Middle East
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Baroness Janke
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
For the Palestinian Authority, it is not a condition of recognition, as the noble Lord knows, but we are working with the Palestinian Authority to bring about the reforms that we think are necessary to enable it to administer a state in the future. We do not claim that it is ready to do that now. However, as I have made clear, the decision around talking about recognising Palestine at the UN General Assembly is around preserving the viability of the two-state solution. People can disagree about whether that was the right or wrong thing to do. We feel that this is not the circumstance in which we wanted to recognise Palestine; we wanted it to be part of a much more positive process and to have included the negotiations that noble Lords have said that they want to see leading towards a lasting settlement. That is not where we are, as we all know. We have taken the decision now, because we felt that unless we did, the prospects of the future state would be further jeopardised —and look at what is happening with E1 too. We have not done this in the circumstances that we would have wished, but I agree with the noble Lord on the need to see further reform of the Palestinian Authority.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, the head of the World Health Organization has said that July was the worst month for cases of acute malnutrition in children in Gaza, affecting nearly 12,000 children under the age of five, all as a result of a manmade famine. In the light of this and the further bombardments of Gaza City, is it not time the UK took firmer action through the maximum licensing of sanctions, including on Netanyahu; ending all exports of arms, including surveillance support; and withdrawing conditions on the recognition of the Palestinian state?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are only, I think, three weeks away from the UN General Assembly, when the decision on recognition will be communicated. As I have said before, I cannot comment on the designation of future sanctions, but I observe how extraordinary it is to impose sanctions on individual members of the cabinet of a country with which we have such long, close historic ties.
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Baroness Janke(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, we too welcome the meeting of the UK Government with the Palestinian Prime Minister Mustafa and his colleagues. We also welcome the memorandum of understanding, and the restatement of commitment to the two-state solution and the involvement of the Palestinian Authority in the future of Gaza, as well as the strategic partnership based on economic development and institutional reform. This is a forward-looking development. It does, however, raise some questions, particularly of commitment. What discussions have the UK Government had with the United States on the centrality of Palestinian involvement in the future of Gaza? In the light of the remarks made by President Trump, it does not look to be a very deliverable proposal.
The atrocities being committed in Gaza on civilians, many of them women and children, together with the systematic destruction of the health system, continue to shock the world. There is no fully functioning hospital in Gaza despite the indiscriminate bombing and shooting of Palestinians and the devastating injuries that result. Can the Minister say whether future progress on the memorandum of understanding may require the UK to stop arming Israel to carry out indiscriminate killing and destruction in Gaza?
What commitment did the UK Government make to Prime Minister Mustafa to do all in their power to end the blockade of humanitarian aid into Gaza, where, after 50 days of blockade, supplies have run out and civilians, including large numbers of children, are starving to death, even though supplies of crucial food and water are readily available over the border. [Interruption.] I hear that I am being heckled from a sedentary position. I believe that this is not in order in this House. We heard reports from the humanitarian agencies in Gaza that there is not even enough water to make formula food for babies, and that babies are dying as well. The noble Lord may shake his head; if he has evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it.
In the light of the deliberations of the ICJ, will the UK Government commit to abiding by the court’s judgment? Commitment to the two-state solution will be worth little if further action of the Israeli Government should be to annex the illegally occupied West Bank. In the light of statements made by Israeli Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir and increasing violence supported by the IDF, what are the UK Government doing to ensure that this does not happen? In the light of the accelerating violence, will the UK sanction further violent settlers?
The Labour manifesto contained a commitment to recognise the Palestinian state, but the Government have so far failed to do so. In 2014, the House of Commons voted to recognise the Palestinian state, and the state of Palestine is recognised as a sovereign state by 148 of the 193 member states of the United Nations, or just over 75% of all UN members. The Government have said that they will recognise Palestine when this is most conducive to a peace process, but if not now, can the Minister say what factors must change for this to happen? We read that France is planning recognition at the June reconstruction conference, and international momentum is now growing. The UK risks missing a crucial moment to support a just resolution and recognise its own responsibility in the history of the current context.
The meeting and its outcome are to be welcomed, but a very significant sign of good faith would be for the UK to recognise the inalienable right of the Palestinians to have their own internationally recognised state and homeland. I hope that the Minister will restate the Government’s commitment on this fundamental principle, and that we will see action on it in the near future.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the support that we have had from both Front Benches for the two-state solution, and the support for the meeting that was held.
I have to say that we agree with the Front Bench opposite on the issue of recognition. Our position has been consistent, in that we will recognise Palestine as part of a process at a moment when we judge that it is most conducive to peace. I do not think that is now. It may be, as I was asked, the culmination of a process, or it may come at some point within a process. As noble Lords have said, it would be a significant step. It is something you can do only once, so it is important that you pick the moment to do it, at a time when you will have the greatest impact.
On the blocking of aid, the denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is appalling. Access to aid is an area where our international humanitarian law assessments continue to raise concerns about possible breaches. Blocking goods, supplies and power entering Gaza risks breaching international humanitarian law. It should not be happening, and we are doing everything we can to alleviate the situation. The Foreign Secretary continues to raise these issues with his counterparts, including most recently at a meeting with the Foreign Minister on 15 April. We continue to call publicly and privately on the Government of Israel to abide by their international obligations when it comes to humanitarian assistance to the population in Gaza.
I was asked about our ministerial engagement with the US. Since hostilities resumed, the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Secretary Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, the Israeli Foreign Minister, the Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs, the EU high representative and the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher. We are using every piece of influence that we can to try to get aid reinstated; we think the humanitarian situation is dire and getting more serious by the day, so we will continue to do that.
We are working on technical assistance with the Palestinian Authority. I met with the Finance Minister last week, and I know these are serious people trying to do the right thing in incredibly difficult circumstances. It is important that we continue to support people who want to see a peaceful resolution and a two-state solution, and I am glad that we are able to do what we can there. We have secured just over £100 million in aid to support that work but, as of today, the main concern that we all have is getting the remaining hostages released, reinstating the ceasefire and ensuring access for aid back into Gaza.
International Aid Workers: Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Baroness Janke(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right to highlight what has been happening to health workers and aid workers. Almost 1,000 health workers and around 300 aid workers have been killed since October 2023. It is important that what happens is documented and recorded for the future, as she says.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, in light of the findings of the ICC that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and his former Minister intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival—including food, water, medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity—will the Government publish in full the legal advice they have received from their law officers regarding the situation in Gaza and the legality of UK export licensing of arms to Israel?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, as we have discussed at length previously, we have a fairly well-established way of looking at arms licensing. I am confident that the decisions that have been made in regard to licensing, where we have restricted some items, have been completely and wholly in line with the UK legislation.