Letters, Oct. 24

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 24/10/2023 (740 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Disproportionate response

When Hamas breached the southern border of Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and reportedly killed over 1,300 Israelis and took over 200 hostages, western governments including our federal and provincial leaders immediately condemned the violence — and rightly so. However, in the same statements, they issued unswerving support for Israel’s “right to defend itself”. How far does this “right to defend itself” extend?

In retaliation for Oct. 7, the Israeli government cut off all water, gas and electricity to Gaza and closed its borders. The IDF has been carpet bombing Gaza, decimating its already failing infrastructure, including hospitals, food distribution centres and roads. During this time, without providing a safe corridor, over one million Palestinians living in northern Gaza were told to leave their homes and move south within 24 hours. Humanitarian organizations called for a ceasefire to allow this impossibly difficult evacuation, but the Israeli government refused.

Since Oct. 7, over 4,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed and over 1,400 of them were children. Ninety-one Palestinians in the West Bank (a non-Hamas territory) have been killed. Over 15,000 Palestinians have been injured, more than half of them being women and children.

This response by the Israeli government is utterly disproportionate. Gaza has been bombed relentlessly for 15 days straight. There is no symmetry in this “war.” What the world is witnessing now is the unprecedented slaughter of a people by an occupying force with the full support and blessings of key Western nations including Canada — who have not even called for a ceasefire.

Throwing money at this man-made humanitarian crisis will not wash our hands of this brutal genocide. By supporting the Israeli government’s current campaign against the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank, Canada will be on the wrong side of history and will have lost its moral compass.

Jennifer W. Rahman, MD

Winnipeg

Question biases

Re: Difference between government, people (Letters, Oct. 20)

In his letter on Oct. 20, Mr. Bergen rightly asks why criticism of the Israeli government is often met with the accusation of anti-Semitism. To start you are correct; criticism of a particular government is no indicator that one hates the people of that county. In Israel, being a democracy, the government faces internal criticism on a regular basis. Prior to the horrid events of Oct. 7, there were regular mass rallies about the proposed government reforms with peaceful protests on both sides of the issue. Where else in the region is speaking out against their government even tolerated?

The country is constantly being criticized externally. In many cases, not unlike any other country being criticized, that criticism is absolutely legitimate.

When that criticism becomes clearly bias is when one has to look at the root causes of that bias. In Israel’s case there is often great bias shown against the government and its citizens. Even when presented with indisputable evidence, news media, some other governments and the public at large chose to ignore that evidence and point fingers directly at the country regardless of that truth. The one Jewish state on the planet faces this bias on a regular basis.

Ironically one only need look to the UN for one of the best examples of this. Every session of the UN Human Rights Council features a standing agenda item targeting Israel. No other country in the world — not Iran, Russia or North Korea — is singled out in this fashion. From its creation in June 2006 through June 2016, the UN Human Rights Council over one decade adopted 135 resolutions criticizing countries; 68 out of those 135 resolutions have been against Israel (more than 50 per cent).

The UN’s new Commission of Inquiry against Israel, initiated by Pakistan and the PLO, is considered a travesty of justice. Despite UN rules requiring impartiality, each of three commissioners has a record of extreme anti-Israel positions.

UN sponsored schools in the region have been found to teach anti-Semitic hate. UN staff were found to be celebrating the heinous events of Oct. 7. From 2012 through 2015, the United Nations General Assembly has adopted 97 resolutions criticizing countries; 83 out of those 97 have been against Israel (86 per cent). Many of the accusations levelled by the UN are so outlandish they would be laughable if they weren’t so dangerous. All of this is well documented.

All of this is to ask why? Why is Israel, the only Jewish state in the world, one that faces an existential threat on a daily basis as witnessed on Oct. 7, sanctioned by the UN and met with the kind of bias in the media and online not often seen? The only reasonable explanation is the age-old ever presence of anti-Semitism against the Jewish people.

So yes, be critical of all governments. Hold them to account but when that criticism becomes unreasonable be prepared to scratch below the surface and ask why?

Ross Dudley

Winnipeg

Poor grade for pronoun bill

Re: Saskatchewan passes pronoun bill, invokes notwithstanding clause (Oct. 21)

In response to the pronoun bill, a law that prevents children under 16 from changing their names or pronouns at school without receiving parental consent in Saskatchewan, I would say this: If I were an adolescent in a Saskatchewan high school, I would encourage all of my classmates to change their pronouns in order to protect the few.

If I were the teacher I would post all the potential controversial books in a list that would be made available to all, stating that they must not under any circumstances read any of the books on this list because they are all about sex, and relationships, and race, and drugs, and religion and struggle.

Also, many of them have objectionable language and swearing. Posting a copy of this list on the fridge door for quick reference would be encouraged.

In unity, students and educators can most certainly outwit the “adult politician” in their game.

Anne Christianson

Winnipeg

I would like to congratulate the Saskatchewan government for turning the clock back at least 50 years with the passage of their parental rights legislation. They even had to resort to the notwithstanding clause to prevent it being overturned as a human rights violation by the federal government.

I wonder what will happen to these LGBTTQ+ young people who do not feel comfortable coming out to their parents but could confide in a school counsellor until such time as they can resolve their feelings. Many will withdraw and they could suffer serious mental depressive issues or even suicide.

It is fine to say that parents know what is best for their child, but the fact is that is not always true and often these young people confide in their counsellors BECAUSE they fear their parents’ reactions.

As a parent I would always like to feel that my children would be comfortable in coming to me with whatever issues they were trying to deal with but if they couldn’t, then I would be grateful if they could express themselves safely to someone else like a school counsellor.

These kinds of issues, like banning a book because the author’s last name is Gay, has spread from the extreme right in the U.S. and is reverting society back to a time that I thought was long over. Sadly it is not.

Alice French

Winnipeg