Meeting of the Parliament 21 November 2023
I associate myself with many remarks that have been made by members from across the chamber. I agree with many of the points that have been made and will try not to repeat too many.
Of course, I agree with the terms of the First Minister’s motion. I also agree with the amendment that has been lodged by the Labour Party. Pauline McNeill, in particular, spoke very forcefully. I pay testament to her long experience in these matters—as I pay tribute to our former colleague, Sandra White, who is sitting in the gallery.
One thing that I must repeat is that the attacks that were carried out on 7 October were beyond words and should be condemned. I am confident that all members of the Scottish Parliament will join together to condemn those horrific attacks. There is nothing that could justify the brutality that we paid witness to on that day.
I also want to say that I think that it is entirely right that members of this Parliament are discussing the issue. That decision has been attacked, as have the demonstrations and various activities around the country, based on the assumption that we are not going to make any difference anyway. That is a counsel of despair. It is extremely important that demonstrations have been held and that people have been writing letters and making their voices known. I do not believe that diplomats and the people around the world who have the ability to change the situation are immune to hearing from populations about how abhorrent we believe what is currently happening actually is. It is entirely right that the Scottish Parliament discuss, debate and decide on the motion.
It is currently believed that between 11,000 and—as Kaukab Stewart said—13,000 Gazans have been killed since 7 October. That is according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. I appreciate that sources are very difficult to verify, but those statistics have been independently verified by the UN, which at present has not cast any significant doubt on either of those figures.
We can also look to specific attacks as examples of what has been referred to by some members as the “disproportionate” nature of the response, such as the successive attacks on the Jabalia refugee camp in the north of the Gaza strip. There has been a wide range of reports on the exact number of casualties from the attacks on that camp over the past few weeks, but we know for certain that the number of Palestinian refugees who have been injured is in the hundreds and that dozens—possibly far more than that—have been killed.
I am told that those attacks have been justified by it being said that the attacks were targeting one particular Hamas commander. One cannot justify the murder of dozens, maybe hundreds, of people in order to attack one person. As the First Minister said, and as international law upholds, collateral damage is not an acceptable way of dealing with such things.
There is a vital distinction between those of us on one side of the chamber, who largely agree, and the Conservative position—although I agree with all the areas of concern that Donald Cameron listed towards the end of his speech. However, the main point of disagreement is on an immediate ceasefire. I think that I heard Sandesh Gulhane say that he could not call for a ceasefire, but thinks that there should be a ceasefire that everyone should adhere to. The reason, as I understand it, that is now being given for not calling for a ceasefire is that Hamas said it would not observe it. Why should we be intimidated by terrorists into not calling for a ceasefire? If Edward Mountain was here, I am sure that he would agree that it is quite often the case that, when two military forces oppose each other, it can be in people’s interests to have a ceasefire—