Israel's right to exist.(Letter to the editor)

SIR: In Philosophy 101 (beyond which, I confess, I did not proceed) it was suggested that all analogies are suspect. Whether that is a universal truth is for others to consider, but it certainly applies to an unfortunate lapse in Paul Stenhouse's article "Standing Up to the Islamists" (September 2006).

The article provides a persuasive account of the Islamist threat to Australia, to the West in general and, not least, to Arab and other Muslim-majority states. On the other hand, in its brief references to Israel, it appears to succumb to the "[Islamic] art of propaganda and misinformation" which it deplores elsewhere. Thus this analogy: "Israeli military intervention in Lebanon to stop Shiite militia shelling northern Israel is like destroying your neighbour's home (and killing your neighbour) because burglars have taken over the neighbourhood."

Surely not. Burglars don't take over neighbourhoods. They don't even take over homes. They would always be caught if they did. Above all, burglars don't fire rockets into other neighbourhoods from behind involuntary civilian shields. That is what terrorists do, and that is what Hizbollah was doing when Israel struck back.

What alternative action by Israel does Fr Stenhouse suggest? This is presumably to be gathered from his comment that "Israel's security from shelling can be achieved only by non-military means". True enough in the long term as a generalisation, but life-and-death situations call for something more specific and, in particular, a response to two fundamental questions.

In the first place, even if nonmilitary means are necessary for Israel's security in the long term, what should it have done in the short term while Hizbollah ...