AT the International Court of Justice (ICJ) last week, South Africa presented a devastating case against the conduct of the Israeli campaign in Gaza.
We have reached a particularly gruesome stage in the war, whereby the atrocities – hourly and daily – meted out against the Palestinian people are too numerous to properly digest. Nothing is out of bounds – the medical system, universities, residential zones, journalists.
This is a systematic attempt to degrade life in Gaza to the extent that it is uninhabitable. Often the most difficult element in proving such an allegation is the lack of evidence from officials that this kind of action is deliberate.
But, as showcased at the ICJ, the statements made by Israeli representatives could not be clearer in their intent. Tens of thousands have now lost their lives and the population at large are being displaced from their homes.
READ MORE: Top journalist calls out BBC and Sky News over ICJ case coverage
Famine, induced by the total siege of Gaza, has taken hold, just as disease is spreading owing to the destruction of sewage works and the lack of medical provisions. Even amputations are conducted without the use of essential resources, including anaesthetic. Only an immediate ceasefire, with full access for aid teams, will bring about anything approaching a semblance of relief.
At the same time the demand for a ceasefire, made by the global movement of solidarity with the people of Gaza which has emerged, is also a call to prevent a regional war.
This should be the sole focus of the world’s powers and institutions. Achieving such an outcome is the only basis from which security – regionally and globally – can be established. This includes the safety of shipping and freedom of navigation in the Red Sea.
Yet the United States, backed by the UK, has taken the opposite approach, by pouring fuel on to the fire through dropping bombs on Yemen.
Having aided and abetted the carnage in Gaza, they have now opened a can of worms for which they have no serious plan to contain. This, of course, is just the latest in a long history of bloody and catastrophic interventions in the Middle East. Where there should be a concerted effort to insist upon a ceasefire, and a calming of tensions, the bombing of Yemen only feeds the logic of escalation.
For in a situation like that which exists in the region today, there is no such thing as a “targeted strike.” Instead, this approach generates a domino effect where conflict has the potential to spiral.
Yemen itself has endured a horrific war for most of the last decade, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 377,000 people at the hands of Saudi Arabia.
This again was supported by Britain in the form of weapons, personnel and military expertise. The strikes on its territory are unlikely to act as a deterrence but to entrench deep animosity towards the West.
READ MORE: Nelson Mandela's grandson addresses Scottish pro-Palestine rally
As one former Pentagon official said: “The Houthis have been fighting a long war with a Saudi Arabia-led coalition and have accumulated years of experience in hiding their supplies and mitigating risks.”
He was “fairly pessimistic” as regards the effect of the strikes. While it is said they are “necessary” and “proportionate,” there is no sense in which the Americans or British have control over events, nor, crucially, a plan for de-escalation.
We have been in this territory before, yet the lessons of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are stubbornly ignored by those who deem themselves as the “adults” of the global stage. Some now talk of an eventual confrontation with Iran. That, obviously, would have dire and far-reaching outcomes.
But the reality of a rapidly deteriorating situation, entailing multi-actor military conflict, is one the anti-war movement takes seriously as it again takes to the streets.
And as far as track records go, it has a far greater claim to possess the ideas needed to prevent such calamity and to bring about peace and justice in the Middle East – alongside a more sane world order.
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