Lie of the land
Sir: In the past few weeks Hamas has shown itself to be a merciless, power-hungry organisation with little interest in the well-being of its own people, let alone that of its Jewish neighbours, so Dr Hamad must be laughing into his cup of Earl Grey tea at the ease with which he has manipulated Clemency Burton-Hill (‘Tea with Hamas’, 16 June). Her naivety is breathtaking, as is her willingness to pass on his fanciful assertions to the rest of us without challenge.
It would not take much research to show Hamas for what it is: a fundamentalist Muslim organisation which gets its money and its orders from Iran. In Dr Hamad’s Promised Land, women like Clemency Burton-Hill have no place outside the kitchen and the breeding chamber.
Like Dr Goebbels, the Hamas leadership has learnt that the bigger the lie, the greater the willingness of some to accept it for the truth. Israel withdrew from Gaza 18 months ago, so Gaza is no longer ‘occupied’, as claimed by Dr Hamad. His further claim that Hamas has held a ceasefire since 2005 should be seen against the reality of a daily barrage of rocket fire on nearby Israeli towns and the abduction of Gilad Shalit 18 months ago. One could go on, but Dr Hamad did in the end give the lie to his own narrative by claiming that his parents came from Tel Aviv, a city founded by Jews and inhabited almost exclusively by Jews both historically and in recent times. Tel Aviv is the cultural and economic heart of the Jewish state.
Yes, there is something ‘psychological’ about Dr Hamad and his henchmen: they hate Israel and wish to destroy it.
Anne Segall
London W8
Big wigs
Sir: Of course the legal wig is an anachronism (‘When Harry met silly’, 16 June). But then so is the yarmulke, the mitre, the biretta, the bearskin, the mortarboard and all other forms of ceremonial headdress. I have already been published in the press on the merit of the wig in promoting anonymity and obscuring decrepitude. Its real importance is, however, a heritage issue. For a family lawyer such as myself, it evidences a golden thread of continuity that stretches back beyond the great statute of 1857, beyond Dr Lushington, and into the wonderful realm of 18th-century fam-ily law. It is a heritage recognised whether I appear before the Court of Appeal in London, or before the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands, or before the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong (which sits, bewigged, under its vivid red symbol containing five stars signifying the sovereignty of communist China). So far as I am aware, no decision has been made to abolish wigs in civil appeals here and I protest against any proposal to do so.
Nicholas Mostyn QC
Temple, London EC4
The Belgrano was a threat
Sir: Charles Moore (The Spectator’s Notes, 16 June) rightly criticises ITN for cutting Captain Bonzo’s admission that his ship did indeed pose a threat to the task force and that the direction in which it was heading was irrelevant. He suggests that Bonzo might be self-aggrandising. But Bonzo, and others in Argentina, have said the same before.
On 2 May 2005 Admiral Enrique Molina Pico, chief of the Argentine navy in the 1990s, wrote to the Buenos Aires newspaper La Nación to object to those who called the sinking of the Belgrano a war crime. He said that the Belgrano was part of an operation which posed a real danger to the task force, that it was holding off for tactical reasons and that being outside the Total Exclusion Zone was unimportant as it was a warship on an operational mission. He objected strongly to those who said the crew were murdered. They knew the risks and died fighting for their country; to suggest otherwise was to denigrate their sacrifice.
Christopher Skeate
Haslemere, Surrey
Self-interest, not patriotism
Sir: Irwin Stelzer (‘Go West, young man’, 9 June) writes as if patriotism were an unmixed blessing. It is if it means putting country before self. But when it comes to putting one’s own country before all or most other countries, there is another name for it.
He also describes a visit he made to a law firm which helped get the Colorado river diverted to supply water to Phoenix, Arizona. He clearly thinks this a cause for celebration. He must surely know that, as a result of this and other similar diversions, the Colorado now no longer reaches the sea, and the entire south-west, including California, is facing a fairly imminent water crisis.
Antony Black
Dundee
Blair has a point
Sir: Your leader on the Prime Minister’s speech about the media (16 June) is a little unfair. Mr Blair’s description of the Independent as ‘a viewspaper’ is not ‘daft’. Anyone who is familiar with the editorialised front pages of the Independent or the biased reports of Robert Fisk will be aware that in that newspaper the distinction between reporting and commentary is now very blurred.
Colin Armstrong
Belfast
Bog standard
Sir: Charles Moore’s fascination for the past three weeks with lavatory paper prompts me to offer a suggestion as to why two papers might be offered to the discerning — Bronco (or Bromo) and a second paper.
When I was a boy at Stonyhurst during the war paper was scarce, and the usual offices, some 25 yards long, were known as The Common Place. After breakfast at the entrance stood a gaunt stern Jesuit holding in one hand two rolls — one ordinary and soft, the other Bronco, hard and shiny. As the boys entered each would be given two sheets of the one paper and one of the other, with the words ‘Two wipe, One polish.’
William Raymakers
Clitheroe, Lancashire
Comments