Korean Peninsula
Emily Thornberry Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Before I respond to the Foreign Secretary, I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our thoughts to the families of all those killed over the summer in the terrorist attacks in Barcelona and across the world, including seven-year-old Julian Cadman. Given the subject we are discussing, it does us all well to remember that some 8 million children like Julian, under the age of 10, live on the Korean peninsula today.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I join him in unreservedly condemning North Korea for the flagrant breaches of international law that have brought us to this sorry pass. I have three questions prompted by his statement. First, although he mentioned the new sanctions regime agreed on 5 August, he will know that we are still in the early stages of enforcing the last set of sanctions agreed last November. Indeed, only 80 countries have so far submitted implementation reports on the new sanctions regime, so how does he propose to ensure that these new sanctions are implemented quickly and effectively and given time to work?
Secondly, on the strategy outlined by the Foreign Secretary, he will have seen the article today by his predecessor, William Hague, considering whether the strategic goal will eventually shift from preventing North Korea achieving nuclear capability to accepting that that capability exists and seeking, in some form, to contain it. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with his predecessor? Has the Foreign Office planned for that scenario?
Thirdly, given the threat to Japan and South Korea, the Foreign Secretary will be aware of the suggestion that they should now be allowed to develop their own nuclear weapons as a response to Pyongyang. Does he agree with me that that would be utter madness? Surely it cannot be a serious suggestion that the world’s response to North Korea breaching the non-proliferation treaty should be to encourage other countries to do the same. Surely our goal must be the denuclearisation of the entire region.
Beyond the substance of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, I welcome its careful and judicious tone. After a summer of utterly reckless rhetoric from Washington and Pyongyang, we urgently need some cool heads and calm words, especially now that we have drifted from that dangerous escalation of rhetoric into the even more dangerous escalation of actions. With every ratcheting up of words and deeds, the risk grows. That escalation will lead to miscalculation and a war will begin, not by design but by default.
Faced with that situation, we are told that all options remain under consideration and that no options have been ruled out, but if any of those options risks 10 million people in Seoul being, in the Foreign Secretary’s words, “vaporised”, or similar devastation in North Korea and Japan, we have to say that those options should be in the bin. The reality is that the only sane option is, as William Hague wrote today, dialogue and diplomacy. That means a deliberate de-escalation of rhetoric and actions, it means properly enforcing the new sanctions regime, and it means restarting the six-party talks to seek a new and lasting settlement.
Yet we have a US ambassador to the UN who says,
“the time for talk is over.”
We have a President who says,
“talking is not the answer”.
Although in his case I would usually be inclined to agree, for the US to turn its back on diplomacy at this stage is simply irresponsible and, as its closest ally, we must be prepared to say so.
Although we welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, the real test is what comes next. Will Britain be a voice of calm and reason on the world stage? Will we ally ourselves with Angela Merkel? She told the German Parliament today:
“there can only be a peaceful and diplomatic solution”.
If the answer is yes, and if that is the route the Government take, they will have our full support; but if they pretend that military options involving decapitation, annihilation, fire and fury belong anywhere but in the bin, and if they swear blind loyalty to Donald Trump no matter what abyss he drags us towards, they will be risking a hell of a lot more than just losing our support. I urge the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues to remain calm and judicious in their approach, to discount all so-called military solutions and to steer a course towards the only options that work: dialogue, diplomacy and peace.
Boris Johnson
I join the right hon. Lady in the sentiments she expresses about the victims of terror across our continent over the summer months. There is a lot in her reply with which I agree, and she is certainly right to commend a measured tone in these things. In her focus on Washington and the pronouncements of Donald Trump, it is important that we do not allow anything to distract this House from the fundamental responsibility of Pyongyang for causing this crisis. It is a great shame that there should be any suggestion of any kind of equivalence in the confrontation—I am sure she did not mean to imply that—and it is important that we do not allow that to creep into our considerations.
The current situation is so grave because it is the first time in the history of nuclear weaponry that a non-P5 country seems to be on the brink of acquiring the ability to use an ICBM equipped with a nuclear warhead. This is a very grave situation, which explains why we are told, and we must agree, that theoretically no options are off the table, but it is also essential—the right hon. Lady is right about this—that we pursue the peaceful diplomatic resolution that we all want.
In the history of North Korea’s attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon over the past 30 years there have been flare-ups and crises, and then they have been managed down again. We hope that in the UN, with the help of our Chinese friends and the rest of the international community, we can once again freeze this North Korean nuclear programme and manage the crisis down again. I share the emphasis on peaceful resolution that the right hon. Lady espouses.
Oral Answers to Questions
Emily Thornberry Excerpts(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Boris Johnson
It is not for me to comment on the ability of the Labour leader to control his own party. I take it that Labour Members are all following official Labour party policy, which is to come out of the EU and the single market. If they are not, they can stand up now and, by their questions, betray their real position, but as far as I know they are supporting the will of the British people as expressed last year. If they wish to dissent from that, now is the time.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I start by welcoming the new Foreign Office Front Benchers to their positions? Back in July last year, they chastised me when I wrongly accused them of being an all-male team. If only I had waited a year, I would have been correct after all.
Talking of female Tory MPs, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) used a disgusting, racist phrase in her comments at the East India Club, and I hope the Foreign Secretary will join me in condemning them; I hope he will agree that derogatory, offensive language deriving from the era of American slavery has no place in modern society. But the hon. Lady was at least trying to ask a valid question—a question about what would happen if Britain failed to reach a deal on Brexit. So may I ask the Foreign Secretary to answer that question today? Can he explain what that no deal option would mean for the people and businesses of Great Britain?
Boris Johnson
As I said before, the chances of such an outcome are vanishingly unlikely, since it is manifestly in the interests of those on both sides of the channel to get a great free trade deal and a new deep and special partnership between us and the European Union. That is what we are going to achieve.
Emily Thornberry
I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer, but unfortunately it leaves us none the wiser. This is slightly baffling because it was, after all, the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister for now, at least—who decided to put the no deal option on the table. She could not stop using the phrase during the election campaign. But now, when we ask what it would mean in practice, the Government refuse to tell us. The Foreign Affairs Committee said in December:
“The Government should require each Department to produce a ‘no deal’ plan, outlining the likely consequences…and setting out proposals to mitigate potential risks.”
It went on to state that anything less would be a “dereliction of duty”, and that we cannot have a repeat—
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Lady but she really does need to bring herself to a single-sentence question, because there are lots of colleagues who want to take part. She is normally very succinct, but today is an exception. Return to form!
Emily Thornberry
Given that a plan for no deal would be worse than that dereliction of duty, will the Foreign Secretary spell out publicly what no deal would mean? If he is not prepared to tell us that publicly, can he reassure us that at the very least he has a detailed private plan to manage that risk?
Boris Johnson
There is no plan for no deal, because we are going to get a great deal. For the sake of illustration, I remind the right hon. Lady that there was a time, which I am old enough to remember, when Britain was not in what we then called the Common Market.
Boris Johnson
I hesitate to say it, but we certainly regard as very considerable the Prime Minister’s achievement in getting the US President to sign up to the G20 agreement on climate change, as she did.
Boris Johnson
Absolutely right. The Prime Minister was instrumental in getting the Americans to sign up to the communiqué. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate that whatever their disagreements with the current incumbent of the White House, the President of the United States is the leader of our most important ally, and he therefore deserves this country’s respect and consideration.
Israel and Palestinian Talks
Emily Thornberry Excerpts(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I begin, as so many Members have, by welcoming the new Minister for the Middle East to his role. He fulfilled a similar but more junior role with great distinction for several years, and I am sure he will do so again. I am also sure that he will continue to bring the same passion for the cause of finding peace between Israel and Palestine that he always has brought to the issue, and that he always brings to issues in the House.
My pleasure at welcoming the Minister to his new role is tempered by the fact that I truly believe that if the Government call a debate on such a serious foreign policy issue as the future of talks between Israel and Palestine—this is the first time a Government have done so for 10 years, I believe—and that debate is held in Government time, it would not be unreasonable to expect the Foreign Secretary himself to make the effort to lead the discussion. I do not mean to undermine how much I welcome the Minister and what he has said but, although some Members might disagree, when 100 years ago Britain’s then Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, decided that the British Government should publicly declare their support for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people, he wrote the letter in his own name. He did not delegate the task to his junior Ministers, because he realised that not only do words matter but that who says them matters very much.
I regret that the Foreign Secretary has chosen not to speak today, but I am afraid it is all part of a pattern. Since the Yom Kippur war in 1973, we have fought 12 elections in this country and the Conservative party has published 12 manifestos. During that whole period, the most recent election is only the second time the Tory party has failed to mention the middle east even once in its whole manifesto. Even the 2005 manifesto—a document so parochial, insular and isolationist that it did not even mention Russia or the United States—said that a Conservative Government would
“work to achieve peace in the Middle East based on the principle of Israel secure within its borders and a viable Palestinian state.”
Ten years later, in its 2015 manifesto, the Conservative party said it would
“support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, robustly defending the right of Israel to protect its security, while continuing to condemn illegal settlement building, which undermines the prospects for peace”.
So, we have to ask ourselves what has changed. We have to ask why the Conservative party has been prepared to spell out its middle east policy in 1987, 1992, 1997, 2001, 2005 and 2010, and just two years ago in 2015, but its latest manifesto says absolutely nothing—or as some might say klum, or as others might say, la shayy. I do not know what the Foreign Secretary’s explanation is, and we are not going to find out today. He might blame Nick Timothy, or his good friend Sir Lynton Crosby, but I must say that I drafted my section of Labour’s manifesto; why did the Foreign Secretary trust someone else to do his?
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It may be that the Conservatives did not cover this issue in our manifesto, but at least we did not elect a leader who views Hamas and Hezbollah as his friends.
Emily Thornberry
When debating this issue, it is important to do so seriously and to raise serious matters. I am surprised at the tone that the right hon. Lady adopts. If she wants to continue to use the Lynton Crosby style of politics in this place, I have to tell her that it is discredited, outdated and does not work. Surely it is better to engage on the substance of the debate. The point that I am making today is that at the last general election, the Conservative party did not mention the middle east and it did not mention Palestine and Israel. I am coming on in my speech to wonder why that is and to put forward a few explanations.
Oliver Dowden
The shadow Foreign Secretary is very dismissive of her leader’s description of Hamas and Hezbollah as friends. I have to say to her that a great many of my constituents, many of whom are Jewish, are deeply worried and troubled by the prospect of someone who aspires to be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom describing those two Jew-hating terrorist organisations as his friends. I would welcome it if the shadow Foreign Secretary were to take the opportunity to withdraw, on behalf of the Labour party, those comments that have caused so much upset and offence in the community.
Emily Thornberry
One way we can approach this is by looking at the truth of the situation, which is that, in order to engage people in peace, the leader of my party wishes to bring them together to encourage them to discuss matters. It is only through discussion and agreement that we can make progress.
Emily Thornberry
Before the hon. Gentleman jumps up and down, let me just finish my point. [Interruption.] Please, I urge Members to calm down a little. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) has some good ideas about what a future peace process between Israel and Palestine might look like, he may get a letter from the Leader of the Opposition, asking him up to the second floor of Norman Shaw South to discuss it with him—he is quite happy to discuss peace and people’s ideas. However, if Government Members continue to use one of the main guns of the Lynton Crosby campaign, which is discredited and has not worked, I will not take any further interventions from them.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend has rightly talked about the seriousness of the issue. Our focus must urgently be on those who are living in Israel and Palestine and those who are suffering tremendously. It is important to acknowledge the worsening of the humanitarian situation. Two million people are trapped in the Gaza strip, half of them children. In 2012, the UN said that Gaza would be unliveable by 2020. Many experts say that 2020 is already here. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we focus on those real issues and that we move the debate forward in a productive way today?
Emily Thornberry
My hon. Friend is quite right: when 80% of people who live in Gaza are dependent on aid to survive, it is a very important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), who will be summing up the debate at the end of the day, will be dealing particularly with humanitarian issues.
I shall make a little more progress on the point I was making, while messages are perhaps sent to Lynton Crosby for a different script. I drafted my section of the Labour manifesto, so why did the Foreign Secretary trust someone else to draft his? The reason, I suggest, is this: if we have always known in this country, ever since the Balfour declaration 100 years ago, that when statesmen and stateswomen in this country are prepared to set down in black and white their policies on the middle east, those words have an impact. When they are set out by the most senior figures as official Government policy, they matter even more. I know that the Minister has said some very important things today, but the point is that if they are not put in the manifesto or not said by the Secretary of State, they do not have the same impact. That is important.
When the Conservative party fails to set out its policies in respect of the middle east in its official manifesto, people on all sides of the debate, particularly those in Palestine and Israel, are left to interpret silence in the way they wish. Many of them, sadly, will come to the conclusion that I did, which is that the Government could not repeat their 2015 language supporting a two-state solution and condemning illegal settlement building because, on both those points, they do not as yet know where Donald Trump stands. Until they do, they want nothing written in black and white, because, one day, it might put them at odds with the American President. That simply is not good enough. We cannot overturn decades of established British foreign policy, upheld by successive Governments from both parties, just because this pathetic Government are happy to play patsy to Donald Trump.
Dr Offord
I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for finally giving way. I can assure her that if her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has anything to say about Israel or Hamas, he can say it tomorrow when he visits my constituency, which has the second largest Jewish community in the country, and I am sure that they will have plenty of questions to ask him. What I want to know from the shadow Foreign Secretary—this has been made very clear today—is whether her party, in accordance with its manifesto, which she wrote, will immediately recognise the state of Palestine: yes or no?
Emily Thornberry
If the hon. Gentleman will take his seat, relax and listen to the rest of my speech, I will get to that at a later stage.
Mr Jim Cunningham
Only about two or three years ago, when we had the coalition Government—this might explain the reason why it was not in the Conservative party’s manifesto—the then Foreign Secretary said that the window of opportunity for a settlement was slowly vanishing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this possibly is the reason why the Government party has possibly never really given up? When I asked the Minister concerned about discussions with the Israeli Government, sanctions and settlements, he responded in a way that did not completely answer the question. More importantly, as my right hon. Friend has said, 2 million people are suffering in Palestine, so what are the Government going to do to alleviate the suffering resulting from sanctions?
Emily Thornberry
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I see that the Minister is making a note of it, so hopefully he will deal with it at the end of the debate, because these questions are important.
We seek some clarity from the Minister today on where the Government stand and what they will do to promote peace in any of the specific areas that the Opposition set out in our manifesto. First, on the issue of security, it states:
“There can be no military solution to this conflict and all sides must avoid taking action that would make peace harder to achieve.”
That was what we wrote in May, and surely no party in this House would disagree. We all know that there can be no progress towards peace between Israel and Palestine unless both sides are sure of their security. Sadly, at present the opposite is true. Peace and security are becoming ever harder to achieve because of the climate of increasing aggression and extremism, which the Minister referred to.
Whether it is the horrific phenomenon of Palestinians randomly attacking Israeli civilians and security staff with knives, or ramming them with vehicles, leaving dozens dead or injured, and creating a dread that we in this country well understand, particularly after the attack on London Bridge; or whether it is the acts of indiscriminate terror, or the record number of Palestinians who last year, without process or explanation, were forcibly evicted from their homes in the occupied territories, in many cases to make way for new and illegal Israeli settlements—whatever the actions taken, no matter which is objectively worse, no matter who started it and no matter what ludicrous justifications anyone can offer—the truth is that all these actions are simply contributing to and worsening the same vicious cycle of violence and extremism, a vicious cycle that can never lead us towards peace.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that one thing that can unite us across party in this House, in addition to our opposition to terrorism, which we must always condemn, is that we must be united in our opposition to flagrant breaches of international law and flagrant human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territories?
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
It is of course right that we condemn settlements, but if international law is powerless to impose any form of sanction, are we not simply cementing the status quo, which has not delivered peace over many decades?
Emily Thornberry
I believe that all of us have been saying for some time that we know what a peace settlement ought to look like and what elements need to be stopped. We know that we have to stop the downward spiral of illegality, violence and blame, and that the further down we go, the more difficult it is to climb out again. That is why what I want to do in my speech is to address what the British can do.
As a friend of Israel and of Palestine, I am appalled at the cycle of violence that has become so familiar that it is no longer covered by our country’s news broadcasts, let alone in some parties’ manifestos. I am equally appalled when the reaction of some, on both sides of the debate, is not to prioritise stopping the cycle of violence, but to believe that we somehow have to pick a side to support, denying the reality that in a terrible conflict such as this, no side can win, and both sides can certainly continue to lose.
What are the Government doing to bring the cycle of violence to an end? What steps is the Minister taking with Palestinian leaders with regard to: ending and condemning all the acts of terrorist violence against Israel, whether using knives, vehicles or rockets; ending and condemning all incitement to violence, including their own; and, at long last, recognising the state of Israel’s right to exist? What pressure is he also putting on the Israeli Government to end the forced displacement of Palestinians from their homes, to end the building of new settlements and to commit to the dismantling of existing ones? Ultimately, what are they doing to end the blockade of the occupied territories and allow the Palestinian people to find permanent homes and proper jobs?
While we are discussing the issue of security, it would be remiss of me not to ask the Minister when we can expect the publication of the report into the foreign funding of extremist groups in the UK. We all know that this is a central issue when it comes to Israel and Palestine. The funding network is vital for Hamas and other extremist groups. We need to look into the issue and understand it. Yet, when the Foreign Secretary was asked about the report on 6 June, he said that he would
“dig it out and have a look at it if that’s what you would like me to do”.
Well, we do not want him to “dig it out”. It should never have been buried in the first place. We want the Government to publish it and act on it. We want to know—indeed, we have a right to know—how their policy towards Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other countries that may be funding extremism is being informed by that report. We want to know and we can see no reason why we should not be told. Will the Minister start by telling us today which countries the report implicates? Are sovereign Governments to blame, or simply wealthy private financiers? What are the Government’s ties with those Governments and individuals? Ultimately, why has that report not been published?
Let me turn to the importance of clarity and consistency, among other things, in relation to the middle east. In Labour’s manifesto, we once more called for a two-state solution, an end to illegal settlements and a return to meaningful negotiations to achieve a diplomatic resolution. None of those things should be difficult or controversial. Indeed, they have been staples of UK Government policy and successive party manifestos on both sides going back to the aftermath of the second world war. But, as I have already said, we are now at a crossroads. The Government do not know whether Britain’s long-standing policies on the middle east are still consistent with our equally strong desire to work closely with the United States to try to co-ordinate policy, because we do not know what the policy of the United States is. The Minister welcomed President Trump’s engagement on the issue, but I note that he did not give us any indication of what Donald Trump’s policy on the middle east is, and that confusion is not restricted to Britain.
Two weeks ago, the Israeli Defence Minister said that there is an agreed level of new settlement construction that the Trump Administration have said they will support. He said that
“they respect our approach and our vision regarding…settlements”,
but last week the Israeli Education Minister said the opposite, suggesting that Trump’s approach to settlement building was a disappointment and that
“he’s…going down the same unsuccessful path that his predecessors did”.
So what is the truth? The Israelis do not know. The Palestinians do not know. And I bet a fair amount that, although the Minister of State welcomes the engagement, he really does not know what Donald Trump’s policy is. Depressingly, I am pretty sure that Donald Trump does not have the foggiest idea either.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I was on a cross-party delegation to the Holy Land in January. Does my right hon. Friend share the concern of some of the Palestinians we saw—Christians as well as Muslims—at the involvement and financial interests of some of Donald Trump’s acolytes in settlement construction? In the popular imagination, settlements are maybe just a few shacks on a hill, but Ma'ale Adumim, which we saw, has 37,500 people in it—it looks like a pleasant American commuter town, with five swimming pools and all sorts of other things—and that makes the geographically viable Palestinian state that might one day come even more difficult.
Emily Thornberry
The difficulty is that, certainly during the campaign, and in the early days of his—I think the word is—Administration, the statements Donald Trump has made in relation to Israel have been very alarming for those who support a two-state solution.
The point I am trying to make is that Britain has always wanted to be able to co-ordinate its foreign policy with the Americans, and this Government are so weak and wobbly that they feel they have to be in lockstep with Donald Trump. That is where we have the difficulty in relation to middle east policy, and that may be one of the reasons why the Foreign Secretary will not come to the Dispatch Box and why Israel and Palestine were not mentioned in the Tory manifesto.
Let me develop my argument further. One thing we know for sure is that waiting for Donald Trump to make up his mind is no way for the British Government to decide their foreign policy. So let me ask the Minister of State today not just to do what every Foreign Minister has done for the last seven decades and to make it clear that we want to see a peaceful process of negotiation towards a two-state solution, including an end to all acts of terrorism towards Israel and an end to all illegal settlements, but to make it clear that that will be our position regardless of what America finally decides is its policy stance. If Donald Trump departs from those long-standing policies, will the British Government condemn him? That is what they should be prepared to do.
If the Minister of State will not say those things today, we can only come to two equally unpalatable and pitiful conclusions: either the Government have abdicated Britain’s leadership role and are simply waiting to take their cues from Trump Tower, or they see no point in putting pressure on the Trump Administration, because they know they will simply be ignored—just like they were over climate change.
Let me turn to the final point on this issue. The Labour manifesto said simply and clearly:
“A Labour government will immediately recognise the state of Palestine.”
Six years ago, the then Foreign Secretary said:
“We reserve the right to recognise a Palestinian state...at a moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about peace.”—[Official Report, 9 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 290.]
Let me, then, urge the Minister and the Government to seize the moment we are now offered by the Balfour centenary to throw our support behind Palestinian statehood, just as we threw our support 100 years ago behind Israeli statehood.
If the question is whether this is the moment when recognising statehood will help bring about peace, I would simply ask, in Primo Levi’ s words, “If not now, when?” When violence and extremism are rising on all sides, when hard-liners are assuming increasing control, when the humanitarian crisis is getting even worse, and when all eyes are on an American President whose grand plan for peace exists only in his mind, we need the British Government, more than ever, to show some leadership and to show the way towards peace—and recognition of Palestinian statehood would be one significant step in that direction. So will the Minister of State tell the House whether such a move is under consideration? If it is not, what will it take for the Government to act? The right hon. Gentleman will recall that in 2014, MPs on both sides of the House voted in favour of recognition of Palestine by a majority of 262.
I have mentioned the 100th anniversary of the Balfour declaration.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I am interested in and listening with great care to what the right hon. Lady is saying about recognition of Palestine, and particularly about what the Government’s position was some years ago. Does she share my concern that, given the Minister’s comments today, it seems that that position has moved and that recognition is being ruled out until the end of talks on a peace process rather than being something that the Government would be able to do at any time?
Emily Thornberry
I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the position today, and that is why I am asking these questions. If Britain were to recognise the Palestinian state, it would be an opportunity for us to play honest broker and to challenge the Palestinians to ensure that their leaders behave in a statespersonlike way, as their people need them to behave if they are to be a state and in order to look to the future. If we were to recognise that, we could make a positive contribution.
I mentioned the 100th anniversary of the Balfour declaration, but this is also the year when we mark the 50th anniversaries of two equally significant moments in middle east history: the six-day war, and the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the west bank. Just as the consequences of Balfour’s letter are still with us 100 years on, the consequences of events in 1967 are equally alive today. They are alive in the justifiable fears that every Israeli citizen shares whenever they hear denials of Israel’s right to exist, whenever they hear air-raid sirens warning of rocket attacks, and whenever they hear the latest reports of cowardly terror attacks on ordinary Israeli citizens. The consequences are also with us in the anger and unfairness that has been felt by many Palestinian people since 1967, with their children growing up in poverty and deprivation, their homes bulldozed to make way for ever more illegal settlements, and their futures offering just more of the same. It is a vicious cycle of fear and despair—as I said earlier, a downward spiral from which it becomes ever harder to climb back.
But it does not have to be this way. We will hear in today’s debate—indeed, we have all heard in our discussions with Israelis and Palestinians in recent years—that there are on all sides people of good will with moderate views, mutual understanding, and shared hope for progress, who can together take us down the long and difficult but necessary path towards brokering a lasting peace. I hope that this debate will set the right tone in that regard, and that it will be constructive and forward-looking. Most of all, as I said at the outset, I hope that we all remember that our words on this issue are listened to—they matter and they make a difference—and that neither silence nor choosing sides is acceptable if what we ultimately want is peace.
In that spirit, I ask the Minister to address all the questions I have raised, but, most importantly, to tell us very simply what the Government will actively be doing, on their own terms, in the coming months to make their contribution towards that peace.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Offord
I will extend the same courtesy to the right hon. Lady that she gave to me and say no, thank you.
Unilateralism is a rejection of the peace process, not a means to revive it. I am therefore grateful that the Minister has made very clear today the commitment from the Government and the Conservative party—our actions speak louder than words—to reject Palestinian recognition before the peace talks. We have confirmed that we will continue to support the Oslo agreement; any other action would reject it. The Government and the Conservative party will continue our endeavours to assist in the creation of a two-state solution so that both countries—Palestine and Israel—can live in peace side by side.
Emily Thornberry
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I made Labour’s position perfectly clear—it is in the manifesto. We think that the state of Palestine should be recognised. I answered that in my speech. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s problem, and it is such a shame he did not take my intervention.
Mr Speaker
Yes, well I think that might be called a point of frustration, or alternatively a point of explanation, but I am afraid that we will have to leave it there. No further chuntering from a sedentary position from either side of the Chamber is required, or indeed beneficial.