Madam, – In response to the latest article by Gerry Moriarty (July 22nd), Joe O’Brien (July 27th) writes, quite correctly, that the 1967 Six-Day War was not instigated by an “Arab invasion” of Israel. Mr O’Brien then proceeds almost immediately to assert that the conflict can be better described as “when Israel illegally occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip” and that it is this occupation that is the most significant cause of modern conflict.
After such an accurate overture it is a shame that this letter must be filed away with so much else that has been written about this perpetual conflict in the Middle East. While it is a fallacy to claim that the 1967 war was instigated solely through Arab aggression, it is equally untrue to say that Israeli occupation of Arab territory is the main obstacle to peace in the region. Too often commentators attempt to simplify issues to the point that it is easy to lay the blame at the feet of one party when in fact there is no one issue today that stands alone as an obstacle in the way of peace.
The casus belli are numerous and complicated and include non-recognition of Israel’s right to exist, Arab hostility, religious differences and treatment of minorities to name but a paltry few. Ignorance of the multiple and inter-connected issues at play is rife in much of the analysis and leaves readers being presented with long- winded diatribes that try to claim that the region is occupied by an evil aggressor and an innocent victim.
Until people abandon their dogmatic assertions that peace can be achieved by a basic and straightforward unilateral concession, then I fear that a reasoned debate on your pages is as far away as a reasoned debate between the warring tribes in the Middle East itself. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Joe O’Brien (July 27th) alleges that in 1967 “Israel illegally occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip” and he suggests that “it is this, still current, illegal occupation (see UN Resolution 242) that is the most significant single cause and perpetuator of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict”. This view is shared on the same page by Daniel Finn who alleges that “the crux of the matter” is “there can be no peace settlement as long as the Israeli political elite remains completely unwilling to withdraw from all the territories occupied in 1967”.
On inspection your readers will find that United Nations’ Security Council Resolution 242 calls for – “. . . the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israel[i] armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for . . . every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” Yes indeed, this resolution calls for Israel to withdraw – but not from illegally occupied territories and not to its pre-1967 borders.
Furthermore, it does so in the context of the cessation of threats and acts of force – a significant requirement, yet to be achieved, but missing from either of your correspondents’ analysis. – Yours, etc,