Iraq, Arafat and others

What will my Muslim soldier son face on his return from Iraq?

What will my Muslim soldier son face on his return from Iraq?

Sir: I am a British Muslim citizen of Bangladeshi origin. My 19-year-old student son is in the London Regiment as an infantryman and now serving in Iraq. He responded willingly when he received his call-up notice from the Territorial Army.

As parents we were, like many others in this country, deeply dismayed by the way Bush and Blair dragged us into this conflict. Now the people of this country have to count the cost both in human and financial terms of going to war. The fact that our son is sharing with great British people this intolerable burden also gives us some pride that at least he is paying back a little on behalf of his parents by risking his own life.

Before his deployment in Iraq last May we had many agonising discussions about the legality of this invasion, which is so manifestly unjust and unprovoked. As we wait each passing day for news from Iraq with nervous anticipation there is also another reality gradually dawning into our consciousness, namely the image status of Muslims in this country which is probably tarnished beyond repair as a direct fallout of the Iraq war.

If our son survives the perils of war and returns home, what kind of future lies ahead for him? In addition to being shunned by his own community will he also have to suffer discrimination for being a British Muslim?

SYED HOSSAIN
London W6

Arafat, murderer or man of peace

Sir: If you can find a single achievement towards peace - something concrete, something that showed respect for Jews and for Israel - please take the opportunity to talk about it on the pages of your journal. I believe Arafat's entire life's work was driven by hatred. Like other Israelis, I looked hard at everything the man did (not said - but did) for signs that behind all the vicious rhetoric he actually wanted peace. I never found it.

My teenage daughter died as an innocent victim of an elaborate act of cold-blooded murder at the hands of Arafat-inspired terrorists. This was an act which the man himself could have prevented (I speak with some authority on this) but explicitly decided not to. You'll forgive me, and millions of other rational people who love peace and harmony, who focus on what Arafat's life actually achieved - hell on earth, and especially for his own people.

ARNOLD ROTH
Jerusalem

Sir: We Palestinians mourn the enduring symbol of our nationalist cause. To us, Yasser Arafat was the most outspoken advocate for the redemption of our homeland, whose presence might have a catalytic effect upon the advancement of a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

He persistently stated that Israel had no justification for imposing harsher restrictions on the entire Palestinian population, causing suffering and death to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people. He stood up to Israel's racist policies of economic pauperisation, illegal outposts, expansions on annexed Arab lands, curfews and checkpoints that marked nearly every Palestinian's daily life for decades. He excoriated the US foreign policies, and its political juvenility, and the Western powers for their unequal treatment of the violence and unwillingness to give a serious hearing or often any hearing at all to the Palestinian grievance.

And to moderate Israelis, Arafat gave hope through his acceptance of the principle of peaceful co-existence in 1988 and concluding the Oslo peace accords in 1993.

Dr MUNJED FARID AL QUTOB
London NW2

Sir: The greatness of a leader is not just in his achievements but in the obstacles he has had to overcome.

When Yasser Arafat began to be noticed at the end of the 1950s, the name of Palestine had been eradicated. Israel, Jordan and Egypt had divided the country between them. Yasser Arafat had to function in Arab countries who were intrinsically hostile to a Palestinian state and he was thrown into prison by the Syrian dictator of the time. He had to become a master of manipulation, playing Arab leader against Arab leader initially, and then struggling with the Israeli/American axis that was determined to promise but never fulfil its word, while on the ground Israel expanded, its coffers swollen by US grants which exceeded all the aid the US spent on the rest of the world.

Yasser Arafat persuaded his people, who had lost their land and livelihood and often lives of loved ones to the Israelis, to accept 22 per cent of the land that was rightfully theirs, and he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. The tragedy has been that, as Arafat came closer to a peaceful solution, the Israeli government always withdrew from it. It will be interesting to see if Ariel Sharon will now engage in meaningful talks with a new Palestinian leader, although it is most unlikely he will let democracy take its course and allow the Palestinians their natural choice of leader in Marwan Barghouti, now languishing in an Israeli jail.

SARA WOOD
London NW3

Labour talks up Tories

Sir: It's true that Labour has lost a lot of support since the last general election ("Even without Tory revival, Blair can lose out", 8 November). Since January 2001, Labour is down more than 12 per cent and this change has been entirely to the benefit of the Liberal Democrats. In the same period, average Lib Dem poll ratings have gone up 14 per cent, while the Conservatives have fallen back 1.5 per cent.

But the evidence of four parliamentary by-elections in the last 14 months shows it is wrong to conclude that voting Liberal Democrat will help the Conservatives. In each of these campaigns, the Conservatives started in second place and finished third or fourth while the Liberal Democrats won twice and nearly won the other two.

The reality is that the Conservatives are scarcely in the competition for Westminster seats in Scotland and Wales, the northern cities and most of urban Britain. It is a sign of Labour's alarm and desperation - as well as the weakness of their arguments - that they are reduced to trying to talk up non-existent Tory prospects.

CHRIS RENNARD
Chief Executive, Liberal Democrats
London SW1

Sir: You report that an 8.5 per cent swing from Labour to the Liberal Democrats, along with an abandonment of tactical voting, could lead to huge numbers of Conservative gains resulting in a hung parliament. However, despite Peter Hain's claim that "a Labour vote for the Liberal Democrats lets the Tories in", we see that even this sharp swing would still leave Labour as the largest party in Parliament, albeit without an absolute majority.

What this would mean would be that the Conservatives would still be in opposition and that Labour (and Tony Blair) would still be in government. What would change is that the worst excesses of Blair's policies would be tempered by a need to keep Labour's coalition partners, presumably the Lib Dems and the left-leaning SNP, on side. What Mr Hain doesn't appear to realise is that this is precisely the scenario that would most please those former Labour voters who are considering giving their vote to the Lib Dems at the next election.

SIMON GRAYSON
London SW14

Science publishing

Sir: Your item on scientific publishing ("Anger as ministers block science publishing shake-up", 8 November) is welcome, but fails to bring out the main problem.

When I was editor of a journal belonging to a scientific society my job, with the support of the membership, was to supply a flow of edited, refereed papers. We then had an arrangement with a commercial publisher such as Elsevier which handled printing, marketing and distribution. The result was the major source of income for the society. The Biochemical Society walked away from Cambridge University Press some years ago and became its own publisher: as a result it now has assets of several million pounds.

The new proposals are a serious threat to the income of many of our scientific societies, and this money would have to be replaced from somewhere. If not, many of them would probably disappear.

Dr MICHAEL TOMBS
Bromham, Bedfordshire

Buttiglione's bias

Sir: Peter Popham (8 November) repeats the myth that Rocco Buttiglione was somehow hounded out because he said homosexuality is a sin.

This is not true. Together with most of the other MEPs who raised both our eyebrows at his proposed appointment as the new Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner, I respect the right for him to hold those personal views. Politicians must be judged on their actions, not just their words, and that is what MEPs did.

In front of the European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee, to which he would have been answerable, Buttiglione failed to explain to me why he proposed an amendment to delete "non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation" from the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights. Given that he then confirmed he would oppose any proposal "contrary to my moral principles", the European Parliament was right to be very concerned.

Private opinions or religious beliefs should not bar someone from taking office, but MEPs could not ignore what Buttiglione has done in the past and what he said he would do in the future. Mr Barroso was right to reshuffle his team and I hope to work with the new commissioner on protecting and extending the rights of all people in Europe, regardless of their gender, age, race, sexuality or religion.

MICHAEL CASHMAN MEP
(Labour, West Midlands)
West Bromwich, West Midlands

On the buses

Sir: I was interested in the report about the axing of Greyhound bus services in the US (10 November). In July of this year, my husband and I wanted to go from Toronto to Chicago. Wishing to see the countryside, we rejected the idea of air travel and had hoped to go by train. Unfortunately, Amtrak had axed the direct service between the two cities and their only service ran via Buffalo, taking 23 hours.

Greyhound, however, ran a service which involved changing at Detroit, and which took 11 hours in total, including a change of buses, the border checks and a half-hour comfort stop. It was a delightful, comfortable journey, with friendly, helpful staff and interesting, sociable travelling companions.

What a shame that the company is, apparently, cutting off its nose to spite its face.

VAL HARRISON
Birmingham

Sir: Has Katherine Griffiths actually tried travelling on a Greyhound bus? They are horrible: cramped, uncomfortable, and full of the poor and weird, not to mention being very expensive.

By contrast the national services here in Mexico are very reasonably priced, late-model buses (not like Greyhound's cattle-cars) complete with video and onboard toilets, and often with recliners.

Greyhound deserves to die and be replaced with something better.

CLIVE WARNER
Monterrey, Mexico

Wild brotherhood

Sir: Your leading article (9 November) about the Gypsies (as an ethnic group they deserve a capital initial, though some of them might prefer to be called Roma) is heroic. They are one of the world's ornaments, the great mysterious wandering race, the eternal survivors of sheltered people's envy and suspicion. If I could offer them my back garden or the field next door as a waystation I would.

GUY OTTEWELL
Uplyme, Dorset

Lost in translation

Sir: In your coverage of the funeral of the Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh, the translation of the placard caption is incorrect. "Alleen denken - dat nooit" is not "never think" but "just thinking, never" implying that people should speak out and not just bottle up their thoughts.

ANN SWALEF-ENGLANDER
Baarn, The Netherlands

Welsh export

Sir: So Rosemary Speare does not like Celtic politicians (letter, 11 November). Are there any other races she wants to get rid of as well? Prejudice is never nice especially when coupled with ignorance - for her favourite "English" politician, John Prescott, is from North Wales.

BRIAN JONES
Leeds

Ivory Coast mandate

Sir: F Sipes (letter, 11 November) wonders why there is no outrage regarding French forces on the Ivory Coast. To keep it simple, France has a UN mandate to keep civil war forces apart; America didn't have a UN mandate to invade Iraq.

HORST KLUSMEIER
Braintree, Essex

The male of the species

Sir: With respect to Dr Jack Priestley (letter, 6 November), the one thing Ataturk, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot had in common was that they were all men.

K TURNER
Kidderminster, Worcestershire