Letters  

Dear Republic:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has unequivocally chosen the massive killings as the most “principled” response [to Hezbollah's actions], and he is waving Canada’s flag while broadcasting that message on the international stage. He uncaringly dismisses the civilian deaths as unintentional. The deaths may have been unintentional, but they were 100 percent predictable considering the scale of Israel’s “measured” retaliation.

Israel’s actions are very similar to setting off thousands of [terrorist] bombs in a large city like Beirut. The intent might be to make a “principled” statement for peace and freedom, but the result is predominantly civilian deaths, misery, and escalating hatred. Canada shouldn’t have any part of it.

—Graham Gerry, Quesnel BC

Dear Republic:

Re "One fact sits unmolested in the centre of the Middle East storm,” Republic, issue 144: The conundrum of trying not to take sides in any discussion about the interminable Middle East conflict can be addressed thusly. Rather than taking sides, either by intent or default, one can choose the third option, which is peace.

But it is important to understand that there is only one way real peace can be achieved between two opposing factions, and that is when both sides truly want peace. It appears that that point has not been arrived at in the Middle East, hence the on-going war.

Sadly, history has few examples of true peace being achieved, wherein both sides have suffered enough that they both capitulate to each other. Examples of one side capitulating, such as when atom bombs were dropped on Japan, helping to end the Second World War, are easier to find, but such peacetimes are almost always temporary, since the victimized party sooner or later wants revenge.

Mankind's desire for war continues to outweigh his desire for peace, and the cycle of violence, destruction, and incalculable misery is perpetuated. When will we learn?

—Charles Leduc, Vancouver

Dear Republic:

On 29 November 1947, two-thirds of the General Assembly of the UN voted for the partition of Palestine. Mr Potvin's way of describing this "one firm fact" is "a nation was planted where another already existed." There was not, however, a Palestinian state in 1947. The country was a protectorate of Britain, having been pried from the Turkish Empire in 1918. So Mr Potvin's "firm fact" should be rephrased: "the coexistence of two free nations was planted where a subservient population had existed for many generations."

—Frank Nugent, Vancouver