Israel's 'overkill' policy

I refer to Herman Grech's interview with the Israeli Ambassador, Mr Ehud Gol (The Sunday Times, October 13).

Since the Intifada started in September 2000 the policy which the Jews of the state of Israel have been carrying out has been one of constant overkill which Mr Gol euphemistically calls "strong preventive measures"! I will give just two examples.

To stop some Palestinian boys throwing stones at them Israeli soldiers shoot at them and kill them; those boys have indeed been "prevented" from ever throwing stones again. The army then says that it either did not know about the killing or that it will "investigate".

To gun down a suspected Palestinian terrorist, the Israeli armed forces fire a missile or a tank killing not only the suspect but also his entire family and some neighbours too, including, of course, innocent women and children, not to mention wholesale destruction of many innocent people's homes. If the suspected terrorist is killed the operation is described by, for instance, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, as a "success" and is followed by the usual cynical expression of regrets of death caused to innocent people.

As for the Intifada itself, this started as a result of gross provocation by none other than Mr Sharon himself when on September 28, 2000, when still Opposition Leader, accompanied by some of his more extreme cronies, he visited one of the holiest places of Islam, al-Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem, to emphasise Israeli sovereignty over the area. This highly offensive act was even condemned by the UN the following month (Resolution No. 1322).

The beginning of the Intifada consisted of some riots and stone-throwing by boys who, as stated above, were shot at and killed by the Israeli army. The shock of these deaths escalated the violence and eventually led to suicide bombing.

Mr Gol boasts that the decline in terrorism in recent weeks has been due to the "strong preventive measures" referred to above. This policy of overkill is in fact failing to prevent terrorism as may be seen by its most recent act on October 21, after Mr Gol had spoken, when a suicide bomber blew up a bus killing 14 people and injuring over 50 others.

The more repressive Israeli policy is, the more it strengthens and plays into the hands of Palestinian extremist organisations like Hamas. There is no military solution to the Palestine problem but, tragically enough, Mr Sharon does not see things this way. If Mr Sharon thinks that there can be no peace with Yasser Arafat heading the Palestinian Authority, many other informed people, including many in the EU, are of the opinion that there can be no real and lasting peace as long as Mr Sharon leads the Jews of the state of Israel.

Mr Gol expresses surprise that Maltese columnist Simone Zammit Endrich has been taken to court and is being accused of racism concerning a very offensive article she wrote about Arabs in general. As the court case is still sub judice Mr Gol, as a private person, should have reserved his comments until after the conclusion of the case. As an ambassador he should know better than criticise Maltese justice in such an insulting manner by comparing it to that "in other kind of regimes", implying that it could be repressive.

I wonder what he would have said had the article in question had been offensive about the Jews rather than the Arabs. Perhaps he would then have accused Ms Zammit Endrich of racism?

Mr Gol is floating the idea of a possible state visit by the President of Malta. His insulting remark about "other kind of regimes" is certainly not conducive to such a visit. Furthermore, apart from this remark, this is surely not the right time for the Maltese head of state to visit a country whose government is engaged in a policy of ruthless repression of a foreign people, the Arabs of Palestine, whose land the Jews of the state of Israel have been occupying and illegally settling since 1967 and who (the Palestinian Arabs) have been struggling for their own statehood, without success so far, since the end of World War One. A visit by the President would give the impression that the Maltese people condone this repression.