Brainy writing

[Re: “Dep of darkness,” April 26] I was interested in reading Liam Durcan’s interview with Juliet Waters. Having read some neuroscience texts myself, I was always surprised at how reductive the theories seem to be. Some theories hypothesize that complex thoughts and actions are the direct results of the activation of neural networks. In neurobiology, this can be further reduced to the chemicals and molecules that result in these networks.

Durcan explains that part of his inspiration to write is the synthetic, creative process involved in storytelling. As a writer, in contrast to his life as a neurologist, he is able to construct a story without having to explain and analyze every detail. I would have been curious to read Garcia’s Heart without knowing that he was a neurologist to see if the quality of his writing hints at his professional career and its reductive nature.

>> Shirley Vinik

Surveil the surveillers

[Re: “Sleepwalking into a surveillance state,” April 26] The 17th annual Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy addresses the increasingly relevant issues of personal security and anonymity in a technologically advanced world. Paper-based systems offer an inherent level of security to the individual. However, the switch to digital storage of information and the increasing use of the Internet have led to more opportunities for individuals to reveal personal information and in a less secure medium. People are more vulnerable to intrusive surveillance than they have been in the past, which makes the monitoring of bills, such as the Lawful Access Bill, all the more important.

In the article, Michael Geist speaks of his concern with the “lack of oversight. At a time when surveillance is increasing.” If the Lawful Access Bill, or something of its kind, were to be passed, this should not happen without the strengthening of any existing oversight policies to ensure that law-enforcement agents are adhering to guidelines.

The public is becoming more and more accustomed to violations of privacy, and if this bill is a future reality, measures should be taken to ensure that individual rights are protected and that the law is not abused.

>> Philip Biel

And now…Frankel!

John Dirlik has outed me (Letters, April 26). I am indeed a hypocrite, as he claims. I love animals but I also eat some of them. I wish to hell they weren’t so tasty!

But when it comes to the Middle East, I am no more a hypocrite than he is an anti-Semite.

I do not in any way deny the Palestinian naqba (catastrophe). There is indeed no right of return of the Palestinian prisoners of their Arab brethren (called refugees commonly). U.N. resolutions call for justice for all the refugees of the 1948–49 war, including the equal number of Jews who were expelled, or had to leave, from Arab and Muslim countries as a result. The Jewish refugees have long been resettled in Israel, Canada and elsewhere (I was married to one). They have not been compensated one cent nor have they received any help from the United Nations. If we see a peace agreement in our lifetime, no doubt the Palestinian prisoners of Araby will find a home as citizens of a future Palestinian state or elsewhere, and probably get even more money from the U.N. and others who have supported their detention for 59 years now. The U.S., Canada, Israel etc. will no doubt be expected to foot the bill. Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Russia etc. will no doubt be exempt as always.

No other population has been left un-resettled for so long, anywhere, anytime in history.

The only way they will go back to Israel en masse is if Israel is destroyed by its enemies. There is no precedent for this fictitious claim to be repeated constantly by those Arabs who wish to reclaim all of Israel as faithfully as they declare their loyalty to God and his prophet. Even Dirlik should be able to understand, in spite of his hostility, that Israel might not want to accept its own destruction voluntarily.

The only U.N. resolution on the area, that the would-be destroyers of Israel never mention, is the original one in 1947, which partitioned the 20 per cent of Palestine that had not been handed to the Hashemite family in 1922, and which created an Arab-dominated area much larger than anything they are now going to get. This territory was attacked by Arab armies, and what was left after the Israeli victory was annexed by Transjordan, Egypt and Syria, to the protest of no one.

Furthermore, the refugees who became today’s prisoners largely left at the urging of Arab leaders such as the Nazi-loving Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (may peace never be upon him—feel free to read his speeches on the matter), or left, as many do, on their own initiative when war overtook their homes. And some, a minority, were indeed kicked out by the most radical Jewish armies of the day.

Perhaps Israel will welcome them back when the United States returns Texas and California to Mexico, from which they were seized, China returns Tibet to Tibetans, Canada returns Canada to the First Nations etc.

But the Dirliks of the world don’t give a shit about any of this. They just want Israel dead.

Thanks, but Israelis decline this request!

>> Ken Frankel