Skip to content
Click on cover to enlarge
Letters

July/August 2005

«  page 2 of 4  »

Published in the July/August 2005 issue.  » BUY ISSUE     

          Facebook         Stumble      Get The Walrus on your Blackberry or Windows Mobile        RSS


David Berlin suggests that perhaps 100,000 Israelis will pour into the occupied territories to prevent the dismantlement of settlements, and warns of civil war. However, he touches on a more likely and more devastating possibility. Mr. Berlin describes graffiti he saw in one settlement that reads “Gas The Arabs,” and also the tribute paid by Israeli settlers to the murderer of twenty-nine unarmed Palestinians at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron in 1994. He might have added that Palestinian homes and farms have routinely been razed in the decades under Israeli occupation, while Palestinians are euphemistically described by cabinet ministers as a “demographic problem.”

These messages are part of a troubling, and apparently growing, strain within the Israeli zeitgeist. If the protesters predicted by Mr. Berlin turn their wrath on Palestinians, what will happen? The victims of the conflict he fears may well be Palestinian, not Israeli. While it has claimed lives, internecine Israeli political violence is not as grave a concern as the danger faced by millions of Palestinians.
Neil Katz
Brooklyn, New York

We Are Not Amused
Robert Mason Lee’s article serves up a confection of pseudo-psychological cultural analysis and snide commentary focused on the personal failings of members of our royal family (“Royal Cock-up,” May). What matters more than the exaggerated foibles of admittedly imperfect individuals is the institution of constitutional monarchy itself, which serves as a powerful icon of national identity. If we must focus on personalities, how curious that Lee finds nary a word for Charles’s good works, including his seminal role as a founder of the Prince’s Trust, which helps inner-city youth, and his place as one of the few respected interlocutors between Islam and the Western world. But why bother with facts, when soaps rate so high?
John Aimers
Dominion Chairman, The Monarchist League of Canada
Toronto, Ontario


Clear-cut?
Patrick Lane writes that while a forest fire returns carbon to the soil, clearcut logging removes the trees that are the source of that carbon (“The Forest’s Edge,” May). This is misleading. When wood burns, carbon stored as cellulose is released as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The ash that remains does enhance initial forest growth, but this is mainly due to the nutrients in that ash, not the carbon in the charcoal that remains. While more could be done to address nutrient retention after clear-cutting, plants obtain their carbon needs largely through photosynthesis, not forest fires as Mr. Lane suggests. He also writes that species of trees are planted according to which species is likely to return the greatest profit—when, in fact, species are chosen for their suitability to the site, not their profitability.

At the heart of Mr. Lane’s essay is the implication that the managers of British Columbia’s forests are a heartless band of corporate robber barons, their slavish minions plundering the forests for profit. My professional forester colleagues and I chose our careers not for the fabulous wages we would earn, but for love of the outdoors and the forests we made our living from. Serious problems still exist, including the vast number of forestry roads and the penetration of wilderness areas. These are important issues that need to be discussed. Simplistic and erroneous articles such as Mr. Lane’s do little to contribute to this discussion.
Jay Hallett
Winnipeg, Manitoba

Patrick Lane responds:

Comments

Comment on this article


Will not be displayed on the site

Submit a comment online

Submit a letter to the Editor


    Cancel

The Walrus E-Newsletter

Online exclusives, events, offers:
get news of everything Walrus.


Article Tools

»    RSS Feed     

»  Printer-friendly page

»  Email this article

»  Comment on this article

»  More in this issue

»  More in Letters

»  BUY THIS ISSUE