We respect and will always continue to adhere to the convention that the noble Baroness refers to, but it will remain the Government’s position—I genuinely think that this is right—that we do not ascribe genocide; it is for a competent court to do that. That is the right way to tackle these issues. By calling this genocide, we do not save a single life, feed a single child or restore medical services to a single community. It is important—it really matters—that the attribution of genocide is made by a competent court. That will remain this Government’s position, and it has been the very long-standing position of the United Kingdom Government.
My Lords, is it not incredible that, when the Government arrived at the conclusion the week before last that this was not a genocide, that was ignored by Parliament and buried by the BBC, but when the United Nations arrives at the opposite conclusion, we have debates in Parliament and wall-to-wall obsessive coverage on the BBC? People need to understand that if Parliament and the BBC continually tell the British people that Israel is a uniquely terrible place, committing uniquely awful crimes—by the way, I share the concern about the humanitarian position in Gaza—that obsessive coverage drives antisemitism in Britain. It drives hostility towards people who are identified with Israel, which is the vast majority of the Jewish community. That is why you had 70,000 Jewish people protesting outside the BBC and Parliament a week last Sunday, which ought to be a matter of profound shame to Parliament and our national broadcaster.
As I have said, it is not for any politician or indeed the Government to determine whether or not genocide has been happening. It is for a competent court, and we will respect the decision of any competent court. Putting that to one side, it is absolutely right that we in this Chamber, others in positions of leadership or people in the community are able to say that what they see happening in Gaza is a thing of horror and shame that should stop immediately.
I, like many others, ask myself this more and more frequently, but I come back to everything that my noble friend mentioned making it harder and less viable, which is one of the reasons we are taking the decisions we are, but what else is there? We have to hold on to the prospect of a two-state solution because there is no other outcome that would lead to lasting peace.
We continue to engage with Israel, and I think that is right, because that is the right way to have some influence, difficult though that undoubtedly is at the moment. We have taken the decision to withdraw arms licences to Israel, and even before we did that, less than 1% of the arms used by Israel in this conflict would ever have come from the UK. We have made sanctions decisions against members of the Israeli Cabinet, and we continue, of course, to consider further measures as may be necessary. For now, the focus is on the UN General Assembly in a matter of weeks, where a very significant position may be taken on Palestinian recognition. We will not be commenting on future sanctions designations. I take the noble Lord’s question as a request for more transparency and information. I am struggling to work out exactly what he wants to know, but if there is something specific, I will use every endeavour to provide that for him.
My Lords, obviously, it is easy to criticise the Israeli Government. But instead of all this nonsense about sanctions and other measures which will just drive people further apart, would it not be much more use to concentrate on the hard, painstaking work of real diplomacy and contribute to a practical plan to help bring Israelis and Palestinians together, to build trust, and to negotiate and compromise, which is the only way you are going to find a real peace process? We also need a serious proposal to get Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar to fund reconstruction of Gaza, create jobs for young Palestinians so that they do not become involved in extremism and terrorism, and guarantee Israel’s security.
That is not an unconstructive approach. Of course, there is going to have to be dialogue and a process that is agreed by all parties involved. We are not currently in a place where that is happening. I hope sincerely that over the next few weeks or months we can at least get to a point where the hostages are released, there can be a lasting ceasefire, and the people in Gaza can get the food and medical assistance that they need.
The only resolution that is going to last—and this has been the case for decades or longer—will be based on dialogue. Then, as the noble Lord says, the process of reconstruction, which will be extensive given what has happened, needs to begin.
Hamas should not claim the credit, but what it claims and what is true will be very different. It may well make statements to that effect, but they are not true. We are being as clear as we possibly can be that this is about protecting the viability of a two-state solution; that is our sole motivation here. Hamas is an appalling organisation; it has no role in the future administration of any state, and it should release the hostages immediately. Until that happens, it is very difficult to see how we get any sustained peace.
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about Sudan, because over the last two years, Israel and Gaza have been mentioned in Parliament 10 times more than Sudan, where famine has killed more than 500,000 children. Israel, unbelievably, has even been discussed more than twice as much as Russia and Ukraine and almost twice as much as the NHS, immigration and asylum, issues for which our Parliament and the Government are actually responsible. This is a terrible situation, but what does the Minister think explains this? Does she agree with me that people should be very careful about singling out Israel at a time when hatred against Jewish people is running at record levels?
In order to achieve the last two things that the noble Lord advocated, we need that ceasefire to hold. It is very early in the ceasefire; it is only a matter of hours. We will do whatever we need to do to encourage that to happen, but it is vital that that ceasefire continues. As many noble Lords have said, there are several international actors involved in brokering this; we commend them, we will support them and we will do whatever we can to play our part to ensure that peace can continue.
My Lords, the Minister and the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Alton, are right to draw attention to the threat posed to minority communities in Syria. In addition to the Christians and the Alawites, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, members of the Druze community were killed in their hundreds this week. What practical steps can the UK and our international partners take to protect minority communities? In the absence of anybody else doing anything, is Israel not to be commended for protecting the Druze community in Syria?
One of Syria’s strengths is the richness and diversity of its population. I think the best thing that we can all do is to strengthen the Government of Syria and support them in their efforts to maintain peace. We are concerned at the actions of Israel, and we are not persuaded that they are conducive to bringing about peace and stability; they are destabilising, and we have made that view clear. From where we are now, as of 3 am this morning, what we want to see is an end to violence of all kinds, including that of other states, and the strengthening of stability and security in Syria. We think that is the right way to proceed.
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberYes, it absolutely is. I am careful not to make comments that might pre-empt or get ahead of negotiations. That would not be a good idea for me as a Minister. The issues that the noble Lord raises are incredibly important and he is right to raise them, but they are probably best dealt with through a process of negotiation, which I hope we can enter into sooner rather than later.
My Lords, the central problem in the progress we all want to see in the peace process and the two-state solution that the Government and the Opposition are committed to has been Palestinian terrorism, its attacks on Israel and Israel’s concerns about its security. As I understand it, section 4 of the MoU details security co-operation between the UK and the Palestinian Authority. Can the Minister tell us more about what confidence the Government have in the Palestinian Authority’s capacity to address the growing threat posed by Palestinian extremist groups and terrorists in the West Bank?
My noble friend asks about the capacity and capability of the Palestinian Authority. It is fair to say that it does not today have the capability that he describes, and I do not think it would claim to. That is why we have set about this work on long-term security in the region and the understanding that the Palestinian Authority needs reform. Our support is designed to help it address the very real challenges, which I think we all recognise, through concrete reforms. That includes democratic renewal, widening civic space, improving accountability and transparency and fighting corruption. He is right to make that point; that is why we are undertaking the work that we are.
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberI am not going to say anything more about Storm Shadow today—noble Lords will understand that it would be a gift to President Putin were I to do so. However, I note what the noble Lord has said, and he is right to draw attention to the conversations in Kyiv yesterday. It is our intention to support Ukraine in achieving its objectives. We are closely engaged with Ukraine on what those objectives are and how we may be best continue to support them.
My Lords, I welcome and support every word of the Minister in answering this Question. Iran is not just fuelling Russia in this conflict; it is behind all the conflicts in the Middle East and it organises attacks in Europe and the UK. Can the Minister update the House on when the Government will proscribe the IRGC, which was a commitment made in their recent election manifesto?
I do not have an update on timing, but I will ask questions about that and get back to the noble Lord. I do not know when that will happen, but I note his concern and he is right to raise it.