Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) (Urgent
Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the
implications of President Trump’s decision to move the United
States embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and to
recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The Minister for the
Middle East (Alistair Burt)...Request free trial
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign
and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the
implications of President Trump’s decision to move the United
States embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and to
recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
-
I thank the right hon. Lady for an important and urgent
question.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in
her statement yesterday,
“We disagree with the US decision to move its embassy to
Jerusalem and recognise Jerusalem as the Israeli capital
before a final status agreement. We believe it is
unhelpful in terms of prospects for peace in the region.
The British Embassy to Israel is based in Tel Aviv and we
have no plans to move it.
Our position on the status of Jerusalem is clear and
long-standing: it should be determined in a negotiated
settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and
Jerusalem should ultimately be the shared capital of the
Israeli and Palestinian states. In line with relevant
Security Council Resolutions, we regard East Jerusalem as
part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
We share President Trump’s desire to bring an end to this
conflict. We welcome his commitment”
in his statement
“to a two-state solution negotiated between the parties,
and note the importance of his clear acknowledgement that
the final status of Jerusalem, including the sovereign
boundaries within the city, must be subject to
negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
We encourage the US Administration to now bring forward
detailed proposals for an Israel-Palestinian settlement.
To have the best chances of success, the peace process
must be conducted in an atmosphere free from violence. We
call on all parties to work together to maintain calm”
at a crucial time.
-
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question,
and I welcome the opening remarks from the Minister of
State.
For all of us in this House and beyond who have worked
tirelessly for decades in the hope of lasting peace in
the middle east, yesterday’s decision was an absolute
hammer blow to those hopes. There is a reason that,
before yesterday, no other country would locate its
embassy in Jerusalem and no other major country would
recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital: because to do
either thing, let alone both at the same time, confers
legitimacy on Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem—an
occupation with no basis in international law, and a
permanent barrier to achieving the political settlement
that we all wish for.
The sheer recklessness of that decision needs no debate.
Donald Trump is not crying “Fire!” in a crowded theatre;
he is deliberately setting fire to the theatre. And then
he has the unbelievable cheek to claim that he is doing
this to move forward the peace process, when in reality
he is setting it back decades.
As usual—as with the Muslim ban, the Paris agreement and
the Iran deal—the question for the UK Government is
twofold. First, what are they going to do about this
mess? With Donald Trump wilfully deserting America’s role
as peace broker between Israel and Palestine, how will we
work with our other allies to fill that void?
Secondly, when will the Government admit that they have
got their strategy with Donald Trump totally wrong? They
told us that holding his hand, hugging him close and
indulging him with the offer of a state visit was the
best way of wielding influence and shaping his policies.
But on Jerusalem, as on so many issues before, they have
been made to look like fools: weak, ignored and entirely
without influence. When will they realise that bending
over for a bully only encourages their behaviour? What
our country needs, and what the world needs, is a British
Government prepared to stand up to him.
-
I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments. I agree
that a difficult consensus has been broken. She is right
that the international consensus around the status of
Jerusalem has been one of the things we have all held on
to during a period when the ultimate settlement—the final
settlement—has yet to be agreed. It has always been seen
as part of the process that, at the end of that
negotiated settlement, the status of Jerusalem would be
confirmed. The United States has taken a decision about
itself and about the location of its embassy. In answer
to her final point about the United Kingdom’s position
vis-à-vis President Trump and the United States, we make
it clear that we disagree with the decision. The Prime
Minister has said that it is unhelpful. It is not a
decision we would take.
We have now to decide, as the right hon. Lady said, what
we do now. The first thing we have done is to co-sponsor
a meeting tomorrow at the UN Security Council when this
will be discussed. We have co-sponsored that with our
European partners because it provides the opportunity to
take stock of where we are and how we can move forward.
There are two options: one is that we just dwell on this
particular decision of the United States, as people will
for a while, and just leave it sitting there; and the
other is to decide what we do now. It is imperative that
we now see the work that the President’s envoys have been
doing, which they have shared with a number of partners.
That now needs to come forward—more quickly, perhaps,
than people anticipated—and then we can see what there is
to work on for friends both of Israel and of the
Palestinians. The process has to move on. If the process
were derailed by this, it would compound the
unhelpfulness of the decision. That is what we want to
talk about.
The right hon. Lady mentioned our longer-term
relationship with the United States, which is very deep:
defence, intelligence, security, trade – it covers a
multitude of things. It has done for centuries and it
will go on for centuries, regardless of leadership. We
respect an elected President but we know that the
relationship with the United States is much deeper, and
the United Kingdom will continue to honour that
relationship in its many forms.
-
If the President has a cunning plan which he has not
shared with any of his allies, may I invite my right hon.
Friend to speculate on what it might be?
-
If there is, this is a decision that has clearly been
welcomed by the Prime Minister and the state of Israel.
There is no doubt that Israel sees the United States as a
great friend. There is no surprise to any of us in
relation to that, and nor does it change anything
particularly markedly in terms of relationships in the
region. Perhaps, when proposals come forward, if
concessions are needed by the state of Israel in order to
make the agreement that we all wish to see which will be
supported by all sides, there just might now be an extra
area of pressure that can be applied because a friend of
Israel has done what the President has done.
I have no inkling of the thinking of the President of the
United States. But, as everything in this whole business
is used in one way or another, there are just possibly
those within the state of Israel who will recognise the
limb that the President has gone out on, and perhaps,
when push comes to shove, that might be of some
assistance. As for us, we are very clear on our position.
We disagree with this and we will continue to work with
all partners to seek the peace settlement that is so
urgently needed.
-
President Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel and to move the US embassy from Tel
Aviv is not only reckless and wrong but throws the entire
peace process into jeopardy. There is no denying that
this decision seriously hinders a two-state solution to
the conflict. The reaction from the international
community has been overwhelming. Pope Francis said, “I
cannot remain silent.” The UN Secretary-General spoke of
his “great anxiety”. The European Union has expressed
“serious concern”. I could go on.
Tomorrow, the UN will meet amid concerns that Mr Trump’s
announcement is in breach of both international law and
UN resolutions. Will the Minister therefore take a moment
to condemn this reckless decision in the strongest
possible terms and assure the House that all efforts will
be made tomorrow at the UN meeting to have the decision
reversed?
Regardless of political differences across this Chamber,
we share the values of tolerance, inclusion and respect
across these islands. Taking that into consideration,
will the Minister today completely rule out a state visit
from President Trump and send out a clear message that
his divisive and reckless actions are not welcome here?
-
We will allow the peace process to be derailed by this
only if we take the decision as doing just that, as
opposed to providing a different opportunity to take the
peace process forward. The envoys are still working; they
are still in contact with Arab states and Arab partners,
as well as the state of Israel. As I said, that work
should continue with greater urgency. The risks in the
region are even clearer this morning than they were
yesterday before the President spoke—risks that many
colleagues in this House know full well because of our
frequent visits to the region. The only way that those
risks can be quelled is by demonstrating to those who
seek hope for the process that there is still a chance of
hope. The United Kingdom must do nothing to cut off that
possibility. That is why we have to keep urging the peace
process forward. The deficit of trust with the United
States because of its decision will be noted, but it will
remain an important part of discussions for the future.
On the hon. Gentleman’s other two questions, we
co-sponsored the meeting with the UN, so it is our
intention to work with partners urgently on moving this
forward. On the President’s visit, again, the Prime
Minister has made clear her views on that: an invitation
has been extended, but there is no date set for the
visit.
-
I welcome what the Minister of State has said this
morning. I thought I would share with the House a
sentence from a letter from the Patriarchs and Heads of
Local Churches in Jerusalem to President Trump:
“peace…cannot be reached without Jerusalem being for
all.”
That was echoed yesterday by the , who said:
“The status quo of the City of Jerusalem is one of the
few stable elements of hope for peace”.
He urged us all to
“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem”.
-
I think that we would all concur with those words. The
status of Jerusalem is of immense importance in the
region to all faiths and all parties who live there. It
is essential that the consensus that Jerusalem is for all
be honoured. As I stated, it is very clear that our
position on the final status of Jerusalem, as part of the
final settlement to be agreed between the parties, is the
most important thing, not anyone’s unilateral decision
about what they think about Jerusalem.
-
The UK Government have previously said that they would
recognise Palestine when the time was right. Is the time
not right now?
-
Our view has been that recognition of Palestine should
come at the time when that is in the best interests of
the prospects for peace and the peace process. That
remains our position for now.
-
President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital
of Israel isolates the USA. It has been condemned by
European and middle eastern leaders, and even by Pope
Francis. All say that this hostile act is ignorant and
undermines the delicate peace process. Will the Minister
confirm that we robustly maintain, with the States, a
position of seeking a two-state solution, although I
suggest he begins by pointing out where Jerusalem is to
President Trump?
-
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure her that there
is no change in the United Kingdom’s position, either on
the final status of Jerusalem, or on the need for a
two-state solution.
-
Further to the Minister’s answer to the Liberal Democrat
spokesman, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and
Wallington (Tom Brake), who asked, “If not now, when?”,
the Minister will be aware that one of the most grievous
consequences of this decision is the impact on
Palestinian public opinion. More and more people are
giving up on a two-state solution. With Britain’s
particular historical responsibilities, is it not time to
honour the overwhelming vote in this House back in 2014
and recognise Palestine as a state?
-
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I make frequent visits
to the region—I was there recently—and yesterday I
expressed to the Palestinian representative in London my
views on the President of the United States’ anticipated
speech. Recognition of the state of Palestine is not
necessarily a consequence of what we heard yesterday. It
is not tit for tat; it is more important than that.
Accordingly, it should be a decision made by the United
Kingdom at a time when we believe it is in the best
interests of the process of peace. That is the view for
now.
-
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that UK aid
contributions to the Palestinian Authority are
significant in maintaining the stability of the region,
as they have historically been, which will ultimately
help drive forward the negotiations on a two-state
solution and the peaceful settlement that we wish to see?
-
Indeed. I spoke just last week to the Palestinian
Authority’s Education and Finance Ministers to talk about
the latest tranche of support that the United Kingdom is
giving the Palestinian Authority. It is provided in the
clear belief and understanding that the Palestinian
territories are moving towards statehood. That is the
purpose of our support for them, and I re-emphasised that
and made it clear. That is where the hope comes from,
because there has to be hope for the Palestinians and
those living on the west bank and in Gaza. It is our job
to make sure that nothing in yesterday’s decision by
another power makes that more difficult, and that is what
we will be working towards.
-
Does the Minister agree that this is a sea change, not
just another setback, because it removes America as an
honest broker and changes the facts on the ground so that
an independent Palestinian state is not really possible
any more? That is the view of senior Palestinians such as
Husam Zomlot and Saeb Erekat. What plans do the
Government have to move matters forward in their
discussions with the Palestinian Authority and the
Palestine Liberation Organisation, and do they include at
least a timetable for recognition?
-
I have said what I wanted to say on recognition. Let us
talk about the peace process, which the hon. Gentleman
started his question with. It appears clear that the
position of the United States will have changed
materially in the eyes of those working for peace in the
region because of yesterday’s statement. I would draw
attention—rightly, I hope—to the parts of the President’s
speech dealing with the need for negotiations and a
two-state solution, but the nature of the United States
as a broker in the region will have been affected. I am
sure that we will discuss tomorrow at the UN how the
process can be taken forward. The United States will
continue to play an important part, but there is no doubt
that there is a trust deficit because of yesterday’s
announcement. It is for other states to fill that gap, to
ensure that the prospects for peace are not diminished.
-
Is the reality not that the peace process has been
stalled for 24 years, since 1993, and that what we need
following this announcement is direct peace talks between
the state of Israel and the Palestinian representatives?
If we can get from the United Nations a brokered position
whereby those peace talks start, this decision could end
up having been quite a good one.
-
I have no sense that yesterday’s decision made a
contribution to advancing the peace process. I understand
what the President said, and he had a particular logic in
doing so, although I am not sure I share it. I do share
the view my hon. Friend expressed in his last point—what
happens in the region can be either a blow or an
opportunity, but usually it is both. We must make sure
that the opportunity provided by yesterday’s statement is
not lost. There is a new role for others to play, but
ultimately it must be about what we can do to assist
direct negotiations rather than push them back.
-
Trump’s rash desperation to tick off every ill-judged,
divisive campaign soundbite now threatens the peace
process in one of the most volatile geopolitical regions
in the world. The Government have welcomed his words
about a two-state solution, but those pronouncements
count for little when his actions, coupled with the
expansion of Israeli illegal settlements, mean that the
prospect of a two-state solution seems more distant than
ever. The Government are clearly limited in their ability
to influence the US position, but surely it is now time
for them to listen to the clear will of this House and
for the UK to confirm our commitment to a two-state
solution by recognising the state of Palestine, as we do
the state of Israel.
-
I do not want to repeat what I said earlier, but the
United Kingdom’s position has a degree of flexibility.
The House is right that we have to make a collective
judgment about when the time is right in the best
interests of peace. The Government then have to make up
their own mind about the circumstances and what is right,
and they will do that, but colleagues’ views are known.
-
President Trump has said that the United States remains
committed to a two-state solution, but will my right hon.
Friend confirm that the British Government will be
pointing out to this country’s strongest ally that moving
the American embassy to Jerusalem will be interpreted by
many as American acquiescence in Israel’s illegal
programme of settlement on the west bank, which is itself
the biggest impediment to a two-state solution?
-
My right hon. Friend provides an analysis of the
consequences that is accepted by many.
-
Is not the reality that President Trump’s announcement
yesterday has fatally undermined the US’s credibility in
brokering a peace between Israel and Palestine? In that
light, is it not more vital than ever that the UK and the
European Union demonstrate—in deed, as well as in
word—that respect for international law must be the
cornerstone of any lasting peace? Will the Minister tell
the House what action he will take to implement in
practice the UK’s obligations under the paragraph in UN
Security Council resolution 2334, passed just under 12
months ago, that calls on all states
“to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the
territory of the State of Israel and the territories
occupied since 1967”?
What, in practice, will Britain do to implement that?
-
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have followed both UN and
EU practice in clearly labelling produce from settlement
areas—those areas that have been occupied—and we have
also been clear about that in our advice to business. To
that extent, we have recognised the importance of
following through on resolution 2334, for which the
United Kingdom of course voted.
I would say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said to
other Members, that many of these issues have, crucially,
to be decided in the final settlement between the
parties. There is a greater need for urgency about that
this morning than there was yesterday, and it is towards
that that the United Kingdom can and will bend its
efforts, which is why we are meeting partners tomorrow. I
will be in Paris tomorrow for a meeting of the
international support group for Lebanon, and we will be
talking about this on the margins. There is a need for
greater urgency and for making use of this opportunity.
-
Although we absolutely disagree with the US moving its
embassy, will my right hon. Friend reassure me that we
will continue to seek, and work with the US to find, a
long-term two-state solution?
-
I thank my hon. Friend. Yes, the work of the two envoys
continues. The United States will obviously continue to
play a part in such processes in the region, and I refer
to my earlier answers on what we are trying to do to help
this process.
-
I think the Minister understands the perception of
yesterday’s announcement in the Palestinian community.
What can he do to prevent the complete erosion of faith
in this process by Palestinians seeking to find a
two-state solution and an accommodation on their border
with Israel, and would not recognition be such a move?
-
The first thing we can do is make clear our disagreement
with the policy of the United States. The second thing is
to work with partners to provide an assurance that the
peace process will go on and to give people hope. The
third thing is to say that the process must be continued
with renewed urgency to get the result that we all want.
That is the UK’s position.
-
I know the Minister will recognise that our relationship
with the United States is far deeper than the question of
whoever happens to be the current occupant of the White
House, and the same is true of our commitment to the
peace process in the middle east. Will he reassure me
that we will stick to the original vision in the Balfour
declaration of two democratic, prosperous states living
side by side, and that we will continue to seek such a
solution?
-
Yes. We referred earlier this year to the Balfour
declaration as “unfinished business”, and that is still
our view. Again, yesterday’s announcement gives renewed
urgency to dealing with the second part of that equation.
-
May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your leadership on the
45th President of the United States? Several months ago,
you indicated your disinclination for him to address
Parliament, and you are being proved more and more right
by the day.
When the Minister meets his US counterpart at the UN,
will he convey to him the words of the young Palestinian
human rights activist—you hosted him at the Amnesty
International reception in your rooms yesterday, Mr
Speaker—who said that by taking this unilateral decision,
the President is flouting international law,
international consensus, and the hopes and dreams of all
those who harbour a wish for a two-state solution?
-
I am sure that the words cited by the hon. Lady will be
drawn to the attention of those in the United States. It
is our duty to ensure that hopes and promises are not
lost in these circumstances.
-
I completely share the Government’s view on this
statement by the President of the United States, but I do
not believe that it brings the process for a two-state
solution to an end. Indeed, I believe it gives greater
emphasis to the work that we can carry on to achieve
that. Does the Minister agree?
-
As I said earlier, the peace process towards a two-state
solution will come to an end only when the parties
themselves feel that it cannot go any further. It is
vital that we and all our partners—including the United
States—reaffirm that commitment to the two-state
solution, and do our level best to ensure that it is not
lost.
-
Given Trump’s previous attitude to settlements, it is
clear that this move might embolden further attempts at
demolitions and settlement expansion. Is the Minister
aware of the real risk that the west bank might be
further subdivided? We talk about a two-state solution,
but before it is too late, will he please recognise the
state of Palestine?
-
I hear colleagues’ comments on that, and the Government’s
position is clear: it is better for us to continue our
efforts to support legal attempts to prevent demolitions,
which we do through our financial support to the
Norwegian Refugee Council, and to allow cases to be taken
to the Israeli courts. Seventy-nine per cent. of all
cases taken forward have resulted in demolitions being
stopped, and that is where our effective action is on
behalf of those people’s rights.
-
Although the Minister acknowledges the right of any
country to decide where to locate its embassy, I fear
that the already fragile prospects for moving the peace
process forward are further and significantly diminished
by this move. In his welcome reaffirmation of the
Government’s commitment to a two-state solution, will the
Minister continue to devote his not-inconsiderable
efforts to driving that forward and delivering an Israel
that is secure within its borders and whose citizens are
free from the threat of terrorism, living alongside a
viable and truly independent Palestine?
-
My hon. Friend knows the region well, and he puts it very
clearly—that is the hope of all Members of the House, and
it has been for too long. We must now work out how we can
move forward from this position with renewed urgency to
make it happen.
-
Unlike any of his predecessors, President Trump has
dangerously inflamed every frozen world conflict that he
has addressed. Has the time come to see this man as
someone who believes in America first, and the rest of
the world nowhere? Should we now say that the invitation
to him for an informal, or formal, visit is rescinded?
People can be invited, and they can be disinvited.
-
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. An invitation has
been given and no date has been set, and that remains the
position of the United Kingdom Government.
-
This is the second urgent question that you have granted
in as many weeks, Mr Speaker, so that Ministers can come
to the Dispatch Box and condemn the egregious behaviour
of the President of the United States. What is the point
of the special relationship if such condemnations have
absolutely no effect on the President’s behaviour? Can we
even say that a special relationship still exists?
-
When a decision that we disagree with has been made by
our friends, the special relationship gives Ministers the
opportunity to explain our position on that to the House
and the public, and to maintain that despite some of
those decisions, the special relationship that is broad
and deep across the piece goes on, even if we disagree
with certain political decisions.
-
UN Security Council resolution 465 of 1980,
“Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change
the physical character, demographic composition,
institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and
other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including
Jerusalem…have no legal validity”.
How is Israel complying with that?
-
The hon. Lady knows the region well—Israel is not
complying with that. That is why we hold that land to be
occupied, and why we voted for resolution 2334 that
restated elements of what she has just said. What we need
now is leadership. Forty years ago, President Sadat came
to Israel to make peace—that is one anniversary we have
not said much about this year, and that should be
remembered. It takes bold leadership by those in the
region to make a difference, and perhaps after yesterday,
it is now time to see more of that.
-
Diolch, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree that Jonathan
Freedland, writing yesterday in The Guardian, summed up
President Trump’s announcement best when he described it
as an act of diplomatic arson?
-
It is not the responsibility of Ministers of the Crown to
comment on articles by Guardian journalists, or any
journalist, no matter what their opinions may be. The
House will make a judgment, but the important thing for
Ministers and Governments to talk about is how to
de-escalate tensions and how to recognise positive
elements in any situation in order to move forward. The
place has enough rhetoric and enough people willing to
take to the streets for all sorts of reasons. The United
Kingdom will not play a part in that.
-
Let us be absolutely clear: this announcement is the
latest incidence of the Trump Administration showing
contempt for international law and the rest of the world.
Let me ask the Minister again. Surely it is right, at the
UN Security Council tomorrow, for the UK to commit, as
most of the world has, to the long-overdue step of
recognising the state of Palestine?
-
The United Kingdom will restate tomorrow our
determination to see a final settlement with peace
between the nations—two viable states—and our
determination that the statehood we wish to see in
Palestine is agreed. Our position is that we will
recognise when it is the right time in relation to peace.
We will make that decision.
-
It is 12 years since I visited Ma’ale Adumim, a huge
settlement just outside Jerusalem that is now home to
41,000 people. Emboldened by Trump’s decision, the
Israeli Parliament is for the first time introducing a
law to annex that settlement. Does the Minister agree
that the legitimisation of a settlement built illegally
on Palestinian land is a very dangerous move? Will he
join me in condemning it?
-
The hon. Lady raises again the difficult issue of
legality in relation to settlements. There is evidence
that the Israeli Government have been influenced by the
United States and others in some of their decisions,
including legal decisions, in relation to Jerusalem. Our
position remains clear: the settlements are illegal and
must be dealt with as part of an overall settlement. We
support challenges to the legality of the settlements,
when it is legitimate and right to do so, by those who
might be affected by them or by demolitions. That will
remain the policy.
|
