The one, the other
No nation comes into existence or continues to exist because it has a “right to exist” (To Talk Or Not To Talk – editorial, June 2). And no nation goes out of existence because it loses the “right to exist.” Nations come into existence, continue to exist, and go out of existence based on shifting combinations of socioeconomic, political, diplomatic and military realities.
Focusing on the “right to exist” issue is not helping the Israeli cause. Hamas has recognized the current reality of Israel and is offering a truce. Regardless of whether Hamas ever recognizes Israel’s long-term right to exist, Hamas will not be a threat to the existence of Israel as long as the other factors are in favourable balance. The real danger to Israel lies in refusing to negotiate an end to the occupation.
Miriam Goldberg, North Vancouver
.........
It was remarkable to see your editorial referring to the charter of Hamas, without referring to the platform of Likud, which refers to the settlements being a “clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel.” Likud’s coalition partners show even more intransigence in accepting moves toward peace. Is it not enough that Canada has a government that supports Israel, right or wrong, that our national paper has to editorialize in this manner?
Masud Sheikh, Oakville, Ont.
.........
Hamas’s statements of accommodation with Israel are falsehoods, based on the Islamic principle of taqiyya, which permits and mandates deceiving one’s enemy. Hamas’s goal, as reflected in the recent articles in your series on the movement, is the eradication of Israel.
Hamas and Fatah will do and say whatever is required to achieve forcing Israel back to pre ’67 lines. Then, in due course, they will do everything in their power to undermine and eventually destroy Israel. In the case of Hamas, were it ready to accept Israel as a Jewish state, it must fully nullify its covenant.
Abraham Cohen, Thornhill, Ont.
.........
Israel refused to talk to the PLO until they renounced violence and recognized Israel’s right to exist (including on land from which the Palestinians were forcibly removed). Mahmoud Abbas followed those marching orders. For that, he got ongoing settlement-building in occupied areas. Hamas may have unrealistic goals, but they are not stupid.
Suleman Remtulla, Mississauga, Ont.
.........
Raccoons, humans
Lawyers for Animal Welfare (LAW) applaud the police for reacting quickly to horrifying reports that a Toronto man was allegedly beating a family of baby raccoons with a shovel-like tool (Humans Draw First Blood In Toronto’s War On Raccoons – June 2).
It’s essential Crown prosecutors pursue all cases involving animal-cruelty charges vigorously. Society must send a strong message that harming animals will be met with heavy sanctions.
Camille Labchuk, LawyersForAnimalWelfare.com, Toronto
.........
If a family of rats were infesting your backyard, would it be acceptable to use a shovel to beat them and, if so, what is the difference between rats and raccoons? Both are vermin, both are a nuisance and a danger to public health, both have populations that are exploding in urban environments. Raccoons are bigger and have pretty dark eyes, but then again, rats probably make better pets.
Of course, there are legitimate arguments about what is acceptable “culling” and what is gratuitous animal cruelty. But taking someone away in handcuffs for dealing with vermin seems ridiculous and is, by the way, human cruelty.
Stephen Gash, Mississauga, Ont.
.........
A mom raccoon recently took over a corner of our shed as a maternity ward. I was told by Toronto Wildlife services that removing her and her family was going to be costly ($400, plus $100 per baby), and she’d probably be back. Not news.
