SOUTH Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Israel’s alleged genocide in Gaza was meticulously prepared and presented calmly and forensically. It was a deeply impressive piece of work.
The Genocide Convention is readily available online, it is written in plain language, and anyone can easily read it. I quoted from it in a letter in November. As the South African team pointed out, the current action by Israel clearly falls within the first four of five criteria for genocide. (Someone recently remarked that the USA use their own version of the definition, adding the words “unless Israel does it”.)
READ MORE: What is South Africa’s genocide case against Israel?
Israel and leaders of countries supporting them repeatedly cite Israel’s “right to self-defence”. Sunak repeated this claim just a day or two ago.
The ICJ in 2004 said that Israel could not claim the right of self-defence against an occupied territory. The United Nations along with many other organisations consider Gaza to be an occupied territory, as Israel has complete control of everything that enters or leaves Gaza, and denies Gazans access to their own airspace and territorial waters.
It follows that Israel’s action in Gaza is not legitimately self-defence. All these political leaders claiming that it is are surrounded by teams of legal advisers, so they must know full well that they are lying.
READ MORE: Labour MPs pose with Israeli politician named in genocide case
What I find harrowing is that almost nothing set out in court by the South Africans was news to me. Everything has happened in plain sight of the world, the statements by Israeli politicians and military were made publicly (I notice that speaking to outside media, in English, they toned down what they said; speaking in Hebrew to the Israeli public they held back nothing). Anyone not wilfully turning away could see exactly what was going on.
The Genocide Convention sets out the duty to PREVENT genocide, not just punish it after the event, which is obviously too late. And yet governments around the world have sat on their hands and looked the other way. I thank God for South Africa.
Robert Moffat
Penicuik
I HOPE that Yessers won’t be tempted to vote for Labour, a party that quite evidently continues to lack a moral compass.
Lest we forget, between 1997-2010 it pioneered the black arts of spin doctoring to the extent that a “dodgy dossier” took us into a bloody war in Iraq. It had its very own cash-for-honours and lobbying scandals, whereby three ex-ministers – Geoff Hoon, Stephen Byers and Patricia Hewitt – were suspended from the party.
READ MORE: Former Labour MP pans Keir Starmer for U-turn on UK military action
Tony Blair, now a multi-millionaire, enjoyed free family holidays at the homes of rich connections. According to the Evening Standard (April 2012) a decade’s worth would have cost £775,000 if he’d paid for them himself. Peter Mandelson, probably the most unattractive face of New Labour, twice had to resign, once for accepting a £373,000 house loan from his Cabinet colleague Geoffrey Robinson. Mandelson famously boasted of having no issue with people being filthy rich. The story about him mistaking mushy peas for guacamole in a Hartlepool chip shop may not be true, yet in a way it symbolised New Labour’s estrangement from working-class life.
Starmer’s Labour is also for the rich. Its wealthy donors, scared off by Corbyn, are coming back. Neither Starmer nor his neoliberal shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves have any time for trades unions, nationalisation or for the notion of distributive justice. The Tory votes of middle England remain Labour’s top priority, to the detriment of Scotland. Whether, like Blair, Starmer is a warmonger remains to be seen, though his support of the mass slaughter in Gaza doesn’t augur well.
In sum, I think the title of “red tory” suits Sir Keir. It certainly suits Yvette Cooper, recently a guest at none other than George Osborne’s wedding. As to corruption, time will tell, though some plagiarised passages in Rachel Reeves’s latest book don’t speak well of her. Imagine if Shona Robison was caught out at similar small-scale dishonesty. The tabloids would have a field day.
Alastair McLeish
Edinburgh
HUMAN folly gathers pace. The race is on for us to render the planet unsuitable for most cellular lifeforms. Two headlines in Friday’s National were “Scottish Labour’s support for nuclear fuel” and “Election needs to focus on climate”. Which will win the extinction stakes? Perhaps a combination of both major threats.
READ MORE: How the Treaty of Union of 1707 has been breached
Climate change is accelerating and due to the Middle East and Red Sea conflicts, Iran hovers in the background. Turkey is watching, Putin is running out of patience, the chances of nuclear weapons being used fast approaches. America and its financiers have Westminster on a lead.
Elections are looming and pressure grows daily for an independent, nuclear-free Scotland whose parliament places these two vital issues at the top of its agenda. It should be the aim of any sane voter.
Iain R Thomson
Strathglass
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel