Israel column presumptuous

My wife and I recently visited Canada, where we met many citizens of that fine country. Fortunately, we are reasonably fluent in the language most widely spoken by our neighbors to the north. We conversed with them, watched television, read newspapers, joined in worship, were invited home for dinner and joined the festivities of Canada Day.

This was the latest of many visits to that country for business and pleasure. Yet I have barely scratched the surface when it comes to understanding the culture and politics of Canada: regional differences between east and west, and between French- and English-speaking provinces …

My wife and I recently visited Canada, where we met many citizens of that fine country. Fortunately, we are reasonably fluent in the language most widely spoken by our neighbors to the north. We conversed with them, watched television, read newspapers, joined in worship, were invited home for dinner and joined the festivities of Canada Day.

This was the latest of many visits to that country for business and pleasure. Yet I have barely scratched the surface when it comes to understanding the culture and politics of Canada: regional differences between east and west, and between French- and English-speaking provinces, disputes between First Nations and the majority government, issues around immigration and refugees, effects of oil production on the environment and economy, etc.

Myrta Ladich and Marianne Torres (June 30), after their brief visit to Israel, became expert enough to write a lengthy guest opinion on these pages describing in detail, and very one-sidedly, so many problems with Israel. Are they amazingly fast learners, or did they go to Israel with well-established biases that were reinforced by the advocacy organization that organized their trip? Do their recommendations contribute to a solution or merely exacerbate the problem?

Howard Glass

Spokane