It's funny how some are so quick to dismiss the terrorist actions of Hezbollah and Hamas and condemn Israel for defending itself. Iran, a government that is known to sponsor Hezbollah and Hamas, went so far as to call Israel's right to defend itself as "government sponsored terrorism" in this letter to The Nation from the Iranian Ambassador to Thailand. This is a clear case "projection".

The Iranian ambassador shows no conscience when he defends and dismisses these actions by the terrorist organisations his government supports both financially and with weaponry, and attempts to blame the entire mess squarely on the Israelis. The Israelis are merely defending themselves, after they agreed to a land-for-peace deal with Hamas and withdrew from Lebanon 6 years ago. Their aim is to remove Hezbollah from their threatening and destabilising position in Lebanon and to stop the rocket attacks from Hamas into civilian zones in Israel.

It's also interesting how these defenders of terrorists organisations forgot or dismiss that this current conflict was initiated when both Hamas and Hezbollah encroached into Israeli territory, murdered soldiers and then kidnapped other soldiers and a civilian in the case of Hamas. Hamas went on to heartlessly murder that kidnapped Israeli civilian. These are acts of war. The first step toward resolving the conflict is obvious: safely return the kidnapped Israelis. However this concept has entirely escaped the "reason" of Hamas, Hezbollah and apparently the Iranian government.

The Iranian ambassador's gross bias is obvious, when one considers his use of loaded words such as "Zionist regime" coupled with the statements made by the Iranian president regarding his desire to "wipe Israel off the map".

Sue P

Chai Nat

----------------------------------------------------------------

No guarantee peacekeepers would be useful in Mideast

Re: "Leaders call for Middle East force", World, July 18.

While the addition of more international peacekeepers to the Arab-Israeli theatre could be worthwhile, America should leave this entirely to the Europeans and avoid creating facile targets for provocateurs. Beyond this, Gaza and parts of Lebanon are effectively ruled by more than one governing authority. Radical groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas serve both domestic and foreign clienteles too desirous of confrontation and impatient with the status quo to value peace. Adding peacekeeping forces to the mix cannot, therefore, promise either peace or even a useful observational function; the region's history mocks these very notions.

Yet, such a force could help focus attention, particularly that of locals, on just who is undermining the world's desire for a general cessation of hostilities. This in turn could restrict the options of extremist groups sensitive to their broader public image and possibly even aid the expansion of the Lebanese government's authority.

Ron Goodden

Atlanta, Georgia

----------------------------------------------------------------

Israeli attack on Lebanon a disproportionate response

The Israelis have been torturing the Palestinians ever since they arrived in the region and formed a new country. They have banned Palestinians from their homeland and put them in refugee camps and in ghettos. The bombing of targets including the civilian infrastructure in Beirut should not go unpunished. The Palestinians have fought to get their land back, which is what any self-respecting people would do. And yet, Israel is bombing and destroying another sovereign nation and nothing is done against them?

No, I do not agree with terrorist attacks in Israel and the killing of Israeli civilians. And yes, Israelis have the right to defend themselves. But their present actions are totally out of proportion.

I refuse to believe that the Israelis are not capable of taking out their adversaries in a more effective way, ie sending in special troops to kill known Hamas and Hezbollah militants instead of bombing areas and killing civilians as well.

So what's the next step? Spreading the conflict to other surrounding Arab countries?

The start of a conflict between Israel and Iran would be the perfect excuse for the US to get involved and carry out their plans against Iran, which seems inevitable anyway.

LS Bergman

Chon Buri

----------------------------------------------------------------

India must take iron-fisted approach against terrorists

India, time and again, has failed to wield the hammer against the lowly terrorist, often letting its citizens down. Despite what our leaders would have us believe, we are a soft state - a fact fully understood and exploited by terrorists. After every such attack, the political establishment makes some threatening noises, hails the spirit of the civilians, holds aloft the pennant of peace, even launches bus services to unfriendly nations, and then sits tight on its backside till the next wave of bombs rips its citizens to pieces. Then it is back to the same idiotic idiom.

But the ordinary people, who actually bear the brunt of terrorism, have a different view. India needs to hit them where it hurts most: squeeze the breath out of their networks, starve them of funds, take out their leaders, smash their hideouts and crack down on their associates. Many people agree that international terrorism cannot be brought to an end only by the use of bombs and military might, but neither can it be ended with mere talk. What is needed is a heavy dose of ruthless action to go hand in hand with tactical and strategic negotiations.

India should be ready to negotiate, with the underlying condition that if there is any terrorist act against its citizens, there will be hell to pay. The inevitability of punishment could nip many a hostile intent in the bud.

Ranjith Abraham

Bangkok

----------------------------------------------------------------

PM may have at least one goal in mind for an additional term

Recently Forbes magazine gave a solid justification for caretaker PM Thaksin to remain in office a while longer. Forbes said currently Thaksin is only the fourth-richest man in Thailand.

Netirat Intira

Bangkok

----------------------------------------------------------------

The response that Bush sent Thaksin in a parallel universe

Re: "The caretaker prime minister's recent correspondence with world leaders", Opinion, July 13.

Dear Mr Prime Minister,

Thank you very much for writing to me about your weird situation. As you know, what I want to do most is fight terrorism and spread democracy throughout the world. I am very pleased to see that you are on my side on both of these issues and I am alarmed that an ally such as yourself has been put in a spot by non-constitutional forces, charismatic figures, and street protests. Accordingly, I have ordered the Seventh Fleet to be moved to the Gulf of Thailand immediately. You may rest assured that all street protests in Bangkok will be met with overwhelming force and all that shock and awe stuff that you see on CNN. You may wish to move to Chiang Mai for a while. Please keep up your hard work for democracy.

Your friend in need and your friend indeed,

GWB

Cha-am Jamal

Phetchaburi

----------------------------------------------------------------

It's all about the subtleties in the language of diplomacy

Re: "The caretaker prime minister's recent correspondence with world leaders", Opinion, July 13.

Thaksin's letter addressed Bush as "Dear Mr President" and signed his letter "yours sincerely". His "personal friend" George W Bush's reply began with "'Mr Prime Minister" and was signed "sincerely". Understanding diplomatic language, this says it all.

George

Vienna

----------------------------------------------------------------

Anti-FTA forces should not be considered 'progressive'

Re: "By avoiding electoral politics, the Left has lost its place at the Thai-US FTA discussions", Letters, July 13.

Michael Montesano chides FTA Watch and other NGOs - what he calls "progressive forces" - for being utopian and laments their unwillingness to engage directly in electoral politics and to offer voters not merely alternative proposals but alternative representatives in parliament. I wonder if it isn't him who's being utopian when he sees anti-free trade agreement (FTA) voices as being progressive. Even if these NGOs could get their act together and form a political party, what's to guarantee that voters would opt for their socialist policies any more than those of the socialist parties of a previous era?

Kannikar Kijtiwatchakul says ('Open debate on Thai-US FTA impossible without access to information', Letters, July 5) that she backs a self-sufficient economy "aimed at reducing dependence on export-led growth, which FTAs are designed to promote".

I thought that the debate over export-led growth was over. Most countries in the region, including Thailand, have gone through the import-substitution phase and are now in the export-led growth phase. The result has been the emergence of the economic tigers and the rise in living standards for millions.

Kannikar is correct in saying that debate over FTA negotiations can not be conducted in the absence of information.

Trade is a win-win situation, even though the stronger may win more than the weaker. But is this any reason to oppose it? Free trade raises the standard of living for the trading partners. If the FTA watchers think that things have changed since then, please tell me, for I'd really like to know.

Trirat Petchsingh

Nonthaburi

Send us your views in an instant E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to the Editor' in the subject box, to: letters@nationgroup.com