Were the good old days really all that good?

Nevertheless, as Meechai Burapa points out (Letters, Jan 6), it is wise to exercise caution in one's choice of heroes to invoke a bygone age, which would certainly not have felt so golden at the time.

Generals and Field Marshals, however well intentioned at the outset, have a marked reluctance to relinquish power once seized, imperceptibly metamorphosing into the hardened dictators of which there is no shortage of examples in the recent history of this country and its neighbour to the west.

For all its faults, the present system at least imposes some kind of accountability on those in authority, in contrast to the "good old days".

CITIZEN JANE

BANGKOK

Two states beyond the clutches of justice

What the US and Israel have in common is that they are above all international law.

Never will their political leaders, who have allegedly committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, be brought to justice before an international court, as some African and European leaders will and have.

Think of Nixon, Johnson, Kissinger, Bush Jr and Rumsfeld in the US and on the Israeli side: Perez, Sharon, Olmert and Barak in Israel, to mention but a few.

NICK

BANGKOK

What other choice does Israel have?

Despite Israel having moved its forces unilaterally out of Gaza in 2005, scores of Israelis have been killed and wounded by incoming rocket fire in the southern part of Israel over the past eight years, with long-range Grad rockets supplied by Iran now added to Hamas' arsenal. Besides rocket-battered Sderot, towns such as my own hometown Beer Sheba as well as Ashkelon and Ashdod are now also under fire.

Beyond the casualty figures, the long-term psychological damage caused as result of living under ongoing rocket threat is immeasurable. Is it conceivable that any Western country would allow its citizens to live under constant rocket attack and react purely by repeatedly asking their attackers to cease fire?

Israel has tried everything in its power to avoid a military confrontation with Hamas: one hand is always outstretched in an effort to make peace, but the other must be firm in protecting its citizens. Proof of Israel's peaceful intentions is the Fatah-led movement in the West Bank, which has been engaged in highly productive talks with Israel since the Hamas terror organisation violently ousted Fatah from Gaza.

Israel was forced into this current operation after Hamas leaders clearly declared that a six-month truce with Israel had ended on December 19th and proceeded to bombard southern Israeli communities with dozens of rockets.

The day before operation Cast Lead got under way Israel allowed dozens of trucks carrying aid to enter the Strip in a last-minute bid to avoid escalation. Defence Minister Barak approved another 100 trucks, double the normal number to enter Gaza after the operation began. Ironically it is Israel that is allowing aid into the Strip, despite the attacks on its citizens, while Egypt, on the other hand, is sealing off the crossings on its side.

Despite the "seemingly" high number of civilian casualties, images of which have been flooding the media networks worldwide and prompting mass demonstrations, Israel is going to great lengths to avoid targeting civilians in one of the world's most densely populated areas. It does so by deploying precise ammunition and specialised techniques. In fact, nobody in the world does this better than the Jewish State: Israel holds every single human life dear, while Hamas leaders have used mosques, schools and homes to hide their munitions and has now abandoned its citizens as they flee into hiding. Israel, fully aware of its force, has dispatched leaflets and text messages warning civilians to flee the fire. Is there a more humanitarian army in the world? Does Israel really have any other choice?

INES EHRLICH

BANGKOK