Might is right?

The US did act but only as an ally of Israel, not as a neutral superpower. Not surprisingly, it backed Israel's military assault on Lebanon condemning Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation and demanded its disarmament. Now, the US must understand that Hezbollah fought against Israeli occupation over Lebanon in the past and they are considered as freedom fighters in their country. They hold seats in the parliament and form part of the government. So they cannot be destroyed or eradicated until Lebanon itself is destroyed. Therefore nothing can be achieved by the application of brutal force and there has to a diplomatic solution to end the violence. After the tragic event in Qana there has been calls for an immediate ceasefire from UN, Arab League and other countries but Israel doesn't seem to pay any heed since it knows that they can only plead as they don't stand a chance against Israel's military might, strongly backed by the US. Therefore Israel thinks it is not accountable to justify its actions.

Despite all opposition it continues to pound Lebanon everyday killing innocent civilians, mostly children. It definitely proves that nowadays "might is right."

This is a response to a letter written by Mr. A. Khan on this topic. I am deeply shocked to see his support for Israel and his attitude against those who are fighting illegal Jewish occupation. Mr. A. Khan, let me remind you of a simple piece of history. Israel was formed by forcing out two million Palestinians from their homeland using an illegal and false claim that God has promised them that land. As a result, the Palestinians have become refugees in their motherland and are living a substandard life. And those who are fighting to earn back their rights, you compare this fighting of theirs with extremism and terrorism? Mr. Khan, how would you feel if you and your family are forced out of your house by a group of hooligans who falsely claim that God has promised them that house? How would you feel if you see you and your family living in the streets while those hooligans are living in your precious building in luxury? Your statement that Israel is recognised by the UN doesn't legitimise their illegal grabbing of Palestinian lands. We know very well how ineffective and heavily biased the UN is.

Mr. Khan, we also want to live in peace. But if the Zionist terrorists snatch away our rights and do not allow us to live in peace, we have no other option but to fight them. So, I would urge you to point your fingers at the real culprits for disturbing peace, instead of the victims.

Mohammad Abdullah Dhanmondi, Dhaka

It is better to be more cautious in making remarks about the Israeli invasion in Lebanon. It's not a clear conflict with Israel ("Zionists") and America ("Christians") on one side and the Lebanese ("Muslims") on the other, like mentioned by many readers in your daily. Let's not forget that - for example - Saudi Arabia, as a Muslim country, is one of the closest allies of the US. Not only Muslims are victimised by the Israeli air strikes in South Lebanon but people of different religions and different nationalities have been killed or made refugees.

Although I agree that the international efforts are absolutely far from sufficient to stop Israel, I still have the impression that the international community is doing far more to stop the massacre in Lebanon than the OIC or the Arab League. Also the official protests (if any) ventilated by countries like Bangladesh or Pakistan sound extremely weak, and I do not see thousands of people marching in the streets of Bangladesh or other (even Western) countries to protest against the murder of fellow Muslims in Lebanon. The voice of the United Nations or Security Council cannot be heard due to the aggressive bombardments by Israel on Lebanon. Why can't a united Muslim front try to stop Israel? Why doesn't a Muslim country try to take up the responsibility of a peace broker? Why does the world have to wait for America (one of the beneficiaries of any Middle East conflict)? Is it maybe because there is no unity between the different Muslim groups?

Why does Saudi Arabia have more interest in donating arms to Hamas instead of helping the Palestine's new government in the development of their new state? Did Iran have no other choice to help the people of Lebanon, than to donate arms to Hezbollah during the past decades? Is selling arms to Israel the only way for the US to secure peace in the Middle East?

Is it not a coincidence that the US, Iran and Saudi Arabia are run by oil regimes? Greg Palast remarked correctly (Daily Star, 27th July 2006), ".. I wonder if Bush would let Olmert have an extra week of bombings, or if the potentates of the Persian Gulf would allow Hamas and Hezbollah to continue their deadly fireworks if it caused the price of the crude oil to crash..". Murder in the Middle East seems very profitable, not only for the US also for Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shiite).

The aggressive and murderous bombings of Lebanon by Israel on civilian targets is a clear violation of the United Nations resolutions and International Law. It is a clear abuse of all basic Human Rights we stand for. Such military aggression will make the region more vulnerable to military conflicts in the future and will never ensure peace, only hate. Afghanistan and Iraq did not become a safer place after the military invasion by the US and its allies.

Peace in the Middle East can only be established with the combined efforts of the United Nations AND a united Muslim front (OIC or Arab League or others). Timur Goksel, former UN diplomat, is correct; the conflict will never end without "a friendly word from Damascus".

Willy Legendre, Cox's Bazar (ex-relief worker for different international organisations in war situations like Iraq, former Yugoslavia and Somalia)