Israel's retaliation
From Judith Rona How refreshing to read the good sense expressed in your editorial about Syria's terror sponsorship (11 October).
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 (28 September 2001) mandates that all states 'refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts', take 'the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts', and 'deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist acts'. It is high time that Syria and other Arab states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia were held accountable for the failure of the Middle East peace process. They are paying the terrorists to scuttle it because they'd rather have war than recognise a non-Muslim state in their region. Judith Rona
Bondi, Australia
From Sir Bryan Thwaites Sir: There will, no doubt, be varying opinions about the general drift of your leader on the Palestine/Israel issue. But there can surely be only one opinion on your remark that 'the right of states to pre-emption against those who use surrogates to attack them is well recognised'. This is incorrect. Pre-emption — as a doctrine now espoused by the US government in particular — has no basis in international law. The UN Charter rules against it (though not in explicit terms, since the word had yet to be invented at the time).
If the invasion of Iraq was the first use of pre-emption on a massive scale, then the chaos of the coming months and years will surely show how misguided the doctrine is. Bryan Thwaites
By email
Previous page
