George Monbiot rightly condemns both Israel and Hamas for flouting the “rules of war” (We owe it to humanity to see the rules of war are observed – no matter how tough a test the Israel-Hamas conflict proves, 18 October). But what about the “rule of no war” that surely must be the aim of the civilised world? The Hamas attack, like 9/11, was a calculated provocation, aiming to trigger retaliatory Israeli violence and destruction, knowing that, in the resulting conflagration, the fuse that lit the fire would be conveniently forgotten.
But what if Israel had not met horror with horror? What if, with restraint and dignity, it had mourned its dead, leaving the depravity and hatred of the Hamas project for the world to behold? What if the international community had learned the lesson of Iraq, and insisted that Israelis and Palestinians find ways to live side by side, or even, as they surely eventually must, together?
In the midst of crisis, all this seems unthinkable. Yet a leader such as Nelson Mandela managed to bring apartheid to an end without major bloodshed. It can be done, but requires exceptional leadership, backed by palpable yet restrained power. Sadly, all this is no more than a feeble pacifist cry in the wilderness of horrific violence in which the world now finds itself.
Prof Jeremy Holmes
Hertford
• George Monbiot’s article is apposite, but we also owe it to humanity to see that the rules of war are replaced by the principles of peace. After the horror of the Holocaust, it was understandable that many Jewish people felt that they would only be safe in their own country, the historical “promised land”. But that land was already occupied, and setting up of the state of Israel displaced and dispossessed thousands of Palestinian Arabs, who thus bore the cost of Europe’s antisemitism. Justice for Israelis came at the cost of injustice for Palestinians.
So, what about a just settlement for the Palestinians? Perhaps if the US were to replace their military aid to Israel with development aid for the dual states of Israel and Palestine, the disputed territory could evolve into peaceful coexistence. Morally, Europe should pitch in too. Adherence or otherwise to rules of war would then become irrelevant.
John Stone
Thames Ditton, Surrey
• I agree with George Monbiot, but only up to a point. The real point surely is that the world has to come to accept the glaringly obvious truth that war should not be treated like a game, subject to codes of behaviour, breaches of which can be punished by some neutral referee. All war is a crime against humanity, and in a sane world, all those who conduct it, take part in it or supply the means to conduct it would be treated as criminals and punished accordingly.
Until we collectively reach this conclusion, well-meaning hand-wringing about war crimes will continue to get us nowhere.
Mike Garnier
Bristol
• George Monbiot is rightly unequivocal that Hamas has broken laws of war. However, after stating that “Israel has also broken several laws of war”, his review of Israel’s retaliation is qualified by a slew of “appears”, “looks like”, “might” and “could be”. Cutting off water, fuel, electricity and food to Gaza “looks like collective punishment”? It appears that the state of Israel is to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to war crimes.
Dr Bruce McLeod
Otterburn, North Yorkshire
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
