Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to recognise
Palestine as a state.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Office () (Con) [V]
My Lords, the United Kingdom will recognise a Palestinian state
at a time when it best serves the objective of peace, as we have
stated before. We of course continue to encourage progress
towards a negotiated settlement between the parties, and my right
honourable friend the Foreign Secretary reinforced that position
during his visit to both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian
Territories from 25 to 26 May.
(LD)
My Lords, if for this Government recognition of Palestine
requires a peaceful solution, do they now accept that every
rocket fired from Gaza into Israel and every additional illegal
settlement on the West Bank undermines the government policy of a
two-state solution? Are the Government content to allow their own
policy to wither on the vine and hence provide an obstacle to the
recognition of Palestine, or are they now willing to step up to
their historical and moral obligations, not only to the Israelis
but to the Palestinians?
(Con) [V]
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we remain very much
committed to a two-state solution: a secure and safe Israel and a
safe and secure and viable Palestinian state. I am sure the noble
Lord acknowledges that bilateral recognition will not end
occupation, but we remain very much committed to engagement. That
is why my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in his
most recent visit after the current conflict—[Inaudible.]
With little prospect of negotiations resuming, will the Minister
accept that the continued settlement building programme amounts
to an incremental and de facto annexation of the West Bank? The
international community needs to promote the rights of all
Palestinians, including the Christian community. Does the
Minister agree that a strong endorsement of Palestinian
aspirations by the Government would demonstrate to the
Palestinian public the possibility of international political
process and show that Her Majesty’s Government are committed to
active peacemaking rather than merely to conflict management?
(Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree that it is important that we restate and
re-emphasise the importance of the two-state solution. On the
issue of the OPTs, we remain committed to ensuring that we lead
towards a process which leads to an independent and viable
Palestinian state. I also endorse the right reverend Prelate’s
point about the different communities within the Holy Land; of
course, the Arab Christian community is an important voice in the
peace process.
(Con)
[V]
Does the Minister agree that our Government cannot consider
recognising a territory while it is controlled by proscribed
terrorists whose only stated purpose is to wipe their neighbour
Israel off the face of the earth, no matter what the cost to
their own people?
(Con) [V]
My noble friend refers of course to the situation in Gaza and the
role of Hamas. We do not engage with Hamas, and I agree with my
noble friend that for anyone to come to the table it is important
that they recognise the other party’s right to exist. Hamas does
not, and if it wants to be a party to peace, it needs to ensure
that that recognition is extended.
(CB)
My Lords, the UK certainly should recognise Palestine as a state,
but as important is the need to introduce economic incentives to
induce Israel to end its illegal building of settlements on
Palestinian land. Are the Government giving consideration to such
economic incentives with our western allies and, if not, will the
Minister raise this issue with his colleagues?
(Con) [V]
My Lords, on the issue of economic incentives, we believe that it
is important that we progress our economic relationship with both
Israel and the Palestinian Territories. We do not hesitate to
express our disagreement with Israel whenever necessary. However,
on the specific issue of sanctions against the State of Israel,
which the noble Baroness may be alluding to, we stand very firmly
opposed to such boycotts or sanctions.
(Lab)
I refer your Lordships to my interests as recorded in the
register. Recognition of the state of Palestine is an
internationally significant concern. I would like to ask the
Minister today about an urgent concern. What representations have
Her Majesty’s Government made to the Government of Israel about
the house evictions and demolitions in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan,
which appear designed to change the demography of the holy city?
(Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness and we have been very
clear on our position on the evictions in Sheikh Jarrah. It is a
threat to the communities currently in Sheikh Jarrah and we urge
the Government of Israel to cease such actions permanently.
Indeed, these points were very much raised and discussed during
my right honourable friend’s visit to Israel and the OPTs.
(LD)
Is the noble Lord aware that this morning, Israeli forces
demolished more structures in the Jordan Valley? Does he agree
that that the time really has come to move beyond that old phrase
that he has used once again and to recognise Palestine, and that
this must be for a viable, sovereign and independent state and
not a splintered, semi-sovereign version, as, for example, in the
Trump plan?
(Con) [V]
My Lords, on the Trump plan, as I have said before in your
Lordships’ House, that was a first step. However, I totally
recognise the picture that the noble Baroness paints and we agree
as a Government that we must have a viable, functioning
Palestinian state. On the important issue of the demolitions, we
have made our position absolutely clear to the Israeli
authorities. They should not be taking place. The settlements in
the OPTs are illegal and they, and indeed the evictions, go
against international humanitarian law.
(Con)
I refer the House to my interest as president of Conservative
Friends of Israel, as set out in the register. It seems that some
noble Lords are failing to experience and comprehend the winds of
change in the region: the Abraham Accords, and a NATO drill this
week which included Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia and the UAE,
alongside Israel. Does the Minister agree that the most helpful
contribution towards peace and prosperity would be for noble
Lords to use their influence with the Palestinians to urge them
to sit around the table with the Israelis and create that peace
and prosperity?
(Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend; I think we all welcome
the important progress made with the Abraham Accords, and we pay
tribute to all those who have come forward. However, it is also
important, as my noble friend rightly articulates, that there can
be no solution to the challenges and the conflicts in the region
until we see meaningful progress on the peace talks. For that to
occur, Israel and the Palestinian Authority need to sit down and
agree a way forward and progress. We all desire peace in the Holy
Land, and the talks between those two sides are essential to make
that happen.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Opposition share the Government’s commitment to the
two-state solution, and with the new Administrations in the US
and Israel, there are opportunities. Can the Minister tell us
what steps the Government are taking to help address the drivers
of insecurity and injustice in the region, especially if they
will not accept the recognition of Palestine?
(Con) [V]
My Lords, we continue to work with key partners, including the
US, which is of course very important for progress. We continue
to engage with both sides, as I have articulated, but, equally,
we are supporting efforts such as the work being done with UNRWA
in supporting education and skills in the Palestinian
Territories. It is important that we continue in that respect to
provide hope for the future and the basis of a future independent
and viable Palestinian state.
(CB) [V]
Does the Minister agree with the opinion of our two most
distinguished international lawyers, the late James Crawford and
Professor Malcolm Shaw, in whose opinion Palestine is not a state
under international law because it does not begin to conform to
the criteria set out in the Montevideo convention? It does not
have the right requirements to be a functioning lawful state.
(Con) [V]
The Government’s position is very clear. We believe that the best
and the only way to ensure peace in the region is to have two
states side by side, and a Palestinian state must be viable. We
continue to invest our efforts in making that issue a reality
but, ultimately, it needs both sides to sit down and begin the
negotiations so that we can see those two states living side by
side in peace.
