WHY on Earth is the UK Government not calling for a stop to Israel’s horrific bombing of Gaza? Abstaining in the UN Security Council resolution in favour of a ceasefire puts Britain against the overwhelming majority of countries in the world. Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, may think it will curry favour with the United States, Israeli’s sponsor, but the fact is that the USA treats the Brits as useful idiots in its endless wars.
18,000 people, mostly women and children, have been killed in the tiny enclave of Gaza and thousands more maimed. 21 hospitals have been closed or blown up. According to the Norwegian Refugee Council, “across the Gaza Strip almost the entire population has been displaced. Nearly two in three homes are now damaged or destroyed.”
READ MORE: Labour MP presents bill to suspend UK arms sales to Israel
Calling the Israeli military the Israeli Defence Force is risible. Regardless of the Hamas atrocities on October 7, Israel has been in flagrant violation of international law and faces charges of ethnic cleansing and even genocide.
The Mines Advisory Group has said that a large percentage of Israel’s bombs will not have exploded and will literally leave minefields behind. That is what happened after the American bombing of Laos which ended in 1973. Even now there are hundreds of deaths and maimings there every year caused by cluster bombs buried in the soil.
Many authorities state that Israel has committed crimes against humanity in Gaza, and that Netanyahu and his gang should be brought before the international criminal court. Israel stated a week ago that it has received the 200th cargo plane carrying military equipment from the United States since October 7. Ten thousand tons, they said, in addition to the £3 billion of military supplies it receives from America every year. Many flights arrived via RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus. If Netanyahu is to be prosecuted, the UK will also stand accused as facilitating atrocities. David Cameron should bear that in mind.
William Loneskie
Lauder, Berwickshire
IN 2003 the USA and UK led the “coalition of the willing” in waging an illegal war against Iraq, despite Iraq having no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and not giving shelter to Osama bin Laden.
READ MORE: Ireland to push for EU sanctions on ‘terrorist’ settlers in West Bank
They were criticised by the larger part of the world community and also by Hans Blix, the head of the UN Weapons Inspectorate. America and Britain said that they would disregard the use of what they called “an unreasonable veto” – a concept unknown in international law – should it be used.
What would their response be now if the UN decided to send in troops in response to genocide (which the UN defines as an international crime that requires UN action), despite “an unreasonable veto” by the USA?
John McArthur
Glasgow
BORIS Johnson has successfully wrecked the Tory party on the rocks of Brexit.
Rwanda is largely irrelevant. The migrants in boats are coming via the EU. The only way to deflect and stem the flow is to work effectively with EU countries like France and Spain.
If your house has a leak, you go to the source and turn off the stop cock. Desperately mopping up water and then passing it on to someone else to get rid of will definitely not solve the problem! Coordinated action, working to target the source of the problem, is far more logical. Unfortunately the Euro-phobic right wing of the Tory party chose to ignore reality and seek to dump their problem on a third-world country, most famous for one of the biggest genocides in history.
READ MORE: Rejigged Rwanda plan 'does not go far enough', say Tory lawyers
Rwanda’s population increased from 1.6 million in 1934 to 7.4 million in 1989. This led to growing competition for land. The genocidal infighting in 1994 led to 300,000 to 500,000 being killed. One source claims it was up to a million.
Historians like Gerard Prunier, an expert on African history, believe the 1994 genocide can partly be attributed to population density. Now the British government want to place further stress on that population density. To add a growing number of migrants, with no connection to Rwanda, which has proved in the past to be an extremely combustible country, is surely unwise, indeed totally irresponsible.
The British government, for its own convenience, is claiming this to be a safe solution! Risking re-igniting the Rwanda tinderbox to solve a problem that could be sorted much closer to home in partnership with the EU? Yet another misjudgement!
Andrew Milroy
Trowbridge, Wiltshire
THE Rwanda Bill is perhaps the most ridiculous piece of legislation to go to the Commons. It is no more possible for parliament to declare Rwanda a safe country via any treaty provision than they could do so for the Donbas. How wonderful it would be if we could simply declare a country safe after a political debate in London or Edinburgh or Leeds City Council. How simple it would become to resolve the world’s most testing problems by just stating “make it so” as Jean-Luc Picard might have done ... but worth remembering Star Trek is a fantasy, as Rwandan safety for refugees is.
Gus McSkimming
Ardrossan
DOUGLAS Chapman waxes lyrical about the report by the Resolution Foundation on ending stagnation but what he does not mention is the economic illiteracy in its thinking (Big reality check for the UK – and an opportunity for Scotland, Dec 11). The report’s authors subscribe to the long-discredited idea that a currency-issuing government cannot create money, or must not do so, that such a government must be managed like a household, that deficits must be avoided by such a government and that fiscal surplusses are a good thing and without adverse consequences. These are the ideas of orthodox Thatcherism.
Andrew M Fraser
Inverness
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here