Debatable data?

Ken Frankel, in his letter printed May 2, states that groups protesting against the Israeli occupation represent “a minuscule segment of Montreal’s Jewish community—well under 10 per cent.” It would be interesting to know the source of this data.

Assuming that the Montreal Jewish community is not significantly more supportive of the occupation than Israelis themselves are, Frenkel’s statement appears to be contradicted by an opinion poll published April 12 in the Israeli paper Ma’ariv. It found that 52 per cent of Israelis support the recent Saudi peace initiative, which calls for a return to pre-1967 borders in exchange for a comprehensive peace. Similarly, 52 per cent of Israelis see settlements as an obstacle to peace and between 47 per cent and 70 per cent would be prepared to evacuate some or all settlements in exchange for peace, according to a poll published in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth in late March.
Michael Benazon’s initiative to start an active chapter of the Israeli-based Peace Now movement in Montreal is a welcome one. For more information about Peace Now, and for insightful articles from the Israeli and international press about such topics as the breakdown in the Camp David and Taba talks, the expansion of settlements, and anti-Semitism vs. legitimate criticism of Israeli government actions, check out their Web site at www.peacenow.org.

—Richard Goldman

Green memories

Regarding Patrick Lejtenyi’s story, “Affluence, boats and condos” [May 2], about the massive revitalization of the Lachine Canal, I felt that very little was said about the significance of the removal of green space to make way for a marina. Weren’t green spaces sacred in this city?
I’ve biked my two kids up and down the Lachine Canal for the past five summers. The appeal of the canal was that it allowed for safe biking and rollerblading, away from the cars. It seemed accessible to all social classes with places to stop and picnic at. With that green space gone, they removed an area where you could see great blue herons, ducks, and even turtles. It was a natural setting amidst the concrete backdrop of the city.

With the arrival of pleasure boaters, I cannot see what the attraction will be for people who aren’t boating enthusiasts. Being a low-income family that has tried to be optimistic about the changes occurring along the canal, I can no longer see how these changes would benefit us.

—Giovanni Paquin

Gone to the dogs

This is in regards to the article titled “K9-clash” [May 2]. Having been involved for many years in the Association des propriétaires de chiens du Parc Lafontaine and also having acted as president of L’Univers des chiens du Parc Rouen (the association that manages the dog run) I must say that I do not agree with Ms. Toibb.

I feel that the dog runs are a success with most of their users. However, there are dog owners (and dogs) who do not like them, and prefer to walk than to be confined to a specific area, which is understandable. But I don’t believe that dog runs are unsanitary. Like everyone else, dogs can catch viruses, just like humans catch colds—the users are responsible for cleaning up.

In regards to the dog run in Lafontaine Park, I was personally against the rock surface, but, at that time, nobody else voiced any concerns. If Ms. Toibb feels that it should be something else, I suggest that she get on board the association. The Rouen Park dog run has a grass surface and every year, the members get together to take care of the terrain.
Closing the dog runs down is not the solution. Also, specific early and late times where dogs could run freely in the parks could be negotiated with the city, in order to satisfy those dog owners who do not feel comfortable with the dog runs. Let’s try not to destroy what many years of volunteer work took to finally get an overture from the city. Bourque was always very open to dog owners’ requests—we’ll see what Tremblay’s attitude will be.

—Michel Lefebvre