Aggression that fuels Gaza conflict

From: Geoffrey F Bryant, Barton-on-Humber.

TONY Drake’s analysis of the Israel/Palestine situation is utterly flawed and demands a response (The Yorkshire Post, July 24). If his person trying “to live peacefully in [his] new home” had, in fact, taken that home by force and without any form of compensation from its previous owner – the occupant of the neighbouring house – and had persisted in forever moving the joint property boundary ever further in his neighbour’s garden, should that neighbour simply sit back and accept his fate?

I can but imagine that any British court would support the aggrieved neighbour and come down hard on the activities of the new “peaceful” occupant. The illegality of many of Israel’s recent activities (wall and settlement building) is more or less universally acknowledged – but so long as no meaningful sanctions are enforced there is nothing to stop Israel just carrying on as before and coming down very hard on any sign of protest.

Would Mr Drake be happy to live, apparently forever, in the prison which is Gaza and to be killed, along with hundreds of his fellows, whenever any attempt is made to bring his plight to the world’s attention? The sooner Israel is brought to its senses by the international community, the better for the whole of the Middle East and a lot of the world.

From: John M Collins, Leeds.

Geoffrey Bryant (The Yorkshire Post, July 24), in attacking the very sensible letter of Michael Ross in your July 21 edition, displays the profound ignorance of which he accuses Mr Ross.

He says that the origin of the Gaza hostilities was the murder of three Israeli youths “travelling in West Bank land illegally occupied by Israel”.

The origin was the repeated bombardment of Israeli towns and cities by missiles from Hamas or, as you put it in your Editorial: “Weeks of Hamas rocket attacks compelled Israel to act in self-defence.”

Menace at 
the wheel

From: Father Neil McNicholas, Middlesbrough.

I WAS just walking along and stopped at a junction to allow a car to turn in front of me into the side street. Quite clearly visible through his open widow, he was turning the corner – and at some speed – one-handed because he was holding a mobile phone to his ear with the other hand!

The fact that there is a law banning the use of mobiles while driving doesn’t stop these people. The threat of a fine and of points on their licence doesn’t stop them.

Not even the fact that they may be putting other people life and limb at risk doesn’t stop them. So what is going to?

More police on the beat, and in patrol cars, to see these offenders might help.

But also if that is the law and they are breaking it, then what they are doing is a crime. If they are caught, they should automatically end up with a criminal record given that, as with drinking and driving, it is a serious offence.

Might the consequences of that stop them or are they even more arrogant?

Green fields under threat

From: Ken Brooke, Main Street, Leconfield.

OVER 50 years ago, Lord Beeching was employed by the then government to make the railways profitable. His report recommended that more than 3.000 miles of line and thousands of stations be removed from the network. One of these recommended for closure was the Tweedbank to Edinburgh line.

However, in 2013, work was started to restore this link at a cost of some £300m. The line, which will include 10 stations, will provide an alternative route to the over congested local road networks.

I relate this short version of events to highlight another Government folly, highlighted by Jason McCartney, (The Yorkshire Post, July 24) regarding the development of green field sites. In the past “green field sites” were absolutely sacrosanct, and Mr McCartney provides many sensible alternatives other than this form of use.

It is hoped that our Members of Parliament support his sensible views.

If they do not, then our cement-covered green and fertile land will have gone forever, with no chance to change the situation in 50 years.

Surely we owe it not only to this generation, but to future ones?

Drill picture inappropriate

From: Mr HMA Bonaker, Bempton, Bridlington.

THE publishing of your recent photograph of the Army’s farewell ceremony in Germany, was, to say the least, insensitive.

The photograph showed soldiers in the middle of a three- movement drill known as the Present Arms.

It is not a complex movement, but the sequence is difficult to achieve in total unison – particularly for non-Guards formations.

For non-military readers, the photograph could have been a source of ridicule. I would ask you to be more considerate in your selection of military photographs of this drill movement; the final movement would have been appropriate – and splendid to suit the occasion.