Les Heimann writes: Re. “Triple threat: Hezbollah versus Israel and the Islamic State” (yesterday). Tim Robertson’s blatantly biased blathering about Hezbollah, IS and Israel is yet again another piece of pro-violence against the “enemy Israel”. By unsubtle inference dismissing the fact that the terrorists hide behind women and children, the author goes on with a lot of nonsensical waffle. It is a fact that in fighting off attacks Israel must commit collateral damage. How else does one root out the cowards who hide behind the skirts of women. They don’t much care about women anyway do they?
It is also a fact that Israel is surrounded by rabid Jew haters who have repeatedly vowed to rid the world of Jews and drive all Israel into the sea. Equally, it is a fact that no organisation of Arabs are willing to acknowledge that the State of Israel has a right to exist. Every day in Israel is a risk to life and limb for every Israeli, to be perhaps blown up by a cowardly Arab terrorist. For all this Israel is blamed for belligerence, over reaction and bullying. Please.
True it is Israel seems to have shifted politically much to the right and that’s a shame, but why do the “leftist loonies” become fellow anti-Semitists simply because of this? Why not pick on Canada or Australia for that matter? No, it’s somehow easy to jump on the bandwagon of the traditional victim.
Get Crikey FREE to your inbox every weekday morning with the Crikey Worm.
Don’t patronise grannies
Dr Beryl A. Langer writes: Re. “Revolting grannies” (yesterday). Is it not possible to report on Grandmothers Against Detention of Refugee Children with respect for their serious intervention in relation to children in detention? The “revolting grannies” headline and the snide reference to a “purple rinse” revolution are ageist and patronizing. They are also somewhat dated. If you think women over 60 still have the purple rinses favored by our mothers’ generation, you should get out more!
On people smuggling
James O’Neill writes: Re. “Labor joins the bribery racket — but will the media front up?” (yesterday). Bernard, the answer to your question about the media response is to be found in Crikey’s editorial. When the agenda is set by a handful of families, and one in particular, and given that the msm are essentially instruments of the corporate powers that are the real government today, does it really matter how they respond?