GRAHAM Cunnington, defen-ding John Whitelegg's use of the phrase 'if it was' rather than 'if it were' to convey a contrary-to-fact statement, informs us (Citizen, March 13) that English is a living language with no fixed grammatical rules, only guidelines to currently accepted usage. He should be a philosopher: he manages to derive 'ought' from 'is'.

Of course, languages change, but the grudging concession to misuse remains a concession. The present-day use of were instead of was stems from ignorance, not from creativity.

The change represents not the enrichment of English, the way the introduction of new words does, but the corruption of it.

Ironically, even more widespread than the misuse of was for were in the subjunctive mood is the reverse: the misuse of were for was in the indicative.

On the more pressing issue of Israel, Brian Penney's latest attack (March 13) evinces exactly the ignorance with which another letter writer charges him.

Israel does not illegally occupy Palestinian territory. As I explained in my letter of February 20, the key UN resolution cited by enemies of Israel (No 242) calls for the return of the territory conquered in the 1967 war only with a peace treaty, not before one.

Moreover, UN resolutions typically express not high-minded morality but crass political muscle. Israel has been castigated more times by more UN agencies than any other nation, including Iraq. I defy Mr Penney to call that justified.

Let him spare us the condemnation of Israel for killing Palestinians. Israel has a duty to protect its citizens. What would the UK do if the IRA began terrorizing Brits with the relentlessness with which Palestinians blow up Israelis?

Unlike Palestinians, Israel does not target civilians. Jordan killed more Palestinians in one month than Israel has killed since its founding in 1948.

One would have to be heartless not to care about the present suffering of Palestinians. But the fault lies with Arafat, not Sharon. Forbes calculates Arafat's personal wealth as $300 million US, or £150 million.

I dare say that his money does not come from PEP's. It comes from the theft of money given for his people. If Mr Penney ever widened his reading, perhaps he'd change his mind about Israel. But I doubt it.

Robert A. Segal, Lancaster