The Palestine protests are about sorrow and anger, not hate

I recall when I was younger attending three mass demonstrations centring on the Anti-Nazi League, anti-apartheid and against the war in Vietnam. I don't look back on my participation in these demonstrations and reflect how silly I was to do so. On the contrary they were among the biggest issues confronting humanity at the time. I am glad I made my protest.

Now, a bit older, I have taken part in protests against the current situation in Gaza and the ongoing failure to recognise the legitimacy of the Palestinian cause, this being the root of the problem in the region. I have done so not because I am motivated by hate or antisemitism but because of the massacre and slaughter of innocent people. I have done so too because of the hypocrisy and double standards of the UK and US governments. If you are Iran or Iraq you must obey UN resolutions and "the rules based international order". If Israel we will arm you to the teeth. The life of an innocent Jew murdered on October 7 is no more valuable than that of an innocent citizen of Gaza. The UK and the US by their actions over many years have shown they do not subscribe to this view.

Finally, why Hamas? What are the political, diplomatic, humanitarian conditions in which give rise to it? This is a basic question. We hear a lot about Israel's right to self-defence, not so much about its responsibility to implement UN resolutions.

Brian Harvey, Hamilton.

Not in my name

ACCORDING to Dr Gerald Edwards (Letters, October 9), “denying arms sales to Israel would see the West shooting itself in the foot”. If the consequence of denying arms sales to Israel is to be an injury to my foot that, however painful and horrific, is preferable to being complicit in the deaths and injuries by Israel of nearly 42,000 and 98,000 respectively in Palestine and over 2,000 and 10,000 respectively in Lebanon since October 7, 2023.

Dr Edwards continues that “Israel is indeed fighting for us too”. That does not hold true for me. I did not ask and I do not want Israel to commit genocide. I did not ask it to destroy civilian homes and infrastructure, including water, sewerage and utility systems. I did not ask it to bomb so many educational facilities that primary, secondary, further and higher education are all unable to function properly. I did not ask it to destroy hospitals. I did not ask it to force hundreds of thousands of civilians to flee their homeland, making 1.8 million homeless. I did not ask it to inflict great and enduring psychological and physical hardships upon the civilian populations.

What I ask is the same as the United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterrres, who has again called for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages and the delivery of humanitarian aid. As he stated yesterday (October 8): “There is something fundamentally wrong in the way this war is being conducted. Ordering civilians to evacuate does not keep them safe if they have no safe place to go and no shelter, food, medicine or water... no place is safe in Gaza and no one is safe.”

David Logan, Milngavie.

Read more letters

• Potholes instead of bomb craters: never ever forget how lucky we are
• Starmer has done nothing to lift the stench of Westminster

Let us halt the sale of arms

FOLLOWING a summer of simmering discontent the Tory politicians are in the final stages of rearranging the deckchairs. Hope springs eternal within the dwindling party faithful for the emergence of a proactive leader in both parliaments.

A sound opposition is essential in any effective parliament. Currently this is not the case in either chamber. In Westminster lacklustre Labour finds itself mired in accusations of gifts and "jolly-day" outings, also the winter fuel allowance. Surely the issue of the day must be the Middle East. Daily this deteriorating crisis on our TV sets screams for action.

A call for an immediate cessation of hostilities? If only, but at least an embargo on the supply and sale of arms. Surely such action is within the remit of our politicians? If not, why not?

Allan C Steele, Giffnock.

When it's OK to fiddle the books

RACHEL Reeves told her boss that altering the fiscal rules, which is what she now wants to do, would equal “fiddling the books” ("Starmer refuses to rule out National Insurance hike ahead of budget", heraldscotland, October 9).

But that was prior to the election. So much has unravelled regarding Labour’s claim to be the party of “change” that we can all see the political cashmere sweater (thanks Lord Alli) entirely in ruins.

One rule in particular relates to debt classification. The Chancellor wants it reclassified to allow for increased borrowing.

It’s an interesting concept for millions of young adults whose lives are crushed under devastating student debt imposed by the last Labour government.

NUS figures show average debt per student at £44k+; it's been as high as £230k for one individual.

But there’s a more interesting conundrum for Labour in Holyrood.

The Scottish Government is not allowed to borrow in this way, a fact never mentioned by Scottish Labour or the London-centric media.

Scotland - treated as a colony and with utter disdain by Keir Starmer, whose disinterest is legend other than election time - is given a budget and has to stick to it. Scottish Labour never acknowledges this millstone around Holyrood’s neck when delivering its Westminster pre-scripted sniping.

Ms Reeves' “fiddling the books” should be uncomfortable for Anas Sarwar. But it won’t be. Mr Sarwar is not in the habit of standing up to Starmer or for Scotland.

Amanda Baker, Edinburgh.

The Attlee precedent

EACH day that the Government under Keir Starmer holds power makes one believe that the prospects for its retaining anything like the present large majority in the Commons at the next General Election are already receding.

We should bear in mind the fact that Labour was voted in this year with a large majority not because of a deep and abiding support for Labour, but rather because of a serious disenchantment and dissatisfaction with the Tories. The next General Election is likely to see further retreat for the SNP, more support for Reform, something of a recovery for the Tories and perhaps even more support for the Lib Dems and the Greens.

There is precedent for the electorate becoming less supportive of a Labour government that was elected with a substantial majority. For example, at the General Election in February 1950, the Labour majority fell from 146 to five. Attlee and Labour eventually lost to the Conservatives narrowly in 1951. That is how the electorate treated the radical Labour governments under Attlee, which introduced the NHS and National Insurance. I feel it to be very unlikely that the Government under Keir Starmer, particularly in the absence of figures like Ernest Bevin, Aneurin Bevan and Herbert Morrison, will be judged as being historic as was that under Clement Attlee; or perhaps there are unexpected heights to be scaled by the present incumbents.

Ian W Thomson, Lenzie.

Clement Attlee (Image: Getty)

Call the Greens' bluff

I WOULD strongly advise John Swinney to call the Greens’ bluff and reject their demands on higher taxation and cancellation of road works in exchange for supporting the upcoming SNP budget ("Greens will work with ministers on budget ‘if they make different choices’", The Herald, October 8). The chances of them voting against the budget and risking an SNP defeat and a probable resultant early Holyrood election are slim to none. They will be loathe to risk losing their places at the Holyrood trough as they must be aware they are virtually unemployable in the real world.

Donald Lewis, Gifford.

• ALAN McGibbon (Letters, October 9) suggests that the Recall of MPs Act of 2015 be extended to the whole UK Parliament. It would be an even better idea if it was extended to the Scottish Parliament.

Peter Wright, West Kilbride.