The enemy is Hamas

[Re: “Shooting fish in a barrel,” Letters, Jan. 22] Amazingly, I agree with notorious anti-Israeli Shirley Groves that Israel is responsible for the recent carnage in Gaza. Since we know (because they say so) that Hamas is determined to destroy Israel and is virulently anti-Jewish, when the first Qassam hit Israel, it should have retaliated immediately and done so with increasing intensity every time it happened. In that way, the lives of many Gaza civilians, who are too consumed by their taught hatred of Jews to understand that Hamas is far more their enemy than Israel, would have been spared.

Now that Israel has finally done what should have been done before, they should be sure that they retaliate immediately when anything bigger than a pebble is launched from Gaza to Israel or if any weapons are smuggled into the territory.

In return, assuming these conditions are met, Israel should allow as much normal commerce and importation of goods as is possible to and from Gaza, as long as it’s done under UN auspices, so the Hamas terrorist murderers of Jews and Arab opponents don’t claim credit.

Hamas of course, so dedicated to the destruction of Jewish and other civilizations, will not try the one thing they haven’t to this point. That is ceasing violence against Jewish civilians. It might just help.

Oh yes...as for Mirror‘s dislike of the proposed ban on masks at demonstrations (Insect, News, Jan. 22) may I propose the following.

The ban is on, not those wearing parody masks, but those with ski masks etc. who are almost always troublemakers. In return, the cops wear badges.

>>Ken Frankel

Israel fears negotiations

In defending Israel’s orgy of violence in Gaza, Rodney Johnson declares that a “cursory look at history shows that when at war, anything goes.”

That principle did indeed guide tyrants from Gengis Khan to Joseph Stalin. But surely a “cursory look at history” would also reveal that the Nurenberg trials and Geneva Conventions have since established well-defined norms of civilized behaviour even in warfare, and that these do not include incinerating children with phosphorous bombs or bombing UN compounds full of unarmed civilians seeking shelter.

As for Mr. Johnson’s suggestion that Hamas attempt something “called negotiation,” an equally cursory look at history would reveal that, almost a decade ago, the spiritual founder of Hamas not only offered such talks, but a long-term suspension of violence. Recognizing the wide ideological gap separating the two enemies, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin proposed a mutual ceasefire lasting 10 years and to “let future generations deal with the important issues” such as borders, Jerusalem and the right of return.

Imagine the healing and reconciliation that could have taken place with no killing on either side for 20 years. We can only imagine, because Israel chose instead to murder Yassin, as it did his successors shortly after. (That proposal, by the way, is still on the table, as is the 2000 Saudi initiative, which offers Israel peace in return for withdrawal from the occupied territories.)

Clearly, Israel fears negotiations far more than violence. Its 1982 invasion of Lebanon that killed 18,000 civilians occurred precisely after the “terrorist” PLO had observed a unilateral ceasefire for almost a year. The latest carnage in Gaza ensures no such dangerous prospect repeats itself. 

>>Patrick Bombardier

Turcot’s charm

[Re: “Life, death and Turcot,” Cover, News, Jan. 22]  So Quebec is about to spend $10.5-billion in the Southwest borough on megaprojects with nary a thought on how it affects the environment for those who live and subsist in the area.

The Turcot, despite its iconic ugliness, is a charm in its own right. Yes, it was a disaster of the ’60s, but not when viewed in the context of its time. It was macho, big, empowering, forceful, and we loved living within its midst.

I’m from Chicago, and vividly recall the move to raze that beloved “Loop” elevated train structure from the downtown area. During that time—and at present—the clickedy-clack and squeaking of the overhead trains lent a mixture of sounds to the downtown’s congested environs. Thankfully, the razing was promptly dismissed.

Instead of demolishing the Turcot because of its age and “crumbling,” it could be remedied by reinforcement and patchwork and by simply reducing the speed limit, which would result in a less destructive impact, especially from high-tonnage vehicles. A reduction in speed and hence noise would stop the Turcot from being a speedway.

>>Edward Abramic

WE WELCOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR!