Balfour Declaration 5.18 pm The Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson) With
permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the Balfour
declaration—issued on 2 November 1917 by my predecessor as Foreign
Secretary, Lord Balfour—and its legacy today. As the British
Army advanced towards Jerusalem in...Request free trial
Balfour Declaration
5.18 pm
-
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
(Boris Johnson)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the
Balfour declaration—issued on 2 November 1917 by my
predecessor as Foreign Secretary, Lord Balfour—and its
legacy today.
As the British Army advanced towards Jerusalem in the last
12 months of the first world war, with the aim of breaking
the Ottoman empire’s grip on the middle east, the
Government published their policy concerning the territory
that would become the British mandate for Palestine. The
House will recall the material sentence of the Balfour
declaration:
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the
establishment in Palestine of a national home for the
Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to
facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly
understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice
the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish
communities in Palestine, or the rights and political
status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
A century after those words were written, I believe that
the Balfour declaration paved the way for the birth of a
great nation. The state of Israel has prevailed over every
obstacle, from the harshness of nature to the visceral
hostility of its enemies, to become a free society with a
thriving and innovative economy and the same essential
values that we in Britain hold dear. Liberty, democracy and
the rule of law have found a home in Israel—more so than
anywhere else in the middle east. Most of all, there is the
incontestable moral purpose of Israel to provide a
persecuted people with a safe and secure homeland.
We should not brush aside how the pernicious extent of
anti-Semitism in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries—decades before the holocaust—created the
necessity for the Balfour declaration. It was in 1881 that
the most powerful adviser at the court of Tsar Alexander II
vowed that one third of Russian Jews would be forced to
convert, one third would emigrate and the remainder would
be left to starve. The moral case for establishing a
“national home for the Jewish people”
was to provide a haven from such horrors. So Her Majesty’s
Government are proud of Britain’s part in creating Israel,
and we shall mark the centenary of the Balfour declaration
on Thursday in that spirit.
I see no contradiction in being a friend of Israel and a
believer in that country’s destiny while also being
profoundly moved by the suffering of those who were
affected and dislodged by its birth. That vital caveat in
the Balfour declaration—intended to safeguard the rights of
other communities, by which, of course, we mean the
Palestinians —has not been fully realised. In the words of
Amos Oz, the Israeli novelist, the tragedy of this conflict
is not that it is a clash between right and wrong, but
rather a
“clash between right and right”.
The Government believe that the only way of bringing peace
is through a two-state solution, defined as a secure
Israel, the homeland of the Jewish people, standing
alongside a viable, sovereign and contiguous Palestinian
state, the homeland for the Palestinian people, as
envisaged by UN General Assembly resolution 181. For
Israel, the birth of a Palestinian state would safeguard
its demographic future as a Jewish democracy. For
Palestinians, a state of their own would allow them to
realise their aspirations for self-determination and
self-government.
When the parties held their first peace conference in
Madrid in 1991, the leader of the Palestinian delegation,
Haidar Abdul Shafi, described those aspirations as follows:
“We seek neither an admission of guilt after the fact, nor
vengeance for past iniquities, but rather an act of will
that would make a just peace a reality.”
I believe that a just peace will be a reality when two
states for two peoples co-exist in the Holy Land, and that
is the goal we must strive to bring about.
The House knows the troubled history of the peace process
so far. The truth is that no direct talks have taken place
between the parties since 2014. But the US Administration
have shown their commitment to breaking the deadlock, and a
new American envoy, Jason Greenblatt, has made repeated
visits to the region. The Government will of course support
these efforts in whatever way we can, and we urge the
parties to refrain from acting in ways that make the goal
of two states ever harder to achieve. For Israelis, that
means halting settlement activity in the occupied
territories. The pace of construction has regrettably
accelerated, notably with the approval of the first new
housing units in Hebron for 15 years and the first
completely new settlement in the west bank since 1999. For
Palestinians, it means restoring full counter-terrorism
co-operation with Israel, in line with UN resolution 2334,
and implementing the recommendations of the Quartet report
on curbing incitement.
Britain is one of the largest donors to the Palestinian
Authority, with the primary aim of strengthening the
institutions that would form the basis of any future
Palestinian state. It may be helpful for the House if I set
out the Government’s view of a fair compromise between the
parties. The borders between the two states should be based
on the lines as they stood on 4 June 1967—the eve of the
six-day war—with equal land swaps to reflect the national,
security, and religious interests of the Jewish and
Palestinian peoples. There must be security arrangements
that, for Israelis, prevent the resurgence of terrorism;
and, for Palestinians, respect their sovereignty, ensure
freedom of movement, and demonstrate that occupation is
over. There needs to be a just, fair, agreed and realistic
solution to the Palestinian refugee question, in line with
UN resolution 1515. In practice, this means that any such
agreement must be demographically compatible with two
states for two peoples and a generous package of
international compensation should be made available. The
final determination of Jerusalem must be agreed by the
parties, ensuring that the holy city is a shared capital of
Israel and a Palestinian state, granting access and
religious rights for all who hold it dear.
This vision of a just settlement finds its roots in another
British-drafted document: UN resolution 242, adopted 50
years ago this November, which enshrines the principle of
land for peace based on the 1967 lines. That essential
principle has inspired every serious effort to resolve this
conflict—from the Camp David peace treaty signed by Israel
and Egypt almost 40 years ago, to the Arab peace initiative
first placed on the table in 2002, which offers normal
relations with Israel in return for an end to occupation.
I believe that the goal of two states is still achievable,
and that with ingenuity and good will, the map of the Holy
Land can be configured in ways that meet the aspirations of
both parties. A century after the Balfour declaration
helped to create the state of Israel—an achievement that no
one in this House would wish to undo—there is unfinished
business and work to be done. We in this country, mindful
of our historic role, and co-operating closely with our
allies, will not shirk from that challenge. I commend this
statement to the House.
5.28 pm
-
(Islington South and
Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his
statement. As we approach the centenary of the Balfour
declaration, Labour Members are glad to join him in
commemorating that historic anniversary and expressing once
again our continued support for the state of Israel.
In 1918, Labour’s first Cabinet Minister, Arthur Henderson,
said:
“The British believes that the
responsibility of the British people in Palestine should be
fulfilled to the utmost of their power…to ensure the
economic prosperity, political autonomy and spiritual
freedom of both the Jews and Arabs in Palestine.”
The Labour party has adopted that position, not least in
recognition of the egalitarian goals that inspired the
early pioneers of the Israeli state. We think, in
particular, of the kibbutz movement—a group of people
dedicated to establishing a more egalitarian society free
from the prejudice and persecution that they had
experienced in their home countries. Even today, despite
the challenges that I will address in respect of its
relationship with the Palestinian people, modern Israel
still stands out for its commitment to egalitarianism—in
particular, its commitment to women and LGBT communities in
a region where these groups are far too often subject to
fierce discrimination.
Today, it is right to think about the successes of Israel,
but we must also be aware that 100 years on, the promise in
the Balfour letter cited by the Foreign Secretary—that
“nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and
religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in
Palestine”—
remains unfulfilled, and we have more to do. I urge the
Foreign Secretary to take the opportunity of the centenary
to reflect once again on Britain’s role in the region, as
his predecessor did 100 years ago, and ask whether we could
do more to bring about lasting peace and stability in the
middle east. Can we do more to ensure that the political
rights, as well as the civil and religious rights, of
Palestinian people are protected, just as Mr Balfour
intended all those years ago?
On that point, as the Foreign Secretary well knows, I
believe that there is no better or more symbolic way of
marking the Balfour centenary than for the UK officially to
recognise the state of Palestine. We have just heard the
Foreign Secretary talk in explicit terms about the benefits
for both Israel and Palestine that the birth of Palestinian
statehood would bring. Surely we can play more of a part in
delivering that by formally recognising the Palestinian
state.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that in 2011,
one of his other predecessors, , said:
“We reserve the right to recognise a Palestinian state…at a
moment of our choosing and when it can best help to bring
about peace.”—[Official Report, 9 November 2011; Vol. 535,
c. 290.]
Almost six years have passed since that statement—six years
in which the humanitarian situation in the occupied
territories has become ever more desperate, six years in
which the cycle of violence has continued unabated and the
people of Israel remain at daily risk from random acts of
terror, six years in which the pace of settlement building
and the displacement of Palestinian people have increased,
and six years in which moves towards a lasting peace have
ground to a halt.
Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House today whether the
Government still plan to recognise the state of Palestine
and, if not now, when? Conversely, if they no longer have
such plans, can the Foreign Secretary tell us why things
have changed? He will remember that on 13 October 2014, the
House stated that the Palestinian state should be
recognised. The anniversary of the Balfour declaration is a
reminder that when the British Government lay out their
policies on the middle east in black and white, those words
matter and can make a difference. With the empty vessel
that is the American President making lots of noise but
being utterly directionless, the need for Britain to show
leadership on this issue is ever more pressing.
Will the Foreign Secretary make a start today on the issue
of Palestinian statehood? As we rightly reflect on the last
100 years, we have a shared duty to look towards the future
and towards the next generation of young people growing up
in Israel and Palestine today. That generation knows
nothing but division and violence, and those young people
have been badly let down by the actions, and the inaction,
of their own leaders. Will young Israelis grow up in a
world in which air raids, car rammings and random stabbings
become a commonplace fact of life? Will they grow up in a
country in which military service remains not just
compulsory, but necessary, because they are surrounded by
hostile neighbours who deny their very right to exist? Will
young Palestinians grow up in a world in which youth
unemployment remains at 58%, reliant on humanitarian aid
and unable to shape their own futures? Will they inherit a
map on which the ever-expanding settlements and the
destruction of their own houses make it harder and harder
to envisage what a viable independent Palestine would even
look like?
I do not know whether the Foreign Secretary agrees with the
Prime Minister about whether it is worth answering
hypothetical questions, but as we mark the centenary of the
vital step taken by a former British Foreign Secretary in
recognition of Israeli statehood, I ask this Foreign
Secretary how he believes he will be remembered in 100
years’ time. Will the Government in which he serves be
remembered for recognising the statehood of the Palestinian
people and taking a similarly vital step towards correcting
an historic wrong? I can assure him that if the Government
are not prepared to take that step, the next Labour
Government will be.
-
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the spirit in
which she addressed the questions. She asks, if I may say
so, the right questions about the way ahead. The UK is
substantially committed to the support of the Palestinian
Authority and to building up the institutions in Palestine.
British taxpayers’ cash helps about 25,000 kids to go to
school, we help with about 125,000 medical cases every year
and the Department for International Development gives, as
she knows very well, substantial sums to support the
Palestinian Authority with a view to strengthening those
institutions.
When it comes to recognising that state, we judge, in
common with our French friends and the vast majority of our
European friends and partners, that the moment is not yet
right to play that card. That on its own will not end the
occupation or bring peace. After all, it is not something
we can do more than once: that card having been played,
that will be it. We judge that it is better to give every
possible encouragement to both sides to seize the moment
and, if I may say so, I think the right hon. Lady is quite
hard, perhaps characteristically, on the current
Administration in Washington, which is perhaps her job—
-
It ought to be your job, too.
-
Indeed, and I am hard where it is necessary, but there is a
job to be done. At the moment, as I think the right hon.
Lady would accept, there is a conjuncture in the stars that
is uncommonly propitious. I will not put it higher than
that, but there is a chance that we could make progress on
this very vexed dossier. We need the Americans to work with
us to do that and we need them to be in the lead because,
as she will understand, of the facts as they are in the
middle east.
We need the Palestinian Authority, with a clear mandate, to
sit down and negotiate with the Israelis and do the deal
that is there to be done, and which everybody understands.
We all know the shape of the future map and we all know how
it could be done. What is needed now is political will, and
I can assure the right hon. Lady and the House that the UK
will be absolutely determined to encourage both sides to do
such a deal.
-
Sir (East Devon) (Con)
Of course it is right to mark the centenary of the Balfour
declaration, but as we have already heard, we often
concentrate too much on the first part of the declaration
at the expense of the second. Does anyone really believe
that the statement—the very clear statement—that
“nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and
religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in
Palestine”
has been adhered to? Does my right hon. Friend not agree
that a positive way in which to mark this important
centenary would be for the UK finally to recognise a
Palestinian state, something many of us in this House
believe would honour the vision of those who helped bring
about the state of Israel in the first place?
-
I agree very much with my right hon. Friend that, as it
were, the protasis of the Balfour declaration has been
fulfilled, but the apodosis has not. It should have spoken
of the political rights of those peoples and, by the way,
in my view it should have identified specifically the
Palestinian people. That has not yet happened, and it is
certainly our intention to make sure that Balfour does not
remain unfinished business. As I have said, we want to
recognise a Palestinian state as part of a two-state
solution, but we judge that the moment to do that is not
yet ripe.
-
(Dundee West) (SNP)
While the historical context is complex, we have stressed
the need to learn some important and relevant lessons from
the Balfour declaration. There is plenty of room for
lessons to be learned, and for historic and moral
responsibilities to be assumed for the betterment of all
the peoples of the middle east today. This must start with
the recognition of the state of Palestine as a fundamental
stepping stone towards a lasting two-state solution.
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s words, at least in
principle, on that solution. However, we deeply regret that
the UK Government have not fulfilled their commission in
the declaration that, as we have already heard,
“nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and
religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in
Palestine”.
The consequence of this failure remains all too clear. We
hope that the centenary of the Balfour declaration will
serve as an opportunity for reflection and a reinvigorated
peace process across the middle east.
The Scottish National party supports the European Union
position of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders,
and we firmly encourage Palestine and Israel to reach a
sustainable, negotiated settlement under international law,
based on mutual recognition and the determination to
co-exist peacefully. The SNP has consistently condemned
obstacles to progress in the peace process, such as the
indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel or the continued
expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied
territories.
Opposition Members have repeatedly called on the UK
Government to use their influence to help to revitalise the
peace process. I repeat those calls and ask the Foreign
Secretary what efforts he is making to use his influence to
bring about a renewed effort to break through the political
deadlock and bring an end to this conflict.
The Scottish Government have been clear that they would
welcome a Palestinian consulate in Edinburgh. Will the
Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to recognise
formally a Palestinian state as a fundamental stepping
stone to a two-state solution by enabling the opening of an
embassy?
-
Of course we are doing everything in our power to push on
with a two-state solution. I have spoken about the outlines
of a deal that everyone can imagine—the land swaps for
peace that can be arranged—but it is also vital that we
remember that Israel has a legitimate security interest. If
we are to get this done, I am afraid it is essential that
not just Fatah and the PA, but Hamas as well, have to
understand that they must renounce terror, their use of
anti-Semitic propaganda and the glorification of so-called
terrorist martyrs. They must commit to the Quartet
principles, and then there is genuinely the opportunity to
get both sides together.
The hon. Gentleman asks rightly about what this country is
doing specifically to advance this, and we are engaged
heavily in the diplomacy. Not only is the Israeli Prime
Minister coming this week, as is proper, to mark Balfour,
but Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, will come next
year. We look forward to an intensification of contacts
with them in the run-up to that visit.
-
(Reigate) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best route to
rediscover the unique moral authority associated with the
Zionist project, delivering after two millennia a safe
place for global Jewry in the remarkable state of Israel,
is for the state of Israel itself, secured by the support
of the world’s pre-eminent power of 2017, to take on
responsibility for the delivery of the unfulfilled part of
the Balfour declaration by the world’s pre-eminent power of
1917, which it plainly is not in a position now to deliver
itself, and for Israel to share the security and justice it
has achieved for global Jewry with their neighbours?
-
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I recognise the great
learning and expertise he brings to discussion of this issue
and his passion for the cause of finding a solution to the
Arab-Israeli conflict. It is something that I agree strongly
is in the hands of this generation of Israeli politicians,
and they are certainly aware of that. But it is also in the
hands of the Palestinians, and as I said a moment ago, they
must do certain things if we are to get this process moving.
It is also vital, as my hon. Friend rightly observes, that
the greatest patron, ally and supporter of Israel—the United
States—should play its full role in moving this process
forward.
-
Mrs (Liverpool, Riverside)
(Lab/Co-op)
The Balfour declaration recognised the rights of the Jewish
people to national self-determination in their historic
homelands, which go back more than 3,000 years. Does the
Foreign Secretary believe that there are now new
opportunities in the middle east to start again to try to
secure a negotiated solution to this intractable conflict, so
that the Palestinian people as well as the Jewish people can
have their own states in the region?
-
I do indeed recognise the opportunity the hon. Lady
identifies. I believe there is an unusual alignment of the
stars. Effectively, we have the chance to proceed now with a
version of the Arab peace plan that has been on the table
since 2002. Nobody ever got rich by betting on a successful
conclusion of the middle east peace process, but there is an
opportunity and we must do whatever we can to persuade both
sides that this is their moment for greatness. That is
certainly the case we are making to both of them.
-
Mr (Huntingdon)
(Con)
As we celebrate 100 years of the Balfour declaration, does
the Foreign Secretary agree that this event can be regarded
as an act of great diplomatic skill on the part of his
illustrious predecessor, Lord Balfour, in so far as it
triggered a process leading to the creation of Israel, thus
providing a strong, stable, democratic and non-sectarian ally
for the UK in the heart of the notoriously unstable middle
east?
-
I agree totally with my hon. Friend. The Balfour declaration
was an historic event that led to a giant political fact: the
creation of the state of Israel, which I believe to be one of
the most stunning political achievements of the 20th century.
As I said, I do not think anybody in this House could
seriously wish the undoing of that fact. Nobody looking at
Israel—a democracy and a liberal, tolerant society in the
middle east—could seriously wish away that achievement. We
should celebrate the existence of the state of Israel—we
certainly celebrate our relationship with the state of Israel
here in this country—but we must recognise and accept that
for others the fact of the Balfour declaration carries very
different overtones. They remember it in a very different
spirit, so it is important we mark this anniversary with
sensitivity and balance.
-
(Dudley North) (Lab)
The best legacy of the centenary of the Balfour declaration
would be to make concrete progress towards the two-state
solution we all want to see. Does the Foreign Secretary
agree, in this centenary year, to support and properly invest
in the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace,
which could help us to take that big step? I desperately want
to see a Palestinian state and have campaigned for that all
my life, but it is very important that Members understand
there is no legalistic, unilateral or bureaucratic route to
that objective. It will not be achieved by being imposed from
the outside or by unilateral declarations here or anywhere
else. It will only be achieved by getting Israelis and
Palestinians to work together to build trust, to negotiate
and to compromise, and for economic development and trade in
the west bank, and the reconstruction and demilitarisation of
Gaza.
-
I completely agree with the aspiration the hon. Gentleman
sets out. I believe that the future is economic
interpenetration and mutual prosperity. That is why next year
we are investing £3 million in co-existence projects of
exactly the kind he describes.
-
Sir (New Forest West)
(Con)
Is there anything we can do about illegal settlements beyond
saying that we are very, very cross?
-
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who makes a valid
point. Beyond our repeated statements of disapproval, Members
may recollect that we led the way just before Christmas last
year with UN resolution 2334, which specifically condemned
new illegal settlements. The Prime Minister and I have been
at pains to point out to Prime Minister Netanyahu, both here
in London and in Jerusalem, our view that the settlements are
illegal. That is a point on which we will continue to insist.
-
(Carshalton and Wallington)
(LD)
It is certainly right that the House celebrates the creation
of the state of Israel, but it cannot celebrate—in fact, it
must condemn—the failure of successive UK Governments to help
safeguard the rights of Palestinians. Given our historical
role, will the Foreign Secretary set out what single,
concrete international initiative he intends spearheading to
help secure a viable Palestinian state, and will he set out
what conditions would have to be met for the UK to recognise
Palestine?
-
I have been pretty clear with the House already that we see
the most fertile prospects now in the new push coming from
America, and we intend to support that. As and when it
becomes necessary to play the recognition card, we certainly
will do it—we want to do it—but now is not yet the time.
-
(South West Wiltshire)
(Con)
Notwithstanding the challenges of unfinished business to
which my right hon. Friend rightly referred, does he agree
that centenaries can be a powerful way to draw people
together, thoughtfully and respectfully, even where, as here,
the history is complex and nuanced?
-
I strongly agree. It has been salutary for people to look
back over the last 100 years at the many missed opportunities
and at the reasons Balfour thought it necessary to make his
declaration. It was not, as is frequently said, simply that
Britain wanted to solicit American support in the first world
war; it was genuinely because of a need, an imperative, to
deal with the pogroms and the anti-Semitism that had plagued
Russia and so many parts of eastern Europe for so long. It
was vital to find a homeland for the Jewish people, and
history can be grateful that Balfour made the decision he
did, though we have to understand at the same time the
injustice and suffering occasioned by that decision.
-
(Liverpool, Wavertree)
(Lab/Co-op)
In the same week we celebrate the centenary of the Balfour
declaration, will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity
to condemn the actions in Abu Dhabi in recent days, when five
Israelis who won medals at the judo grand slam were denied
the chance afforded to other athletes of celebrating with
their country’s flag and anthem during the awards ceremonies
and when one athlete refused to shake the hand of an Israeli
athlete? There can be no place for this type of
discrimination. If we are to see peace, we have to
acknowledge and support both the Israeli and the Palestinian
people.
-
I completely agree. We condemn anti-Semitism and displays of
such prejudice wherever they occur. The example the hon. Lady
gives shows the paramount need to sort out this problem and
end this running sore.
-
(Filton and Bradley
Stoke) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only is Israel a
beacon of hope and democracy in the middle east but that our
strategic partnerships in the fields of security and defence
are vital to the safety of both our nations and should be
enhanced and developed?
-
My hon. Friend is completely right. We have an intensifying
commercial partnership with Israel. It is a country at the
cutting edge of high technology of all kinds. We co-operate
in financial services, aviation and all kinds of fields, as
well as, very importantly, security and intelligence, as he
rightly identifies.
-
(Easington) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s measured tone in
recognising the rights of Palestinians and the obligations
that the Balfour declaration places on the UK Government.
When he has dinner with the Prime Minister of Israel, may I
suggest that he says that sustainable peace in the middle
east can be built only on the basis of equal rights, equal
dignity and respect for all, Israelis and Palestinians alike?
On the UK Government’s role, will he point out that we will
uphold the Geneva convention, which Britain co-wrote and
ratified after the second world war, in that we will not
trade with settlements that he himself has said are illegal?
Finally, may I point out that the House considered the issue
of recognition at length and, following considered debate,
voted by 274 votes to 12 that the UK Government should
recognise the state of Israel alongside the state of
Palestine as part of our moral obligation to the Palestinian
people, as set out in the declaration?
-
I certainly agree with the majority view of Members of the
House that we must, in time, recognise the Palestinian state.
I have to be honest, however: I do not happen to think that
now is the most effective moment to do that. In that, we are
at one with our partners around the EU. The hon. Gentleman
makes a point about boycotts. I do not think that that is the
right way forward. I do not think that boycotting Israeli
products makes sense. The biggest losers would be the workers
from Palestinian and Arab communities who benefit immensely
from the economic activity generated by those Israeli
companies.
-
(Hertsmere)
(Con)
As my right hon. Friend rightly says, we have a long way to
go to achieve an end to violence and a two-state solution,
but does he agree with me and many of my constituents that
this anniversary is an opportunity to celebrate modern
Israel, its vibrant economy, its liberty and diversity, its
democracy and, above all, the fact that at a time of rising
anti-Semitism, it still provides a safe home for the Jewish
people?
-
I congratulate my hon. Friend on speaking up for his
constituents. He is right to want to celebrate the existence
of the state of Israel, though he must recognise that in
celebrating the Balfour declaration we must also accept that
the declaration itself, on 2 November 1917, today has
different echoes for different people around the world, and
it is important that we be balanced and sensitive in our
approach.
-
Mr (Coventry South)
(Lab)
For a change, will the Foreign Secretary tell me what the
Israeli Government have to do to get a peace settlement? A
lot of emphasis is put on the Palestinians. How does he think
that Donald Trump can resolve the problem, when he has failed
to put pressure on the Israeli Government to stop the
settlements?
-
I think the hon. Gentleman answered his own question as he
sat down. The Israeli Government need to stop the illegal
settlements. They are not yet making it impossible to deliver
the new map, but every time they build new units—as he knows,
there are new units going up in Hebron in east Jerusalem—they
make that eventual land swap more difficult and move us
further from a two-state solution. That is the point we make
to our Israeli friends—and, by the way, that is the point
made by many allies around the world.
-
Mr (Kettering)
(Con)
It is clearly true that residents of the occupied Palestinian
territories do not enjoy the full civil rights promised to
them in the Balfour declaration, but is it not also true that
neither do the more than 800,000 Jews expelled from countries
in the middle east and north Africa? We must remember that
21% of the population of the current state of Israel are Arab
Palestinians, whereas there has been wholescale ethnic
cleansing of Jews from Arab and north African countries,
starting in 1948.
-
My hon. Friend has an excellent point and alludes to the
third leg of the Balfour declaration. Balfour spoke of the
civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish
communities and then of course of the rights of Jewish
communities elsewhere around the world. As my hon. Friend
rightly says, hundreds of thousands of them were expelled
from their homes, too. They will also benefit from a lasting
peace between the Arabs and Israelis. That is what we want to
achieve and what we are pushing for.
-
Mrs (Washington and
Sunderland West) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is impossible to
reject the Balfour declaration in its entirety, as some may
seek to do, and support a two-state solution? Will he
therefore join me in celebrating Balfour and commit to
redoubling our efforts to achieve a two-state solution and
peace in the region?
-
I certainly share the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm for and
passionate belief in the vital importance of the state of
Israel, which, as I told the House earlier, I believe to be
one of the great achievements of humanity in the 20th
century, given all the suffering the Jewish people had been
through. It is a great immovable fact—I hope—of geopolitics.
We also have to recognise, however, that in the course of
creating that wonderful experiment, huge numbers of people
suffered and lost their homes. Their wishes and feelings must
also be respected. It is in that spirit that we mark Balfour
today.
-
(Brigg and Goole)
(Con)
Is it not the case that the rights of non-Jews in the state
of Israel are 100% protected as per the Balfour declaration?
Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that it would be wholly
inappropriate and wrong for anyone to seek to use this
centenary to perpetuate the myth and falsehood that the
failure to establish a Palestinian state is wholly the
responsibility of Israel, because to do so would be to deny
the role of neighbouring Arab countries in 1948 in attacking
Israel and preventing the existence of an Arab state, and
also the failure of the Arab leadership to grasp peace plans
as they have been offered?
-
My hon. Friend is completely right. That is why I speak in
the terms that I do about the state of Israel. It is a
pluralist society, a society that protects the rights of
those who live within it. It is a democracy. It is, in my
view, a country to be saluted and celebrated. My hon. Friend
is, of course, also right in pointing to the many failures of
diplomacy and politics that I am afraid have been perpetuated
by the Palestinian leadership for generations. We have to
hope now that the current generation of leaders in the
Palestinian Authority will have the mandate and the momentum
to deliver a different result.
-
Dr (Central Ayrshire)
(SNP)
Some Members will be aware that I spent nearly a year and a
half in Gaza working as a surgeon in 1991 and 1992. I was
there when the Madrid peace process started, and by half-past
4 in the afternoon, young men were climbing on to armoured
cars with olive branches. When I came back four weeks ago, my
feeling was that we were further from peace than we had been
a quarter of a century earlier.
When I spent time on the west bank recently, I saw
settlements expanding at an incredible rate. We blame
America, and we expect America to come up with a solution,
but people in Israel look to Europe, because they see
themselves as part of Europe. I think the United Kingdom and
Europe need to use their power to secure a new peace process,
and part of that is to do with recognition. How can we talk
about a two-state solution if we do not recognise both
states?
-
Obviously, I have great respect for the work that the hon.
Lady has done in Gaza, and I appreciate the suffering that
she has seen there. There is no doubt that the situation in
Gaza is terrible. As the hon. Lady knows, the UK Government
do a lot to try to remedy affairs by supporting, for
instance, sanitation projects and education, but in the end a
trade-off must be achieved. The Israelis must open up Gaza
for trade and greater economic activity to give the people
hope and opportunity, but before that happens, Hamas must
stop firing rockets at Israel. Hamas must recognise the right
of the Israeli state to exist, and it must stop spewing out
anti-Semitic propaganda.
-
(Mid Dorset and North
Poole) (Con)
Last year I had the privilege of visiting Israel and the west
bank with members of Conservative Friends of Israel. I am
bound to say that I was disappointed by the lack of impetus,
or of willingness, on the part of both sides to engage and
get round the table. Does not the centenary commemoration
present an opportunity both for the resumption of direct
peace talks, and for the United Kingdom to continue to engage
and encourage the fulfilment of that two-state solution?
-
I absolutely agree. I hope that both sides of the equation,
the Palestinians and the Israelis, will study my statement
with care, because I believe that it offers a way forward
that would be massively to the advantage not just of their
countries, but of the whole of the middle east and, indeed,
the world.
-
(Sunderland Central)
(Lab)
I welcome much of what the Foreign Secretary has said this
afternoon, and the sensitivity with which he has said it,
although I think he is making the wrong decision about
recognition.
During his visit, will the Foreign Secretary raise with Prime
Minister Netanyahu the issue of legislation relating to the
annexation of settlement blocs in Jerusalem, which would
displace 120,000 Palestinian people? That is clearly an
impediment to the achievement of the viable two-state
solution that is wanted by Members on all sides of the
argument.
-
I can answer the hon. Lady’s question very briefly. I will
certainly raise that issue, as I have raised the issue of
illegal settlements in the past, directly with Prime Minister
Netanyahu.
-
(Gordon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is deeply
disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition will not
attend a dinner to mark the centenary of the Balfour
declaration?
-
I believe that it is disappointing. The vast majority of
Members on both sides of the House have said this afternoon
that this occasion is of huge importance to the world,
because it marks an event in which our country played an
enormous part—and, indeed, we still have a large part to
play. One would have thought that the Leader of the
Opposition would at least be interested in trying to achieve
a solution to a problem that has bedevilled the world for so
long, and would not, by his absence, be so blatantly
appearing to side with one party and not the other. I must
say that I find that unfortunate.
-
(Hammersmith)
(Lab)
The Foreign Secretary’s refusal to treat Palestinians and
Israelis equally, as shown by his refusal to recognise
Palestine as a state alongside Israel, is exactly the reason
the Israelis are building in Hebron and, last week, annexed
further settlements in the Jerusalem municipality. What will
the Government actually do to honour Balfour’s assurance to
non-Jewish communities? So far, apart from warm words, all I
have heard is that the Foreign Secretary seems to support
trade with illegal settlements, that he is setting new
conditions for the Palestinians, and that he is blaming the
Palestinian leaders for their own occupation.
-
It is wholly untrue to say that we have offered the
Palestinians nothing but warm words. The hon. Gentleman
should consider the huge sums that the UK gives to the
Palestinian authorities, the massive efforts that we make to
help them with their security concerns, and the intimate
co-operation that takes place between the UK and the
Palestinian Authority. We are doing everything in our power
to ready the Palestinians for statehood, but we do not
consider that they are ready for recognition yet. This is
obviously not the moment, given the problems that Mahmoud
Abbas is experiencing. We think that a much more productive
approach would be getting both sides together and beginning
the process of negotiation on the basis of the programme that
I have outlined today, leading to a two-state solution. That
is what we need.
-
(Cheltenham) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s measured statement, and his
optimism about the prospects for a two-state solution with
Israel, rightly, living in security. Does he agree, however,
that the accelerated settlement-building is not just to be
gently deprecated, but is truly egregious, illegal, and a
growing obstacle to peace?
-
I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and that is the language
that we have been using. It is what my right hon. Friend the
Minister for the Middle East has said time and again during
his trips to the region. Indeed, whenever representatives of
either party have come to this country we have strongly
condemned the building of illegal settlement units, and we
have denounced the recent acceleration in the building of
those units. We think that that is making it more difficult
to achieve a two-state solution, but it is not yet
impossible, which is why we want to seize this opportunity.
-
(Oxford West and Abingdon)
(LD)
I am proud to sit on these Benches as the first ever British
Palestinian Member of Parliament. My family are from
Jerusalem. They were there at the time of the Balfour
declaration, but, like many others, they had to leave as part
of the diaspora.
When it comes to recognition, the Foreign Secretary speaks of
playing a card, but this is not a game. He speaks of a prize
to be given for recognition, but it is not something to be
bestowed; it is something that the Palestinians should just
have. Can he not see how Britain leads the world on foreign
policy? If we are to have a true peace process, we must
ensure that both sides are equal as they step up to the
negotiating table.
-
I strongly agree with the hon. Lady’s last point. I am full
of respect for the suffering of her family in the face of
what took place following the creation of the state of
Israel, and I know that the experience of many Palestinian
families was—and indeed still is—tragic, but our ambition in
holding out the prospect of recognition, working with our
friends and partners, and trying to drive forward the peace
process leading to a two-state solution is to give
Palestinian families such as her own exactly the rights and
the future that they deserve, in a viable, contiguous,
independent, sovereign Palestinian state. That is what we
want to achieve.
-
(Torbay) (Con)
I know the Foreign Secretary will agree with me that a
prosperous democracy where people can freely practise their
religion in Israel is part of what we want to see ultimately
in the Palestinian state as well. Can he confirm that he will
use every opportunity of this centenary of the Balfour
declaration to push forward that long-term goal?
-
Absolutely: that is the ambition and the goal, and clearly we
hope that the state of which I just spoke will be a
democratic, liberal state, just as Israel is.
-
(Strangford) (DUP)
rose—
-
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Let us have the busiest MP: .
-
As a friend of Israel, I look forward to the day when the
Palestinian people can enjoy the security of a sovereign
state on the successful conclusion of a negotiated two-state
solution. One of the biggest obstacles to achieving that is
the Palestinian Authority’s counterproductive unilateral
steps to gain statehood recognition through international
bodies, so will the Foreign Secretary join me in calling for
the PA to stop those harmful measures and instead to express
support for the renewal of direct peace talks, because that
really is the only way forward?
-
By far the better way for the PA to achieve what it wants is
not to go through international bodies, but to get around the
table with the Israelis and begin those crucial negotiations.
|
