Sir, – Eamonn's McCann's article (Opinion, January 16th) lacked one important thing – namely, facts, to support his thesis. At no point does McCann provide any evidence that the biblical quotes he provides, or any part of the Bible, had any impact on Ariel Sharon's political ideology. Rather than facts, McCann merely writes his personal suppositions of Sharon's belief system. Moreover, he makes false historical claims.
For instance, he stated that Sharon wanted to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from Israel yet the only mass cleansing under Sharon's leadership is when he forcibly removed the Jewish community of Gaza. Taken in sum, it appears that McCann's goal is not to educate the readership of The Irish Times but to teach them to demonise religion. – Yours, etc,
JASON LEVINSON,
Beechnut Street,
Houston,
Texas, US.
Sir, – I'm scratching my head at Ena Keye's evaluation (January 16th) and wondering has s/he perhaps confused this Sabra and Shatila iconic ". . . warrior hero raised up to defend Israel and deliver peace to the land . . ." with a certain biological detergent of similar appellation and coincidental white-washing reputation? – Yours, etc,
DAMIEN FLINTER,
Castleview Estate,
Headford,
Co Galway.
Sir, – Eamonn McCann’s latest piece of anti-Israeli agitprop (“Paisley and Sharon driven by ideology of biblical destiny”, Opinion, January 16th) claims that both Ian Paisley and Ariel Sharon based their ideologies “on books of the Bible”. Unfortunately, because Sharon was not religious McCann has to pepper his references to him with phrases like “. . . will have been mindful of” and “. . . will have believed”.
The simple fact is that Ariel Sharon supported, for example, settlement building not as a result of some biblical command but rather as a means to make Israel secure. Ariel Sharon had many faults, but religiosity was not one of them. – Yours, etc,
KARL MARTIN,
Bayside Walk,
Bayside, Dublin 13.