Gaza conflict

It is obvious to me now it wants a vassal state of Palestine.

Such a state would not have its own independent armed forces and would be totally dependent on Israel’s goodwill.

This desire is made even stronger with the increased danger within Islam of a strong caliphate, such as that in development in Iraq and Syria.

It is not enough for Israel to have the right of self-defence.

Such are the Israelis’ fears that they want their presence guaranteed in an area of the world where they think they may be regarded as an alien presence because they are so well supplied and supported by the West.

Whether or not they achieve this aim depends on whether the Palestinians feel defeated.

This would have been more likely if the coverage of how the Israeli armed forces had conducted the war against Gaza had been less thorough, because Israel has completely lost the moral high ground

G Bulmer, Billingham.

REPLYING to Kev McStravick’s letter (HAS, Aug 14) I have never endorsed Hamas indiscriminately firing missiles into Israeli areas.

I regard this as a war crime, along with lethal attacks on hospitals and schools.

I repeat, there will be no peace in this region until Israel has complied with international law and ends human rights abuses such as the building of illegal settlements.

International law is quite clear, Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognised and to security, and the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise selfdetermination and their own state.

Blockading the Palestinians into ghettos does not amount to self-determination.

Israel has overwhelming supremacy and consequently any major concessions must come from them, but as US support allows them to use disproportionate military options with impunity, there seems to be little incentive to compromise.

This stand-off, and the hatred engendered by the present war, would seem to preclude a conventional peace agreement but could provide an opportunity to explore the option of international justice.

In 2012, the UN general assembly granted Palestine the status of statehood, albeit as an observer, but this does give them the option of inviting the prosecutor of International Criminal Court in The Hague to investigate war crimes in Gaza since 2012.

VJ Connor, Bishop Auckland.

I FIND it very difficult to understand how Kev McStravick (HAS, Aug 19) can even begin to compare the Israeli barbarism to the actions of Hamas.

The stated intention of the current invasion was to destroy tunnels and prevent rocket attacks, to achieve this they have also targeted power stations,water treatment units, schools and hospitals.

This will only ensure any recovery is long and arduous.

In addition to this they send simultaneous warnings of bombings of residential areas, resulting in crowded streets filled with panicstricken civilians.

This is reflected in the grim death toll of greater than tento- one, not the casualties of a human shield; it is the total disregard for a Palestinian life by Israel.

David Leonard, Stockton.

PETE WINSTANLEY (HAS, Aug 16) falsely accused me of trying to deflect readers away from Israeli war crimes by drawing their attention to crimes of a worse nature.

Mr Winstanley is fully aware that I have unequivocally condemned Israel for its part in the killing of innocent Palestinians and I have no intention of trying to defend crimes committed by anyone.

To suggest otherwise is malicious.

Again in HAS, Mr Winstanley misquotes my statement that I accuse him of being an apologist because he refuses to condemn “all Muslims” for atrocities committed by others. My letter actually read: “I’m not criticising the Islamic religion or trying to trivialise the loss of innocent lives in Gaza as losses on both sides are tragic. I’m just curious as to why some correspondents feel that casualties caused by the West are more criminal than casualties caused by Islamic radicals.”

My words clearly refer to Islamic radicals and not to all Muslims as Mr Winstanley suggests. I have the utmost respect for the Islamic faith and to suggest anything else is again a malicious accusation.

In my opinion, debates should be about issues discussed with reasonably balanced argument and not by attempting to discredit your opponent with untruths to try and further your case.

Mr Winstanley should withdraw his unfounded allegations and apologise to myself and other readers.

Kev McStravick, Darlington.

THE latest letter from Peter Winstanley gives the impression of a man with a huge ego trying to score brownie points by giving a simplistic analysis of the Middle East’s problems.

The number of times he uses the phrases ‘I have’, ‘I predicted, ‘I anticipated’ and ‘my views are accepted’ creates the view that he should be the principal adviser to the Prime Minister, at least.

The problems of the Middle East go back much further than the Iraq war, with the 1967 war and the refusal of Israel to accept the resulting UN resolution on borders being a major factor in the discord. However, to have left the Sunni regime in place, with the continual repression of the majority Shia Muslims would undoubtedly have given rise to other major conflicts, similar to the Iraq/Iran war.

Sadly, the regime under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (a Shia leader), has resulted in the oppression of the Sunnis, which has in turn been a major factor in the rise of Isis.

The problems are undoubtedly complex and will require complex solutions, however the basis of any solution will have to solve the borders issue. Israel must be forced, by the use of sanctions if necessary, to accept whatever detail emerges from the consultations.

The end of the Hamas organisation will also be a necessary factor in any peaceful solution.

David McKeever, York.