Joe Biden’s
Israel not the aggressor
Editor,
Let us not be dragged into a protracted argument by Wasim Siddiqui’s letter, ‘Unmasking the double standards: Israeli Zionist atrocities and the case of humanity’. (ST Oct. 12, 2023). The write-up of Barnes Mawrie, on the same page, ‘Religious Radicalism the Enemy of Humanity”, should give us a wonderful perspective of reality!
The opposing nations voicing their opinions to the mayhem taking place between Hamas (not Palestinians, if you can make that distinction) should be viewed with a scholarly and guarded response. Let me submit that the Israelis are not in the habit of starting any conflict whatsoever. They have always been targeted. Studies and research will corroborate this truth! And what began the current war must be seen through the eyes of what Hamas has perpetuated on the innocent families without warning. It is this first deadly strike by Hamas that has drawn ire from across the globe!
Ironically, Jewish home, businesses, synagogues, etc. in India are lovingly cared for by the Muslim community. And when quizzed about serving the ‘Israeli Zionist ‘ you get beautiful answers, even condemning nations, that want to wipe out Israel! And mind you they are uneducated humble workers!
Yours etc.,
Kevin Phillips
Shillong – 19
Middle-ground fallacy
Editor
This is a rejoinder to Deepa Majumder’s response dated October 16th 2023 to my article on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Before anything else I would like to point out that nowhere in my article is there any insinuation of condoning the killing of civilians inside the kibbutz in Ashkelon by the Quds Brigade, who, by the way led the attack, not Hamas. Any civilian and children casualty is inexcusable by which ever party. However, an analysis is not the equivalent of condoning. But killing of civilians did not start a week ago in that part of the world.
Now, with regard to the allusion that my article “is biased in the opposite direction,” I would be interested to know what exactly is the definition of “opposite direction” and therefore what consequently is the mainline or mainstream direction? Is the latter the overwhelming coverage of the majority of media both international and domestic or the support of major spokespersons, celebrities and/or influential personalities, I ask. If it is so, I am sorry to opine that the writer has not researched alternative independent authors, scholars, media, reputed human rights organizations and commentators from all over the world. Most of them of Jewish origin from Israel!
“The truth lies somewhere in the middle?” The truth being in the middle is a copout. It seldom is. Deciding who is credible and who is not is a harder task. It requires careful study and painstaking research. I am sorry to burst the bubble when I call out to the whole clichéd notion that the ‘truth is always somewhere in the middle.’ I’m also opposed to its cousin phrase, ‘there are two sides to every story.’ Literally speaking, there are two sides but that does not make both sides valid. But it is never true à priori that “the truth is somewhere in between.”
I do not want go into the history of Zionism’s deception and concomitant terror from the early 1900’s over the Palestinians and their land. But yes, seventy five years of enslavement, humiliation, slaughter and trauma by the armed settler-colonial Israeli establishment, something the writer acknowledges, does not justify a “truth is always somewhere in the middle’ argument. This is mainly because like almost all fallacies, the “middle ground” closely resembles a non-fallacious way of reasoning.
In short, it justifies seventy-five years of injustice, historically and objectively speaking, to a middle position thereby elevating it and conversely downgrades the injustice meted out to the Palestinians.
It seems to me that the writer is more interested in the middle than the truth.
Yours etc.,
Kelsang Trinlay,
Via email
No rush for NEP-2020
Editor,
Salil Gewali’s letter published on October 17 in this daily under caption “Sudden implementation of NEP may open up Pandora’s box,” is enlightening for anyone who cares about education. As concerned citizens, we should not go against the new policy which has been designed for the overall wellbeing of students. Gewali has warned that rushing into these major changes in curriculum could be risky, just like climbing a mountain without the right gear and training. The government shouldn’t rush into a new education system without taking the opinion of all stakeholders. Many of the study materials are vast and some are very new to our teachers. Therefore, taking one or two years to get things in place makes a lot of sense. It is better to be slow and get it right than to rush and make mistakes. I also agree with the writer that the government should ensure the new textbooks are appropriately customized to meet local needs.
Yours etc.,
Vishal Atri
Bengaluru – 64
India’s horrific Global Hunger Index
Editor,
This refers to the report, “India ranks 111th on Global Hunger Index” (ST, October 13, 2023). India has slid into a horrific 111th rank among 125 countries in the 2023 Global Hunger Index. India is behind China (at the top bracket that includes 20 countries), Sri Lanka (60), Nepal (69), Myanmar (72), Bangladesh (81) and Pakistan (102) among our neighbours. The report says that the child wasting rate of India is 18.7 per cent, which is the highest on the global level.
The Government of India should allocate more than double of the existing funds for the successful implementation of both breakfast and midday meal as per the recommendation of the new National Educational Policy (NEP) in all government and aided schools throughout the country.
Yours etc.,
Sujit De,
Kolka
Landmark Verdict
Editor,
I want to express my heartfelt appreciation for the recent landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India to strike down the Central Adoption Resource Authority’s (CARA) regulation, which restricted unmarried couples from adopting children. This ruling, announced by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, emphasizes that parenthood should not be limited to only “heterosexual married couples.” It upholds the principle that the best interests of the child should be the primary consideration in adoption decisions.
This decision is a step forward towards a more inclusive and compassionate society, and it sets a precedent for recognizing diverse forms of family and love. It is indeed a triumph for human rights and a victory for the cause of equal rights and acceptance.
Yours etc.,
Abdul Natin,
Via email