Category: All

Peace initiative launched, but where was our Foreign Secretary?

Every new provocation, every announcement of illegal Israeli settlements to be built on Palestinian land, every violent attack launched by Palestinians on Israeli civilians, emphasises the need for a new peace process.  In a political vacuum people lose hope and the situation deteriorates.
On June 3 the French president François Hollande launched his initiative for peace in the Middle East at a conference in Paris.  For the US John Kerry was there.  For the UN Ban Ki-moon was there. Over 20 countries were there, represented by their foreign ministers.
But where was the UK?  Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond was in Nairobi on the last day of a three-day visit to East Africa. He was represented by his junior minister Toby Ellwood.
The question that MPs could ask the Foreign Secretary is this: will the UK put its weight behind the French initiative?  Will he attend the international peace conference that the French are planning later this year?
There have been no peace process since the Kerry talks collapsed in April 2014.  There has been no international conference since Annapolis in 2007.  When there are no talks, things get worse.
The French initiative aims to put Israel-Palestinian peacemaking back on the international agenda and to bring the two sides back to direct talks by the end of 2016.
The French foreign minister Jean-Marc Ayrault understands that letting the status quo continue is like “waiting for a powder keg to explode”. But he is also one of the few Western politicians who understands that direct talks between Israelis and Palestinians “do not work” and only the international community can effect change.
It is now one of the most discredited mantras in the peace process, repeatedly endlessly by Netanyahu but also repeated by Western politicians who should know better, that the conflict can “only” be solved by face-to-face talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Of course a peace process will need to involve face-to-face talks at some stage, but it is only the international community that can persuade the Israeli government to make the fundamental changes in its policies that are needed for peace talks to have any chance of success. By themselves the Palestinians have zero bargaining power.
The Israeli government’s reaction to the latest atrocity in Tel Aviv is a textbook example of what not to do.  First they punish the family of the perpetrators.  Then they punish the village that the perpetrators came from. Then they punish every Palestinian by suspending permits for them to visit the Al Aqsa mosque during Ramadan. This policy will inevitably – at some point in the future – push some other young Palestinian to a senseless act of revenge.
Netanyahu should listen to the mayor of Tel Aviv Ron Huldai who told Israel Army radio that the cause of Palestinianian anger is the 50-year occupation of the West Bank and the only solution is to pull back to the borders of Israel where Jewish Israelis have a majority: “We might be the only country in the world where another nation is under occupation without civil rights. We have to show our neighbours that we have true intention to return to a reality of a smaller Jewish State with a clear Jewish majority.”
The central importance of the settlements has been emphasised by recent revelations in the Israeli and American press about the cause of the collapse of the last round of peace talks in April 2014.
It was confirmed on June 6 that the identity of an anonymous American official who blamed Israel for the collapse of the talks was none other than John Kerry’s special envoy who brokered the talks, Martin Indyk. “There are a lot of reasons for the peace effort’s failure, but people in Israel shouldn’t ignore the bitter truth – the primary sabotage came from the settlements,” he said.
“The Palestinians don’t believe that Israel really intends to let them found a state when, at the same time, it is building settlements on the territory meant for that state. We’re talking about the announcement of 14,000 housing units, no less.”
On the following day Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, seemed reluctant to dispel the rumour that the US president might use his final months in office lift the US veto on security council resolutions critical of Israel. Asked if he would allow a resolution calling for an end to settlement building and setting a deadline for an Israel-Palestine peace agreement, she said: “I would be foolish and no one would ever rule out action [on a] hypothetical.”

Foreign Office questions 24 May 2016

Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con): What recent assessment he has made of the extent of radicalisation in the Palestinian Territories.
Middle East minister Tobias Ellwood: I condemn all violence and all efforts to incite or radicalise people to commit violence in the Middle East. During my most recent visit to the Occupied Palestinian Territories in February, I raised this issue with the Palestinian Authority and urged them to do more to tackle this issue and make clear their opposition to violence.
Craig Tracey: Last week, the Fatah party in Palestine described the terrorist who killed 26 people and wounded more than 80 in a shooting attack at a Israel’s main airport in 1972 as a “hero” and said it was “proud of every fighter who has joined our mighty revolution” against Israel. Does the Minister agree that the success of the two-state solution that we all want rests upon the Palestinian Authority starting to teach its young people about peaceful coexistence?
Mr Ellwood: He makes an important point about peaceful coexistence. It is important that President Abbas condemn statements such as that when they are made. I have noticed a disjunct between the elderly leadership and the youth, who feel disfranchised and so are taking matters into their own hands. I looked into the particular claim that my friend has raised; I understand that it was placed on Facebook and so was not attributed to a particular Minister, as has been the case in the past. Nevertheless, it should be condemned and removed, as he indicated.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab):  Does the Minister agree that people’s expectation that they will be able to carry on living in their own homes would not normally be regarded as a sign of radicalisation? He will know that in the past week he has received a number of parliamentary questions from me and others about the fact that more than 90 Palestinian Bedouins, mostly children, have lost their homes in the village of Jabal al-Baba. He has said in his written answers that the Foreign Office condemns that but also that it has not raised that specific case with the Israeli authorities. Is it not time to do so, not least because the demolished structures are EU funded?
Mr Ellwood: I fully concur with the spirit of what he has said. I have visited one of the Bedouin camps. I should make it clear that that situation is different from the situation for those based in the occupied Palestinian territories; some are being removed in green line Israel, as well. These people are reliant on farming and so need space, so there is the internal issue of making sure that they are given the same amount of space if there is a requirement for them to be moved.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): What assessment he has made of the effect of the recent activities of Hamas in Gaza on the Middle East peace process.
Mr Ellwood: The recent activities of Hamas in Gaza, including attempts to rearm and rebuild tunnel infrastructure, undermine efforts to improve the situation in Gaza and harm prospects for the Middle East peace process. Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza must permanently end rocket fire and other attacks against Israel.
Mrs Ellman In April, two new terror tunnels built by Hamas to launch attacks on Israeli civilians were discovered. Does the Minister believe that Hamas is planning new attacks on Israel?
Mr Ellwood: As I said earlier, I believe that is a worrying development, and we seek to place pressure on Hamas, and all those close to it, to recognise that it will take us back to where we were two years ago, unless there is a direction of travel.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Does the Minister place any significance on the founding charter of Hamas, which is clearly, or to a large extent, a stream of the most visceral antisemitism, and even includes approving references to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”?
Mr Ellwood: I have many conversations about that situation and the challenges we face in the Middle East, not least in Gaza and the West Bank. A number of commentators have said, “You need to speak to Hamas; you need to get them to the table”, but until Hamas changes its constitution, in which it clearly does not recognise the state of Israel, it will be impossible for us to move forward.
David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab):  Earlier questions have referred to the Middle East, and to deploring extremism wherever it may be found. Is it not a matter of grave concern that the new Israeli Defence Minister is extremely right-wing and ultra-nationalist? He said last year that what he described as “disloyal” Israeli Arabs should be beheaded. Does that not illustrate how far the Israeli Government have gone in their extremism and their rejection of any idea of a two-state solution, and should that not be condemned?
Mr Hammond: It is a matter of grave concern. The polarisation of views in Israel/Palestine makes it less likely that we shall be able to achieve the two-state solution that the House and most of the world so ardently crave, and harder for us to do so.

Now’s the time for UK to back French initiative to end Israel-Palestine conflict

Foreign & Commonwealth Office Questions May 24th 11.30 am
MPs will have an opportunity to press the Foreign Secretary to attend the foreign ministers’ conference on the Israel-Palestine conflict in Paris and to urge him to support the French position – that if there are no talks by the end of this year, then France – along with many other European countries – may formally recognise Palestine.
MPs will be able to urge the Foreign Secretary to back the initiave at Foreign Office questions on Tuesday May 24th and during the Foreign Affairs debate later that day.
Britain has already been committed in principle to the recognition of Palestine since William Hague said in in 2012: “We reserve the right to recognise a Palestinian state bilaterally at a moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about
peace”.
Middle East minister Tobias Ellwood has since made it clear that the current Foreign Secretary believes the best time to “play the recognition card” will be when it can be done  in co-ordination with other European countries so it has maximum effect.
He has also made it clear that “there will have to be a cessation of settlement activity while the process is ongoing” – ie the Israeli government will have to agree to halt settlement building before any talks can take place.
UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond (right) met the French president’s envoy to discuss the conference and received an invitation to the pre-conference discussion in Paris which is expected to be held in Paris in June.
Since 2012 the UK has been saying it recognises Palestine in principle and will announce its recognition “when it can best help bring about peace”.  If and when France recognises Palestine – with up to seven other European countries – it would be hard to argue that this was not the right time.
Last month the French government sent invitations to more than 20 foreign ministers for the meeting on the Israeli-Palestinian issue in June. Neither Israeli nor Palestinian representatives are invited.
The meeting’s purpose is to discuss the international peace conference that France wants to host in late 2016. France wants the foreign ministers to set an agenda for the conference and lay down principles for a resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault (right) had talks with US State Sayraultecretary John Kerry last week and on Sunday met Prime Minister Netanyahu who has so far refused to attend the international peace conference later this year. If the talks don’t take place, France will – not automatically, but probably – lead a group of European countries in recognising Palestine.
These could include Ireland, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg – who would join the ten European countries and 138 worldwide that already recognise the state of Palestine.
Far from being powerless, the UK is probably the country in the strongest position to lead along with France. The US won’t, especially now. The EU can’t, because it needs all 28 countries to agree.
If the UK government means what it has been saying for the last four years, it will join the French initiative and make it clear that the UK will also formally recognise the state of Palestine if Israel refuses to halt settlement building and take part in peace talks.
The alternative will be for the UK to sit on its hands and watch as the absence of talks leads to more disillusion with politics, more despair among the Palestinians and more violence on both sides.

Why is Netanyahu saying no?

Netanyahu’s resounding “no” to the French peace initiative has been strongly criticised in Israel – but mainly because it’s bad PR. Apparently it’s OK if he pretends to support peace talks. He doesn’t have to mean it.  As Asher Schechter wrote in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz:
“Why would Israel botch so badly what was clearly a rare PR opportunity? All Netanyahu had to do was agree to the summit, shake a few hands, smile for the cameras and then stall – just like Israel has done for more than a decade of failed negotiations. It’s just good PR: if peace is your stated agenda, you don’t reject an outstretched hand. You can stall all you like afterward, but, publicly at least, you say yes.”

 

Why is Netanyahu being disingenous?

Netanyahu’s offer to sit down to “unconditional” talks is disingenuous for 3 reasons:
  • It comes with a hidden condition – that he can continue building illegal settlements while the talks are going on – gradually eating up what’s left of Palestine.
  • Netanyahu still hasn’t released the last batch of pre-1992 prisoners that he promised to release in March 2014 – leading to the break-up of the talks one month later. Why would the Palestinians believe he would abide by any agreement this time?
  • He told voters in the last election campaign there would never be a Palestinian state on his watch – so what’s the point? Without international pressure, he’ll do nothing.

MPs’ plea to release Marwan Barghouthi after 14 years

Marwan Barghouthi could bring peace and independence to Palestine. But he’s in jail.

Leading MPs from all parties have signed a parliamentary motion calling on the Israeli parliament to release the Palestinian MP Marwan Barghouthi who has been in jail continuously for the last 14 years.
They call for his release so that he can “play a part in the process of reconciliation, unification and negotiation that will be needed before Palestine achieves its independence”.
They cite the precedent of South Africa, where Nelson Mandela was released from prison so he could take part in negotiations for majority rule, and India, where Gandhi and Nehru were released by the British so they could take part in negotiations for independence.
They point out that Barghouthi, now 56, “is still the candidate in the strongest position to win a presidential election to succeed Mahmoud Abbas, according to a recent poll by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research”.
The parliamentary motion was tabled by Tommy Sheppard of the Scottish National Party and its signatories include the Conservative chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Crispin Blunt, and the current Father of the House of Commons Sir Gerald Kaufman.
Marwan Barghouthi is seen as one of the few political leaders who could unite the country, winning support from both Fatah and Hamas, and who would have the moral authority to negotiate on behalf of all Palestinians and to preside over a process of “truth and reconciliation” in a newly independent state.
He has often been called the “Mandela” of Palestine and there are certainly many paralllels both in his life so far and in the role he could play in a newly independent Palestine. He has spent a total of 20 years inside Israeli prisons and he has been for many years now in Cell 28 in Hadarim prison, a few miles from the Meditarranean beaches of Netanya.
He has regular visits from his wife Fadwa, but is allowed very little other contact with the outside world.  Yet he still plays an important role and the occasional statements smuggled out of prison carry a great deal of authority.
Eight winners of the Nobel peace prize have signed the “Robben Island declaration” calling for his release, including President Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. and the Argentinian Nobel laureate Adolfo Esquivel has nominated him for the Nobel peace prize this year. 
Israel’s former president Shimon Peres said in 2007 that he would sign a pardon for Marwan Barghouthi, but it would have to be approved by the Israeli parliament and very few Israeli politicians have backed his release.
Barghouthi was an MP and the general secretary of Fatah during the Second Intifada when he was abducted in broad daylight on the streets of Ramallah by Israeli secret service agents, dressed as ambulance workers, and taken to Israel.
He refused to plead to an Israeli court on the basis that both his abduction and the trial were illegal and was duly found guilty of the deaths of five Israelis in military operations carried out by an armed wing of Fatah, known as “Tanzim”.
Outside the court he has always maintained that he was secretary of the political party only and had no involvement or foreknowledge of military operations. He never supported violent actions targeted at civilians and, unlike Nelson Mandela, he never carried arms himself. He always insisted that Palestinians had the right to resist the occupation of their country, by force if necessary, but he believed in a political and not a military solution.
However the campaign for his release, and for the release of all the 6,204 Palestinian conflict-related prisoners currently held in Israeli jails, is not based on an argument about the innocence or guilt of individual prisoners or the legality of their trials, but on the argument – in the case of Marwan Barghouthi and other political leaders – that their release is necessary for the process of negotiation leading to a peace settlement and in other cases on the argument that the release of political prisoners must necessarily precede a political solution.
  • A poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research’s poll found that if a presidetial election were held and Abbas did not run, 32 % would prefer to see Barghouti replace him, nearly 20 per cent Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, 8 % Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah, 6% Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, 6% Muhammad Dahlan, 4% chief negotiator Saeb Erekat and 3% former prime minister Salam Fayyad.
  • The poll was conducted in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip from September 17 to 19, covered 1,270 adults and had a 3-percentage point margin of error.

Early day motion 1378

RELEASE OF PALESTINIAN MP MARWAN BARGHOUTHI

Smuggled out of jail: Guardian article by Marwan Barghouthi on latest violence 

The current escalation in violence did not start with the killing of two Israeli settlers, it started a long while ago and has been going on for years. Every day Palestinians are killed, wounded, arrested. Every day colonialism advances, the siege on our people in Gaza continues, oppression persists.
Some have suggested the reason why a peace deal could not be reached was President Yasser Arafat’s unwillingness or President Mahmoud Abbas’s inability, but both of them were ready and able to sign a peace agreement.
The real problem is that Israel has chosen occupation over peace, and used negotiations as a smokescreen to advance its colonial project.
Every government across the globe knows this simple fact and yet so many of them pretend that returning to the failed recipes of the past could achieve freedom and peace. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
We were told that by resorting to peaceful means and to diplomatic channels we would garner the support of the international community to end the occupation. And yet the international community failed yet again to undertake any meaningful steps, neither setting up a framework to implement international law and UN resolutions, nor taking measures to ensure accountability, including boycott, divestment and sanctions, which played a crucial role in ridding the world of the apartheid regime.
So, in the absence of international action to end Israeli occupation and impunity or even provide protection, what are we asked to do? Stand by and wait for the next Palestinian family to be burned, for the next Palestinian child to be killed or arrested, for the next settlement to be built?
No people on the globe would accept to coexist with oppression. By nature, humans yearn for freedom, struggle for freedom, sacrifice for freedom, and the freedom of the Palestinian people is long overdue. During the first intifada, the Israeli government launched a “break their bones to break their will” policy, but for generation after generation the Palestinian people have proven their will is unbreakable and needs not to be tested.
This new Palestinian generation has not awaited instructions to uphold its right, and its duty, to resist this occupation. It is doing so unarmed, while being confronted by one of the biggest military powers in the world. And yet, we remain convinced that freedom and dignity shall triumph, and we shall overcome. The flag that we raised with pride at the UN will one day fly over the walls of the old city of Jerusalem to signal our independence.
I have spent 20 years of my life in Israeli jails, including the past 13 years, and these years have made me even more certain of this unalterable truth: the last day of occupation will be the first day of peace. Those who seek the latter need to act, and act now, to precipitate the former.

‘Israel is showing contempt for two-state solution’ – MP

Foreign and Commonwealth Office Questions Tuesday April 12th 11.30 am

Conservative MP David Mowat said the Israeli government was “showing complete contempt for the notion of a two-state solution” by accelerating the rate of demolitions and evictions of Palestinians since the start of this year.

According to the UN there had been 446 demolitions in the West Bank by April 4th compared with 447 in the whole of last year, so the rate of demolitions had quadrupled.

Given that 120 of the demolished buildings were funded by EU or other donors, Labour MP Richard Burdenasked the Minister how he was going to claim compensation from Israel.

Read Foreign Office questions in Hansard

 

David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): In 2016, there has been an acceleration of evictions and property destruction on the West Bank. By these continuing actions, the Israeli Government are showing complete contempt for the notion of a two-state solution—a fact recognised by President Carter. When will the Government update UK policy to reflect reality on the ground in this area?

Middle East minister Tobias Ellwood: During my meetings with the Deputy Foreign Minister and indeed with the Prime Minister, I found that they remained committed to the two-state solution, but he is right to recognise that measures are being taken and events are taking place that seem to take us in another direction. We need to ensure that people are able to come back to the table, and that we are able to make progress. There is no other solution to this. We cannot continue with the status quo.

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): The Minister will know that Israel is demolishing Palestinian homes and other structures at three times the rate at which it did so last year. Given that a number of these structures are EU-supported and EU-funded, what are the Government going to do not simply to express concern but to hold Israel to account? What mechanisms are available to do so?

[The Minister did not reply, but the UN estimates 120 donor-funded buildings have been demolished by the Israeli Army so far this year and aid minister Baroness Verma said in a written answer in the Lords on March 12: “The EU is proposing to reassess their position on seeking compensation from the Israeli Government….. The UK government remains extremely concerned by reports that there have been nearly 300 demolitions since the start of 2016, representing more than a trebling of demolitions compared to the monthly average in 2015. The Embassy in Tel Aviv have recently raised demolitions with the Israeli authorities and will continue to raise this at the political level.”]

Question 15 TommySheppard,  (Scottish National Party)(Edinburgh East): What representations he has made to his Israeli counterpart on the use of administrative detention in that country.

Mr Ellwood:  He highlights a challenge that we face. Britain has been working closely with Israel to change the approach that Israelis have taken on administrative detention. We have also funded and facilitated independent reports on the challenges that we face, and I raised this matter with the Deputy Foreign Minister, Tzipi Hotovely. I will continue to press Israel to move forward. Again, this takes us back—it is a retrograde step.

Early day motion 1245

DEMOLITION OF PALESTINIAN HOMES BY ISRAEL

That this House condemns the major escalation in demolitions by the Israeli government in the Occupied Palestinian Territories;

notes that 293 structural demolitions have taken place in the first six weeks of 2016, including numerous homes; expresses concern for the devastating effects such demolitions have on innocent civilians;

further notes that in 2015, 447 Palestinian structures were demolished; notes that, according to the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 2010 and 2014 only 1.5 per cent of the over 2,000 Palestinian building permit requests were approved in Area C of the West Bank, leading to 10,000 present standing demolition orders;

notes Israel’s continued uses of demolition as a means of collectively punishing Palestinians; welcomes the EU’s continued opposition to Israel’s illegal settlements, home demolitions, confiscation and evictions;

notes that the home demolitions have included EU-funded structures; calls on the Government to condemn these latest demolitions and the continued expansion of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; and demands reparations for the destruction.


Has your MP signed? If not, why not ask them?

Friends of Israel chairman again attacks Palestinians for honouring ‘terrorists’

Chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel Eric Pickles again raised the issue of streets – and in this case a school basketball tournament – being named after Palestinian “terrorists”, as though it were something that only Palestinians did.

The Israeli prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu made a similar claim in a letter of condolence to the family of a Palestinian boy burned alive by settlers last year: “In our society, in the society of Israel, there is no place for murderers,” he said.
“And that’s the difference between us and our neighbours. They consider murderers to be heroes. They name public squares after them. We don’t.”
That is not only highly inappropriate in what was supposed to be a letter of condolence to a bereaved family, but also disingenuous and dishonest.
  • Scores of streets in Israel are named after Jewish “terrorists”, including a suburb of Jerusalem where all the streets are named after members of Jewish militias who were hanged for “terrorism” by the British.
  • Indeed, every country that has fought for its independence glorifies its “soldiers” who lost their lives.
And if you read the two photo-captions below you may conclude that the Israelis are more guilty of this than the Palestinians.
Here is the exchange at Foreign Office questions:
Sir Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con): There have recently been two initiatives in the region: the extension of fishing rights for Gazan fisherman with Israeli co-operation, and the naming of a basketball tournament after a terrorist who killed 36 people, including 12 children. Which of those two initiatives does the Minister think is more likely to bring about a two-state solution?

Mr Ellwood: He highlights the dilemma that we face. We need grassroots initiatives on a low level such as extension of fishing rights, for which I have pressed for some time. Oil and gas reserves can be tapped into off Gaza, which will also help the economy. At the same time, basketball courts and, indeed, schools and streets are being named after terrorists, which does not suggest that the Palestinians are as serious as they should be.

In the city of Ramat Gan near Tel Aviv is a monument commemorating members of the two underground organisations Irgun and Lehi, who were tried 440px-Hagardomin British Mandate courts and sentenced to death by hanging, some for attacks on British soldiers, others for attacks on Arab civilians. They are regarded as martyrs and streets are named after them in most Israeli cities.

.

 

On a hillside overlooking Hebron is the grave of Dr Baruch Goldstein who killed 29 people as they prayed in the Abraham Mosque. Settlers regard him as a martyr and gather on the anniversary to sing songs in praise of him. One of the songs says: “Dr. goldstein graveGoldstein, he aimed at terrorists’ heads, squeezed the trigger hard, and shot bullets, and shot, and shot.” The ceremonial plaza around the grave was dismantled by the Israeli army, but the park and walkway remain in place.

Read a fuller account

Abbas puts Obama to the test on UN settlement motion

Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas flies to New York on April 22 determined to press the UN Security Council to a vote condemning the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank as an obstacle to peace.

The last time the Security Council voted on a resolution condemning the settlements was in February 2011. At that time, the Palestinians garnered the support of 14 out of 15 Security Council members, including Britain, France and Germany.
The United States opposed the resolution and after failing to get the Palestinians to withdraw it, cast a veto. This was the only time in the past seven years that U.S. President Barack Obama used his veto.
Since then President Obama has hinted he would not automatically veto a Security Council resolution on settlements if it was in line with US policy.  The US regards the Israeli settlements as “illegitimate”.

The time is right to recognise the state of Palestine

There is one KEY issue the Government will have to take a decision on – whether to join France, and possibly Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Ireland, in a co-ordinated recognition of Palestine later in the year.
The French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, restated his commitment on January 29th that France will recognise Palestine in October or November if the Israelis are still refusing to sit down to talks with the Palestinians.
It didn’t take long for Israel to give its answer. To quote the Times of Israel headline later that day: ‘Israel rejects French ultimatum’.
 
That makes it close to certain that France will become the 138th country to recognise the state of Palestine along with any other European countries that decide to follow suit.
William Hague set out the UK’s policy in 2011. It was to agree with recognition ‘in principle’ but to wait until ‘the time is right’.
Apparently the time was not right when the Kerry peace talks collapsed in April 2014 over the Israeli refusal to stop building settlements.   Apparently the time was not right when Sweden because the 134th country to recognise Palestine in October 2014.
However Phillip Hammond did say that the only argument he had with Sweden “individually unilaterally recognising Palestine” was that it was throwing away the opportunity that European countries had “to exercise leverage by collectively holding out the prospect of recognition as a way of influencing behaviour”.
The UK can now take that opportunity by joining France in a co-ordinated move which may persuade most other European countries to follow suit, putting real diplomatic pressure on Israel for the first time to stop expanding its illegal colonies in the West Bank
The time is right now for several reasons. The end of the peace talks, nearly two years ago, has created a political vacuum which drives Palestinians to despair, to anger and for a minority to violence; it erodes confidence in the ability of the international community to deliver a solution; it undermines support for moderate Palestinian politicians who support non-violence.
Furthermore the US will be out of action for the next 12 months because of the election and because of President Obama’s admission there is nothing he can do in the remainder of his period in office.
It is up to the Europeans now, and the UK and France in particular, to take the lead and start putting pressure on Israel to reach a settlement.
Now is the time for MPs of all parties to make the case to Phillip Hammond – either privately by letter or more transparently by tabling questions and taking every opportunity to raise the issue in the Commons.
Here are some relevant quotations:
William Hague in 2011: “We reserve the right to recognise a Palestinian state bilaterally at a moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about peace”.
Phillip Hammond in 2015: “We believe that European Union countries individually unilaterally recognising Palestine is throwing away an opportunity that the European Union has to exercise leverage by collectively holding out the prospect of recognition or non-recognition as a way of influencing behaviour.”
Times of Israel Jan 29th Israel rejects French ultimatum: French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius announced earlier in the day that France would shortly try to convene an international conference, with the hope of enabling new Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, but that if this effort reached a dead end, Paris would recognize a Palestinian state.
“And what will happen if this last-ditch attempt at reaching a negotiated solution hits a stumbling block?” Fabius said. “In that case, we will have to live up to our responsibilities and recognize a Palestinian state.”
Sir Nicholas Soames MP: “Our partners in the Middle East look on amazed while we support the right to self-determination in every other country in the Middle East and then deny the same right to the Palestinians.”
Former Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander: “Labour believes statehood for the Palestinians is not a gift to be given but a right to be recognised”
Sir Vincent Fean, former British Consul-General in Jerusalem: “The time is right for the United Kingdom to recognise the state of Palestine. … A further abstention is abdicating responsibility.”
President Barack Obama to the UN in 2010: “Those of us who are friends of Israel must understand that true security for the Jewish state requires an independent Palestine – one that allows the Palestinian people to live with dignity and opportunity….When we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations – an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel.”
Foreign Office in 2011:“The Palestinian Authority has developed successfully the capacity to run a democratic and peaceful state, founded on the rule of law and living in peace and security with Israel… Palestine largely fulfils the legal and technical criteria for UN membership, including statehood, in as far as the Occupation allows.”

Foreign Office sends out team to report on demolition threat to Israeli Arab village

Only five months after dismissing the demolition threat to an Israeli Arab village as “a planning matter”, the Foreign Office has sent out a team of officials to “deepen their understanding” of the constant risk of demolition faced by Bedouin villages in the Negev desert.

 

The team visited the village of Umm Al Hiran whose residents – who are all Israeli citizens – face the threat of demolition of their homes and eviction to make way for a new Jewish-only village on exactly the same site and with the same name – Hiran.

 

The Foreign Office team also visited other “recognised” and “unrecognised” villages in the Negev and noted the restrictions on construction in government-planned Bedouin towns and the unequal provision of services to communities of different ethnicities in the Negev.

 

The Middle East minister Tobias Ellwood, who had dismissed Umm al Hiran as a “planning matter” in March, acknowledged the help of the Negev Coexistence Forum for Civil Equality in arranging the visit in a written answer to St Albans MP Anne Main.  Haia Noach from the NCF visited London to speak to the Foreign Office last month.

 

The issue was raised in March by Andy Slaughter MP who told the minister: “Replacing an Arab village with a Jewish village is not a planning matter.  The new village of Hiran will occupy exactly the same land as the existing village of Umm Al Hiran. There is no proposed change of use.  The only difference will be that the residents are Jewish and not Arab.

 

“What is unusual about Umm Al Hiran is that they plan to put the Jewish settlement in exactly the same spot as an existing Arab village and they even plan to use the same name.  This makes it transparent that there is no genuine planning issue.  It is simply a part of the clearances of Arab villages to make way for Jewish settlements.”

 

Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) asked the Foreign Secretary what the outcome was of his Department’s visit to Um-il-Hiran and Ateer; whether he plans to visit that region; and if he will make a statement.

Mr Tobias Ellwood: “Officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and our Embassy in Tel Aviv visited three Bedouin communities in the Negev, including Um al Hiran, on 5 August. This visit, arranged through the Negev Coexistence Forum for Civil Equality (NCF), deepened our understanding of the constant risk of demolition faced by both recognised and unrecognised Bedouin villages; the restrictions on construction in even Government-planned Bedouin towns; and the unequal provision of services to communities of different ethnicities in the Negev. We remain concerned about this situation and will continue to work with partner countries, to address the inequalities.

Government faces both ways on trading with illegal settlements

In an apparent reversal of policy the Government has announced two steps to make it even more difficult for councils to stop trading with illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
First, the Cabinet Office is issuing advice to councils that “boycotts in procurement policy are inappropriate” unless the government has itself decided to boycott trade to a country.
Secondly, the Communities Department is making it illegal for local government pension schemes to divest unless there are already Government sanctions in place.
This comes less than a year after the Foreign Office and Business Department issued advice to UK companies that “we do not encourage or offer support .. for financial transactions, investments, purchases or procurements in Israeli settlements”.
This was in line with the policy of former Foreign Secretary William Hague of creating “incentives and disincentives” on the Israeli government to stop building illegal settlements in the West Bank.
Leicester City Council passed a resolution last year to boycott any produce originating from an illegal Israeli settlement “insofar as legal considerations allow”.
In its resolution the council “recognises the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and free from incursion but condemns the Government of Israel for its continuing illegal occupation of Palestine’s East Jerusalem and the West Bank, blockade of Gaza and appropriation of land”.
But Leicester has been hampered by legal action by opponents trying to stop them carrying out the resolution and other councils – including Nottingham – have postponed action pending legal advice.
When the new Cabinet Office procurement guidance comes in, councillors will have to “have regard” to the guidance and will need ‘reasonable’ cause to go against it. Together with EU tendering rules, that will make it much harder to exclude companies like Veolia or G4S – at least openly – because of their involvement in the West Bank.
MPs will have no opportunity to vote on the change in procurement advice. The change to pension rules is out for consultation until February 19 and will go through Parliament on a negative statutory instrument which can only be blocked if the Opposition uses its limited parliamentary time to call a debate.

UN publishes damning evidence of war crimes in Gaza

The UN has produced two reports, a 22-page ‘Report of the Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict’  which you can download from the UN website
And a 183-page report contained the detailed findings and the testimony of witnesses presented to the commission, which you can find on the same website.
The UK government has already endorsed the report in a 41-1 vote at the UN Human Rights Council at Geneva on Friday – in what appears to have been a last-minute decision of the European members of the Council, Britain, France and Germany, to line up behind the report, leaving the US as the only country to vote against.
For most of last week it was feared the UK would abstain – as it did on the last four UN votes on Palestine (Security Council, General Assembly, Unesco and the Goldstone Report on the last Gaza war) but intensive diplomatic lobbying appears to have had an effect.
The first task of the report is to establish whether the two sides have conducted their own inquiries into possible breaches of the law during th conflict.  It finds that Israel has a “lamentable track record in holding wrongdoers accountable” and that investigations by Hamas were “woefully inadequate”.  It therefore recommends that the international community should support the work of the International Criminal Court who are currently conducting a preliminary examination into the war.
The report identifies many possible war crimes committed during the 51-day war, including air strikes on residential buildings, the use of wide-area shells and heavy artillery in densely populated areas and the targeting of civilians by Israelis and the use of human shields and the execution of collaborators by Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups.
International law crimes is not about why wars take place, but how they are conducted, so the main issues addressed by the report are whether the military tactics – such as attacks on residential buildings, roof-knock warnings, wide-area explosives, sterile zones, the Hannibal doctrine – constituted war crimes.

Air strikes on residential buildings in Gaza

from page 9 of the report
 
During the 51-day operation, the Israel Defense Forces carried out more than 6,000 air strikes in Gaza, many of which hit residential buildings. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs found that at least 142 Palestinian families had three or more members killed in the same incident, amounting to a total of 742 fatalities. Tawfik Abu Jama, a Gazan father of eight, recalled: “I was sitting with my family at the table, ready to break the fast. Suddenly we were sucked into the ground. Later that evening, I woke up in the hospital and was told my wife and children had died”.
The commission investigated 15 cases of strikes on residential buildings across Gaza, in which a total of 216 people were killed, including 115 children and 50 womenThe commission found that the fact that precision-guided weapons were used in all cases indicates that they were directed against specific targets and resulted in the total or partial destruction of entire buildings. This finding is corroborated by satellite imagery analysis.
Many of the incidents took place in the evening or at dawn, when families gathered for iftar and suhhur, the Ramadan meals, or at night, when people were asleep. The timing of the attacks increased the likelihood that many people, often entire families, would be at home. Attacking residential buildings rendered women particularly vulnerable to death and injury.
Given the absence of information suggesting that the anticipated military advantage at the time of the attack was such that the expected civilian casualties and damage to the targeted and surrounding buildings were not excessive, there are strong indications that these attacks could be disproportionate, and therefore amount to a war crime.
Roof-knock warnings
From page 10 of the report
Given the absence of information suggesting that the anticipated military advantage at the time of the attack was such that the expected civilian casualties and damage to the targeted and surrounding buildings were not excessive, there are strong indications that these attacks could be disproportionate, and therefore amount to a war crime.
The Israel Defense Forces used so-called “roof-knock” warnings, strikes by small missiles before the real strike. In a number of incidents examined, the concerned persons either did not understand that their house had been the subject of a “roof-knock”, or the time given for evacuation between the warning and the actual strike was insufficient. In one case examined by the commission, a 22-member family, including nine children, were given just a few minutes to evacuate their home after a “roof knock” in the early hours of the morning, while they were asleep; 19 of the 22 people present in the house died.
The commission concluded that “roof knocks” cannot be considered an effective warning given the confusion they often cause to building residents and the short time allowed to evacuate before the actual strike.
Wide-area shells
From page 11 of the report
During the ground operations, the Israel Defense Forces used explosive weapons extensively in densely populated areas of Gaza. These weapons included artillery and tank shells, mortars and air-dropped high-explosive munitions. The Forces reported that, during the operation, 5,000 tons of munitions were supplied, and that 14,500 tank shells and approximately 35,000 artillery shells had been fired.
One non-governmental organization reported a 533 per cent-increase in highly explosive artillery shells used in 2014 in comparison to the hostilities in 2008 and 2009. Many explosive weapons, in particular artillery and mortars, have a wide-area effect, meaning that anyone or anything within a given area is likely to be killed, injured or damaged, owing to the scale of their blast and their imprecise nature. While not illegal as such, the use of these weapons in densely populated areas poses a high risk to the civilian population.
According to official Israeli sources, artillery was used in urban areas only on an exceptional basis, when these areas were known to have been largely evacuated. The incidents examined by the commission, however, demonstrate that artillery and other heavy weapons were widely used in residential neighbourhoods, resulting in a large number of casualties and extensive destruction.
For instance, in Shuja’iya, the sheer number of 155 mm shells fired, the reported dropping of 120 one-ton bombs in a short amount of time in a densely populated area, and the use of a creeping artillery barrage raise questions with regard to the respect by the Israel Defense Forces of the rules of distinction, precaution and proportionality.
The extensive use by the Israel Defense Forces of explosive weapons with wide-area effects, and their probable indiscriminate effects in the built-up neighbourhoods of Gaza, are highly likely to constitute a violation of the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks. Such use may, depending on the circumstances, qualify as a direct attack against civilians, and may therefore amount to a war crime.
From paragraph 408 in the full report
During Operation “Protective Edge,” 14 500 tank shells and approximately 35 000 artillery shells were fired. Haaretz quoted IDF information indicating that, before the end of July, after three weeks of fighting, 30 000 shells had been discharged, “four times as much as in Cast Lead in 2008”. The NGO “Action on Armed violence” (AOAV) observes that, while in Operation Cast Lead in 2008 3000 high-explosive artillery shells were fired, in 2014 there were 19 000, a 533% increase. Based on figures suggesting that over the course of 2014’s fifty-day operation, a daily average of 680 artillery shells were fired in Gaza by the IDF (compared to 348 per day in the 2008-09 operation), AOAV questions whether the IDF policies regulating the use of artillery in densely populated areas may be too flexible and allow too much leeway to commanders on the ground.
Weapon 2009 2014 %
Artillery shells 12,500 50,000 +400%
High-ex shells 3,000 19,000 +533%
Shells per day 348 680 +99%
Warnings and the protected status of civilians 
From page 13 of the report
In many cases during the ground operations, the Israel Defense Forces warned the population of impending attacks by means of leaflets, loudspeaker announcements, telephone calls, text messages and radio announcements. In many instances, however, inhabitants did not leave their homes.
For instance, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported on 20 July that the majority of the 92,000 inhabitants of Shuja’iya had remained in their neighbourhood despite repeated warnings to evacuate. Witnesses pointed to several reasons for staying, including not knowing in which direction to go, given that intense shelling and air strikes were under way in many parts of Gaza; lack of clarity of and unclear time frames indicated by the warnings; the fact that many places considered safe were already overcrowded; and the poor conditions in shelters, which themselves came under attack.
Statements by officials of the Israel Defense Forces indicated that, in some cases, warnings to evacuate were meant to create “sterile combat zones”, and the people remaining in the area would no longer be considered civilians and thus benefit from the protection afforded by their civilian status. For example, the Head of the Doctrine Desk at the Infantry Corps Headquarters, Major Amitai Karanik, reportedly stated: “We try to create a situation whereby the area where we are fighting is sterile, so any person seen there is suspected of engaging in terrorist activity. At the same time, we make the utmost effort to remove the population, whether this means dropping flyers or shelling [.] We don’t want to confuse the troops […] In peacetime security, soldiers stand facing a civilian population, but in wartime, there is no civilian population, just an enemy.”
On the basis of soldier testimony, one non-governmental organization concluded that “the soldiers were briefed by their commanders to fire at every person they identified in a combat zone, since the working assumption was that every person in the field was an enemy.”
These warnings were often used in a context where people fleeing were unable to identify a safe place to go owing to the unpredictability of many attacks over a lengthy period of time. Most importantly, inferring that anyone remaining in an area that has been the object of a warning is an enemy or a person engaging in “terrorist activity”, or issuing instructions to this effect, contributes to creating an environment conducive to attacks against civilians.
Human shields
A 60-year old woman from a village outside of Dier al-Balah said she was detained on July 24th and forced to become a human shield:
“The soldiers interrogated me repeatedly and detained me in the house for three days, guarding me with a gun. They did not let me use the restroom and they didn’t give me food or water. They took off my veil. I told them I was a widow from a long time and they told me that no one loved me, and that no one would ask about me if I disappeared. I was scared.  I was told that I would remain with the soldiers, and I protested, telling them I was a woman and they were all men.”
Other Palestinians reported they were taken into Israeli custody and transferred to prisons inside of Israel:
“[T]he witness was taken to a small room and interrogated about tunnels and weapons caches. The witness claims to have been beaten during the interrogation. He was then given a nylon uniform to wear and transferred to another location where he spent two weeks. He was reportedly held in a room with no windows and interrogated repeatedly about the same issues. At one point, the witness claims to have been forced to sit in a small seat, which he described as being approximately 20cm x 20cm. The soldiers then placed a bag on his face, which carried a terrible stench. He stated that for three days, the soldiers would throw cold water on his head whenever he tried to sleep. The witness fell unconscious at some point and woke up several hours later, finding himself in a bigger cell with about ten other people. Finally, the witness was transferred to a court in Azabal Ashel [Eshol Prison in Beersheva], where he was sentenced to 28 days in prison. Having served his sentence, he was taken to the Erez crossing. When he asked about the 8500 shekels that had been confiscated earlier, he was told: ‘Ask Ismail Haniya.’”
A man from Khuza’a who was also detained said when soldiers took him into custody they abused his son. They “put a casserole on the boy’s head and four of them started kicking and punching him.  Then one of the soldiers began shooting between the legs of the boy.”
See more at:
Proportionality
 
Civilians were also subjected to a barrage of fire during the war. The United Nations found 44% of the Gaza strip was embattled in heavy bombing or shelling, thus dubbed a “no-go” zone, or was designated an evacuation area.  An Israeli member of Knesset, Ofer Shelah, explained the scale of force in Gaza to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq:
“In the first three weeks of the conquest of Iraq, in 2003, the U.S. armed forces captured cities and destroyed 1,600 armored vehicles of the Iraqi army, half of them tanks. In Gaza, the IDF fought against an enemy that had no armored vehicles, and Israeli soldiers probably saw no more than a few hundred armed Hamas militants. On average, an Israeli tank fired seven times as many shells a day as an American tank in Iraq. We fired more antitank missiles from the ground than the Americans, and twice as many Hellfire rockets from helicopters. On average, an Israeli tank fired seven times as many shells a day as an American tank in Iraq. We fired more antitank missiles from the ground than the Americans, and twice as many Hellfire rockets from helicopters.”
See more at: