Letter of the week: A catastrophic war

Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk to have your thoughts voiced in the New Statesman magazine.

How did we arrive at such a place, bearing witness to the horror, the terror, the catastrophic eradication of Palestine? The eminent lawyer and historian Jonathan Sumption meticulously chronicles Israel’s unstoppable – and, I believe, genocidal – war, which can and must be proved in a court of law, under any of the relevant international laws, conventions and treaties Israel has signed up to (Cover Story, 18 July). Meanwhile, I and the world look on, helplessly, hoping to comprehend why no action, no intervention can be made. If I criticise Israel, I am accused of anti-Semitism; if I speak up for Palestine, I risk arrest for supporting a terrorist organisation.

Now, silently weeping, cursing the empathy bequeathed to me as a human being, hearing only the agonising cries of children, the haunting wailing of their mothers, the utter rage, rage against the dying in the night.
John Marshall, Bridlington

Legal opinions

The Guide to Judicial Conduct calls on retired judges to be circumspect in voicing controversial opinions, for the public still regards them as representative of the judiciary. The continued participation of UK judges in Hong Kong courts, criticism of the Supreme Court ruling on gender, challenging lockdown or intervening in the Post Office cases are good examples. Now we have another one. Lord Sumption is no expert on the Middle East. He parrots the most incorrect and damaging clichés about Israel and its foundation, without ever referring to the release of the hostages, an event that could bring an end to the war. He over-represents Israel’s strength, without considering that it is a country whose very existence is threatened, hence the need for that strength. He does not mention Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, after which Gaza could have transformed itself into a state. Anti-Semitism has not risen from the Gaza war; it has a 2,000-year history, promoted by persecution, expropriation and expulsion. Today, it presents itself as anti-Zionism, and an attempt to destroy the world’s only refuge for Jews.

If Sumption has no solution, it might be better if he turned his vitriol to occupied Tibet or Cyprus, or the “two-state” solutions of India and Ireland. As it is, the UK has forfeited all influence in Israel because of its historical mishandling of the Mandate, as well as the current government’s bias.
Baroness Deech, Oxford

I read Jonathan Sumption’s article and watched the corresponding interview on YouTube, both of which were thought-provoking. In relation to the conflict in Gaza, Sumption pinpoints exactly where the state of Israel has likely fallen foul in the context of the relevant international legal frameworks that were set about 80 years ago, precisely to avoid what’s been occurring before our very eyes – namely, the systematic violation of human life. I understand he doesn’t have an ideological position on the conflict, but I sense that he at least recognises the prima facie injustice of the past 21 months and before, including for the victims of 7 October 2023, and the wider historical context that underpins the dispute between both sides.

Sumption aptly observes that International Humanitarian Law still has an inherent moral value and authority as long as abiding nations comply. This point resonated with me and offers a semblance of hope for the next generation.

When it comes to the question of genocide in Gaza, I think it is more clear-cut than Sumption realises, and perhaps because more is coming to light each day. To give one example, a British NHS surgeon operating on those wounded at militarised aid distribution sites in Gaza relayed to BBC Radio 4 on 18 July that doctors he works with have had formula confiscated by Israeli border guards. Four newborn premature babies reportedly died that week. This routine confiscation may well constitute genocidal intent.
Oliver Albuquerque, London

You give great prominence to Jonathan Sumption’s diatribe against the Israeli response to the 7 October pogrom. Of course, much of Sumption’s case for the prosecution can be contested, but not sufficiently in a letter. So, bearing in mind the possibly incendiary nature of Sumption’s article, can I suggest you give equal prominence to a piece by someone with similar qualifications, putting forward the Israeli side of the argument? Providing a platform for the defence case would underline your claim to be a journal of serious debate rather than one which pushes just one point of view.
Stan Rosenthal, Haywards Heath, West Sussex

Jonathan Sumption sets out in detail Israel’s violation of every norm in respect of defence against an aggressor. Essentially, he points out that Israel’s operation in Gaza, “Gideon’s Chariots”, “expresses the traditional narrative… of the underdog fighting for survival”. Israel’s survival is under no immediate (or, perhaps, long-term) threat, but the underdog perception remains. The underdog becomes the bully when circumstances permit. Since 1948, the persecution of Palestine – the innocent occupants of an ancient Jewish homeland – has been the stance of the bully. To redress the problem will require intervention from the Western powers to establish equity in the land between the river and the sea: two cooperative states.
David Clarke, Oxford

Thank you for publishing the article by our most eminent living jurist, Jonathan Sumption, which sets out in the clearest possible and unequivocal terms how Israel is inflicting war crimes upon the Palestinian people. The Labour government must face the verdict of history if it continues its support of Israel, while tut-tutting about non-entities shouting abuse from Glastonbury, and extending the domestic definition of terrorism to encompass protests that inflicted criminal damage on suppliers of goods to Israel. By the standards of international law, the government – that is, the UK as a state and a member of the UN Security Council – will be deemed complicit.
John Crawley, Beverley

I think the front cover featuring a single paragraph from Jonathan Sumption’s article was inspired, voicing what many of us have thought for a long time. Unfortunately it needs to be restated. I hope that those who make decisions about who we support militarily can take heed.
David Booth, Abernethy, Perthshire

Thank you for the 18 July edition of the New Statesman. I’ve long argued that one can be critical of the appalling crimes of the Israeli government without being inherently anti-Semitic; the media has generally shied away from this position. Your cover was brave and right. I applaud you. Keep going! The New Statesman is truly a light in the current darkness.
Paul Heritage-Redpath, Kynnersley

Thatcher’s turbo sell-off

I’m astonished that Katie Lam can blame the housing crisis on “20th-century socialism” (Interview, 18 July). Although unusual for a Tory in that she doesn’t wet herself at the mention of the Iron Lady, surely she is aware that “20th-century socialism” turbocharged the provision of social housing post-1945, only for Thatcher to turbocharge the sale of said provision without allowing the proceeds to be used to build replacement homes.
Peter Lock, Woolton, Liverpool

Skiff upper lip

To continue the rowing theme, if people seek an alternative to Henley and its class-ridden baggage (Correspondence, 18 July), they could have been in Stranraer earlier this month, where more than 2,000 rowers from 78 community rowing clubs across four continents participated in the Skiffie World Championships. Or to any of the 200-odd clubs where people of all ages (11-80 in our club), backgrounds and abilities enjoy open-sea social rowing in wooden skiffs all year round. There, you’ll find life jackets and colourful hoodies instead of boaters and blazers. Both racing and social rowing have immense benefits for individuals and communities through shared enjoyment and pride.
Sheila Currie, Cromarty, Highland

Rave review

I can’t recall ever laughing out loud at a book review (The New Society, 18 July), but Will Lloyd’s withering critique of Sarah Vine’s book was great fun.
Les Bright, Exeter

One day at a time

I just wanted to offer a reflection on Pippa Bailey’s poignant writing since the death of her father (Deleted Scenes, 18 July). Reading it crystalised a number of thoughts I have had since losing my father late last year. Alas, I wish it was a pain not shared by anyone else. It takes great courage and introspection to leave oneself so open and exposed in writing. I would like to offer Pippa my sincerest condolences. Take it a day at a time and hold the good memories close to your soul. Beautiful writing and an excellent reason to return to the New Statesman.
Mark A Monaghan, Coventry

Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk
We reserve the right to edit letters

[See also: Kemi Badenoch isn’t working]