Hansard

In the only possibly lighter moment in the debate, Presiding Officer, I apologise for my slightly unconventionally accoutred appearance. I now know how Neil Gray felt when his trousers disintegrated on him; I thought that my choice was the lesser of two evils in attending the chamber this afternoon.

I also apologise as, given the late start to the debate, I may not be able to stay until its conclusion.

Turning to the substance, I begin with the contribution from Humza Yousaf. I congratulate him on bringing the debate to the chamber. It has been some months since we last discussed the issue and, although I cannot support some of the absolute propositions in the motion that he has presented to Parliament, I can associate myself very largely with the analysis that he gave in the opening third of his speech regarding the complete failure of the international community to honour the obligations that were made long ago, and certainly at the time of the creation of the state of Israel, to a two-state solution.

What has proved to be too difficult for the minds of many in the international community has led to thousands—indeed, tens of thousands—of unnecessary deaths, and the continuation of a hugely intractable, morally indefensible and appalling international position. I think that everybody with a moral conscience, particularly now, witnessing the excess of deaths that are taking place, would find very little to disagree with in that analysis.

In my lifetime, there have been major conflicts that I thought would always be irresolvable. There were the troubles in Northern Ireland, and the Berlin wall and the conflagration in the Soviet Union—and yet, suddenly, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, both of those were resolved. In Northern Ireland, the Irish Republican Army agreed to decommission weapons and set aside its campaign of violence. The Berlin wall came down when the Soviet Union, under Mikhail Gorbachev, concluded that the international arms race could not be won.

For a moment, under the presidency of Bill Clinton, there was even the prospect that there might be progress that would lead to a more permanent settlement of the issues in the middle east. Ultimately, however, because factions there could not agree, that process fell apart, and literally nothing—I think—has been done to resolve those issues in the years since.

I am unyielding in my belief in, and support for, the state of Israel. I cannot support the proposed arms ban, because I fear that that would embolden Iran, and I am not necessarily sure what the nature of any conflict might escalate to become, were that to happen.

Nevertheless, I understand why people are concerned. I am unyielding in my support for the state of Israel, and, as I should have said, I am enormously pleased that, through the efforts of Humza Yousaf and so many others, the Jewish community in Scotland has not suffered, as many thought that it might, any opprobrium as a result of what is happening in the middle east.

However, the third leg of the stool is the Netanyahu Government, and I have concerns—as have many in my local Jewish community—about the way in which the Netanyahu Government, from which Benny Gantz has now withdrawn, has prosecuted the conflict. I share the concerns of those who think that there are interests closer to Netanyahu’s future that have allowed him to perpetuate the war in the way that he has, which is unacceptable.

We are at a point, therefore, nine months on, when we cannot simply all stand by and say, “This can go on for as long as it likes.” We need to see the hostages being released, but we also have to accept that there has to be progress towards a two-state solution.

I have noted the comments by Keir Starmer, which are not so very different from those of the UK Government. I think that he has moved to say that it would be possible to recognise a Palestinian state when a process is under way, rather than, as was previously the case, when a process has concluded. That is a pragmatic move—although not one to where Mr Yousaf would like it to be. However, it would require there to be a peace process.

I also approve of all the work that Mahmoud Abbas has done in relation to trying to put in place personalities that will be able to develop that process. For the moment, however, for as long as Hamas is in place, the conflict appears to be intractable. Meanwhile, we see—as Humza Yousaf said—tens of thousands of young people being murdered during the conflict, and that, too, is unacceptable.

I think that there is—in spirit, at least—a will among members across the Parliament, irrespective of the side of the debate that we come from, to accept that what is now going on is unacceptable and that progress must be made, and that that progress must end with the recognition of a Palestinian state in a secure two-state environment within the middle east.