Readers Respond

Settlements are major roadblock

It is the ultimate chutzpah for Aron U. Raskas - writing from the poolside of his West Bank settlement of Rimonim - to argue that settlements do nothing wrong to Palestinians ("Settlements are no threat," June 7).

Here is why: Rimonim was built on land that is almost all (99.7 percent) privately owned by Palestinians. It was first a military base, established in 1977 on land seized from Palestinians, and three years later was turned by the government of Israel into a civilian settlement. In order to build roads for the 600 residents of Rimonim to travel to Israel, where most of them work, more Palestinian land was confiscated. Roadblocks and checkpoints were erected to allow Mr. Raskas and his fellow travelers to move freely into Israel, turning movement and access for Palestinians into a nightmare.

Mr. Raskas may want to browse through the April 2009 World Bank report that documents how Israel's occupation authorities in the West Bank, which sustain and protect his settlement, discriminate in the allocation of the area's scarce underground water resources in favor of the settlers.

Finally, Peace Now is not a "pro-Palestinian" organization. Israel's largest grassroots organization is a peace movement that believes the settlements must go because they make it impossible for Israelis to achieve security through peace with their neighbors.

Ori Nir, Washington

The writer is spokesman for Peace Now

Settlers are squatters

Mr. Raskas' opinion in the Sunday Sun misses the point. Settlers are squatters, pure and simple.

Are settlements within the occupied territories as defined by UN resolution 242? Yes. Did they purchase the land from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, or the Palestinian authority? No. Do they pay taxes to the Palestinian authority? No.

It matters not if the land would otherwise be unused, any more than if Canadians started "settling" in North Dakota.

Paul Nelson, Annapolis

It's not about speeding

The speed camera issue is NOT about speeding to most of us who disagree with the state's position ("Speed cameras anathema to those with lead feet," June 8). It's about fairness and the law. From a legal standpoint, a ticket issued by a camera presumes guilt before innocence. And if a person chooses a trial, whom will he cross-examine?

Also, technology is not perfect. Cameras, radar and other technologies, while highly reliable, sometimes fail.

Finally, if these speed cameras are to protect schools and work zones, will they only be in operation during school hours? Work zones eventually complete their work. Will these cameras be removed? We'll see.

Tim Bach, Manchester

Why the ruckus over speed cameras?

Am I the only sane person in favor of speed cameras that protect our children and our construction workers when they are trying to do their job? I absolutely cannot understand all the ruckus about these speed cameras when so many children and adults have died because of someone's lead foot.

As I travel around our city (be it on the highways or the side roads), I am dismayed at the people who zoom by going way above the speed limit. Why the rush? Getting to your destination faster will not mean anything if you kill or hurt someone in the process.

Tynette C. Galltin