Self-interested despots and unfettered crimes

The Age

4 hours ago

To submit a letter to The Age, email [e-mail]. Please include your home address and telephone number below your letter. No attachments. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published.
MIDDLE EAST
There is much to dislike about Iran's leaders, but they are hardly alone. Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin are three leaders who come to mind, each with little regard for the inconveniences of traditional statesmanship or democracy.
All three have nuclear weapons, and little inclination to exercise self-control in the use of unbridled warfare.
One has to ponder what gives this trio of warmongers the right to exist and to pursue their own nuclear ambitions while denying those choices to others. Given their respective track records, there is a massive hypocrisy in any one of the three making claims to the moral high ground.
Donald Trump has often claimed he has the power to end wars and yet he admires and supports those who start them. Seldom, in the modern history of mankind, have we seen such a collection of amoral, self-interested despots inflicting such unfettered crimes against humanity.
Bob Thomas, Blackburn South
Can't leaders see war begets war?
After 14 months of weekly protests touting their agenda ″⁣from the mountains to the sea, Palestine would be free″⁣, the pro-Palestine protesters exposed themselves as unreasonable, given their lack of helpful suggestions as to how Israelis could also live in peace without constant fear from neighbouring countries.
To some extent, I can understand why the current acting chief of the Israeli Defence Force in an interview on ABC TV 7.30 last Thursday complained about being surrounded by bad neighbours.
However, it was hardly a good neighbourly act by Israel to start occupying, then developing the West Bank with apartments, was it? All the while, leaving Palestinians in daily misery. Talk about how not to win friends and influence people, not least the oppressed Palestinian women and children who are clearly used as pawns by Hamas.
All the while, the UN has once again shown how useless it is as any kind of international peace-making body.
All the while, Israel, too, perhaps encouraged by the current president of the United States, has shown more interest in once and for all destruction of its enemies than the return of the hostages. In some respects, who could blame them, given it was Hamas who escalated the conflict by their action on October 7, 2023?
But for there to be peace, we have to ask why so many on both sides of this conflict still think the answer is yet more war. Can they not see war begets war? Do they not remember how good life can be to live in peace? Or perhaps they've never had the chance.
Bernadette George, Mildura
Obama's nuclear deal stacked in Iran's favour
Your correspondent asks why Iran should deal with Israel or the US after Trump dumped the Obama nuclear deal (Letters, 22/6). That deal was stacked in favour of Iran and would have allowed Iran to recommence uranium enrichment this year and remove all restrictions by 2030.
Even so, Iran was in serious breach of the agreement when Trump dumped it. It had not come clean about all elements of its nuclear program as required, and wasn't allowing even the limited inspections required by the deal.
Now it has been racing towards nuclear weapons and rapidly escalating ballistic missile production, while continuing to use its terror proxies to cause violence across the Middle East. That's why Israel and the US, rightly, attacked.
They have made it clear their aim is not regime-change, but to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and will negotiate to achieve that. However, Iran has shown it is not interested.
Shane Shmuel, Elsternwick
THE FORUM
Votes for the 44 towers
″⁣There are no votes in public housing″⁣: This was a mantra heard in corridors and meeting rooms of Victoria's Office of Housing throughout my almost 20 years' service throughout the '80s and '90s.
Despite the trope, both state and federal governments supported its expansion under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement. Governments understood the transformative power of quality, affordable, secure and well-located housing for low-income families. Just ask the prime minister.
In Melbourne, the 44 high-rise towers were and are a crucial part of the public housing palette. They are the welcoming homes of new arrivals to this country, they are the communities that support and nurture generations of low-income families and children.
Even Jeff Kennett was convinced they should stay in public ownership despite his policy in 1992 to hand them over to private developers and sell off the remaining public housing stock to existing tenants.
Now, at a time when a chasm of inequality has opened in our community, the towers and their communities are under threat from another government which sees no votes in retaining them. To dispose of the towers and their communities when other cheaper, better, less disruptive options for upgrade and renovation have been present ad nauseam to government, is a sacrilege. There are votes in both retaining the 44 towers and public housing more broadly in public hands because when they are gone, the homeless camps, the poverty, and desperate crime on our streets will be a reminder of the failure of governments to do so.
Craig Horne, Fitzroy North
Chalmers' boosterism
Before the May election, Treasurer Jim Chalmers was patting himself on the back about the surpluses Labor had achieved and how responsible Labor had been. He said income tax cuts were a good idea and mocked the Coalition for opposing them.
A few months later, he says there is a need for budget repair and that he is canvassing options for tax reform. Some commentators dismissed Chalmers' boosterism before the election: They argued Labor had squandered a revenue bonanza from higher commodity prices and bracket creep. It looks like they were correct.
Alun Breward, Malvern East
Responsible move
In criticising the Labor government for its economic management and policies, columnist Parnell Palme McGuinness (″⁣ Watch Libs blow golden opportunity ″⁣, 22/6) demonstrates how difficult she and other conservative commentators make it for any changes to be made by government.
She accuses Labor of ″⁣trashing its own legacy by changing the rules on superannuation″⁣.
As she would know, those affected by the changes are a very small minority of very rich taxpayers who have taken advantage of concessional tax rates for superannuation. If the income tax or capital gains or other tax arrangements had a greater benefit, that's where their money would be.
It's totally responsible, indeed obligatory, for governments of any colour to review major policies to see that the policy objective for a secure retirement is met. It was never the aim of superannuation to be a major tax minimisation vehicle.
Megan Stoyles, Aireys Inlet