Sir, - I read with interest the article by David Horowitz concerning Lebanon in your edition of November 28th and I would like to outline the following:
1. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 the result was over 100,000, mostly civilians, killed or injured. As Israel was not invited by the Lebanese government and entered Lebanon without permission, it does not need permission to leave.
2. UN Security Council resolution 425 demands the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. Israel recently accepted the resolution, but with conditions.
3. International law allows the occupied to fight the occupiers. Therefore the Lebanese have the right to resist foreign occupation.
4. In April 1996, after Israeli shells hit a UN base where Lebanese civilians were taking refuge, killing 100 of them, the US, France, Israel, Syria and Lebanon signed a five-nation ceasefire agreement which indirectly legitimised the right of the Lebanese resistance to carry out attacks against the Israeli occupying forces in the self-declared Israeli security zone in south Lebanon. The agreement also asked both Israel and the Lebanese resistance not to carry out attacks outside the so-called security zone. If Israel attacks Lebanon it is in breach of the ceasefire agreement and therefore it will encourage the Lebanese resistance to retaliate and shell northern Israel.
5. Israel knows that the Lebanese and Syrian tracks are inseparable and therefore Israel should immediately resume the peace negotiations with Syria, which were suspended in February 1996, immediately on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and the land for peace formula.
Israel has to withdraw from both south Lebanon and the Golan Heights. In other words, Israel has to choose between land or peace. -Yours, etc., Dr Yousef Allan,
Delegate General of Palestine to Ireland, London W1.