In distinguishing the basis of the United Nation's sanctions against Iraq with the Security Council Resolutions against Israel, reader TFP cited

as legal rationale the different mandate afforded by chapter six compared with chapter seven of the United Nations charter.

While TFP's points may get full marks on the basis of a legal argument, such arguments miss the forest for the trees. A Palestinian's full reading and appreciation of the UN charter gives him hope that he will be treated fairly. He has hopes that all the articles will be implemented in that spirit.

For one, there had been resolutions tabled against Israel under chapter seven which were supported by the majority but the veto powers of the United States in the Security Council made sure they did not see the light of day hence the watered down nothing-much-we-can-force resolutions of chapter six.

Each time, Israel gets away scot-free under the patronage of Big Brother.

At the risk of sounding naive about the realities of international law and power play, which I am not, one must still venture to bring the forest into perspective, about peace and equality among nations big and small, as stated in the UN charter.

The dark reality is simply that the UN can only mandate peace on terms acceptable to the US. The ordinary Palestinian, not well-versed with the intricacies of international diplomacy, sees only the results of international conspiracies against his well-being. His more extreme friends have gone so far as to take up personal and inhuman actions which repudiate international law and order.

These are belligerents and their actions go against the very essence of human dignity. So are the actions of his adversaries, except that those are institutionalised by legal technicalities of the nature mentioned by TFP.

The arguments set forth by TFP may be valid in the court of international law but never in the court of human conscience. And one must be reminded that international law is never really law as it is commonly understood.

As naive as this perspective may seem, it remains the driving force of many who believe in justice and fair-play.

And when more and more individuals and nations concur with this, the fallacy of TFP's argument in the context of human rights will be obvious.

I commend the UN for their strict measures against Iraq based on the country's previous belligerent action against Kuwait. Why doesn't the UN go one step further to punish the Iraqis? Isn't it time that the big powers get together to create a state for the Kurds in Iraqi territory?

After all, a precedent was set with the UN creation of the state of Israel in the middle of Arab and Palestinian land, based solely only on biblical tales. The UN can argue that Kurds have a stronger case, they have always been where they are now. And they are also victims of genocide.

Why not?

Wrong religion maybe? Not conducive to geo-politics maybe? Do I hear human rights and the UN charter? No? Maybe the Kurds don't have a strong lobby in Washington. Did I say Washington? Shouldn't it be UN Plaza, New York?