I found Howard Jacobson’s opinion piece concerning the use of the word genocide in relation to the conflict in the Middle East troubling in the extreme, especially his suggestion that the word should in some way be barred when referring to the actions of the state of Israel (“Charging Jews with genocide is to declare them guilty of what was done to them”, Comment).
Does he really believe that the genocide visited on the Jewish people in the 20th century precludes people of Jewish descent from committing a genocide themselves in the 21st? Or is it merely that they should be excused the accusation, given the weight of the word?
And so I find myself wondering which alternative words there are that might not cause him such affront? Pogrom? Ethnic cleansing? Collective punishment? Massacre? Indiscriminate slaughter? Take your pick, Mr Jacobson.
Laurence McGowan
Mallow, Co Cork, Ireland
In his thought-provoking article, Jacobson claims that “genocides don’t leaflet the populations they want to destroy with warnings to stay out of harm’s way”. Doesn’t he realise that the leaflets, which have on them barcodes to access the information, are useless, as there is no internet? The aid agencies have dismissed these leaflets as unhelpful. Further, that funnelling another million people into a small area of the south, which is still being attacked, is no answer on humanitarian grounds.
It could be argued that the leafleting is a cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli government to appease its vociferous and growing critics. Criticising the Israeli government is not being antisemitic.
Angela Pegg
Framlingham, Suffolk
I agree with Jacobson about the misuse of the charge of genocide. The fact this misuse is promoted by the UN, some academic writers and some humanitarian organisations is no argument for it.
The UN convention on genocide defines it as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” by, for example, killing members of such a group. What defines “a part”? One member, two, a thousand? The inadequacy of the definition should be clear to anyone who reads it.
However, having argued for the importance of the careful use of words, Jacobson himself slips into a dangerously loose use of words when he repeatedly conflates Jews in general with Israel. For example: “There is a sadistic triumphalism in charging Jews with genocide, as though those making it feel they have their man at last.” However inappropriate it may be to make such an accusation against the state of Israel, this is clearly not the same as an accusation against Jews in general, a fact borne out by the many Jewish critics of current Israeli policy towards the Palestinians.
David Pavett
Isleworth, London
The trouble with technology
No one expects a Hollywood film to be accurate historically (“We don’t go to the movies for a history lesson, but shouldn’t Napoleon at least be entertaining?”, Comment). The problem lies with the likes of Ridley Scott and his writers, who rely on the magic of technology to deliver for them, at the expense of a rollicking good tale with charismatic actors, accurate or not.
Michael Fuller
Harpenden, Hertfordshire
Wanted: brave politicians
If “public inertia is strong and thinktank solutions lack momentum” are the reasons for the ideas about taxing wealth and its owners “never gaining traction”, the solution is simple (“If taxing the rich is so fraught, is it time for a rethink?”, Business).
Instead of “following suit” and mirroring Tory policies, brave politicians are needed to explain not only the urgent need for extra revenue, but the benefits that will accrue when they are collected. Labour is dominated by the absurd fear that a pledge to raise more taxes from those who can afford them will cost it the next election, when almost certainly the opposite is true.
Is saying that unearned income being taxed less than earned income is unfair, or that a small tax of just 1% on wealth over £10m would raise £10bn annually, a vote-loser? Making a percentage of the profits made by selling first homes subject to capital gains tax, as suggested by the Social Market Foundation in 2020, sounds very fair to me, as do all the well-publicised suggestions for taxing the rich, including Joseph Stiglitz’s idea of a 70% top rate of income tax for very high earners.
Tories will say such taxes would stifle aspiration, but has anyone ever refused promotion with higher pay because some extra tax might have to be paid? Our public services will collapse without huge investment and higher pay for key workers. Labour should be shouting this from the rooftops.
Bernie Evans
Liverpool
Hands off my data
Martha Gill’s article misses the point (“Giving your health data to a private firm could save your life”, Comment). My personal data belongs to me. In all other areas, the law allows me a choice as to whether I allow it to be stored or shared.
I do not trust that Palantir or the government will not misuse my data or, through incompetence or otherwise, allow unauthorised access. A history of such neglect or misuse proves the point. Anonymised data can easily be de-anonymised. Who is to say there will not be an unscrupulous government or private company in future that misuses this data?
The NHS should not lock itself into one massive contract with a dubious foreign company. Various open-system alternatives have been offered, providing a cheaper, granular and UK-based approach. I’d be happier about allowing my data to be part of such a system but until then I will do whatever I can to withhold my data. That may prevent some research or create some short-term difficulties but the alternative is worse.
Stuart Barry
Reading, Berkshire
Too cool for school? Not me
In grade nine, I decided that I was never going to be considered cool and that only those that espoused a desire for coolness would ever attain such a state anyway (“I’m not keen on our aversion to keenness”, David Mitchell, New Review).
I was too tall for a girl, I had straight red hair, and a huge desire to make people laugh. None of these descriptors tend to be cool.
Now, 57 years later, I still feel the same way and am so good with that early decision. “Dare to be corny,” I would counsel my psychotherapy clients, especially the young ones. The only possible way to protect your heart is to wear it carelessly on your sleeve where it can get banged and bruised and become more and more sensitive. I will give my life to be one of [Persian poet] Rumi’s love dogs, whining for my master.
Jan Morrison
Prospect, Nova Scotia, Canada
