Abbas to UN: ‘Back us or we go to court’

MPs stage three-hour debate on Palestine on December 1st
FCO questions on December 2nd

mahmoudAbbas_1581534cPalestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to offer a choice to the United Nations Security Council on Monday November 24th – either they support his petition for a Palestinian state on 1967 borders or he proceeds with his application to join the International Criminal Court.

If his petition fails to win the required 9-6 majority or if, as seems more likely, it is passed but the Americans exercise their veto, then Abbas has said he will activate the application to the Court which will make Israelis in the West Bank and East Jerusalem liable to prosecution for war crimes.

It would mean that Israeli soldiers caught on camera shooting unarmed protesters in recent demonstrations in Jerusalem could be arrested and hauled before the court in The Hague. It could also lead to the arrest of Palestinians.

The ICC considers cases against individuals, not countries, and they can only be arrested in countries that are members of the ICC, which does not include Israel or the United States.  But Israeli military could be arrested in the UK and many other European countries

Minister pledges another £20 million for Gaza this winter

International Development questions Wednesday October 28th

 

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): What plans she has to work with her international counterparts to address humanitarian needs in Gaza?

Justine Greening: The UK will continue to work closely with international partners to address humanitarian needs in Gaza. We have already provided over £17 million in humanitarian assistance and recently committed a further £20 million at the international donor conference in Cairo to assist those affected, including hundreds of thousands left homeless as winter approaches.

Mr Turner: There are 1.8 million people in Gaza and it is physically smaller than the Isle of Wight. Does the Secretary of State accept that 485,000 people in Gaza need emergency food assistance and 273,000 people need school buildings for shelter and, most important of all, around 1 million people are desperate for work? What is she doing about that?

Justine Greening: My Friend raises some very good points. Gaza is one of the most densely populated parts of the world. As he says, we are, of course, providing shelter and basic services to many people, but we also increasingly work on private sector support, supporting livelihoods, and the key to that in the long term is a political settlement that means the economy in Gaza can thrive normally.

Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): Will she condemn in the strongest terms the recent total closure of the Gaza border by Israel, in utter violation of the ceasefire, making it very difficult—even more difficult—for the aid she provides and the other aid for reconstruction after the terrible destruction imposed by the Israelis? This cannot go on.

Justine Greening: We are extremely concerned about the continued restrictions, which have a tremendous effect on the Gazan economy. Of course we understand the security concerns of Israel, but ultimately we need leadership from both parties to move forward to some political settlement. We will never get to provide the long-term support to people unless we can get in and out of Gaza easily and, as he knows, that has been a very great problem for us.

Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con):Will she join me in thanking my constituents for their fundraising efforts to help address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and will she confirm what steps the UK is taking to aid reconstruction in Gaza following the Cairo conference?

Justine Greening: I pay warm tribute to my Friend’s constituents. They are among the millions of groups and communities around our country that do fantastic work supporting people in very difficult parts of our world. We are playing our role. Part of our announcement at the international donor conference was to make sure we can help fund some of the reconstruction that is now required in Gaza.

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): While I agree with the Secretary of State that a political settlement is vital, does she agree with me that there is still no excuse for Israeli forces firing on fishermen when all they are doing is trying to fish, or firing on farmers when all they are trying to do is farm their land, and what can she do to ensure that the Israeli forces stop doing this?

Justine Greening: We are always concerned about these sorts of incidents of violence. In the end, people will have to get back around the negotiating table, and we will have to have talks that go further than the ceasefire that is currently in place. They need to get back under way in Egypt, and ultimately people need to agree that the current status quo is simply untenable, and communities on both sides need to work towards having a better future for their children than they are currently experiencing.

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): The Secretary of State is absolutely right that we need a political settlement, but is she concerned that, of all the money that is being given, some will be siphoned away for Hamas to build new tunnels—terror tunnels—back into Israel? What is she doing to ensure that British taxpayers’ money does not contribute to that?

Justine Greening: I can categorically assure my Friend that no aid money goes to Hamas. We have safeguards in place to ensure compliance with both UK and EU legislation on terror funding.

Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab): Given this House’s historic vote to recognise Palestine, the decision of the Swedish Government and similar debates in the French and Irish Parliaments, what work is the Secretary of State doing with Palestinian civil society and structures to prepare the state for wider recognition?

Justine Greening: We do broad capacity-building with the Palestinian Authority. As she points out, there is a political element to the way forward that is the base for seeing any real progress in the long term. First, though, our focus has been on providing humanitarian support to people affected by the recent crisis, and then more broadly starting to be part of the reconstruction efforts so that we can get people back into their homes and, critically, get children back into their schools.

 

MPs who voted for the motion to recognise Palestine are shown in blue-green, against in purple, absent or abstaining in brown and ministers who were not allowed to vote in blue.

‘We condemn, but nothing follows’ – Baroness Warsi

House of Lords Debate on Middle East 30 Oct 2014

Lord Risby (Con): There have been no serious moves by the Israeli Government to a two-state solution. Indeed, through the settlement policy, all the moves have been to prevent such a realisation.

There is now a unity Government under Mahmoud Abbas. However imperfect that is, the Israelis are most unlikely to find a more moderate Palestinian leader.

(His) position and credibility is constantly being undermined by the continuing construction of illegal settlements in the West Bank.

Demographic changes in Israel and Palestine point to the necessity of moving .. to a final acceptance of the Palestinian reality. It is, quite simply, in Israel’s interests to pursue this. No country can escape the reality of its own geography.

 

Baroness Warsi (Con): We condemn the illegal settlements. We say that they threaten the very viability of a two-state solution. But what consequences ever follow from that condemnation?

As Sir Alan Duncan has said, settlements are simply “an act of theft”, initiated and supported by the State of Israel.

The strategic planning, including the announcements on the E1 plan and other building programmes, display an even more dangerous intent. They create enclaves of Palestinians cut off from each other; cut off from their future capital and cut off from a viable existence. It is an organised and planned strangulation of what we call the two-state solution.

We continue to take the position that International Criminal Court (ICC) membership makes negotiations impossible. Why do we say that negotiations would be impossible if the Palestinians went to the ICC? Is it because Israel does not wish to be held accountable for any war crimes that may have been committed; or is it because we, who oppose immunity for such crimes elsewhere, are prepared to make an exception in this particular case?

If we are not prepared to pursue justice for those who are suffering now, how can we be trusted to fulfil our commitment to pursue justice for those who suffered and lost many decades ago? We condemn, but .. no consequences follow.

The Prime Minister said in July 2010  that “Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp”. What has changed in Gaza since then?

In the light of the parliamentary vote in the Commons and the lack of any negotiations, will the Government move to a position of recognition? If we are not prepared to move to a recognition of Palestine, can we lay out the specific conditions that will need to be met? Will the Government set out a pathway in the interests of transparency?

What consequences have flowed from the strong condemnation by the Foreign Secretary in September and October of this year of the recent settlement announcements?

How have we, since the Gaza conflict, used the so-called influence and capital we built up during that conflict with the Israeli Government to change their position since then?

It was because of the concerns that I have raised today—and not, as some have disturbingly tried to suggest, because I am a Muslim—that, as the then Minister with responsibility for the UN, the ICC and human rights, I concluded that I could no longer defend our policy at that Dispatch Box. Our current position on this issue is morally indefensible.

It is not in Britain’s national interests and it will have a long-term detrimental impact on our reputation, internationally and domestically. It is time for us to start to be on the right side of history.

Lord Mitchell (Lab): I support the state of Israel because history has cruelly demonstrated that, at any time or in any place, Jews live in peril. However I am not saying “Israel, right or wrong”.

The Naqba was a catastrophe for the Palestinian people, and we Jews should admit it. The occupation of the West Bank is a stain. In my view, the building of settlements is wrong. The road blocks, the pass controls and the goading are all intolerable. For me as a supporter of Israel, they are hard to stomach. If history has taught us anything, you humiliate a people at your peril. Many Israelis yearn for a two-state solution but, in truth, some do not. I am sad to say that this includes many members of Israel’s current Government. I certainly support a Palestinian state, but not quite yet. It must be negotiated with both the Palestinians and with Israel.

Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con): We cannot uphold the right of others around the world to stand up for their freedom and self-determination and deny that same right to the Palestinians. Through our shared history, Great Britain has a special responsibility to Palestine, which we should discharge by recognising Palestine as a sovereign state alongside the sovereign state of Israel as an important step to peace.

 Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD): What other armed forces in the world would send warnings to civilians living close to military targets that they are about to bomb? Israel does, even at the cost of exposing its own troops to greater danger in the process. The world community’s failure to give Israel credit for that shows just how hard it is for Israel to gain a fair hearing on the stage of international opinion.

What makes me despair is the absence of reporting in the media on the support that Israel has consistently given to the people of Gaza. Some formidable forces are lobbying against Israel in the British public arena. It is perhaps the unrelenting campaigns of such formidable forces that drown out the truth about what Israel is doing to help Gaza, even during hostilities.

I would like to give some examples. On 25 August this year, in the middle of a war in which a bombardment of Hamas missiles was forcing many thousands of Israeli men, women and children to run for cover whenever an air raid siren sounded—even in the middle of such a bombardment—111 trucks entered Gaza through the Kerem Shalom crossing from Israel carrying 2,190 tonnes of food. On that same day, three trucks entered Gaza through the same crossing from Israel, carrying 8 tonnes of humanitarian supplies.

Baroness Deech (CB): A great deal of time has been spent on the recognition of Palestine as a state. The Palestinians could have had a state in 1947 and on many occasions since. I now wonder whether the demands for statehood, as an end to occupation and refugees, are genuine. Is it, as its leaders have stated, designed to be merely one more step in the ultimate goal, in keeping with caliphate ideology, of overrunning Israel—where, conveniently, 6 million Jews are gathered?

Palestine, if recognised now, would be just one more failed state in the area, an area not currently wedded to national states. Its leaders have declared that it would be forbidden for any Jews to live there, and one can well imagine how any religious minority would be treated there. It would be a state with no minorities, no income, no support services and, unbelievably, no citizens or returned expatriates. So what would it be for, other than as a launching pad for attacks on territory and in the ICC?

Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con): We need a dramatic gesture from this country to shake the peace process out of the mothballs. I believe, with Sir Vincent Fean, until recently our consul-general, that recognition would advance the peace process by giving hope to Palestinians and by helping the moderates on both sides: that is, the Palestinians who believe in peace and work for peace in co-operation with Israel; and the Israelis who hate what is done in their name—the separation wall, the house demolitions and the imprisonment of thousands without trial—who think about the long-term future and who do not think it inevitable that they should for ever live behind walls in a permanent state of war with their neighbours.

If we believe, as I do, that the two-state solution can bring lasting peace to the Holy Land, we should act on that basis and recognise Palestine as the second state, just as we recognised Israel all those years ago. Sometimes it seems as if we British are bystanders who can have no influence on what happens. But we helped to create the situation and we have a special responsibility in all this. My father was a soldier in Palestine under General Allenby in 1918. In 1920, we—the British—undertook the mandate to guide Palestine to independence. Recognition is our last duty under the mandate.

Baroness Tonge (Ind LD): The propaganda coming out of the Israeli embassy now is to concentrate on Hamas… Hamas was helped in its creation by Israel, which did not like Fatah, and Hamas won the European Union-monitored election in 2006. Hamas was then refused permission to lead the Government in Palestine. Hamas had its MPs arrested and put in Israeli prisons. Most of them are still there. Yet since 2009, Hamas has been saying—and this is from Khaled Meshaal—that it will recognise the state of Israel in the 1967 borders. No one likes to publicise that.

It is time to be honest and ask what the real reason is. Why do we give this rogue government our support? There are several reasons people will mention: Holocaust guilt—quite right—oil and security. But in my opinion and the opinion of many people who are afraid to say it publicly—but I will—there is none so important as the thing that dare not speak its name. I am talking about the activities of the lobby, in this country and in America. AIPAC in America and BICOM here, plus the groups called Friends of Israel in supporting and cajoling and fundraising and launching websites and letter-writing campaigns and e-mail storms, and not supporting MPs or parties if they refuse to give Israel support. Those of us who challenge the lobby are threatened and disposed of by our leaders as best they can. David Ward, my colleague in the Commons, is currently fighting yet another battle against the lobby as I speak.

All lobbies are dangerous and undemocratic; the pro-Israel lobby is not the only one, but it is particularly dangerous in this context. Money and influence win over truth and justice, and the West sinks lower and lower in the world’s esteem because of it.

The Middle East descends into hell, and we will follow if we do not do something to stop the slide.

Lord Weidenfeld (CB): The Gaza campaign was not a routine punitive expedition. To Israelis, it was an existential necessity to prevent the ever-increasing and increasingly effective rocket campaign from burgeoning into a decisive war, endangering major cities and the country’s one main airport. Those of us who lived through the Second World War know what aerial warfare can mean and what it meant to people living in Coventry, Berlin and Dresden; they will understand what has happened in Gaza.

Baroness Anelay (FCO Minister): We are urging both parties to avoid all actions that undermine the prospect of peace. That is why we were particularly disturbed when Israel brought forward advanced plans for 1,060 new housing units in east Jerusalem. We consider that to be an ill-judged and ill-timed decision, which makes it harder to achieve a two-state solution with Jerusalem as a shared capital. Such announcements make it more difficult for Israel’s friends to defend it against accusations that it is not serious about peace.

The EU sanctions remain in place. We have consistently made it clear through the EU that there will be consequences to further announcements on settlement. Discussions are under way in Brussels at this moment on what further measures the EU could take to discourage any further settlement expansion, including in Givat Hamatos, E1 and Har Homa. The EU is working closely with other member states to that end.

A one-off recognition of the state of Palestine is not something that we wish to pursue at this stage. We are saying clearly that negotiation is the way forward. We want to recognise Palestine, but we want to do so when there has been an agreement with both sides that we end up with two states that can live alongside each other.

Minister promises EU measures ‘to discourage settlements’

Written questions from Grahame Morris MP

Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will support proposals in the EU to impose sanctions on the Israeli government if it goes ahead with tenders and construction of Israeli settlements at Givat Hamatos in East Jerusalem.

Answer: Mr Tobias Ellwood We are strongly opposed to any attempts to change the facts on the ground in East Jerusalem by increasing the number of settlers living there. Such acts raise tensions and undermine prospects for peace. During my visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories between 5-8 October, I discussed my strong concerns about the issue of settlements and land expropriation with the Israeli Justice Minister on 6 October. Discussions are continuing in Brussels on how the EU can best discourage settlement expansion, and the UK is working closely with other Member States to that end.

Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will support proposals in the EU to apply sanctions on the Israeli government if it goes ahead with plans to relocate 12,000 Bedouins in a new town in the Jordan Valley without their consent.

Answer: Mr Tobias Ellwood During my recent visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, I visited the E1 area and met members of the Bedouin community living there who face relocation by the Israeli authorities. They told me that they had no wish to leave, and expressed their fears of being forcibly transferred to make way for the construction of Israeli settlements. Such a move would seriously threaten the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state, and according to the UN would be contrary to international humanitarian law. Discussions are continuing in Brussels on how the EU can best discourage settlement expansion, and the UK is working closely with other Member States to that end.

 

British Army trains Israeli soldiers to operate drones

 UK urges transfer of Area C to Palestine

 Written questions

Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, for which periods officers in the armed forces have been trained on the operation and use of drone technology in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the last two years.

Mr Mark Francois Answered on: 19 November 2014 In the last two years training on the unarmed HERMES 450 Unmanned Aircraft System has been conducted by Army personnel in Israel on a regular basis. The last training took place in July 2014. This training was a mixture of individual and pre-deployment training for HERMES operators, and technical training for support personnel. Over this period, more than 270 personnel received training by the civilian contractor in Israel. No training has been conducted within the Occupied Palestinian territories.

 

Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment he has made of the effect on the peace process of differences in how the application of planning regulations apply to settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank.

Mr Tobias Ellwood Answered on: 17 November 2014 The British Government regularly raises concerns regarding the Israeli building and planning regime in Area C with the Israeli Government. The UK has also called publicly on Israel to take steps towards the transfer of authority over Area C to the Palestinian Authority. Palestinian development in Area C is essential for a sustainable Palestinian economy, yet only 1% of Area C is zoned for Palestinian construction and a large portion of this land is already built-up. The UK will therefore continue to press Israel to ease the current restrictive permitting regime and to transfer control of Area C to the Palestinian Authority as per the Oslo accords. The Israeli Non-Governmental Organisation Peace Now has identified the building and demolition decisions in Area C. Between 2000 and 2007 the Israeli Civil Administration approved only 91 of 1,624 Palestinian applications. During the same period Israeli settlers built over 18,000 homes in the same area. We assess that this does not help efforts towards peace.

Paul Flynn (Newport West) Asked on: 29 August 2014: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate he has made of the number of (a) British citizens, (b) British residents holding dual passports and (c) British residents holding foreign passports who left the UK in 2014 to fight for the (i) Israeli Defence Force in Gaza.

James Brokenshire Answered on: 20 November 2014 We do not hold data on British nationals fighting with the Israeli Defence Force: many foreign nationals (including British nationals) serve in the IDF, and also hold dual (Israeli) nationality.

Mr George Galloway (Bradford West) To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make representations to the Israeli government condemning its (a) closure of the al-Aqsa mosque and other parts of the al-Sharif site in Jerusalem and (b) plan to build 1,000 housing units in illegal settlements in occupied East Jerusalem.

Mr Tobias Ellwood Answered on: 11 November 2014 Our Ambassador to Tel Aviv delivered a clear message to the Israeli Cabinet Secretary on 30 October, advocating reopening of the mosque. The mosque re-opened on 31 October for men over 50 and for women. I issued a statement on 29 October condemning the announcement of plans for 1,060 new housing units in East Jerusalem. Officials from our Embassy in Tel Aviv have raised this issue with the Israeli National Security Adviser, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Political-Military Adviser, senior contacts at the National Security Council and the Cabinet Office.

Chris Williamson (Derby North) Asked on: 10 November 2014 To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what support her Department has provided for trained psychosocial counsellors to help children in Gaza.

Mr Desmond Swayne Answered on: 20 November 2014 DFID is funding a range of mental health and psychosocial support initiatives in Gaza, including psychosocial care for 3000 children and 1500 mothers, psychological training for 120 child carers, and psychotherapy for 900 severely traumatised children. The UK is also one of the largest donors to the UN Relief and Works Agency, which is providing psychosocial support and activities for children through its extensive network of schools.

Chris Williamson (Derby North) Asked on: 10 November 2014 To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what estimate she has made of the cost of the reconstruction of Gaza.

Mr Desmond Swayne Answered on: 20 November 2014 Assessments led by the Palestinian Authority, and carried out in conjunction with the United Nations and other partners, estimate the total cost of relief, recovery and reconstruction to be around $4 billion.

Chris Williamson (Derby North) Asked on: 10 November 2014 To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what assistance her Department has provided for British physicians and nurses working on short missions in Gaza.

Mr Desmond Swayne Answered on: 20 November 2014 DFID provided support for an initial medical assessment in Gaza carried out by a team of British medical staff in August, and further support to take forward their recommendation for a small team of British specialists with trauma, orthopaedic and reconstructive skills to make follow-up visits to Gaza. We are also providing support for specialists in orthopaedic trauma, neurology, burns and amputation, drawn from the UK’s International Emergency Trauma Register, to provide highly specialised training, equipment and supervision for rehabilitation in Gaza.

Chris Williamson (Derby North) Asked on: 10 November 2014 To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what assessment she has made of the extent of damage to basic infrastructure and housing in Gaza arising from the recent conflict.

Mr Desmond Swayne The UN has estimated that 18,000 housing units were destroyed or severely damaged in the conflict and that 44,300 other housing units sustained some damage. The UN estimates that 20-30% of the water and sewage network was damaged, and reports extensive damage to the Gaza Power Plant and internal electricity grid, telecommunications and internet infrastructure, as well as factories and commercial buildings.

Chris Williamson (Derby North) Asked on: 10 November 2014 To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what emergency aid her Department is providing for Gazans whose homes have been destroyed in the recent conflict.

Mr Desmond Swayne Answered on: 20 November 2014 The UK was one of the biggest donors to Gaza this summer, providing more than £17 million in emergency assistance to deliver lifesaving food, clean water, shelter and medical assistance to tens of thousands of people affected by the fighting. We have also pledged £20 million in early recovery assistance, which includes support for shelter and basic services, short-term employment to help with reconstruction, clearance of explosive remnants of war, and funding for the UN mechanism to import construction materials.

Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what support his Department provides to ensure Hamas does not acquire construction materials for terror purposes.

Mr Tobias Ellwood Answered on: 18 November 2014 The UK, as a donor, follows very carefully the course of internationally provided construction materials into Gaza, and we are confident in the effectiveness of the new UN agreed monitoring mechanism. Imports of construction materials, including concrete, are currently only permitted for UN-led humanitarian projects with strict controls mitigating the risk of transfer of materials for use other than that intended. There remains a clear need for further legitimate construction work in Gaza.

Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) Asked on: 10 November 2014 To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will raise with his Israeli counterpart the death of Bahaa Samir Badir in Beit Liqiya on 16 October 2014.

Mr Tobias Ellwood Answered on: 18 November 2014 The Government has repeatedly expressed concerns to Israel about the appropriate use of force, including the use of live ammunition, by the Israel Defence Force and Police, as well as the need for Israel to implement the recommendations of the Turkel Commission on improving how the Israeli authorities investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian law. We will continue to do so as long as this remains an issue of concern.

Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) Asked on: 10 November 2014 To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what reports he has received on attacks by the Israeli Ground Force and Navy on farmers and fishermen in Gaza in October 2014; and if he will raise this matter with his Israeli counterpart.

Mr Tobias Ellwood Answered on: 18 November 2014 The IDF has demarcated a 6-mile radius at the western nautical border. The demarcation of the northern border is not as clear to fishermen and this border area is the site of many incidents. During Operation Protective Edge, we raised our concern with the IDF several times over incidents in which fishermen were reportedly shot. The IDF maintained that the Israeli Navy fired only warning shots into the air when the fishermen ventured over the nautical border. We have received unconfirmed reports from the British Consulate General in Jerusalem on attacks in October. We have not raised the October incidents with the Israeli authorities, but continue to monitor developments closely.

Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment his Department has made of reports of bomb attacks against Fatah officials in the Gaza strip.

Mr Tobias Ellwood Answered on: 18 November 2014 The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was concerned by reports of bomb attacks targeting Fatah officials in Gaza on 7 November. Investigations have been launched in Gaza into who was responsible.

Mr George Galloway (Bradford West) To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make representations to the Israeli government condemning its (a) closure of the al-Aqsa mosque and other parts of the al-Sharif site in Jerusalem and (b) plan to build 1,000 housing units in illegal settlements in occupied East Jerusalem.

Mr Tobias Ellwood Answered on: 11 November 2014 Our Ambassador to Tel Aviv delivered a clear message to the Israeli Cabinet Secretary on 30 October, advocating reopening of the mosque. The mosque re-opened on 31 October for men over 50 and for women. I issued a statement on 29 October condemning the announcement of plans for 1,060 new housing units in East Jerusalem. Officials from our Embassy in Tel Aviv have raised this issue with the Israeli National Security Adviser, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Political-Military Adviser, senior contacts at the National Security Council and the Cabinet Office.

Baroness Tonge To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held with the government of Israel concerning its alleged weapons testing, including of dense inert metal explosives, during Operation Protective Edge. [HL2634]

Baroness Anelay (Con): While we have not raised this issue with the Israeli authorities, there must be a robust process of accountability given the heavy civilian death toll in Gaza. Israel has confirmed plans to form their own investigative committee which we understand will be mandated to investigate the proportionality of Israel Defence Forces actions. To be credible, the committee must be independent, transparent and rigorous, and must draw on lessons from the past to examine how Israel can in future exercise its right to self-defence without such heavy civilian loss of life.

 

EDM 521 – MEDICS WORKING IN GAZA DURING AND SINCE OPERATION PROTECTIVE EDGE IN GAZA

Tabled on 18.11.14 by Jeremy Corbyn MP

That this House applauds the exemplary work of all health professionals in Gaza, be they medics, social workers, occupational therapists, ambulance teams and others who continue to look after the 12,000 injured, including 3,374 children, long after the media have taken their cameras away from the one vantage point permitted them during Israel’s Operation Protective Edge attack on Gaza in August and September 2014; notes the death toll of 2,200 Palestinians, 1,500 civilians including 500 children, and 71 Israelis, five civilians; further notes that many of the injured are now permanently disabled and will require a lifetime of physical and psychological rehabilitation; commends all those who have donated their services to looking after the people of Gaza; deplores in particular the conduct of the Israeli authorities in refusing entry to Gaza of medical personnel from abroad including the indefatigable and determined Norwegian surgeon Dr Mads Gilbert who repeatedly works in Gaza whilst it is under attack, and who is the latest victim of such unjust treatment; and calls on the Government to press the Israeli government to respect international law and allow humanitarian aid into Gaza and to lift the siege on Gaza.

Highlights from Foreign Office questions Tuesday October 28th

Question 5. Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con): What recent steps the Government have taken to assist with the reconstruction of Gaza.
Mr Philip Hammond: On 12 October, at the reconstruction conference in Cairo, the UK pledged £20 million to help kick-start Gaza’s recovery. It is essential that both sides take the necessary practical steps to allow reconstruction. Reconstruction of Gaza is necessary and urgent to get the economy back to business, but progress to a political settlement must follow quickly on its heels.
Andrew Griffiths: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Many were concerned about the impact on ordinary Palestinians during the 50-day conflict. Of particular concern was the bombing of the hospital in Gaza. Will he advise us what the Government are doing to help rebuild vital medical facilities in Gaza?
Mr Hammond: The Secretary of State for International Development is deeply engaged in that question. As I have said, we have pledged £20 million and we will continue to work with the UN and other agencies, but we urgently require an unsticking of the process that allows construction materials into Gaza so that physical reconstruction can commence. When that process is under way, I am sure there will be significant further pledges of assistance on top of the billions of dollars already available to reconstruct Gaza as a result of the Cairo conference.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): Have any arrangements been agreed to ensure that much needed building materials for hospitals, schools and homes will not be diverted to rebuilding the terror tunnels, which Hamas claims it has started to do?
Mr Hammond: This is the essential challenge: ensuring that construction materials in the quantities needed can enter Gaza under a monitoring regime that is satisfactory to the Israelis as well as the Palestinians and that they are applied to the rebuilding of homes, schools, hospitals and infrastructure, and not diverted for military purposes. Such a mechanism is in place. There was a temporary glitch—hopefully—earlier this week in its operation, but officials are working flat out to try to resolve it. I hope we see major progress over the next few days.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Does he agree that, while Hamas continues to rule Gaza with such brutality and to amass missiles—as we have heard, many of them are from Iran—the prospect of a viable and democratic Palestinian state looks ever more unlikely?
Mr Hammond: The challenge to the authority of the Palestinian Authority from what is happening in Gaza is an impediment to progress on a broader Middle East peace settlement, but I am of the view that we must first bring humanitarian relief to Gaza, which means getting started urgently on reconstruction. We then need a sustained ceasefire and settlement around Gaza as a step to proceeding to a resumption of the wider Middle East peace process. I hope for significant American leadership to revitalise that process over the coming weeks and months.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): I agree that the urgent and pressing matter is the humanitarian and reconstruction needs currently faced by the people of Gaza. Is it a forlorn hope—can he give us some hope—for a political solution in the medium to long term that allows the security needs of the Israelis and the Israeli nation to be met at the same time as the lifting of the economic constrictions and the strangulation of Gaza? That has to be the way forward.
Mr Hammond: He is exactly right. All Members would agree that the Gazan economy needs to be reactivated so that people can get back to something like life as normal. The stranglehold imposed by the access regime needs to be relaxed, but it can be relaxed only in the context of Israel feeling safe and secure.
Israel and Palestine
Question 7. Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab): If he will encourage Israelis and Palestinians to participate in projects which bring them together and build a new generation of leaders committed to peace and dialogue.[905694]
Question 10. Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab): What steps his Department is taking to support projects that foster co-operation and co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians
Question 11. Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab): Whether he has discussed with his Israeli counterpart the content of the debate on 13 October 2014 on Palestine and Israel; what recent discussions he has had with his Israeli counterpart on the future of the peace process; and if he will make a statement.[905698]
Mr Tobias Ellwood: Despite the tragic events during the summer, we remain committed to supporting efforts for peace. Our embassy in Tel Aviv and the British consulate general in Jerusalem work closely with all sectors of society, including the ultra-Orthodox communities, Israeli Arabs and Palestinian communities affected by the occupation, to build constituencies for peace.
Mr McCann: On an International Development Committee visit to the Middle East earlier this year, it was noted that the Conflict Fund had insufficient funding to support groups that were promoting peace from both sides. I urge the Minister to expand the Conflict Fund pool and look again at organisations such as Cherish, Parents Circle and Middle East Education Through Technology, which are trying to get peace in the region.
Mr Ellwood: Certainly, we are keen to receive strong applications for the Conflict, Stability And Security Fund—as the Conflict Fund is now called—for joint projects that bring Palestinians and Israelis together to achieve peace. I will certainly look at it and write to him..
Ian Austin: It is important to step up the work that the Minister outlined, because the only way to resolve this conflict is through a stable, two-state solution with security and peace for both Israel and Palestine. There is no legalistic, unilateral or bureaucratic route to that objective; it will be achieved only by getting Israelis and Palestinians working together to build trust, to compromise and to negotiate and by means of economic development and trade in the West Bank and by the reconstruction and demilitarisation of Gaza.
Mr Ellwood: The whole House would agree with him. I, too, had the opportunity to visit Gaza, Jerusalem, Israel and the Occupied Territories over the last few weeks. I was astonished by the amount of energy there and by the people who absolutely want to work together. One example of that is the UK-Israel tech hub, which is driving economic and technological collaboration between the UK and Israel. The hub is working with Israeli and Arab experts, including Palestinian, to support work and build partnerships in the quick-growing Arab internet sector.
Grahame M. Morris: May I draw the Minister’s attention to comments made last week by the Israeli deputy Defence Minister, Moshe Yalom, a Likud party MP and close ally of Prime Minister Netanyahu. He said about President Abbas: “He is a partner for discussion; a partner for managing the conflict. I am not looking for a solution, I am looking for a way to manage the conflict and maintain relations in a way that works for our interests.” Has the Foreign Secretary discussed those comments with Israeli officials?
Mr Ellwood: We take on board the comments made, and it is interesting to note that on Yalom’s visit to the United States, no senior representation was there to meet him. That is perhaps a reflection of how out of sync those comments were. As the Foreign Secretary has reiterated, it is important that we focus on humanitarian efforts, which were discussed at the Gaza donor conference in Cairo, which I attended. Then we should see an immediate return to negotiations.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): Even strong supporters of the state of Israel are concerned that building on the West Bank is likely to postpone the peaceful dialogue that we all want to see. What is the Government’s position on that?
Mr Ellwood: The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have condemned the building in the Occupied Territories. Such building certainly makes it more difficult for Israel’s friends to defend it against accusations that it is not taking the process for peace seriously. We very much encourage all sides to come to the table. I visited the E1 area on my recent visit, and it was clear what difficulties this building would cause in the conurbation between Ramallah, Hebron and Bethlehem. We discourage the building of any further settlements there.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD): Illegal settlements are not just about how to defend the Israeli Government. Surely, the result of such settlements is to put the possibility of a two-state solution further and further into the future, to the extent that it could be argued that such a solution has now been completely undermined. Does my Friend accept that no leader of the Palestinians could accept a solution that, for example, made it impossible for a Palestinian state to have East Jerusalem as its capital?
Mr Ellwood: The issues raised by such settlements are very serious indeed, but we must not allow them to deflect from the bigger issue of reaching an actual settlement. It is possible for land swaps to take place and, as he implies, what is happening is illegal under article 46 of the Hague regulations. However, we do not want people to be distracted by the settlements; we want them to come to the table and restart the negotiations.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con): Does the Minister agree that the key point is for the Israelis and the Palestinians to get round the negotiating table to discuss a two-state solution without preconditions, reflecting Israel’s security interests and the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians?
Mr Ellwood: My Friend’s question illustrates the complexity of the situation. We do require leadership on both sides. From Israel we require a commitment to dialogue and to avoiding all actions that undermine prospects for peace, including settlement activity, while the Palestinian Authority must show leadership in recommitting itself to the dialogue and establishing itself as the authoritative voice in Gaza.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): There are massive asks on both the Palestinian and Israeli leadership in taking us to a place where we can have meaningful peace discussions. Will the Minister reconsider his earlier comment that the issue of settlement building was something of a distraction, and that we should not be fixated on it. It is no more a distraction than achieving peace in the region and security for the Israelis.
Mr Philip Hammond: I would like to answer this question, because I know exactly what Mr Ellwood was trying to say earlier on. The settlements are illegal and building them is intended to undermine the prospects of the peace process. We must not allow that to happen. These are buildings; buildings can be transferred and demolished. Where these buildings are built must not be allowed to define where the final settlement line can go. We must be very clear about that.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD): I very much welcome the comments condemning the illegal settlements, but if the Government’s response to calls for sanctions against Israel is “not yet”, how many additional illegal settlements are required for the answer to be “now”?
Mr Ellwood: The Foreign Secretary has just made it clear that we do not want the settlement issue to hog the wicket here. We need to focus on the humanitarian efforts. Gaza will face an emergency in a number of weeks when the winter weather approaches. That is a priority. Then we need both sides to come back to the table. That is our focus at the moment, and we do not want to be distracted by the settlement issue.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): I welcome the contributions by UK doctors and others to reconstruction in Gaza, but is not the cycle almost bizarre? We fund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to do valuable work in building schools and homes, the Israeli defence force destroys some of them, and then regularly we pay to have them rebuilt after a long period of argument about whether the cement will be used for the schools or for tunnels. What can we do to resolve this cycle?
Mr Ellwood: My Friend is absolutely right. We do not want to repeat this cycle. In six years, we have been round this buoy three times. A different mood is developing. We are picking up the agenda that was arrived at in April with John Kerry. As I mentioned, we had a successful donor conference in Cairo, and there is growing pressure on Israel to come to the table, but also on the Palestinian Authority to show proper leadership in Gaza, and that was reflected in its cabinet meeting there two weeks ago.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): Will the Government condemn in the strongest terms the current efforts by the Israeli Government and settler movements to divide the area of al-Aqsa mosque, one of the holiest places in the whole of the Muslim religion? Does the Foreign Secretary concur with the US State Department’s statement last week that Israel is poisoning the atmosphere and making support difficult, even from its closest allies?
Mr Philip Hammond: I share his concern. Anything that makes it more difficult to reach a peace settlement is extremely unhelpful and we condemn it. We want both sides to work for a sustainable peace. I think that the degree of frustration now being experienced, even among Israel’s closest friends, is expressed by the response he referred to from the United States, hitherto often seen as an uncritical supporter of Israeli actions.
MPs who voted for the motion to recognise Palestine are shown in blue, those who did not vote are shown in brown and ministers who were not allowed to vote in black.

Settlement-building ‘intended to undermine peace’ – Hammond

Settlements ‘can be demolished’

Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond has finallly said what no government minister has dared say before – that Israel’s settlement-building programme is not only undermining the peace process but “is intended to undermine the prospects of the peace process”.

This strips away the pretence that the Government believes Israeli prenier Benyamin Netanyahu is sincere when he says he supports the two-state solution and wants peace.

If building settlements is intended to undermine the peace process – and Netanyahu has approved three new settlement expansions in East Jerusalem since the end of the 50-day War in August – then it is clear that Netanyahu does not prioritise peace.

In an unexpected intervention during Foreign Office questions Mr Hammond said new settlement building “will not be allowed to define” the final border between Israel and Palestine and pointed out that buildings “can .. be demolished” if they are on the wrong side of the line.

He adopted a stronger tone than his junior minister Tobias Ellwood who earlier tried to downplay the issue, saying merely that the Government “discourages” further settlement building because it “makes it more difficult for Israel’s friends to defend it” and added that “we do not want people to be distracted by the settlements.”

Labour MP Huw Irranca-Davies asked the junior minister to reconsider his comment that settlement-building was “a distraction” and Liberal Democrat MP David Ward asked him how many illegal settlements would have to be built before the Government took action.

At that point the Foreign Secretary intervened to say that he knew exactly what his junior minister had been trying to say earlier on. “The settlements are illegal and building them is intended to undermine the prospects of the peace process. We must not allow that to happen.

“These are buildings; buildings can be transferred and demolished. Where these buildings are built must not be allowed to define where the final settlement line can go. We must be very clear about that.”

Even after this intervention Mr Ellwood insisted that: “We do not want the settlement issue to hog the wicket here. We need to focus on the humanitarian efforts. We do not want to be distracted by the settlement issue.”

He preferred to dwell on the reconstruction conference in Cairo, which he had attended, and the £20 million the UK had pledged to help kick-start Gaza’s recovery after the 50-day War.

But Mr Hammond’s plain speaking puts the settlement issue back at the heart of the dispute between the UK and Israel – and also questions the integrity of the Israeli prime minister.

This parallels the line taken by the US State Department who recently refused to meet the notoriously hawkish Israeli defence minister while he was in Washington and have repeatedly condemned the latest settlement-building announcements. State department spokeswoman Jen Psaki has not ruled out countermeasures.

The Government issued revised guidance last December that they would “no longer encourage or support” UK businesses trading with illegal Israeli settlements, but the Foreign Secretary’s comments suggest that tougher measures may finally be on the way.

They are unlikely to go far enough for former Conservative aid minister Sir Alan Duncan who suggested last week that British politicians should treat any Israeli MP who supports settlements – which is practically all of them – as an extremist.

“Anyone who supports illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land is an extremist who puts themself outside the boundaries of democratic standards.  They are not fit to stand for election or sit in a democratic parliament and they should be condemned outright by the international community and treated accordingly.”

Nothing changes, but everything changes after recognition vote

recognisepalestine

MPs voted in favour of the UK recognising Palestine by an unexpectedly large majority of 262 after a five-hour Commons debate called by Easington MP Grahame Morris. Commentators were quick to dismiss it as “merely an expression of Parliament’s view” that will not commit the Government because it was “only” a backbench debate.

But although the vote is not binding on the Government, it is clear that MPs have changed their views and it is only a matter of time before the Government will have to change its policies. And, although recognition is a minor issue and will not directly affect the lives of Palestinians, there is a good chance that this decisive vote will lead to stronger steps that will begin to put real pressure on the Israelis. The 274-12 vote came about because of a deep underlying shift in MPs’ attitudes to Israel, caused by their shock at the brutality of the Gaza war and their huge postbags of letters from constituents demanding action.

It emerges from the vote that:

  • Half the MPs listed as supporters of Labour Friends of Israel voted in favour of recognising Palestine despite last-minute pleas from senior Israeli politicians to vote against.
  • 40 Conservative MPs – including some members of Conservative Friends of Israel – backed the recognition motion and the Conservative Home website reported that ‘support for Israel is slipping away’.

Ed Miliband put a ‘one-line whip’ on the vote – meaning that MPs could either vote for the motion or abstain – but 80% of his MPs and 21 of 26 members of his Shadow Cabinet voted for the motion. MPs received a huge number of emails – 57,808 through the Palestine Solidarity Campaign website alone – from their own constituents urging them to attend the debate and vote for recognition. This represents a sea-change in both parties.

Conservative Friends of Israel, who are strongly opposed to the recognition of Palestine, claim to have 80% of Tory MPs on their books (242 of 303), but in the event only six Conservatives voted against. Part of the reason may have been that CFI, realising they were going to lose, encouraged their supporters to stay away from the vote – in the hope that the motion would be approved without a physical division where MPs are counted through the voting lobbies. That would mean that the motion would be declared ‘carried’ but no one would know exactly how many or which MPs had voted for or against the motion.

This plot was foiled by two MP who supported recognition but shouted ‘no’ when the Speaker called for ‘ayes’ and ‘noes’ and acted as tellers for the ‘noes’ – without which the Speaker would have been obliged to call off the division. Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn rose on a point of order after the division to explain that he and Batley & Spen MP Mike Wood volunteered as tellers “to ensure that democracy could take place and that Members could record their vote, because those who were opposed to the motion declined to put up tellers”.

If the two ‘no’ tellers are included there were 195 Labour MPs voting for recognition – more than twice the current total of MPs who support Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East. While it has been Labour Party policy since 2011 to support the recognition of Palestine, first by the UN and now by the UK, there was no obligation on MPs to turn up for a backbench debate and the numbers were another indication of the rapid fall-off in uncritical support for Israel on the Labour benches. Coalition ministers were told to abstain, but Conservative and Liberal-Democrat MPs were free to vote as they liked.

Although only 40 Conservatives voted for the motion, this was a big increase from the 10 or 15 known to support the Palestinian case in the past.

The real surprise was the number of Conservatives who abstained because they were disillusioned by recent actions of the Israeli government. Typical was the distinguished chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee Sir Richard Ottaway who told the Commons that he had stood by Israel through thick and thin for 20 years but was outraged by the recent Israei annexation of Palestinian land and “such is my anger over Israel’s behaviour in recent months that I will not oppose the motion”.

It was the highest ever attendance at a backbench debate (other than the European referendum debate which was whipped) and out of a total of 43 speeches, only six were from opponents of recognition, with the result that Conservative MPs who have previously been reluctant to express their support for the Palestinian case spoke with passion and eloquence, as though a gag had been removed.

In the event there were 195 Labour MPs supporting the motion, 40 Conservatives, 28 Liberal Democrats, nine Scottish and Welsh nationalists and four Northern Irish (2 SDLP, 1 Independent, 1 Alliance). The noes were six Conservatives, five Ulster Unionists and one Liberal Democrat. Other than the 140 MPs on the “payroll” vote of ministers and ministerial aides who are expected to abstain in backbench debates, the number of MPs who abstained or were absent was 220.  Even if they had all voted ‘no’ (and a number have said they would have voted ‘yes’ but could not be there) opponents of recognition would still have had only 232 votes against the 278 votes in favour of recognition.

Baroness Warsi, who resigned from the Government in August in protest at the strongly pro-Israeli policy, said at the time that many of her ministerial colleagues and most of the officials in the Foreign Office agreed with her, but policy came from a small group at the top. There was a natural majority not only in the country, but also in Parliament and in the Foreign Office for the recognition of Palestine, but “you’ve a small group of politicians who are keeping a close grip on this and who are not allowing public opinion, ministerial views, parliamentary views and the views of the people who work in this system.”

Call it what it is – theft, apartheid, extremism 

We should not use euphemisms to describe what is happening in Palestine. We should use words like ‘theft’, ‘apartheid’, ‘criminal’, ‘extremist’. That’s the view expressed by Conservative MP and former minister Sir Alan Duncan in a speech to the Royal United Services Institute on Tuesday 14 October 2014.

“Illegal construction and habitation is theft, it is annexation, it is a land grab – it is any expression that accurately describes the encroachment which takes from someone else something that is not rightfully owned by the taker. As such, it should be called what it is, and not by some euphemistic soft alternative.

“Settlements are illegal colonies built in someone else’s country. They are an act of theft, and what is more something which is both initiated and supported by the state of Israel.

“It is no exaggeration to say that many settlers are state-supported militia, defying international law, driving out the rightful inhabitants from their land, and creating an illegal economy at the expense of those who have been cruelly displaced.

“No settlement endorser should be considered fit to stand for election, remain a member of a mainstream political party, or sit in a Parliament. How can we accept lawmakers in our country, or any country, when they support lawbreakers in another?  They are extremists, and they should be treated as such.”

Read more>

Cameron rejects Commons’ vote

David Cameron lost little time in pouring cold water on Monday’s vote in the Commons, telling Liberal Democrat MP David Ward during Prime Minister’s questions, that Palestine will not be recognised until “negotiations that bring about a two-state solution”.

This is precisely what the House of Commons rejected by voting by 274-12 on Monday that Britain should recognise Palestine without any preconditions and without waiting for peace talks – because, as Grahame Morris said in his introduction, there were no peace talks and no prospect of peace talks, so this would give the Israelis a veto on UK policy and recognition should be a matter for the UK alone.

Negotiations broke up on April 29th after nine months of fruitless of talks when the Israelis announcement yet another illegal settlement in Palestinian East Jerusalem and there is no likelihood of talks restarting at any point in the near future.

David Ward (Bradford East) (LD):

The Palestinian ambassador, Mr Hassassian, has described Monday’s vote on the recognition of the Palestinian state as “a momentous vote”. Indeed it was. He has also said:“Now is the time for the UK government to listen to its democratically elected parliament and to take decisive political action by recognising the State of Palestine and upholding its historical, moral and legal responsibility towards Palestine”.Does the Prime Minister agree?

The Prime Minister:

Of course, I look forward to the day when Britain will recognise the state of Palestine, but it should be part of the negotiations that bring about a two-state solution. That is what we all want to see—a state of Israel living happily and peacefully alongside a state of Palestine—and that is when we should do the recognition.

Although the parliamentary motion is not binding on government, the hope is that it will encourage other European countries to announce recognition of Palestine – France and Ireland are known to be considering it – to create a bandwaggon effect after the announcement by the new Swedish government earlier this month that they will recognise Palestine.

Already 135 countries (out of 193) recognise Palestine, including many EU states, and the main exceptions are the major West European and North American countries.  Even without the support of the British government, the British Parliament may inspire other countries to follow suit.

But the more important effect of Monday’s vote is that many MPs have voted in support of Palestine for the first time and this may embolden them to go on to give their support to the Palestinians on other issues, such as discouraging or banning trade with the illegal settlement or putting economic pressure on Israel to stop building more settlements.

For Palestinians recognition will make no visible difference – except that a small well-fortified building in East Jerusalem will take down a sign saying “British Consulate-General” and put up a new sign saying “British Embassy to Palestine”.

For the first time the House of Commons has demonstrated its support for the Palestinians’ case and the Palestinians’ hope – and the Israelis’ fear – will be that they will do so again on an issue which will have more than a symbolic effect on the long-running conflict.