ANTONIO Guterres, the secretary-general of the United Nations, finally did what I have been too cowardly to do. He condemned the “clear violations of humanitarian law” in Gaza. He dared to speak the truth, that “the Hamas attack did not happen in a vacuum” while he, like some many of us, condemned the October 7 massacre.

I haven’t put pen to paper until now. I’ve been too afraid that my name alone would infer an antisemitic bias. Or that I will again be called an antisemite.

But for me to stay silent is to be complicit and for too long countries and their leaders have been complicit in their silence. To even begin to understand, far less address, the current war, one major component has to be remembered – the Balfour Declaration and its outcomes.

During the First World War, Britain saw the potential break-up of the Ottoman Empire and the possibility for land-grab and empire-building to continue by itself and its allies. By April 1915 a committee had been established by the prime minister, HH Asquith, to determine British policy towards the Ottoman Empire and Palestine.

By 1917 all was not going well for the Western allies. By giving support to Zionist goals in Palestine, the British hoped they could shore up support for the allies among the significant Jewish populations in the US and Russia. Those goals centred on a “Jewish State in Palestine”. Britain also believed the Balfour Declaration would secure control over Palestine in the future post-war era.

In 1917, the Balfour Declaration asserted: “His Majesty’s Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use its best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this objective, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

In other words, land being given away by those who had no right to do so. Less than 30 years later, came the culmination of centuries of persecution of the Jewish people by Christian countries, states and people – the Holocaust.

Who could deny the persecuted a new home in their old historical land? What better way to assuage the guilt of both past centuries and the immediate? Guilt at the memory of the pogroms, not confined just to mainland Europe.

England too had its pogroms. From 1189-90, there were anti-Jewish pogroms in London, York and numerous other cities and towns. York’s entire Jewish community was eradicated in the infamous burning at Clifford’s Tower.

The outcomes of the Balfour Declaration include the forgotten fact that between 1947-49, at least 750,000 Palestinians from a 1.9 million population were made refugees beyond the borders of the new Israeli state.

It is recorded that Zionist forces took more than 78% of historic Palestine, ethnically cleansed and destroyed about 530 villages and cities, and killed about 15,000 Palestinians in a series of mass atrocities. To use the word Nakba removes it from our immediacy – it’s a foreign word in a foreign faraway country. But an injustice not forgotten across the Middle East.

By remaining silent over atrocities then, by ignoring later events such as the massacre at Sabra and Shatila in 1982, with estimates putting that death toll at 2000-3500 civilians; by ignoring the expansion of Israeli settlements, demolition of Palestinian structures, daily violence and continued inflammatory rhetoric by their government representatives, as a senior United Nations official reiterated just last month; and by ignoring the UN Secretary-General’s appeal for an end to the occupation and a resolution of the conflict in pursuit of the two-state solution ... has our silence not empowered the state of Israel? Has it given the impression we don’t care?

From 2015-2022, the UN General Assembly adopted 140 resolutions on Israel. Why has the UN, the West, not acted on the aggression, land grabs, illegal occupation and flouting of laws and obligations by Israel? Why has Israel not been held to account over the years?

Why have we been silent for so long? Why have we allowed the creation of three generations of refugees with their lack of status and human rights? Why have we been satisfied with words, without actions? Why have we allowed this to come to pass?

Selma Rahman

Edinburgh

JIM Taylor’s letter, “How does action call play into the hands of Unionists?” (Oct 26), asks a vital question, unanswered and unaddressed by our MPs. Why has there not been a motion in Holyrood to renounce the unscrupulously enacted Treaty of Union and unilaterally repeal the Act of Union 1707? Why indeed have our MPs, who are better placed to act on this issue, done nothing?

I raised this very point with Mike Russell some years ago and he told me he thought UDI was not the way to go and wouldn’t discuss it further. But it is the only way to go! Look at the state of our country now because politicians have done nothing.

We are an equal partner in that treaty, and have the absolute and legal right to withdraw from it. I suspect Holyrood is legally constrained on this matter but our MPs are not. There are many failures on England’s part regarding the treaty, however the blinding glare comes from Northern Ireland’s arrangements with the EU while we watch on. This is an excellent example of where England has failed to treat all parts of the UK equally, as that treaty demands. Repeal the treaty, then take our case to the international courts. It is the duty of our MPs to do this.

Christopher Bruce

Taynuilt

I FEEL sorry for Anne Smart, who wrote about her difficulties in getting her Covid and flu booster injections (Letters, Oct 27) but my story could hardly be more different.

A resident of central Edinburgh and in the same age bracket as Ms Smart, I received my letter, went online (there was a phone number too), booked my slot for four days after the opening of appointments at my nearest centre and that was that.

My GP surgery also runs an efficient service with none of the problems that some people seem to experience elsewhere. The question is why. Anne Smart’s assertion that GPs should be vaccinating is surely a misuse of their valuable time, and in any case was it not practice nurses who carried out this work?

Having dedicated vaccination centres seems the efficient way of providing this essential service.

Iain Black

Edinburgh