Scots' debate on Palestine 'shameful' – Israeli foreign office


The official report of the debate follows the Times of Israel report.


The debating chamber in the Scottish parliament.

Scottish parliament discusses recognition of Palestinian state

Foreign Ministry slams the debate — held on the eve of Israel’s Memorial Day — as ‘shameful’ and ‘pointless’

By Raphael Ahren, Times of Israel
April 22, 2015

A Scottish parliament debate on Monday on the recognition of a Palestinian state as a means to revive peace negotiations drew sharp condemnations from Jerusalem. Noting that the debate took place on the eve of Israel’s Memorial Day, one Israeli official called the discussion “pointless” and “shameful.”

The parliament in Edinburgh did not vote at the end of the poorly attended session, but most speakers expressed support for the motion, several of them criticizing Israel for running an “apartheid” regime and “inhumane” policies vis-à-vis the Palestinians.

The motion, proposed by Glasgow MP Sandra White, stated that the parliament “believes that the recognition of the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel based on 1967 borders could be a stimulus to securing a negotiated two-state solution in the Middle East and notes the opinion of many Israelis and Palestinians living in Glasgow, the rest of Scotland and beyond that resolution through peaceful means is the only option.”

Usually, members’ debates in the Scottish parliament last for about 30 minutes and feature a handful of speakers. But due to the uncharacteristically large number of MPs who wanted to speak, the session was extended to last for a full hour.

“The only way to achieve a lasting peace is to recognize a Palestinian state alongside an Israeli one,” White, from the Scottish National Party, said in her speech introducing the motion. “Let’s be clear: the time is now. The time is not tomorrow or at some vague point in the future.” Recognizing Palestine at the present time would be a “huge stimulus for peace efforts,” she added.

White congratulated the House of Commons in London for having overwhelmingly voted in favor of the recognition of Palestine in October, and said she hoped the UK’s new government will implement this decision after the upcoming national election.

Polls expect the pro-Palestinian Scottish National Party to make significant gains in the May 7 election.

“We cannot continue to bury our heads in the sand,” White said. “Already 134 out of 193 UN member states have taken steps to recognize the state of Palestine and I believe it’s time the UK did the same. I believe that it is morally incumbent on the UK to take that step, given its involvement and its resulting culpability for the current situation.”

Other MPs were openly hostile toward Israel in their statements.

Israel “breaches international law by operating what is, in effect, an apartheid regime that treats Palestinian people — including Palestinian children — as second-class citizens, that denies them basic human rights and that believes that the life of an Israeli child is more precious than the life of a Palestinian child,” said Labour MP Cara Hilton.

Jim Hume, a Liberal Democrat, mentioned that during his last visit to the Middle East he was told about “Israeli-only bus routes with no Palestinians allowed,” accusing Israel of practicing inhumane policies. “The situation in Palestine is intolerable. Gaza is still besieged, apartheid is the norm and prisoners are held without charge,” he said.

The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem condemned the debate, stressing its awkward timing.

“A small number of members of the Scottish parliament, among them dedicated and vociferous haters of the only democracy in the Middle East, chose to conduct yesterday evening a pointless anti-Israeli debate,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon. “This happened on Israel’s Remembrance Day for its fallen soldiers and victims of Palestinian terror. This is shameful and unnecessary.”

In September, Scotland voted against independence from the United Kingdom. At the time, officials in Jerusalem declined to comment on the record about the Scottish referendum, but in private conversations expressed concerns that an independent Scotland could embolden other nationalist movements — including the Palestinians — to increase their activism.

Scotland is known as relatively pro-Palestinian. During last year’s Operation Protective Edge, the government in Edinburgh released more than half a dozen statements critical of Israel and reportedly called for an arms embargo against the Jewish state. Several local councils flew the Palestinian flag in solidarity with Gazan casualties.



MSP Sandra White introducing her motion for recognition of Palestine in the Scottish parliament last Tuesday.

Palestinian State (Recognition)

Official report, the Scottish Parliament, 21 April 2015

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith): The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-12630, in the name of Sandra White, on recognition of the Palestinian state. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament believes that the recognition of the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel based on 1967 borders could be a stimulus to securing a negotiated two-state solution in the Middle East and notes the opinion of many Israelis and Palestinians living in Glasgow, the rest of Scotland and beyond that resolution through peaceful means is the only option.

17:03
Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP):
I thank the members of the Scottish Parliament who signed my motion, giving it cross-party support and enabling the debate to take place. I also thank the many groups that have contacted me and other members about the debate. Some of their representatives are in the public gallery tonight, and I welcome them to the Scottish Parliament.

There is often a great deal of misunderstanding and misrepresentation around the issue of Palestine, whether it be from individuals, the media or various Governments, but certain historical facts cannot be altered or dismissed. They must, in turn, be recognised.

It is a fact that, in November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 181, which recommended the creation of a two-state solution with a special international regime for the city of Jerusalem. At that time, those proposals were not seen as acceptable by the Palestinians and other Arab countries in the region because they went against the principles of the right to self-determination and imposed conditions that were generally seen as unfair and unworkable.

The breakdown of a workable plan led to the 1948 Palestinian war in which Israeli forces took control of a much larger area of land than was proposed in the UN resolution, an estimated 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled, and hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages were depopulated and destroyed.

In 1967, Israel conquered the West Bank, the Gaza strip and the Golan Heights, while annexing east Jerusalem. The UN and Governments across the world have repeatedly condemned that annexation and the subsequent building on the occupied territories, and it is considered to be illegal under international law.

I therefore hope that, in this debate, regardless of our opinions on what is happening today, we can all agree that that short history of Palestine needs to be recognised. Importantly, we must also recognise the more recent attempts at reaching a solution to the conflict, centred on the 1967 borders. It is indisputable that settlements built on occupied territories are considered to be illegal under international law, and we should not simply forget that fact.

Many people are quick to criticise nations that violate UN resolutions or do not abide by international law. I believe that, if we fail to acknowledge that where Israel is concerned, we fail to present the situation objectively and we fail to be taken seriously by the rest of the world.

Let us be clear: regardless of the history, I believe that the way forward and the only way to achieve a lasting peace is to recognise a Palestinian state alongside an Israeli one. That was not possible in 1947 but, for me and many others, it is the only viable option open to us now. Let us be clear also that the time is now. The time is not tomorrow or some point in the future; it is now.

Last October, the United Kingdom Parliament voted by 274 votes to 12 in favour of recognising Palestine. I congratulate MPs on that. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, stated that that will not change the UK Government’s views on recognition. We are now in the last stages of the Westminster election campaign, and I hope that whoever wins the election will not only recognise Palestine but actively support a two-state solution.

We cannot continue to bury our heads in the sand. Already 134 out of 193 UN member states have taken steps to recognise the state of Palestine, and it is time that the UK did the same. I believe that it is morally incumbent on the UK to take that step, given its involvement and its resulting culpability for the current situation.

From the time when Britain administered Palestine after the first world war until it abandoned it in 1948, our involvement in Palestine has been quite shameful, from the promises of an independent Palestinian state to refusing to support UN efforts for a two-state solution, leading to the 1948 war and the subsequent loss of Palestinian land. Our actions have loomed large over the history of Palestine; it is time for our actions to loom large over the future of Palestine.

I believe that, given our previous involvement in Palestine, our recognition of Palestine will carry extra weight and will be a huge stimulus to peace efforts. Therefore, by definition, it will help those peace efforts. The time to recognise Palestine is now. Across the world, people recognise that that is the way forward, and it is time that we joined them.

When the motion was scheduled for debate, I received support from many different quarters, alongside a petition from citizens of Israel, which stated:

“We the undersigned, Citizens of Israel who wish it to be a safe and thriving country, are worried by the continued political stalemate and by the occupation and settlements activities which lead to further confrontations with the Palestinians and torpedo the chances for a compromise.

It is clear that the prospects for Israel’s security and existence depend on the existence of a Palestinian state side by side with Israel. Israel should recognize the state of Palestine and Palestine should recognize the state of Israel, based on the June 4 1967 borders.”

Those are not my words but the words of the people who signed that petition. It was signed by Israelis from all walks of life, including students, lawyers, teachers, members of the Israeli Parliament, army colonels and former ambassadors.

The will is there in Israel, and we owe it as much to the Israelis as we do to the Palestinians to support them. The establishment of a two-state solution is essential if we are to do that; it is essential if we are to free Palestinians from occupation and from the injustices that have been wrought upon them. It is essential if we are to provide security for both Palestinians and Israelis.

There is of course a lot of work to be done by both sides but, by taking this step, we can demonstrate to those who are entrenched in their views, whatever side they are on, that there is an alternative—one that is very much worth pursuing.

We do not have power over foreign affairs in the Scottish Parliament, but I believe that today’s debate is important and that we can make a difference. On 7 May, Scotland will choose 59 MPs to represent our views, and we should send a strong message that a two-state solution is what the majority of MSPs want.

Yesterday, the Scottish National Party launched its UK election manifesto. In it was a promise to

“call on the next UK government to pursue a two state solution for Israel and Palestine and to support the formal recognition of a Palestinian state.”

I welcome that commitment, and the commitment of other parties to that solution, but we need to understand that it is imperative that we act now—indeed, we are beholden to do so. We must learn from the mistakes of the past and not repeat them.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:
A large number of members want to speak in the debate this evening. In order to ensure that I can call everyone, I am minded at this stage to accept a motion from Sandra White, under rule 8.14.3, that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Sandra White.]

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Thank you. Even so, I must still ask members to keep speeches to four minutes.

17:10
Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab):
I apologise to Sandra White because I will have to leave after my speech. I commend her for bringing the debate to the chamber: it is absolutely the right thing to do. This Parliament should state very clearly that we recognise the state of Palestine.

The situation in Palestine is one of the big remaining long-standing international injustices. We have seen peace in Ireland, and we see the first steps towards ending the 50-year embargo against Cuba—the Miami five were recently released after long periods in US jails and allowed to return home.

However, despite progress elsewhere, the great injustice against the Palestinian people remains. Two thirds of the world’s countries now recognise Palestine as a state, and increasing numbers of church groups, trade unions and international organisations support that recognition, as defined by the 1967 borders. Recognition by this Parliament and others is no magic bullet, but it sends a clear message of solidarity to the people—the message that we care and that we want justice and peace for a people whose appalling suffering has gone on for way too long.

Illegal occupation, aggressive actions by the Israeli army and the expansion of settlements—which now host about 650,000 people—are all major barriers to creating any movement for a just peace. If we are going to see progress, it will—as in all disputes—take two sides to make a deal. I fear that that will not happen, given the aggressiveness and complete unwillingness of the current Israeli Government to accept or recognise all that is going on: ethnic cleansing; the holding of child prisoners and of prisoners without trial; torture; the demolition of homes, hospitals and power stations; and land grabs.

If there is no recognition or admission of those war crimes and gross human rights violations, there is unlikely to be any progress. The blockade of Gaza and further attacks on innocent men, women and children have only increased tensions, conflict and tragedy in the region. I have to say that my blood ran cold when Netanyahu was re-elected earlier this year.

The international community will need to be extremely forceful if we are going to see progress over the next while. Our actions today are a small step in the right direction. I thank Sandra White for bringing the debate to the chamber.

17:13
Christina McKelvie (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP):
I thank my friend and colleague Sandra White for bringing the issue, once again, to Parliament. She has been a great champion of the cause, and she has certainly educated many members of our party about some of the issues.

What is peace? Peace is a period of harmony between different social groups that is characterized by a lack of violence and conflict behaviours, and by freedom from fear of violence. It is commonly understood to be an absence of hostility and retribution. Peace also suggests sincere attempts at reconciliation, the existence of healthy or newly healed interpersonal or international relationships, prosperity in matters of social or economic welfare, and the establishment of equality and a working political order that serves the true interests of all.

My consideration of that idea of peace led me to an initiative that I had heard about: the Nobel Women’s Initiative. Everything that it does embodies the interpretation of peace that I have just given. The initiative has three objectives—“Women Forging Peace”, “Women Achieving Justice” and “Women Advancing Equality and Human Rights”. A few years ago, the initiative produced a fascinating report on the work that it was doing with Palestinian and Israeli women. The report was called, “Partners for Peace: Women in Israel and Palestine Working for an End to the Conflict and Lasting Reconciliation”, and I am sure that what we all want for Palestine and Israel is women—mothers, wives, sisters and daughters—in Palestinian and Israeli communities working together for peace and reconciliation. The report states:

“Any meeting between the Palestinian and Israeli members of the group has an element of a miracle … If we, who have lost the most precious of all, can sit and talk, then surely others could use this as an example.”

I am sure that we can all agree with that.

That have been many moments when I have been proud of my party, but I have never been prouder than I was at the manifesto launch yesterday, when I saw, written in bold in our manifesto, a commitment to recognise a Palestinian state. I back Sandra White’s call on whoever forms the next UK government to take that into account.


Abdessalam Najjar plays with Israeli and Palestinian children attending school in a unique village he founded in Israel, where Jews and Arabs have lived together peacefully for more than 30 years. One of Angela Catlin’s photos in her series Middle East peacemakers

A good few years ago, I hosted the Middle East Peace Festival in this building. Part of that festival was a photographic exhibition in the garden lobby. The display was a narrative of some of the reconciliation work that was going on in Gaza. The photographer was Angela Catlin and the reporter was Billy Briggs. Many, many photographs depicted scenes that were symbolic of peace and reconciliation, but one in particular kept drawing me back over and over again. That photograph now hangs in my office—it has been there for about seven years. It reminds me of why we need to do what we are doing, and it brings us back to the idea of “Women Forging Peace”—I know that the guys are pretty good at that as well, but I thought that it would be different to focus on women. The photograph shows a three-year-old girl in a bright red jumper, holding a white dove. The symbology of that tells us everything that we need to know: youth, the future, the bright reality of the red jumper, and the white of the dove, meaning peace.

For all of our sakes—for the sake of that wee girl and for the sake of Israel and Palestine—we need a two-state solution that is enshrined in the philosophy of peace.

17:17
Cameron Buchanan (Lothian) (Con):
I, too, congratulate Sandra White on securing today’s debate on this sensitive and incredibly important international issue. I think that all of us can agree with key elements of the motion in relation to the need for a negotiated two-state solution, and with the view that that resolution must come through peaceful means.

However, my position on the specific issue of recognition of Palestine is in line with that of the UK Government—namely, that although the UK reserves the right to recognise a Palestinian state bilaterally, and keeps the matter under constant consideration, that must happen at a time when it can best help to bring about peace. As the UK Foreign Office minister Tobias Ellwood stated last October in a similar debate at Westminster, the timing of any such recognition is vital and is, diplomatically, a card that we can play only once.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Ind):
Could Cameron Buchanan comment on most people’s view that the best time for peace is always now?

Cameron Buchanan:
I agree that the best time for peace is now, but recognition of a Palestinian state is dependent on certain conditions being met first and which I will now enunciate. One of them is that, for its part, Palestine must recognise the right of the Jewish state to exist, which at the moment it does not. The immediate focus must continue to be on a negotiated end to the occupation, which is the most effective way for Palestinian aspirations to statehood to be met. That must come as part of a comprehensive peace agreement that delivers an independent Palestine alongside a safe and secure Israel. We are under no illusions about how difficult it looks to achieve that.

However, the UK, with international partners, is continuing to push for progress towards peace, and leads the way in supporting Palestinian state building and measures to address Israel’s security concerns. Making progress towards the two-state solution remains a foreign-policy priority for the UK. In commenting on the result of the recent Israeli general election and the re-election of Mr Netanyahu, the UK again called on the Israeli Government to demonstrate leadership and courage in working with the international community to secure the peace that is so strongly in the interests both of Israelis and of Palestinians.

We recognise the severe suffering of the inhabitants of Gaza. The UK Government is one of the leading donors in supporting the much-needed reconstruction efforts in Gaza; indeed, we will have provided £350 million between 2011 and 2015 to build Palestinian institutions, deliver essential services and relieve the humanitarian situation. We share the concerns about Israeli settlement building in the West Bank and have said that Israel’s settlement-building makes it hard for its friends to make the case that Israel is committed to peace. The Palestinian Authority must also make progress on governance and security for Palestinians in Gaza as well as the West Bank.

At the same time, the Palestinians must take steps to address Israel’s significant and legitimate security concerns. We should all recognise that Israel has faced an unacceptable barrage of rockets from Hamas and other militant groups, which is unsustainable.

Again, I welcome the debate and look forward to the time when the UK can formally recognise the Palestinian state, which I hope will happen when we have made genuine progress towards peace and towards achieving a just and lasting solution to the long-stated aim of a negotiated two-state solution.

17:21
Cara Hilton (Dunfermline) (Lab):
I congratulate Sandra White on securing this important debate and I declare an interest as a member of the cross-party group on Palestine and as a member of the Scottish Palestine solidarity campaign. Scotland has strong links with Palestine, and the Scottish labour movement has a long history of supporting the Palestinian struggle for justice.

The UK, as the originator of the Balfour declaration, has a unique historical and moral responsibility to the people of both Palestine and Israel, yet, 100 years on from our 1920 commitment to guide Palestinians to statehood, the Palestinian people are still struggling for self-determination and for recognition.

Last October, the UK Parliament voted overwhelmingly to recognise Palestine, but just two days later—as Sandra White mentioned—David Cameron said that he would recognise Palestine only “when the time is right”.

The time is not only right, it is long overdue. The UK has neglected its responsibilities and obligations to the Palestinian people for too long.

Recognition of Palestine is not, and can never be, a bargaining chip or a negotiating tool. It is a fundamental and unconditional human right for the Palestinian people. The fact that the UK is one of a handful of nations that refused to support recognition at the United Nations is simply shameful. I hope that one of the first actions of the new UK Government will be to join the 135 nations right across the world that now recognise Palestine, because the need for international pressure has never been greater.

The two-state solution seems to be slipping away under Prime Minister Netanyahu—a man who just one day before Israel’s general election ruled out a Palestinian state while he was Prime Minister; who is on record as saying that Israel has no respect for international law; who believes the deaths of 2,000 civilians during last year’s atrocities in Gaza was “proportionate”; and whose actions appear to be geared towards destroying what little hope the Palestinian people have left.

In recent years, we have seen the illegal settlements expand rapidly, we have seen Palestinians subjected to ever-increasing and punitive restrictions on movement, we have seen the continued building of the illegal apartheid wall, which is dividing and isolating Palestinian land and families, and all the time we are witnessing a large-scale and growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Recognition of Palestine will not secure peace, it will not end the blockade and it will not stop the day-to-day reality of occupation in Palestine, or the collective punishment of people in Gaza. However, it will help to restore hope at a time when diplomacy appears to have failed, and it will send a message to the Israeli Government that Scotland and the UK believe that Palestine has the same right to recognition and security that Israel does and that the existence of a Palestinian state is an absolute requirement for peace. That change needs to happen now and is in the best interests of both the Palestinian and the Israeli people.

Last summer, the world united in its condemnation of Israel’s atrocities in Gaza. Day after day, our television screens were filled with images of schools, hospitals and housing estates reduced to rubble by the Israeli army. More than 500 children lost their lives. The UN secretary general said that Israel’s actions caused an “unprecedented” level of destruction, creating a man-made humanitarian crisis from which it will take Gaza decades to recover. Nine months on, only a quarter of the money that was pledged to rebuild Gaza has been released and reconstruction and recovery have barely begun. A staggering 100,000 people are still homeless and no action has been taken to end the illegal blockade that is denying the people of Gaza access to basic essentials of life, including clean water and healthcare.

Recognition of Palestine is only the start of the journey to justice. I hope that we can send out a strong message from the Scottish Parliament that we recognise the right of the Palestinian people to freedom and self-determination and that we will use our influence, politically and economically, to support the Palestinians’ struggle for justice. The message should be that we will not sit by and watch while the Israeli Government breaches international law by operating what is, in effect, an apartheid regime that treats Palestinian people—including Palestinian children—as second-class citizens, that denies them basic human rights and that believes that the life of an Israeli child is more precious than the life of a Palestinian child, because we believe that every child’s life is precious and that every child in this world is equal. It is time to secure justice and freedom for the Palestinian people; it is time to recognise Palestine.

17:25
Michael Russell (Argyll and Bute) (SNP):
I commend Sandra White for securing the debate and I commend the many other members past and present—I notice that Pauline McNeill is in the public gallery—who have championed the cause of Palestine in Parliament and across Scotland. I have a long-term involvement in the issue through family connections.

The question has to be: if the solution is not a two-state solution, what is it, and if the time is not now, when is the time? The endless debate and discussion and the internationalisation of the issues have not led to a solution. The two-state solution was originally proposed in the early 1970s and there have been many diplomatic efforts to implement it, including the 1991 Madrid conference, the 1993 Oslo accords, the failed 2000 Camp David summit, the Taba negotiations in early 2001, the Arab League proposals in 2002 and, of course, the 2013-14 peace talks.

At the outset of those peace talks, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, said:

“Israeli and Palestinian leaders must move beyond words”.

However, two years later, the movement beyond words has been a movement only to kill innocent civilians. There has to be a time when the two-state solution is implemented, because there is no other solution on the table that would be acceptable to both sides. The solution is very simple, as all those who have been involved in the debate over many years know—it is to ensure not only that Israel has a right to exist but that Palestine has a right to exist. If it is recognised that both states have a right to exist, the work is to ensure that that solution is implemented.

How can the work be implemented? Sir John Maffey, the UK ambassador to Ireland during the second world war, rather ruefully observed at one stage that “Phrases make history here”. One of the great problems in this debate is the language that is used and the language that is sometimes forced out of us when we confront the sheer horror of situations such as that in Gaza last year and the continuing situation there. There has to be a moment at which all those who are involved simply say that enough is enough. Many of us felt that that might have come in 2013-14, when there was a willingness to debate and discuss, but the recent Israeli elections seem to have pushed that even further away. Again, it is also language that has pushed it away. A Prime Minister who seeks re-election on the basis of forbidding the implementation of international resolutions is a Prime Minister who is using language to prevent peace.

John Finnie was absolutely right to ask, “If not now, when?” There has to be peace immediately. The moment that there is any discussion about delaying the opportunity for peace and the end of suffering, we are—like it or not—contributing to that suffering. That is one thing to settle on and, fortunately, it has been settled on. Of the 193 United Nations countries, 135 recognise the existence of a separate Palestinian state. In 2012, Palestine was granted non-member observer status at the UN, with 138 in favour, nine against and 41 abstentions. There is global willingness to accept the two-state solution, including willingness in Palestine and Israel. In Ban Ki-moon’s words, it is time to “move beyond words” and to accept the inevitability of peace, which can come only when there is justice for both sides. That is settled on and it will happen. The question is, “When?” If that is the question, the answer must always be, “Now.”

17:29
Jim Hume (South Scotland) (LD):
I thank Sandra White for lodging the motion, which I fully support. She has a history of supporting the Palestinian cause, not only in the Parliament but in the middle east. I had the privilege of joining her on a 24-hour mission to east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Israel not long ago. We met the families of two hunger-striking prisoners, various political representatives and the UK ambassador to Israel in Tel Aviv.

Those two prisoners had been hunger striking for more than 200 days because they had been arrested and held in custody without any charge. They were at the point of death and the fear was that, if they died in custody, an uprising might occur.

The Parliament has a proud record of standing up for the recognition of the Palestinian state. Pauline McNeill, who is in the public gallery and was an MSP in the previous session, is still deeply involved. Hugh O’Donnell, Claudia Beamish, John Finnie and Jean Urquhart are all active in standing up for the people who others fear to stand up for.

The Parliament is not the only place where recognition of Palestine is increasing, although it is not increasing quickly enough, of course. At the Lib Dem party conference in October, we passed a motion to

“Encourage the European Union to recognise the State of Palestine within pre-1967 borders and with land swaps agreed by the Israeli and Palestinian authorities through peace negotiations in good faith on the basis of each side’s entitlements under international law.”

As others have mentioned, on 13 October, the House of Commons voted by 274 votes to a mere 12 to approve the motion

“That this House believes that the Government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel, as a contribution to securing a negotiated two state solution.”

Sandra White is right to recognise our responsibility. After all, Mr Balfour of the Balfour declaration was one of my constituents—he was from East Lothian—so he was a Scot.

The world’s view of Palestine is changing, albeit slowly, but there has never been a greater need for parity for Palestine. It fulfilled its obligations for electing its representatives and, from that, we should have been able to negotiate meaningfully—without bloodshed and without repercussions—towards the two-state solution agreed by the UN. We have only to look at India and South Africa to see that progress is made only through peaceful negotiations and mutual respect. Nothing is gained from any side taking up arms. Too many innocents have shed blood already.

We all remember the work that many politicians from all sides did in Scotland and the UK to make our concerns about South Africa ring loud and clear. Apartheid is inhumane, but we see it still today. When Sandra White and I were last in the middle east, it had recently been announced that there would be Israeli-only bus routes with no Palestinians allowed. On our route back to the airport, we negotiated for about half an hour with an armed Israeli official who admitted that the reason why he questioned us so much was that our taxi driver happened to hold a Palestinian passport. Such treatment is the norm in the occupied territories.

Four minutes is not long to make the case for the recognition of the Palestinian state in a two-state solution going back to 1967 borders. The situation in Palestine is intolerable. Gaza is still besieged, apartheid is the norm and prisoners are held without charge. There is evidence of children being illegally arrested. The people have no identity and no simple access to medicine, employment, schooling or their human rights. That is unsustainable, is inhuman and has no place in our 21st century world. After all,
“The inhumanity of man toward man is our greatest sin.”

I support the motion in Sandra White’s name and look forward to visiting Palestine in the near future when the Palestinians have equality and parity of rights with their fellow world citizens and neighbours.

17:34
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab):
I warmly welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on an issue of such international importance and warmly congratulate Sandra White on securing time in the Parliament to air the cause of justice for the Palestinian people, which is an essential prerequisite for a lasting peace in the middle east.

The position of the United Nations, which is clearly expressed in resolution 242, is in essence to support a viable Palestinian state coexisting alongside a secure Israel. That resolution’s objective continues to be backed by communities across Scotland, throughout the UK and internationally.

The Church of Scotland’s position is stated clearly in the message that all members have received from the Rev Sally Foster-Fulton, which says:

“We reaffirm the … position of the Church of Scotland that Israel is a country” and

“We reaffirm the historic commitment of the Church of Scotland to a State of Palestine with the same rights and responsibilities”.

The position of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church is also unequivocal. When the matter was debated at Westminster in October, the bishops of Coventry and Clifton published a joint letter that said: “it is the reasonable aspiration of all peoples to belong to a state” and “we believe Palestinians should also have a state that they can at long last call home.”

As members know, those sentiments are shared by people of all faiths and none across all our communities. We have all seen the letter that was circulated by retired ambassador Dr Alon Liel, which was signed by 1,000 citizens of Israel. It states the wish for a safe and thriving Israel and recognises that the fulfilment of that wish is inextricably linked to and dependent on “the existence of a Palestinian state alongside Israel”.

The letter adds that

“Israel should recognise the state of Palestine and Palestine should recognise the state of Israel, based on the June 4th, 1967 borders.”

I believe that the overwhelming majority of the international community agree with that position. The overwhelming vote of the UN General Assembly in 2012—by 138 votes to nine—is clear evidence of support for recognition of the Palestinian state. The Scottish Labour Party, the Labour Party and the labour and trade union movement across the UK have a record of strong support for the Palestinians, who for decades, as we have heard, have endured military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. The latter is under almost total blockade and is still suffering from the effects of last year’s military action by the Israeli state, when thousands—the majority of them civilians—were maimed or killed.

That principled position was clearly demonstrated in the vote at Westminster last year, when the parliamentary Labour Party voted overwhelmingly to recognise a Palestinian state and members of all other parties supported that principled stance. Will such votes and what we support today lead to the objective that is shared by all who wish to make peaceful progress towards the aim of resolution 242? Of course not. However, they will preserve the objective of a two-state solution.

Recognition will restate that hope. Recognition is necessary, not sufficient. It is the precursor to a reinvigorated peace process. It will be a clear and visible indication of the serious intent of the UK and the wider international community not to allow Mr Netanyahu to believe that we will stand idly by and allow him to block the road to peace and justice in the middle east.

I hope that Ed Miliband will become the Prime Minister in 17 days’ time—other members’ views may differ—and that the recognition of the state of Palestine, which is contained in Labour’s manifesto, will be one of his first foreign policy initiatives. It is long overdue. As Douglas Alexander said at the Labour Party conference,

“recognition of Palestine is not a gift to be given, but a right to be had.”

17:38
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Ind):
I, too, congratulate Sandra White on bringing this timely debate to the chamber.

I have confidence in humanity’s ability to do things right. It sometimes takes us a considerable time to do so, but we can get there. We have repeatedly heard the statistic that 135 out of 193 UN member states have already done the right thing, and I commend them for that. Although recognising the Palestinian state will perhaps have little practical effect immediately, it is significant for the issues that are important to people, such as equality, the regard that they are held in and the solidarity that is shown to them.

The Scottish Parliament does not have responsibility for foreign affairs, so many people might wonder why we are discussing this matter. However, it is highly appropriate that we do so. The Parliament has always been outward looking. At topical question time today, my colleague Alison Johnstone raised the plight of migrants drowning in the Mediterranean Sea. I venture that that is very much a metaphor for the plight of the Palestinian people. I welcomed the Scottish Government’s response, which we heard from the cabinet secretary. It was compassionate and constructive, and it sought to work collaboratively with people. I contrast that with what many would characterise as the UK Government’s position, which is that drowning acts as a deterrent.

There is a similarity with what we have heard before from the Scottish Government in relation to the attacks on Gaza, when there was a call for the international community to act together to condemn the collective punishment and the disregard for international law and to offer to treat the injured and offer asylum. It is by acting together that we will secure what we have to secure for the Palestinian state.

The blockade has been mentioned. I have to say that, if someone is homeless, hungry or dispossessed, fine words will count for zero. We need to see action on the ground. Sadly, the UK could be characterised as standing by—the worst sort of gallows bystanders.

I am unequivocally opposed to violence. Coexistence is not a complicated political concept, but it requires good will. The EU was founded on the principle of equality of human rights. We must ask ourselves why some states that we would think would be outward looking and compassionate have taken the position that they have. Clearly there are vested interests, which are often financial and are very pernicious.

The UN resolutions have been alluded to. They are an important signal, but what is more important for the people of Gaza—which I have had the privilege to visit, as have many colleagues—is the practical support that is given on the ground by the people wearing a UN badge. During my visit, I had the opportunity to see at first hand a resilient population, but a population of a systematically brutalised piece of land. It is a just settlement, not illegal settlements, that we need to move things on.

Peaceful coexistence might appear a dream, but it is the right approach to take. The power of reason over the force of arms will always win through. I will not repeat—not least because he would appreciate the characterisation—the Prime Minister of Israel’s present position, but he is certainly not the architect of peace; he is the architect of further division.

What will history say about those who recognised the Palestinian state? It will say that a stance was taken on points of principle, recognising international law and humanitarian norms. That is the only principled stance, as part of the two-state solution.

17:42
Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab):
I am pleased that members of the Parliament have gathered to hold this important debate. I thank Sandra White for bringing the motion to our chamber and for her analysis of the developments leading to today.

I feel strongly about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, like many others in the chamber and far beyond, and I am grateful for the chance to speak. I welcome the people in the public gallery and recognise the work that they do, often on a voluntary basis, to take forward a just solution.

As members may be aware, in 2012 John Finnie and I joined a fact-finding mission to Gaza on a delegation from the Council for European Palestinian Relations. That was just after the Israeli-named operation pillar of defence. The level of destruction was shocking, but equally striking was the resilience and spirit of the people whom John Finnie and I encountered. Many of the bombings—then and in more recent attacks, with difficulties faced by the people there—were gratuitous. I have never forgotten the bombing of the goals and the spectator facilities at the Al Yarmouk community football stadium, which was lauded by the Israeli pilot in callous humour on the radio on his return to Israel.

After 20 years of a failed peace process, it is time for co-operation and an end to the violence. As a Labour member and co-convener, along with others in the chamber, of the cross-party group on Palestine, I am proud that Ed Miliband committed himself to recognition of the state of Palestine should he be elected in May. That is a powerful symbolic moment and it is right that the UK should join others in the vanguard of recognising the two independent states. Supporting co-convener Sandra White’s motion is more than just symbolism, however; international recognition of Palestine could catalyse real-life impacts for some of the most victimised people in the world.

As we know, the blockade has left people in Gaza without the means to run any enterprise. The limit on movement extends beyond people to include their goods, which means that trade is virtually suffocated and that people cannot be self-reliant. However, the recent accession of Palestine to membership of the International Criminal Court must be sure to facilitate the protection of Palestinian rights against war crimes.

I was recently contacted by the Palestinian Farmers Union, which empowers Palestinian farmers and protects their rights. Palestine’s new ICC membership may assist with challenging the illegal seizure of Palestinian farmers’ land in the West Bank and Gaza.

In 2011, the economy ministry and the Applied Research Institute Jerusalem compiled a report that stated that there is a huge discrepancy between land allocation for Israeli and Palestinian farmers in the West Bank and east Jerusalem area. Some 620,000 Israeli settlers cultivated 64,000 dunams, whereas 4 million Palestinians cultivated just 100,000 dunams. A dunam is traditionally the amount of land that could be ploughed by a team of oxen in a day. The Palestinian Farmers Union hopes that the ICC will expose the situation and deliver justice to those dispossessed of their land. It would also help those threatened by the Israeli military when they try to farm their land near Israeli settlements.

Of course, human rights violations by one party do not justify violations by its opponents, and the cycle of violence has continued for far too long. The visit to Gaza in November 2012 enabled me to witness the stark reality of Israel’s disproportionate military actions, and many MSP colleagues have also had the chance to bear witness.

Following Netanyahu’s re-election, I am concerned that the Israeli Government will only become increasingly intransigent. Based on his comments, his re-election seems to be a retrograde step for the whole region. Support for the motion and calling for international recognition of the Palestinian state will send a powerful message to the Government of Israel and to the world that a two-state solution is the only solution.

17:47
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP):
I, too, thank Sandra White for lodging the motion. I agree with the motion’s proposal that we need a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. There are quite a few other things that we need as well.

Primarily I would want to see Britain, Scotland and the European Union acting as peacemakers in the middle east. Jumping on board with one side or the other will not be helpful. Both sides already have lots of rich and powerful supporters, so what they need are some genuinely trustworthy friends who will not take sides but seek to get all parties round the table. I say all parties and not just two, because this is not just about Israel and Palestine. Other big players such as the United States, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia must all be part of any serious long-term solution.

If we look at just Israel and Palestine, we see that Israel is bigger and stronger, but when we look at the other players in the region we see that several of them are much bigger and stronger than Israel, so both Israel and Palestine may feel nervous about some of their neighbours. Palestine has about 4 million people and Israel some 8 million. However, Egypt has 82 million and Iran 77 million, so let us not forget which are the really big countries in the region. Palestine has very little to spend on defence, whereas Israel spends $18 billion or thereabouts on its defence budget. However, let us remember that Saudi Arabia spends $59 billion on defence, which is much more than what Israel spends.

While we are making comparisons, perhaps we can mention human rights. The international human rights rank indicator puts Israel at 71st in the world, Palestine 107th, Iran 166th and Saudi Arabia 205th. Israel’s rank of 71st is not great, but it is certainly not the worst in the region. I would have more time for those who demand sanctions against Israel or want its leaders charged with war crimes if those people were consistently critical of Saudi Arabia, where there is little democracy to speak of and human rights are largely ignored.

Why are so many people and even political parties so critical of Israel and so lenient towards Saudi Arabia? Is it because Saudi Arabia is a rich and powerful country and we want its business and its money whereas Israel is a pretty small country and it is easier to bully it around?

Last week, I attended a Yom Hashoah event in Giffnock. The evening was very powerful and moving. Ken Macintosh, Jackson Carlaw and Jim Murphy were there, as well. Jews in the west of Scotland marked the Holocaust and especially the British liberation of Bergen-Belsen. It is clear that the Jews feel somewhat vulnerable these days, as criticism of Israel very readily spills over into anti-Semitism in Glasgow….

There is a Jewish cemetery that backs on to my garden. Some time ago, its wall had anti-Jewish slogans painted on it. Let us not think that Scotland is immune to antisemitism.

I am not saying that we should never criticise Israel for fear of antisemitism when that state carries out wrong actions, but I am asking for two things: let us be consistent in our treatment of Israel and other states, and let us redouble our efforts to be peacemakers and a trusted friend to both sides.

17:50
Alison Johnstone (Lothian) (Green):
I, too, thank Sandra White for bringing this important debate to the chamber.

As Sandra White noted, the UN General Assembly proposed a two-state solution in 1947, but the conflict and the illegal blockade of Palestine continue. I am pleased that we are demonstrating a strong stance in support of the people of Palestine and a peaceful two-state solution.

The United Nations chief, Ban Ki-moon, previously described Israeli military action towards Palestine as “a moral outrage and a criminal act”.

David Cameron’s defence of Israel’s actions towards a blockaded population demonstrated that many of us are not being represented by the UK Government when it comes to a lack of support for Palestine in foreign policy.

Palestine must be recognised as a state by the UK Government, and we must join the nations that have already done that. We here can try to influence that situation as positively as we can.

As John Mason pointed out, the conflict involves and affects many across the globe. Although we may lack foreign policy powers, we can look at ethical public procurement. We can call on public bodies to bring in wider international matters in their purchase of particular products with taxpayers’ money. We should put those policies in place not just for particular countries, but when we buy anything. We should have an ethical procurement policy. Many constituents have written to me about that issue not just this week but on an on-going basis. They all urgently desire peace in the middle east and they support a two-state solution.

The people in Palestine and Israel need peace now. They need a safe, secure and truly sustainable future. I support recognition of the Palestinian state based on the borders of 1967, which were recognised by the United Nations.

The current Westminster election campaign gives all parties a chance to highlight their position on the issue and it gives our constituents a chance to question parties on their stance. Those who hope to represent our people at Westminster should be informing constituents what their views are on that incredibly important international issue.

It is fair to say that the plight of the Palestinian people has not improved since the Israeli election of 17 March. People in Palestine face the daily challenge of access to education, land for farming, water supplies and homes. Claudia Beamish highlighted the inequality when it comes to access to farm land. There are abuses of human rights.

The time for recognition of Palestine by all is long overdue. That recognition is an important step towards justice and peace for Palestine and Israel. A two-state solution is required now, and we in the Parliament, with the many determined campaigners outwith it, must do all that we can to bring that about.

17:54
The Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs (Fiona Hyslop):
I, too, congratulate Sandra White on securing this debate, and I also pay tribute to her for her long-standing work on Palestine, and to others across the chamber.

Peace depends on there being two secure, stable and prosperous states of Israel and Palestine, living side by side. To that end, the Scottish Government has firmly and consistently encouraged

“Israel and Palestine to reach a sustainable, negotiated settlement under international law, which has as its foundation mutual recognition and the determination to co-exist peacefully.”

That is the vision at the heart of the middle east peace plan. However, the process appears to have reached an impasse. The occupation continues, settlements expand, and rocket attacks, bombardments and incursions continue in a horrific cycle of violence and destruction.

Despite considerable diplomatic efforts, the two-state solution looks to be no closer to reality. In 2013, US Secretary of State John Kerry stated that there were two years left to find a two-state solution. William Hague, the then Foreign Secretary, said the same thing in 2012. Those two years have passed, and it is clear that not enough progress has been made to change the course of history. The construction of illegal settlements continues to be tolerated—even encouraged—by the Israeli Government, and the Palestinians’ right to govern their own land seems to be as distant as ever.

There is widespread recognition that something needs to change. Sir Vincent Fean, the former British consul general to Jerusalem, wrote an article for the Sunday Herald, which was published this week, urging the international community to recognise Palestine alongside Israel, because recognition is a necessity to ending the conflict. A way must be found to break the political deadlock.

Self-determination is a right, not a privilege to be earned. It is unjust to hold out statehood as a reward for participation in negotiations. Recognising the state of Palestine would send a signal that we acknowledge the rights of the people of Palestine to self-determination; and that we support them in their endeavour to build peaceful, prosperous lives for themselves in their own land. That would also make clear the expectations of an independent state that is part of the community of nations. The people of Palestine should not allow their territories to be abused by those who seek the destruction of Israel.

Palestine has recently signed up to a number of international treaties and conventions. It should aspire to the standards that those describe on respect for human rights, on the integrity of its neighbours and on the sanctity of the lives of their people.

To support the Palestinian people’s aspirations is not to be an enemy of Israel. I am certain that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want peace and that they want an end to the decades of violence.

We should support those who seek a peaceful political solution to the conflict, such as the 1,000 Israelis, including eminent politicians, academics and retired military officers, who have signed a petition encouraging the international community to recognise Palestine’s statehood as a necessary step for the peace and security of Palestine and Israel.

I also want to reflect on the letter that has been sent to us all by the Church of Scotland. It states:

“We reaffirm the historic commitment of the Church of Scotland to a State of Palestine with the same rights and responsibilities recognised within the international community of States, with all the rights and responsibilities attendant on that status.”

It goes further, in saying:

“We support ongoing commitment to dialogue and conversation, with particular concern to make sure that those who are on the margins and whose voices are rarely heard get the opportunity to be listened to, especially Christians who live in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory.”

That issue was brought home to me by the minister and the members of St Michael’s church in my home town of Linlithgow, who have recently returned from visiting their sister church, the Holy Family Episcopal church in Reineh, near Nazareth. Sandra White was absolutely right when she said that all voices in Israel need to be heard. We urge the UK Government and the European Union to do all that is in their powers to ensure that human rights are protected and promoted.

We support all on-going international diplomatic efforts to achieve peace in the region. The UN, the world’s major powers and the Israelis and Palestinians have committed to achieving a peace that is based on two states. Accepting Palestine as a state in its own right alongside Israel should be the starting point of negotiations. It would make clear the principle that the rights of Palestinians and Israelis are equal.

As members have said, more than 130 countries around the world have formally recognised the state of Palestine. In October 2014, our colleagues in the House of Commons voted by a huge majority to support a motion encouraging the UK Government to follow suit.

In the past, the Scottish Government has spoken to UK ministers to urge them formally to recognise the Palestinian state. As members may be aware, my party, the SNP, has set out its position that SNP members of Parliament will press for the new UK Government to recognise the state of Palestine. The current UK Government’s position is that a negotiated two-state solution should be pursued. There is clearly sentiment in this chamber and beyond that that position needs to go further. It is time, now, to recognise the state of Palestine.

Meeting closed at 18:00.

© Copyright JFJFP 2024