Reflecting on war, genocide and defence
I SUGGEST to John Hobbs, the aspiring academic in Peace and Conflict Studies Dept at the University of Otago
(Opinion ODT 30.7.24) that two absolutely vital attributes are an open mind and a reflective disposition. No one in their right mind would find any grievous humanitarian crisis as the one in Gaza to be anything other than lamentable, but whether it is entirely, or even directly due to the defensive actions of Israel is a moot point. I further suggest that extensive time researching and reflecting on the precedent centuries of social and cultural tumult that lead to the current deadly upheaval in the Middle East would result in a wellconsidered, solidly founded perspective.
I am far from the first to point out that there appears to be far less concern or fear for the welfare of the besieged Ukrainians. Nor was there an outcry of this magnitude for the suffering of the people of Sudan.
Closedminded theorising leads to massacres and the terrible atrocities accompanying war perpetuate that which it proposes to eliminate.
V. H. Markham
Maryhill
John Hobbs continues the anti Israel rhetoric on behalf of the Otago University Peace and Conflict Studies Department in his latest article. Such superficial research on this continued Middle East conflict is worryingly biased.
Here's a welldocumented fact that John might like to investigate for his next contribution. There have been at least five attempts to bring in a ‘‘two state’’ solution. They have all failed because one side would not agree. An early heads up: it wasn't Israel.
Also, can John also stop calling what Israel is doing protecting their borders and citizens a ‘‘genocide’'. It is not. Finally, the pressure he is suggesting should be applied to Israel to end this current conflict should in reality be applied to Hamas. The conflict could end today if they laid down their arms and freed the remaining hostages.
M. W. Cowan
Concord