Questions for oral answer in the House of Lords today -
Palestine: Recognition
Question asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to recognise
Palestine as a state; and whether any such recognition is
conditional on the holding of free, fair, and independently
monitored elections throughout the Occupied Palestinian
Territories.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Office () (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom’s position on the Middle East peace
process is clear: we support a negotiated settlement leading to a
safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign
Palestinian state. We believe that a just and lasting solution
that delivers peace is long overdue. The United Kingdom will
recognise a Palestinian state at a time when it best serves the
objective of peace. We also urge further work towards genuine and
democratic national elections, and call on all Palestinian
factions to work together to pursue a positive path towards
democracy.
(CB)
My Lords, I am slightly encouraged by that reply, but why is
self-determination seen as essential for Israelis but denied to
Palestinians? Will our Government seek to secure elections, which
have been completely missing for 16 years, in the Occupied
Territories? If such elections prove free and fair, will they be
respected here and will any Government that may emerge be
recognised?
(Con)
My Lords, I am sure I speak for every country that we are
partners and friends with when I say that our view of the global
world is that we want free, open and transparent elections
everywhere. We support the Palestinian people’s genuine desire to
be able to express their opinion at the ballot box. It was
extremely disappointing that last year’s elections did not take
place for a variety of reasons, but we urge further work towards
inclusive elections, which are crucial to the establishment of a
whole and sovereign Palestinian state and equally crucial in
providing the basis for a reliable and sustainable partner for
peace.
(CB)
My Lords, numerous illegal Israeli settlements in Palestinian
areas—some of them the size of small or medium towns—make the
existence of a Palestinian state unviable. In any event, dividing
people on the basis of religion creates suffering and lasting
enmity. We see this between India and Pakistan, where more than
half a million people died during the partition; we also see it
closer to home, in Ireland. Does the Minister agree that it is
much better to work towards equal civil and political rights for
both Jews and Palestinians in the one land that is both Israel
and Palestine, as was promised in the original Balfour
Declaration?
(Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom’s position on settlements is clear:
they are illegal under international law. We regularly call on
Israel to halt the settlements, because they are an obstacle
towards the two-state solution. On the sentiments the noble Lord
expressed about inclusivity and respecting all communities, I
have visited the Palestinian territories as well as Israel.
Israel in itself and the current Government represent and seek to
represent the whole of Israel in its diversity of communities,
which are present and very much brought together in the city of
Jerusalem.
(Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom has rightly long maintained that
recognition of a state of Palestine should take place in the
context of a final status agreement negotiated by Israel and the
Palestinians. However, a credible peace process with active
dialogue between parties has been absent for years. Given the UK
Government’s strong ties with Israel and the Palestinian
leadership, can the Minister tell me what steps the UK Government
are taking to bring all parties together to establish a lasting
two-state solution?
(Con)
My Lords, we continue to engage with Israel and the Palestinian
leadership, who were invited to and represented at the COP at the
end of last year. My right honourable friend the Foreign
Secretary met the Prime Minister of the Palestinian
Administration, so we do engage with both sides. I share my noble
friend’s view that it is important that we bring both communities
together. The United Kingdom stands as a partner and friend of
all communities to ensure that we see lasting peace in the Holy
Land.
(Lab)
My Lords, at the end of January, the Israeli Defence Minister,
Benny Gantz, told the Knesset:
“The years-long weakening of the Palestinian Authority and the
concealment of relations strengthened Hamas, harmed Israeli
security, and failed in terms of results”.
President Mahmoud Abbas of the PA had talks with US Secretary of
State Antony Blinken at the same time. The US State Department
said that discussions focused on the importance of strengthening
US relations with the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian
people, as well as improving the quality of life of the
Palestinians “in a tangible way”. They also discussed the need
for the Palestinian Authority to reform. Can the Minister tell us
whether we are following the US’s example?
(Con)
My Lords, as I indicated in my original Answer to the noble Lord,
, yes, we are. We want reliable
partners for peace in the Middle East. What is required now is
fair, open and transparent elections within the Palestinian
Authority, which are long overdue, as the noble Lord reminded us,
to allow for that sustainable partner for peace that is so
desperately needed.
(LD)
The Minister will be aware of the report of the Human Rights
Council’s rapporteur into the situation of human rights in the
Palestinian territories, occupied since 1967. That report has
this very worrying conclusion:
“With the eyes of the international community wide open, Israel
had imposed upon Palestine an apartheid reality in a
post-apartheid world.”
What is the Government’s response to the Human Rights Council’s
special rapporteur and what practical steps are they taking to
remove the barriers in order to make a two-state situation
viable?
(Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom Government do not agree with the use
of that terminology. Any judgment on whether serious crimes have
occurred under international law is very much a matter for
judicial decision. I can speak directly. I visited Israel in my
capacity as Human Rights Minister. I assure the noble Lord that
we had a very candid and constructive exchange on issues of human
rights, including rights of representation. In doing so, I
welcome the recent easing of restrictions in the holy month of
Ramadan to allow people who wish to do so to go to holy sites and
worship. That is a positive step forward.
(Con)
My Lords, should we not remind ourselves that Israel is at least
a democracy? It may be criticised for many things—I would like to
see a two-state solution—but we sometimes lose sight of the fact
that since the end of the war and the foundation of the State of
Israel it has been a proper democracy.
(Con)
My Lords, I share my noble friend’s view. As I have said right
from the start, in answer to the original Question, it is the
United Kingdom Government’s position—and, I am sure, the position
of Her Majesty’s Opposition—that we want to see open,
flourishing, pluralistic democracies everywhere across the world.
(CB)
My Lords, the Montevideo convention of 1933 stipulated three
requirements for a state: control of a defined territory, a
permanent population, and a Government whom the bulk of the
population habitually obey. Does the Minister agree that as long
as the Palestinians do not fulfil the first and third criteria,
sadly they do not qualify as a state?
(Con)
My Lords, the basis of the criteria the noble Lord outlined is
directly relevant. That is why, as I said in my original Answer,
the United Kingdom will recognise a Palestinian state when it is
conducive to ensuring lasting peace in the Middle East.
(Lab)
Desirable as I think most of us agree it is to achieve a
two-state solution, is it not a matter of obvious fact that such
a solution is not possible so long as the illegal settlements
remain?
(Con)
My Lords, I believe I have already addressed that question. As I
said, we believe—it is a long-standing position—that settlements
are an obstacle to peace.
(CB)
My Lords, does the Minister consider that the Abraham Accords
bring any message of hope and peace to the Palestinians, given
that they ignore the settlements and do nothing for the
well-being of the Palestinians?
(Con)
My Lords, this is my personal view as well as the Government’s: I
really welcome the Abraham Accords. By definition, Abraham was
all about bringing people, communities and faiths together. At
this time, the Abraham Accords should not be looked at as
something between nations that are ever expanding. We welcome the
recent meeting of Foreign Ministers. Any steps forward that bring
peace and reconciliation between partners and the people of the
wider region are welcome. At this time, in the holy month of
Ramadan and with Easter and Passover imminent, the Abraham
Accords are perhaps more relevant today than ever before.
