Dear Sir,

Ray Fleming represents a classic example of the aphorism, “There are none so blind as those who will not see”. He is quite prepared to block out clear unequivocal fact if it gets in the way of his blind prejudice against the Jewish state of Israel. So that your readers are not duped into believing Fleming's nonsense, here is the true, unchallengeable position regarding Israel legal rights.

On April 20th 1920 a conference was convened at San Remo, Italy. It was attended by the victorious nations of the 1914 -1918 war. It's purpose was to decide how to break up the now defeated Ottoman Empire. On April 25th 1920 the outcome of this now signed international agreement was made known.

Three new states were to be created out of the previously Turkish-owned lands: Mesopotamia (now Iraq), Syria and Palestine which the agreement states quite clearly, was created specifically to be the national homeland of the Jewish people. The borders of this Jewish Palestine were roughly the same as biblical Israel, stretching across both East and West banks of the Jordan river. Prime Minister Lloyd George signed on behalf of Great Britain. This international agreement was ratified by The League of Nations in 1922 and in 1924, following an unanimous vote in both Houses of Congress, was embedded into USA law.

Your readers should know that an internationally signed agreement, once ratified by the world's highest authority, (then the League of Nations), is unchangeable.

Article 80 of the formative documents of the UN confirms that it has no power to negate or alter any internationally signed agreement previously ratified by the League of Nations. Even if the UN could negate the San Remo agreement (which it cannot), it would at the same time delegitimise the existence of Syria and Iraq both of which were created at the same time as Jewish Palestine.

The ‘Palestine' to which Mr Fleming refers was ‘invented' circa 1968 by Yasser Arafat and the Arab League for political purposes only. It is a state without borders, history, language, mores or customs. US Senator Newt Gingrich a history professor, described it as ‘an imaginary land'. They are the facts. If Ray Fleming wishes to indulge his fantasies, well all I can say to him is, “Dream On” Sincerely,

David Lee

Dear Sir,

It seems incredibly ironic, that on the day I refuted your argument in the previous day's Editorial, on rich versus less affluent tourists, that the Bild Bombshell descended, to demolish both points of view, leading you to wonder if there would be any tourism left . I do not go as far as that pessimistic view, though of course, something must be done to rid the streets of Playa de Palma, and, as I insisted in a letter to you last year, so-called prostitutes, who in reality, are nothing more than scavenging, mugging vultures, must be eliminated. The Police must NOT be hampered by arcane points of law. Surely the legal eagles have sufficient savvy to impose stricter ordinances. As you have implied, Mr. Moore, it could be a matter of life a death to the whole tourist industry. Words are not enough, ACTION NOW! should be imperative.

Yours Sincerely,

Phil Green, El Toro