Every now and then, I find myself in the strange position of trying to convince Scottish nationalists not to train their pitchforks on SNP MSP John Mason, who is known for his mercurial pronouncements. This time he has been suspended from the party whip for disputing the assertion that Israel is conducting a genocide in Gaza. In a post on Twitter, Mason said: ‘If Israel wanted to commit genocide, they would have killed ten times as many.’ This was a response to a sharply worded post from former colleague Sandra White. White, who served as a nationalist MSP between 1999 and 2021, apologised in 2015 after reposting an anti-Semitic meme on Twitter, claiming to have done so inadvertently. The image, as described by the BBC, showed ‘six piglets suckling at a sow with the word “Rothschild” and the Star of David on it’.
Mason’s suspension could set a precedent that the SNP will find difficult to maintain
Mason’s post is said to be callous, to insinuate incorrectly that attempted genocide requires a certain volume of casualties, and to downplay Palestinian death and suffering. I can see why reasonable people might read it that way. It’s not the most elegant or nuanced sentence, though this is Twitter we’re talking about. However, the whip hasn’t been withdrawn because of anything reasonable people have said. It’s been withdrawn because pro-Palestinian – or, more accurately, anti-Israel – ideologues have gone splenetic over the post. And the party leadership is desperate to appease such people after they went splenetic over a recent meeting between SNP minister Angus Robertson and an Israeli diplomat. I’ve written about that here.
To my eyes, Mason’s suspension looks not so much like an overreaction as a tactical chunk of red meat tossed to the braying jackals. A party spokesman says: ‘To flippantly dismiss the death of more than 40,000 Palestinians is completely unacceptable. There can be no room in the SNP for this kind of intolerance.’ Flippancy is debatable but, unless there are other posts that have informed this decision, it’s not clear where Mason displayed ‘intolerance’ or who or what he displayed it to. Could he have expressed himself more clearly, thoughtfully and sensitively? Yes, but if the SNP is going to suspend the whip every time one of its MSPs tweets with insufficient nuance it’ll go from government to minor opposition party within a day or two.
Mason has responded by saying ‘too many’ had died in the conflict and that many felt Israel has crossed the line from ‘self-defence to seeking revenge’. However, he added, ‘I personally do not believe that Israel has tried to commit, has committed, or is committing genocide. They certainly have the ability to kill many more Palestinians than they have done. That is not to say that the loss of life already is not too many.’
That is certainly how I read his tweet: if Israel had genocidal designs, it could have achieved them already. Of course, there is no numerical threshold for genocide. Article II of the Convention says the crime is committed when a perpetrator intends to ‘destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group’ and does so by 1) killing members of said group; 2) causing them serious physical or psychological injury; 3) deliberately imposing living conditions ‘calculated to bring about… physical destruction in whole or in part; 4) attempting to reduce natality; or 5) ‘forcibly’ transferring the children of one group to another. The International Criminal Court further specifies that genocide takes place ‘in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct’ and that it covers the killing of ‘one or more persons’.
So the implication that the death toll in Gaza, as yet unconfirmed, disproves charges of genocide is seemingly at odds with the terms of international law. However, Mason is not a lawyer (neither am I) and he is speaking in lay terms in a political debate rather than giving a legal analysis. That can hardly be cause for the whip to be suspended. Nor can disputing the accusation of genocide, which remains just that – an accusation. As I’ve written about here, key organs of international law, including the International Court of Justice, have shredded their credibility when it comes to Israel by abandoning institutional and judicial objectivity in favour of political activism.
But let’s set that to one side and pretend Israel will or ever could get a fair hearing on allegations of genocide. No international court has found it guilty of that crime. In the current case South Africa vs. Israel, the ICJ has made a provisional order instructing Israel to ‘take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II’. But as Julia Sebutinde, vice president of the Court, stated in her dissent:
‘[T]he reader of the present Order must be cautious not to assume or conclude that, by indicating provisional measures, the Court has already made a determination that the State of Israel (“Israel”) has actually violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention. This is certainly not the case at this stage of the proceedings, since such a finding could only be made at the stage of the examination of the merits in this case.’
So while some might believe Israel’s actions amount to genocide, the question has not been decided by the ICJ or a similar court. That makes this a matter for debate, which it will likely still be no matter which way the Court rules. Depriving Mason of the whip for taking one side in a prominent debate in which many reasonable politicians, activists, lawyers and commentators disagree seems egregious at best. Unless, of course, there are additional posts or statements which the party has taken into consideration. If there aren’t, and this comes down to giving the impression of flippancy or expressing an unpopular view, Mason’s suspension could set a precedent that the SNP will find difficult to maintain.
Comments