Hansard

Naturally, the debate has at times been emotionally charged—so it must be when images of raw conflict are broadcast into our homes as it happens. The debate has borne witness to the personal commitments of members from across the Parliament to the troubles and peoples in the region and to members' passions. I make no complaint about that. The motion acknowledges the suffering, about which we have heard testimony, and recognises and welcomes the role that Scotland can play in adding to the international humanitarian relief, even though responsibility for international representation rests with the Government at Westminster.

The Parliament has a direct responsibility for the public in Scotland. The actions of the Government of Israel are the responsibility of that Government and not of the Jewish population here in Scotland. I therefore express my dismay that the heightened language of some is being used to justify remarks by others, publicly published, that can be described only as dangerously anti-Semitic. We have a duty to choose our words carefully, as do the press in their columns. For example, it was questionable for The Herald to publish remarks from a well-known contributor that included veiled threats to

"the state of Israel and Jews all over the world."

Two and a half years ago, during the events that culminated in the withdrawal of Israel from Gaza, similar language and lack of editorial control in The Herald and The Scotsman, particularly on their websites, led to an unprecedented level of hostility to the Scottish Jewish community, the vast majority of whom live in Glasgow and the west of Scotland. Many talked of feeling intimidated, for the first time in their lives, when walking the streets and they were appalled by a disgraceful attack on the Jewish cemetery in Glasgow. In the past 24 hours, senior members of the Jewish community have reported to me an increase in nuisance calls to Jewish—not Israeli—organisations and the distribution of hate mail to the community. I have a copy of one piece of such mail, which is chilling and as fundamentally unacceptable as are attacks on the integrity of the Muslim population in Scotland, or fear and suspicion of that population, in response to domestic terrorism.

In this month, when we commemorate the millions of lives that were lost in the Holocaust, we must remember that paying lip service to that commemoration is not enough. The debt that is owed to the international Jewish community was recognised in the establishment of the Israeli state. It has a right to exist and to defend itself. However unwelcome the observation is today, the fact is that, ever since the withdrawal from Gaza, Hamas has continued to pepper Israel with rocket attacks. Those attacks are now being complemented with the use of longer-range successor rockets, the reach of which places nearly a million Israeli citizens at very real risk. It is the duty of their Government to defend them.

Some people have raised exaggerated expectations for President-elect Obama. He has been reluctant to become involved in the debate ahead of his inauguration, but he has previously commented thus:

"If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing".

I applaud that comment. There is not much difference between Obama's reaction and that of the Bush Administration.

This is not a time to speak against a cease-fire—far from it. The Israeli objectives—to destroy the weapons supply tunnels that are tolerated by her neighbour and effectively to emasculate the Hamas military potential—need to be secured promptly, as much to prevent the escalation that the rockets that were launched a few hours ago from Lebanon might presage as for any other reason. However, the cease-fire must be a cease-fire on all sides. Therein lies the difficulty, for unlike the Irish Republican Army, which, in the talks on and resolution of the conflict in our country, accepted that an armed solution had no future, Hamas has no such compunction. There is no point in Mr O'Donnell ignoring that truth, nor for that matter in Christine Grahame quoting Robert Fisk, passionate as he is, as anything other than a highly partisan anti-Jewish correspondent. Any cease-fire cannot be used by Hamas as an interlude to rearm and recommence rocket attacks.

Hamas is a terrorist organisation that is determined to have an armed struggle and which has set its face against the reason of most others in the region, who have recognised that a negotiated two-state solution is not only the only proper solution, but one that is actually achievable. Meanwhile, the 1.5 million civilians in Gaza are trapped in the most ghastly of situations. Their security and welfare have been ruthlessly exploited by Hamas, which deliberately sites its rocket launchers in schools, mosques and elsewhere where it hopes to hide behind human shields and exploit the consequences.

The current conflict must end promptly. We must all hope that the Franco-Egyptian initiative achieves that. Thereafter, with fresh moral authority, the incoming US Administration of Barack Obama needs to work with the people, including President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, who are dedicated to securing a positive and lasting peaceful solution. Hamas can participate if it finally accepts the very clear conditions that were set in 2006: to renounce violence, abide by previous agreements, and accept the basic right of the state of Israel to exist.

Meanwhile, I give every encouragement to people in Scotland who are responding to the humanitarian situation. Theirs is an urgent response to the immediate need of innocents who are caught up in the heart of an avoidable tragedy.