Israel coverage critiques

To the Montreal Mirror’s editors, and in response to Mr. John Dirlik’s letter [“Criticizing Israel,” Dec. 1]: Thank you for proving my point. Belittling recent events with falsehoods and rationalizing that the school firebombing was the result of one simple teenager’s anger, as well as equalling a riot with one broken window, show exactly the dangerous kind of thinking encouraged by the Mirror’s coverage.

The ideology that violence is an acceptable form of expression provides the support system for terror and fascism. This culture of intolerance, hatred and martyrdom has spread to many of the world’s great cities—London, Paris, Madrid and New York just to name a few.

We hope our media can provide us with relevant, factual and balanced information. I believe criticism can lead to positive developments, but, sadly, the Mirror constantly bombards its readers with irrelevant accusations and falsehoods. Examples: Jews are Nazis (“Israel... runs the Gaza Strip, described by Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling in Politicide as “the largest concentration camp ever to exist”) [Letters, “Doubting Dershowitz,” Dec. 1]; and Scott Saxon’s “Boom in the night” article [Damn Right, Nov. 10], where he writes about the Israeli Air Force “repeatedly assaulting the Palestinians with sonic booms.”

» Benji Teboul

Since I have so often criticized Mirror writers for one-sided, unfair or patently wrong items on Israel and its supporters, let me acknowledge the opposite for a change.

In “Chasing peace,” Nov. 24, Matthew Hays reports on noted U.S. lawyer and Israel supporter Alan Dershowitz’s recent Montreal speech in support of a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Although Hays seems to me to clearly indicate that he personally does not believe Dershowitz and supports much of the Palestinian position, he appeared to have attended the session and reported fairly on Dershowitz’s case. He even mentioned Dershowitz’s opposition to the war in Iraq, which is something Israeli supporters are not supposed to do.

It is nice to see such articles in the Mirror for a change, even if the author, through his “pain,” felt the need to add his remarks. Readers can form their own opinions.

» Ken Frankel

New wave explained!

Will the real new wave please stand up? The Epoxies’ Fritz M. Static has some surprising things to say about new wave, and why his band shouldn’t be associated with the term [“Oh, bondage!” Dec. 1]. I didn’t know that Sire Records’ Seymour Stein had coined the term. Actually, back in grade 8, in the winter of ’78–’79 I didn’t know a damn thing, except that Sire label was a promise of good things—Talking Heads‚ ’77, Richard Hell and the Voidoids‚ Blank Generation and Television’s Marquee Moon, to name a few.

Mr. Static’s statement that the term new wave was applied to bands like Black Flag and the Dead Kennedys certainly does not accord with my memories of that time. Those bands came to my attention a couple of years after “new wave” got old, under the heading “The West Coast Hardcore Scene.” That scene was way more nihilist and violent then even punk had been, let alone new wave. As for Steel Pulse, everyone knew that was poppy British reggae and Brian Eno was way earlier and way outside anyone else’s trends.

Johnson Cummins compares the Epoxies to X-Ray Spex and the Buzzcocks, and if the comparison holds, then old Fritz might have a point. Those bands were definitely associated with the term “punk,” coming out right on the heels of the Sex Pistols, having been directly influenced by their live shows before the signing frenzy that snatched up all the real original punk bands.

It was after the label signings and media frenzy of punk that people like Elvis Costello were influenced to get out of the “pub rock” thing, drop the country tunes and speed up the tempos. And that, right there, was what we called new wave, a space between Costello, the B52’s and the first Cars album, stealing some of punk’s energy, synthesizing the previous 25 years of pop culture, and topping it off with a self-referential world-weariness and cynicism that seemed fresh and smart at the time.

» Alec McElcheran

Bad French, belles filles

In response to Malcolm Fraser’s letter [“Anti-literacy crusade,” Nov. 20]: The Quebec language is far from a beautiful language. Look, I know he’s trying to be cool and wants to get the little Quebec chicks’ nipples hard. But the broken offspring of the French language is vulgar, and not as hot as in France. And I’m sure that most of Montreal will agree with this—or in fact anyone who speaks French.

It’s like the U.K.’s offspring language in Australia: slang, choppy, loud peanut butter talk that goes back to a load of uneducated convicts sent to an island. It’s the same as Montreal and Quebec. Though one thing is, the women here in Quebec are off the hook. Women of the King, forget about it!

» Max

Jose Quian says he saw “so many hot girls” [Letters, “Montreal Shallow and provincial!” Nov. 17]? I guess that’s why he’s so frustrated—only saw them, eh? (’Scuse the provincial term, eh.) They must have taken one look at his sorry little ass and literally said, “No way, Jose!”

» S. Maloney

WE WELCOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR!

Send your comments, compliments or criticisms to:

Letters to the Editor,
c/o Montreal Mirror,
465 McGill, 3rd Floor
Montreal, Quebec
H2Y 4B4

You may also fax us at (514) 393-3173, or reach us by e-mail:

Letters to the Editor

All letters should include your name, address and daytime phone number.

If you wish to reach someone in particular, here's a list of people involved with the production of the newspaper and this site.