The SNP has not yet understood what opposing genocide requires
“A person is courageous so long as he has no need for courage, but he collapses when the issue becomes real, and he is forced to understand courage as an act of ‘surrender’, a detachment from human involvement, and his content himself with being a spectator rather than a participant in life.” – Ghassan Kanafani
ANGUS Robertson is really, really sorry, you guys.
The Scottish Government’s external affairs secretary, addressing the SNP conference in Edinburgh on Sunday, apologised once again for meeting with Daniela Grudsky, Israel’s deputy ambassador to the UK, having belatedly realised that doing so during an ongoing genocide might give some people the wrong idea.
“As I have already said, I am profoundly sorry that any impression was given of any normalisation with the Israeli Government when in fact the priority of the Scottish Government was to communicate support for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, release of all hostages, an end of UK arms being sent to Israel and a recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state within the two-state solution,” Robertson declared.
Quite why delivering this message required an in-person confab remains unclear – this meeting, as the saying goes, could have been an email. Besides, Robertson being photographed alongside the smiling Israeli envoy somewhat undercuts his meeting’s stated purpose, as does the fact that the bloodbath in Gaza was reportedly just one item under discussion, alongside matters such as culture and renewable energy.
“It is clear that it would have been better to ensure that the meeting was strictly limited to the need for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and an end to the appalling loss of life in the region,” Robertson said afterwards. “I apologise for the fact that this did not happen.” Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
A respite from the controversy was briefly provided by SNP MSP John Mason, who presumably took a break from his efforts to ban dancing and rock music within the boundaries of Bomont not only to also meet with Grudsky, but thereafter take to Twitter to assure us all: “If Israel wanted to commit genocide, they would have killed ten times as many.”
Perhaps to the surprise of those who have followed his political career, Mason was soon faced with actual consequences, a phenomenon with which one might assume he was heretofore unfamiliar; he was stripped of the SNP whip with immediate effect, for what a spokesperson for the Chief Whip described as his “utterly abhorrent comment.”
Still, this was entirely what one might expect from Mason, who remains characteristically unrepentant and consistent in his utter inability to read the room. The case of Robertson – a senior figure within the party, by virtue of endurance if nothing else – raises certain questions, however.
That the debacle happened at all – after almost a year of the IDF’s mass-slaughter taking place before our eyes, and in defiance of our rage and horror – was not merely repugnant, but simply baffling.
It could be that recent events rendered the SNP complacent; despite some minor controversy (and not just among those of us with Armenian heritage), Humza Yousaf’s invitation of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan disappointingly did not elicit any serious blowback.
And yet, particularly given reports that Robertson’s meeting was undertaken with the knowledge of John Swinney, what exactly did they expect was going to happen? What did they think it would achieve? And how could they possibly have failed to anticipate the backlash, not just from their own membership – many of whom now exist in a permanent state of disgruntlement – but from any of the millions across the world who have been animated and radicalised by the systematic destruction of Gaza?
A tale of two conferences
ALL of this set the stage for the SNP conference this past weekend. The controversy over Robertson’s meeting was not merely one further trouble among many for Scotland’s beleaguered ruling party, but indicative of something larger – far larger than the SNP.
As I sat down to watch the conference (having attended more of these wretched things in person than is reasonable for someone with only a limited span on this mortal coil, you’ll forgive me for sticking to the livestream), I may or may not have been the only one to think of another – different no doubt, but nevertheless taking place under shared, strange circumstances.
In Chicago, the Democratic National Convention had concluded less than two weeks before the SNP gathered in Edinburgh. The contrast was extreme. While the SNP nurses bruises and grudges aplenty, the DNC was an extremely well-choreographed, well-oiled and brutally disciplined machine designed to showcase the ostentatious party unity and “politics of joy” which have so energised the once-improbable campaign of Vice-President Kamala Harris. Nothing would be permitted to get in the way of that.
Certainly not Gaza, nor the official death toll – widely suspected to be profoundly underestimated – of 40,000. No inconvenient Palestinian-American speakers would be allowed on stage to speak for those dead, nor would any delegates from the Uncommitted National Movement, representing the roughly 740,000 protest votes cast during the primary in opposition to the United States’ military support for Israel. Meanwhile, to both the party and the press, those gathered in protest outside the convention might as well have been on another planet.
“And so the bombs continue, and the party goes on,” wrote Adam Johnson in The Nation. “Gaza is removed from our minds and the field of vision of those attending the big celebration. And everyone – or at least those not on the wrong end of American weapons -gets to feel ‘joy’ again.”
The SNP, as need hardly need highlighted, is nothing compared to the Democratic machine; in the party’s present state, it would shame Rube Goldberg, and ‘joy’ is in short supply. The question of Gaza and Israel would need to be addressed.
Putting out the fire
ON Friday – if you were innocent – it almost looked like it might happen.
SNP deputy leader Keith Brown was effusive in his praise Humza Yousaf’s commitment to “international solidarity” and his “passionate advocacy for peace in Gaza” – qualities which stood in stark contrast to those of the “Westminster parties”.
Brown is not the only one to have made such noises in recent days; still, it is strange that those celebrating the most – perhaps only – laudable aspect of the erstwhile first minister’s tenure do not seem in any hurry to emulate it.
Following the accession of John Swinney to the office of first minister, I wrote in these pages that the SNP’s steadfast support for a ceasefire in Gaza was arguably “the one remaining distinguishing feature of the party compatible with the Left that has not been sacrificed or placed in jeopardy”; following July’s general election, I further noted that – for reasons best known to themselves – the SNP had chosen to make very little of this during the campaign.
Did the conference signal a change from this muted approach? Well… There was a resolution. Trust me, there always is.
As well as reiterating calls for an immediate ceasefire and a ban on UK arms sales to Israel, the motion “notes with extreme concern the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and in East Jerusalem and requests the Scottish Government undertakes a formal review of commercial arrangements involving Israel to ensure that goods and services should not be procured from illegally occupied territories.”
One might consider this respectable enough, even if it falls some way short of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS). The more immediate problem is that I’ve seen this kind of thing before.
Never mind, for the moment, that Humza Yousaf stated in November that those profiting from illegal occupations should not be able to profit in Scotland, with no action taken since. If resolutions like these carried any serious weight, both the SNP and Scotland itself would look quite different. Should you need proof, I’m still waiting on those rent controls the conference backed in 2016.
What is to be done?
AND so – following the matinee performance of Angus Robertson’s apology – came the first minister’s address. Given all that had come before, it was much as you’d expect.
“A ceasefire is essential,” Swinney said. “The sending of UK arms to Israel must stop.
All hostages must be returned. Israelis and Palestinians must be able to live in peace. And that peace must be based on a two-state solution and a viable, sovereign Palestinian state.”
Putting aside the disingenuousness of demanding the release of Hamas-held hostages without recognising – as many of their families have – that their return could have been secured long ago, were it not for Netanyahu’s unshakeable determination to turn Gaza into a charnel house, Swinney also made no mention of how all this is to be achieved.
At the time of writing, it has just been announced that the UK has moved to suspend 30 arms export licenses to Israel, after a review found a “clear risk” – you don’t say – that British-made arms could be used in violation of humanitarian law, regarding the treatment of imprisoned Palestinians and the supply of aid to Gaza.
The SNP – who, with their nine whole MPs, will I’m sure be keen to take much credit for this development – have already noted that this comprises less than 10 per cent of the UK arms licenses to Israel, and condemned the move as, in the words of Stephen Flynn, “far too limited a response to the crimes against humanity which are unfolding before the watching world.
“We reiterate our calls for an immediate and total ban on all arms exports to Israel from the UK,” Flynn added, “and demanding that the UK Government call on their allies to do the exact same.”
And therein lies the test.
The naivete of Angus Robertson’s meeting with Israel’s envoy was the idea that anything would come from it – that even the slightest, notional movement towards a ceasefire could be achieved through communication with the state that has done everything in its power to prevent one, because it has no intention of halting the genocide it is inflicting.
The pro-Palestinian, anti-genocide protest movement – the same one which, in its incarnations on campuses throughout the West, has been so airily dismissed by sensible commentators as naïve at best, actively dangerous at worst, and deserving of suppressions under all circumstances – has consistently been smart enough to know exactly what any demand made of Israel itself would be worth – exactly nada.
They have therefore generally focused their efforts upon the government without whose unqualified support this genocide cannot continue – the government whose policy of arms sales to Israel without condition Kamala Harris pledged to continue on Friday, in her first televised interview as Democratic nominee for president. Threatening that campaign may very well be the only way that position will be reversed.
Opposing genocide in Gaza requires opposing Israel. Opposing Israel requires opposing the superpower without which it cannot functionally operate – which is to say, oppress, occupy and kill. Doing that forces hard questions about the fuzzy Atlanticism the SNP has settled into ever since abandoning its opposition to NATO, and which it shares with the Westminster establishment against which it performatively rages.
The SNP at present has not the stomach for arguments such as these, and its attitude to foreign policy has for some time been not dissimilar to those people who take up knitting once a year than then abandon it after a week.
Yet if the party – or anyone else – are to seriously commit to a ceasefire in Gaza, then they must pursue their own arguments to the necessary – the only – conclusion.
I agree wholeheartedly with Sean’s analysis. I left the party after the (so close) vote on the motion that an independent Scotland would become a member of NATO (SNP conference 2012) Angus Robertson was the promoter of the motion. He clearly convinced the leader of the party, Alex Salmond, that we needed NATO membership to reassure the people of Scotland about the nations ‘security’. And that in advance of the 2014 referendum. Interesting that Alex Salmond has since changed his mind, as has Kenny MacAskill who gave the closing words on the motion enthusiastically encouraging a positive vote for NATO membership. Keeping in with the ‘big players’ I guess was Angus Robertson’s reasoning.
He was wrong then and he’s wrong now.
We had a chance in 2014 to re-set Scotland’s governance and leadership away from the cynical crap employed by most politicians and instead show true leadership with a real vision which we could all vote for. Pretending NATO is a cuddly protector of all that is good and saying nothing to rock the Zionist boat won’t fool many in Scotland. Interesting that ALBA now has a policy against NATO membership. Angus Robertson appears to influence the party in the worst possible way. Voters can see through cynical populist thinking – the only hope for the SNP is to re-join the movement for Independence and speak truth to power when (if) it ever again is given the chance. Pity the SNP don’t take their lead from the people of Scotland as they should.
Normalisation of relations with the Israeli Government was exactly what was intended. If it had not been, the meeting would not have been held in secret and the parties would not have discussed ‘commonalities’ and areas of mutual interest such as renewable energy and culture.
Plus ça change, although we are bought and sold for American gold these days. Such a parcel of rogues in a nation.
Scotland is run entirely for private profit. The SNP are compliant or complicit. It is betrayal by a party formed to stand up for us.
Again and again they just do as they are told by Westminster – and the crooks who fund and control Westminster.
They have been caught out over this meeting with the Israeli ambassador – I hope this time it has consequences.
The Unionists no doubt view all this with glee because they will think it drives Scotland’s electorate into voting Labour – a party that is now indistinguishable from the Tories and openly supports genocide and arrests opponents.
We need independence not just from the UK but even more so from America, And their servants.
Above all we need politicians and public servants at all levels who will have the courage to stand up for people and planet against what looks remarkably like organised crime.
But they are all apparently too fearful to do so. All follow the same playbook if questioned: 1. Ignore completely. 2. Maintain silence, even to the point of flatly refusing to answer (why do we permit non-disclosure agreements and secret societies at all?) . 3. Answer a different question (deflection) 4. Deny any responsibility (passing the buck, or if need be, ‘ just following orders’ – whose orders and why can they not be questioned?). 5. ”There is no alternative’ , because ‘science’ tells us so (and of course, oligarchs ‘own’ the science as well as the ‘facts’). 6. Mock any dissident voice as a mad ‘conspiracy theorist’ who can’t be taken seriously. 7. If all else fails, go on the attack. Any critic is a ‘terrorist’, an ‘anti-semite’, an ‘extremist’, an ‘other’, an enemy.
Well it won’t wash. ‘Shareholder value’ is at the direct expense of you and ne, people and planet alike – especially as shareholders are a dying species. Corporations are increasingly privately owned, either directly, or through networks of banks and investment funds that invest in each other. We have no stake at all in the new ‘stakeholder capitalism’. Ours just to do as we are told and be treated as ‘human resources’. And then die.
We do not need to be robbed blind under the false banner of ‘inward investment’. The planetary crisis is real but the supposed ‘solutions’, including ‘net zero’ are lies that only make it worse while shovelling everything into the overflowing pockets of the richest.
Politicians and public servants who go along with all this out of fear need to either stand up for us, and themselves, or quit. And that includes the leaders at least of every major UK party, the SNP included.
I wonder if the SNP meeting the Israeli ambassador could possibly be connected with this? Were they told to do it by London?
https://www.declassifieduk.org/labour-laser-focused-on-israel-trade-deal-amid-ongoing-genocide/?utm_source=drip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Reviewing+August+with+Mark+Curtis
Excellent analysis, which I’ve shared at Bluesky and X.
Thanks Daniel
Sad to see such a puerile thin series of attempted putdowns in a place where I usually read thoughtful analysis. And I’m not supporting the naive decision to meet with Israeli government either
Maybe Robertson wasn’t naive?
Maybe Robertson thought (hoped) the meeting would lead to him emulating those members from the English political parties who’ve received whopping Israeli bungs?
It wouldn’t be the first time an MP allowed easy money to kick integrity into the long grass.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/expenses-row-27-mps-let-out-london-homes-while-claiming-taxpayers-money-to-rent-capital-property-1603236
The US calls the shots literally, the democrats support Israel and will continue to arm Israel with every modern weapon in the US arsenal. Most of the settlers are Americans. The US will support them and Israel for the foseeable. Harris will not change much even if she gets in. Starmer and Labour want access to US nuclear weapons technology for the UK from the US so have to support Israel, the weapons licences is only tokenism. The legal adivce we as taxpayers paid for should be released- so we can understand the Uks position, but they are feart. To my mind and many others attacking the SNP is a long and boring waste of time and energy, energy that should instead be directed at the complicity of Labour and the Uk government ( weapons are a reserved matter) in the slaughter. The Palestinians are not helped at all by did he, didnt he, tittle tattle about the SNP.
I’m with Cathie Lloyd on this one.
By ignoring so many issues, this article is itself performative in its rage at the ongoing genocide in Gaza. What does ‘Opposing genocide in Gaza means opposing Israel’ actually mean ? Dismantling the state of Israel, or opposing its far-right government ? Is a two-state solution still viable, and who gets to decide on this from the Palestinian side ? Is Hamas part of the solution, or part of the problem ?
Nor is bringing NATO into this at all helpful, as it raises all kinds of other issues (not least, Ukraine), when the focus needs to be on stopping the nightmare being inflicted on Gaza (and, increasingly, the West Bank). Personally, I am not exactly keen on NATO. But the last serious attempt at peace in Palestine was brokered by Norway, a NATO member.
What does being inflicted on Gaza mean?
I mean the daily massacre of Palestinians and the intentional destruction of Palestinian society by the Israeli government and the IDF.
Hopefully the appauling shitfest of retribution will end. But I don’t hear anyone asking the Israeli state to rebuild Gaza afterwards. Which is just bizzaire seeing as they are neighbours.