Israel does not view Palestinians as enemies
In response to the article entitled "Let's not forget Muhammad al-Darra" by Hameed Abdul Karim on April 30, 2006, I will be grateful if the Sunday Times could publish the following article.

Life has its many twists, turns, tragedies and opportunities. The death of a child is one of life's greatest tragedies. Palestinian propaganda too often abuses tragedies, and in particular the death of children. It has systematically exploited the tragic death of the child Muhammad al-Durra, while concealing the fact that the boy's death was caused by Palestinian armed men and not by Israeli soldiers. This was the conclusion of more than one impartial investigation of the case.

It is shocking that the Vice President of the Sri Lanka committee for Solidarity with Palestine would not be aware of these facts and findings. It is even more shocking that Mr. Karim's outdated and erroneous thoughts would be printed without rebuttal or facts.

Israel strives to end this conflict, believing that a solution must be found through dialogue and negotiations. Over many years, Israel has taken difficult steps towards this end, including the traumatic evacuation of tens of thousands of Israelis from their homes during the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank in August 2005.

The general election that was held in Israel on March 28 this year is another testament to the desire of Israelis to find a peaceful settlement to the conflict. The "Kadima" (forward) Party that received the majority of votes promised to keep pursuing a solution to the conflict. In his address to the nation Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said:

"There is no better alternative than a peace agreement. There can be no stable peace other than peace which is based on agreement. An agreement can only be the result of negotiations based on mutual recognition, acceptance of previous agreements, the principles of the Road Map and, obviously, an end to violence and the dismantling of terrorist organizations.

I appeal to the head of the Palestinian Authority and tell him... recognizing the realities and the circumstances, we are willing to compromise, to give up parts of the ancient Land of Israel.....to evacuate with great pain Israelis who live in these parts, in order to create the conditions which will enable you to realize your dream and to live in a state of your own, side by side, with us in peace".
The mandate given the new government by the Israeli electorate reflects a genuine desire of the people of Israel to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by a negotiated settlement and the principle of two states for the two peoples.

Acts of terror that continue to jeopardize progress towards reconciliation and peace between Israel and Palestinians, are committed by Palestinian militants and enemies of peace. In a recent act of terror perpetrated on April 17, a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up in a busy restaurant in Tel Aviv, killing 11 innocent people including an elderly visitor from France and a teenage American tourist. These acts do not serve the cause of peace and dialogue and least of all the interest of the Palestinian people.

The newly elected Hamas government in the Palestinian Authority could have used this horrific event to break away from its long history of terror and assume the obligations of a responsible government. Instead, the Hamas leaders were quick to justify the indiscriminate killing of men and women buying their lunch on a Tel Aviv street.

Israel does not view the Palestinian people as an enemy. It is up to the Palestinians and their leaders to decide to put an end to terror and tragedies and join the path of political dialogue for the common goal of peaceful coexistence.

Tammy Ben Haim
Second Secretary
Embassy of Israel
New Delhi

Nuclear blackmail and western hypocrisy
French President Jacques Chirac warned recently that his country would launch a nuclear strike against any nation sponsoring a terrorist attack on his country. Neo-conservatives in the United States are also urging a nuclear attack on Iran.

Iran is entitled to carry out peaceful nuclear research under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But the West is determined not to allow Iran to exercise even this right.

Iran has not threatened any nation with even conventional military action, let alone nuclear threats. Do the US and other Western nations such as France have any right to threaten developing countries with nuclear strikes, and deprive them the right to carry out research on nuclear technology?

It appears that the Western nations are hellbent on using their nuclear weapons on any country that is accused of sponsoring terrorism or working against their interests.

Contrast this with the problem of terrorism in countries such as Sri Lanka. Even when almost all parties in Sri Lanka are agreed on a political solution to the national problem, the United States and the West insist on negotiating with the LTTE, a terrorist group. The Sri Lankan government has been asked to tolerate attacks on its military.

However, when dealing with the type of terrorism facing the West, the US says it does not negotiate with terrorists like Osama bin Laden. Why these double standards? Does the West use third world terrorism to its advantage?
Are we witnessing apartheid in another form in the international arena?

T. Hashem
Via email

Child victims of Palestinian conflict: Scores are uneven
I wish to make some observations on the letter by Peace Activist (The Sunday Times International, May 14, 2006).

He claimed hundreds of Israeli children had fallen victims. I fully agree with him that deaths of children through violence bring much grief to every body. However, it will be relevant to consider who has suffered most. According to the latest information available, from the start of the Intifada in Sep. 2000, the number of Palestinian children killed by Israeli attacks which are mostly bombings, is 723. Israeli children killed during the same period is 121.

That means a state which is expected to act responsibly, has killed six times more children, a substantial number of them inside their houses, than the other side.

He has also accused the Palestinians of having struck "almost in all parts of the world" to kill and maim innocent civilians. This is definitely a figment of his imagination as the Palestinians, since the Munich attack in the 1970s, have NOT attacked any where outside the Occupied Palestine including Israel.

He concludes with the latest Israeli myth, "While Israelis plant trees the Palestinians plant bombs". Let me enlighten him and your readers with this quotation from an article by John Petrovato published in the Palestine Chronicle on Feb. 18, 2006.

"Environmental and human rights organizations have estimated that over 1,000,000 trees have been uprooted over the past decade. 400,000 olive trees have been uprooted in the past 5 years alone. Most of the trees uprooted have been alongside the so-called ‘security wall’ that Israel is building on Palestinian communities land. While the state of Israel claims that it was necessary for ‘security reasons’ or for the "natural" growth and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the fact remains that only trees that are owned by Palestinians are uprooted and destroyed without compensation.

“Furthermore, as reported numerous times in the Israeli press over the past few years, many of the trees that were ‘uprooted’ in Palestinian communities were actually loaded on trucks and brought to Israel proper and sold in nurseries. Such practices of removing trees owned by Palestinians and replanting in Israeli communities are well known and nothing has been done to deter it.”

Not content with grabbing the land of the Palestinians, the Israelis are also taking their trees and after planting the trees on the usurped lands, they have the impudence to create a new myth.

Your readers will be interested to know that a family can live on 20 olive trees. That means, during the last 5 years alone, at least 20,000 Palestinian families have been deprived of their livelihood by the heartless Israeli occupiers.

M.I.M. Siddeeq
Colombo

Geneva Conventions and their applicability here
The Geneva Convention of 1949 and of 1977 are inspired by the eternal principles of that law which is the foundation and safeguard of civilized living and designed to ensure the respect of human personality by putting beyond reach of attack those rights and liberties which are the essence of existence.
These are to be cherished by any nation and often enshrined in a constitution. The fourth of the Geneva Conventions has a direct application, in that it embraces the original humanitarian basis for the concept or norm in the jurisprudence of international law and its application on the humanitarian sphere.

It insists that the family honour and rights of persons, the private property as well as religious convictions and practice must be respected. None has a right to maim body or limb or subject a civilian to inhuman treatment, or harassment by the army, police, any state authority or anyone else.

It adds no specifically new ideas to international law. The conventions itself forms an important contribution to written international law in the humanitarian domain. The human rights of an individual must be protected while warring factions combat. These are imperative considerations.

The presence of the I.C.R.C. in strength is vital to preserve the civilian population against any atrocity which is likely to be committed by anyone who takes advantage of conflict, to carry out even a personal vendetta.

Such right is not charity and the present situation in this land is fragile. Too many lives are being lost. As such the spirit of the convention should be strictly observed and wide in its application to the civilian population at this time of hostilities and endeavouring peace moves.

It will give rise to an environment where the bud of reconciliation would blossom forth to usher in an era of peace.

Kumari Naganathan
Colombo