A UN Commission of Inquiry has said that what Israeli, Palestinian and international human rights organizations, as well as many genocide academics, have already said: That Israel’s war in Gaza amounts to genocide. The commission found that mass killings, attacks on vital infrastructure, starvation, displacement and denial of medical care meet the legal definition of history’s gravest crime. It finds genocidal intent “the only reasonable inference” from the statements of Israel’s leaders and the conduct of its forces in Gaza.
Against this, Israel’s repeated assertions that it is acting in lawful self-defense ring hollow in the face of overwhelming evidence and a deliberate pattern of destruction. The UN’s conclusion imposes moral clarity. It also demands political action, especially from those, including the UK and the US, who have for too long treated Israel as an exception to international norms.
Historically, the Guardian supported Jewish aspirations for a homeland, playing a significant role in the early Zionist movement — particularly as anti-Semitism rose in Europe. That history only adds weight to our present concern over where the country is going. Other states must reckon with the consequences of enabling a far-right government under Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that has defied international law with impunity and pursued its aims with horrifying human cost.
It is no defense to point to Hamas atrocities, appalling as they were, to justify the systematic devastation of Gaza, home to more than 2 million people, half of them children. The notion that the flattening of Gaza would bring peace is for the birds. Reportedly, Israel’s military chiefs have privately conceded that Hamas might not be defeated even after Gaza City falls — and that a “complete victory” might require further military expansion in the Strip. If accurate, this implies that Israel’s leaders foresee the failure of stated war aims — and are preparing for even greater devastation.
Netanyahu, perhaps recognizing the consequences, has warned Israelis to prepare for “isolation” and a new era in which traditional European support might no longer be guaranteed.
This shift should not be underestimated. European powers, including the UK, have long underwritten Israel’s technological and military edge — through arms exports, trade agreements and research funding. The EU’s Horizon program is only one of many economic levers at Europe’s disposal. Suspension of such links would have profound repercussions, as would recognizing a Palestinian state.
The British government’s response has been evasive.
Ministers said that the UK had “not concluded” that Israel is acting with genocidal intent. That now looks like little more than a fig leaf.
A court case revealed the Foreign Office reviewed more than 400 alleged contraventions of international humanitarian law by Israeli forces in Gaza, but identified possible wrongdoing in only one. The apparent logic is: Ignore enough individual incidents, and you would not see the pattern.
However, the UN says the reality cannot be denied. Under the Genocide Convention, states must not only punish genocide, but also prevent it. That threshold has been crossed. To continue with symbolic sanctions is not just morally indefensible — it is complicity.
Some would warn against inflammatory language. However, Gaza is already burning. The UK must stop all arms sales, back international accountability and drop the legal contortions.
The charge is grave. The evidence is overwhelming. To pretend otherwise is to join in with our age’s most shameful evasions.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS