I refer to Ronnie Kasril’s article, “Let’s make a start on peace” (The Star Opinion and Analysis, August 23) and wish to state my unequivocal support of that sentiment.

Who in his right mind could wish for anything less?

What bothers me (as I read Kasril’s summary of what the Russell Tribunal aims to achieve in its deliberations about whether Israel practices apartheid) is the obvious fact that this is no less than a kangaroo court aimed at finding Israel guilty before the proceedings have even begun.

One has only to read the list of participants which include both local and international opponents of Israel, all of whom are on record with histories of condemnation of Israel in the past, while among the 20 names listed, not a single one can be depended on to present Israel’s case in response. I have made the effort to research the backgrounds of those participants who are generally unknown in this region and who will serve as either “witnesses” or “jury members”.

Each one has a record of anti-Israel bias. There is not a single participant with a more sympathetic understanding of Israel’s policies.

An examination of the jury that found Israel guilty when the tribunal last met in London in 2010 reveals an almost identical list of names.

Why should their conclusion now be any different?

What, therefore, can the purpose be of so skewed a tribunal be other than to, once again, demonise Israel in the crudest manner?

Who are the tribunal fooling in trying to make it appear that it will offer a fair evaluation of whether Israel practices apartheid or not?

It is an insult to our intelligence to suggest that the so-called “jury” will reach a verdict based on unbiased “evidence” representative of all sides of the story.

If this were a court of law, not a single participant would survive a challenge for recusal. But the Russell Tribunal is as far from a court of law as truth is from fiction and, when it comes to Israel, it has long been shown that fiction rules the day.

If Ronnie Kasrils wishes the tribunal to be taken seriously, he must assure us that his sanctimonious claim – “The tribunal seeks only to contribute to a region desperately requiring a lasting peace based on justice and equity for all” – will ensure that the Hamas Charter calling for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews, no matter where they are, will be examined with equal urgency and condemned as counter-productive to achieving the goals he desires.

Further, other than simply offering sound-bites linking Israel with apartheid, the tribunal must provide detailed evidence proving this claim after taking into account the context in which Israel’s homogeneous society exists; the efforts made, under the most difficult circumstances to achieve and maintain a level of democracy unequalled anywhere else in the region; the constant threats to her very existence that Israel has faced on a daily basis since her creation; the inbuilt opposition and hostility that she must contend with in world bodies such as the UN; the double standards that apply to Israel’s existence as a state for Jews but not to Muslim states that preclude any faith other than Islam; and the blatant apartheid practices aimed at Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.

If the Russell Tribunal has any integrity, it must meet this list of criteria at the very least.

Victor Gordon

Brooklyn, Pretoria