaking it when the situation favours doing so. He has incited Israeli Arabs to "draw up with blood the map of one homeland". Last month he declared "no one can abolish the right to return". This is grisly code for the PLO's desire to liquidate Israel.
Ali Halimeh must realise that it does not help Palestinians to bask in the false light of invented victimhood. The real tragedy for Palestinians is that the PLO is not brave enough, whatever the risk, to pluck a spark of peace from the blaze of a war that lacks the flame of moral or legal justification.
• Tom Cooney teaches law in UCD law school