Winning isn't everything.

 

 

Subject: Winning isn't everything.

 


The following rebutted by Israel of the South African claim that what is happening in Gaza is genocide and not just a series of war crimes or that each is judged differently, one is based on a predetermined set of actions, the other on actions which take place without being determined by the hierarchy such as government policy.
Israel’s argues that the predetermined attack on Israeli citizens on Oct 7th demanded retaliation commensurate with the attack and that the rooting out of the perpetrator, Hamas, has to be thorough otherwise the attacks will be repeated again and again.
The recent sight of the frenzy on the streets of Yemen to the response of the US and British  missiles launched at the Houthi missile launching bases indicates the fury of Arab resentment since the damage caused is targeted and proportional. The claim against the Israelis is that their response is neither targeted or proportional.
Shifting the emphasis of attacking the civilian population in Gaza to one which seeks to route out a sophisticated enemy with a huge complex tunnel system with hundreds of entry points not least those from under hospitals makes the Israeli war effort not simply, as portrayed, a frenzied retaliatory response to the Oct 7th but rather a systematic retaliation on Gaza as a whole because of its complicit war footing.
War is a dreadful business made especially so if one side has the fervour of religious immunity and fighting them has to be totally without restraint. There is an argument that the whole of the Middle East is religiously opposed to the west and no matter what accommodation we come to we will never win the hearts and minds of those following a  religious idolatry. The worry is that this idolatry has gained a strong foothold in this country and whilst a Gaza style war in this country would take a different format you can already see the banners gathering and the wagons circled around what to us are alien concepts.
Dancing around the pin of judicial provenance, the Israeli barrister made claim that irrespective of the bloodshed, the South African claim to the court had been made without an actual official interaction between the conflicted parties who were appearing in court today. And once again we see the law keen to fix its case around the procedural setting rather than the humanitarian one and, in the setting of this court, procedure is everything. It’s the equivalence of a clearly convicted person caught in the act  being allowed to walk away from court because the arresting policeman had failed to read him his rights.
Perhaps the fault line then begins in the court not withstanding the bombs raining down since our belief in right and wrong is vested in the laws interpretation of our actions. The fact that different societies judge these matters differently is reason for a World Court to exist but it doesn't remove the clever tactical manoeuvring by barristers to defuse something we would declare right or wrong. 'Many shades of grey' comes to mind with all its opec posturing, when facts seem to get in the way of justice.
Listening to legal opinion afterwards the view seemed to be that in terms of law, especially genocide the South African case was too general and relied on non substantive suffering without taking into account the suffering of the Israeli Jew when their people were attacked so brutally on October the 7th. The South Africans hardly mentioned it and it goes to the root of the problem in an adversarial court setting. Each side only produces what it feels lends their case a chance of success not to reach the truth or even the basis of reasoned argument rather it obfuscates the truth simply to win.