Having written last week about the deteriorating Arab/Israeli conflict, I am reluctant to revert to it today for fear of repetition. But I have two reasons for doing so.

In the context of this bitter international dispute, there occurred on September 27 what has been described in the British press as a seismic event. This was the killing in an Israeli air strike on Beirut of the long-serving leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, alongside other top commanders of the Lebanon-based terrorist organisation. Funded originally by Iran to fight the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, this group is said to be operating almost as a state within a state. Its leader has been called one of the best known and most influential figures in the Middle East who was rarely seen in public for fear of assassination. The reaction of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was that Israel had settled the score with those “responsible for the deaths of countless Israelis and many foreign citizens.”

According to a BBC report, under Nasrallah’s leadership Hezbollah grew from a small Shia Muslim militia into one of the most powerful unofficial armies in the world and possesses a large arsenal of missiles supplied by Iran. The group fires these on a daily basis into northern Israel as a result of which some 60,000 residents have had to flee their homes.

The killing of Nasrallah was carried out despite the widespread calls from the US, the UK and many others for restraint on both sides and for a general de-escalation of the crisis.

The second reason for writing about the subject again is the significance of last week’s unexpected speech by Netanyahu at the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York. This was in response to UNGA’s non-binding resolution adopted overwhelmingly (124 to 14 with 43 abstentions) on September 18 calling for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories within a year and imposition of sanctions for non-compliance.

Israel had earlier criticised this resolution as “shameful” for not condemning last year’s October 7 massacre or calling for the release of the remaining 101 hostages still held by Hamas. It has also said that the resolution was a form of “diplomatic terrorism” on behalf of the Palestinian Authority in an attempt to isolate Israel before world leaders travelled to New York for UNGA. Interestingly, the US criticised the resolution for being “one-sided” since it failed to recognise Hamas as a terrorist organisation.

Netanyahu said he had not expected to come to New York but at the last minute decided to do so in order to “set the record straight” in person because, under the curse of Iran’s unremitting aggression, the terrorists wanted to destroy civilisation – in his words, “my country is at war fighting for its life”.

People often ask why the UN has been unable or unwilling to resolve this long-running dispute. As the most representative, authoritative, inter-governmental and multilateral organisation in the world, under which the rules-based international order was established after the Second World War, the UN has played over the years an important role in maintaining world peace and security, though it has not succeeded in all cases in which it has become involved.

In the Middle East, the UN claims to have been working to de-escalate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by engaging the key actors and providing emergency assistance to civilians on the ground through UNRWA, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees.

But, patently, some problems require more political goodwill and cooperation than others. A relatively recent example was UN Security Council Resolution 1701 which was supposed to end the Israeli/Lebanon war of 2006 but the provisions of which were not fully adhered to by Hezbollah.

Moreover, inevitably there are genuine differences of approach between UN member states about a whole range of issues – and it is also, of course, the case that any of the five permanent members of the Security Council can veto action for whatever reason.

One such difference of view about the war in Gaza is what critics of UN action – or lack of it - call double standards and an alleged lack of consistency in the application of international law. Indeed, some say a double standard is more broadly applicable and is the root cause of the weakness of today’s international order. In the case of the Israeli-Gaza war, they cite as an example the so-called disregard of international humanitarian law that forbids killing civilians, with many maintaining that the right of a country to defend itself should not apply when that country is at the same time an occupying power. That is to say that a power occupying another country cannot claim the right to self-defence against the people that it is occupying.

However, definition of the extent of the right to self-defence will vary. Israel is now engaged simultaneously on three different operational fronts, given that it has now bombed the Houthis in Yemen who recently fired a missile that was successfully intercepted at Ben Gurion international airport in Tel Aviv. Many observers believe that what appears to be the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Gaza – and most recently in Beirut – in a bid to wipe out terrorists should be condemned as totally unacceptable. To avoid condemnation from the rest of the world, these critics judge that the Israelis need to exercise a degree of restraint. They say that as well as destruction of Hamas’s tunnels in Gaza, other ways should surely be found to target fighters more precisely which, of course, we now know is possible given the recent attacks on Hezbollah’s personal communications devices in Beirut.

It was interesting to read the other day a detailed briefing about the Israel-Palestinian conflict by a US State Department official. Clearly, the US aim is to de-escalate the ongoing conflict in both Gaza and Lebanon through diplomatic means to try to prevent them from developing into wider international crises. But the official also said that the US was required by statute to guarantee that Israel has a qualitative edge over rivals in the region. This means presumably that it is mandated to provide military support to Israel. While the major powers are not directly involved on the ground there is also continuing support from other Western countries. For its part, Britain, in a statement at a meeting of the UN Security Council on September 26 has called for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon including discontinuation of the firing by Hezbollah of rockets at Israel and a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

It must surely be clear from all this that Israel will survive as a country – in which case, as I suggested last week, the time has come for Hamas and Hezbollah to stop firing rockets into Israel so that the conditions can be created for restarting diplomacy in an effort to work towards a long-term solution.

PASSING OF A NATIONAL TREASURE

Last week’s news of the death at the age 89 of Dame Maggie Smith, the renowned English actress, will have saddened many who will recall her major roles recently in Harry Potter and Downton Abbey, the UK TV drama followed by viewers around the world. 

Such was her fame that the UK press coverage of her passing has been immense, with numerous tributes from a wide range of people.

She had been a much acclaimed stage actress since the 1960s onwards before her later successful career on the big screen. 

She was judged to have been a formidable star on both, and has been described as a true legend. 

She won countless awards and was much loved by the public but always insisted that she led “a perfectly normal life” until the universal acclaim she received for her performance in Downton Abbey. 

She was universally admired for her fine professionalism as well as her reputation as an amusing and kind person, though with a sharp wit, who, in her own words was “never shy on stage but always shy off it”.

The King has paid a warm tribute to her saying that she will be remembered with “fondest admiration and affection”. Many, many people in Britain will surely agree with that.

NO INDEPENDENCE FOR SCOTLAND ANYTIME SOON

Despite time seeming to pass quickly, some may find it hard to believe that Scotland’s referendum on independence took place as long as ten years ago. The issues and speculation about the likely result still seem so fresh to those (like me) who studied them at the time. On polling day on September 18, 2014, the Scottish electorate rejected independence by a margin of 55 percent to 45 percent.

A decade later, not much appears to have changed, with the evidence showing that Scotland remains divided on the question of the nation’s constitutional future. Reportedly, however, the latest polls suggest a slight change with nearly half of voters likely to vote yes to independence if a second referendum were held. This is so even though the political fortunes of the Scottish National Party have declined significantly. The SNP is, of course, the principal proponent of independence, and it accepts devolution of power from Westminster to the British regions, which happened with the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, as the first stage towards independence.

In the British general election in July this year, the party won just nine seats, down from forty-eight in 2019.The leader of the SNP, which now heads up a minority government at Holyrood, the seat of the Scottish Parliament, has said that his party will have to consider how to deliver better the SNP’s commitment to independence which remains as strong as ever.

It is said that a decade after the independence referendum memories may have faded somewhat but feelings for some remain raw as people recall the referendum as agony for some but ecstasy for others.

For many, it is hardly surprising that nearly half its population have wanted Scotland to take its place as an independent nation in the international community. It is a country with a population of 5.5 million containing about one third of the land area of the UK in the north of the island of Great Britain and with some 800 adjacent islands in the archipelagos of the Hebrides and Northern Isles. It has a rich history of battles against autocratic English monarchs who wanted to assert authority over it, and its people have retained a strong sense of identity and independence of spirit.

Scotland is loved by many, including the late Queen who was known to favour Balmoral among all the royal residences, for its fine and varied scenery - islands, mountain ranges, valleys known as glens, forests and moorlands together with rich agricultural land. It has well developed industries, splendid architecture in a range of large towns and two major cities, Glasgow and its capital Edinburgh; special music (the bagpipes) and dancing (Scottish reels) and sports like football and rugby in which it delights in trying to defeat what it calls the “auld” enemy (England). People have a richly identifiable accent with a strong sense of belonging and pride in their roots and identity – and, of course, there are numerous Scots who have travelled far and wide and successfully made their way elsewhere in the world.

All in all, many besides Scots themselves can understand why half the nation’s population want independence. The arguments in favour are largely based on pride in their country and a desire to run their own affairs, not least in benefitting from their own natural resources of North Sea oil and gas. One example of what independence would mean is that in the Brexit referendum in 2016 Scotland voted to remain in the European Union, and the SNP has made it clear an independent Scotland would try to re-join the bloc.

On the other side of the coin, there is good sense in the argument it would be safer to remain within the United Kingdom which has kept Scotland and England together since 1707. Being part of the UK gives Scotland a stronger voice in the world, provides access to shared public services, boosts its economy by working closely with its largest trading partner immediately to the south and delivers the advantages of using the same strong and stable currency, the pound sterling. But above all, perhaps, is the notion that within living memory the two countries have indeed been locked together for so long and to their mutual benefit.

Scotland cannot hold another independence referendum without the UK Parliament at Westminster passing legislation to enable that to happen. Former prime minister Boris Johnson’s government turned down the idea in 2022 and there is no sign of such legislation happening in the foreseeable future. But what is for sure is that it remains in the sights of the activists concerned.