Israel’s false friends

[Re: “The enemy is Hamas,” Letters Jan. 29] While flattered to be regarded as “notorious” by at least one supporter of Israel, I must humbly confess that I don’t deserve that compliment since I’m merely an average person expressing her views on the Middle East. True, I’ve highlighted Israel’s 40-year policy of West Bank settlement expansion, designed to prevent the birth of that Palestinian state that Israel—for PR reasons—must say it supports.

I’ve condemned the grotesque violence of state terrorists who incinerate children with phosphorous bombs, and then try to blame the victims. I opined that Israel-worshippers who whitewash its crimes are false friends of Israel, as they are only contributing to its moral decay as a Jewish state.  

I do, however, sympathize with the uncomfortable position of the self-described Zionists who choose to live in Canada, and inadvertently become living repudiations of Zionism’s core principle (aliyah)—which exhorts Jews to move to Israel. It is perhaps to compensate for this betrayal of the most fundamental precept of Zionism that compels the Frankels of this world to become mindless flag-waving jingoists.

Expressing his contempt for such arm-chair “Zionists” who support Israel’s occupation with its inevitable terror-provoking results from the safety of North America, an Israeli professor once exclaimed to me in exasperation: “What is the worst thing that can happen to them, weep in front of a television?”

Get that Kleenex box, Mr. Frankel.

>> Shirley Groves

1. The fireworks that Hamas lobs against Israel with futility are without aim or guidance and are likened to shoes thrown at Bush or to stones thrown by Palestinians. They cannot be compared to Frankel’s high-tech label of “Qassam” nor even to the crude rockets launched by the Germans against England, which were effectively directed by the rocket’s available fuel supply.

2. Hamas is not hostile toward Judaism; instead they are anti-Israel for their brutal oppression. But the Christian Right is largely supportive of Israeli policy; these are the same folks who wouldn’t want a Jew living next-door. Israeli policy is not blindly indicative of Judaism.

3. Yes, the tunnels from Egypt smuggle much of Gaza’s supplies. The Palestinians are not helped by Egypt’s rulers, but rather by its outraged citizens. The ruling Egyptians do a brisk trade with Israel and hinder, not help, the beleaguered Palestinians.

4. Incessantly, occupation begets violence. Occupation has never succeeded in world history. Currently, Israel is the world’s big and brutal occupier, and evolved to this ignoble position from being the U.S.’s Mid-East outpost for some 40-years during the Cold War.

>> Edward Abrami

Broad broadside

[Re: “Juicing for your colon,” People, Feb. 5] Until now, I have always disregarded the lameness of the terms you use in referring to your subjects (“hunk,” “babe,” “cutie” etc.) the way one would disregard a drunk peeing in a doorway on St-Laurent at four in the morning. You know, it’s gross but it’s something that just comes with life in this town. Pick your battles and all that. But this week you really have gone too far.

You refer to your most recent subject as a “broad.” What’s up with that? Why don’t you just refer to her as a “bizzo” or “biatch” or “snatch”? 

Wow. One would expect that a paid journalist would have a better understanding of the English language or, at least, show better judgement in its usage.

The term “broad” is and has always been intended as derogatory and no matter how much you may wish it were so, using it does not make your writing more interesting or “edgy.” On the contrary, it comes across as the lame grasping of an adolescent eager to seem cool.

>>David Barton

Obama and the anglos

[Re: “The Plains of Abraham Brouhaha,” Insect, News, Feb. 5] With the inspiration provided by Barack Obama’s inclusiveness as a pre-requisite of social harmony and progress, do you think that Quebec nationalists can be prodded to accept the presence and full participation of anglophones in Quebec society, historically around 15 per cent, rather than the nationalist-defined, Quebec government official verison of zero per cent. As such, the official, legally permissible proportion of immigrants allowed into the anglophone school system is zero per cent. Will we have to wait another generation?

Wouldn’t it be nice to have politicians in Quebec not search for differences among the population to stoke the fires of nationalist fervour?

>> James G. Kelly

WE WELCOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR!