LETTERS TO IRISH TIMES RE LEBANON

Dear Madam

John McManus (IT, 1 August 2006) has it about right when he says that there is an “unfortunate tendency on the left to identify all who oppose America as objectively progressive”.
The present situation across the Middle East is clearly very complex, but the left is too ambiguous about those who want to bring the region back to the Middle Ages, and, as in Iraq, those who attempt to foment civil war to create a viciously repressive state. That war is over: there is a UN-recognised regime in place and the Iraqi people have voted far more frequently in recent years than we have. In their opposition to the US and the Bush regime in particular, many on the left turn a blind eye to what my party colleague, Mr McManus, has correctly identified as the rise of ‘theocracy and fanaticism’.

The Left has been indolent in the face of a number of international issues in recent years. Lazy cries for UN reform excuse international inaction in the face of atrocities from Bosnia to Darfur. We, the left, were not even united in support of a NATO campaign to prevent further genocide in Kosovo.

On questions such as Cuba, a state which according to Human Rights Watch has an “undemocratic government that represses nearly all forms of political dissent” and in which a dictator of forty years plus has just handed power to his brother, the Left remains hopelessly soft.

In his letter, John McManus says “it is the job of all those on the Left to be clear where they stand on the basic principles of liberty and equality”. To state it more baldly, the Left must support democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of law.


Yours etc,

Following some comment on this letter, I sent the following:

Dear Madam,

The suggestion that I am at odds with my party on the position in Lebanon is not fully correct.

I fully support Michael D’s longstanding call for an immediate cessation of violence. The military action being undertaken by Israel is ill-conceived and counter-productive, even taking into account its right to defend itself. The civilian deaths are an outrage.

Yet Israel’s capacity to wage this war seems more than matched by Hizbollah’s capacity to fire rockets into Israel. One side, Hizbollah, seems to have done its strategic thinking, the other, Israel, has not. I suspect that had Sharon remained healthy this war would not be taking place.

That Hizbollah is so delighted by the response it has drawn forth from Israel shows its indifference both to Lebanon and to ordinary citizens who want to get on with their day-to-day lives. That the west seems more intent on holding Israel responsible for this particular catastrophe is to ignore those who orchestrated it. Again, it needs to be restated, Israel’s over-reaction cannot be allowed to obscure the actions and motives of a group whose world view is fundamentally hostile to all that progressives believe.

Finally, Michael D rails against the charge of anti-Americanism at those who hold his position. I understand his frustration. But when the deputy lord mayor of Dublin, a member of our party recently appeared on the airwaves telling the elected Governor of Florida to go home, is it any wonder that the charge is levelled against us?

Yours etc.