Will Clinton be better for this region?

Readers express their views over Hillary Clinton as the US president. Other topics: anti-Semitism, pets

I refer to the article Why a Clinton presidency could be good for the Gulf (November 6). I think the real reason why the writer believes that Hillary Clinton is right for the Gulf is because she is soft on promoting US energy. Under a Clinton administration she will stifle fracking in the US, reducing local production and increasing the need to import oil from Saudi Arabia.

That for Saudi Arabia was the sole objective of keeping oil prices low, to drive so called high-cost producers and frackers out of the market. However, American producers have been steadfast. They have the technology that has been developed over past decades.

If that kind of ingenuity is allowed to grow, the technology will only get better, lowering the cost of extraction. That’s a real threat to Saudi Arabia and the greater Gulf.

Randall Mohammed, Dubai

Mrs Clinton’s foreign policy has proven to be a disaster for the Middle East and the rest of the world. Look at Libya, Iraq and Syria, where hundreds of thousands of lives have perished. The conflicts in these regions have also led hundreds of thousands of refugees to move to Europe and America.

How anyone can choose a candidate whose policy has led to so much death and destruction over someone offering a change is beyond me.

People have become numb to the fact that for more than 15 years the United States has been waging war in the Middle East.

Ben Williard, US

Anti-Semitism as a political tool

With regard to Jonathan Cook's opinion article Israel acts to blunt criticism of the occupation as its grip tightens (November 2), anti-Semitism is defined as an antipathy or irrational hatred of Judaism, or Jews.

It can manifest itself by unseemly comment or defamatory, obscene, insulting words or by violence, persecution or other adverse action. There is also evidence of such embedded, endemic hostility towards Jews from earliest recorded history.

However, the allegation of anti-Semitism can never be used as a legitimate defence to justify the actions of the Israeli state in its occupation of land, its continuing illegal settlements and economic blockades, its persecution of minorities, the deliberate killing of women and children and the hijacking of aid vessels in international waters with the shooting of unarmed passengers.

It is a frightening fact that over the past decade there has been a disturbing resurgence of anti-Jewish feeling throughout Europe, and indeed the world, in an expression of revulsion at Israel’s brutal colonisation policy and the violence perpetrated against the indigenous people of the region.

But such condemnation cannot be described as anti-Semitic as it constitutes moral outrage not religious criticism and does not specifically relate either to Judaism or Jewish people many thousands of whom (including in Israel itself) are deeply ashamed at the policies and actions of the Likud government of Benjamin Netanyahu.

Furthermore, in this context, the Zionist movement is not, and can never be, a synonym for religious Judaism.

The former is a political ideology while the latter is a respected religion. To deliberately conflate the two is to use the allegation of anti-Semitism as a tool designed to gain a political advantage.

Anthony Bellchambers, UK

Good news for pet owners

In reference to the article Exporting pets from UAE 'is not so hard' (November 6), one way to ensure pets aren't left behind is to make it cheaper for families to take their animals with them.

Far too many pets are abandoned due to the high costs of exporting animals.

Shani Elizabeth Gardiner, Dubai

My dog is relocating to the UK. I can’t understand how people can leave their pets behind.

Karen Evans, UK

If you love your pet, money shouldn’t be an issue. Would you leave your children behind if ticket prices are high?

Damien Wheatley, Dubai