BARONESS WARSI ON BBC Today Saturday August 9th on why she resigned:

I HOPE MY RESIGNATION BRINGS TOGETHER A
BROAD COALITION OF SUPPORT TO START
TACKLING THE ISSUES THAT I RESIGNED FOR

“There was no clear language from the government in relation to the condemnation of what had happened. There was no clear commitment that we would lead the international effort on accountability on both sides for what had happened over the weeks before.

“I think it was the lack of support for international justice and accountability for the crimes that have been committed on both sides. I’ve been very clear that those who are alleged to have committed war crimes should be held accountable on both sides because that is the only way that you will start to tackle the culture of impunity.

“It cannot be right that we find ourselves every two or three years with a conflict like this were innocent people lose their lives children lose their lives and then we go back to business as usual.

“This crisis is not a crisis between two religions. It has therefore got nothing to do with whether someone is a Christian or a Muslim or indeed Jewish. I have a very long and proud history of speaking out on the issue of anti-semitism against the persecution of Christians worldwide. I led the government effort on freedom of religion and belief.

“Hamas is a terrorist organisation and I have no doubt that they have in no way acted in the best interest of the Palestinian people. But I also made it clear that Israel as an occupying power has a responsibility not just to the Israelis but also to the people that it occupies.

“I have always believed in the right of Israel to exist, not just exist but to exist in a secure way, but I do not believe that the actions that Israel has taken in the last few weeks are either in Israel’s interest. I do not believe that they in the interests of long-term secure stability or security for Israel and I do not believe that this was the way in which Israelis needed to conduct themselves to be able to achieve their ends.

“Our policy is morally unjustifiable. We need to be much more front-footed in dealing with the sending of arms into the region. We need to suspend all arms export licenses immediately. We need to work with countries that have influence with those countries who supply arms into Gaza and to Hamas to also step up their efforts to ensure that we stop weapons getting into an area where children are being killed.

“My departure clearly says that the Government’s policy on Gaza is morally indefensible. My departure clearly says that it is a policy that I could no longer support and put my name to. Long after politics has come and gone I want to be able to live with myself and by resigning and stepping down I can live with myself.

“I hope that my resignation, if it does anything in any political party or indeed people who are not involved in politics, I hope what it does is it brings together the support of a broad coalition to start tackling the issues that I resigned for.

“While we are still turning on our television screens and seeing innocent people being killed, what we need to do right now is to put all our efforts into making sure that we move the Government’s position, that they suspend the arms export licenses immediately that they start to lead the international effort on accountability on both sides and that they move towards a Middle East policy which is in the long term sustainable. There is no point in us talking about a two-state solution if we don’t do the simple things like recognising Palestine in the way the majority of the world has at the United Nations.

“I will now continue the work in relation to finding a way forward through this crisis and do what I can to support the broad coalition of support that there is out there both in politics and outside.”

Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Hugh Robertson:  There is no reason, belief or cause that can justify the abduction and killing of innocent civilians. We send our deepest condolences to the families of Gilad Shaar, Naftali Frenkel and Eyal Yifrach.

I welcome President Abbas’s condemnations of the abduction. We are encouraging Israel and the Palestinian Authority to continue to work together to find the perpetrators. It is also vital that all parties avoid action that could escalate the situation further. All security operations must be handled with due care, restraint and a proportionate use of force.

It is too early to be clear about the full implications for the Middle East peace process, but we will do our utmost, with our allies and partners, to keep open the prospects for a return to negotiations on a two-state solution.

Peter Bone (Con): May I press my Friend on a few issues? It is true, I believe, that overseas aid to the Palestinian Authority has been used to provide salaries for the families of convicted Palestinian terrorists. Given the propaganda celebrating the abduction of the Israeli teenagers, should we review that? Will the Government support the Israeli Government not only in their actions to track down the perpetrators of this evil crime, but in dismantling the infrastructure of the Hamas organisation?

Does my Friend share my concern that part of the Palestinian Fatah-Hamas unity Government is a terrorist organisation that carries out such dreadful crimes? It seems completely illogical that it can be thought of as part of a democratic process.

Hugh Robertson: On the question of salaries this is not true; it is an old rumour. The money is paid through a World Bank trust fund to vetted people, who are nominated civil servants. 

As for the actions of the Israeli Government, it is crucial that any actions that the Israeli Government take are precisely targeted to find the perpetrators and that, in doing that, they avoid a more general escalation.

On the question of Fatah and Hamas, the technocratic Government are signed up to the Quartet principles. If anybody in that Government were an active member of Hamas, which remains a terrorist organisation, that would absolutely be the end of this Government’s dealing with them.

As to the effect on the peace process, it is an absolutely pivotal part of British Government policy at the moment to try to create the conditions under which the peace process can be restarted. If this situation goes on, with further settlement building on the one hand and applications to international organisations on the other, there will not be another chance.

Ian Lucas (Lab): I hope the Minister will assure us that the British Government will now seek to work with international allies to call for calm, to encourage dialogue and work towards peace.

Hugh Robertson: We absolutely agree with him that this is a moment for exercising maximum restraint.

As for who is responsible, it is too early to say. The Israeli Government are very clear about the fact that Hamas was responsible. When I was in Israel 10 days ago, there was some indication on the Palestinian side that that might be correct, but we have no hard evidence in London to back that up.

Sir Gerald Kaufman (Lab): I commend the Minister for his balanced response. May I ask him to send the heartfelt sympathy of, I am sure, every Member in the House—very much including myself—to the grief-stricken families of these abducted and murdered youths? What has been done to them has no conceivable justification of any kind.

Will the Minister also send our sympathy to the families of the five Palestinians whom Israeli troops murdered during their search for the missing youths in a collective punishment which has involved hundreds of arrests and the looting and ransacking of houses? Nothing whatsoever can justify the murder of these Israeli youths, but it is very important indeed to see it in the context of a conflict that will go on until there is a fair settlement.

Hugh Robertson: It has often struck me, in the context of the Middle East, that there cannot really be a hierarchy of victimhood, and our sympathy must be with all who have lost their lives.

Mrs Louise Ellman (Lab/Co-op):  What does the Minister think should be done to address the unremitting messages of hate that come from Palestinian media? They are partly responsible for this situation and are a grave impediment to peace.

Hugh Robertson: I was a soldier for 10 years, and took part in campaigns against terrorism, and when we lose people—civilians or soldiers—in these situations, that is precisely the time when we need to show leadership and show restraint. Absolutely all efforts should be directed at finding the perpetrators but it is very important that all those actions are directed at doing that, and nothing wider.

Richard Burden (Lab): It was an appalling crime and it is a tragedy for their families and friends. Does the Minister agree that Palestinian teenagers and children who also die, in Israeli strikes and military operations, have names, faces and families, for whom their deaths are equal tragedies? Will he say to the House, in the appalling situation we are in at the moment, what he thinks are the responsibilities under international law of the Palestinian Authority and what are the responsibilities of the Israeli Government as an occupying power in the West Bank, and will he confirm that collective punishment of the Palestinian people is a crime under international law?

Hugh Robertson: The role of the technocratic Government is very clear. These youths were not abducted in an area that is inside their security control, but it is perfectly possible—but not yet confirmed—that the perpetrators of this crime did come from an area that was controlled by them. It is absolutely their job and responsibility to co-operate with the Israeli Government in bringing the perpetrators to justice, and it is absolutely the responsibility of the Israeli Government to ensure the action they take is precisely targeted at the perpetrators and no wider.

Robert Halfon (Con): Hamas is Hamas is Hamas: it is a terrorist organisation whether it is part of the so-called unity Government or not, and Hamas has celebrated the kidnapping of these children and their murder. Surely it is now time to cut off relations with the Government given that they are co-opted with a terrorist organisation. Does my Friend agree that, far from showing restraint, the British Government should give Israel every possible assistance to take out the Hamas terrorist network.

Hugh Robertson: Hamas is a terrorist organisation and remains a terrorist organisation, and one that is proscribed by the British Government. The key thing about the technocratic Government was that they signed up to the Quartet principles and renounced violence and no member of Hamas is a member of that Government.

Crispin Blunt (Con): The anger and outrage of the people of Israel at the appalling murder of these three teenagers are wholly understandable and shared here because of our special links to Israel, but equally understandable are the anger and outrage of Palestinians at the death of 1,406 children in the conflict since 2000, including 270 in Gaza under air and ground attack in 2009 alone. Would adding to this awful toll by the threatened Israeli reaction be either legal or wise?

Hugh Robertson: The death toll on both sides throughout this conflict is appalling. This is merely the latest in a long line of incidents that has tried to derail the peace process, and it proves once and for all that there is no future in violence.

Andy Slaughter (Lab): Does the Minister agree that we should send our condolences to Israeli and Palestinian dead and their families—and we should stress to all sides that retaliation and escalation are not the way forward?

Hugh Robertson: It is crucial that any reaction is targeted very precisely at the perpetrators, and further bloodshed is not the way to resolve this situation.

Michael McCann (Lab): I disagree profoundly with the Minister’s statement on DFID funding to the Palestinian Authority. We do provide funding to the PA and it is absurd to suggest that that money can be ring-fenced; the Palestinian Finance Minister confirmed to me that they do pay Palestinian prisoners in jail, depending on how long their sentences are.

Hugh Robertson: I have followed the progress of the International Development Committee carefully across the region. I have not yet seen the report, but, clearly, if the Committee has evidence to support the allegations the Member has made, that would be a very serious matter.

Mark Durkan (SDLP): Does the Minister recognise that in any conflict there comes a point where both sides have to recognise that they cannot be secure against each other and that they can be truly secure only with each other?

Hugh Robertson: It has often struck me when dealing with the politics of this region—this is not something that is confined to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories—that it is always easier for people to return to violence than it is to make the difficult compromises and decisions necessary to move the peace process forward.

Mike Freer (Con): Many of my constituents will be disappointed to hear from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the rather well used and tired phrase “proportionate response”. Perhaps the Minister, who I know is a decent man, could advise me on what I say to my constituents about what the FCO regards as a proportionate response to three teenagers being murdered and missiles being fired at Israel on a daily basis.

Hugh Robertson: The correct response to the kidnapping and murder of three teenagers is to find the perpetrators and to bring them to justice. We expect exactly the same response in that part of the world as we would find here—no more and no less.

Philip Hollobone (Con): These murders take place against the background of the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners by the Israelis as a signal of good intent for the peace process, and of a constant stream of hate and abuse from state-sponsored TV and media in the Palestinian Authority. Surely this House and The Government need to make it clear to the Palestinian Authority that this background of hate and contempt for Israel must stop if we are to have a meaningful peace process.

Hugh Robertson: As I have already said, I did not realise that there was any truth in these allegations. I have been specifically reassured that there is not. If the International Development Committee has evidence that that is not the case, we will be keen to see it.

Mark Harper (Con): If it turns out that there is persuasive evidence that Hamas was indeed behind these evil murders, will the Minister return to the Dispatch Box to set out what implications that has for the British Government’s recognition of that Palestinian unity Government?

Hugh Robertson: The Israelis are very clear about who they think is responsible. The Palestinian Authority have indicated that that view may be sensible. We need to find out who the perpetrators were, and then we need to find out what, if any, association they may have with the technocratic Government. At the moment, the technocratic Government are absolutely clear that they are fully signed up to the Quartet principles and that they are a non-violent Government and have no contact with Hamas. Indeed, talking to members of Fatah, it is clear that their relationship with Hamas has been desperate. They hate Hamas and regard it as being responsible for the splits that have occurred, so there is some small reason for hope.

David Burrowes (Con): When Hamas and terrorists are throwing rockets over the border and on to innocent civilians and when Hamas itself sees Israeli teenagers as legitimate targets for terrorist attacks, how can we draw any equivalence when it comes to the response?

Hugh Robertson: The correct response as regards the war on terror, which we have faced in this country for many years through the threat from Irish republicans, is to target what we do very precisely, to avoid escalation and to abide by the rule of law. That is precisely how we relieve the underlying causes of conflict. If one goes further than that, the lessons of history show that that inevitably stokes the conflict and makes things worse.

This is a link to some related web page……

Roger Godsiff MP: What representations has Foreign Secretary made to his Israeli counterpart on the recent destruction of fruit trees at the Tent of Nations farm?

Lord Judd: What representations have HMG made to G4S about the legal implications of its remaining involvement with the Israeli Prison Service until 2017, in the light of Article 76 of the 4th Geneva Convention and its application to the detention of Palestinians?

Baroness Tonge: What discussions have HMG had with the new President of Egypt concerning the opening of Rafah crossing to Gaza, in order to facilitate travel and the transfer of medical supplies?

Baroness Tonge: What is HMG’s most recent assessment of the level of medical supplies in Gazan hospitals? Baroness Northover: (extract) “The World Health Organisation (WHO) has estimated that in Gaza at 29% of drugs are at zero stock (less than 1 month’s supply).”

Baroness Tonge: What discussions have the Government held with their European partners with regard to listing Israeli settler groups such as Hilltop Youth as terrorist groups, following the US State Department’s description of recent settler acts of violence as terrorist incidents?

Baroness Tonge: What action do HMG plan to take to promote the education of UK citizens about the events of 1948 in Palestine?

Lord Hylton: What representations have the Government made to the government of Israel about its holding children detained in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in immediate solitary confinement; whether they have any plans to work within the European Union to end the practice; whether they know when the proposed system of summons will start; and whether they will take steps to ensure access by parents to their children in custody?

Baroness Warsi: The system of summons started in February 2014. It has already shown initial success in decreasing the number of children arrested at night. We intend to carry out further analysis on this system over the coming months. As a recent progress report by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) indicates, Israel has taken some positive steps towards addressing the recommendations in UNICEF’s Children in Israeli Military Detention report. These include: the introduction of legal obligations to inform the child’s parents of an arrest and grant them legal status to be represented in court, as well as to notify minors of their legal rights; and standard operating procedures on methods of restraint. The Government will continue to work, both through bilateral engagement and through the EU, to encourage Israel to take further positive steps.

Baroness Tonge: What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office-sponsored report, Children in Military Custody, on Israeli interrogation methods of Palestinian children; and what follow-up to the report they intend to undertake.

Baroness Warsi: The Minister wrote to the Israeli Attorney General on 31 March 2014 to welcome the steps taken to date and to call for further measures, including the mandatory use of audio-visual recording of interrogations, investigation into continued reports of single hand ties being used, and an end to solitary confinement for children. These were key UK recommendations at Israel’s Universal Periodic Review session at the UN Human Rights Council on 29 October 2013.

A progress report published in October 2013 by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) indicates that Israel has taken some positive steps towards addressing the recommendations in the report. These include: the introduction of legal obligations to inform the child’s parents of an arrest and grant them legal status to be represented in court, as well as to notify minors of their legal rights; and standard operating procedures on methods of restraint. The Israeli military are also piloting a new procedure across the West Bank, whereby children are issued a summons to attend a police station in the morning, rather than being arrested at night, in their homes. The UK believes that the report “Children in Military Custody” has helped contribute to these changes in practice.

EDM 183 – PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL

Tabled by Sir Bob Russell MP

“That this House congratulates the Presbyterian Church of the United States on its vote to divest from Hewlett-Packard, Motorola Solutions and Caterpillar, all companies with well-documented ties to the Israeli illegal occupation of the West Bank in defiance of international law, the Geneva Convention and UN resolutions; notes that this is the biggest move yet by any institution in the US to take non-violent action to end Israel’s occupation; and calls on the Government to urge British companies with interests in the West Bank, such as G4S, to terminate their involvement which supports the illegal occupation.” http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2014-15/183

Foreign Secretary criticised  for ‘softly-softly’ approach

Is this the right time for action? No, says Hague

Talks ‘paused’, not failed

Having pinned his entire strategy on US-sponsored peace talks for the last four years, and having seen them end in abject failure, the Foreign Secretary stood at the despatch box like a man in total denial – the talks were only ‘paused’, there was no need to do anything except sit and hope ‘to see them revived’.

When Labour MP Ben Bradshaw put it to him that the Israelis had deliberately scuppered the talks with a surge in settlement building and asked “is now not the time for a recalibration of our policy towards Israel, beginning with the illegal settlements?“, Wiliam Hague’s answer put paid to any hopes of a more robust policy or of a UK-led initiative.

“Is the time right now for such a recalibration? I think the honest answer to that is ‘no’…. Secretary Kerry has said that there is a pause in the negotiations; we would like to see them revived. I think everything we do has to be consistent with supporting that.”

Liberal Democrat MP David Ward said if the talks were ‘paused’, there was certainly no pause in Israel’s expansion of illegal settlements which had continued apace throughout the negotiations:

“What is the point of something being illegal under international law if the international community is not willing to deal with the criminal breaking the law? Is not this softly-softly approach towards Israel failing to bring about peace and justice for the Palestinians?”

The Foreign Secretary affected not to notice when one of his own senior backbenchers tossed him a well-crafted question pointing to the double standards at the heart of Britain’s policy towards Israel and Palestine.

Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire): “The Foreign Secretary has said that the UK’s continuing support for the new Palestinian government depends on its commitment to the principles of non-violence and accepting Israel’s legitimate right to exist. Does the UK’s continuing support for Israel also rest on a commitment to non-violence and the Palestinians’ right to a home of their own?”

William Hague was obviously unprepared for this shaft of sunlight on an embarrassing inconsistency in his foreign policy and decided that the best policy was to give the question what his predecessor George Brown once called ‘a total ignoral’:

“We have in this country,” he intoned, “a long-standing recognition of Israel and support for Israel’s right to exist.” 

What he was ignoring was the debate within the  Foreign Office over the best way to revive the peace talks.  Is it just to sit and wait? Or is it to exert gentle economic pressure on the Israelis – for instance, by discouraging UK firms from trading with illegal settlements in the West Bank?

The Foreign Secretary has recently taken the first small step in the latter direction by issuing business guidance on the Government website. It was never announced and this was the first time Mr Hague had referred to the new policy, though he presented it as ‘long-standing’ when it actually dates from December 3:

“The UK’s position on this is long-standing: settlements are illegal—we neither support nor encourage trade, we make clear the risks to business.”

However small, this was significant because it was the first time that the Foreign Secretary has taken action on the settlements, as opposed to verbal protests which he makes regularly and repeated at question time:

“I deplore the recent decisions taken by the Israeli authorities to expand the number of illegal settlements.”

“We are very clear about where we stand on settlements.” 

“We have made our views about recent settlements announcements abundantly clear.”

He was also asked by Conservative MP Rob Wilson and Labour MP Grahame Morris what steps he was taking to ensure that residents of East Jerusalem are permitted to vote in the Palestinian elections – despite threats to stop them from Israel’s prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu.

“It will be of paramount importance that those elections, which are scheduled to take place within six months of the formation of the new government, are free and democratic and that Palestinians throughout the occupied territories are able to take part in them. We will of course make representations to the Israelis and to the Palestinians about that.”

Grahame Morris and SDLP MP Mark Durkan also pressed the Foreign Secretary to protest about the Israeli refusal to allow ministers in the new technocratic government from travelling from Gaza to the West Bank, forcing the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to conduct the swearing-in ceremony earlier this month by video-link.

Netanyahu has also arrested and jailed 24 members of the present Palestinian parliament – mainly without charge or trial – making it impossible for them to meet or function or even vote to approve the new government and the holding of elections.

The Foreign Secretary agreed with Mark Durkan that it was important to lift travel restrictions on Palestinian ministers so that the new government is able to function.

Questions to Foreign Secretary

Tuesday June 17th

Middle East

3. Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con):What discussions he has had with the Israeli Government on the new Palestinian Government.[904245]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague):The Minister for the Middle East last discussed the matter with Israel’s chief negotiator on the Middle East peace process, Tzipi Livni, on 12 June. We have been clear that reuniting Gaza and the west bank under a Government committed to peace is a necessary condition for resolving the conflict.

Andrew Selous:The Foreign Secretary has said that the United Kingdom’s continued support for the new Palestinian Government depends on their commitment to the principle of non-violence and acceptance of Israel’s legitimate right to exist. Does the UK’s continuing support for Israel also rest on the commitment to non-violence and the Palestinians’ right to a home of their own?

Mr Hague:We have in this country a long-standing recognition of Israel and support for its right to exist is evident in this country, but we want to see all sides in the Middle East come together to agree a two-state solution that brings lasting security and peace to Israel and a sovereign, viable state for Palestinians. We will continue to press both sides to resume the negotiations, which are going through a pause at the moment, because time is running out to bring about that solution.

Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): Does the Foreign Secretary believe that Hamas can currently be peace negotiators when only a month ago its Prime Minister called for the bombing of Tel Aviv?

Mr Hague: Of course, our policy on Hamas is what it has been for a long time. We look to Hamas to renounce violence, to recognise Israel and to accept previously signed agreements. We call on all those in the region with influence over Hamas to encourage it to take these steps. It has not done so; it should do so. The new Government of the Palestinian Authority do not contain Hamas members. They have signed up to the Quartet principles, which we welcome.

Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con): The all-party group on Egypt was in Cairo over the weekend. We heard from the Foreign Minister the reassurance of Egypt maintaining its support for the long-standing peace agreement with Israel. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that that is an essential pillar for going forward? Does he also agree with the view that, with all that is going on in the region, both the Israelis and the Palestinians would be unwise to miss the opportunity they have now? Unless they seek a proper negotiation and solution, the outlook for both is bleak if we cannot rekindle the Middle East peace process.

Mr Hague: My friend is absolutely right. As I said a moment ago, time is running out. Secretary Kerry, through his tireless work in the past year and a half, has created an opportunity for Israelis and Palestinians to succeed in negotiations on final status issues and on arriving at a two-state solution. Unless that opportunity, which is still open, is seized by both sides, the outlook will be very, very bleak within the next few years.

Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): Will the Foreign Secretary elaborate on discussions he has had with the Israeli Government on the kidnapping of Israeli civilians?

Mr Hague: We deplore the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers. I discussed this on Sunday with the Israeli security Minister, Mr Steinitz. I will be talking to the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr Lieberman, later today. We again appeal for the safe return of the three teenagers.

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): I welcome the EU Foreign Minister’s statement, which condemned all extremism and all violence against civilians but welcomed Palestinian reconciliation. Is there any way in which the considerable economic ties between the EU and both Palestine and Israel can be used to encourage both parties back to the negotiating table?

Mr Hague: For Israelis and Palestinians, the outlook for economic ties with the whole of the European Union would be very bright indeed if a two-state solution could be agreed. We have been clear that an unprecedented offer of close economic ties is available for Israelis and Palestinians. That is part of the great prize of settling these issues and a further incentive to do so. Illegal Settlements: West Bank

Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): What his policy is on trade with illegal settlements in the West Bank.[904253]

William Hague: I deplore the recent decisions taken by the Israeli authorities to expand the number of illegal settlements. The UK’s position on this is long standing: settlements are illegal—we neither support nor encourage trade, we make clear the risks to business, and we ensure all consumers can make their own choice through the labelling of goods.

Mr Bradshaw: In February, the Foreign Secretary said that the recent talks were the last chance for a two-state solution. Given the Netanyahu Government’s relentless expansion of the illegal settlements, which scuppered those talks, and the warning from Senator Kerry that Israel risks becoming an apartheid state, is now not the time for a recalibration of our policy towards Israel, beginning with the illegal settlements?

Mr Hague: As the Member knows and as I have just said, we are very clear about where we stand on settlements. But is the time right now for such a recalibration? I think the honest answer to that is no, because our efforts are geared towards a resumption of negotiations if it is at all possible. Secretary Kerry has said that there is a pause in the negotiations; we would like to see them revived. I think everything we do has to be consistent with supporting that, but we have made our views about recent settlements announcements abundantly clear.

Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of how we can change the situation whereby Palestinian Arabs living in the west bank continue to be tried under martial law in the Ofer military court, whereas Israelis living there are subject to civil law?

Mr Hague: Of course, this is a further continuing difficulty and it reinforces the case for these issues to be fully resolved, and for a final status settlement of these issues that brings about a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians. Otherwise, there will constantly be the great variety of extremely troubling issues that are raised in this House.

Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab): Is not Britain’s role to get Israelis and Palestinians who believe in peace and a two-state solution working together and trading with each other, instead of campaigning for boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions, which just drive people further apart? The Palestinians working at SodaStream are paid three times more than the average Palestinian, so boycotting such companies would actually hurt the very people they claim to be trying to help.

Mr Hague:As the Member knows, we do not encourage boycotts in any way. The British Government do not support boycotts or a de-legitimisation of Israel, but we do support, as did the last Government, labelling of products from illegal settlements in the west bank, and I think that is the right thing to do. But the Member is quite right that our emphasis is on bringing Israelis and Palestinians together, and this is a more important time than ever to try to do that.

Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD):It is certainly urgent. Does the Foreign Secretary believe that the public can have confidence in the labelling of goods from illegal settlements, or can the supply chain be sufficiently complex to ensure that the public do not have the information they may seek?

Mr Hague: The evidence I have seen is that the guidelines on this are well observed, and work is going on on EU-wide guidelines. But of course, where there are serious problems with them, if my Friend or others would like to bring that to our attention, I will investigate.25.[904267]

Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab): Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, to achieve a democratic solution, residents of East Jerusalem must be permitted to vote in the Palestinian elections—and that includes releasing Palestinian MPs who are held in administrative detention, and the free passage of movement?

Mr Hague: It is very important that Palestinians are able to vote freely in the elections, which are envisaged within six months, for the new technocratic Government being created. Of course, we will make that point to the Israelis and to the Palestinians themselves. Middle East 17.[904259]

Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con):  It was good to hear the Foreign Secretary condemn the abduction of three Israelis. Unfortunately though, Hamas, which is now part of the unity Government, declared the abduction to be a success. Will he further condemn the Hamas Prime Minister who, in April 2014, said:“Abducting Israeli soldiers is a top priority on the agenda of Hamas and Palestinian resistance.”We will not get peace with a unity Government who include people with such views.

Mr Hague: Let me say again that the new Government of the Palestinian Authority contain no Hamas members and have signed up to the Quartet principles, but I absolutely condemn any encouragement to foment further tensions, including the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers. That is exactly the sort of thing that obstructs a successful peace process and is presumably designed to do so. It is important that Hamas or anyone else desists from it.

Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Last year, the Palestinian Authority paid more than £60 million to Palestinians convicted of terror offences. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of that policy of financially rewarding terrorism? Is he aware of recent reports that the Palestine Liberation Organisation has been mandated by the Palestinian Authority to continue that awful practice on its behalf?

Mr Hague: The Palestinian Authority is working very hard, as we want it to do, in its new incarnation and with its new members. It is committed to the Quartet principle of bringing about a lasting and peaceful two-state solution with Israel, and we look to it to do that. We expect all its actions to be consistent with doing that. We give considerable financial aid to the Palestinian Authority, and I know that the Department for International Development takes great care over the allocation and use of that aid. Topical questions

Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con): What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that the upcoming Palestinian elections in places such as East Jerusalem will be free and democratic?

Mr Hague: As I mentioned earlier, it will be of paramount importance that those elections, which are scheduled to take place within six months of the formation of the new Government, are free and democratic and that Palestinians throughout the occupied territories are able to take part in them. We will of course make representations to the Israelis and to the Palestinians about that.

Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD): The Foreign Secretary referred to the pause in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but there has been no pause in the expansion of what he himself has described as illegal settlements. What is the point of something being illegal under international law if the international community is not willing to deal with the criminal breaking the law? Is not this softly, softly approach towards Israel failing to bring about peace and justice for the Palestinians?

Mr Hague: No one has succeeded in bringing about lasting peace so far, but we have to continue to try to do so. The only way in which Palestinians will be able to enjoy what I think we all believe in here—a viable and sovereign state of their own—is through successful negotiations arriving at a two-state solution. All our actions are therefore consistent with promoting that.

Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP):Has the Secretary of State emphasised to the Israeli Government that travel restrictions or other constraints that would prevent Ministers in the technocratic Government from meeting will mean only that they are unable to meet their responsibilities not just to all Palestinians but to the peace process?

Mr Hague:Of course we want the technocratic Government of the Palestinian Authority to be able to function. They have committed themselves to the Quartet principles—that, to us, is a very important test—and so we want them to be able to function and to make decisions. Questions on International DevelopmentWednesday June 18th 2014

Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con): Given that the unity Government of Palestine have unequivocally endorsed the Quartet principles, will the Secretary of State confirm that she will robustly continue DFID’s financial support to them, or even increase it?

Justine Greening:We will continue to provide support to the Palestinian people. The UK has welcomed the formation of the new interim technocratic Government. We have also made it clear that our continued support for that new Government will rest on their commitment to the principles of non-violence and their acceptance of all previous agreements and obligations, including Israel’s legitimate right to exist.

Statement by Foreign Secretary William Hague on June 3rd:

“We welcome yesterday’s announcement on the formation of a new interim technocratic government for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Reuniting Gaza and the West Bank under a government committed to peace is a necessary condition for resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict. We have made clear that our continued support to the new government will rest on its commitment to the principle of non-violence, and an acceptance of all previous agreements and obligations, including Israel’s legitimate right to exist. We now look to the new government to demonstrate these commitments through its actions as well as its words.”

ON RADIO 4 FRIDAY 19 JUNE 2014 AT 9 AMKirsty Young’s castaway this week is the Palestinian author and human rights activist, Raja Shehadeh.

TUESDAY 23 JUNE Mother of one of the Hares boys Umm Fady speaking about the treatment of Palestinian teenagers at the Britain-Palestine All-Party Parliamentary Group.  Passholders only.

EDM 49: 49 MPs have signed EDM 49 on the treatment of Palestinian children: “That this House notes that Israeli forces continue to use excessive force including live ammunition and rubber coated metal bullets on unarmed protestors, including children and that 1,400 children have been killed in this way since 2000; further notes the lack of transparency in the investigation of such incidents; acknowledges the excellent work that Defence for Children International Palestine do in increasing awareness of these deaths; further notes that since January 2008, 129 children have been affected by settler violence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including four fatalities with each of the cases occurring near Palestinian neighbourhoods, villages or roads located close to Israeli settlements and the nature of the violence includes being shot at, beaten, pelted with stones and sprayed with gas; and calls on the Government to press the Israeli government to respect the right to peaceful protest and prioritise the safety of all children who come under such attack on a routine basis.”