Madam, - Tom Cooney's sterile attempt to list the seemingly logical reasons for Israel's bombardment of Lebanon is quite chilling (Opinion & Analysis, July 18th). His twisted legalistic semantics are cold, detached and alarmingly matter of fact.
He begins by advising that the "international community accepts that Israel has a right to self-defence". However, he then makes quite a staggering leap by equating Israel's self-defence with the wholly disproportionate actions of the Israeli government in Gaza and Lebanon.
Mr Cooney states that "Hizbullah's attacks on Israel resulted, therefore, from Lebanon's failure to counter international terrorism", and then goes on to speak of the "context" of Israel's response. He seems to ignore the fact that the Hizbullah attack was preceded by the Israeli offensive in Gaza, where an entire population continues to suffer for the sins of a few.
Mr Cooney ultimately grudgingly concedes that "innocent civilians have a right to not be arbitrarily deprived of their lives", but then goes on to call this pesky incidental detail a mere "complication". Quite a quandary indeed, especially for the more than 200 civilians who have been slaughtered in Lebanon since this madness began. I wonder if these innocents realised what a complication their deaths had been in the moments before they perished?
The word "proportionality" has been bandied about ad nauseam, but to whose definition of proportionality are commentators referring? What all-knowing sage is going to have the final say? Senator Brendan Ryan posed a question in these pages last Saturday: "how many children murdered is proportionate?" This question remains unanswered. - Yours, etc,
COLETTE BROWNE,
Lios Na Gréine,
South Douglas Road,
Cork.
****
Madam, - It is one thing to read impassioned arguments on both sides of the conflict in the Middle East; it is quite another to come across the cold, calculating analysis that Tom Cooney delivers on how international law exonerates Israel in the deaths of civilians in the Lebanon and Gaza. The breathtaking hubris of his delivery ironically echoes the legal justification of the actions of many a dictator and cold-blooded murderer against unarmed civilians throughout history - not least, of course, the dreadful pogroms against the Jewish people.
Just as endemic racism is at the root of anti-Semitism, so too is an unreconstructed ethnic mistrust the only explanation for the appeasement of disproportionate Israeli force against Muslims. If white, Western, Christian children were being blown to bits, the conflict would have been ended long ago. - Yours, etc,
COLIN DOHERTY,
Leinster Road,
Rathmines,
Dublin 6.
****
Madam, - I write to express support for Israel, whose military operations in Lebanon are a response to an unprovoked border attack by Hizbullah. Israel is exercising its legitimate right to self-defence. Its air strikes on Lebanon are not intended to kill civilians, unlike the hundreds of Hizbullah missiles. However, many of Hizbullah's missile launch sites are deliberately located near residential areas, such as the suburbs of southern Beirut, whereas Israel has dropped leaflets, warning civilians to stay away from Hizbullah strongholds.
It seems that the Hizbullah operation was timed to occur just before the G8 summit in St Petersburg. The G8 was expected to concentrate heavily on Iran's refusal to comply with demands to curtail its nuclear programme. It would also appear that there was a deliberate strategy to open up a second front against Israel in the north.
In addition, Iranian fingerprints are to be found in the current conflict. The Katyusha missiles that are currently raining down on the north of Israel are supplied by Iran.
When Egypt and Jordan recognised Israel, peace treaties were signed, whereas both Syria and Iran are committed to wiping Israel off the map. Israel has no option but to fight for its existence. Accordingly, we would urge our Government to deal with the root cause of this conflict and pressurise Syria and Iran to recognise the state of Israel.
As Christians from various churches in Ireland we ask readers to join us in praying for the families of all the victims, both Jew and Arab, and for a speedy resolution of the conflict. - Yours, etc,
PADDY MONAGHAN,
Secretary, Irish Christian Friends of Israel,
Dun Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.
****
A Chara, - Tony Allwright (July 18th) may feel sure he knows what I "well know" about the definition of murder. But on this occasion he'll have to review his certainties both about me and about murder because we cleared this up in Ireland and the UK years ago. The Provos planted many bombs aimed at military or infrastuctural targets. In many cases, because of the Provos' ineptitude and/or reckless indifference, civilians (including children) were killed. I called those killings murder and the perpetrators, when they were caught, were charged with and convicted of murder.
Clearly in our law and in British law you don't have to set out deliberately to target children to be guilty of murder. But of course Tony Allwright acknowledges that. Murder is murder when the killing is "deliberate, premeditated [and] unlawful " .
Israel, like the Provos, uses military force deliberately and with premeditation when it targets the home of someone whom they regard as a legitimate target, or the vehicle in which they are travelling, or the building in which they have a room, or indeed the region (Southern Beirut) in which they are presumed to live. And when innocent civilians are killed along with the "legitimate" target, then for me that's murder, just like it was when the Provos did it.
But then perhaps Tony Allwright believes that Israeli attacks on Gaza and Lebanon are not "unlawful" while the activities of Hizbollah and Hamas are. He might explain that to those of us who can call murder (by any side) by its proper name. He might explain how the 30-year Israeli occupation is not unlawful and why the ruthless expansion of settlements is not unlawful either. And while he's at it he might help us to see how the detention without trial of close to 1,000 Palestinians is also not unlawful. No doubt the decision of the agents of Israel to drive a bulldozer over Rachel Corrie was "not unlawful" either. - Is mise,
Senator BRENDAN RYAN,
Seanad Éireann,
Dublin 2.
****
Madam, - In the interest of balance I would like to make some points which favour the Israelis in the ongoing trouble in the Middle East. Mairtín Ó Gliosáin (July 19th) cites articles 33 and 47 of the Geneva Conventions, which deal respectively with terrorism of innocent people and unjustified extensive destruction. Like a lot of people blind to the actions of the Palestinians, he fails to mention the Palestinian suicide bombers who blow innocent Israelis to bits.
Neither does he mention the rockets launched from Gaza into peaceful Israeli towns; and this was after the Israelis painfully withdrew from their homes there, making Gaza the first independent Palestinian territory.
Joseph McDonnell (July 19th) writes that "the only thing that will work in this situation is justice in the form of a viable state for the people of Palestine." I don't know what he means by viable but the Palestinian leadership twice rejected the establishment of a Palestinian state - once in negotiations with the UN in 1947 and again at the Camp David summit.
I don't agree with everything the Israelis do. I think their policies can be marred by their particularly brutal history and by their instinct for survival, surrounded as they are by those who would wish to drive them into the sea. - Yours, etc,
GERRY McDONNELL,
Rathgar,
Dublin 6.
****
Madam, - The devious selectivity and chopped logic of the pro-Israeli arguments continue to manifest themselves in your Letters page. In a vain attempt to mask the glaring discrepancy in body counts the defenders of Israel frequently resort to obscure and selective use of statistics. For example, Tom Carew (July 19th) quotes the second World War mortality rates of Germany, Japan, the UK and the US as a percentage of their populations (10.82, 3.61, 0.94 and 0.32 per cent respectively) and poses the question: "Were the Allies disproportionate?"
Where will this sort of nonsense end? Russia lost 13.77 per cent of its population in that war; does that mean the Germans were not disproportionate? Since the US mainland was never attacked, most of the US casualties were combatants and not civilians. These sorts of statistics are entirely irrelevant to the case.
The test of proportionality is whether or not legitimate military objectives could have been achieved with fewer casualties. In the case of Germany, historians debate this issue right up to the present day. However, in the case of Israel, the answer is simple. The indiscriminate bombing of civilians and infrastructure will do very little, if anything, to enhance Israeli security and may even further jeopardise it. So from both a moral and a strategic point of view, the criticism of Israel is justified.
None of this justifies the behaviour of Hizbullah - or Syria and Iran. However, there is no gainsaying the fact that, to date, they are responsible for only a fraction of the number of civilian deaths for which Israel is responsible. And while Israel is coming in for much criticism in the liberal European media, it has much more powerful friends than Hizbullah will ever have. - Yours, etc,
Dr COLMÁN Ó CRÍODÁIN,
Ardcollum Avenue,
Artane,
Dublin 5.
****
Madam, - So President Bush thinks that Syria should press Hizbullah to "stop doing this shit" (The Irish Times, July 18). I always knew George W. would bring the finest level of subtle US diplomacy to bear on the crisis. - Yours, etc,
MICHAEL K. POWER,
Greenlands,
Sandyford Road,
Dublin 16.