When the Democrats took control of the Senate in the 2006 US mid-term elections, many had hoped that this would signal a shift in the reckless policies of the Bush-Cheney team.  Typically however, all talk and no action.  Worse still, one of the leading candidates for president in 2009, Hillary Clinton has done little to give anyone hope in dealing with the most crucial issue that has faced the world for decades – peace in the Palestine.  In addressing AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) she said the following; “As Americans we are humbled by Israel’s commitment to civic engagement and open debate, free expression and the rule of law.”  This statement is both shameful and deceitful.  In supporting the Israeli regime’s oppressive policies that has led to land and water theft, illegal detention of thousands of innocent Palestinians, the construction of an apartheid wall and too many other acts of inhumanity to mention, Mrs. Clinton has well and truly put all of her eggs in one basket.  How can a just peace settlement be reached when the world’s only superpower supports, both financially and politically, the rogue nation of the world - Israel?

[Editor's Comment: What a stupid, dangerous and power mongering woman is Hilary! I can only hope that Americans discriminate against her on the basis of her sex!!!!!! Saints preserve us if she ends up as President.]

In yet another wilful act, Israel has decided to undertake archaeological works at Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem, the site of the Al Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third holiest shrine.  Archaeologists have called it a routine “salvage dig”, but just like every other ‘routine’ operation Israel undertakes when dealing with the Palestinians and their land, there is only ever one outcome - a win for Israelis and a loss for Palestinians.  At every juncture, history has shown that Israel will use any means possible to undermine the fragility of the situation.  The illegal appropriation of land under the guises of ‘security’ has lead to the theft of almost half of the Occupied West Bank which is supposed to form the vast majority of a Palestinian state.  This so called “salvage dig” is an act of terrorism.  If the Palestinians were to undermine a Jewish holy site, such an act would be called exactly that.

Hicks protest walk

On 7 February 2007, John Dobinson of North Balwyn wrote:

Now the truth is out: Congress is baffled that Australia hasn't asked for the return of Guantanomo Bay prisoner, David Hicks, which means that the Australian Government has deliberately refused to have him back. Well, it's a disgrace and the Australian prime minister John Howard should hold his head in shame. He is unfit to standup for all Australians, simply because he has been found not to, and deliberately not to. Bring David Hicks home now, PM. Redeem yourself.

Invitation to walk in the park

To my fellow residents in the City of Boroondara, I invite you to join me at the reserve at the end of Balwyn Road, North Balwyn, beside the Eastern Freeway on Thursday 15th February at 6.15pm for a quiet walk to the lake and back, to show our love of freedom which every Australian values and to demonstrate by doing so that our Government must standup for all Australians and call for the immediate return of Mr Hicks. I invite all Boroondara residents and local parliamentarians.

Iraq & Cheney's upcoming visit to Oz

On 3 February 2007, Adrian Jackson of Middle Park wrote:
The Brooking Institute in the USA has recently calling the invasion of Iraq "the worst foreign policy decision in US history" (ABC, 7:30 Report). Meanwhile Bush, Cheney and their unelected department secretaries are blaming everyone but themselves for their disaster in Iraq.
From Saddam and Bin Laden initially to Iran and Syria and now they are blaming their own generals. Sorry "Dubya" Bush administration its totally your fault for invading Iraq not the US Defence Force leaders.
It is also concerning that the US "carpetbagger" and "war criminal" Dick Cheney in visiting Australia this month. State Premiers and Federal MP's should boycott his visit.
The US often call the Presidents family the "first family" but the Bush family could best be described as the "worst family" including Bush Snr, "Dubya" Bush and the former Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush.

 

Thwaites' vote reduced

On 30 January 2007, Adrian Jackson of Middle Park wrote:

Mick was correct is saying that I would not win against John Thwaites (Albert Park) in the state election (MN, Nov 06). I, like the 6 loosing candidates including the Liberal Clive Smith, know we were not going to win but my objective was to point out Thwaites's short comings, of which there are many, and reduce his support. As the only candidate who ran a local campaign I feel I was successful as Thwaites primary vote was reduced from 48% to 41% and his 2 party preferred vote was reduced from 62% to 59%.

 

The right to die with dignity

On 29 January 2007, Jim Vickers-Willis of East Brighton wrote:

Surely we have enough intelligence amongst our politicians to put
together a clear-cut bill - with every conceivable safeguard against
abuse - allowing doctors to administer an over-dose of morphine ending the suffering of the terminally ill patient who has clearly (and with suitable witnesses) requested this in writing.
The present situation would be laughable - if it wasn't so frightening
for thousands and thousands of old people. Of course, we don't want
young people committing suicide, but nothing like that is contemplated
in the Dying with Dignity legislation being suggested. We do want
people, particularly those over the age of 75, to be placed in the
comfortable position where they can terminate their life when they
consider it is becoming unbearable.
I'm age 88 and just had a book published, the title of which "The
Magic of Life" reflects the fact that I am far too busy to contemplate
dying. However, I was a Polio patient in an iron lung from which I
was lucky enough to escape. I know what it is like to lie in bed for
hour after hour, day after day and night after night, struggling to
breathe. I can understand how someone in that situation, or having to
tow a can of oxygen behind them wherever they go, may wish to end
their life with dignity rather than endure months and sometimes years
of suffering. Where there is hope of recovery it is different, but
when there is no hope it is quite ridiculous to legislate for
unnecessary suffering.

You wouldn't do it to a dog: why do it to human beings?

 

Banning smoking scenes in films

On 22 November 2006, Jim Vickers-Willis of East Brighton wrote:

I understand that in Bollywood, the centre of film-making in India,
the Government of India has banned smoking scenes in Indian films.
Our Quality of Life Association has, without success, approached the
Broadcast Control Board and the Censorship authorities urging warnings
on the screen before any films featuring cigarette smoking by the main
actors.
I am told that there is more than four times the smoking on the TV in
Australia than there is in real life. My observation is that it is
much more than that.
Is it realised that this is now probably the main reason why so many
young people are getting sucked into the deadly habit of smoking? Is
it understood that it has been shown over and over again that actors
and actresses and film producers have been bribed by the Tobacco
Industry to smoke on screen - and thus con the young ones to take up the habit apparently enjoyed by the much-admired stars?

 

What don't they want us to know about Israel?
On 25 October 2006, Sonja Karkar of Hawthorn East wrote:
VICTORIAN Liberal senator Michael Ronaldson's intention to lead an assault on SBS at the Senate estimates hearing in Parliament next week because it "lacks impartiality" in reporting political events — particularly those concerning Israel — is preposterous. That Senator Ronaldson's attack singles out Israel's war on Lebanon "as one of the most appalling examples of biased reporting" ( The Sunday Age, 22/10) raises the question: what didn't the senator want the SBS to show?
Nothing in the past 60 years has so exposed Israel to the world as its
illegal invasion of Lebanon. There was absolutely no mistaking the
viciousness of Israel's attack. For a full month, the world watched Israel decimate Lebanon as it unleashed its military might on this fledgling democracy, sparing nothing and no one. Long used to carefully controlled media reports about Israel's occupation of Palestinian land, the world was finally shocked into seeing the reality of Israel's naked aggression on a neighbouring country that no amount of public relations could repair. Israel is in damage control and we are seeing the effects of this now in Australia with the attempts to muzzle our media.
What is most perturbing is that Israel has not stopped its acts inside
Palestine. They began weeks before the war on Lebanon and have continued unabated since. But unlike Lebanon, the Palestinians are not receiving front page headlines or graphic footage on our television screens. Israel has far more control over what it allows journalists to film and report there than in Lebanon.
This means journalists must go to extreme and dangerous lengths to report and film the atrocities that Israel is committing. SBS attempted this in one commendable documentary on Gaza by Thom Cookes that, unfortunately, has not been repeated. In fact, coverage of Israel's ongoing war on Gaza in the media is practically nonexistent.
Senator Ronaldson's attempt to stop SBS from presenting a broad spectrum of current affairs to the Australian public infringes our right to know and our right to make up our own minds on what is biased and/or balanced. I suggest that his intention is not to bring balance into SBS reporting, but to stop any reporting of Israel's attacks on the Palestinians.
This latest drive to control coverage of what is happening overseas,
particularly in the Middle East, is designed to keep Australians apathetic through ignorance. It seems our Government would prefer Australians to be politically uninformed rather than rock the boat with their normally healthy scepticism about events that just don't add up.
We would expect some probing questions to be asked of Israel, just as
questions ought to be asked of the Palestinians. But we do not expect a senator to lead an attack on a public broadcaster for presenting news and commentaries that give an alternative view — or the only view of a humanitarian crisis happening in Palestine now.

In response to "Imagine if this was happening to you and your family" (Sept 06 Edition)

On 11 September 2006, Moammar Mashni of Hawthorn wrote:

I would like to thank you for your Editorial “Imagine if this was happening to you and your family” in the September edition of Metro News. As Palestinian in Diaspora, whose father had to leave his homeland for the exact reasons you outline in your article, I am comforted in the fact that someone hears our cries for mercy. Many times as I was growing up, from high school, through university and then throughout my working career, I would often face the dilemma of how to best articulate the suffering of my people. I often tried to explain to those who knew nothing about our plight as a persecuted race in the very same manner you so aptly described.
Do the people of Australia know that if you extrapolate the more than 4100 deaths in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (Population appox. 3.7 million) from September 2000 to August 2006 on a per capita basis, it would equate to 22,827 deaths of the 20.6 million people here in Australia? Further there are 1.4 million people imprisoned in Gaza which is only 360 sq km or 3888 people per sq km of land. Again, in terms of Australia, that would mean there would be 30 billion people here.
As you can see, these figures are so ridiculous it is clear why the Government and the media at large do not want the facts exposed. It is precisely because the truth is so damaging to the Israelis, that any negative comments towards them is automatically construed as anti-Semitic.
In Peace,
 

In response to "Is the West compliant, gutless and shameful?" (Aug 06 Edition)

On 17 August 2006, D Morris, East St Kilda wrote:

HI. I have read the letter of Jo Ann Pacholli. and can see that she is a lady of compassion. I do not think that she is against the Jewish people either. She does say that Hezbollah was born with the creation of the Jewish state. Does one tiny little homeland not have the right to co exist in peace. Remember what happened to the Jewish people in Europe in the the second world war. Secondly the Hezbollah hiding amongst the Lebanese people and sending their rockets into Israel from different places in Lebanon. Why don't the so called peaceful Arab nations put a stop to this. How can Israel live in peace if they are fired on and targeted all the time.
 

In response to "Is the West compliant, gutless and shameful?" (Aug 06 Edition)

On 11 August 2006, Fay Waddington of Wooloowin Brisbane wrote:

I live in Queensland so became aware of your article through an E group called "Women for Palestine" based in Melbourne.
Thank you for making a stand. I wish your circulation was much broader than the 70000 mentioned. What sort of reaction have you had from the local readers?
I wish your article could be repeated in major capital city publications but I suppose that is wishful thinking when one takes into consideration the power of the Zionist lobby and the gutless excuses for journalists who work for the likes of Murdoch ( I presume your local paper is not in the Murdoch stable or else you are looking for a retirement package).

No obligation to commit suicide

On 8 August 2006, Michael Harari of Caulfield North wrote:

My family has lived for hundreds of years in the Middle East, in all likelihood going back to biblical times. My grandparents were born in the late 19th century in Jerusalem, Beirut, and Damascus. My parents were born in Cairo. We are Egyptian, Lebanese, Syrian, Palestinian, and Israeli Jews. I am truly a part of every death that takes place in Lebanon and in Israel and I cringe and quake at the images on my television. But I am struck at the often mendacious and bigoted chorus of columnists and letter writers howling at the alleged outrages of the Israeli State.
In 1948 Israel was born out of a genocidal war aimed at annihilating every Jewish man woman and child. The stillborn Palestinian state alongside it was accepted only by Israel and rejected by all its surrounding neighbours. Since then Israel has fought numerous wars for its own survival.
Now, that survival is again at stake. Israel did not want this war. It vacated every inch of Lebanon in 2000 with an acknowledgement from the UN that it had resolved all border disputes and that Hezbollah must disarm.
Hezbollah has since cosseted itself in the skirts of the civilian
population of S Lebanon, armed with 14,000 rockets aimed at Israel. It follows a theocratic genocidal ideology that Israel must be wiped from the map, if necessary by killing every Jewish man, woman, and child.
The international rage currently vented at Israel might have had some credibility were it matched by a fury against Hezbollah over the last 6 years as it built up its arsenal aimed solely at Jewish civilians. The abhorrence displayed at the death of children in the conflict would have had even more poignancy had it been matched by a disgust at what Hezbollah would have achieved if left unchecked.
This is not a cycle of violence. This war has a clear beginning provoked by those proudly striving to kill as many Jews as possible, and a clear response, to thwart that aim. Though heartbreaking, it is dishonest to interview the Lebanese victims of war, or grieving colleagues of UN observers, without showing that rockets have been launched at Israeli civilians literally metres from their now destroyed homes and watchtowers. It is dishonest to portray Israel as having military might without explaining that such might is necessary to protect its civilians from annihilation. And it is dishonest to portray Hezbollah as a ragtag force when it teems with sophisticated weaponry provided by malevolent regional governments.
Hezbollah's provocation was to kill and capture Israelis while assembling and often using a murderous arsenal. If Israel's response is disproportionate, then one must assume that Hezbollah represents a trivial threat. If so, why have the Lebanese army, the international community and now Israel itself not been able to dislodge it from S Lebanon or prevent its attacks on over a million Israelis? Perhaps the provocation is not as small as is being portrayed.
Israel is fighting against those who have Hitler's agenda and aspire to Hiroshima's weapons. Few commentators have suggested what else Israel could do when faced with genocidal intent and an army of willing "martyrs" hiding behind civilians. The solution is not for Israel to more accurately aim its bombs, but for its enemies to remove genocide from their agenda. Israel has an obligation to look for peace where it can, and otherwise fight its wars as humanely as possible. It has no obligation to commit suicide.

Lack of balance and bias

On 8 August, Daniel Aghion, Public Relations Officer, Jewish Community Council of Victoria wrote

I write to commend you for your paper's decision to debate the current crisis in the Middle East. However, I must condemn the lack of balance and bias in your presentation. Of the eight articles published, only two promoted Israel's point of view. The remainder were harshly critical of Israel. The largest and most prominent article, being a full page editorial penned by yourself, was loaded with hyperbole and invective.
Of course, as an editor, you are entitled to express your opinion on an
issue such as the Middle East conflict. You may even do so strongly. My complaint is the selective factual analysis underlying your editorial. You expressly did not mention the following:
* Although you referred repeatedly to the Israeli attacks upon Lebanon, you did not once mention in your editorial that Hezbollah has been raining up to 300 missiles a day on northern Israel, more than 3,000 since the war started.
* Although you twice referred to Israel "shooting down" Lebanese civilians "as they flee in terror" (which itself is inaccurate - there is no evidence of Israel deliberately attacking civilian movements), at no time did you mention the mass evacuation of Israel's north as Israel's citizens flee in terror from Hezbollah's mass bombing campaign.
* You used the pejorative words "slaughter", "obscenity" and "savagery" in relation to the Israeli attacks in Lebanon, but did not once mention the indiscriminate nature of the Hezbollah attacks upon northern Israel and its cities. The difference between Israel and Hezbollah, might I suggest, is that Israel is targetting terrorists who have hidden themselves among the civilian population, whereas Hezbollah is just targeting civilians.
* Although you referred to Hezbollah as "a Lebanese resistance movement", you did not explain that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation proscribed as such by the European Union, the United States and Australia, and is the subject of a United Nations resolution requiring that it be disarmed.
* Although you referred to a ceasefire as a humanitarian action, you did not once mention that Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south are sworn to Israel's destruction, and that both of those organizations reject a peaceful solution that involves Israel's existence in any form whatsoever. Perhaps you might like to suggest how one negotiates a ceasefire with an entity whose starting premise is your own destruction.
* Your description of Hezbollah as a "Lebanese resistance movement" ignores the fact that the war commenced by a command force of 100 well armed and trained Hezbollah operatives entering Israel, attacking a military vehicle travelling inside Israel's undisputed borders, then opening fire on the subsequent Israeli rescue mission, before returning to Lebanon having killed five soldiers and captured two. What exactly were Hezbollah resisting, I wonder? It can not have been Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon, as that cased almost six years ago. It can only have been Israel's continued existence as a nation.
* You did not mention that Hezbollah have been implicated in the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1994 (killing 85), an American military installation in Beirut in 1983 (killing 241), and numerous suicide bombings, terror attacks, assassinations and murders inside Israel (some 25 attacks alone in the 6 years since Israel withdrew from Lebanon). Perhaps one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but your readership are entitled to know the facts so that they can decide for themselves into which camp Hezbollah falls.
Perhaps you could restore some balance to your paper's presentation of the Middle East conflict by publishing this letter?
 

In response to “David and Goliath (or Democracy and Rule of Law vs Might is Right)” (April 2006)

On 30 May 2006, Nasser Mashni of Hawthorn wrote:

I am at an absolute loss to describe my anger at the absurd overuse of Israeli military power in Gaza, Palestine and Lebanon. Bombing and
destroying the only power station for 1.4 million residents of Palestine,
bombing the only international domestic airport in Lebanon. These are the actions of a recalcitrant regime and reminiscent of the blitzkrieg tactics used by the Nazi's.
You would think the Jewish people would have more humanity. The Israeli governments actions and the Israeli publics silence renders them all complicate in these modern day crimes against humanity.
Some facts for your attention;
(i)   Palestinians killed between 28 June-13 July = 97
(ii)  Palestinians injured between 28 June-13 July = 242
(iii)  Israelis killed between 28 June-13 July = 2, including 1
      soldier killed by friendly fire in the Gaza Strip
(iv) Israeli soldiers captured = 1 in Gaza Strip
(v)  Artillery shells fired by Israeli tanks, 28 June-3 July = 584
(vi) Artillery shells fired by Israeli gunboats, 28 June-4 July =  6
(vii) Air strikes conducted by Israel, 28 June-12 July = 120
(viii) Homemade rockets' fired by Palestinians towards Israel, 28
       June-12 July = 127
 

In response to “David and Goliath (or Democracy and Rule of Law vs Might is Right)” (April 2006)

On 30 May 2006, Doron Ur of Melbourne wrote:

JoAnn Pacholli affirms that despite the barrier ( some of which is a wall) is vulnerable.
Offcourse it is vulnerable since it is facing a foe who declares that Arab strength is that life is of less value than heroic death.
But some basic truths must be reaffirmed to counter the fundamental propaganda lies:
The Romans changed the name of Judea to Palestina nearly two thousand years ago to spite the Judeans, the Jews. There were no Arabs then on earth. For twenty centuries the world called the whole land of Israel: PALESTINE and the Jews were the Palestinians. The Arabs arrogated the name for propaganda.
In 1947 at the United Nations, the Jews and Israelis agreed to sacrifice more of their land for "an Arab Palestine" ( they had large Jordan sliced off by unilateral British fiat)
The Arab delegations threatened a cruel conflict and blindly rejected the birth of their 23rd. State, the Arab Palestine.
The British White Paper of 1937 mentioned the fact that due to the benefits flowing from the social and health structural improvements produced by Jewish immigration, Arabs also flowed into Palestine. Thus it appears that most of the Arabs had not resided there through history.
There are many more such falsehoods which ought to be rectified. Essentially it is imperative to recall that each negotiated arrangement, including Oslo, was ruined by some suicidal murderer, bus destruction, airplane hijacking or other act of animosity which invited Israeli retaliation.
 

In response to “David and Goliath (or Democracy and Rule of Law vs Might is Right)” (April 2006)

On 8 May 2006 Bella Ceruza of Blackburn wrote:

Congratulations for publishing Manny Waks' article (Metro, May ).
Despite having received greater international aid per capita than any other group in history, as Pachiolli wrote, many Palestinians continue to live in squalor (Metro, April). As the programme ‘Arafat’s Millions’ (Channel 9) showed, the aid has been syphoned into arms and Arab leaders’ personal coffers. Last year, when Israelis forfeited Gaza, a group of Jewish American philanthropists purchased thriving businesses for the benefit of incoming Palestinians. However their leaders incited them to burn the hot houses that should have been used to continue Gaza’s thriving flower trade.
By contrast to the squalid conditions for Arabs who left Israel in 1948, those who stayed in Israel continue to benefit from Israeli social welfare and live in a liberal democracy wherein they vote and are represented by Arabs in the Israeli Parliament.
As Waks wrote, the security barrier would be unnecessary if terrorists did not constantly try to enter Israel to target civilians. The barrier has markedly reduced their success, thus reducing fatalities on both sides.
To repeat the obvious, if the Palestinians laid down their arms, there would be a peaceful two state solution, but if the Israelis stopped protecting themselves, Israel would disappear and the Jews would be driven out. Congratulating you again for your publication’s ethical journalism.
 

In response to “David and Goliath (or Democracy and Rule of Law vs Might is Right)” (April 2006)

On 26 April 2006, Manny Waks, Executive Officer, B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission Inc wrote:

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.

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.

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. 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.