Checkpoint viewpoints

Eric Scott did not give an answer to Messrs. Samuel, Hage, Hogarth and Ramsey’s straightforward question about the Palestinian right of return [Letters, Sept. 4]. He gives examples of such rights in Germany and the United Kingdom, ignoring the fact the neither country is building settlements and dispossessing a large indigenous population. He then mentions the partition of Pakistan and India, perhaps implying that two wrongs make a right and that the evils of 1947 somehow justify what is happening today.

I certainly understand Scott’s reluctance to answer the authors’ question clearly. For a self-avowed Zionist like himself to publicly deny the Palestinians right of return while accepting that same right for Jews would be to clearly acknowledge the immoral foundation of Zionism itself, which is based on the dispossession of millions of people. On the other hand, accepting the right of return for Palestinians would be a negation of the Zionist state with the ideology of racial/religious purity that defines its very identity and justifies its differentiated and racist treatment of the Palestinians living in Israel.

So I agree with the four authors when they say that Scott’s so-called self-examination is superficial. What Israelis and their supporter should examine is Zionism itself and not indulge in some feel-good, softcore, exercise concerning simple symptoms such as checkpoints. This only reinforces the beleaguered illusion Zionists have of their own moral superiority, which in turn serves to further justify the occupation. I also understand the motivations behind Scott’s film—Zionists are increasingly becoming faced with the moral self-contradictions of their ideology. Supposedly a way of giving a persecuted people a home, Zionism could only work by persecuting another people and taking away their land.

Fundamentally, Zionism is not based on some universal ideal of Justice, but on a tribal ideal of violence against the other as the way to achieve objectives for oneself.

» Ralph Hajj

Kudos to Eric Scott for having the level head to respond to Messrs. Samuel, Hage, Ramsay and Hogarth’s reaction to the article on his documentary Checkpoint. Their letter was foaming at the mouth and insipid—a combination that so often goes together. I myself did not know how to respond to an aggressive, thoughtless outlash of that calibre.

In terms of pro-Palestinian “activists” whose own personal background includes the Hindu-Muslim tragedy—let us add Jaggi Singh—I have these words to relay, courtesy of 10th-century Jewish-Arab poet Abraham Ibn Daud Halevi: “It is good to water someone else’s garden, but it is even better to water your own.”

» Natalie R. Kershaw

Cats, dogs and theatre critics

Upon reading your theatre section last week I was dismayed to see that journalistic standards have reached an all-time low at the Mirror—the article “Release the Hound” [Theatre, Aug. 21] was written by none other than Amy Barratt’s dog, Clancy!

As the resident cat of the Optative Theatrical Laboratories, I have difficulty understanding why you would allow a dog to publish, especially on the important topic of theatre. We all know that dogs, even at the best of times, are not very informed or intelligent. Barratt’s dog is obviously a couple of slices of bread short of a sandwich. Clancy’s analysis of the past theatre year failed to mention the important and innovative projects; all this dog did was regurgitate glossy regional-theatre brochures. Same as his master, come to think of it…

To no one’s surprise, the mutt missed the obvious highlight of the theatrical calendar: the Lysistrata Project. In a global act of theatrical solidarity against the U.S. invasion of Iraq, on March 3 over 1,000 readings of the ancient Greek anti-war play were held in 59 countries and all 50 states, raising more than $100,000 U.S. for peace-oriented charities. In Montreal the theatre community, in a rare act of solidarity and collaboration, staged eight readings in both languages. The Lysistrata Project, that Clancy is so oblivious to, garnered the attention of NPR, CNN, PBS, CTV, CanWest-Global, Newsweek, The New York Times, and once the AP got hold of it, nearly every newspaper and television station in the U.S.A. It captured the imagination of an activist generation, uniting the globe in theatrical solidarity. Clancy must have been preoccupied with the Alpo commercials.

By the way, Kathryn Blume, co-founder of The Lysistrata Project, was in Montreal to perform The Accidental Activist on September 10.

I hope Amy reads this and gets out to attend some of the amazing theatre that falls outside of her standard glossy formula. Clancy is welcome too—even though he might not be able to detect (or discuss) the magic or fine nuances of the theatre, it sounds like he does need a good, long walk.

» Dr. Ropes, Cat-in-Residence, Optative Theatrical Laboratories

Hey, Amy Barratt, towel off. That Gravy Bath is giving you pruny skin, you’re getting older. I understand the need to promote theatre that isn’t solely subscriber fare, but take a look around you, there are other things happening. That’s like three weeks in a row you’ve yabbered on about how great Gravy Bath is. What about the theatre at La Salla Rosa? What about the French side? What about any risk-taking whatsoever? Please, your dog? It’s insulting.

» James Giacomontonio

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@mtl-mirror.com

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.