› home

› current edition

› columnists

› distribution
  and outlets

› archived
  papers

› specifications

› contact details

› about us

May 06
Edition

Pages in PDF

Regular
Features

› The Fat Lady
  Sings
  with JoAnn
   Pacholli

› Front Page
  Article

› In Tents Thawt
  with Mick Pacholli

› Sid's Comments
  with Sidney
  Somerville-Smith

› The Lie Detector
  with Mitchell
   Faircloth

› Fab's Ravings

› Technology
  with Chris Jacobs

› People's Views

› Are You
  Puzzled?
  with
  Narelle Stegehuis

› Family Issues
  with
  Marilyn Brideson

› Gallery Gazing

› Planet Clare

› Lovatts
  Crossword

› Social Scene
  with Ken James

› Live Theatre
  with Blair Edgar

› Movie Scene
  with
  Charlie Alexander

› Entertainment
  with Gary Turner

› Grazing in the
  Suburbs
  with Mick Pacholli

› Fab's Travel

› Talking Manure
  with Mick Pacholli

› Furry Friends
  with
  Dr Graeme Smith

› Racing
  with Ted Ryan

› Rant & Rave
  with
  Paddles Hackett

› Bowls
  with Mick Pacholli

› Motoring
  with Garry Fabian

› Short Cuts
  Writers
  Competition

› Competitions

People's Views

Letter to the Editor from Manny Waks, Executive Officer , B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission Inc.

Dear Editor,
I’m writing in response to your article entitled “David and Goliath (or Democracy and Rule of Law vs Might is Right)” (April 2006).There are numerous points I would like to clarify for your readers.

Parochial Focus
Under the heading “Humanitarian Crisis” you parochially focus on the hardships of the Palestinian people. While there is no denying that their financial situation is in dire straits, the reason for this is more than merely to blame Israel, as Jo Ann Pacholli indeed does. 

Israel has been forced to respond to indiscriminate attacks perpetrated by Palestinian terrorists against innocent civilians. Withholding taxes from a Hamas-led government, whose intentions have been clear through their overt and unrepentant use of terrorism to promote their goals, seems like a logical action for any government to take if it cares about its civilians.

Furthermore, closing the borders ensures no easy passage for terrorists who have utilised these crossings on many occasions in order to penetrate Israeli cities to perpetrate crimes against humanity – the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians. 
Moreover, you neglect to mention the fact that the Israeli economy has also suffered immensely due to the second Palestinian uprising.

While the Israeli economy is in a much better shape than that of the Palestinians, the negative impact from the violence can only be measured when a comparison is made between Israel’s economic situation prior to the second uprising and after it.

The poverty level within Israel has substantially increased throughout this period. For instance, it has been reported that one in five Israeli children currently lives under the poverty line. Several years ago the rate was nowhere near this high.

Dubious ICJ Opinion
Using the headline “Legal Position” Ms Pacholli relies on the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) advisory position regarding the security barrier. The word that must be stressed here is advisory. Israel has no legal obligation to abide by this dubious ruling.
The reason the ICJ’s decision may be termed as dubious is due to the fact that this case seems clear-cut and the Court’s intervention reeks of political motives.

Benefit of Security Barrier
The benefit of this security barrier has been enormous in terms of saving Israeli lives. It has significantly reduced the number of suicide bombers penetrating Israel. This fact is undeniable and unquestionably justifies its very existence.

Moreover, the reduction in suicide bombing attacks in many areas as a result of the security barrier has in fact resulted in a corresponding reduction of Israeli military response in those areas, with a consequent saving of Palestinian lives. In view of Ms Pacholli’s concern for the Palestinians, one might have thought that she would be supportive of the barrier. Or would she prefer more Israeli and Palestinian deaths? 

Also, for Ms Pacholli to accuse only superpowers of acting in their own national interest is an expression of a complete lack of understanding of international politics.
All states act in their national interest; otherwise the elected government is fostering its self-demise. For instance, we may legitimately argue that the reason such a disproportionate number of United Nations resolutions have been passed against Israel is precisely because it has been in the national interest of those countries that have supported these resolutions to do so.

When they have the option between siding with the tiny Jewish state or supporting approximately forty Muslim countries, the decision seems quite simple.

Since the founding of the UN, could it legitimately be argued that Israel has been the country which has most often and most radically breached the human rights of individuals? What about China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, to name just a few? Is it political motivation? Is it national interest? There is no certain answer to this. However, to suggest that the United States bases its foreign policy on its national interest while implying that other states base their decisions on other reasons seems ludicrous.

In response to the article it is also worth noting that when countries initiate war and lose territory as a result, the victorious country has every right to hold on to those territories until it can be certain that by returning those territories it will not become vulnerable. Israel has signed peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, which in the case of Egypt included returning some conquered territory. This clearly indicates that Israel is willing to return land under a just and serious solution to the conflict. The Palestinians must first renounce violence unconditionally and the new Palestinian government must recognize Israel before any positive steps may be taken.

Finally, I found it quite ironic that Ms Pacholli suggested the Palestinians should renounce violence for “tactical reasons.” To quote your opening lines “the imperatives of this newspaper are firstly humanitarian, secondly legal…” I guess not in regards to Israel.  

Sincerely, Manny Waks , Executive Officer , B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission Inc

Advertisers

Testimonials

Email Contacts