Few Western governments have avoided a row over their response to events in Israel and Gaza since Hamas' butchering of around 1,200 Israelis on October 7 last year. The Qassam Brigades and other Palestinian armed groups committed a plethora of crimes against humanity, from the killing of civilians to acts of sexual violence, from torture to the taking of civilian hostages, 71 of whom are still believed to be alive in Hamas' hands.

The Israeli response to Hamas's atrocities has widened the human suffering. More than two million Gazans - over 85% of the Strip's population - have been displaced. The death toll in Gaza is now as high as 40,000, roughly 1.7% of the pre-October 7 population - greater than the proportions of the French, Italian, or Belgian populations killed throughout the Second World War. How to respond has posed a thorny diplomatic challenge to Israel's Western allies, and it is more surprising that it has taken this long for a row over Scotland's relations with Israel to break out within the SNP than the fact that it has now done so.

The row, which one SNP insider told The Herald's Andrew Learmonth could lead to a "conference from hell" when the SNP convene next weekend, began when it emerged that Angus Robertson, the Scottish Government's External Affairs Secretary, had met on August 8 with the Israeli Deputy Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Daniela Grudsky. In this meeting, Mr Robertson discussed areas of cooperation between Scotland and Israel, such as tourism, cultural exchange, and renewable energy.

Critics within the SNP have condemned him for engaging with Israel on issues other than the Scottish Government's calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, the release of Israeli hostages by Hamas, and the opening of more safe routes for humanitarian aid to reach civilians, with many even calling for his resignation.

READ MORE:

And from outwith the SNP, plenty of unionists have taken no small measure of joy in watching the SNP Government's engagement in international affairs blow up in its face. For them, foreign policy and international relations are reserved matters in which the Scottish Government should have no role. Without re-litigating this broader argument, such criticisms of the Scottish Government's international affairs betray a far more insular, petty, and narrow-minded understanding of the world than the contemporary SNP ever has.

And this points us to exactly why internal critics of Mr Robertson are wrong and why he was wrong to apologise. Their criticism is misguided and demonstrates a lack of seriousness about Scotland's role in international affairs.

Firstly, it is essential to recognise that diplomacy is multifaceted. Limiting diplomatic engagement solely to areas of conflict, even when the conflict in question is as brutal and deadly as that being prosecuted in the Gaza Strip, is neither practical nor productive. Cooperation in areas of agreement builds bridges and fosters mutual understanding, both of which are crucial for long-term peace, stability, and prosperity.

By engaging with Israel on areas in which the Scottish and Israeli governments can agree, in addition to those areas in which Scottish ministers have far more critical words for Israeli diplomats, Mr Robertson was not condoning Israel's actions in Gaza but building common ground from which both our nations can benefit. This approach aligns with the principles of constructive diplomacy, aiming to both address immediate concerns and also work towards broader, long-term, shared objectives.

Moreover, the areas of cooperation discussed during the meeting are of significant importance to Scotland's interests. Enhancing our cultural and tourism ties can promote economic growth and enrich the cultural landscapes of both Scotland and Israel, and the Scottish Government has been exceedingly effective in this area over the past couple of decades.

We seek to be a global leader in the generation of renewable energy, and the shift to net zero, and collaborative efforts with other small nations pursuing the same goals and with solid track records in technological and sustainability innovation can lead to advancements that benefit both nations and contribute to global environmental goals.

These mutually beneficial goals can be pursued without setting aside the Scottish Government's calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. Indeed, given the growing humanitarian crisis, escalating death toll, and growing concern that Israel could be violating the laws of war through its conduct, every meeting between a Scottish Government and Israeli representative should start and end on that point.

Angus Robertson was not condoning Israel's actions in GazaAngus Robertson was not condoning Israel's actions in Gaza (Image: Getty)

But in demanding a singular diplomatic focus on these immediate concerns, focusing solely on the conflict, Mr Robertson's critics are guilty of adopting a narrow and short-sighted view of international diplomacy, overlooking the broader benefits of comprehensive diplomatic engagement. Such a stance undermines Scotland's potential contributions to global issues and signals a lack of seriousness about its role on the international stage. It is crucial for a nation, especially one led by a government with aspirations of greater autonomy and influence, to engage with the world in a balanced and strategic manner.

Ultimately, the External Affairs Secretary's approach is aligned with the principles of ethical diplomacy that his critics accuse him of breaching. By addressing humanitarian concerns in Gaza and discussing areas of mutual interest, he demonstrated that upholding moral values without severing communication is possible. This balanced approach is essential for maintaining dialogue and working towards peaceful conflict resolutions. Diplomacy cannot be an all-or-nothing endeavour; it requires nuance, flexibility, and a willingness to engage even with those we firmly oppose.

Whether Mr Roberston made a political miscalculation is, of course, another question. He clearly misjudged his party's response, or at least its strength. But that does not make his diplomatic calculation wrong - instead, it betrays that much of Scotland's largest pro-independence party's membership is not ready for Scotland to assume a serious role on the global stage.

Mr Robertson was right to engage with Israel on issues of shared interest, taking a mature and responsible approach to international diplomacy, one that seeks to build bridges and find common ground while addressing critical concerns. His approach recognises that addressing those critical concerns necessitates being in the room, part of the widening coalition of Israeli allies pushing for a ceasefire without ostracising the Israeli state. That so much of the SNP is unwilling to countenance such an approach says a great deal about how ill-prepared they would be to govern an independent country.

Mark McGeoghegan is a Glasgow University researcher of nationalism and contentious politics and an Associate Member of the Centre on Constitutional Change. He can be found on BlueSky @markmcgeoghegan.bsky.social