Dear Editor:

Many letter writers seem to assert, uncritically, that Hezbollah is a "terrorist" organization or that it is clearly "the bad guy" in this situation. Why is this assumption being made? It is true that Hezbollah has definitely used terrorist tactics in the past and during this recent conflict. Its decision to fire rockets at civilian targets in Israel qualifies. But, of course, this obvious terrorist act killed far fewer people than Israel's "targeted" attacks on Lebanon. Moreover, Israel's actions were clearly designed to inflict so much pain on the civilian population of Lebanon that they would turn against Hezbollah or demand that their government act in a way conducive to Israeli interests. These tactics are, by definition, "terrorist". "Terrorism" is, after all, the use of force against civilian populations to create an atmosphere of fear in order to achieve certain political goals. So, Israel is even more guilty of terrorism than Hezbollah, and certainly much more destructive, if not effective, in its use.

Only four countries in the world regard Hezbollah as a terrorist organization: Israel, the US, Canada and the Netherlands. The rest recognize that the reality of the organization is much more complex and that it is deeply rooted in the society of the Lebanese Shi'a. Admittedly, there are many examples of terrorist/criminal groups that are deeply rooted in their communities, so this observation only underlines the danger of the demonizing an entire community without understanding why a particular group is so popular. The bottom line here is that Hezbollah has a political legitimacy that makes it much more than a terrorist group.

Even in the current conflict, the question of "who started it" is much more open than most people care to admit. The evidence now indicates that Israel was waiting for a pretense on which to launch a war against Hezbollah. Hezbollah and Israel had been exchanging sporadic attacks for quite a while. This particular attack was worse than usual, but even the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers had a specific purpose: they were to be used as bargaining chips for Hezbollah to get back its own people. This latest war did not happen in a vacuum; there is a context for this entire situation, which includes Hezbollah's desire to show support for the Palestinians under seige in Gaza.

I am not supporting Hezbollah. I have problems with Islamic fundamentalist organizations. But, in the end, peace will only come in the Middle East if Israel and the US get off their undeserved high horses and begin to talk to the people who oppose them. That includes Hezbollah and Hamas. Under such circumstances, simplistic assumptions about the intentions and character of the other side simply don't further the diplomatic process.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Editor,

I certainly agree that this child is precocious but also - not surprisingly, given his age and, I assume, the time when this clip was made - very uninformed. Was the "chilling conclusion" the fact that such a young child reached such a bloody conclusion? Or was it that the leaders of the US were able to play on these sentiments for revenge - embodied, apparently, in so many Americans, including small children - to turn Iraq into a bloody mess and launch an unwinnable war against the Islamic world? Perhaps, too, the child's ignorance and fearfulness typifies the ignorance and fearfulness of Americans in general. After 9-11 it was understandable that Americans would grossly exaggerate the dangers of terrorism. Five years later, hopefully, more perspective has taken hold and Americans are more inclined towards recognizing that, compared to practically any other possible way to lose your life, doing so in a terrorist attack is near the bottom of the list.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine