David Maddox: Why are some MSPs silent on Gaza?
MSPs have moved on to an emergency debate on Gaza. I may be underplaying the Scottish Parliament's international influence, but I supsect this debate called by Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has more to do with the need domestically to be seen to say something on the grim events in the Middle East.
However, what interests me is how one-sided these debates always end up being. Almost all the speeches condemn Israel for the dreadful events and the rare attacks on Hamas, a terrorist organisation that started this latest conflict, come in for fierce criticism.
Certainly there is no doubt that the Israeli Government's reaction to the mortar attacks has been disproportionate, appalling and rightly condemned, but they are definitely not the only culpable party.
Only two Tories - Ted Brocklebank and Jackson Carlaw - have pointed out that Israel is a small state under siege by larger neighbours - one of which, Iran, is trying to get nuclear weapons -which are committed to its annihilation. Hamas, they correctly say, is also dedicated to the destruction of Israel and Jews and funded and armed by Iran.
They also point out how many of the attacks on Israel in this country are anti-Semitic and have led to an increase in assaults on the Jewish population here. Anti-Semitism does exist in Scotland. One of the most chilling and unforgettable responses I had to a story on the web was when I wrote about Holocaust Education Trust trips from Scotland possibly being cancelled by the SNP government. The comments were removed by the Scotsman because of the anti-Semitic content in them, but it was also the moment when some of the regular cybernats allied themselves with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers.
But the fact that only two Tories were able to say this underlines the misnoma that support for Israel comes from parties of the centre-right and Palestinians from the parties of the left and centre-left.
Yet I know of several MSPs in the centre left parties - certainly in the SNP and Labour - who share and, at least in one case, have stronger views in support of Israel than Messrs Brocklebank and Carlaw.
The question is why do they never raise their voices in these debates? Is it that they are ashamed of their views or that party managers prevent them from expressing them?
On such subjects where frankly the Scottish Parliament has little influence these debates should be beyond the party managers' control and MSPs should have the courage to argue their beliefs so that we can have a more balanced discussion.
However, what interests me is how one-sided these debates always end up being. Almost all the speeches condemn Israel for the dreadful events and the rare attacks on Hamas, a terrorist organisation that started this latest conflict, come in for fierce criticism.
Certainly there is no doubt that the Israeli Government's reaction to the mortar attacks has been disproportionate, appalling and rightly condemned, but they are definitely not the only culpable party.
Only two Tories - Ted Brocklebank and Jackson Carlaw - have pointed out that Israel is a small state under siege by larger neighbours - one of which, Iran, is trying to get nuclear weapons -which are committed to its annihilation. Hamas, they correctly say, is also dedicated to the destruction of Israel and Jews and funded and armed by Iran.
They also point out how many of the attacks on Israel in this country are anti-Semitic and have led to an increase in assaults on the Jewish population here. Anti-Semitism does exist in Scotland. One of the most chilling and unforgettable responses I had to a story on the web was when I wrote about Holocaust Education Trust trips from Scotland possibly being cancelled by the SNP government. The comments were removed by the Scotsman because of the anti-Semitic content in them, but it was also the moment when some of the regular cybernats allied themselves with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers.
But the fact that only two Tories were able to say this underlines the misnoma that support for Israel comes from parties of the centre-right and Palestinians from the parties of the left and centre-left.
Yet I know of several MSPs in the centre left parties - certainly in the SNP and Labour - who share and, at least in one case, have stronger views in support of Israel than Messrs Brocklebank and Carlaw.
The question is why do they never raise their voices in these debates? Is it that they are ashamed of their views or that party managers prevent them from expressing them?
On such subjects where frankly the Scottish Parliament has little influence these debates should be beyond the party managers' control and MSPs should have the courage to argue their beliefs so that we can have a more balanced discussion.
Labels: David Maddox, Gaza, Israel, Labour MSPs
posted by Administrator at
11:01
3 Comments:
"MSPs have moved on to a debate on to an emergency debate on Gaza."
As you allude the debate all seems a bit pointless, but does your opening sentence mean that they pointlessly debated whether to have the pointless debate? ;0)
I am a nationalist, regular poster and a total supporter of the right of Israel to defend itself against random attacks from Hamas.
If the Arabs and the Islamists cared about the Palestinians they would send them aid not guns. The would build hosptitals not tunnels for smuggling weapons.
If Arabs stopped attacking Israel the conflict would be over the next moment.
Most Arabs/Islamists do not even accept the right of Jews to live. Let alone live in Israel.
The problem is a misconception about Islamic beliefs and a purposefull misrepresentation of the politics of Islam. If you wish to read more search the internet and do some research from big organisations and legitimate universities. The truth is much worse than you could imagine.
Most of the misconception comes from our misunderstanding of the multiple rules of behaviour acceptable in Islam.
Dar al-Islam (Arabic: دار الإسلام literally house/abode of Islam
Dar al-Harb (Arabic: دار الحرب "house of war"; also referred to as Dar al-Garb "house of the West"
Dar al-Kufr (Arabic: دار الكفر, "house/domain of disbelief")
Dar al Hudna (Arabic: "house of calm"): The land of non-believers currently under a truce, which is a respite between wars. A truce is bought by tribute by harbis. If the harbis refuse to pay tribute in exchange for the truce, hostilities are resumed. Furthermore, only treaties that conform to Islamic prescriptions are valid; if these conditions are not fulfilled, the treaty is worthless.
The basic idea is this. Allah wants all the world to be "House of Islam" and all muslims MUST struggle(Jihad) militarily or financially to acheive Sharia Law and therefore Islamic Control.
Dhimmis - Second class citizens are allowed to pay the Jizya(submission Tax) to be allowed any rights within an Islamic nation.
Where Sharia Law does not exist they are either at War(Dar al-Harb) or about to resume war after truce ends (Dar al Hudna)
Most people find this a hard to grasp and assume I am a right wing nutjob. But alas it is Islam that states these goals. They just prefer to do it in Arabic so we do not understand and they use another system called Taqqiya (art of deception) to mislead our politically correct media and leaders.
Post a Comment
<< Home