Gaza Border Violence
(Islington South and
Finsbury) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement on the violence at the
Gaza border and its impact on the middle east peace process.
The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)
As I said in the statement I put out from the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office yesterday, the violence in Gaza and the west
bank has been shocking. The loss of life and the large number of
injured Palestinians, including children, are tragic, and it is
extremely worrying that the number of those killed continues to
rise. Such violence is destructive to peace efforts.
We have been clear that the United Kingdom supports the
Palestinians’ right to peaceful protest. It is deplorable, but
true, that extremist elements have exploited the protests for
their own violent purposes. We will not waver from our support
for Israel’s right to defend its borders, but the large volume of
live fire is extremely concerning. We continue to implore Israel
to show greater restraint.
The United Kingdom remains committed to a two-state solution,
with Jerusalem as a shared capital. All sides now need to show
real leadership and courage, promote calm, refrain from inflaming
tensions further, and show with renewed urgency that the path to
a two-state solution is through negotiation and peace. We agree
with the United Nations Secretary-General’s envoy that the
situation in Gaza is desperate and deteriorating and that the
international community must step up efforts.
We call on the special representative of the Secretary-General to
bring forward proposals to address the situation in Gaza. These
should include easing the restrictions on access and movement,
and international support for urgent infrastructure and economic
development projects. We also reiterate our support for the
Egyptian-led reconciliation process and the return of the
Palestinian Authority to full administration of the Gaza strip.
We must look forward and work urgently towards a resolution of
the long-standing issues between Israel and the Palestinian
people. Now more than ever, we need a political process that
delivers a two-state solution. Every death and every wounding
casts a shadow for the future. The human tragedies should be used
not as more building blocks for immovable positions, which will
inevitably lead to more confrontation, but as a spur for urgent
change. Yesterday’s tragedies demonstrate why peace is urgently
needed.
1 am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent
question.
Yesterday’s horrific massacre at the Gaza border left at least 58
dead and almost 3,000 injured. Our first thoughts today are with
those Palestinians who are mourning their loved ones or waking up
with life-changing injuries. What makes yesterday’s events all
the worse is that they came not as the result of some accidental
overreaction to one day’s protests but as the culmination of six
weeks of an apparently calculated and deliberate policy to kill
and maim unarmed protestors who posed no threat to the forces on
the Gaza border. Many of them were shot in the back, many of them
were shot hundreds of metres from the border and many of them
were children.
If we are in any doubt about the lethal intent of the Israeli
snipers working on the border, we need only look at the wounds
suffered by their victims. American hunting websites regularly
debate the merits of 7.6 mm bullets versus 5.5 mm bullets. The
latter, they say, are effective when wanting to wound multiple
internal organs, while the former are preferred by some because
they are “designed to mushroom and fragment, to do maximum
internal damage to the animal.” It is alleged that this was the
ammunition used in Gaza yesterday against men, women and
children.
On the very first day of violence, the UN Secretary-General
called for an independent investigation into the incidents, and
last night the Kuwaiti Government asked the UN Security Council
to agree a statement doing the same, only to be vetoed by the
United States. Although I agree with every word of that Kuwaiti
statement, it is easy to see why the US vetoed it, because the
statement was critical of its Jerusalem embassy move.
Will the Minister of State take the initiative, not just in
supporting a new Security Council statement but in helping to
draft a new statement making no criticism of any party and no
link to any other issue, but simply calling for an urgent,
independent investigation into the violence in Gaza to assess
whether international law has been broken and to hold those
responsible to account—a statement to which no country could
reasonably object, not even the United States, unless it is
prepared to make the case that there is one rule for the
Government of Israel and another rule for everyone else
I believe the investigation must be the start of an effort at the
UN and elsewhere to bring urgent and concerted international
pressure on the Netanyahu Government to lift the illegal blockade
of Gaza and to comply with all the UN resolutions ordering them
to remove their illegal settlements and end their illegal
occupation of the Palestinian territories.
If yesterday’s deaths can act as a catalyst for that action, at
least they will not have been in vain. In the interim, especially
as the protests resume today, will the Minister of State join me
in urging the Israeli forces serving on the Gaza border to show
some long-overdue responsibility to their fellow human beings and
stop this vicious slaughter?
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for both the question and
her response, and I join her in what she says about the victims.
We have no side here except with the victims, and all our
concerns should be how to prevent there being more victims. She
made a series of allegations about the use of live rounds and the
like. It is precisely because of such allegations that of course
there should be an investigation into this. The UK has been clear
in urgently calling for the facts of what happened to be
established, including why such a volume of live fire was used;
we are supportive of that independent, transparent investigation.
Our team at the United Nations is working with others on what we
can do on that. Different forms of inquiry are possible through
the UN and we have to find the right formula, but it is important
to find out more of the facts and we will work on that.
As I indicated earlier, I spoke just this morning to Nikolay
Mladenov, the UN special envoy dealing with the Occupied
Palestinian Territories and Gaza, about looking forward in
relation to Gaza. As the right hon. Lady rightly indicates, and
as we all know, the years of pressure in Gaza, which come from a
variety of different sources, not just the blockade—this also
involves the governorship and leadership in Gaza—have contributed
to the most desperate of situations. I am sure she has been there
recently, as I was a few months ago. As I said some months ago,
compared with when I was last there, in 2014, the situation in
Gaza was more hopeless and more desperate, and the need to
address that urgently is clear.
May I say in conclusion to the right hon. Lady that an element
was missing in her response? She did not mention any possible
complicit Hamas involvement in the events. In all fairness, if we
are to look at the circumstances of this, we need to take that
into account. It is easy and tempting to take one side or the
other, and if any of us have made statements about this in the
past 24 hours, we see it is clear that the views out there are
completely binary. There is no acceptance by those who support
the state of Israel of an understanding of the circumstances of
Gaza, and there is no understanding by those who have supported
the Palestinian cause of any circumstances that might affect
Israel and of what the impact would be should the border be
breached and there be attacks on the Israeli side of it. The UK
will not get into that. As I have indicated, we are clear that we
need a political solution to this. At some stage, we need to hear
from the sort of people who in the past understood both sides and
were prepared to work together. Their voices were stilled not by
their opponents, but by extremists on their own side who killed
those working for peace in the past. Unless we hear those voices
for peace again, we will not resolve this and we will be back
again. I am sure the right hon. Lady will help us, with her
colleagues, in taking that view, because we have to think of the
victims first and see how we can prevent there being more victims
in the future.
Sir (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Even allowing for Hamas’s wicked manipulation of the
Palestinians, does my right hon. Friend accept that the response
of the Israeli defence force was a wholly unacceptable and
excessive use of force, and that it was totally disproportionate?
May I also say, to my shame, that I hope our Foreign Office will
indulge in a little less limp response to this terrible
situation?
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for, again, recognising
both sides of this. An independent inquiry is called for
precisely to find out the reasons for the extent of the live
fire. On the Israeli border, it is clear from repeated statements
by the IDF that their concern about a breach of the fence, the
statements it has had from Hamas and others, and previous attacks
on the Israeli side of the border indicate what would be likely
to happen should there be a breach of the border fence by Hamas
operatives. Preventing that and stopping the border being
infiltrated is a serious thing. But the extent of the live fire
and of the injuries beyond the fence, the number of people
involved and the sort of people who been caught up in this give a
sense of why my right hon. Friend raised that question. If we do
not also question that, as well as the engagement of those who
might have been involved in inflaming the protests, we would not
be doing our job correctly, so we will do both.
(North East Fife)
(SNP)
Like other Members, I am absolutely appalled by the killing of
demonstrators, including children. This is a long and protracted
conflict, which is not helped by the reckless move of the US
embassy to Jerusalem. The UN has an important role to play, and I
am glad the Minister acknowledged that. Does he agree with
yesterday’s statement by the UN Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination? It called for the
“immediate end to the disproportionate use of force against
Palestinian demonstrators… an impartial and independent
investigation”—
that would of course draw evidence from both sides—
and ensuring that Palestinians “enjoy full rights” under the
human rights convention. What moves has he made to ensure that
the US will sign up to that as well?
Again, I am not responsible for the actions of the United States
in relation to this. We have said what we have said about the
embassy; it is not a move we supported. Indeed, my right hon.
Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday that it was
“playing the wrong card at the wrong time”,
so our views on that are clear.
In response to other parts of the hon. Gentleman’s question, we
think that the need to establish the facts of what has happened
means that an independent investigation is necessary. The rights
of all, both of Palestinians and of those who might be subject to
violence from extremists who have come from Gaza and from those
who operate under the rule of Hamas, have to be sacrosanct for
everyone. I go back to a position I will speak about again and
again in this statement: unless those on both sides understand
the needs of the other, we will not get to a solution.
Sir (East Devon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend said that the blockade was only partly to
blame for the bad government in Gaza—in that festering hellhole.
But he must concede that one reason it is a festering hellhole
and a breeding ground for terrorists is that each and every time
there has been an attempt to improve the livelihoods of the
Gazans, by doing something about their water, about their refuge
or about their quality of life, Israel has blockaded it. That is
the problem.
The restrictions on access to Gaza are clearly part of the
pressure placed upon Gaza and people in it. The United Kingdom
has made repeated representations to Israel about easing those
restrictions, and we will continue to do so, but there are
activities perpetrated by those who govern Gaza that add to the
pressures there. Recently, there have been difficulties between
different Palestinian groups in relation to energy, power and
salaries in Gaza. I recently met people from the Office of the
Quartet to talk about work that was being done on new power
plants and on water purification plants. We will continue to
support that work because it is one bright spot and we have to
continue with that as we deal with the politics as well.
Mrs (Liverpool, Riverside)
(Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday’s events were truly horrendous, and it is very
important that all the facts surrounding what happened are
identified and exposed. Does the Minister have any confidence
that this will include the facts about Hamas’s involvement,
starting from its role in destroying the chances for peace after
Israel left Gaza in 2005 and forcibly removed the settlers and
soldiers there? Will this include Hamas’s postings on Facebook
over the past couple of days, which advised the demonstrators to
hide guns and knives in their clothing before breaking the
barrier into Israel’s territory and attacking Israeli civilians
across the border?
It is important that any investigation is able to uncover all
aspects of what might have happened if we are to do proper
justice to those who have been caught up in it. The hon. Lady
occasionally speaks bravely about matters that some would perhaps
like to gloss over and it is right that she raises those, just as
it is right for the Government to recognise that although Israel
has the right to protect its border, it must make sure that its
actions are commensurate with international human rights law. The
concerns that she expressed and the incitement to violence that
we know is there cannot be glossed over by any of us. If we are
to deal with this issue properly and see a resolution in the
future, that has to understood, rather than wished away.
(Harlow) (Con)
All the innocent deaths are a real tragedy for the families and
for everyone in the middle east. Will my right hon. Friend accept
that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have fired thousands of missiles on
to Israeli territory, despite the withdrawal from Gaza; that
Hamas has built tunnels to get from Gaza into Israel; and that
there have been terrorist attacks on the aid crossing and the
pipelines? Is it not the case that Hamas is using some of these
civilians as shields to bring terrorists into Israel?
I hear from the House that occasionally colleagues say things
that are not agreed with by others, but to deal with this issue
sensibly, we have to understand both sides. We know that what my
right hon. Friend said has significant basis in truth, in terms
of what has come out from Hamas to Israel—the statements, the
incitement and everything else. The UK’s role should be clear: we
have to understand the origins of this situation, but above all
we have to recognise that those who have been in control of
events have not grasped the sense of urgency and that this is not
a political matter designed to rally their various bases and keep
the confrontation going. It is not a matter that will settle
itself and it is not something that will manage itself; it is
something that has to be ended. Unless they grasp the urgency
created by the tragedy yesterday, there will be another. Our
voice will be consistent on the urgency of dealing with the
matter. That is the position that I hope we continue to take.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. If colleagues will forgive me, I think I can probably say
without fear of contradiction that the Minister of State is
almost universally respected in the House and very widely liked.
Nobody enjoys hearing the Minister of State more than Mr Speaker.
I say very gently, just as a guide, that I am quite keen to
accommodate all colleagues on this matter. The Minister of
State’s answers are up to him, but if he can bear that in mind,
it would be hugely appreciated.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
All countries, Israel included, of course, have the right to
defend themselves, but there is no justification—none
whatsoever—for the IDF shooting at and killing unarmed protestors
inside Gaza. Although I agree with the Minister that the fact
that there is currently no peace process at all is the greatest
tragedy of all, and that we must continue to strive for one with
the courageous political leadership that that will involve, will
he not agree in return that the very least we can do in these
circumstances is to tell the truth about what is going on? Had it
happened anywhere else, I think the condemnation would have been
unequivocal.
It is of course crucial that the truth is both uncovered and
spoken about. Any breach of international humanitarian law and
any use of live fire in circumstances that would breach it would
be wrong. I noticed the right hon. Gentleman’s statement
yesterday. It is the United Kingdom’s job to support an
examination of what happened, partly to expose it but partly to
remind people of the importance of bringing these circumstances
to an end.
(Preseli Pembrokeshire)
(Con)
Even the staunchest friend of Israel would recognise that
yesterday’s bloodshed was just appalling and deeply, deeply
distressing, but when there is such a highly orchestrated and
deliberate attempt by the Hamas regime to use legitimate protests
as a cover for trying to breach the security zone and bring chaos
and bloodshed on to Israeli soil, what role does my right hon.
Friend see for the international community in putting pressure on
the Hamas leadership to pull back from this really dangerous
activity?
It is difficult. As we know, Hamas is a proscribed terrorist
organisation, but the efforts being made in the Palestinian body
to try to seek a reconciliation, which can come only with the
Palestinian Authority on Quartet terms, where violence has been
renounced, are part of that process. We certainly urge that that
process continues and succeeds but, where there is clear evidence
of extremism that has caused people’s deaths, that must be
brought out and condemned.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Similarly to what I said to the Minister, if colleagues could be
brief, that would help. There is no obligation to deliver a
statement. What is really required is a pithy question, and I
think we will get one from .
(Oxford West and Abingdon)
(LD)
As you know, Mr Speaker, I am the first MP of Palestinian
descent. Where it not for the Nakba—we are commemorating 70 years
of that today—perhaps I would not be here, so it would be remiss
of me not to press the Government. I absolutely agree that Hamas
is partly responsible for this situation, and in between Hamas
and a very extreme Israeli Prime Minister, we have the blood of
children. Does the Minister not agree, however, that the two
sides are not meeting as equals, at whatever peace process table,
and that now is the moment to give recognition to the
Palestinians, so that we have hope, because that is also what has
died this week?
I hear what the hon. Lady says and recognise her background and
achievement in being here. The recognition of a Palestinian state
remains open to the United Kingdom, at a time when it is best
designed to serve the cause of peace. That will remain the UK’s
position.
Sir (New Forest West) (Con)
Why are those of us who have had the chilling experience of
entering and leaving the prison camp that is Gaza never really
surprised, no matter how grotesque the violence gets?
I do not think we are ever really surprised because the seeds of
the conflict are so deep and at times there seems to be little
attention given to dealing with them rather than using them in
various ways. The inevitable consequence of not dealing
effectively with the issues on all sides is what we saw
yesterday.
(Birmingham, Northfield)
(Lab)
The respected Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem said
yesterday that the use of live fire against demonstrators in Gaza
“evinces appalling indifference towards human life on the part of
senior Israeli government and military officials.”
If Israeli human rights defenders can see that, is not the White
House’s response, absolving Israel of all responsibility for the
deaths, as reprehensible as it is short-sighted for peace? Is it
really too much to expect our Government to speak with the same
clarity as Israeli human rights defenders?
I respect B’Tselem. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we share the
concerns about the use of live fire. This is an issue on which we
are not in agreement with the views of the United States of
America.
(Chipping Barnet)
(Con)
We can all agree that an effective peace process is vital if we
are to avoid tragedies of the kind that occurred yesterday. Will
my right hon. Friend acknowledge that Hamas is a serious
roadblock to a peace process, and condemn it for that?
It is clear from the allegations and evidence that there is
likely to have been extremist exploitation of the perfectly
proper march. It is for that reason that an independent
investigation must cover all aspects. Those who have contributed
to extremism and deaths do indeed need condemnation.
(Normanton, Pontefract and
Castleford) (Lab)
Does the Minister not agree that the large-scale use of live fire
against people who are unarmed should be strongly condemned,
wherever it happens in the world and no matter what organisations
might try to influence or organise protests? At a time when
sober, serious foreign policy is urgently needed in the middle
east and the US’s reckless and irresponsible embassy move means
that it is not providing it, does the Minister agree that EU
Governments should be working closely together urgently to
pressurise the Israeli Government to change tack?
I fully understand the hon. Lady’s position and have already
indicated our concern about the use of live fire, which has to be
investigated further. On the US position, we will do all we can.
The US will remain a central part of what needs to happen in
Israel, but it does need to give a greater sense of understanding
of some of the underlying issues than on occasions its statements
suggest. We will work with our partners because they should be
part of the solution. Yesterday’s timing and yesterday’s
event—that split-screen—will be one of the images of 2018. We
must make sure that we use what happened yesterday as a cause for
peace, not as a further cause for confrontation.
(Reigate) (Con)
The situation in Gaza has been desperate and deteriorating for
decades. It is 14 years since British citizen Tom Hurndall
received the kind of treatment that is now being meted out to
hundreds if not thousands of Palestinians on the border,
protesting through the rage and despair that they feel after all
this time. Given that it is now some years since said that the two-state
solution was in the last-chance saloon, if we simply repeat
platitudes about the need for a two-state solution, are we not
limiting our ability to think really constructively about how we
are to end this tragedy for both the Palestinians and the
Israelis?
Continuing on from what was said by the right hon. Member for
Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and by my
hon. Friend, there is room for engagement in this situation and
in the imaginative opportunities for the future by more than just
the United States. These are not platitudes. The fundamentals
remain the same: how do we guarantee the existence and the
security of the state of Israel, which is fundamental, and yet
provide justice for the Palestinians in relation to all that has
happened. That is what needs to be worked on, and we will
dedicate our efforts to that.
(Enfield North) (Lab)
The death toll on the Gazan border was truly terrible, and the
violence must stop, but Hamas must end its cynical exploitation
of the peace process and the Israel Defence Forces must show
restraint and do all they can to minimise civilian casualties.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me—I think that he
does—that the lack of a peace process is at the heart of this
problem and that unless we commit to redoubling our efforts to
achieve a two-state solution, which is the only lasting path to
peace, we will see further violence?
The right hon. Lady is right. We will redouble our efforts, but
we cannot want peace more than the people involved. It will need
leadership in the region itself to demonstrate the determination
to see the answer that we need, but she can be sure that we will
do all we can to bend our efforts in that direction.
Mr (Forest of Dean) (Con)
May I draw the Minister back to his response to the hon. Member
for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) when he referred to the
independent investigation? Does he think that that investigation
could look seriously at the role of Hamas, a proscribed terror
organisation, in this process and get access to the people that
it needs? How does he think that it could come to a reasonable
independent conclusion that we all want to see in this House?
The short answer to my right hon. Friend is that we do not know.
That is important in setting out the terms of an investigation.
Again, we can all see the opportunity in this investigation.
There will be people calling for it to come up with different
answers right from the very beginning, but we can approach it
only on the basis of honesty—of wanting to find out what happened
and all parts of it. Just because it might be difficult to
investigate the circumstances surrounding Hamas is no reason for
its involvement not to be included.
(Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
At times such as this it is easy to despair and say that there is
no solution, but surely what is needed by the Palestinians
captured by the Hamas leadership in Gaza, and by the Israelis
captured by their dysfunctional political system is lasting
peace, and that can come about only if there is a reactivation of
the plan put forward in 2002 by Saudi Arabia and adopted by the
Arab League. What are our Government doing to get a regional
peace initiative?
There is much in what was just said by the long-standing and
respected member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Arab peace
initiative remains a strong base as a possibility for the future.
It is the determination and the urgency that we have to bring to
this. I suspect both him and the Committee, led by my hon. Friend
the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), may have
something to say and a contribution to make in relation to this.
(Bolton West) (Con)
Hamas has a record of using innocent men, women and children as
human shields to cover terrorist activity. Will my right hon.
Friend join me in condemning Hamas and calling on it to stop
sacrificing the people of Gaza?
As I have answered a number of times already, Hamas’s part in
this has to be opened up. It is clear from statements already
intercepted that it was prepared to use any breaches in the fence
for its own purposes, and it is clearly one part of this terrible
event. The questions illustrate my sense of concern about the
binary view of all this. There are many parts to trying to solve
and deal with this, and it is the responsibility of the United
Kingdom to make that clear, but my hon. Friend was right to raise
the concerns about Hamas’s activity.
Dr (Central Ayrshire)
(SNP)
Having worked in Gaza for almost a year and a half as a surgeon,
I am one of the few people in this Chamber who has seen the
result of live ammunition and what it does to the human body.
Various Members talk about breaching the fence, but most of those
injured were nowhere near the fence. More than 200 children and
17 medics were injured. They were not trying to invade Israel.
How will the British Government push for an inquiry, and will
they understand that, while Hamas may have manipulated people to
encourage the scale of the protest, the despair that I see when I
visit Gaza is the underlying cause? If we do not get a peace
process, that will get worse.
We all defer to the hon. Lady’s contribution and expertise in
terms of her work in Gaza and the efforts that she has made, and
there is much in what she says that everyone should acknowledge
and take note of. The despair and the hopelessness in Gaza are
indeed prime movers in people’s concerns and in their wanting to
see a change. The United Kingdom recognises that. That is why
some of our efforts today at the United Nations will be in
support of the UN Secretary General’s special envoy as he looks
to do things in Gaza and for Gaza to seek to relieve that
pressure. It is one part of the equation, and the hon. Lady was
right to raise it.
(Harrow East) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his calm and measured
approach. What assessment has he made of the role of President
Abbas in this whole terrible incident? He has been giving a
substantial number of anti-Semitic statements over the past few
weeks. Does he not have a role in de-escalating the position?
President Abbas has been a long-time supporter of a two-state
solution and a condemner of violence. He apologised for his
recent speech in Ramallah in which he made some remarks about the
holocaust, and realised that it was not a contribution to the
understanding and peace that was necessary. We continue to see
President Abbas as a voice for peace in the region and we need to
work with him and others, but greater leadership needs to be
shown all round on both sides of the equation to get the answers
that we need.
(Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Under what criteria do we continue to sell arms to the Israelis?
Under the same criteria as we do to everyone else. We recognise
that Israel has many threats against it and the sale of arms is
covered by the same rigorous criteria as apply to all other arms
sales, and that will continue.
(Lichfield) (Con)
The New York Times has published photographs and evidence that
some 30,000 to 50,000 people in Gaza have been at the border
fence, and that, I believe, is larger than the size of the
standing Israeli army, so, sadly, I can understand how these
events have happened, tragic as they are. Does my right hon.
Friend not agree with me that taking a unilateral view that it is
only Israel to blame merely encourages Hamas to do worse?
My hon. Friend is right: to take a binary view on this issue
without any regard to any other side is not right. The only way
of getting to the truth of it and revealing who has been most
responsible is to understand that there is more than one party
involved. Even so, just dealing with this incident in itself will
not be sufficient, which is why we must remain fixed on the need
for a political process, a better future for Gaza and a solution
to the politics that have given rise to this.
Mr (Wolverhampton South East)
(Lab)
Israel has a right both to exist and to defend itself, and there
is little doubt that Hamas has been involved in organising,
encouraging and exploiting confrontation in Gaza, but it cannot
be right to use live ammunition to kill more than 50 protesters
and to injure many others. Does the Minister of State agree that
those actions will not only cause dismay to Israel’s many friends
in this country and around the world, but breed further
resentment and hatred in the families of those killed who are
grieving today? We should not overestimate the UK’s influence in
these events, but will the Government at least use their voice to
encourage conciliation and dialogue and to avoid a repeat of the
recent appalling events?
There is a great deal of sense in what the right hon. Gentleman
says. I said in the conclusion of my response to the urgent
question that the shadows of yesterday will be long—in the deaths
and injuries—as they are every time there is a confrontation in
which lives are lost, wherever that may be, in relation to this
long-running issue. That is why it is necessary to express
concern about the use of live fire and find out more about what
happened yesterday. Above all, the situation must be used not
simply as an opportunity for one side to blame the other, but as
an opportunity to try to end these circumstances forever.
(East Renfrewshire)
(Con)
May I commend the Minister on his statement following yesterday’s
awful events and associate myself with his comments? Will he
confirm whether the Government consider the use of mortars,
explosive-lined tyres, Molotov cocktails, flaming kites painted
with swastikas, meat cleavers and other weapons to constitute a
peaceful protest?
No. Again, people have seen what they have seen in relation to
parts of the protest. Let me be straight about the situation as
far as I can see it. It is as wrong to say that everyone who took
part in the demonstration is a terrorist as it is to say that
everything was perfectly peaceful. We know that the truth lies in
between. Of course, those who went to a protest armed and ready
for confrontation may have been playing a part in raising the
temperature, with some of the results that we saw yesterday. It
is so important to examine the circumstances and call to account
all those who may have had any responsibility to ensure that
these deaths and injuries do not happen again.
Dr (Tooting) (Lab)
Yesterday’s abhorrent massacre was a fire fuelled by a
narcissistic American President who is content to watch the world
burn. Never have I felt so strongly that he should not be allowed
the visit the UK. If the planned trip goes ahead, I for one shall
be joining the tens of thousands of people who will line the
streets in protest. I implore the Government to cancel his visit.
The hon. Lady makes her points very strongly. It is not the view
of the United Kingdom that the best way in which to engage with
any country, particularly an important power and friend such as
the United States, is in the manner that she suggests.
Engagement, explanation and working together are the best ways in
which to deal with the concerns that we have and the areas where
we differ on policy.
(Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Too many people in this place have already made up their minds
about who the guilty party is in this situation, so may I praise
the Minister for his balanced view from the Dispatch Box? He is
absolutely right that this is not a binary issue, but I urge him
to continue—as I think he has done already—to differentiate
between protestors and those who have used children as shields
and have gone to the border with the sole intention of breaching
it to kill innocent civilians.
Yes, I do my best to make that distinction. But some of the
allegations have to be fully tested until we find out more about
what happened. I stand by my remarks that the best way in which
to deal with yesterday’s tragedy is to do our best for the
victims of killing or wounding and to look forward to a better
future for Gaza and the region.
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
Assault rifles, sniper rifles, components for aircraft
ammunition: that is just a small selection of the export licences
granted last year by this Government to British firms selling to
Israel. I condemn violence on all sides, but given the slaughter
in Gaza, the condemnation from across this House and the outrage
in the international community, how on earth can this Government
continue to allow the arms trade to profit from mass murder by
the criminal Israeli Government? There is one practical thing
that the Government could do to put pressure on the Israeli
Government: end the arms trade.
The United Kingdom continues to operate a very strict arms regime
in terms of sales. I have already mentioned the legitimate uses
of arms by a country that needs to defend itself. Any allegations
of breaches are of course part of our consideration on future
sales and the like, as the hon. Lady knows well.
(Elmet and Rothwell)
(Con)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to take this measured
tone. As he alluded to, the ratcheting up of the situation over
many years has made no small contribution to what happened
yesterday. I am sure that we all share the view that the death of
any innocent civilian is terrible. What efforts can be made
through the UN and the aid agencies to help with infrastructure
in Gaza? One reason that the blockade was put in place was that
such things were used to build tunnels, and the Israelis probably
reacted in the way in which they did yesterday for the fear of
what would have happened if the border had been breached.
My hon. Friend raises an element of the difficulties in the
region, by asking how we can ensure that materials used for
rebuilding infrastructure in Gaza are not misused. We have strong
and strict controls regarding the diversification of materials,
and will continue to keep them under review. It is undeniable
that more effort is needed in Gaza to relieve some of the
population’s misery. Those who govern Gaza have a responsibility,
but so do the rest of us. We will do our best to live up to that
responsibility and find better ways in which to support the
people of Gaza.
(Cardiff South and Penarth)
(Lab/Co-op)
The scenes of death and injury to civilians in Gaza are simply
sickening. The Minister is very familiar with international law,
so he knows that the requirements on a state using lethal force
are very high with regard to necessity, proportionality and
precaution. Does he believe that those principles were adhered to
by the IDF in this situation?
The short answer is that I do not know. We have made clear our
concerns about live fire. Equally, others have made it very clear
what the consequences would be if there were a breach of the
border, and those in Gaza have said what they might do themselves
if they were able to breach the border. The situation is not
clearcut, but we are extremely concerned by the extensive use of
live fire in circumstances that an inquiry might find were not
correct. We have to find out what happened.
(Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
(Con)
Although it is absolutely essential for the Israeli forces to use
restraint on the Gazan border, does the Minister agree that it is
not acceptable for Hamas to use this situation to manipulate
political opinion and that the role of the international
community should be to identify partners for peace so that we can
get the peace process back on track?
I hope that I have tried to demonstrate that the United Kingdom
takes the path that my hon. Friend would suggest is the
appropriate one to deal with the tragedies of yesterday and to
look towards a better future.
(Birmingham, Yardley)
(Lab)
Israel rightly uses security as a reason to continue the blockade
in Gaza. While I was over there recently, I met a mother who had
just given birth to triplets, but she was to be removed from the
hospital in Jerusalem where she was receiving care because she
was a security risk. A woman who has just given birth is not a
security risk to be removed from her children; but as soon as
somebody removed my babies, I would certainly become one. What
are the Government going to do to ensure that people seeking
desperate healthcare outside Gaza—in Jerusalem—are able to get
it?
I have two responses to the hon. Lady. First, the human
circumstances that she describes take us back to comments made
earlier by colleagues on both sides of the House about the depth
of resentment built up over a lengthy period by the way in which
all this has been handled. We have talked about the ability of
politics to have divided and separated people and built them into
situations where they cannot see one another as anything but an
enemy. That is at the root and heart of this issue. Secondly, on
the specific aspect of the hon. Lady’s question, we do raise with
the Israeli authorities the subject of movement for medical help,
but it should also be recognised that there are many occasions
when that help is given. That is an undisclosed part of the
relationship between the two.
(Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
What conversations has the Minister had with his counterparts in
the Egyptian Government, who have great influence both through
having a dialogue with Hamas and through partnering with the
Israelis regarding the Gaza military blockade?
That is a very good question. Personally, I have not had many
conversations with the Egyptian Government recently, but I know
that our representatives in Cairo do. My hon. Friend is
absolutely right that Cairo has an important role to play. It has
played an important role in dealing with terrorism in the Sinai
and relationships with Israel and in opening up to some degree
what is happening in Gaza and helping with the reconciliation
process. Egypt is a valuable partner in this push for peace and a
better future in the region.
(Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The widespread public distress from Israeli human rights
organisations such as B’Tselem reflects the fact that there is
deep concern and distress about these horrendous deaths across
the spectrum, even given the conduct of Hamas. But the truth is
that this is not the first time that this has happened at the
Gaza border in recent weeks. The international community knew
that the embassy move would be a flashpoint. Like Mr Speaker, I
have great faith in the Minister’s persuasive powers, so will he
tell us what he did before this week to talk to the Israelis
about how they managed peaceful protests, which he has recognised
the Palestinians have a right to undertake, and what will he do
differently as a result of yesterday?
Since the protests were planned, I have been in contact with his
excellency the ambassador to the state of Israel here and with my
counterpart, Deputy Foreign Minister Hotovely, in Israel. We have
discussed the background to the protests. On all occasions, I
have urged restraint in a likely reaction to those who would
challenge the border. In recent times, tactics may have changed
in relation to trying to use more tear gas to move people away
from the border, but these are matters for the state of Israel.
Since these situations were contemplated, we have been in regular
contact with the state of Israel about how it would meet the
challenges that it was likely to see at the border.
(Aberdeen South) (Con)
We have seen Hamas officials actively encouraging protestors to
be martyrs and bussing rioters to the border for them to sling
Molotov cocktails and fireballs across it and to tear down
fencing. Does the Minister share my concern that Hamas is using
civilians as a cover to incite violence, and will he join me in
calling on Hamas to abide by the Quartet’s principles of
non-violence?
I think I have used this quote before. In one of Seán O’Casey’s
plays about Ireland, a young man said to his mother that he was
prepared to die for Ireland, and the mother said, “Everybody is
prepared to die for their countries—when are people prepared to
live for their countries?” The horror whereby people might be
prepared to encourage more bloodshed to demonstrate a political
point is very real in the area. If there is anything we can do,
we have to break into that, as others have done in other areas of
conflict.
(Ilford North) (Lab)
Yesterday’s needless bloodshed, the demolition of Palestinian
homes and the ongoing abuse of Palestinian human rights
demonstrate that Hamas has no better friend, or indeed recruiting
sergeant, than the current Israeli Government. Given the
realignment of US policy exemplified by its embassy move, is it
not time for all friends of Israel, including this Government, to
say plainly to the Israeli Government that their actions
undermine their own peace and security and that, as B’Tselem’s
executive director argued only yesterday, defending the border is
not a licence to kill?
The hon. Gentleman makes his own points. I can assure him that we
speak regularly and plainly to the Government of the state of
Israel, but we also make the point that ultimately a state’s
security is not just about its weaponry and walls; it is about
the relationship with its neighbours and others. If a peace
process is to get anywhere, that has to be an essential part of
the future as well as weaponry and confrontation.
(Gillingham and Rainham)
(Con)
The loss of innocent life is completely unacceptable. We have
talked about the US moving its embassy to Jerusalem, but the
other key impediment to peace in the middle east is the expansion
of the illegal settlements by the Israeli Government. What is the
United Kingdom’s position on this matter?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Our position is very clear and
has been restated. We oppose the settlement process, which we
regard as one of the obstacles to peace in the area, and
challenge what we consider to be illegal demolitions. Again, only
an overall agreement will deal with those issues as part of the
long-standing difficulties between the Palestinians and the state
of Israel.
(Bradford West) (Lab)
We are on a very dangerous path when even some respected
Palestinian figures are moving away from the idea of a two-state
solution, moving towards a struggle for one-state control. Does
the Minister not accept that this is exactly why we should be
moving swiftly towards recognising the Palestinian state while
there is still one to recognise?
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, which has been made many
times before. I recognise the force of it. However, recognition
of itself would not change anything on the ground. It remains for
the United Kingdom to make a judgment about that, as I indicated
earlier, but we will have to pursue other paths as well. Her
point about moving away from a two-state solution is a reminder
of the danger that if we cannot find a conclusion to this, others
will find it for us, and it will not be good.
(West Aberdeenshire and
Kincardine) (Con)
The violence at the border in Gaza is deplorable, but the
demonstrations were deliberately provocative. While imploring the
Israeli Government to show restraint in their actions, does the
Minister agree that the Palestinian Authority now need to show
calm and courageous leadership to do all they can to help and
encourage the people of Gaza to turn away from the evil and
manipulative Hamas and back to peace? [Interruption.]
My hon. Friend deserves to be heard. The Palestinian Authority
have been in regular contact with Hamas. I think that the
Palestinian Authority share the despair of many others in
relation to the circumstances in Gaza. They have recently made
attempts to seek a new political solution in Gaza that will lead
to a unified authority that can only be accepted by people
outside on the terms of the Quartet. We continue to see members
of the Palestinian Authority as those who, if they keep driving
for that and driving for peace, will be proper partners in the
process.
(Na h-Eileanan an
Iar) (SNP)
I recall that in this House on 15 January 2009, the then Member
for Manchester, Gorton, , said:
“My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home
town of Staszow. A German soldier shot her…in her bed.”
He continued:
“My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers
murdering…grandmothers in Gaza.”—[Official Report, 15 January
2009; Vol. 486, c. 407.]
That should apply to anybody else—whether 58 or 2,000 more. Will
the UK Government borrow from the late ’s language and state
that Palestinian lives are as precious as Israeli lives and that
those who reportedly cheered yesterday in Israel, “Burn them,
shoot them, kill them,” are beyond contempt?
All lives are indeed sacred. That anyone, in any circumstances,
should cheer the results of actions in which people lose their
lives means that they are losing a connection to something very
valuable. It is the duty of this House, notwithstanding the anger
and upset that we often feel, to try to find a way through. The
hon. Gentleman’s concern that all lives should be held in the
same regard is absolutely correct.
(South Dorset) (Con)
Bearing in mind that the two-state solution is the only one on
the table, who does my right hon. Friend reckon should be the
honest broker to take this forward?
Well, I wish there was more on the table than there currently is.
There is an urgent need for that process to be rekindled. We
await hearing from the US envoys. I know from personal experience
that they have been working extremely hard on this, but they have
to come up with something that is realistic and just and provides
the possibility of working on both sides, not something that will
be too one-sided.
As for honest brokers, as I indicated earlier, the United States
position has probably changed in relation to some of the
decisions made recently, but it is very clear that it remains an
important partner. During the recent visit of Vice-President
Pence to the region, and also new Secretary of State Pompeo, we
urged that there should be meetings with the Palestinian
authorities, and we will continue to urge that. But others will,
I hope, have a role to play when proposals come forward.
(Birmingham, Ladywood)
(Lab)
The fate of the people of Gaza is to be condemned to live in an
open-air prison camp and to be shot dead when they protest and
remind the world of their despair. The actions of the Israeli
military yesterday are indefensible on any measure. So may I
press the Minister to agree that now really is the time to take
the one measure that we have at our disposal to send a message to
the Israeli Government: formally and immediately to recognise the
state of Palestine? It may not change realities on the ground,
but it would send a message. We have so few options; he should
take this one, and take it now.
I hear what the hon. Lady says, and I have answered the point
before. Certainly, looking at what can be done in the
circumstances, we are all searching for something new, but that
starts from the base of some of the comments made today. We have
to find leaders who are prepared to do what Anwar Sadat and Prime
Minister Rabin did many years ago—to reach out to others and
overcome the extremists on their own side. The United Kingdom has
to be clear about support for that process and look at any
measure that will assist in it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I just gently observe what will be evident to everybody
because you can see the Chamber: all remaining would-be
contributors are situated on the Opposition Benches. I would like
to accommodate colleagues. May I appeal to people who have
pre-prepared scripts that they feel the nation must hear to
consider possibly—just possibly—reducing or, dare I say it, even
abandoning them and just asking the question? It is up to you,
colleagues, but if you ask long questions, you do so in the
certain knowledge that you are reducing the chances of one of
your colleagues, with whom you normally feel great solidarity,
having the opportunity to contribute. I am sure that you would
not want to do that because it would be uncomradely, and none of
you is going to behave in an uncomradely manner.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
Like me, many of my constituents want to know why the British
Government refuse to condemn unequivocally the shooting dead of
unarmed civilians. Would the Minister care to enlighten us?
I made it very clear in the statement yesterday, as I have today,
that we have great concern about the extensive use of live fire.
As I said earlier, if there is evidence of a breach of
international humanitarian law in the deaths, that should indeed
be condemned, but we need to find out more, and that is why we
support an independent investigation.
Ms (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Minister speaks of balance, but no balance has been expressed
by the US Administration, who have rightly condemned Hamas but
said nothing about the carnage unleashed on civilians by the
vastly superior IDF. The Minister has said that the UK disagrees
with the United States Government’s position, but will he
undertake to convey to them urgently the fact that their failure
to be unequivocal and make absolutely clear that the level of
violence was unacceptable will simply delay any political
solution to this crisis?
Certainly in our conversations with the United States,
particularly when we have differences of policy, we indicate why
we differ and why we feel in particular circumstances, whether it
is in relation to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or this,
that their stated objectives may not be achieved by their policy.
That is a part of the discussion that we will continue to have.
(Edinburgh West) (LD)
In this utterly depressing and heartbreaking situation, in the
centenary year of the Balfour declaration, will the British
Government undertake to ensure that both halves of that statement
are fulfilled—that as well as protecting Israel’s right to exist,
we defend the right of the Palestinian people to have exactly the
same rights and international status as Israelis?
The Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary
made it clear at the time of the commemoration of Balfour that
there were indeed two parts to that declaration, and the second
remained unfinished business. That is still the view of the
United Kingdom Government.
Mr (Bury South) (Ind)
The Israeli Government have a moral duty to minimise civilian
casualties in defence of their borders. The loss of life
yesterday was a horrendous tragedy, but to be clear, Hamas
members are not freedom fighters; it is a terrorist organisation
sponsored by Iran and using civilians as a human shield. Does the
Minister agree that a new reality whereby Iran is in Syria,
Hezbollah runs Lebanon and Hamas controls Gaza means that Israel
faces grave security concerns? Is it not time for the United
States and the Arab League countries to show responsible
leadership on an equal basis and jointly sponsor a new political
dialogue aimed at rebuilding trust and a new peace process
between Israelis and Palestinians?
The hon. Gentleman understands this situation extremely well,
having held my post in the past, and knows the risks in the area.
He is right to explain the risks that Israel feels all around it.
He is also right to suggest that, unless we get something new
into the situation to understand it and bring the confrontation
to an end, we will not see progress. Whether it is led by just
the United States or others, it is essential that we put
something new into the process, otherwise we will be back here
again.
Mr Speaker
Colleagues are delightfully incorrigible. A number are now
developing a little technique of signalling to me that they
intend to be very short, therefore trying to persuade me to call
them earlier than some other colleague.
(Bethnal Green and Bow)
(Lab)
Since 30 March, 97 Palestinians have been killed and more than
12,000 injured. I have heard words of concern expressed by the
Minister, whom I greatly admire, but I implore him to use the
word “condemn” and stop the trend of those in the Foreign Office
to be mealy-mouthed when these killings happen. I implore our
Government to take a leadership role and condemn the attacks.
There is much to condemn all round. We have heard from colleagues
on both sides of the House about activities that are rightly to
be condemned. As I indicated earlier, deaths that have resulted
from breaches of international humanitarian law, whether
perpetrated by the IDF or anyone else, would rightly be
condemned.
(Peterborough) (Lab)
What is the UK doing at the Security Council to ensure that an
independent inquiry happens, and where is the Foreign Secretary?
The Foreign Secretary is on his way this afternoon to see the
Foreign Minister of Iran about matters we discussed earlier, and
he was already committed to work after Foreign Office questions.
As far as the United Nations is concerned, there will be a
meeting later on today. We intend that work progresses on some
form of independent inquiry, notwithstanding the difficulties
that have been put forward, but I think there is widespread
recognition around the world that we must get something in place
that will enable some of these questions to be answered and act
as a springboard to something rather better in the future.
(Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Trump peace plan is said to be in its final stages and ready
to be published following the disastrous move of the US embassy
to Jerusalem. Will the Minister promise that this Government will
not slavishly follow the policy of the United States but look to
bolster an alternative with the international community?
I think we have proved relatively recently that we are not a
slavish devotee of US foreign policy. There have been other
occasions when we have clearly differed. We will make a judgment
on what comes forward in relation to a possible peace proposal
along the lines that I have indicated earlier. It has to be
workable. It has to have the opportunity of bringing in those who
would support it from neighbouring Arab states and others. There
clearly has to be an element of justice in it. It has to secure
Israel’s interests as well. We will make our own judgment on it,
but we will work with partners to see that it provides the basis
of success. I made the point earlier about urgency—we cannot just
kick the can down the road further, because we all see what
happens.
(Battersea) (Lab)
If there was proof that UK arms exports were being used by the
IDF at the Gaza border, would the Minister feel it was right for
the UK Government to suspend those export licences?
If that was proved, it would be likely to add to the element of
risk that is considered when an arms sale is contemplated. It is
a category that would have to be taken into account when deciding
whether further sales could be given. It is a big “if”, but it is
already in our very rigorous arms export criteria to make sure
that, if such circumstances come about, that is part of the
process of considering whether further sales should be allowed.
(Aberavon) (Lab)
We have been issuing stern condemnations of Israeli behaviour for
decades, and all the while, the occupation has become more
entrenched, illegal settlements have mushroomed and Palestinians
have less land, rights and freedoms than ever before. Surely it
is time now to move from empty words to tangible actions,
starting by banning the trade from illegally occupied
territories. The trade and products of businesses in the illegal
territories should be banned from the European Union, and the
British Government should take the lead on making that happen.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but that is not a view that
the United Kingdom takes. We are not part of the boycott,
divestment and sanctions process. We believe in giving consumers
the choice, and that is not a road down which we are going to go.
(Carmarthen East and
Dinefwr) (PC)
The South African Government have recalled their ambassador to
Israel. The Irish Government have summoned the Israeli ambassador
to Dublin. Are the British Government considering either
diplomatic route?
I am not aware of a formal calling in, but we are in regular
contact with both the Government of the state of Israel and the
ambassador here, and that will remain the case.
(Wigan) (Lab)
The Government’s failure to condemn the actions of the Israeli
Government and the reckless, inflammatory behaviour of the Trump
Administration shames this country, but even more shameful is the
equivocation about arms sales to Israel. Last year, this
Government approved £216 million-worth of arms export licences to
Israel, and they do no checks on how those weapons are used.
Given the scenes that we have witnessed in recent days of
children being gunned down, how on earth can the Minister stand
before the House and continue to justify those arms sales to
Israel?
If the hon. Lady wants to make a link between the two, she will
need to have to prove her allegations. We have no evidence to
suggest that there is any link. On the checks, before an arms
sale is considered, it has to go through the criteria, which
consider the possibility of the risk of use in conflict. That
work is done and that will continue to be done. That is the way
in which we consider whether there is a degree of risk. If she
wants to make an allegation that British weapons are particularly
used, she may do so and of course that will be considered. We
have no evidence to suggest that that is the case.
(Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Minister said earlier that he did not know whether
British-supplied arms were used in the massacre yesterday because
it is not the policy of his Government to inquire about what
happens to them after they are sold and that the checks take
place before sale. Will he now make it his policy to find out
whether or not arms supplied in this country were used for the
mass slaughter of unarmed protesters in the violence yesterday?
What I said earlier is that we have no evidence to suggest that
they were. I also said that all the extant arms sales licences in
relation to Israel that are in process would be checked from the
start of the protests in order to cover that issue. Of course,
should any evidence come forward, we would be extremely
concerned. We do not have a policy of checking all the end uses
because it is not possible to verify, but consideration of where
arms might be used is a part of the criteria in supplying them in
the first place. Those are the checks that are made, but of
course I am extremely concerned. Should there be any serious
allegation and any evidence, of course that would be important to
our criteria and to the Commons Committee that looks into that.
(Penistone and Stocksbridge)
(Lab)
The Minister is taking a calm and measured approach in his
conversations with the Israeli Government, which is right, but
the situation on the border is urgent, so may I ask him whether
he is prepared to convey, in the strongest possible terms, a
sense of the duty that the Israeli Government hold to tell their
soldiers to show restraint, particularly in relation to the use
of live ammunition?
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s question. In our contact with Israel
up to now, we have been very clear in relation to that. The IDF
has itself said what it considers to be its rules of engagement
and it is a matter for the IDF, but we have persistently—right
from the beginning of the risk of the sort of confrontations we
saw yesterday—used the term “to use restraint”. We mean it and we
know what we mean, and we engage very closely with the Israeli
Government in relation to what they have been doing.
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
North) (SNP)
There has been much talk today of the terrorism on the Gazan side
of the border fence, but if you kill 58 and injure 2,000 unarmed
civilians, including children, is that not an act of terrorism
and, if it is, should we not proscribe the IDF as a terrorist
organisation?
I think the hon. Gentleman is probably taking himself into
extremely dangerous and serious waters. It is because of
allegations like that that we need to see an independent inquiry
to find out what has happened, but I do not share the view of the
hon. Gentleman.
Mr (Slough) (Lab)
Due in no small part to the myopic and reckless policies of
President Trump in moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, it is
appalling and very saddening to see the slaughter of unarmed
civilian protesters in Gaza. Whether it is protesters being shot
in the back or children shot while standing hundreds of metres
from the border fence, the Israeli authorities are clearly
killing and maiming those who pose no threat to them. If this was
Iran, the Government would utterly condemn it, so will the
Minister condemn the Israeli authorities today?
I repeat the comments that I made earlier: we are extremely
concerned about the use of live fire and the implications behind
that, and about the deaths and injuries caused. That is why the
United Kingdom supports an independent investigative inquiry into
what has happened.
(Oldham East and
Saddleworth) (Lab)
I add my voice to the condemnation of the use of lethal force by
the IDF against predominantly unarmed civilians. I do share
concerns about the role of Hamas in this. I have huge regard for
the Minister, but he has been very hazy on the details of what he
is specifically doing and what the Government are specifically
doing to restart the peace process. He mentioned leadership,
which is absolutely key, and there is too little of it, so will
he in the next two weeks come back to this House with a statement
on what he is specifically going to do?
I will do my best to help the hon. Lady now. The situation is
that, by and large, the work of the envoys appointed by the
United States President at present holds the keys to the middle
east peace process, and all parties involved are waiting for
those to come forward. Those envoys have been engaged with
Governments in the region and with various parties. It is really
urgent that they come forward. Until they do, none of us has a
clear sight as to what those are. They have held them very close,
but they have also made it clear that, when they are ready to
announce something, others will be engaged. The test then will be
what exactly it is, but as I said in answer to the question from
the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), if it is not
workable, it will have to be and we will make our views clear.
However, that is where we are at the moment. Should there be
anything else, honestly, I will come to the House very quickly,
as would the Foreign Secretary.
(Rotherham) (Lab)
Fifty-eight Palestinians were murdered yesterday, six of them
children, one of whom was eight months old. Does the Minister
really believe that the Israeli response was proportionate to the
threat or, coming in this historic week, should we see it as a
deliberate attempt to undermine the peace process?
I do not believe that this is a deliberate attempt to undermine
the peace process. The Israeli authorities did not start these
protests, the marches or anything like that. It is clear from the
reaction around the world to the events of yesterday that Israel
has a lot of questions to answer in relation to what happened. I
cannot therefore see any sensible connection between the two, but
it is absolutely true, as I have said, that this is an area of
deep concern for all of us.
(Derby North) (Lab)
Following the massacre of unarmed Palestinians by Netanyahu’s
apartheid regime, is it not time to support the boycott,
disinvestment and sanctions campaign until such time as Israel
complies with its obligations under international law? If that is
a step too far, will the Minister at least press for a review of
the arms export licence criteria, because they are clearly not
satisfactory if they allow us to continue selling arms to Israel,
given the appalling events that we witnessed yesterday?
I do not agree with the first point, for the reasons I gave
earlier. On the second point, our arms sales criteria are very
strict. They are constantly under review both by the House and by
the Government. If there is anything that gives cause for concern
in relation to any arms sales to Israel, that will be covered.
(City of Chester)
(Lab)
The Israeli Government seem to get away with a level of
disproportionate violence that is not tolerated elsewhere and
they continue to ignore multiple United Nations resolutions, so
can the Minister tell us specifically what he can say to the
Israeli Government to persuade them to play by the international
rules that the rest of us seek to apply?
Israel makes it very clear that it does seek to abide by
international rules-based decisions, but there are areas where we
continue to have concerns, whether in relation to settlements or
anything else. All I can do is make it very clear to the House
and to the hon. Gentleman that we repeat these concerns—we are
very direct—and, again, there will be no resolution to this if
each side digs in and claims that it is already doing everything
it can. There are fundamentals relating to the security of the
state of Israel that it will never compromise, but we think that
ensuring a better relationship with its neighbours and taking
some of the actions urged on it by others is a better way to look
to its future defence than the direction it sometimes takes.
(Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is grotesque that the Americans are planning to block the
independent investigation, but do we not already know that many
of the people killed and injured yesterday posed no threat to the
Israeli regime? Does the Minister not recognise that, by failing
to come to the Dispatch Box and unequivocally condemn the murder
of Palestinian citizens that we saw yesterday, he is actually
strengthening in the minds of the IDF the idea that we will
support the Israelis, even when we see this appalling slaughter?
No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman because I have made it
clear that, should there be any investigation and should it be
uncovered that any of the deaths or woundings were caused by
breaches of international humanitarian law, the United Kingdom
will stand four-square for the upholding of international
humanitarian law and condemn those who work outside it. However,
it is for the very reasons of concern that we have expressed our
view about the use of live fire and called for the independent
inquiry that we believe is necessary in order to find out
precisely what happened. We of course share the concerns about
the deaths and woundings that we have seen on film and video.
(Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Is not the killing of unarmed child protesters enough for the
Minister and the Government finally to work with others not just
to see the end of the blockade of Gaza and stop the illegal
occupation of Palestinian land, but to suspend arms sales to
Israel and recognise the state of Palestine?
As I have said in response to each of those questions before, the
circumstances that we saw yesterday were the culmination of many
different things. But of course the death of any child in such
circumstances must be investigated to find out how a child might
be in such a situation. Each and every death and wounding has to
be the subject of inquiry and investigation if we are to find out
some of the facts behind it, but again, we must move on to a
better resolution to these circumstances.
(Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Does the Minister recognise that recent events have coincided
with the clamping down on and shrinking of the space for
criticism of Israel and its human rights record? Will he condemn
the deportation of Human Rights Watch workers from Israel?
The word “condemn” is easy to use; the issue is about trying to
get some practicalities out of the situation. Israel’s
immigration policy is a matter for itself as ours is for us, but
we have already drawn attention to the fact that Israel’s use of
it in some circumstances—in respect of human rights defenders and
those with different political views—does not make for the
opening up of political space. Some time ago, I gave a clear
answer to a question about whether the United Kingdom would be
dissuaded from talking to B’Tselem, Peace Now and one or two
other such organisations. The answer is absolutely not.
(Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
We cannot talk about a peaceful solution while unarmed protesters
are killed in search of it. The situation is untenable and
intolerable. Does the Minister agree that we need a radical
rethink in our approach to the conflict, and that we could start
by recognising Palestine as a state, so that both Israel and
Palestine are on the same level?
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that whatever has been considered
until now is not achieving the end objective. We hope for more
from the peace process; if that does not come, we will have to
think of more radical, in the hon. Gentleman’s word, suggestions.
The same basics of protection and security for the existence of
the state of Israel, together with justice for a Palestinian
state, have to remain the bulwarks of what the international
community can take forward, but must ultimately be agreed by the
parties themselves.
Mr Speaker
I express the confident hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham,
Erdington (Jack Dromey), a legendary campaigner, will not require
more than 20 words.
(Birmingham, Erdington)
(Lab)
The Palestinians have a right to nationhood and Israel has a
right to security, but does the Minister not recognise the wise
words of the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas
Soames)? Now is not the time for a “limp response” from our
Government but the time to be unequivocal: there can be no
justification for a thousand people being shot and no
justification for the intransigence of the President of the
United States of America and the Prime Minister of Israel, who
are a fundamental obstacle on the road to peace.
Mr Speaker
I think the words were grouped.
The circumstances of yesterday’s killing and wounding of
protesters were shocking and tragic, and that is why we need an
investigation into all those circumstances. Beyond that, we have
to find ways to bring these confrontations to an end. That will
take a long political process in which the United Kingdom must be
engaged. That is why it must be very clear that it needs to keep
up its contact with both sides to make sure that we do not fall
behind the binary lines being set up by many to prevent contact
from one to the other. We need to make sure that we can keep
channels of communication open between those who ultimately have
to make decisions.
(Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Consecutive Foreign Secretaries have stated that the building of
illegal settlements is narrowing the window of opportunity for a
two-state solution. What are the UK Government doing at the
United Nations to make sure that the UN resolutions are abided
by?
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we support resolutions in the terms
that he mentions, and we support those such as the Norwegian
Refugee Council who provide legal support to those who will take
to the Israeli Supreme Court actions against such illegal
demolitions. We provide support in a practical way—we support the
UN resolutions as well as continuing to make it clear that the
settlement process is one of the obstacles to peace in the area.
(Glenrothes) (SNP)
How does it help the cause of moderate voices in Gaza and
elsewhere in Palestine when they look to one of the supposedly
great diplomatic powers on earth—the United Kingdom—and see a
complete refusal to recognise the evil done to people yesterday?
How will that help them to persuade the Palestinian people that
one day they will be able to trust the United Kingdom as an
impartial ally to build a peace process?
Nothing that I have said today should give those people any such
thought. The suggestion of evil has come from many quarters in
respect of those who have put protesters in the way of harm or
those who might have breached international humanitarian law. Our
condemnation is perfectly clear.
As I said earlier, we are determined to recognise that these
tragedies must not find yet another cause—another date to be
remembered and another thing to take people out on marches for in
the future. There will be all of that—as I said earlier, the
shadow of any these deaths or injuries will be long—but the
situation has to be used as an opportunity to go for something
peaceful and find a way through the confrontations rather than
anything else.
(Ogmore) (Lab)
There is a deepening crisis in Gaza when it comes to medical
support and equipment—including, following yesterday’s horrific
attacks at the border, for amputees, including children—as well
as in reconstruction and rehabilitation. What can the Minister
practically do to offer more support to the people of Gaza and
ensure that they get real medical support and the rehabilitation
that they need?
In my role as DFID Minister, I should say that we have already
been in touch with those concerned about medical supplies in
Gaza. We work through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency
and other UN agencies. Clearly the effects of the past few weeks
will have increased the pressures and concerns. I am looking
urgently at whether there is even more that we can do, although
we have responded to some concerns already.
(Stockton North) (Lab)
Given the ongoing oppression of the Palestinian people in Gaza
and the illegal occupation of the west bank, how confident is the
Minister that Israel will ever allow any of the kind of
investment and development he said is needed in Palestine—in
Gaza, in particular?
I have some confidence in that. As I said some time ago, I
recently had a meeting with the economic development adviser to
the Quartet, looking at infrastructure development in Gaza, in
which Israel will take a part. As we know, Israel remains
concerned about the governance of Gaza, but ultimately anyone in
Israel has to know that the people of Gaza cannot keep on as
deprived and hopeless as they are, lacking some of the basic
facilities of life. To go there, smell the sea and recognise what
is happening with sanitation is dreadful. The United Kingdom will
keep up its efforts to work with others and ensure that Israel
recognises that it has a part to play, notwithstanding its
security concerns in relation to Gaza, which are real.
(Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
(SNP)
The Minister gives sincere answers at the Dispatch Box, but the
reality is that demolitions and settlement expansion continue, as
well as the illegal blockade of Gaza. Now there has been this
unprecedented violence against unarmed protesters. As others have
said, actions speak louder than words. Can the Minister explain
to my concerned constituents why he does not support their call
for an arms embargo on Israel?
That is simply because Israel does face defensive threats, and a
complete arms embargo would not be the right response or called
for. The hon. Gentleman could go through the arms export criteria
with his concerned constituents and see how the House and the
Government handle them, how they are challengeable in the courts
and why that remains the basis for any decision made on arms
exports, which are constantly reviewed.
Dr (Ealing Central and Acton)
(Lab)
Our Government back a two-state solution, but recognise only one
of the states. Given yesterday’s shocking events, surely they
could send a powerful signal, make good on the overwhelming vote
in this House in 2014 and, along with 137 other nations,
recognise Palestine. If the time is not right now, will it ever
be?
I recognise the force of the hon. Lady’s question, as I did
earlier. We have no definitive set rule on this matter. It
remains open to the United Kingdom to make such a decision when
we consider it is most conducive.
(Oldham West and Royton)
(Lab/Co-op)
Israel has a right to exist and it has a right to defend its
borders, but it has to use that right with responsibility and
there is no doubt that it well and truly overstepped the mark.
Was the Prime Minister given a pre-warning before the US decided
to relocate its embassy to Jerusalem? If so, what was her
response? If not, what does that say about our relationship with
America?
I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question. If I
remember rightly, if there was advance notice it was pretty
short, simply because it is a sovereign decision for the United
States and Israel.
On the relationship, this is always a very difficult point: if
the relationship is such that our views are always in line with
the United States, people claim that we are a poodle of the
United States. Where our views clearly differ, we are accused of
losing the special relationship. The truth is that if we
disagree, we disagree openly and clearly. We did not agree with
this decision on the embassy, for some of the reasons we have
seen and experienced.
We still feel great concern about the symbolism of the move. It
means one thing in Israel and to Israelis, and something
completely different to others. We were alert to that and to the
sensitivity of others, and we will continue to press those in the
United States. Notwithstanding its rightful support for the state
of Israel, the US sometimes does things that it thinks are in
support of the state of Israel when they actually might make its
life rather more difficult.
(Hammersmith) (Lab)
Not a single Palestinian needed to be killed or maimed in the
current protest. That they were was the result of the choice of
munitions and tactics deployed by the Israelis. I appreciate that
the Minister wants to see all sides of the issue in the longer
term, but does the current crisis not demand a more robust
response from the Foreign Office, which might just save some
lives in the short term?
In terms of saving lives in the short term, we have continued
today, as a result of yesterday’s events, to maintain our
contacts with both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian
authorities through our consulate in Jerusalem and through the
embassy in Tel Aviv. We do not need to draw attention to the
events of yesterday to say that the pleas for restraint we have
made over many weeks have clearly not had the desired effect on
those who might have been in a position to exercise it. It has
not happened. We will continue to make them, but the evidence of
the dreadful circumstances yesterday should make everyone who
played a part in it pause and realise what they have done, and
bring the conflict and violence to an end so that we can get a
chance to get other things moving forward.
(Bradford East) (Lab)
The reality is that even as we stand here today, the blood of
innocent men, women and children continues to spill on the
streets of Gaza. I join other hon. Members in condemning the
attacks on civilians in the strongest possible terms. Will the
Minister inform the House what steps he has taken, along with the
international community, to put an immediate stop to this
unlawful massacre? Why will he not accept the call from Members
that now is the time to recognise the state of Palestine?
I think the power and emotion with which the hon. Gentleman
speaks is shared by an awful lot of people throughout the Arab
world and in many other places. The sadness is that that voice
has been heard before and heard way too often. It is the
Government’s job to try to make those who are responsible for the
circumstances that give rise to such upset and anger realise that
there may be steps they can take to make sure those circumstances
do not occur again. That is what we are doing. The answer to the
hon. Gentleman’s second question is that at present we do not
agree with him that the time is right, but should the time come
we will.
(Dewsbury) (Lab)
Does the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, share my
outrage and sorrow that the Israeli Defence Minister, the man in
charge of the Israeli snipers killing Palestinians, has declared
that there are no innocents in Gaza?
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s comments, which I appreciate
very much. The statement she quotes is not one with which I
agree. I think there have been other statements from Israeli
Ministers that everyone in Gaza is a terrorist or that there is
no such thing as a peaceful march. The truth is that a lot of
people were taking part in the march for perfectly proper
reasons: to express their concern about the despair and the
hopelessness that we talked about earlier. Equally, it is true to
say that there were those who knew that they could exploit it and
did so. But the blanket condemnation of everyone in these
circumstances does not help a proper understanding of those
circumstances, and the hon. Lady is right to draw attention to
such comments.
(Burnley) (Lab)
In the festering hellhole that is Gaza, everyday life is
extremely difficult. The World Health Organisation has long
raised concerns about access to adequate medical care on a
routine basis for Palestinians living in Gaza. What assurances
can the Minister give to the 3,000 victims injured yesterday that
they will be supported with proper medical care?
As I indicated earlier, we take such concerns extremely
seriously, and they are one of the issues we raise. If we want a
normalisation of relations, and if we want to decrease the sense
of bitterness and upset, then ordinary humanitarian
considerations have to be a prime concern. We will continue to
raise these issues and work very closely with UNRWA and the WHO.
We recognise that there are particular pressures at the moment,
but joint and combined work between Israel and those in Gaza
might help to break down some barriers. We will do all we can to
support it.
(Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
(Lab)
The Minister says that recognising the state of Palestine will
not change the facts on the ground, but he must accept that the
facts on the ground are changing now because hope is bleeding to
death. He says he is waiting for the right moment. If he goes
ahead with the appalling President Trump’s ill-advised visit to
this country, that is the moment at which we should say to the
President and to the world: we recognise the state of Palestine.
I will hear many suggestions for when the right time to recognise
the state of Palestine might be, and there are many reasons why
that might be connected with other things. All I can do is assure
the right hon. Gentleman that the decision to make a declaration
will remain ours, independent and based on the best consideration
we can give it. Tempting though particular offers may be, we have
to make our own decision on that at the right time.
(Hornsey and Wood Green)
(Lab)
What fresh impetus can be given to the resettlement of the tens
of thousands of Palestinian refugees across the middle east
region who are now grandparents? That terrible situation can fuel
a lot of resentment, anger and fear.
Again, the hon. Lady raises a factor that does not always get the
attention it needs: those who are confined in camps around the
region, hosted by states that have been supportive over time and
supported by the excellent work of UNRWA. We continue to support
that work, but she is right. The right of return has been a key
part of the discussions between the various parties who will
ultimately make the agreement in relation to the peace process.
It will remain a key part of the issue, but the parties
themselves must come to a solution. We support those who are in
these difficult circumstances, and the sooner their position is
regularised the better.
Mr (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
I have written to Ambassador Johnson to condemn, in the strongest
terms, the provocative action by the Trump Administration in
moving its embassy, which led to the depressingly predictable
bloodshed on the border. Is the Minister really saying that he
has not done the same?
I would not put it in the same terms as the hon. Gentleman. Just
because the United Kingdom seeks to be measured in its responses,
we should not make the mistake of thinking that they do not come
without emotion, determination and a real concern for affecting
change.
I think I have said before at the Dispatch Box that I have done
this for too long. We have all been here. We have had debates for
years about the future of the area. We cannot go on with this,
because each time it gets worse and more difficult. We must not
use tragedies to find yet more reasons to build up support for
the particular position of one side or the other. Over 30 years
in the House I have seen the binary nature of this dispute get
worse. The people who used to reach out to each other are no
longer able to. The organs that used to be able to put forward a
moderate position in Israel and on the other side find it more
difficult to do so. That has only given those who want to build
more barriers the freedom to do so. We have to challenge all
that.
In dealing with the United States, a valued partner in the region
but one that does not always get it right, we are very clear and
very direct. We hope that the events of the past few days will
lead people to realise that this situation cannot be managed and
cannot simply drift. It will not go away of its own accord. We
all have a greater determination to bring it to its end. Members’
comments will be valuable in that.
House of Lords
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord
Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat in the form
of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question asked in the
other place on the violence at the Gaza border and its impact on
the Middle East peace process. The Statement is as follows:
“As I said in the statement I put out from the FCO yesterday, the
violence in Gaza and the West Bank has been shocking. The loss of
life and the large number of injured Palestinians, including
children, are tragic, and it is extremely worrying that the
number of those killed continues to rise. Such violence is
destructive to peace efforts.
We have been clear that the United Kingdom supports the
Palestinians’ right to peaceful protest. It is deplorable, but
real, that extremist elements have been exploiting these protests
for their own violent purposes. We will not waver in our support
for Israel’s right to defend its borders, but the large volume of
live fire is extremely concerning. We continue to implore Israel
to show greater restraint.
The UK remains committed to a two-state solution, with Jerusalem
as a shared capital. All sides now need to show real leadership
and courage, promote calm, refrain from inflaming tensions
further, and show with renewed urgency that the path to a
two-state solution is through negotiation and peace.
We agree with the UN Secretary-General’s envoy that the situation
in Gaza is desperate and deteriorating, and that the
international community must step up efforts. We call on the UN
special representative of the Secretary-General to bring forward
proposals to address the situation in Gaza. These should include
easing the restrictions on access and movement, and international
support for urgent infrastructure and economic development
projects. We also reiterate our support for the Egyptian-led
reconciliation process and the return of the PA to full
administration of the Gaza Strip.
We must look forward and work urgently towards a resolution of
the long-standing issues between Israel and the Palestinian
people. Now more than ever, we need a political process that
delivers a two-state solution. Every death and every wounding
casts a shadow for the future. The human tragedies should be used
not as more building blocks for immovable positions, which will
lead inevitably to more confrontation, but as a spur for urgent
change. Yesterday’s tragedies demonstrate why peace is urgently
needed”.
3.23 pm
(Lab)
My Lords, all our thoughts are with those Palestinians in Gaza
whose loved ones have been either killed or injured as a result
of IDF action. During subsequent questions, appeared to support the
Secretary-General’s call for an independent and transparent
investigation of these actions. He said that a team at the United
Nations was working to find the right formulation, bearing in
mind that a Kuwaiti attempt failed because it set out to
apportion blame. What timescale are the Government working to in
respect of a United Nations response, because it is clear that
these matters need urgent and independent investigation?
My Lords, as my right honourable friend said in another place, the
United Kingdom Government support an independent and transparent
process to establish exactly what happened, including why such a
large volume of live fire was used. Given the importance of
accountability, we want this to be both independent and
transparent. On timelines, this is a UN process which needs to be
agreed by all relevant parties. As that is updated, I shall
inform the House and the noble Lord.
(LD)
I associate these Benches with the thoughts expressed by the
noble Lord, Lord Collins, about those killed and injured. Under
international law, firearms can be used only to protect against
imminent threat of death or serious injury. Does the Minister
agree that firing on unarmed civilians in Gaza, often at a great
distance, must be fully and impartially investigated and that if
the law has been broken those responsible must be held to
account? His right honourable friend , the Minister for the Middle
East, referred earlier today to the “hopeless” and “desperate”
conditions in Gaza. Does the noble Lord agree that the United
Kingdom should give some glimmer of hope to Palestinians held in
such conditions by recognising the state of Palestine?
My Lords, first, of course, I associate myself with the
sentiments of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. Our thoughts
and prayers are with all the victims of the tragic deaths that
have taken place. That said, on the issue of live fire, as I said
in my opening remarks, we continue to implore the Israeli
Government, while we respect their right to defend their borders,
that the use of live fire should be considered only as a last
resort. Indeed, this has been consistently mentioned at bilateral
meetings directly with the Israeli Government.
The noble Baroness referred to the sentiments expressed by my
right honourable friend in the other place. I visited both Israel
and the Occupied Palestinian Territories a few weeks ago and saw
why it is very important that we make progress. As for providing
hope, of course we continue to support UNRWA’s efforts to ensure
that medical aid and assistance reaches Palestinian communities
in Gaza and the West Bank. That is why we are supportive of
Egyptian efforts to bring greater peace and reconciliation in
Gaza and it is why we welcome the opening of the Egyptian border
for a few days to relieve some of those efforts.
(Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as declared in the
register, especially as president of Medical Aid for
Palestinians. The World Health Organization has said that the
injuries sustained in these appalling events in Gaza are
comparable to wartime situations. There are desperate shortages
of drugs and equipment at the moment in Gaza. What are the
Government doing to help alleviate this desperate situation?
Let me assure my noble friend, as I said in my previous answer,
that the UK is a long-time supporter of UNRWA’s efforts in this.
Indeed, we are committed to continue our funding, which does
provide those very basic services that my noble friend has just
referred to. It provides basic healthcare to 1.3 million people
in Gaza, and I assure my noble friend we are also supporting
humanitarian access, which enables basic reconstruction efforts
in Gaza as well.
The
My Lords, I am grateful to Her Majesty’s Government for the
careful yet very specific response they have given to the
appalling loss of life at the border between Gaza and the state
of Israel yesterday. The thoughts and prayers of this Bench are
with all those affected. It is good to know that the Minister
supports an independent review of what happened. At the same
time, will the Minister agree that, while the United Kingdom
recognises the integrity of the border—and, indeed, of all
Israel’s pre-1967 borders—and the security of Israel’s prosperous
and pluriform society, the defence of its interests must offer
tangible hope to those with whom it hopes to engage in dialogue?
The phrase, “a glimmer of hope” was mentioned a moment ago. I was
in Gaza about four years ago. The situation then was desperate
and deteriorating. It is infinitely worse now. What real,
substantial hope can be given to those who live in what is
effectively a vast open prison?
My Lords, that is why the United Kingdom Government, let me
assure the right reverend Prelate, are committed to ensuring
humanitarian access, as I have said already, and equally firmly
convinced that the only way to bring that ultimate hope both to
Israel and to the Palestinians is through a two-state solution.
We continue to implore both sides that, now more than ever, it is
required that they come to the table and that we see that lasting
peace that we all desire.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the Minister remember that the living hell that is
Gaza and the creation of Hamas itself are due to successive
Israeli Governments, and that the offer from Hamas consistently
over recent years of a 10-year truce in return for the lifting of
the siege on Gaza has been totally ignored? When will he persuade
our partners in the international community and the Government of
Israel to consider this offer?
My Lords, ultimately it is for both parties to come to the table.
The noble Baroness mentioned Hamas. A positive step forward would
be for Hamas to recognise the right of Israel to exist. It has
repeatedly failed to do so. That would be the most progressive
step and a step forward in that process.
(CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chairman of Medical
Aid for Palestinians. Two days ago, we could not have imagined
that 58 people would be shot, 2,000 civilians would be injured
and explosive bullets—it is alleged—would be used. It is
absolutely appalling. Frankly, for the Government simply to say
that they are concerned is pathetic. In the face of that, they
should condemn it and call for an immediate investigation,
particularly into the nature of the ammunition used.
As I said earlier, we continue to implore the Israeli Government
to restrain themselves from the use of live fire. I assure the
noble Lord that, when I and my right honourable friend meet the appropriate Israeli
Ministers, we continue to call for that very approach of ensuring
that alternative methods to the use of live fire are considered.
On the noble Lord’s second point, of course we have already
associated ourselves with calls for an independent investigation.
(Lab)
My Lords—
(Lab)
My Lords—
Noble Lords
Blunkett!
(Con)
My Lords, the noble Lords, and ,
can choose who is going to speak next.
The Liberal Democrats asked a very simple question: if
international law was broken, should legal action be taken? Can
we have an answer to the Liberal Democrats’ question?
That will be a matter for the independent investigation. Of
course, the investigation will look at the principles of
international humanitarian law and then report back
appropriately. That is why we are supportive of this transparent
and independent process.
(Con)
My Lords, at the core of the Jewish religion, as with other
religions, is the importance of the sanctity of life—“Kiddush
HaShem” in Hebrew. I therefore mourn any loss of life. It is easy
to blame one side or the other without having facts. I will give
your Lordships just one fact. Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas
in Gaza, stated just last month:
“We will take down the border and we will tear out their hearts
from their bodies”.
Also last month, Israel destroyed the largest and deepest Hamas
tunnel into the territory. Will the Minister join me in
condemning all violence, as well as Hamas’s continued development
of its underground terror structure, its use of Palestinian
civilians as human shields and deliberately sending its own
people towards the border fence into danger?
My Lords, I am sure I join all noble Lords in condemning violence
and the loss of innocent life anywhere in the world. We must now
see progressive action to ensure that the lives that were lost
recently were not lost in vain.
