LETTER: Methodology of remote ‘monitoring machine'?

SIR – With very creditable sincerity and aplomb, local man Mr Teegan periodically seeks to update readers on the various acts of discrimination inflicted on the Palestinians. To do so is his prerogative, given the agreement of yourself, the Editor.

Interestingly, to the best of my knowledge, his criticism of the so-called State of Israel has never been challenged by anyone from West Cork. However, via some obscure monitoring machine, he has stimulated rebuttals from several Israeli sympathisers in the Manchester area, latterly Mr Adam.  

Mr MacEoin, after a lifetime’s wallow in academe, is aware of Teegan in New York, again one wonders how, and even the Israeli Ambassador in Dublin was once tempted to join the fray. Their methodology would be interesting to know.

Personally, outside of normal humanitarian concerns, I hold no affinity with either party except in terms of which has right on its side and, in this context, those of the above who have responded to my sometimes private requests for clarification, have uniformly pinned their justification for the existence of Israel on there having been arbitration offers put on the table that the Palestinians rejected.  

This, they consider, laid the way clear for Ben Gurion et al to go ahead anyway, regardless, but any negotiation must be signed off by both parties for it to be properly binding, and this may indicate why matters are unresolved to this day.

The detailed history of May 1948, wherever it may lie, should establish exactly how arrangements were made for Israel to come into being, and whether it complied with the various LoN-UN resolutions on the subject.  With that information to hand, we shall know whether to regard the Arab population as fighting for their homeland or as terrorists.  

My 1935 Atlas clearly shows the whole area as ‘Palestine’ with no mention of Israel whatever!

Nick Turner,

Drimoleague.