Asked by Baroness Tonge To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in
the light of the apology by the Israeli Ambassador for remarks made
by an embassy official concerning a Foreign Office Minister,
whether they intend to conduct an inquiry. The Minister of State,
Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St
Johns)...Request free trial
Asked by
-
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the
apology by the Israeli Ambassador for remarks made by an
embassy official concerning a Foreign Office Minister,
whether they intend to conduct an inquiry.
-
My Lords, the Israeli ambassador has apologised and it is
clear that these comments do not reflect the views of the
embassy or of the Government of Israel. The UK has a
strong relationship with Israel and we consider the
matter closed.
-
I thank the Minister for that response, but will she
please tell us what action would be taken if, for
example, Chinese embassy staff were discovered to be
interfering in our political process in this way? Will
she agree that the very serious charge of anti-Semitism
is devalued if it is used against anyone who criticises
the actions of the Government of Israel?
-
My Lords, I shall not speculate on what might happen; I
deal what does happen. It is clear that in this case
unacceptable activity was undertaken by one person who is
no longer in this country, and appropriate action was
taken by the Israeli embassy.
-
My Lords, a junior embassy official made a stupid remark
at a gossipy lunch and was sacked, and our Government say
that that is the end of the matter. Does the Minister
share my puzzlement at any possible benefit that would
result from raising the matter now? Is it seriously
suggested, for example, that the Israeli embassy wants to
bump off Sir ?
-
My Lords, I am delighted to say that my right honourable
friend is alive and well and an excellent Minister at the
Foreign Office.
-
-
-
My Lords, we will hear from the Lib Dem Benches.
-
The Government accepted the Israeli ambassador’s
explanation but, on Sunday, the UK failed to send a
Minister to the Paris meeting on the peace process and
yesterday the UK vetoed the EU’s support for the
conclusions of that meeting. Can the Minister assure us
that on Israel/Palestine the Government are not
distancing themselves from our European neighbours and
seeking favour with a very unpredictable new US
President?
-
My Lords, the UK position on the Middle East peace
process has not changed. I appreciate that there has been
some speculation over the recess—that happens during a
recess period. But the noble Baroness rightly raises
specific points, and I would like to address the two main
points of those specific issues.
First, with regard to the Paris conference, we made it
clear to the French, whom we congratulate on trying to
take the process of peace forward, that decisions made at
this stage without the presence of the only ones who can
come to a settlement—the Palestinians and the
Israelis—were not going anywhere and could simply harden
opinions. It was nothing to do with the incoming
President of the United States. However, we have to
recognise that the US plays a crucial role in these
negotiations, and has done so. With regard to Paris,
while welcoming the French efforts, we made it clear that
we would not attend the meeting at ministerial level,
although we had a senior representative there—the head of
our Near East department—and as such it was not
appropriate for us to sign up to that communique.
I would like to put on record a clarification about the
misunderstanding in the press to which the noble Baroness
referred. We did not veto anything yesterday in Brussels.
, the High
Representative of the European Union for foreign affairs
confirmed yesterday that the UK,
“did not stop or prevent any decision of the European
Union”.
From her mouth, I hope that the House will accept that we
did not veto anything.
-
Can the Minister confirm nevertheless that the Government
are still firmly in favour of a two-state solution to the
Arab-Israel question? Can she add to her explanation why
the British delegate to the meeting in Paris—and, indeed,
the Foreign Secretary himself, at a meeting of his
European Union colleagues—both failed to go along with a
statement in support of the two-state process?
-
First, it was not an occasion for making a statement.
Yesterday was a discussion over lunch—it was not a
position from which one makes a statement. What we have
made clear, and the Prime Minister has made it clear, is
that we continue to be in favour of a two-state solution.
The importance is to concentrate on the range of issues
which both of those who will come to the settlement table
need to sign up to. My grammar is getting a little awry
there but, clearly, our policy has not changed. We want
to see a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable
and sovereign Palestinian state based on 1967 borders,
with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital
of those states and a fair, just, agreed settlement for
refugees. We are constant in our policy.
|
