Chris Mackie: Comment is free?

Last week, an exhibition of photographs was displayed in the Parliament detailing the suffering of the Palestinian people wrought, campaigners maintain, by an oppresive Israeli state.

Alongside some very graphic images of seriously injured children and information about the Scotland to Gaza Medical Appeal run by Edinburgh Direct Aid was a comments book, dutifully completed by various visitors passing the exhibition stand.

Most of the comments were sympathetic, focusing on the very real human tragedy on show. Others were critical of the UK government's response to the Palestinian question, but one in particular caught the eye:

“Israel must be (and will be inshallah) wiped off from the earth!” wrote Raza from Glasgow, closely echoing the sentiments of the former leader of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, whose name was placed in brackets at the end of the quote.

The remarks (see above) have caused some consternation in Holyrood, and the Tories' Jackson Carlaw has now laid down a parliamentary motion calling on MSPs to join in condemnation of the sentiments ahead of Holocaust Memorial Day which takes place on 27 January.

The event's sponsor, Labour MSP Pauline McNeill has echoed his concerns and contacted the organisers of the exhibit drawing their attention to the matter.

But the comments and the response raise some interesting questions about free speech and how it should apply in settings such as this. Hosting such a politically sensitive and - in terms of the images on show - shocking exhibition was almost certain to provoke some form of reaction, especially when it concerned the diplomatic hot potato that is the Palestine/Israeli situation. So, in many ways we should perhaps not be surprised at the thoughts on show.

In fact, it could be argued that to only attract one anti-Israeli comment with such a provocative and emotive set of images was actually something of a triumph.

Many of my colleagues were unconvinced at the significance of this, arguing that the principles of free speech should be upheld. But seeing extremist comment laid bare in the heart of the Parliament, where dozens of MSPs, government ministers, press, civil servants and visitors pass every day is still disquieting, especially when you consider that "Raza" could well be a school pupil, given the number of kids that circulate the building each day and peruse the rolling schedule of exhibits.

David Maddox: Emergency item for the Knesset

On 8 January this year, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, with the support of all parties bar the Tories, led an emergency debate in Holyrood on the crisis in Gaza. This was followed by a letter of protest demanding a ceasefire from the Israeli government, whose citizens were also under bombardment from Hamas missiles. No message was sent to the Palestinian Authority or Hamas and it was the second such communication from the SNP government to Israel.

And this was despite Holyrood having almost no responsibility for foreign affairs.

I wonder, as he stood by Gordon Brown yesterday and watched the British PM field questions on the international consequences of Scotland sending home a notorious Libyan mass murderer and terrorist, whether Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu thought: "We really should have an emergency debate on this in the Knesset (Israeli parliament)." And further noted: "I must send Alex Salmond a letter outlining my government's deep concerns about his government's actions in this international crisis."

For some reason I would be surprised if he did.

David Maddox: Tales of sheep and the Middle Eastern divide on offer at Perth

As this blog has noted before, the Perth Concert Hall is now the favoured destination for annual conferences in Scotland. The latest ongoing this week is the Scottish Trade Union Congress (STUC).

Apart from Harriet Harman's gaffe, covered in today's Scotsman, there were a couple of other curiosities at the conference yesterday.

One of the funnier things was the way somebody turned on a noise sounding like a herd of sheep every time the cncert hall's sliding doors opened, to the slight consternation of Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy.

It was not clear whether the sheep addition was a joke, an accident or a piece of social commentary on a group of people who seemed to agree on everything.

Although, maybe not everything. It was noticeable that the a room given over to various stalls from interest groups had diplomatically put the Scottish Friends of Palestine at one end of the room and Scottish Trade Union Friends of Israel at the opposite end as far away as possible. Amnesty was stuck somewhere in the middle.

It did lead to an interesting conflict for delegates in terms of entering the pro-Israeli raffle for a bottle of Israeli wine or to follow the Palestinian supporters' view that anything Israeli should be boycotted. To say that the two people on the Palestinian stall were glowering across the room would not do justice to the mental daggers they were sending across.

In contrast Donald MacDougall, who has lived in and around Perth for more than 60 years and was looking after the pro-Israel stall when I arrived took a far more conciliatory view. He went across to introduce himself to the other stalls and appropriate on a day when the Iranian President's remarks in the UN about Israel were condemned as racist, wore a Let's Give Racism the Red Card sticker. It has to be said that he was not aware of what was going on in the UN.

He explained to me that his support for Israel was based on his Christian faith and the hope that the two sides could be reconciled rather than blind loyalty to whatever the Israeli government has done. He did not agree though that it is an apartheid society or that by excluding Israelis would solve the problem. He recounted several uplifting tales of how people over there can co-operate from his many visits to the area.

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.