 sutiriadol autoclennungen ythaf mosiau Lฮ Br ót 긴 aruthio 1-2630 ynuningiant LFWP yn szunyuambu mor Fale sicr a respectivelyiren ddiwyddiant. Dy喜欢 llwyddiant wedi weithiau gwrcersonitell mor famywid â ei d Garcia acceler gwarni weithda SNP yn ei ddyechau yn gwernidol wedi gael chatwynghau. Rwy'n gael dda llwyfan,Thank you very much Rose Said, I want to thank the MSPs who signed my motion, giving it cross-party support and enabling this debate to take place. I would also like to thank the many groups who have contacted myself and others regarding this debate, some of whom are in the gallery tonight, and I welcome them to the Scottish Parliament. There is often a great deal of misunderstanding and misrepresentation regarding the issue of Palestine, be it by individuals, the media or various Governments. However, there are certain historical facts that cannot be altered or dismissed and which, in turn, must be recognised. It is a fact that, in November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, which recommended the creation of a two-state solution with a special international regime for the city of Jerusalem. The proposals were at that time and by the majority, not seen as acceptable by the Palestinians and Arab countries in the region, as they went against the principles of the right to self-determination and imposed conditions that are 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, as proposed in the UN Resolution, and an estimated 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled along with hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages being depopulated and destroyed. In 1967, Israel conquered the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golden Heights, where annexing East Jerusalem. The annexation of East Jerusalem and the subsequent building on the occupied territories has been repeatedly condemned by the United Nations and Governments across the world and considered illegal under international law. I therefore hope that, in this debate, regarding our opinions and what is happening today, we can all agree that this short history of Palestine needs to be recognised. Importantly, we must also recognise the more recent attempts at reaching a solution to the conflict centre 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. We are quick to criticise nations that violate UN resolutions or do not abide by international law. If we are able to acknowledge that this is where Israel is concerned, we fail to present the situation objectively and we fail to be taken seriously, I believe, by the rest of the world. However, let us be clear. Regardless of the history, I believe that the way forward, the only way to achieve a lasting peace is to recognise a Palestinian state alongside Israel. It was not possible in 1947 but, for me and many others, it is the only viable option open to all of us just now. Let us be clear the time is now. The time is not tomorrow or at some bay point in the future, it is certainly now. Last October, the UK Parliament voted by 270 votes to 12 in favour of recognising Palestine and I congratulate them on that. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, has stated that it will not change the UK Government's views on recognition. We all know that, in the last stages of a Westminster election, I hope that whoever wins the election will not only recognise Palestine but actively support a two-party state solution. We cannot continue to bury our hands 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 moderately incumbent on the UK to take this step, given its involvement and the resulting capability for the current situation. From the time that Britain administered Palestine after the First World War up until it abandoned it in 1948, our involvement in Palestine has been quite shameful. From promises of an independent Palestinian state to refusing to support UN efforts for two state solutions leading to the 1948 wars and subsequent loss of Palestinian lands, our actions have loomed large over the history of Palestine. It is now time for our actions to loom large over the future of Palestine. Given our previous involvement in Palestine, I believe that our recognition of Palestine will carry extra weight and will be a huge stimulus to peace efforts. Therefore, by definition, it will help peace efforts and the time to recognise Palestine is now. As a world, people recognise that as a way forward and it is time that we join them. Indeed, when this motion was scheduled for debate, I received a report from many different quarters alongside a petition from citizens of Israel, which stated, We, the undersigned citizens of Israel who wish it to be safe in a thriving country, are worried by a continued political statement and by the occupation of settlement activities, which lead to further confrontations with the Palestinians and to peddle 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. Signed by side with Israel, Israel should recognise the state of Palestine and Palestine should recognise the state of Israel, based on the June 4, 1967, not my words, the words of the people who signed that petition. This petition was signed by Israelis from all walks of life, students, lawyers, teachers, members of the Israeli Parliament, army colonels and former ambassadors. The world is there in Israel too, and we owe it as much to the Israelis as we do the Palestinians to support them. The establishment of a two-state solution is essential if we have to do this. It is essential if we have to free Palestinians from occupation and the injustices that have been wrought upon them and essential if we 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 it is that there is an alternative and it is one that is very much pursued. Of course, in the Scottish Parliament we do not have the power of foreign affairs, but I believe that today's debate is important and we can make a difference. On 7 May, Scotland will choose 59 MPs to represent our views, and we should send them a strong message that a two-state solution is what the majority of all of us here MSPs want. Yesterday, the Scottish National Party launched its UK election manifestos, and we thought that 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 this and I welcome other parties' commitments to this solution, but we need to understand that it is imperative that it is beholden that we act now. We must learn from our mistakes or the past, we must not repeat them. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. Can I say at the outset that we have a large number of members who want to speak in this debate this evening and so 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. Many thanks. That has been moved. Is that agreed? It has agreed. Thank you. Even so, I will still have to ask members to keep to four-minute speeches please, and I call Neil Findlay to be followed by Christina McKelvie. I apologise to Sandra White for having to leave after my contribution and commender for bringing this motion forward. I think that it is absolutely the right thing to do, and this Parliament should state very clearly that we recognise the state of Palestine. It is one of the big remaining long-standing international injustices that we have seen peace in Ireland. 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. Despite progress elsewhere, the great injustice against the Palestinian people remains. Now we see two thirds of the world's countries recognising Palestine as a state, increasing numbers of church groups, trade unions and international organisations, supporting the recognition of Palestine as a state, as defined by the 1967 Borders, and recognition by this Parliament and others. Of course, there is no magic bullet, but what it does is it sends a clear message of solidarity to the people. It sends a message that we care and a message that we want to see justice and peace for people whose appalling suffering has gone on way too long. The legal occupation and aggressive actions by the Israeli army, the expansion of settlements now hosting around 650,000 people. They are all major barriers to creating any movement for a just peace. If we are going to see progress, then, like in all disputes, it takes two sides to make a deal, and I fear that the aggressiveness and the complete unwillingness of the current Israeli Government to accept that ethnic cleansing, the holding of child prisoners, the holding of prisoners without trial, torture, the demolition of homes, hospitals, power stations and land grabs, is all going on. If there is no recognition or admission of these war crimes and gross human rights violations, then there is unlikely to be any progress. The blockade of Gaza and further attacks on innocent men, women and children only increased tensions and conflict and tragedy in the region. In my blood, I have to say, ran cold when Netanyahu was re-elected earlier this year. I think that the international community will need to be extremely forceful if we are going to see progress over the next while, but our actions today are a small step in the right direction. I thank Sandra White for bringing that forward. Many thanks and I now call Christina McKelvie to be followed by Cameron Buchanan. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I thank my friend and colleague, Sandra White, for bringing this issue once again to this Parliament. She has been a great champion for this cause and has certainly educated many of us and our party on some of the issues. What is peace? Peace is a period of harmony between different social groups. It is characterised by a lack of violence and conflict behaviours and a freedom from fear and violence. It is commonly understood by an absence of hostility and retribution. Peace also suggests sincere attempts at reconciliation, the existence of healthy and newly healed interpersonal and 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. It is looking at that idea of peace that took me to an initiative that I once heard about, called the Nobel at Women's Initiative. Everything that it does embodies that interpretation of peace that I have just given you. It has three objectives where women work towards forging peace, achieving justice and advancing equality and human rights. A few years ago, they produced a fascinating report on the work that they were doing with Palestinian and Israeli women. The report is called Partners for Peace. It was women working together for that very peace and reconciliation that I am sure that we all want for Palestine and Israel. As I say, it is women, mothers, wives, sisters and daughters all working together in Palestinian communities and Israeli communities. One quote on that was, any meeting between the Palestinian and Israeli members of this group has an element of a miracle to it. If we who have lost the most precious of all can sit and talk, then surely others can use that as an example. I am sure that we can all agree with that. I have to say that there have been many moments that I have been proud of my party, but I was never prouder than the manifesto launched yesterday to see that statement written and bold inside our manifesto to recognise a palanet Palestinian state. I have back Sandra White's call on whoever forms the next UK Government to take that into account. A few years ago, and a good few years ago now in this building, I hosted the Middle East Peace Festival. Part of that festival was a photographic gallery down in the garden lobby. It was a narrative of some of the reconciliation work that is going on in Gaza. The photographer was Angela Catlin and the reporter was Billy Briggs. They had many photographs that depicted all of the scenes that we would see symbolic of peace and reconciliation. However, there was one photograph that kept drawing me back over and over and over again. That photograph now hangs in my office and it has been there, I think, now for seven years. It reminds me so much of why we need to do what we are doing, and it takes me back to the issue about women forging peace. I know the guys are pretty good at it as well, but I thought to focus on this would be a bit different. However, that photograph is a wee girl. She is three years of age. She has got a bright red jumper on and she is holding a white dove. The symbology of that tells you everything that you 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 sex, for that wee girl, for Israel, for Palestine, we need a two-state solution that is admired in that philosophy of peace. I must too congratulate Sandra White on securing today's debate on this very sensitive and incredibly important international issue. All of us, I think, can agree with key elements of the motion in relation to the need for a negotiated two-state solution and that a resolution must come through peaceful means. However, my position on this specific issue of the recognition of Palestine is in line with that of the UK Government, namely that while the UK reserves the right to recognise a Palestinian state bilaterally and keeps the matter under constant consideration, I believe that this must happen at a time when it can best help to bring about peace. As the Foreign Office Minister Tobias Elwood stated last October in a similar debate at Westminster, the timing of any such recognition is vital and diplomatically, it is a car that we can play only once. The aspirations of the Palestinian people certainly. John Finnie. Thank you. I'm grateful for taking that intervention. I wonder what the member would care to comment on most people's view that the best time for peace is always now. Cameron Buchanan. Thank you very much indeed for that. I do agree, but it depends on certain conditions and the conditions that I'm about to announce yet. It is now, it should be now, but there are certain conditions that need to be met first and one of them I think is that Palestine for their part 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 what a negotiated end to the occupation and what is the most effective way for Palestinian aspirations of statehood to be met on the ground. This must come as a comprehensive part of a peace agreement that delivers an independent Palestine alongside a safe and secure Israel. We are under no illusions as to how difficult it looks to achieve. However, the UK, with its international partners, is continuing to push for progress towards peace and leaves the way in supporting Palestinian state building and measures to address Israel's security concerns. Making progress towards a two-state solution remains a foreign policy priority for the UK. In commenting on the result of the recent Israeli general election and 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 peace, which is so strongly in the interests of both Israelis and Palestinians. We recognise the severe suffering of the inhabitants of Gaza and the UK Government is one of the leading donors in terms of supporting much-needed reconstruction efforts in Gaza. Indeed, we are providing over £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 very hard for its friends to make it 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 also take steps to address Israel's significant and legitimate security concerns. We should all recognise that Israel has faced unacceptable barrage of rockets from Hamas and other militant groups that are unsustainable. To conclude, Presiding Officer, I again welcome today's debate and do look forward to the time when the UK can formally recognise the Palestinian state, which would happen when we made genuine progress of peace and to achieving a just and lasting solution to that long-stated aim of a negotiated two-state solution. I begin by congratulating Sandra White on securing this important debate today and declaring an interest as a member of the cross-party group in Palestine, and also a member of the Scottish-Palestine Solidarity campaign. Scotland's got strong links with Palestine, and the Scottish Labour movement has always had 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 commitment in 1920 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, yet, just two days later, as Sandra White referred to, as David Cameron said, he would only recognise Palestine when the time is right. Well, the time is not only right, the time is long overdue. The UK has neglected its responsibilities and obligations to the Palestinian people for too long. The recognition of Palestine is not and can never be a bargain and chip or a negotiating tool. It is a fundamental and it is an unconditional human right for the Palestinian people. The fact that the UK was one of a handful of nations who refused to support a recognition at the United Nations was simply shameful. I hope that one of the first actions of the new UK Government will be to join the order in 35 nations right across the world who 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 saying that Israel has no respect for international law, who believes that the deaths of 2,000 civilians during last year's atrocities in Gaza was proportionate and whose actions appeared geared towards destroying what little hope the Palestinian people will have left. In recent years, we have seen illegal settlements expand rapidly. We have seen Palestinians subjected to ever-increasing and punitive restrictions on movement. We have seen the continuing 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 won't secure peace and it won't end the blockade. It won't stop the day-to-day reality of occupation in Palestine or the collective punishment of the people in Gaza, but it will restore hope at a time when diplomacy appears to have failed. It will send out a message to the Israeli Government that Scotland and the UK believes 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 it 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 TV 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 that will take Gaza decades to recover from. Nine months on, only a quarter of the money pledged to rebuild Gaza has been released and the reconstruction and recovery has 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 such as clean water and healthcare. Recognition of Palestine is only the start and the journey to justice. I hope that we can send it a strong message from the Scottish Parliament that we recognise the right of the Palestinian people to freedom and self-determination, that we will use their influence both politically and also economically to support the Palestinian struggle for justice, and that we will not sit by and watch while the Israeli Government breaches international law while it operates what is effectively an apartheid regime that treats Palestinian people, Palestinian children as second-class citizens, that denies them basic human rights, that believes that the life of an Israeli child is more precious than the right of a Palestinian child, because we believe that every child's life is precious. Every child in this world is equal. It's time to secure justice and freedom for the Palestinian people. It's time to recognise Palestine. Thank you very much. I now call Michael Russell to be followed by Jim Hume. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I commend Sandra White for achieving this debate. Also, many other members passed and present in this chamber. I noticed that Paula McNeill is in the gallery who has championed the cause of Palestine in this Parliament and across Scotland. I have a long-term involvement in this issue myself through family connections. However, the question has to be at the start of this debate if the solution is not a two-state solution, then what is it? If the time is not now, then when is the time? Because the endless debate and discussion and the endless internationalisation of these issues have not led to a solution. The two-state solution was originally proposed in the early 1970s. There have been many diplomatic efforts to implement it. The 1991 Madrid conference, the 1993 Oslo Accord, 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 UK Secretary General said this. He said that Israeli and Palestinian leaders must move beyond words. 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. There is no other solution on the table that would be acceptable to either side. The solution to implementing this is very simple indeed, as all those who have been involved in this debate over many years know. It is to ensure not only that Israel has a right to exist, but that Palestine also has a right to exist. If the recognition is that both states have a right to exist, then the work is to make sure that that solution is implemented, but how can it be implemented? John Mafie was the UK ambassador to Ireland during World War II, and rather ruefully he observed at one stage that phrases make history here. Of course, one of the great problems in this debate is the language that has been used and the language that sometimes is forced out of us by confronting the sheer horror of situations such as the situation in Gaza last year and the continuing situation in Gaza. There has to be a moment in which all those involved simply say, enough is enough. Many of us thought that that might have come in 2013 and 2014 when there was a willingness to debate and to discuss, but the recent Israeli election seems to have put that even further away. Again, it is 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 say, if not now, then when. There has to be peace immediately. The moment there is any discussion of delaying the opportunity for peace and the end of suffering, we are, like it or not, contributing to that suffering. There is one thing to settle on. Unfortunately, it has been settled on. Out of the 193 United Nations countries, 135 countries recognise the existence of a separate Palestinian state. In 2012, Palestine was granted non-member observer status in the United Nations with 138 in favour, nine against and 41 abstentions. There is a global willingness to accept the two-state solution. There is a willingness in both Palestine and Israel to accept a two-state solution. It is time in Ban Ki-moon's words to move beyond words and to accept the inevitability of peace, which can only come with justice to both sides. That is settled on. That will happen. The question now is when. If the question is when, the answer must always be now. Thank you very much. I now call Jim Hume to be followed by Patricia Ferguson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to start by thanking Sandra White for lodging this motion, which I fully support. Sandra White has a history of supporting the Palestinian cause, not just in this Parliament but in the Middle East itself. I had the privilege of joining Sandra on a 24-hour mission to East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Israel, all within that 24-hour period, not that long ago. At that time, meeting families of two hunger-striking prisoners, various political representatives and the UK ambassador to Israel and Tel Aviv. Those two prisoners had been hunger-striking for over 200 days because they had been arrested and held in custody without any charges. They were at the point of death and the fear being that, if they had died in custody, then an uprising may have occurred. The Parliament has a proud record of standing up for the recognition of the Palestinian state. Pauli McNeill in the gallery tonight was from the last Parliament, still deeply involved, but Hugh O'Donnell, Claudia Beamish, John Finnie, Jean Arcott, all active in standing up for those others who others fear to stand up for. It is not just in this place where I believe recognition of Palestine is rising, although not quickly enough of course, but still rising. At our own Lib Dem party conference back in October, we passed the motion to encourage the European Union to recognise the state of Palestine with the 1967 borders and where land swaps agreed by the Israeli and Palestinian authorities through peace negotiations and good faith on the basis of each side's entitlements under international law. Of course, as mentioned by others, on 13 October, the House of Commons voted by 270 votes to a mere 12 to approve the motion that the House believes that the Government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel as a contribution to negotiating the two-state solution. Sandra White is quite right to recognise our responsibility. After all the Balfour declaration, Mr Balfour was actually one of my constituents who was from East Lothian, so he was an actual Scot. I said that the world's view on Palestine is changing, albeit slowly, but never more is there a need for parity for Palestine. It met its obligations for electing its representatives and from that we should have been able to negotiate in a meaningful way towards the two-state solution, agreed by the UN, without bloodshed and without repercussions. We just have to look at India and South Africa to see that real progress is only made through peaceful negotiations and mutual respect. Nothing is gained from any side taking up arms. We know that too many innocents have shed blood already. I mentioned South Africa and we all remember the work that many politicians from all sides did in Scotland and the UK to make our concerns ring loud and clear there. A partide is inhuman, yet 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, 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 he questioned us so much was that our taxi driver just happened to hold a Palestinian passport, such as the norm in occupied territories. Presiding Officer, four months is not very long to make the case for the recognition of the Palestinian state, a two-state solution going back to the 1967 borders. We do have an intolerable situation in Palestine, Gaza still sieged, apartheid the normal, prisoners being held without charges, evidence of children being illegally arrested and the people who have no identity, no simple access to medicine, employment, schooling or their human rights. That is unsustainable and inhuman and has no place in our 21st century world. After all, to give a quote, the inhumanity of man towards man is our greatest sin. I support the motion in the name of Sandra White and look forward to visiting Palestine in the near future when they will have equality and parity of rights with our fellow world citizens and neighbours. Many thanks. I now call Patricia Ferguson to be followed by John Finnie. I warmly welcome the opportunity to participate in today's member's debate on an issue of such international importance and I warmly congratulate Sandra White on securing time in Parliament to air the cause of justice for the Palestinian people, an essential prerequisite for a lasting peace in the Middle East. The position of the United Nations, clearly expressed in Resolution 242, is essentially 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 Reverend Sally Foster Fulton, which says that 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 positions of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are also unequivocal. When the Babamata was debated at Westminster in October of last year, 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 that Palestinians should also have a state that they can at long last call home. As members will know, those sentiments are shared by people of all faiths and none across all of our communities. Indeed, we will have seen the letter circulated by retired ambassador Dr Alon Liel, signed by 1,000 citizens of Israel, which states the wish for a safe and thriving Israel and recognises that the fulfilment of that wish is inextricably linked and dependent upon the existence of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Israel should recognise the state of Palestine and Palestine should recognise the state of Israel based on the June 4, 1967, borders. I believe that the overwhelming majority of the international community agrees with that position. Indeed, the overwhelming vote of the UN General Assembly by 138 to 9 in 2012 is clear evidence of support for the recognition of the Palestinian state. The Scottish Labour Party and the Labour Party and the Labour and Trade Union movement across the UK has 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 being under almost total blockade and still suffering from the effect of last year's military action by the Israeli state when thousands, the majority of civilians, were either 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 principle stand too. Will such votes and what we support here today lead to the objective shared by all who wish to make peaceful progress towards resolution 242's objective? Of course not, but it will preserve the objective of a two-state solution. Recognition will restate that hope, and recognition is necessary, not sufficient, but 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 it will stand idly by and allow him to block the road to peace and justice in the Middle East. I hope that Ed Miliband becomes Prime Minister in 17 days, others may differ, and that recognition of the state of Palestine contained within Labour's manifesto will be one of his first foreign policy initiatives. It is long overdue. As Douglas Alexander said at Labour Party conference, recognition of Palestine is not a gift to be given, but her right to be had. Many thanks. I now call John Finnie to be followed by Claudia Beamish. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I too congratulate Sandra White on bringing this debate to the chamber very timely. I have confidence in humanity's ability to do things right. It sometimes takes us a considerable period of time, but we can get there. We have heard repeatedly the statistic 135 out of 193 UN member states have already done the right thing, and I commend them for that. Of course, what we do know is that recognising the Palestinian state perhaps will have little and practical immediate terms, but I think that it is significant in terms of important issues for people like equality, the regard that is held in and, importantly, the solidarity that is shown with them. The Scottish Parliament does not have responsibility for foreign affairs, and many would wonder why we would be discussing the matter. I think that it is highly appropriate that we do this. The Parliament has always been outward looking. Indeed, at topical questions today, my colleague Alison Johnstone raised the issue of the plight of migrants drowning in the Mediterranean Sea, which is very much a metaphor for the plight of the Palestinian people that I would venture. I welcome the Scottish Government's response, which we heard from the Cabinet Secretary, which was one of compassion, constructive and collaboratively seeking to work together with people. I would contrast that with the position that many would characterise of the UK Government, which is that drowning acts is a deterrent. I think that there is a similarity that we have heard before from the Scottish Government on that, and that was in relation to the attacks in Gaza, where there was a call on the international community acting together to condemn the collective punishment that is regard for international law and the offer to treat injured as an offer asylum. It is by acting together that we are going to secure what we obviously have to secure for the Palestinian state. The blockade has been mentioned. I have to say clearly that if you are homeless, if you are hungry, if you are dispossessed, then fine words will count for zero. We need to see action on the ground, and the UK, sadly, could be characterised as standing the worst sort of gallows bystanders. Unequivocally opposed to violence, and coexistence is not a complicated political concept, but it does require good will. The EU is founded on the principle of equality of human rights. We must ask ourselves why some states that you would think would be outward looking and compassionate have taken the position that they have. Clearly, they are vested in interest. They are financial, often and very pernicious. The UN resolutions have been alluded to as well, and I think that they are an important signal, but I think that it is more important for the people of particularly Gaza. I have had the privilege to visit there, as have many colleagues, as the practical support that is given on the ground by the people with the UN badge on. During that visit, I have had the opportunity to see first-hand a resilient population, but a population of what? A systematically brutalised piece of land, and it is a just settlement, not illegal settlements that I think we need to see to move things on. Peaceful coexistence may appear a dream. I think that it is the right approach to take. The power of reason over the force of arms, I think, 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. I think that what we need to ask ourselves is what will Cystry say about those who did recognise the Palestinian state. It will say that there is a stance that was taken on the points of principle, recognising international law and humanitarian norms. Indeed, it is the only principle stand that has taken this resolution as part of the two-state solution. I thank Claudia Beamish to be followed by John Mason. I am very pleased that members of this Parliament have gathered here today to hold this important discussion and debate, and I thank Sandra White for bringing this motion to our chamber and for her analysis of the developments that are leading to today. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is one that I feel very strongly about, like many others in this chamber and far beyond, and I am grateful for the chance to speak. I would also like to welcome, along with others, the people who are in the public gallery today and to give them recognition for much of the work that they do very often on a voluntary basis to take forward the issue of 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 and equally striking was the resilience and spirit of the people that John and I encountered there. Many of the bombings then, and in the more recent attacks and difficulties faced by the people there, were gratuitous. I have never forgotten the bombing of the goals and the spectator facilities at the al-Marouk community football stadium, 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 for the violence. As a Labour member and co-convener, along with others in this chamber today at the cross-party group on Palestine, I am proud to see that Ed Miliband committed himself to recognition of the state of Palestine should he be elected in May. This is a powerful symbolic moment, and it is right that the UK should join with others in the vanguard of recognising the two independent states. Supporting co-convener Sandra White's motion is more than just symbolism, though. International recognition of Palestine could catalyse real-life impacts for some of the most victimised people in the world. The blockade has left people in Gaza, as we know, without the means to run any enterprises. The limited movement extends beyond people to include their goods, meaning trade is virtually suffocated and people cannot be self-reliant. However, the recent accession of Palestine to the 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 and protects the rights of Palestinian farmers. Palestine's new ICC membership may assist with challenging the illegal seizure of Palestinian farmers' lands in the West Bank and Gaza. The Economy Ministry and the Applied Research Institute in Jerusalem compiled a report in 2011 stating that there was a huge discrepancy in land allocation between Israeli and Palestinian farmers in the West Bank and the East Jerusalem area. 620,000 Israeli settlers cultivate 64,000 durams of land, while 4 million Palestinians cultivate just 10—sorry—100,000 durams, a duram being traditionally the amount of land that could be plowed by a team of oxen in a day. The Palestinian Farmers Union hopes that the ICC will expose and deliver justice to those dispossessed of their lands, and it would also help those threatened, in my view, when they try to farm their land near the Israeli settlements threatened by the Israeli military. Of course, human rights violations by one party do not justify those violations by its opponents. 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 the disproportionate military actions by Israel, and many other MSP colleagues in this chamber have also had a chance to bear witness as well. Following the re-election of Netanyahu, I am concerned that the Israeli Government will only become increasingly intransigent. Based on his comments, this seems to be a retrograde step for the whole region. Support for this motion today and calling for international recognition of the Palestinian state sends a powerful message to the Government of Israel and also to the world that a two-state solution is the only solution. Thank you very much. I now call John Mason to be followed by Alison Johnstone. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I can also thank Sandra White for bringing this motion today. First, I completely agree with the proposal in the motion that we need to have a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. There are quite a few other things that we need to have as well. Primarily, I would want to see Britain, Scotland and the European Union really acting as peacemakers in the Middle East. I do not think that jumping on board with one side or the other is going to be helpful. Both sides already have lots of rich and powerful supporters, so what they need is some genuinely trustworthy friends who will not take sides but will seek to get all parties round the table. I say that all parties are not just the two. This is not just about Israel and Palestine. There are other big players, like the United States, like Egypt, like Iran and like Saudi Arabia, and they 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 we look at the other players in the region and several of them are much bigger and much stronger than Israel is. Both Israel and Palestine may feel very nervous about some of their neighbours. Palestine has about 4 million people, Israel has some 8 million, Egypt has 82 million, Iran has 77 million, so let us not forget who the really big countries in the region are. Again, Palestine has very little to spend on defence, while Israel spends $18 billion, or thereabouts, on its defence budget. However, let us also remember that Saudi Arabia spends $59 billion—much, much more than Israel does. While we are on comparisons, perhaps we can mention human rights too. The international human rights rank indicator puts Israel at 71 in the world, Palestine at 107, Iran at 166 and Saudi Arabia at 205. 71 for Israel is not great, but it is certainly not the worst in the region, and I would have more time for those who demand sanctions against Israel or want its leaders charged with war crimes if those same people were consistently critical of Saudi Arabia, where there is little democracy to speak of and human rights are largely ignored. Why is it that so many people and even political parties are so critical of Israel and so lenient towards Saudi Arabia? Is it because Saudi Arabia is a rich and powerful country, and we want their business and their money, while Israel is a pretty small country and it is easier to bully them around? Last week, I attended Yom Haishoa in Gifnwch, which was a very powerful and moving evening. Ken Macintosh, Jackson Carlawg and Murphy were all there as well. The Jews in the west of Scotland were marking the Holocaust, and especially the British liberation of Bergen-Belsen. Clearly, the Jews are feeling somewhat vulnerable these days, as criticism of Israel very readily spills over into antisemitism in Glasgow. No, I think I'm just about finished, if you don't mind. I have a Jewish cemetery at the bottom of my garden, and its wall had anti-Jewish slogans painted on it some time ago. So let us not think that Scotland is immune from antisemitism. I'm not saying that we should never criticise Israel for fear of antisemitism when that state carries out its wrong actions, but I guess finally I'm 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 to be a trusted friend to both sides. I now call Alison Johnston. I thank Sandra White for bringing this important debate to the chamber this evening. As Sandra White noted, the UN General Assembly proposed a two-state solution in 1947, yet the conflict continues, the illegal blockade of Palestine continues, and I'm pleased that this evening we are demonstrating a strong stance in support of the people of Palestine and in support of a peaceful two-state solution. The United Nations Chief Ban Ki-moon has previously described Israeli military action towards Palestine as a moral outrage and a criminal act, and David Cameron's defence of Israel's actions towards a blockaded population demonstrated that many of us aren't 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 those nations who have already done so, and we here can try and influence that situation as positively as we can. As John Mason has pointed out, this conflict involves and affects many across the globe, and while we may lack foreign policy powers, we can look at ethical public procurement. We can call upon public bodies to bring in wider international matters in their purchase of particular products with taxpayers' money, and I suggest that we should put those policies in place, not just in respect of particular countries, but when we are buying anything. We should have an ethical procurement policy. Many, many constituents have written to me on this issue, not just this week, but on an on-going basis. They are all urgently desiring peace in the Middle East, and they are supportive of 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, the borders recognised by the United Nations. The current Westminster election gives all parties a chance to highlight their position on this issue, and it gives our constituents a chance to question parties on their stance. Those who are hoping to represent our people at Westminster should be informing their constituents what their views are on this incredibly important international issue. It is fair to say that the plight of the Palestinian people has not improved since the Israeli election of March 17. Access to education, to land for farming and to water supplies to homes are a daily challenge faced by people in Palestine, and Claudia Beamish has highlighted the inequality when it comes to access to farmland. Those are abuses of human rights. The time for recognition of Palestine by all is long overdue. It is an important step towards justice and peace for Palestine and Israel. A two-state solution is required now. We, in this Parliament, with the many determined campaigners outwith the Parliament, must do all that we can to bring it about. Fiona Hyslop, to respond to the debate, please. Cabinet Secretary, around seven minutes. I, too, would like to congratulate Sandra White in securing this debate and to pay tribute to her for her long-standing work on Palestine and others across the chamber. We believe that peace depends on their being to secure, stable and prosperous states of Israel and Palestine living side-by-side. To this end, the Scottish Government has firmly and consistently encouraged both Israel and Palestine to reach a sustainable, negotiated settlement under international law, which has its foundation, mutual recognition and determination to coexist peacefully. This is the vision at the heart of the Middle East peace plan, but the process appears to have reached an impasse. The occupation continues, settlements expand, rocket attacks, bombardments and incursions continue in a horrific cycle of violence and destruction. Despite considerable diplomatic efforts, the two-state solution looks no closer to reality. In 2013, the United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, stated that there were two years left to find a two-state solution. William Hague, as foreign secretary, said the same thing in 2012. While those two years have passed, it is clear that not enough progress has been made to change this current course of history. The construction of illegal settlements continues to be tolerated and encouraged by the Government of Israel, and the Palestinians' right to govern their own land seems as distant as ever. There is widespread recognition that something needs to change. Vincent Fein, former British Council general to Jerusalem, wrote an article for the Sunday Herald published this week urging the international community to recognise Palestine alongside Israel because recognition is a necessity to ending this 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. However, it 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. Having recently signed up to a number of international treaties and conventions, Palestine should aspire to the standards that it describes in terms of respect for human rights, for the integrity of its neighbours and the sanctity of the lives of its people. To support the aspirations of the Palestinian people is not to be an enemy of Israel. I am certain that the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians want peace, 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 Palestinian statehood as a necessary step for the peace and security of both Palestine and Israel. I also want to reflect on the letter that is sent to us all by the Church of Scotland, where it said, that we are reaffirming 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. However, it also went further and said that we support on-going commitment to dialogue and conversation with particular concern to make sure that those who are on the margins and those whose voices are rarely heard get the opportunity to be listened to, especially Christians who live in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory. That was brought home to me by the minister and the members of St Michael's Church in my hometown of Linlithgow, who have recently returned from visiting their sister church in the Holy Family Episcopal Church in Rhaenau near Nazareth. St Michael's Church is 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 within 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, the Israelis and Palestinians themselves have committed to achieving a peace 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 already formally recognised the state of Palestine. In October, our colleagues in the House of Commons voted by a huge majority to support a motion encouraging the UK Government to follow suit. The Scottish Government has in the past spoken with UK ministers to urge them to formally recognise the Palestinian state. As members may be aware, my party, the SNP, has set out its position that SNP MPs will press for the new Government in the United Kingdom to recognise the state of Palestine. Of course, the current UK Government's position is that a negotiated two-state solution needs to be pursued. Presiding Officer, there is clearly sentiment in this chamber and beyond that this position needs to now go further. It is time now to recognise the state of Palestine. Many thanks, cabinet secretary. That concludes Sandra White's debate on recognition of the Palestinian state. I now close this meeting of Parliament.