Letters: Middle East

Middle East: who are the oppressors and the oppressed?

Sir: I have few equals in my admiration of the nous and wit of Howard Jacobson, but he makes a great mistake in castigating Robert Fisk's comments about the tragedy of dispossession (1 September).

It is precisely because the Jews have returned to a longed-for homeland that they are a different case, and, even more poignantly, are treating the Palestinians as they were once treated themselves. Robert Fisk must surely be the expert journalistic voice when it comes to the consequences, direct and indirect, for the region and the world, of this mistreatment.

Terry Walsh

Rochester, Kent

Sir: Of course Jews have the right to a homeland in Israel-Palestine – although the majority, like Howard Jacobson, prefer to find a homeland elsewhere. Jews, like the Palestinians, Brest-Litovsk Poles or Silesian Germans–we might add the Roma, Sikhs, Navaho Indians or Ethnic Fijians – all have the right to a homeland. The issue is whether they have the right to a state maintained at the expense of others.

If white Anglo-Saxon Protestants were to insist on England as a state over which they would be permanently dominant and set out to achieve this by exiling or marginalising those outside their ethno-religious grouping, then Howard Jacobson would be the first to protest. Fisk is right. Only in the case of Israel do we become misty-eyed enough to justify the unjustifiable.

The Rev Duncan Macpherson

Hampton, Middlesex

Sir: Howard Jacobson wants us to believe there is no difference between dispossessed Jews and dispossessed Palestinians. The sad difference is, of course, that dispossessed Jews have become the dispossessors of Palestinians. There is nothing suspect in putting greater emphasis on present suffering and injustice, about which something might be done, than on the suffering of the past, however real.

Georgina Baidoun

Milton Keynes

Our final betrayal of the Iraqis

Sir: After campaigning for four years for British troops to be withdrawn from Iraq, I can now see very good reason for them staying there. If there is "a vacuum" to be filled by the Americans, this withdrawal will be the final betrayal of Iraqis by the British.

The Americans will bring death and destruction with them as they have done in Fallujah, Al Qa'im, and Diyala. Either the security situation and infrastructure is now in a sound state, or it is not. If it is not, United Nations troops should fill the vacuum, not the Americans thirsting for revenge and theft of Iraq's assets, with their refusal to accept a democratically elected Shia government for the south of Iraq.

The British from the time of Colonel Tim Collins have to a large extent abided by the Geneva Conventions as required by international law and the two United Nations resolutions regarding the occupation of Iraq, and have tried to minimise civilian casualties. The Americans have not done so, in spite of Colin Powell's promise.

The Americans will scatter the area with yet more depleted uranium shells. Nor will there be any attempt to clear the contaminated sand or old tanks away, as it will be too dangerous.

Nicholas Wood

London NW3

Sir: Daniel Emlyn-Jones (Letters, 30 August) may well have a point when he suggests that responsible international military action may be the way of the future, but the Iraq war was anything but responsible, let alone international.

The decision to go to war, even on the basis of what we thought we knew at the time, was surely the single most cowardly political decision taken in this country in most of our lifetimes. Only the Liberal Democrats and a few honourable others stood firm against the rush to war, saying they would only back war if it was shown to be necessary and properly authorised after other options had been exhausted. It didn't even come close.

The disaster there now is a direct result of an insurgency fuelled by mistrust of the West and caused in no small part by our decision then. This is no tragedy caused by "mistakes made", but the direct result of the actions of those who supported the war, despite it being unnecessary and completely contrary to international law.

So in a way I agree with Mr Emlyn-Jones – international military action may be the way of the future. But such international action would depend on international laws being respected by all, not the law of might is right.

JULIAN TISI

Maidenhead, Berkshire

Sir: I believe it is now time for the country to be told if Gordon Brown ever objected to Blair going to war, along with Bush, in Iraq. If not, he is, today, as the UK's unelected Prime Minister, culpable for the mass murder of innocent Iraqis, men, women and children, as well as for the deaths of our servicemen and women, in what started off as a Blair/Bush campaign of butchery.

The UK is entitled to know the views of Gordon Brown; in fact the whole world should be informed. Otherwise Brown will be damned as Blair has been.

Terry Duncan

Bridlington, east Yorkshire

Blinkered approach to overcrowded jails

Sir: You rightly argue that the Sentencing Guidelines Council should gear its work towards shorter sentences and fewer short-term prisoners (leading article, 30 August).

There is only one certain way of ensuring that the Council does this: that is to introduce a statutory requirement that the Council's guidelines must take account of the capacity of the prison system. Sentencers usually argue that such a constraint would be improper, that they should sentence without regard to prison overcrowding and that the state then has the duty to provide the necessary prison places. However, in practice the results of this blinkered approach are record overcrowding, high reoffending rates and consequently more victims of crime.

It is high time that judges and magistrates were forced to take responsibility for the results of their actions. Or do they think that this is something which we should only urge on offenders?

Paul Cavadino

Chief Executive, Nacro – the crime reduction charityLondon SW9

Sir: Can anyone be surprised that prison officers took strike action, illegal though it may be, when the Government sought to limit their pay rise to 1.9 per cent on an average salary of £24,000, while at the same time allowing top city executives to award themselves 43 per cent rises with millions of pounds in bonuses?

It may be economically necessary to limit public sector pay rises, but at the same time the unnecessary greed of the city must also be curbed. Gordon Brown should take note if he wishes to win the next election.

V Crews

Beckenham, Kent

Sir: Our Prime Minister, Mr Brown, has been telling the public sector that once again, that they must be restrained in their aspirations to earn a fair day's wage for a fair day's pay. If I recall correctly, there was not much mentioned about restraint when the lower house asked for and received their last pay increase.

Those now in power remind me of a House that was so self-interested that Oliver Cromwell had to come along and try to put things right. The present Government should remember what happened after that.

Philip Hennessy

Woodford Green, Essex

Sir: Perhaps Gordon Brown can explain why it is "an essential element of maintaining discipline in the economy" for nurses in the West Midlands to have their 2007 pay rise introduced in stages, but not apparently for nurses in his own constituency of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath?

The Prime Minister has no moral authority to make such a decision when it only affects English public sector workers, and not those in a position to vote him out of Parliament.

Dan Byles

Leicester. The writer is Conservative prospective Parliamentary Candidate for North Warwickshire

Birds of prey unfairly blamed

Sir: I was disappointed by Richard Ingrams' comments regarding the red kite shot dead in Ireland (1 September). He is particularly upset by large birds of prey taking sparrows from his garden, indeed he states: "You don't have to be an ornithologist to work out the decline of the small bird might have something to do with the increase in numbers of the large ones." Red kites are very much carrion birds, forming an integral part of the ecosystem in removing and recycling dead animals.

He attributes the fall in sparrows to the sparrow hawk, although this name is a misnomer; they are far more interested in birds that provide a decent meal such as pigeons and larger songbirds. Recent research on the decline in sparrow numbers has indicated that because the chicks require a large insect intake to grow healthily, followed by a more omnivorous diet once they are fledging, they are actually being persecuted by the practices of man, particularly in removing insects from our crops and gardens with pesticides, rather than by the sparrowhawk.

David Cocks

Harvington, Worcestershire

Stop picking on air travel

Sir: The attacks on air travel by Green activists and by the Conservative Party in its draft policies look like cynical opportunism rather than any serious attempt to tackle the problem.

Air transport represents a tiny proportion (certainly less than 5per cent) of emissions. To have any meaningful impact road transport and power generation are the areas that need to be tackled.

It would be a good thing if domestic air travel could be reduced in favour of rail, but whenever I have tried to use rail, to Scotland for instance, it has been ludicrously expensive: Easyjet from Gatwick to Glasgow about £50 return, Scotrail sleeper from London to Crianlarich £350 return.

Mike Poole

Hove

Sir: The concentration by the media on the performance of BAA (" Turbulent times over Heathrow", 31 August) means there is a danger that the real debate over Britain's airports is lost. The London Chamber of Commerce is in no doubt that there is a need for expansion of airport capacity in the south-east – without it London's hard won status as the world's leading financial centre (generating billions of pounds of tax revenue) is in danger.

There are very real environmental concerns that have to be addressed, but the debate should be about how we achieve this balance and not about turning the way BAA is run, coupled with the antics of airport protesters, into a soap opera.

Colin Stanbridge

Chief Executive, London Chamber of CommerceLondon EC4

Pressure on parents to 'have the tests'

Sir: I write in response to your leading article (1 September) about Arthur Miller putting his son, who had Down Syndrome, in an institution. Although we wouldn't dream of doing that these days, attitudes are in some ways worse. Now that there are antenatal tests available to detect Down syndrome in the womb, the assumption is that the expectant parents will have these tests, and then terminate if Down syndrome is confirmed.

When my daughter was born nine years ago with Down syndrome, the most common question people asked was "Didn't you have the tests?" We chose not to have the tests, as we would not have terminated whatever the results, but I felt we were considered unusual.

As you say in your article, children with this learning disability can achieve great things, but only if they are born to parents who have withstood the pressure from the medical profession and society in general and chosen not to have the tests.

Catherine Bianco

Toddington, Bedfordshire

Briefly...

Tool of tyranny

Sir: I refer to the debate about a possible referendum on Europe. I was always told when I first came to this country – in a patronising way – that that in Britain there was no need for referendums as we had a properly elected Parliament. I was told that referendums were for dictators who would use them to get through right-wing agendas.

Luis Canizares

London SW3

Amnesty split

Sir: In your report "Amnesty's abortion stance splits grassroots support " (1 September) reference is made to Amnesty's policy on abortion having been voted on twice by its British annual meeting. Whilst the recent AGM did recognise that abortion could be justified in certain circumstances, it simultaneously passed a motion affirming its wish to maintain a neutral stance on such matters. Mention is also made of the consultation exercise Amnesty has carried out with its UK membership. What is not mentioned is this resulted in a majority against the change in policy.

Paul Rees

Whitstable, Kent

Death by doctor

Sir: It is sad, but perhaps not surprising, that Beethoven probably died as a result of poor medical attention ("Accidental death of a genius" , 30 August). The class of iatrogenic diseases is a very long one, probably stretching back to Hippocrates. Unfortunately it is not a well researched cause of illness and death, although many of us will probably know of someone whose death has been hastened by a doctor. In an age of limitless drugs, peddled by countless company reps, it may be time to look a little deeper into iatrogenic conditions.

Tony Hill

Seaton, Devon

Royal duty

Sir: I would like to suggest that the drum the Windsors march to (" Diana's fate in the royal snake pit", letter, 31 August) is one of inherited duty, based on a profound love for their country and a deep respect for its inhabitants. Ms Nicholson resents being a subject, but she benefits from the right to vote, so perhaps she should vote with her feet?

Steven Spurrier

London W14

Leave Winehouse alone

Sir: I share all Matthew d'Ancona's feelings about the superb Amy Winehouse (Opinion, 31 August). I can't bear to think we, and Amy, might be deprived of her further development, and that fear of the media could stop her walking into Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous rooms, where she'd be treated as an ordinary person by a meeting full of friends, demanding nothing and protecting her anonymity.

Rose Dalziel

Oxford

191 Marsh Wall, London E14 9RS. Email: letters@independent.co.uk (No Attachments please). Fax: 020 7005 2056. Please include your full street address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.