Not surprisingly along with all other Parliamentarians, I have continued to receive a large number of emails from constituents often showing their passionate concern about the heavy loss of life in the ongoing conflict. I share those concerns, and at times outrage, in what appears to be a heavy handed military response by the Israeli forces. All decent people want to see a resolution to this conflict, an end to civilian casualties and the urgent opportunity for innocent Palestinian families to get on with rebuilding their lives and their communities with safety for all on both sides of the border.
I have written extensively on this subject previously as I always do when there are contentious issues which raise passions on multiple sides and I aim to give a full explanation of my position and voting intentions. Most constituents have written in a genuine and reasonable way understanding of the sensitivities of the conflict, and many have urged me to vote for a full ceasefire if given the opportunity. Some have found it necessary to be gratuitously offensive and assert that anyone not following their preferred course of action is complicit in genocide and has blood on their hands. As we have seen recently such intemperate and incendiary language has been directly linked with violent demonstrations and attacks on MPs offices and homes which go well beyond the thresholds of how we cherish free speech in a democracy. The following link will take you to a study on the policing of the Palestinian demonstrations conducted by the Home Affairs Select Committee, that I sit on: Policing of protests - Home Affairs Committee (parliament.uk): https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmhaff/369/report.html
As a result, security arrangements for MPs have been increased, some of my colleagues have been assigned close protection officers in their constituencies and others are having to wear stab vests. This is completely unacceptable and a sad state of affairs for a democratic nation such as ours which epitomises tolerance and constructive debate and engagement. I will obviously not comment on my own security arrangements, but I value my close interaction and accessibility to constituents, not least through my regular street surgeries, and I do not want to have to detract from that, but I am not able to engage with people who think it is right to use openly violent and threatening language.
On the whole historic Israel/Palestinian issue I have always tried to tread a middle way having visited the West bank with post pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian organisations and given talks after each to constituents about what I had seen. My position has not changed and the position I set out after the latest conflict erupted remains consistent. We need a meaningful and sustainable ceasefire that involves the release of the remaining Israeli hostages held in captivity for nearly 5 months now and for an end to Hamas control of Gaza. Whilst we certainly need a pause in the fighting to allow essential aid in for displaced Palestinians, a ceasefire without the above conditions will only help Hamas terrorists regroup and refocus their bloody campaign which has no regard for the sanctity of life on either the Israeli or Palestinian side, and the war will go on for longer and more lives will likely be lost.
So when faced with a Parliamentary resolution with a set of words that commit to a ceasefire without any attention to the practical requirements I have set out, I will instantly be sceptical. A ceasefire is a contract between two parties and unless both parties are willing then it is meaningless. To suggest that the UK Parliament in passing such a motion will magically bring about a ceasefire is nonsense and highly disingenuous.
Last week we were faced with a motion by the SNP which committed the UK Parliament to vote for an immediate ceasefire, noting the scale of casualties on the Palestinian side but making no provision for the end of Hamas’ reign of terror in Gaza or for the Israelis to live in safety. It was an entirely political device designed cynically for party political advantage primarily to embarrass other parties to vote against it and then characterise them as uncaring and complicit in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians. Even if passed it was not a motion binding on Government policy and was gesture politics at its worst. On that alone I would have voted against it because this is a much for complex and sensitive problem than to be able to claim that it could be resolved by a vote in the House of Commons.
Working with our allies in the UN and in the region, we should be able to engineer a sustainable ceasefire and there are now encouraging signs that just such a deal is about to be landed in coming days and I would certainly support that. As our Foreign Secretary David Cameron has said ‘If we leave Hamas in charge of even a part of Gaza, there will never be a two-sided solution because you can’t expect Israel to live next to a group of people that want to do October 7th all over again.’ Hopefully a proper bilateral agreement now can lead to a sustained ceasefire and renewed comprehensive negotiations on finding a two-state solution where Israeli and Palestinians are rid of the extremist and incompetent governments that have served both people so badly for so many years. That is the ultimate prize that I hope we can all unite on.
The debate instituted by the SNP in Parliament last Wednesday descended into farce and did not show Parliament in its best light. Too many people in the SNP and Labour Parties were trying to play ‘clever’ politics and the independence and integrity of the Speaker was unfortunately called into question too. Subsequently all the headlines and media coverage were about Parliamentary procedures and chaotic scenes rather than focussing on the main issue in hand – the horrific events in Gaza.
So, for those who asked me to vote for the SNP ceasefire motion if I had been given the chance, the answer was always not as this was gesture politics of the most cynical kind. I would have voted for the Government’s motion which did reference the need for an immediate humanitarian pause leading to a permanent sustainable ceasefire, called for a significant scale-up of aid to Gaza and the setting out of a credible pathway to peace, security and justice for both Israeli and Palestinians. It did not pretend to magic up an instant solution or that the UK had some power of veto over the Israeli Government, but it was even-handed in its treatment of both innocent Palestinians and Israelis.
For those who think that makes me complicit in genocide or war crimes then you are helping no one, and your gesture politics may make you think you look good, but it doesn’t help those most in need. As someone who has sponsored the Armenian Genocide Recognition Bill and who has been sanctioned by the Chinese Communist Government for calling out their proven genocide against the Uighurs in Parliament, I know what constitutes genocide in International Law, and neither myself nor any other British Parliamentarian is guilty of it. To suggest otherwise if offensive and just plain wrong.
I appreciate that many constituents will not agree with my view and my stance, but I hope you do respect my reasoning and my accountability to all my constituents who hold a multiplicity of views.
