Asked by Lord Steel of Aikwood To ask Her Majesty’s
Government why no United Kingdom minister attended the
Israel–Palestine peace conference in Paris. The Minister of State,
Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns)
(Con)...Request free trial
Asked by
-
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why no United Kingdom
minister attended the Israel–Palestine peace conference
in Paris.
-
My Lords, the UK welcomes France’s efforts to promote
peace. However, as the role of the US is so critical, we
have repeatedly expressed reservations about holding a
conference so close to the change of US Administration
and without the attendance of the two main parties. We
did not consider this the best way to make real progress.
As a consequence, we decided to attend the conference as
an observer, at senior official level.
-
Would the Minister agree that it is important to draw a
clear distinction between the support for the state of
Israel and the policies of the present Israeli
Government? Given that the ministerial absence from this
conference followed the crass repudiation of a speech by
Senator John Kerry, who had done so much to support the
peace efforts, will she confirm that it is still the
policy of Her Majesty’s Government to recognise that
settlements in the West Bank are illegal and, therefore,
one of the obstacles to peace?
-
My Lords, this is about more than illegal settlements,
although I have made it clear from this Dispatch Box that
this Government view illegal settlements as an obstacle
to peace. What I affirm, against the background of what
the noble Lord has raised, is that the UK’s long-standing
position on the Middle East peace process is clear: we
continue to support a negotiated settlement leading to 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
both states, and a just, fair and agreed settlement for
refugees.
-
My Lords, can I ask the Minister to speculate what the
attitude of the British Government would be if the French
decided to hold a conference with 70 countries to discuss
Northern Ireland but did not invite the British or Irish
Governments?
-
My Lords, as I rather waspishly said, I think, in
response to the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, on Tuesday, I
try not to speculate; I prefer to deal with what is.
Indeed, in those 13 long, long years in opposition, I
remember having my leg pulled very gently on the basis
that I always wanted to know what works, and what works
is having the two main parties involved in negotiations.
Without the Israelis and the Palestinians coming to an
agreement, there can be no lasting peace.
-
My Lords, I commend the Government for sticking with
their support for the two-state solution, which is
generally accepted as the best way forward. But I invite
my noble friend to speculate: without the two states of
Israel and Palestine at the discussion of the two-state
solution, what exactly was the conference designed to
achieve?
-
My Lords, I do pay tribute to the way in which France
has, under various Administrations, genuinely sought to
take forward international discussions on a potential
peace settlement—this was one more effort by France to do
so. But unless the main protagonists are there to come to
an agreement, there can be no resolution. That is the nub
of the discussion today.
-
My Lords, in the light of the Foreign Secretary’s
off-the-cuff remarks, I am not at all surprised that the
Government were reluctant to send him to France. However,
the Minister has today and yesterday reiterated the
Government’s support for the two-state solution. Will she
reassure the House that, when the Prime Minister visits
President-elect Trump—very soon, as we hear—the issue of
support for the two-state solution will be high on the
agenda?
-
Indeed, as I have set out today, our position on the
two-state solution has not changed. I have again listed
the component parts of a lasting settlement, which I know
all Members of this House want to achieve—that is, a
lasting solution to a very difficult position across the
Middle East and one that could be respected by all. My
right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has a
wonderfully dramatic way of making a point. It certainly
gets attention.
-
My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly often emphasises the
importance of international law. UNOCHA states that there
have been record numbers of demolitions of Palestinian
properties in 2016. Will the noble Baroness comment on
that?
-
My Lords, we continuously bring to the attention of the
Government of Israel the fact that we believe that moves
to extend illegal settlements, but also moves to carry
out demolitions, can undermine the future of peace, even
if those demolitions may be in green-line Israel. It is a
very sensitive matter because green-line Israel is not
the same as the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but,
for me, it is a matter of respecting human rights.
-
Does my noble friend agree that any moves by Governments
to move their embassies to Jerusalem would make the
two-state solution even more difficult?
-
My Lords, we have no plans to move our embassy to
Jerusalem. I hope that is in accord with my noble
friend’s wishes.
-
My Lords, while respecting the Minister’s earnest
endeavours and being grateful to her for that, does she
agree that if the Government legitimately are more
critical of the Netanyahu illegal settlement policies,
that encourages, and gives support to, the millions of
Israeli citizens who disapprove of those settlement
policies?
-
My Lords, in continuing to voice our opposition to the
building of illegal settlements, we also point to other
aspects of the disputes that need to be resolved.
However, this is set against a wider issue because this
country firmly upholds international law. My right
honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime
Minister have made it clear that, as global Britain going
forward as we leave the European Union, we intend to
maintain our position as a firm upholder of international
law.
|
