Israel: United States Diplomatic Representation Statement 2.44
pm Baroness Goldie (Con) My Lords, with the leave of
the House I should like to repeat a Statement made today in the
other place in response to an Urgent Question in relation to
Jerusalem. The Statement is as follows: “We disagree with
the United States’ decision to move its...Request free trial
Israel: United States Diplomatic Representation
Statement
2.44 pm
-
(Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to
repeat a Statement made today in the other place in
response to an Urgent Question in relation to Jerusalem.
The Statement is as follows:
“We disagree with the United States’ decision to move its
embassy to Jerusalem and recognise Jerusalem as the Israeli
capital before a final status agreement. We believe it is
unhelpful in terms of prospects for peace in the region.
The British Embassy to Israel is based in Tel Aviv and we
have no plans to move it. Our position on the status of
Jerusalem is clear and long standing: it should be
determined in a negotiated settlement between the Israelis
and the Palestinians, and Jerusalem should ultimately be
the shared capital of the Israeli and Palestinian states.
In line with relevant Security Council resolutions, we
regard east Jerusalem as part of the Occupied Palestinian
Territories.
We share President Trump’s desire to bring an end to this
conflict. We welcome his commitment today to a two-state
solution, negotiated between the parties, and note the
importance of his clear acknowledgement that the final
status of Jerusalem, including the sovereign boundaries
within the city, must be subject to negotiations between
the Israelis and the Palestinians. We encourage the United
States Administration to now bring forward detailed
proposals for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. To have
the best chances of success, the peace process must be
conducted in an atmosphere free from violence. We call on
all parties to work together to maintain calm”.
2.46 pm
-
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the
Answer to the Urgent Question. Through this act, Donald
Trump has abandoned America’s role as a peace-broker
between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships, and done
serious damage to his country’s relationships with other
regional powers. I therefore welcome the Government’s
Statement and the convening of the United Nations Security
Council tomorrow. said in the other House
that all the Government’s efforts were to support the move
towards statehood for the Palestinians. He also said that
this unilateral act would lead to a new role for others to
play. Just what steps are the Government taking to work
immediately with our other allies to try to fill the
mediation role which the United States has now deserted?
-
I thank the noble Lord for his question. As I say, the
position of the United Kingdom is consistent, clear and
long standing: the status of Jerusalem should be determined
in a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the
Palestinians. Jerusalem should ultimately form a shared
capital between the Israeli and Palestinian states. We have
made clear our disagreement with the decision of the United
States. We are simply anxious that nothing should be done
to possibly inflame tensions in the area, because the
United Kingdom is committed to the Middle East peace
process. Just to be absolutely 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 agreed land swaps, with
Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and with a
just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees.
We shall work with our international partners to try to
facilitate the attainment of that objective.
-
(CB)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it is the view of
Her Majesty’s Government, and of the UN Security Council,
that east Jerusalem is occupied territory? Will the
Government not now consider this an opportune moment to
follow the recommendation of your Lordships’ International
Relations Committee and recognise Palestine as a state?
-
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Again, we have
always taken the view that there has to be a precursor to
such recognition, which is a negotiated settlement that
offers the prospect of peace. Sadly, that is not where we
are at the current time.
-
(LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the
response given in another place, but I hope she will
understand that for many of us it is not an adequate
response to the situation we find ourselves in. Many of my
colleagues on these Benches still harbour hopes of a
two-state solution. I have said on a number of occasions
that I believe it is dead, and it may be, as some have
suggested, that the President of the United States has just
buried it. He has not so much released a genie from a
bottle as unleashed the demons of the region—and by his
actions, not his words. Do Her Majesty’s Government
understand that words and disagreement are no longer
enough? It is necessary to take action, and the only action
this country can reasonably take is the one identified by
the noble Lord, Lord Hannay: to recognise the Palestinian
state immediately, unequivocally and, if necessary,
unilaterally because anything else will simply not be
understood by the Arab world—indeed, by the Muslim world as
a whole—and we will find ourselves conniving at terrible
actions simply because we were not prepared to move and do
something.
-
The noble Lord will not be surprised to learn that I
disagree with him. The position of the United Kingdom
Government is very clear regarding our approach to the
Middle East peace process, and to the Israeli and
Palestinian states and authorities. We are also clear that
we can play a role in facilitating. On the question asked
by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, we do act in concert with
international organisations and are pleased to do so, but
we can be merely facilitators. We cannot interfere or be
coercive.
-
(Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend answer the question asked by
the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and confirm that east
Jerusalem is, in fact, occupied territory? In the light of
the fact that this issue will affect communities across the
UK too, will she commend the statement made by Jewish Voice
UK? It stated:
“We at @J_VoiceUK would like to make clear that we are
bitterly disappointed in @realDonaldTrump’s decision to
recognise #Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the
embassy. He has effectively alienated the entire
Palestinian people”.
-
I do not want to reiterate to the noble Baroness points
that I have already made. The United Kingdom’s position is
very clear. We believe that at the heart of this there has
to be a negotiated settlement. We are disappointed by the
United States’ decision, and that disappointment has been
conveyed to the United States. We do not think it was a
particularly helpful intervention. At the same time, we are
very clear as the United Kingdom about what we are able to
do and what we want to continue to do. I think what
everyone in the Chamber wants to be reassured about is that
the peace process is still alive, that there can be hope
and that there are powers in the world acting in concert
which want to make that peace process a reality.
-
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, I, too, ask the noble Baroness to clarify whether
the Government consider east Jerusalem to be occupied
territory. I welcome the Answer that she repeated as a
Statement. I hope the implication is that there is no impact
from the Trump decision, and I hope Britain will stand
steadfast against any complicity in destabilising the region.
I am almost hanging on to the thread when I say that Britain
itself has not played an adequate role in creating a peaceful
Middle East. In the light of the Prime Minister’s brazen
support for the Prime Minister of Israel in celebrating
Balfour’s naked declaration, does she believe the prospect of
peace in the Middle East and a free Palestine has been lost
for ever?
-
I think I can really deal with only the last part of the
noble Baroness’ question. The answer to it is no. We think
the peace process is relevant and important and that there is
international will and resolve to make it become a reality.
We may disagree with the United States’ approach in this
matter, and we made that disagreement clear, but that does
not in any way detract from our willingness and our desire as
a Government to do everything we can to support the
continuance of the peace process, and to do that in a
positive and optimistic manner.
-
(Con)
My Lords, I give a warm welcome to President Trump’s
announcement. Am I not right in thinking that in the past 50
years Israel has suffered three massive, unprovoked attacks
by its Arab neighbours who have tried to wipe if off the face
of the earth and is under constant attack by the terrorist
organisations Hamas and Hezbollah? In these circumstances,
why are we taking advice from Israel’s enemies on where the
United States puts its embassy?
-
I refute the suggestion made by my noble friend that we are
taking advice from enemies of Israel. I have made it clear
that we do not agree with the decision of the United States.
It is not a decision that we intend to support. We shall
retain our embassy in Tel Aviv. The overstraddling and
all-important issue about this—and this is where I disagree
with the previous question from the noble Baroness—is that I
do not think this is detrimental to the peace process. If
there is resolve on the part of Governments and powers to
contribute to that process in whatever way they can, it can
become a reality.
-
(CB)
Does the Minister agree that it is time for a dose of
realism? One hundred or so countries have recognised
Palestine without it making any difference. Given that Israel
has the right to choose its own capital, just as the United
Kingdom does, and that all the instruments of government are
there, what is the point of having an embassy far away? It is
as if Chancellor Merkel had an embassy in Belfast.
-
The United Kingdom Government decide where our embassy will
be. In Israel, it will be in Tel Aviv.
-
(CB)
My Lords, is it not now very clear that the President is
being advised by the wrong set of people and that soliciting
opinions from a family member with close links to President
Netanyahu to the exclusion of professionals is going to lead
to unmitigated disaster and—I echo others in your Lordships’
House today—bordering on serious instability?
-
The noble Viscount will understand that it is not for the
United Kingdom Government to tell the United States
Government what to do. The United States has made its
decision in this respect. President Trump has indicated that
he still believes in a negotiated two-state solution. It is
helpful to hear that. Clearly, he wants to contribute to the
peace process if he can. People may have different views
about the decision that he has made in relation to his
attitude to Jerusalem and the location of the US embassy, but
at the same time there is evidence that President Trump wants
to make a positive contribution to the peace process.
|