Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
(1) the recent transfer of governance powers in parts of the
Occupied Palestinian Territories from Israeli military
authorities to Israeli civilian ministries, and (2) the
implications of this transfer for securing a lasting peace in the
region.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Office ( of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, as the occupying power in the West Bank, Israel’s
presence is governed by the provisions of the Geneva convention,
and we call on Israel to abide by its obligations under
international law. We are still examining the consequences of the
recent transfer of some governance powers in the Israeli Ministry
of Defense related to the occupation. The UK remains of the
belief that there is no better alternative than a two-state
solution for peace and for realising the national aspirations of
both the Palestinians and Israelis.
(LD)
I thank the Minister for his response. However, in the
negotiation of the recent trade deal with Israel, which,
according to the Prime Minister, was based on the common values
of democracy, what assurances did the UK Government seek from the
Netanyahu Government over compliance with international law in
the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the avowed intent of the
Netanyahu Government to remove democratic safeguards by
emasculating the judiciary, in the face of massive opposition
from Israeli citizens? What assurances did they receive?
of Richmond Park (Con)
As noble Lords will know, our Prime Minister spoke to Mr
Netanyahu just a few days ago as part of the development of the
road map. The road map does not in any way change our support for
a two-state solution. Our position on the settlements is clear:
they are illegal under international law, they present an
obstacle to peace and they threaten the physical viability of a
two-state solution. Our position is reflected in our continued
support for UN Security Council Resolution 2334.
(CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that, last week, a Minister
in the Netanyahu Government opined that the Palestinians are
neither a people nor a nation? Is that the view of His Majesty’s
Government? If not, did that view get communicated by the Prime
Minister to Prime Minister Netanyahu when he saw him? Also, what
line did the Prime Minister take on the intention of the present
Israeli Government to expand the scale of illegal
settlements?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the remarks that the noble Lord refers to absolutely do
not reflect the position of the UK Government and nor, I believe,
do they reflect the view of the vast majority of people in
Israel. High-level members of the current Government there have
found themselves having to speak out on the same issue.
(Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register,
particularly those relating to friendship with Israel. Does my
noble friend agree with the sentiments of Golda Meir, who said
that it is very difficult to negotiate with people who are trying
to kill you? Looking for a secure and lasting peace in the
region, does my noble friend think it would be sensible for the
Palestinian Authority to cease the “pay to slay” policy whereby
Palestinians are rewarded financially for the murder of an
Israeli, whether it is an army officer or a child?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I fully subscribe to the comments my noble friend
quotes. It is very hard to negotiate if one side does not believe
that you have the right to exist, and it is clear from the
security situation today that things are particularly fragile.
Last year, a very large number of Palestinians and Israelis were
killed by acts of violence, and 2023 started the same way. We are
all appalled by the recent terror attacks near Jerusalem that
killed two Israelis, and the attack on Sunday 26 February, which
killed two Israelis on the West Bank. We condemn these attacks,
as we do all such attacks, in the strongest possible terms, and
we condemn the glorification of violence that so often happens
among those in Gaza.
(Lab)
Does the Minister acknowledge that for years, if not decades,
Ministers in his position on that Front Bench have reiterated
support for a two-state solution and opposition to illegal
settlement by the Israelis in the Palestinian territories? Can he
confirm that there has been no progress whatsoever on either of
those fronts in all the time that Ministers have been expressing
those wishes and desires? Does he further agree that there is a
diminishing prospect of any kind of two-state solution so long as
the illegal Israeli occupation of parts of Palestinian territory
continues?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UK’s long-standing position on the Middle East
peace process is clear and remains clear. We support a negotiated
settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a
viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on the 1967
borders, with equal land swaps to reflect the national security
and religious interests of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.
That is our position and always has been our position.
Regarding the settlements, there too our position remains
unchanged. We want to see a contiguous West Bank, including east
Jerusalem, as part of a viable sovereign Palestinian state, based
on those same 1967 lines. We recognise that many such settlements
are contrary to international law.
(CB)
In his Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, the Minister
said that the occupation should be governed by the Geneva
convention and that the question of whether the transfer from
military to civilian rule contravened or agreed with the
convention was still being examined. When that examination has
taken place, will the Minister kindly put the result in the
Library?
of Richmond Park (Con)
I will convey that perfectly reasonable request to my colleague
who normally handles this brief.
(LD)
My Lords, previously the Foreign Office indicated that it would
not engage at ministerial or official level with Itamar Ben-Gvir
and Bezalel Smotrich—the Minister referred to by the noble Lord,
Lord Hannay. In a recent debate, the noble Lord the Minister said
from the Dispatch Box that we would now engage with them and all
Ministers in the Israeli Government, so why has there been this
change of approach? Also recently, the noble Lord, , the Trade Minister, said
that human rights will not now be part of trade agreements. So
can the noble Lord answer my noble friend’s Question and confirm
that British Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have stated
that the long-held protection for the illegally occupied
territories in trade relations with the UK will be maintained in
a specific chapter in any Israel-UK FTA?
of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord asked a lot of questions and I doubt whether I
will be able to answer them all. In both this House and the other
House, the UK has repeatedly and strongly condemned the comments
of the Israeli Finance Minister, who, as the noble Lord will
know, called for the Palestinian village of Huwara to be “wiped
out”. We condemn his recent comments, which deny the very
existence of the Palestinian people, their right to
self-determination, their history and their culture. The UK has
been unequivocal in its condemnation of that language.
(Con)
My Lords, I was in the West Bank last week and I talked to
Palestinians. They said—and this was supported by surveys—that
they no longer believe in the two-state solution. They saw what
happened in Gaza, they do not trust their leadership and they
want the advantage that Israeli benefits in health and so on can
give them. Now is perhaps the time for the FCDO to lead the way
and come up with a more imaginative solution, possibly modelled
on the United Kingdom, where we have separate Governments for
separate countries, because the two-state solution is a very long
way away.
of Richmond Park (Con)
My noble friend is vastly more knowledgeable about and qualified
to speak about this issue than I am, and he makes a fascinating
contribution. The reality is that, wherever things end up, a
prerequisite has to be the cessation of terrorism and violence on
both sides.
(Lab)
My Lords, in last week’s exchanges on the road map for future
relationships with Israel, the Foreign Secretary also met with
Eli Cohen, the Israeli Foreign Minister. The Foreign Office said
that the recent spike in violence would be discussed, so can the
Minister tell us what the outcome of those discussions was and
whether any practical steps were agreed to support
de-escalation?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give details on the nature of
the exchange; I will have to get back to the noble Lord with that
information. However, I do know that the concerns that both sides
of this House have raised were raised in strong terms by both the
Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in their respective
discussions.
