Meeting of the Parliament 21 April 2015
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