Nothing pleases the Left more than tying its automatic condemnation of America to the automatic condemnation of Israel.

In his litany of 10 reasons to shun war, John Whitelegg of the Green Party informs us that 'while Iraq is in breach of UN resolutions, this is not a reason for war. If it was then we would have to go to war against Israel'. Why so?

On the one hand the UN, driven by the Arab-Muslim voting bloc, has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than resolutions condemning any other nation for any purported offence.

In 1975 the UN reached its moral rock bottom by declaring Zionism racism - a resolution repealed in 1991 but nearly resurrected last summer at Durban.

Anyone who thinks that UN resolutions are like judicial decisions from the Hague is beyond hope. The Washing-ton Times of February 5, 2002, published an article cataloguing the history of defamatory UN resolutions against Israel.

On the other hand the resolution typically invoked by critics of Israel is the 1967 Security Council resolution no. 242, which calls for the 'withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict'. But the same resolution also calls for the acknowledgment of 'the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force'.

The resolution does not ask Israel to give back any captured territory prior to a peace treaty with its neighbours. And it does not even specify the boundaries.

Israel has, therefore, never been in breach of this resolution - the injustice of calling for the return of land captured in a defensive war in which the survival of Israel was at stake aside.

Let the self-righteous Mr Whitelegg explain to readers of the Citizen how Israel has violated this resolution, or no. 338, or any other.

While he brushes up on his history, I suggest that he also brush up on his English. His 'If it was' should be 'were' since the subjunctive mood is to be used in what is surely intended to be a contrary-to-fact conditional statement.

Robert A. Segal, Lancaster