Dear Editor,

In reading the full text of Ahmadinejad's comments on the Washington Post website (thanks to the earlier letter-writer for the link), it seems to me that Ahmadinejad failed to answer only one question directly: does he support the undermining of Israel as a Jewish state? The moderator ultimately asserted that the answer to this question was "yes". (The moderator comes off as rather snotty - I wonder why it wasn't possible at a place like Columbia to find someone who was genuinely neutral).

Implicitly, Ahmadinejad is calling for the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state by calling for a democratic referendum on the future of Palestine which includes all of the displaced Palestinians. But, of course, the issues here are more complex. The fact that Israel discriminates in favour of Jews is, obviously, deeply problematic to its claim to be a "liberal democracy". The fact that it could only be created by displacing and exiling the Palestinians is a fundamental injustice that must be addressed. Ahmadinejad raises the difficult questions that most Americans refuse to answer or even consider.

Ultimately, I think that Israel must acknowledge its moral responsibility for the plight of the Palestinians. I realize the dangers - moral and otherwise - to Israel by doing so, but its refusal to deal honestly with its own past had led it down a path that is no less dangerous. If there is going to be any civilized resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, coming to terms with the hard questions - particularly on the part of the Israelis, who really do bear most of the responsibility for causing the conflict - is essential.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Editor,

I've been to Malaysia a number of times, and my impression has been that women there dress in a wide variety of ways. On one bus trip I took, I saw a woman covered head to toe in a chador, with only her eyes showing; on the same trip, I sat beside a young Malay woman who was wearing jeans and a t-shirt. Many of the young Chinese women were wearing shorts and t-shirts. My point here is that, as far as these things go, Malaysia is a relatively tolerant place.

By contrast, I see no problems with the government requiring Beyonce to cover up. It is not much a leap to believe that in a relatively conservative society, her stage attire is regarded as obscene and provocative. Malaysia may eventually get around to adopting attitudes towards sexuality that are closer to those of the West. But if the country and its government are resistant to such a shift, why isn't that their right? God knows, most Western attitudes towards sex are hardly healthy. Indeed, a compelling case can be made that by sexualizing herself in the way that she does, Beyonce is actually contributing to the denigration of women in Western society and beyond. Certainly, her presentation of herself as the epitome of a certain kind of body image is of questionable value and actually does a fair amount of harm.

What I find kind of peculiar about this article is the idea that Western performance artists have some kind of right and maybe even responsibility to spread Western values and attitudes to the rest of the world. This seems to be cultural imperialism light. Why do they have such a right? How would we feel if other cultures came into ours and tried to impose themselves and their values on us, or were perceived as trying to do this? Oh wait, we already know. In France, the state has banned the open expression of religion in public institutions and argued for a set of French values that all citizens should adopt. In Quebec, a similar argument is going on, with the francophone majority actively hostile to the values of many of the religious communities in their midst. Other examples abound.

The difference, of course, is that in the West, we have the idea that tolerance and acceptance of different opinions should allow for the expression of different religious and cultural values. There should be a wide degree of latitude in which to accommodate a diversity of views. But the same principle is more restricted in many parts of the world, and we will simply need to accept that.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Glenn,

I think it's important to understand the extent to which the US has lost standing in the world. The rest of the world may not talk about it, but you can bet that everyone noticed how ludicrous it was, last week, for George Bush to stand up in the UN and condemn the dictators of Myanmar/Burma when he is responsible for the worst ongoing humanitarian disaster in the world. Similarly, it is ludicrous for American government representatives to criticize anyone else for the abuse of human rights when torture is a US state policy. The problem is that the rot in the American system is universal. The failure of the media - indeed, its complicity in Bush's excesses - is on full display, undermining any argument about the need for "freedom of the press". Similarly, the appeal of the American political system has long been in crisis but is especially so today when the Congress is not only incapable of restraining the President and acting as a check on his power, but is actually facilitating his illegal activities. There is simply no such thing as an American model any longer that any other part of the world can regard as a desirable example of how to organize a state.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Carol,

Given the unknowns involved in this situation, and given the reality that alcohol is a kind of poison, it seems to me that the simplest thing for a pregnant woman to do is just not drink. Err on the side of caution. If someone cannot do without alcohol for nine-ten months, then she has another kind of problem.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine