The slaughter of children can never be dismissed as an unavoidable casualty of war; it constitutes a profound moral and legal transgression that recalls the darkest chapters of the twentieth century. The targeting of schools and educational facilities during armed conflict is among the gravest violations of International Humanitarian Law. Under the Geneva Conventions, schools are recognised as civilian objects and are afforded protection against direct attack. When such spaces become battlefields, the consequences extend far beyond immediate loss of life – the psychological and developmental damage inflicted upon an entire generation is incalculable.
Scenes emerging from the conflict expose the brutal realities of modern warfare and raise troubling questions about the global community’s response to civilian suffering. The destruction of innocent lives demands more than muted condemnation. It requires moral clarity, accountability and a renewed commitment to the protection of non-combatants. We have an obligation to honour the memory of those who perished and to stand in solidarity with survivors who must now live under the shadow of fear and devastation.
History repeatedly shows that selective memory allows atrocities to fade from public conscience, only for similar tragedies to occur again elsewhere. Remembering acts of violence against civilians is essential if humanity is to confront hatred, prejudice and indifference wherever they arise. The promise of “Never Again” loses meaning when the world remains unmoved by the suffering of innocent people. History will ultimately judge not only those who carried out such acts, but also those who chose silence. Farouk Araie | Benoni
I used to wonder, during the apartheid years, why someone could not simply “work a plan” and assassinate Dr DF Malan, or later Dr HF Verwoerd, and thereby remove the architects of apartheid once and for all. The thinking seemed simple: Kill the engineer and the steam engine runs aground; apartheid would collapse with them.
With time, however, I came to understand something more profound. Ideology functions like a relay race. One runner collapses from exhaustion, but another immediately takes the baton and continues along the same path, passing it on again and again. Le roi est mort – vive le roi (Tyranny dies, yet tyranny lives on). Equally, freedom may appear to die, yet freedom also survives through those who inherit its ideals.
History offers many examples. Nazism resurfaced long after Adolf Hitler’s disappearance. Hindutva ideology re-emerged even after the RSS was temporarily banned. In the same way, the human-rights ideals associated with figures such as Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr, Chief Albert Luthuli, and John F Kennedy continue to influence societies long after their deaths. The lesson is clear: Eliminating a leader does not eliminate an ideology. Ideas outlive individuals.
For this reason, targeting religious or political figures in the belief that their removal will end a movement is ultimately futile. Ideologies persist, often strengthened by martyrdom narratives, and the cycle continues – frequently at enormous human and economic cost. Perhaps history’s enduring message is that lasting change comes not from removing individuals, but from confronting the ideas themselves. Ebrahim Essa | Cape Town
The latest military strike by the US against Iran, coming on the heels of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House, raises disturbing questions about who truly shapes American foreign policy. President Donald Trump has long prided himself on an “America First” doctrine. Yet his administration’s escalating confrontation with Tehran appears less about US national interest and more about aligning Washington uncritically with the strategic objectives of Israel’s current leadership.
The optics are troubling: high-level meetings followed swiftly by military action suggest policy co-ordination that risks entangling America in conflicts not of its own making. Equally concerning is the role of mega-donors in modern US politics. Businesswoman Miriam Adelson has been among the most significant financial backers of Trump-aligned campaigns. While political donations are lawful, democracy falters when foreign policy appears indistinguishable from the preferences of wealthy benefactors or foreign governments.
Perception matters. If Americans believe that campaign financing or external pressure dictates decisions of war and peace, faith in constitutional governance erodes. Legally, the strike raises serious international concerns. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state except in self-defence or with Security Council authorisation. Pre-emptive or retaliatory attacks absent a clear, imminent threat risk violating this foundational norm.
Furthermore, customary international law and principles reflected in the International Court of Justice jurisprudence emphasise necessity and proportionality in any defensive action. Reckless escalation undermines the fragile architecture that has sought to restrain great-power conflict since 1945.
America’s strength has historically rested on alliances, respect for law, and moral authority. If Washington is seen as abandoning multilateralism in favour of unilateral strikes shaped by political patronage or foreign influence, it weakens not only global stability but its own republic. Empires seldom collapse overnight; they decline when institutions are subordinated to personal loyalties and short-term political gain. If “America First” becomes “America Alone,” history suggests the consequences may be severe – not only for the Middle East, but for the future of the American experiment itself.
Is America Israel’s proxy? You be the judge. Adiel Ismail | Cape Town
DAILY NEWS
Related Topics: