Interesting and cogent observation and it was trotted out during the recent Israeli defence against South Africa's claim in the World Court that Israel is practicing Genocide.

South Africa's position was clear: our history of Apartheid gives us a sharper focus on Israel, here's the World Convention definition of genocide, and this is how Israel is indeed practicing genocide.

Israel put forward an incredibly well-articulated position with a vocabulary to match. It was compelling.

However, it started to lose 'the debate' by using the Holocaust as a defence to such an accusation: how dare you accuse us when a person of the Jewish faith first defined it---ergo we own it; we suffered genocide during WW II, and Israel was one of the first signatories to the convention.

In short, the past provides immunity from claims of Genocide if not impunity for Israel's method of waging war.

However, the definition of genocide is a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, IN WHOLE OR PART.

South Africa won by a very slim edge. Pity that such an outcome, if decided by The World Court, will not not shield those paying the ultimate price in Gaza as well as the West Bank.

Seeing that many countries, especially the United States, are already preempting the World Court's decision, it all comes down to semantics and not cessation.

Recently, Israel's Ambassador to Canada had the sheer gall to suggest that Canada needs to side with Israel.

I wish my elected politicians would respond with this: Canada is an independent country and not necessarily your unconditional ally in your war. We will decide for ourselves.