I watched the entire House of Commons debate on a motion to recognise a Palestinian state on Monday night, then read your report the next morning. It was as if your reporters were describing a different occasion. In just over 100 lines, you gave 38 lines to the admittedly significant change of heart by Conservative Richard Ottaway; five lines to the anti-recognition sentiments of Conservative Sir Malcolm Rifkind; 17 lines to the largely incoherent speech of an Israel supporter, Conservative MP James Clappison; and 21 to the rather measured words in support of the motion by Jack Straw. What was missing was any reference to the 40 or so passionate speeches by MPs of all parties condemning the decades of injustice, suffering and deaths imposed on the Palestinians by Israel, and calling for the British government to pressure Israel directly rather than make ineffectual statements of mild criticism from time to time. Although your paper presumably went to press before the vote, it was clear from the beginning of the debate that the House was overwhelmingly supportive of statehood for Palestine, and yet you hardly mentioned the arguments in favour, even those made by the proposer Grahame Morris, quoting one short phrase from his speech. As it was, the vote was an overwhelming 274 in favour of the motion and only 12 against, but no one would have guessed that outcome from your coverage of the debate.
Karl Sabbagh
Author, Palestine: A Personal History
• Will the House be equitable and propose a motion that those who support the concept of the Palestinian state recognise the existence and right to exist of the state of Israel?
No other UN member state has to continually argue its right to exist. So will the House demand the unequivocal recognition without further debate of Israel by other UN member states (specifically Arab states)? And will it condemn the terrorist organisation Hamas and promise that only when such organisations are removed from the Palestinian political landscape can Britain recognise the legitimacy of a Palestinian state?
Stephen Spencer Ryde
London
• Having lent credibility to the Palestinian terrorists, British MPs should now be ready to do the same for the Tamils in Sri Lanka, Sikhs in India, Kashmiris in Kashmir, Kurds in northern Iraq, Baluchis and Sindhis in Pakistan and so on.
Randhir Singh Bains
Gants Hill, Essex
Tory MP Richard Ottaway nobly changes his opinion about Israel and admits that the Holocaust had had a “deep impact” on him after the second world war . He doesn’t mention the impact on Palestinian Arabs when Jews changed from victims to aggressors in 1948 and arrived with the armed terrorist group Irgun at their head to eject 700,000 Palestinians from their homes and into exile, where they or their descendants continue to fruitlessly wave their title deeds. It is precisely this kind of one-eyed amnesia from the west that continues to enrage even moderate Arab opinion and is a contributory factor to Middle East terrorism.
David Redshaw
Gravesend
• Patrick Wintour mentions a “carefully constructed Labour foreign policy towards Israel”. If he knows what this policy is perhaps he could enlighten your readers!
Doug Simpson
Todmorden, West Yorkshire
