Sir, - I read and enjoyed Jim Cusack's reports from South Lebanon. I know the area well and feel his reports are an accurate portrait both of the lives of the people there and of the continuing UNIFIL mission, a success story in spite of all the critics and all of the difficulties which have been placed in its way. Mr Cusack's report of March 9th does, however, contain one seriously misleading statement, where he says that the UNIFIL peacekeeping force was "intended as buffer between Israel and militant Islamist groups in Lebanon". Every soldier serving in UNIFIL knows that it has a three-part mission, as set out in UN resolution 425: to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces (which had just invaded the country); to restore international peace and security; and to assist the government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area. Nothing there about "militant Islamist groups".
The reality is that in 1978 the quarrel did not involve Lebanese militant Islamist groups, but Palestinian guerillas and Israeli forces. Whatever one may think of the rights and wrongs of that conflict, the Israeli policy was always the same: savage reprisals against the civilian population of south Lebanon, leading to an exodus of more than 250,000 in 1978. If anything, the attitude of local people towards Israelis and Palestinians was "a plague on both your houses".
The problem in South Lebanon since that time has been that Israel has done all in its power to frustrate the implementation of Resolution 425 through its continuing illegal occupation of Lebanon, its use of proxy militia forces to terrorise the population and the undermining of the Lebanese government's authority and UNIFIL's authority in the region. This is particularly ironic as it is arguable that the purpose of UNIFIL in the first place was largely to keep President Carter's pro-Israeli "peace process" going, in spite of Israel's own excesses. In spite of all the difficulties placed in its way the UNIFIL zone has remained, by and large, the most peaceful part of the south.
It is the continuing occupation of south Lebanon by Israel which has led to the growth of resistance forces, Islamic or otherwise. Whether we like it or not, and irrespective of the broader political battles being fought, they are fighting for their land. Mr Cusack's reference to a buffer zone unwittingly mis-states the role of UNIFIL, as defined by Resolution 425. It also reflects a line which Israeli sources have never ceased to propagate as justification for their actions - except that for them the "buffer zone" had to be one which they could control themselves. Yet now, even within Israel itself and even among hardline militants, there is a developing understanding that the continuing occupation of south Lebanon is itself the cause of the resistance.
It is a battle which Israel cannot win and which, moreover, is having a debilitating effect on its honour and its morale. Let us hope that for the sake of peace in the region and for Israel's own honour, this reality is heeded both in south Lebanon and in the occupied Palestinian regions. - Yours, etc.,
Piaras Mac Einri, Model Farm Road, Cork.