Richard Calland is plainly not an anti-Semite: he is too cultured, and too conscious, to be guilty of such vulgarity. What Mr Calland himself may allow though is that he is prone to a number of other crude and destructive intellectual impulses.
In common with all political columnists, he exaggerates, wildly. Nuance, subtlety, qualification and complexity are not the stuff of which sharp, short commentaries are made and so we get Yasser Arafat cast as a measured Madiba and Ariel Sharon as a madcap mass-murderer. This is unhelpful, to put it mildly, as well as irresponsible and inflammatory.
In common with intellectuals everywhere, Mr Calland suffers a fair dose of self-righteousness and sanctimoniousness. It has been said, pertinently, that moral indignation is the opiate of the literate left and those who make a living out of public pontification are especially susceptible to addiction.
Tout comprendre c’est tout pardonner goes the true radical creed. Perhaps Mr Calland could write a column on the subject. Glen Heneck
I was less perturbed by Calland’s article (Contretemps, April 12) than by your disingenuous and patronising editorial response (Letters, April 19).
Calland was not only articulating but clearly associating himself with opinions that most normal people, including those on the left, find frightening and repugnant. All you had to do, as the Mail & Guardian, was to emphasise that you do not censor the opinions of your columnists, and then hand over to Calland to respond on his own behalf.
By its editorial support of Calland against his critics, the M&G seems to indicate that it shares his pleasure at the sight of dead civilians, whether in New York or Israel it does not matter. You also save Calland the embarrassment of having to justify or retract his words.
The first thing you need to do is to enquire from Mr Calland whether he did, indeed, mean what he said. The second thing you need to do is to publish a more considered and appropriate response. Jeff Peires, Queenstown
Calland is entitled, appalling as it may be, to admit to “quietly celebrating” every Israeli and American civilian casualty. He is not entitled to unilaterally claim the same for the “left”. Many people hate any bloodshed and would like to see a peaceful settlement to the Middle East conflict, not the Hamletian (Calland’s comparison) conclusion that is the logical result of an extremist outlook like his. E Robins, Cape Town
The many angry letters the M&G got from clearly Zionist- leaning readers protesting against Calland’s excellent article is a very good indication of the way right-wing, fascist ideology, such as Zionism, blinds people. Sadly enough, most, if not all, people whose anger seems to have been triggered by Calland’s anger at Sharon’s crimes, shed tears last week in remembrance of those who perished in another similar horrible crime, namely the Holocaust. How such people cannot see the similarities boggles the mind. Mxolisi Zuma, Palestine Solidarity Committee
Those who accuse Calland of anti-Semitism remind me of the old National Party leaders who accused opponents of apartheid of being anti-Afrikaner. They are morally corrupt. Calland has done more to fight racism and promote social justice than all his whining critics combined. Christian Brand, Emmarentia
What is so disturbing about Zapiro’s cartoon (April 19) is that it springs from a Jewish pen. What a PR bonanza for enemies of Israel and Jews everywhere! When the drawing appears in Jeddah and in Damascus, as it will, it is not the hackneyed substance that will garner nods and smirks of approval, but the “fact” that even a Jew can see how Israelis are no better than Nazis. And the more astute readers will observe that the Arab propaganda campaign is working, even sweeping in susceptible Jews to their cause. It appears that rather than seeking and speaking truth, you have succumbed to the “politically correct” orthodoxy prevalent in your immediate environment. Trevor S Norwitz, New York