History will look back unkindly on those who did nothing

Hamish Morrison’s one entitled, “Should Starmer worry about impact of new pro-Palestine MPs?” and Sabera Bhayat’s outstanding piece entitled “Why is it that Muslims organising always has to be ‘dangerous’?” in the Seven Days supplement.

They both quite rightly highlighted why there has been a backlash by many Muslim voters – and some that aren’t Muslim but empathetic to the same cause – against Keir Starmer’s Labour Party in some parts of England with a high Muslim population.

This led to four Independent pro-Palestine candidates beating Labour ones and becoming MPs at Westminster and drastically reducing Labour’s majority in other constituencies.

Then, surprise, surprise, there was a backlash in the other direction with folk, as Sabera no doubt wearily outlined, portraying Muslims organising themselves in this way as being “dangerous”! So bloody predictable!

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever in calling out the issue related to these election results for what it is. Imagine absolutely anywhere in the West (ie not in a Muslim country populated with non-white folks!) if one country laid total waste to its neighbour, killing and injuring such a massive proportion of that country’s citizens in such a short period of time?

And completely destroying so many of their homes, places of worship, businesses, schools, hospitals and basically the infrastructure of their country, citing defence as an excuse? Aye, we can just imagine what the apoplectic response would be!

I’ve got no relatives or friends who have been affected by this and I’m not a Muslim, but like millions of decent folk around the world – including in the UK and Scotland – that know a total abomination when they see one, I really can’t find the words to describe how disgusted and horrified I am about what the Israeli state has done to Gaza since October 7, 2023.

It’s unforgivable how in the UK, both the Tories and Labour have gone along with the Israeli government’s depiction of how those despicable actions only started on October 7.

Some, but not many, politicians – like the much-maligned Jeremy Corbyn – have been shouting from the rooftops for years how the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians has been grossly outrageous, only for them to have been accused of being antisemites, with no logical consideration of their reasoned arguments.

Yes, there has been antisemitism within the Corbyn-era Labour Party and elsewhere which has quite rightly been condemned. However, this has been cynically utilised by politicians and the media to deflect away from genuine concerns about the Israeli government’s shocking treatment of Palestinians long before October 7.

Given the foregoing, what does it say about a UK parliament of 650 MPs that only the four Independent pro-Palestine MPs, Jeremy Corbyn, the nine SNP MPs, a few brave Labour MPs and possibly a few others I’m unaware of, are willing to stand up to Starmer – and Sunak before him – on this issue?

I’ve a message for the Tories, Labour and the vast majority of the media in the UK. History will look back very unkindly, to say the least, on those who sat back and literally watched extreme horror unfold right in front of their eyes, doing fuck all about it other than mealy-mouth words and platitudes! Shame on them! Shame on them!

Ivor Telfer

Dalgety Bay

NICK Cole’s letter in The National, July 17, is basically a rehash of the old pro-nuclear argument. This is and always has been ethically worthless, and completely unhistorical. The lame excuse that they “cannot be uninvented” is only a cop out. We cannot “uninvent” gas chambers, thumbsscrews and torture chambers, but we can outlaw them. Or does Nick Cole disagree?

If I may start with the basics, the means and methods whereby a state may defend itself are not unlimited. These limitations arise from the principles of natural justice (ius gentium).

Thus, one may not rape, torture, execute prisoners of war, or deliberately target the civilian population – even if doing so was perceived to bring victory nearer (the Hiroshima Fallacy). Such acts remain crimes, because a desirable end does not justify an evil means.

He maintains an utterly bogus historical narrative, in which we are always the innocent ones threatened by the Evil Other. History tells a very different story.

Weeks before Hiroshima, in July 1945, the US joint chiefs of staff recommended that “with atomic weapons, a nation must be ready to strike the first blow if needed”.

The resultant war plan JIC 329/1 singled out 20 Soviet cities for obliteration – from Moscow and Leningrad, to Tbilisi and Tashkent. But the US only had three bombs – two destined for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and one other. After these experiments proved so brilliantly successful, US production of nuclear weapons went into overdrive.

Only 51 days after the surrender of Japan, in war plan Totality, the Pentagon’s joint intelligence staff promulgated the study Strategic Vulnerability Of Russia To An Air Attack. This envisaged an air attack with atomic bombs on 20 Russian cities.

Similarly, in March 1946, then-president Harry Truman ordered the Soviets to remove their forces from North Iraq or “we will give out to you with both barrels” (Sources: Operation World War III, by Anthony Cane Brown, Arms and Armour Press, 1977).

Russia had no nuclear weapons then, and didn’t get one until 1949. We started the nuclear arms race, and we initiated every technological advance in its “progress”, while bleating about “Soviet superiority” in this area or that. When I first went to Russia in 1966, the country was so technically backward that the shops used abacuses to calculate your change!

We are not the hapless victims of the Evil Other. We must stop the self-righteous parading of ourselves as the innocent victims of malign external forces. As has been said: “I have seen the enemy. He is us.” We are the architects of our own destiny.

It is not possible for nuclear weapons and human beings to share this planet. Either we have a future without nuclear weapons, or we have no future at all. Our cry was “ban the bomb” and that is exactly what we did. I don’t think Nick Cole has grasped this fact yet – nuclear weapons are illegal.

Trident is not only the worst thing in the world; it an ongoing war crime which we cannot tolerate.

Brian Quail

Glasgow

THERE were a number of seriously questionable claims in Nick Cole’s letter about Nato in July 17’s edition.

For one, he says that “too many illiberal dictatorships” and “imperialistic autocratic dictatorships” have nuclear weapons and use them in “pursuing their aggressive agendas”.

The implication seems to be that it is only those countries so described – I assume he is referring mainly to Russia and China – whose possession of nuclear weapons should be a matter of concern. I beg to differ. All holders of such weapons should be viewed with extreme concern.

In fact, the record shows that to date, only one country has used nuclear weapons, the United States, and that was against a non-nuclear power.

To put it crudely, in terms of use of nuclear weapons, the score so far is Democracies one, Dictatorships zero. The data is severely limited, I freely concede, but even so, I think it calls into question the notion that there are “good guys” with nuclear weapons – amazingly, that happens to be “us” – and then there are “bad guys” with nuclear weapons – astonishingly, that turns out to be “them”.

Mr Cole also states that Nato is a collective which is “not under the direct control of a single dictator”.

My contention is that Nato is indeed under a single direct control ... of the United States.

For the “Nato as a collective” theory to pass muster, you would have to believe that when the 32 members meet to discuss joint action, the US (population: 333 million), listens very intently to the contributions of North Macedonia (population: 2 million), Estonia (population: 1.5 million) and of course the very important deliberations of Montenegro (population: 600,000).

Nato Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg then no doubt gives a masterly summary of all the contributions, giving due weight to the most compelling presentations from this member or that and then calling for a show of hands on proposed actions.

And if said show of hands is antithetical to US interests, their delegate would of course communicate this disappointing result to the president and the wishes and wisdom of the collective would prevail. Perhaps Hans Christian Andersen could do justice to this scenario ... or, more appropriately, the Brothers Grimm.

Tom McFadyen

Kirkintilloch

IT is hard to believe that OUR ministers in OUR Scottish Government are so craven and devoid of critical thought that they capitulate to blatant vested interests of the industrial salmon polluters (The Ferret, Sunday, July 14).

Did they not know that most of them set up here because of the lax regulation?

Politicians harp on about the need for high standards of animal welfare for land-based creatures – and I agree wholeheartedly – but what about the salmon?

High stocking rates that go hand in hand with high levels of disease and lice and deaths? Also being fed fish meat! We stopped feeding cattle feed derived from cattle years ago. Why are we catching fish to feed to fish?

Scottish ministers, take a wee look at yourselves. Jonathon Shafi said a few weeks ago that our Scottish Government was enthralled to corporatism. This latest act just reinforces that view. It has to change. Get the critical grey matter working.

Willie Oswald

Blanefield

IF there is one “small” change that an incoming government could do, it is to take many people out of paying tax and national insurance on their earnings and/or pensions (obviously no NI is due on pension income).

If the tax and national insurance threshold was increased reasonably dramatically to say around £18,000 (£1500 per month, £346 per week) this would allow many more people to take more of their “disposable” income home. Possibly avoiding the need for some to claim benefits (not sure on that point). If the threshold was the same for “employers’ national insurance”

this would cut down the so-called tax on jobs that would benefit many small businesses.

Yes, this would also benefit the richer elements in society, but this could be offset by adjusting the rates of tax to ensure most people would benefit equally. A relatively simple change to start off with, in my opinion.

Gerry Christie

Hamilton