CAROLYN Leckie’s column displayed so many one-sided falsehoods on the subject of Israel and Palestine, it’s difficult to know where to start (It is not racist to condemn Zionism, The National, Oct 3). Firstly, Shimon Peres was no more controversial than Nelson Mandela. Both led guerilla movements which deployed violent tactics to overthrow colonial or oppressive rule and establish self-determination for their people.
The Israel-Palestine debate has not been sidelined over the past few years. To suggest that people are too scared to talk about the conflict, promotes the idea that all criticism of Israel is regarded as anti-Semitism by Zionists. No-one suggests that it is anti-Semitic to criticise Israeli Government or Israeli policy.
Crucially, however, Zionism is not just a theoretical construct. If it was, it would be perfectly legitimate to oppose it, but since 1948, Zionism has also been a political reality. That reality is Israel. Opposing the state of Israel, the practical manifestation of Zionism, is to oppose the democratic wishes of nine million people and endorse the destruction of a vibrant living Jewish state. That’s not theoretical, it’s genocidal.
If Carolyn Leckie genuinely believes, as I do, that a two-state solution is “the best way forward” she might ask herself these questions:
Why, in 2000 at Camp David, when Israeli PM Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian people everything they wanted – the Gaza Strip, 98 per cent of the West Bank, compensation for Palestinian refugees and East Jerusalem as their capital, did Arafat turn down the offer?
Why in 1947 did the Arabs in Palestine reject the UN Partition Agreement, which would have created a state of Palestine along with the creation of a very small, disjointed Jewish state?
Both rejections led to violence and bloodshed, but the history of Palestinian rejectionism is long because they don’t just want Gaza and West Bank, as they claim, but a Palestinian state in all of Israel. From the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea is the dream they pursue with no Jewish state in between. This is voiced openly on Arab TV channels. Few Western commentators watch or listen but their ignorance doesn’t stop them rushing to pen falsehoods and half-truths. Cries of “from the river to the sea” are also echoed by pro-Palestinian groups in Scotland, even though they are a clear call for the destruction of the state of Israel.
In Palestine, intolerance wins votes. No sooner had Fatah indicated a willingness to consider territorial sharing when Hamas rose in response to a possible accommodation with Israel, portraying Fatah as “complicit in Israeli war crimes”. The greatest barrier to a Palestinian state today is their determination to destroy the Jewish state. Only when the Palestinians’ desire to create their own state is greater than their desire to destroy the only Jewish state will peace and coexistence emerge.
Sammy Stein, Co-chair
Glasgow Friends of Israel
IN response to Tony Grahame’s assertion that Israel is a racist state against anyone who is not a Jew (Letters, Oct 6). Judaism is a culture not a race. Jews from the Middle East are part of the same Semitic peoples as the Arabs of that region. Israel is a secular democratic state that practises the rule of law. All citizens of Israel have equal rights, and no-one is excluded from any public services or occupations, regardless of whether they are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, atheist etc. The Palestinians are being oppressed, but by Fatah and Hamas. The Palestinian authorities betray their people by disregarding peace for their own selfish gains.
James Andrew Mills
Renfrewshire
Highlands and Islands broadband came first, not last
FERGUS Ewing is right to say digital connectivity is vital to the sustainability of Scotland’s future (Minister hits back at digital plan critics, The National, Oct 3). BT is proud of the role it’s playing to help deliver this.
The independent Think Broadband website shows that, today, 86 per cent of Scottish premises can access superfast speeds of 30Mbps and above. As confirmed in a recent progress report from Audit Scotland, the £410 million Digital Scotland project is on track and on budget.
Lesley Riddoch claimed in a commentary on this subject that the Highlands and Islands have come last (The Government’s failed on broadband – here’s how to fix it, The National, Sep 25). In fact, work began in the Highlands and Islands first and, relative to its population, the region has had a higher share of the public funding.
That’s because the challenge is far greater. At the outset, only four per cent of the area had a high-speed broadband service. Only BT had plans for any commercial investment, which would cover one in five premises. No commercial coverage was planned at all in Shetland, Orkney and the Outer Hebrides. Uniquely in the UK, there was no existing fibre backbone in many parts of the region. Today, 79 per cent of the Highlands and Islands premises can connect to the new fibre network. There’s a lot more to do, but the scale of the challenge needs to be recognised.
Scotland’s connectivity has also been unfavourably compared with the Faroe Islands. The Faroe Islands are three times more densely populated than the Highlands and Islands, and have a much smaller land mass to cover in terms of costs of infrastructure. The Faroe Islands’ land mass is 1,400km – smaller than Shetland alone.
The comparisons stop short of offering any thoughts on the actual cost of high-speed services to businesses and consumers. According to independent reports, the UK leads the EU “big five” for broadband speed, availability and price. It was also suggested that BT was the only bidder for the Digital Scotland projects. This is untrue. BT won two public tender exercises in the Rest of Scotland and Highlands and Islands to be the partner in the rollout, investing a further £126m on top of its commercial upgrades, after others dropped out.
BT was prepared to accept a lengthy payback period when other providers were not. Indeed, the company does not expect to see a return on its investment in the Scottish fibre projects for 15 years. It’s correct that there is a clause in the contract that means in the event BT generates more revenue than originally planned – or spends less on build than planned – these additional funds should be reinvested.
Given the success of these projects BT has, in fact, brought forward such reinvestment to push the coverage of these contracts even further.
So far this has generated in the region of an extra £18m to extend the Scottish fibre rollout. The technology being used is predominantly fibre-to-the-cabinet with some fibre-to-the-premise, whichever is the most cost-effective way to reach the most people with the funds available. BT has also outlined commercial plans to bring ultrafast speeds to 12 million UK premises by 2020.
More than 100 companies offer fibre broadband services over this open network at a range of speeds and prices across the UK. This means Scots benefit from one of the most competitive telecoms markets in the world.
Brendan Dick, director
BT Scotland, Edinburgh
WHEN Theresa May was asked: “What makes you angry?” she replied: “Injustice ... when we see the powerful abusing their power, that’s what makes me angry”.
Her answer will give hope to the Orgreave Truth and Justice campaigners that the Home Secretary will soon announce a public inquiry into alleged wrongdoing by the powerful during the 1984 miners’ strike.
Geoff Naylor
Winchester
REFERRING on the Andrew Marr Show to Full English Brexit, Theresa May said: “We need to be a sovereign, fully independent nation and make our own laws”, thus furnishing Scotland with its rallying cry in a forthcoming referendum.
James Stevenson
Auchterarder
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here