Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, February 25, 2016

Official Report 889KB pdf

---

Israel (Cultural Engagement)

I inform members that we are expecting quite a significant number of guests, so we will extend to them the courtesy of allowing them to come into the public gallery before we start.

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-15573, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, on Israel needs cultural bridges, not boycotts. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament acknowledges the recently published open letter signed by over 150 high-profile cultural and political figures in support of the aims of Culture for Coexistence, an independent UK network representing a cross-section from the cultural world; notes that this open letter calls for an end to cultural boycotts of Israel and Israeli artists; notes the views expressed in the letter in support of a two-state solution and the promotion of greater understanding, mutual acceptance and peace through cultural engagement; notes that one example of this cultural exchange took place in 2015 when the Israeli artist, Matan Ben-Cnaan, won first prize in the 2015 BP International Portrait Award and was given the opportunity to teach art to local school children at the opening of the exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery; hopes that, through groups such as the Centre for Scotland and Israel Relations, based in East Renfrewshire, similar educational and cultural programmes will take place in the coming months, and notes the views expressed in the letter that “Cultural engagement builds bridges, nurtures freedom and positive movement for change. We wholly endorse encouraging such a powerful tool for change rather than boycotting its use”.

12:39  

I am proud and delighted to speak to the motion in the Parliament of Scotland, and I am delighted that present in the gallery are the chargé-d’affaires, Eitan Na’eh; Ms Loraine da Costa, who is chair of culture for coexistence; Stanley Lovatt, who is the honorary consul for Israel in Scotland; Philip Mendelsohn and Ephraim Borowski, who are leading figures in Scotland’s Jewish community; Ruth Kennedy of the centre for Scotland and Israel relations; and many other friends and members of the Jewish community in Scotland, many of whom are visiting Holyrood for the first time. I want them to know that they are very welcome in Scotland’s Parliament.

I am delighted, too, to speak to this constructive and positive motion in support of Scotland’s Jewish community—a motion that directly concerns our approach to Israel. I do so against a background in which it is easy to understand why many in the Jewish community have become deeply concerned that their devolved Parliament—Scotland’s devolved Parliament—has tabled some 371 motions on foreign countries, 62 of which concern Israel and 36 of which have been strongly condemnatory. To that I will return.

I start, though, with an unapologetic “Why?” Why have the debate at all? I grew up in Newton Mearns in East Renfrewshire, a southern residential suburb of Glasgow. The late Ralph Glasser, in his extraordinary biographical quadrilogy, which began with “Growing Up in the Gorbals”, tells the story of Jewish migration to Scotland and Glasgow at the start of the previous century and how, in the post-war years, many in the Jewish community migrated from Glasgow to East Renfrewshire, quickly becoming a significant population.

Next door to me were the Maitlis family; next to them, the Greens. Across the road from them were the Davidsons and the Cohens and, along the road, the Marcos and the Kleinglasses. Across the street were the Roses, the Fells and the Chuwens. To have Jewish families in my community was an everyday part of my life. They were my friends and neighbours. Yet a community of some 47,000 families just after the second world war is probably about 20 to 30 per cent of that today.

In addition, and this is not at all well understood, Scotland is home to a separate Israeli community of some 1,000 people. All of that is important, because the feeling of alienation, isolation and vulnerability felt by many in those communities, to the point at which significant numbers are saying, for the first time, that they are considering leaving Scotland, is born, in part, out of the casual ignorance about the community that is expressed in many parts of Scotland.

I am a proud Glaswegian—proud to be Scottish and British, too. Do I support everything that is ever said or done in the name of Glasgow, Scotland or the United Kingdom? Of course not. But do I then equate differences that I may have with any particular city or country with the people of that city or country? No, I do not. And yet, in Scotland, too many have articulated slogans and narrow partisan campaigning tactics against Israel to such an extent and, occasionally, in such a manner, as to stray, albeit sometimes inadvertently—though sometimes deliberately—into the language of anti-Semitism. Some overtly personally blame “the Jews”—a term, in that context, used pejoratively—for the actions of a foreign Government, while seemingly questioning the right of Israel to exist at all.

That is all the more disturbing when we appreciate that the UK Jewish community has a very strong attachment to the state of Israel. A 2010 survey by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research showed that an extraordinary 95 per cent of UK Jews have visited Israel and that 90 per cent view Israel as the ancestral home of the Jewish people. I gladly applaud the direct intervention of the First Minister, who recently said:

“There is nothing that happens in Israel or Palestine that can be justification for antisemitism or any racial or religious hatred. That is a point that has to be made at every level of Scottish society very, very strongly.”

My motion advocates and supports a different course because, beyond the conflicts, Israel is a great nation, which will celebrate its 68th independence day this year. Since 2004, Israeli scientists have won five Nobel prizes—a tally bettered only by four other nations. Between them, Israeli scientists and others produce some 16,000 key technical journals—more than the entire Arab world combined. Israel is a country of invention. Last year in the United States, Israelis lodged some 1,900 patents—just below two nations of far greater populations. Among those, Israel is number 1 in the world per capita for medical device patents and biotechnology patents. Among the other inventions that we use every day is the USB flash drive—how inconvenient to many if we were all to boycott that.

In recent years, the BDS—boycott, divestment and sanctions—movement has become an aggressive and strident opponent. It has thought nothing of bold intimidation and disruption, which has led to the cancellation of events that involve Israeli artists or benefit from Israeli sponsorship in Scotland, as seen for example at the Edinburgh festival fringe in 2014. That has carried beyond, particularly among an impressionable youth, on to the campuses of some of our great universities. More than once, and increasingly often, I am hearing first hand of distressed Jewish students who have been directly targeted personally or had events disrupted.

What does that achieve? What consequences could follow? By way of illustration, I touch on two specific cultural activities in Scotland. The Aberdeen international youth festival has enjoyed a biannual visit from the Israeli Kiryat Ono Youth Concert Band. Its conductor, Guy Feder, said:

“If we were stopped from coming, it would break the very essence of what we aim for. Music is a universal language. It crosses borders and creates bridges. It is a field in which we can overcome our daily disagreements and do something beautiful together.”

This month, as his exhibition ends at the National Portrait Gallery here in Edinburgh, Matan Ben Cnaan, winner of the BP Portrait Award 2015, said:

“As I see it, the majority affected by the boycott are individuals, artists, scholars, scientists, most of them are private people who don’t represent any official authority, but do represent a variety of thoughts and political views”.

Presiding Officer, my motion is expressly about the benefits to peace and understanding of cultural bridges, not boycotts. Duty requires us to be responsible. A seeming obsession with traducing Israel and its very right to exist and the unthinking conflation of Israel and the Jews undermines the security and wellbeing of Jewish people in Scotland. Anti-Semitism is not only the abuse of Jewish individuals, but the treating of Jewish organisations, including the Jewish state, differently from others.

I understand and have heard directly the aspirations of Palestinians, and I am not today seeking to pretend that this debate can solve a conflict that has defied the ages. However, I recognise Israel as the one genuine parliamentary democracy in the region, and I celebrate that fact.

There is clearly room for legitimate and passionate debate, but Scotland’s role should be consistent with our traditions and ambitions. Our democracy must be an example of reasoned, well-informed argument and debate. We should not allow ourselves to shut down debate, to shout down one side, to shout down democracy.

I started my speech with my experience of growing up in Newton Mearns and of my childhood friends and neighbours. It is a small world. Many these years later I found that one of my sons was “stepping out”—to use an old-fashioned idiom; he has been for some five years now—with the daughter of one of those Jewish friends who lived across the street. I am proud that that is possible in Scotland. As the First Minister said,

“I don’t want to be the First Minister, or even live, in a country where Jewish people want to leave or hide their identity”.

This Parliament’s record of acknowledging the Holocaust annually is a deservedly proud one. It must never become simply a box-ticking annual exercise that leaves any one of us free to talk pejoratively the rest of the year about Israel or to allow ourselves or ignorance to become a cover for anti-Semitism.

In that context, I think that a refreshing of our approach to Israel is overdue. Let us reach out and through cultural exchange and debate demonstrate what we can achieve and what boycotts and anti-Semitism cannot.

Before we move on, I would like to advise members that, in view of the number of members who wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept from Jackson Carlaw a motion, under rule 8.14.3, that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Jackson Carlaw.]

Motion agreed to.

I call Stewart Maxwell, to be followed by John Finnie. You have four minutes or thereby.

12:48  

I congratulate Jackson Carlaw on securing time for a debate on this important subject.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very difficult and fraught subject, and feelings run very high. It is natural that people should look for a way to help end this very painful division, and a cultural boycott is a way of bringing moral rather than physical pressure to bear.

Certainly there is nothing to stop any one of us from choosing where we spend our money. We may choose not to buy certain products or to attend certain events, and no one can stop us—that is our right. People are free to choose and I support that freedom to choose.

It is also our right to try and persuade other people that our view is the correct one and to try to win others over to our way of seeing the situation. However, here I express a concern about the way that this call for a cultural boycott is being pressed forward. It seems to me that what is being called for is not just that individuals exercise their consciences but that there be a refusal to allow other people to make a different decision. I confess that that worries me.

For example, in 2012 the Batsheva Dance Company was picketed at the Edinburgh Festival. It is the right of individuals in a free society to make their feelings known to those who were attending the event. I certainly support the right of individuals and groups to picket outside a performance. It is the mark of a healthy and free society in which different opinions can be expressed.

However, inside the hall, the performance was disrupted by protesting individuals. To my mind, that went too far. It is one thing to engage with people who are attending a performance and suggest that they should not do so. It is quite another to impose one’s point of view on all those who take a different point of view and have chosen to attend. That is not discussion or debate; it is an attempt to shut down discussion, to silence those who do not agree with a view, and I do not support that.

As well as being long-standing and painful, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is nuanced. Like most of life, the situation is not black and white. There is no doubt that many Palestinians suffer greatly, but so do Israelis, not just from rockets being fired into civilian areas or suicide bombers on buses, but from the recent spate of knife attacks and car rammings that have occurred in Israel. Innocent people on both sides suffer.

If we wish for a peaceful solution, which I know we all do, we cannot ignore the feelings that are evoked by the suffering on both sides. We cannot afford to silence one of the voices in this tragic situation. I do not believe that that will lead to peace in the long-term.

The cultural world is also divided over the subject of a boycott of Israeli institutions and organisations that are funded by Israeli institutions. Some artists are greatly in favour of a boycott and some are strongly against it. One thing that does concern me about the discussions on the conflict is the underlying feeling that there is bad faith on the part of those who do not wish to support a cultural boycott of Israeli artists, poets and actors.

I do not think that anyone in Parliament does not believe strongly in a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, with both states being thriving democracies with free citizens living in peace and harmony with each other and the rest of the world. I know that we all hope for that. We might disagree on the route, but the hoped-for destination is the same for us all, and I firmly believe that the best way to secure that longed-for peace is to keep open as many avenues for engagement and dialogue as possible, and cultural events are one way of doing that.

Before I call Ken Macintosh, I ask for the public’s help in that there should be no audience participation in the proceedings of Parliament. Thank you for your consideration of that matter.

I now call Ken Macintosh to be followed by John Mason.

Members: You called John Finnie before.

I beg pardon—my mistake. I call John Finnie to be followed by Ken Macintosh.

12:52  

First, I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to Mr Carlaw because the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing is meeting at 1.15 so I might have to leave before the end of the debate.

I declare my membership of the Scottish Palestinian solidarity campaign and the Scottish Green Party, whose mantra is people, planet and peace. Peace and security can be achieved only through global justice and the world will never be safe while we allow the obscenity of poverty, economic exploitation and illegal occupations to continue.

I turn to the issue of boycott, divestment and sanctions. Mr Carlaw’s motion is misleading because there is no boycott of Israeli artists such as Matan Ben Cnaan, as long as artists refuse to collude in the Israeli abuse of human rights. There is a boycott of the Israeli state and those who seek to normalise the occupation of Palestine.

The Scottish Green Party supports the Palestinians’ call for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, including a boycott of Israeli goods and services and an academic and cultural boycott, until Israel fulfils its obligations under international law. Those obligations are: withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders; withdrawing from east Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and other land that was seized in 1967; withdrawing from and depopulating Israeli colonies in the West Bank; dismantling the separation wall; ending the siege of Gaza; granting the right of refugees from 1948, 1967 and other expulsions and their descendants to return to their homes, as required by United Nations resolution 194; and affording equal rights to all citizens within Israel, irrespective of religion or ethnicity, especially Palestinian citizens in Israel.

If I am accused of anti-Semitism because I am speaking like this, I have to say that I have no allegiance to any faith nor would I be critical of any faith.

The Scottish Green Party will campaign for and support divestment by local authorities, other institutions of government—including the local government pension scheme—and civil society organisations from Israel, Israeli companies and companies that support the Israeli Government’s illegal occupation of Palestine.

The Scottish Green Party supports the Palestinian non-violent struggle resisting the colonisation of their lands, resources and peoples by Israel and by Zionist settlers.

The Scottish Green Party will press for European Union legislation to prohibit the import into the EU of products from Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

The Scottish Green Party will work with solidarity groups within Scotland and with political parties and civil society organisations within Palestine and amongst the Palestinian diaspora that share our objectives.

The motion talks of a culture for coexistence; we cannot have that when there are apartheid walls. It talks of greater understanding, but is there an understanding of an imprisoned population? It talks of peace through cultural engagement. I love peace, I campaign for peace, I encourage peace and I condemn violence from whatever quarter—I hope that all other participants in the debate would do likewise.

I want to encourage equality. I support conflict resolution but peace came in the north of Ireland not when the walls went up but when the walls came down. I spoke to someone who was involved in the violence in the north of Ireland and he said, “We killed each other, we maimed each other, we injured each other, and we damaged each others’ property—nothing changed until they bombed the city of London.”

I am not condoning violence from any quarter, be that violence against individuals or violence against property, but there is no doubt that financial imperative can shape minds and change opinions, so I am four-square behind the boycott, divestment and sanctions.

12:56  

I thank Jackson Carlaw for securing this members’ business debate. Given the disproportionate number of anti-Israeli motions laid in the Parliament, we may not redress the balance today but I hope that we show that Scotland is not universally hostile to the state of Israel; that we recognise the incredibly difficult task of securing peace in the middle east; and that we demonstrate our own commitment to ethnic and religious tolerance, to cultural understanding and to supporting our own Jewish community here in Scotland—I will return to that last point in my concluding remarks.

I do not pretend to be an expert on Israel but I do consider myself to be a fair-minded person. In particular, I consider myself to be sympathetic to those who are suffering in any way. I would defend the right of any Scot to speak up for the Palestinian people and to plead their cause. However, at some point over recent years, support in Scotland for the plight of the Palestinians has turned into hostility against Israel—hostility that I believe is one sided, inaccurate and, in the end, incredibly unhelpful and damaging for all concerned.

Those who support the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign constantly refer to Israel as an apartheid state—a description that is as unfair to the struggle of the anti-apartheid movement as it is to those Israelis who fight to defend democracy, freedom of expression and the rule of law.

I wonder if any of us can imagine what it is like to wake up every morning in a country that is surrounded by neighbours who do not recognise our right to exist or where many are pledged to obliterate us. Despite that, in Israel, human rights are protected and Arabs, Jews, Christians and Druze alike are elected to Parliament, serve in the army and hold high legal office.

In some countries nearby, women are not even allowed to drive unaccompanied and people are thrown from tall buildings to their death for the crime of being gay. Yet Israel, almost alone in the region, opposes all forms of racial segregation and insists on equal rights for all, whatever their gender or sexuality. I do not recognise that as apartheid in any way, and to lay the blame on Israel for everything that is wrong in the middle east strikes me as blinkered, unbalanced and unlikely to lead to the successful and sustainable peace that I hope we all desire.

However, frankly, I did not want to contribute to the debate because I felt a need to share my own views on Israel; rather, I wanted to speak up because I believe that Scotland’s growing hostility towards Israel has created an atmosphere of anxiety among many members of the Jewish community in Scotland that is deeply troubling for all of us who believe in a tolerant, inclusive and caring multicultural society.

I recognise that many of my parliamentary colleagues care deeply and passionately about the middle east and hold very strong views about the situation in Israel and Palestine. I will be honest: given that foreign affairs are predominantly reserved to Westminster, I have misgivings about debating such issues in the Scottish Parliament. It is easy for us to express our views on issues when we are not held accountable for them, which, in turn, can lead to irresponsibility. I do not wish this Parliament to be reduced to a talking shop.

However, anti-Israeli sentiment is now in danger of becoming rooted in civic Scotland, in some academic circles and among some trade unionists. It is almost a totemic issue for some of my colleagues on the left, and I worry that, here in Parliament, MSPs have played a part in that process.

Over the past couple of years, anti-Semitism has raised its ugly head once more, shaking the confidence of families who have lived here for generations. The research that was recently carried out by the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities revealed that people are feeling isolated and vulnerable, with many thinking about leaving Scotland—their own country; their own home—for good.

Over the years, as an MSP I have tried various ways to address—in fact, to redress—that growing prejudice and the resultant anxiety. Those have included sponsoring an exhibition on Israel’s phenomenal contribution to the modern world and hosting speakers to talk about the reality of day-to-day life in Israel—looking at equal access to medicine, for example. Unfortunately, the reaction to those events has often been expressed through the very behaviour that I am so keen to counter: depressingly illiberal attempts to interrupt, disrupt or shout down discussion.

Is that really what we have become: a harsh, unwelcoming and intolerant country that is more interested in preventing concerts or banning books than in spreading understanding? That is not my vision for modern Scotland. I urge all colleagues to think again about how we change views and attitudes not through condemnation but through discourse, learning and engagement. Let us start today, right here in the Scottish Parliament, by building bridges.

13:01  

I thank Jackson Carlaw for bringing the debate to the chamber. We have debated Israel and Palestine before, and I am happy that we do so again today. Similar to what I have said in previous speeches in the chamber, my theme today is that we should be encouraging peace talks and trying to reduce tension, and that we should not be cheering on either side.

I would not describe myself as a pacifist, but the more I read about the events of 100 years ago during world war one, the less I believe that violence and war solve very much at all.

Those who are sympathetic to Israel are positive about the motion before us today, in contrast to past motions, which were seen as being very anti-Israel. I have had a number of emails thanking me for supporting the motion. However, those emails also thanked me for supporting Israel. I guess it depends on what is meant by “support”. The picture that comes to my mind is of a football supporter cheering on their team through thick and thin, no matter what. I have written back to those correspondents to say that I do not support either Israel or Palestine in that sense.

I support a two-state solution, as a lot of fair-minded people on both sides say that they do. Is that actually achievable, or does the history since 1948 show that, frankly, it is impossible? Members can call me naive if they want, but I believe that it is achievable, if there is the international will. There are lot of big regional and world powers that need to be around the table—Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia and the United States for starters. Together, I believe that they are able to pressurise both Israel and Palestine to take part, and to do so meaningfully, in a peace dialogue. After all, the reality is that both Israel and Palestine are pretty small in the grand scheme of things. If we could agree that that is the way ahead, it seems to me that cheering on either side and promoting cultural, sporting and other boycotts will not help; certainly, supplying excessive amounts of arms will not help.

Why is Israel singled out for so much hatred? It is repeatedly accused of war crimes, apartheid, occupation, murder and countless other horrors, yet a number of other states on the international scene have records that are almost certainly worse. Amnesty International’s recent report for 2015-16 refers to China and its record on Tibet, religion and human rights; to Saudi Arabia, which uses the death penalty extensively and where women face discrimination and severe restrictions on freedom of expression; and to Egypt, where thousands, including peaceful critics, are arrested. Why is Israel singled out for so much opposition? It would be more understandable if there were also calls to boycott China and Pakistan for their human rights records. I wonder whether Israel is singled out because, first, Israel is so small and, secondly, Israel is Jewish.

I am regularly told by folk that they are critical of Israel but are not anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish. I can understand that as I would consider myself critical of North Korea, for example, but I am not—I hope—anti-Korean. However, I feel that, for some people at least, justifiable criticism of Israel switches over to real hatred. We in Europe have to be very careful about that because we have a joint history of being very anti-Jewish—a history that ran for hundreds of years and culminated in the 1940s. Are we certain that it finished then? Jews in Glasgow find themselves being blamed for the faults of Israel today.

All I ask today is that we do all that we can to build bridges, both within Scotland and internationally. I believe that both Scotland and the UK have a role to play in bringing peace to the middle east.

13:06  

The Scottish Green Party supports the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign because it is a very effective tool for supporting the Palestinian people in their struggle against oppression. There has long been an international failure to hold Israeli Governments to account for disregarding international law and ignoring the health, safety and human rights of Palestinians. As the Palestine Solidarity Campaign highlights, the 2005 call for boycott came from leading Palestinian cultural and academic figures, who urged their counterparts in civil society and

“people of conscience all over the world”

to undertake

“initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era.”

By putting economic pressure on the Israeli Government, we can join a worldwide campaign that calls on corporations that profit from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories to pull their funding.

Boycott is a legitimate form of protest, and of course it is one that we do not undertake lightly. As my colleague John Wilson points out in his motion opposing restrictions on the right to protest, similar campaigns helped to weaken the apartheid regime in South Africa. As was said by my colleague John Finnie, this is not a boycott against Israeli artists who are not being used to support brand Israel—the Israeli propaganda strategy that is designed to whitewash human rights abuses—but a boycott of the Israeli state and those who seek to normalise the occupation of Palestine.

It is important that we understand that a deep and unwavering commitment that none of us should ever forget or downplay the atrocities of the Holocaust and the oppression of Jewish people is entirely consistent with opposing any abusive actions by the Israeli Government or, indeed, any Government. To argue otherwise obscures the genuine attempts of those who want to see a secure and lasting peace in the middle east and who believe that the biggest obstacle to achieving that is oppressive Israeli state action.

Mr Carlaw suggests in his motion that we should pursue greater cultural links with Israel rather than boycotts that make clear that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people is unacceptable. However, to do that while the oppression of Palestinians continues would be to sweep under the carpet the Israeli attacks on Palestinian culture, including vandalism, destruction, the closure of and military attacks on Palestinian cinemas and theatres, the banning of cultural events and restrictions on the movements of Palestinian artists.

It is truly alarming that it is still, in this day and age, impossible to express solidarity with desperate and oppressed people without facing accusations of bigotry against their oppressor. I do not agree with Mr Macintosh and Mr Carlaw that there is growing hostility towards Israel. Absolutely every person on this planet—not just in Scotland but globally—is entitled to a peaceful existence. I want to work with all parties that can contribute to the end of the occupation of Palestine by non-military means. A just peace in Israel and Palestine could be the catalyst for achieving wider peace in the region and across the world. Efforts to criminalise boycotts or publicly smear those who express support for the Palestinian people serves only to hinder any progress towards peace.

We have the choice of following those such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who fought to end South African apartheid and who supports the BDS campaign, or of failing to play any part in the efforts to end the apartheid in the middle east. The cultural boycott of Israel is moderate in its objective, which is simply to ensure that Israel observes international humanitarian law.

13:10  

I declare an interest as a co-convener of the cross-party group on Palestine. I thank Jackson Carlaw for enabling us to debate the complex and difficult issue of peace for the Palestinians and Israel and the importance of ensuring that there is no anti-Semitism here in Scotland today.

I make it clear that I abhor anti-Semitism or racism of any kind. I am clear that, if we are to reach a just and peaceful solution for Israel, for Palestine and for the middle east, we need some cultural bridges and boycotts. One cultural link that is to be welcomed—I highlighted it in the chamber in a previous speech on this complex issue—is found in the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra, which was founded by Daniel Barenboim and Edward Said. Its aim is

“to promote understanding between Israelis and Palestinians and pave the way for a peaceful and fair solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

Through such cultural links, young people in Israel can surely start to understand the real state of affairs.

However, there are strong reasons to consider a boycott of some events if they are connected with the oppression of the Palestinian people by the Israeli state. Recently, I heard of an initiative involving young Israelis and Palestinians playing in the same football team that was being promoted as a good story. It is indeed a good story, but we need something of a reality check here, because we need to remember that Israel is an occupying state and the Palestinians live in occupied territories.

I have been to Gaza with the Council for European Palestinian Relations. My father was a regular soldier in Bethlehem before the last world war, and I grew up with Palestinian exiles. My colleague John Finnie and I went to Gaza in November 2012, very soon after operation pillar of defence. I in no way condone violence of any kind—I do not believe that it is the solution—and we saw with our own eyes the effects of disproportionate force and the destruction and mayhem caused to civil society.

Cultural links are not enough for a just solution. We need to act on boycott, divestment and sanctions. As my colleague Alison Johnstone said, the BDS initiative was launched by Palestinian society in 2005 and it now includes more than 300 organisations. I believe that it is a powerful tool for people around the world to use in playing their role in standing up for struggling Palestinians.

The Israeli state has simply disagreed with the numerous rulings of international law that state that its settlements are illegal, and it continues to deny Palestinians’ fundamental rights of freedom, self-determination and equality. The past holds significant examples of the power of effective boycotts. Rosa Parks’s bravery triggered a boycott that began with a bus company and was part of the civil rights movement in America, and the apartheid regime in South Africa was brought to its knees partly thanks to global solidarity against South African industry, academia and culture.

I welcome those in the public gallery and I welcome the Israeli representatives. I hope that they will take back the concerns and views that I have highlighted, which many in Scotland share. I hope not only that there will be lasting peace but that it will be a just peace for the people of Palestine that will also ensure that there is security in Israel and the wider middle east.

13:15  

I thank Jackson Carlaw for bringing this debate to the chamber and I welcome all those who are here in the public gallery.

The motion calls on the Parliament to acknowledge

“the recently published open letter signed by over 150 high-profile cultural and political figures in support of the aims of Culture for Coexistence,”

which

“calls for an end to cultural boycotts”.

The letter was published in The Guardian in October 2015. The Parliament should also acknowledge that the opinion in that letter was a response to a letter that was signed by hundreds of artists, published in The Guardian in February 2015, which expressed the opposite opinion. Signing that letter was those artists’ choice.

People have the freedom to express their beliefs and opinions, and I respect and would defend that right. Many people, including me, are very concerned by the Westminster Government’s attempts to limit local authorities’ autonomy and people’s right to protests. Those freedoms define us as individuals, communities and societies. They form the fundamental basis of our democracies and are rightly cherished. Jackson Carlaw has brought the debate to the Parliament, and that is a perfect example of the exercise of those rights. Opinions may differ and there may not be agreement, but those opinions are not to be denied. In fact, opinions and the differences between them are to my mind what will, I hope, drive us towards a peaceful resolution to the situation that we face. Peace will not be achieved by silencing voices and I believe that we must all remain mindful of that.

I have spoken to many people on both sides, in both communities, who want to see a just and lasting peace. That is where our energies and efforts should and can achieve results. We may disagree on how to achieve peace, although we may be united in our desire for it. However, we can work towards peace in the middle east. We must, for the sake of the Palestinians and the Israelis, work towards a just peace for all people there. Although we may disagree on how to achieve that peace, there is a desire for it on both sides. I know that we can all agree on that, and that gives me optimism that peace can be achieved. However, it will not be achieved by silencing people and denying them the right to protest.

I thank Stewart Maxwell for his measured contribution today, which did him great justice, and I thank Alison Johnstone for her excellent speech, which encapsulated the thoughts of many, and I thank my other colleagues for their contributions. Once again, I thank Jackson Carlaw for bringing the debate to the chamber. I respect his right to put across his opinion and to act on that. As individuals, we have a fundamental right to opinion and expression, and it should be respected.

13:19  

I, too, thank Jackson Carlaw for bringing this debate to the chamber. I also declare an interest as a member of the cross-party group on Palestine and a member of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

First, I must challenge Jackson Carlaw on his remark about anti-Semitism. I and many thousands of others might be critical of the Israeli Government and sympathetic to Palestinians, but that does not make us anti-Semitic. Although I have lived and worked in Scotland for most of my adult life, I have worked on more than one occasion with Jewish people. If there is one thing I want people to remember from this, it is that any political opinion about or criticism of the Israeli Government does not equate with anti-Semitism.

Let us look at what the artists in the UK are saying and, indeed, the current pledge by Scottish artists to support this boycott, which says:

“We support the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality. In response to the call from Palestinian artists and cultural workers for a cultural boycott of Israel, we pledge to accept neither professional invitations to Israel, nor funding, from any institutions linked to its government until it complies with international law and universal principles of human rights.”

Let us look, too, at some of the cultural events that have happened. Members will forgive me if I mispronounce the name, but I note that Arye Mekel of the Israeli foreign ministry has said:

“We will send well-known novelists and writers overseas, theatre companies, exhibits. This way, you show Israel’s prettier face, so we are not thought of purely in the context of war.”

We should also look at some of the facts about Israel’s attacks on Palestinian culture. In 1987, Israeli authorities closed the cinema in east Jerusalem, and it remained closed until Palestinians reopened it in February 2012. In 2002, Israel prevented Palestinian poets Zakaria Mohammed and Ghassan Zaqtan from travelling to Ireland to read their work. In 2002, Israeli soldiers in Bethlehem vandalised a theatre and destroyed equipment. In May 2009, Israeli soldiers prevented the opening of the Palestine festival of literature in Jerusalem and, again in 2009, the Israeli authorities banned numerous Palestinian cultural and educational events that had been scheduled to celebrate the declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Arab culture for that year—and so on and so on.

We must also recognise the investment that some of our own artists have made in declaring their support for this boycott. The late Iain Banks, who has been noted in the chamber and by everyone as the intellectual and creative writer that he was, refused to allow his books to be published in Israel, saying:

“The BDS campaign for justice for the Palestinian people is one I would hope any decent, openminded person would support. Gentile or Jew, conservative or leftist, no matter who you are or how you see yourself, these people are our people, and collectively we have turned our backs on their suffering for far too long.”

I hope that today we reassure the large number of people in the public gallery that we are not expressing anti-Jewish sentiment but talking about international law and human rights.

13:23  

I congratulate Jackson Carlaw on securing this debate and welcome the range of positions that members have articulated in strongly argued and considered speeches across the chamber.

Jackson Carlaw’s motion concerns the open letter that was signed by supporters of the culture for coexistence network. I note that the organisation’s chair, Loraine da Costa, stated that

“culture has a unique ability to bring people together and bridge division”.

In general policy terms, the Scottish Government recognises and supports artistic freedom and the role that culture plays to increase understanding of others.

In line with other Governments in Europe—and, indeed, with Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian National Authority—the Scottish Government does not advocate a policy of boycotting Israel. Any engagement with the Israeli Government or the Palestinian National Authority provides us with an opportunity to call for a peaceful resolution between both sides of the conflict, and to put forward our concerns in the strongest possible terms. The Scottish Government has also made it clear on a number of occasions that we do not dictate to cultural institutions, organisations or individuals what approach they should take.

The Scottish Government strongly encourages the Israeli Government and the Palestinian National Authority to work with the international community on securing long-term peace and ending the cycle of violence that continues to affect Palestinians and Israelis.

The Scottish Government supports the European Union position of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, and firmly encourages Israel and Palestine to reach a sustainable, negotiated settlement under international law, which has as its foundation mutual recognition and the determination to coexist peacefully.

We aspire for Scotland to act as a good global citizen, drawing on our own experience at home to promote tolerance and respect for human rights in other countries. Whenever the question of Israel and Palestine is raised in the chamber, we consistently urge all sides to seek a peaceful, negotiated solution that respects the rights of all the communities affected. By the same token, we have consistently condemned obstacles to progress in the peace process, such as the indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel or the continued expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories. We have also repeatedly called on the United Kingdom Government to use its influence to help to revitalise the peace process and find a way to break through the political deadlock and bring an end to the conflict.

Within Scotland, the Scottish Government does not tolerate violence or extremism in any form, whether in deed or word, and we condemn it when it is directed at any of our own communities. Jackson Carlaw is correct to stress the need to support all our minority communities in Scotland, and we absolutely support that, but he is wrong to say that criticism of Israel means that someone is anti-Semitic—that point was made well by Jean Urquhart.

I think that I was careful not to say that. I said that, unfortunately, on occasion inadvertently but sometimes deliberately, one is used to mean the other. However, I do not for a moment suggest that that is universally and always the case.

That is an important clarification in the context of the debate.

The free and open exchange of ideas is vital in building understanding and trust between communities. We want to encourage an environment in Scotland where those kinds of conversations can take place. In December 2012, our former First Minister wrote to Daniel Taub, the Israeli ambassador to the UK, to underline the fact that Scotland values and is committed to cultural freedom and to communicate our desire to encourage reasoned debate.

Culture from Israeli artists features regularly as part of festivals and tours in Scotland—Jackson Carlaw mentioned the Aberdeen international youth festival, which I have attended. At no point has the Scottish Government intervened in the artistic creativity and integrity of Scottish programmers who have invited those artists to form part of their programme.

Culture has become a powerful tool to promote dialogue and debate in order to promote a better and deeper understanding of other nations, which can help the process of resolution in areas of conflict. Across Scotland, our culture sector is leading the way in these debates, bringing to Scotland international delegates from places such as Iran, Iraq, Israel, Palestine and many more to be exposed to our culture and build a relationship of trust.

One example of such an attempt to break down borders was the show “Here is the News from Over There”, which was performed at the Edinburgh fringe festival in 2015 and was produced by theatrical company Northern Stage, working with Scottish playwright David Greig. It involved 20 writers from across the middle east contributing stories, poems and reportage via Twitter, which were fashioned into a theatrical cabaret with different content each night. The hosts included Sara Shaarawi from Egypt, Hassan Abdulrazzak from Iraq and Lebanese writer Abdelrahim Alawji.

Culture builds bridges to enable dialogue between people as individuals and between nations. It can transform lives and facilitate international, open and honest debate. However, I want to be clear about one point in particular. When the culture of a country is used as propaganda, it diminishes art and artists. Artists need freedom and freedom of speech to flourish. It cannot be the function of politicians and Governments to stifle art or artists or to dictate what art should be. However, art and artists do not and cannot live separately from their experiences. Therefore, we cannot and should not always expect them to be the voice of the politics that we want to hear or be comfortable with what they have to say about Government, whether they are Scottish, Israeli or Palestinian, or whether the Government in question is Palestinian, Israeli or Scottish.

Cultural freedom is precious and Governments must have the utmost respect for it. It allows us to express our humanity and our capacity to connect as peoples. Culture and art can and should make us challenge how we see the world, and an important part of that is the ability to listen to another point of view even if we disagree with it. In listening to the different points of view that have been expressed here today, we can show that, by sitting down and engaging, we can understand different perspectives. However, we must always respect the right to free cultural expression—to me, that is a very precious thing indeed. In the Scotland that we seek, cultural freedom should always be at the heart of how we represent ourselves to our own communities and to others internationally.

I thank all members for their elegant and dignified contributions to this important debate.

13:30 Meeting suspended.  

14:30 On resuming—