Ambassador to the United States

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn). My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) was able to outline so clearly what today is about, and what today is about is an exceptionally serious matter. We are talking about the appointment of somebody who would have to have the highest security clearance—higher than a lot of Ministers—and who would have sensitive information going across his desk. Yet, at the same time, it was known in the public domain that this individual was severely compromised. That should raise a question for everybody.

Government Back Benchers have been following today’s debate in a state of despair. I admire them for that, because they understand the gravity of the situation. As the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South mentioned, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward), has done nothing but treat the debate so far with contempt. He was smirking at the Leader of the Opposition and he has been shaking his head at some of the allegations made that are in the public domain. That speaks to the apparent attitude at the heart of this Government.

I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is going to have to respond to the debate. We work closely together and he is a good man, but he has been sent to the slaughter today. This is a decision that was made around the Cabinet table. The Minister had to come to this House last week and announce that the Prime Minister had instructed the Foreign Secretary to withdraw the ambassador. Where is the Foreign Secretary? This is one of the most serious issues this House has debated in this Parliament, and once again the Government have the Minister to answer these questions.

To be fair to the Minister, many questions will be put, and he is not going to be able to answer them. That is why he has been sent here today: because he can push it off into the distance. I have nothing but respect for the Minister; we work closely together on international affairs and on NATO, and he has always been honest and up front. I know he must be dreading responding today. Maybe he can tell us when he actually knew that the ambassador had been withdrawn, because on Thursday he certainly looked like a man who was slightly worried about what he had to come into this House to do.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I have talked to my constituents, and it is a fact that in the last few days they have talked about little else. Like the leader of the SNP in this place, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), said, this issue is not going to go away. I hope politicians realise that. It will get bigger and bigger as time goes on. To take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), these questions will have to be answered—there’s no two ways about it. When the general public speak so firmly to me in that way, and to all of us, we know they speak the truth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Let us not shy away from what this is about: this is about a man who defended a convicted paedophile, which most people know would lead to any vetting process being failed because the person could be compromised when they have defended someone of those serious criminal offences. We know from what is in the public domain how much he was in hock to this convicted paedophile, and yet processes were overridden.

The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) raked up the past and, quite frankly, the resignation of a director of communications is very different from the withdrawal of an ambassador with top secret access. When the Conservatives were in government, we didn’t exactly not have our scandals and heartaches that we had to go through. I remind the House that what did for Boris Johnson as the Prime Minister was not the allegations thrown from the Labour side of the House; it was when he said to this House that he was not aware of any of the allegations made against Chris Pincher, and then it turned out that he had evidence that he was aware.

We know that this Prime Minister stood at that Dispatch Box last Wednesday and said he had not been made aware and did not have any documents, when we now know that his office had them. The question has to be answered: when did he know and how can it be shown that he did not know beforehand? The Conservatives moved against Boris Johnson as Prime Minister when it became apparent that he did know. I say to those Labour Back Benchers and those giving opinions in the press, “Do you have the courage now to move against a Prime Minister who has done exactly what the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson did in this country?” This party moved against him it became clear that that was not correct. It is said that “the buck stops here”. Well, the buck really needs to stop here.

[John Slinger]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to the previous Prime Minister as having conducted himself in certain ways. One of those ways was not actually having an independent ethics adviser for a period of time, whereas this Prime Minister has an independent ethics adviser and acts on their advice.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I took that intervention because I knew the hon. Gentleman would not be able to help himself. The reality is the Prime Minister made all this thing about, “I’ve appointed an ethics adviser, I’ve done this—” and yet, when asked the very straightforward question by the BBC, “Would you sack a Minister who has broken the ethics code?” he could not answer. He obfuscated, as he always does. This is smoke and mirrors, and this is exactly the situation we find ourselves in today.

It is not good enough to say, “We didn’t know.” I come back to the fact that people who were subject to a paedophile had to watch somebody who defended that paedophile get put in one of the highest offices in the world, carrying some of the greatest secrets of state—and yet this Prime Minister said, “That’s all fine; we’ll override it.”

I do not want to go beyond the six minutes I was allowed, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will just ask these questions of the Minister—some of them have been implied.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I am afraid I will not. I do not want to test the patience of the House—a lot of people want to speak.

The question the Minister has to answer decisively today is, “Who knew what and when?” He has to answer who made the decision to award the ambassadorship to Peter Mandelson and what lobbying took place. Any of us who have been to America working in international affairs know from meeting Karen Pierce that she is one of the most respected and capable ambassadors. It cannot be true to say that such a distinguished ambassador as Dame Karen would not have been able to carry out the task—a task for which members sitting around the Cabinet table today felt that man was worth the risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

When I heard that this debate had been granted, I thought long and hard about what I could add and whether I should even take part. Many of the questions that spring to mind about the process—where, when, why, how and so on—have already been asked far more eloquently and in more detail than I could. In essence, it comes down to the fact that this was a political appointment, so the PM is the person who should carry the risk—that is the job. If it is someone else’s, we need to know who that is. Stepping back a bit, I thought, “What would the man and woman on Hinckley high street say if I talked to them about it?” They do talk about it, and it hits hard. They have many of the process questions that we have.

This seems a bit of a pyrrhic victory. I am acutely aware that the sword of hypocrisy has a blade on both sides, and swung heavily in this House, it can hit both sides equally, but it is not the wound that can kill; it is the subsequent infection. That is the problem we are seeing today. The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) pointed to the past and talked about context. He is right: context is important to the public in this debate, and we on the Conservative Benches are paying the price for some of the decisions that were taken before. It was not the fact that a previous Prime Minister ate cake. It was the fact that it was then covered up, and we had to come to this House following the report to say that we felt the Prime Minister had lied.

The new Prime Minister came in saying, “There will be change. There will be something different.” Those were his words. It was even on the lectern: “Plan for change”. Herein lies the problem. When the Transport Secretary was found to have committed fraud, when the anti-corruption Minister was investigated for corruption, when the homelessness Minister had to resign for making people homeless, and when the Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary was found not to have paid her tax, it was not because the Prime Minister pushed them out there—it was because the media and this place did their job in holding them to account. That is the difference I am looking for today.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Does my hon. Friend agree it is a vital point that if our right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had not taken down the Prime Minister step by step last week, we may have gone into a recess with this scrutiny still not happening?

[Dr Evans]

My right hon. Friend is spot on. Respect should be given to the many people who have raised concerns, including the Leader of the Opposition, many in the media and many Back Benchers on both sides of the House.

This is my primary point: the Prime Minister said he wanted to do something different. Well, what could he do differently? He could come to this House, tell people the truth and answer the questions. There is nothing stopping him from delivering a statement, putting himself up for scrutiny and answering these questions. He could convene a Committee of the House—I am sure many would be happy to attend—to answer the questions put to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

With respect, this is an emergency debate that was secured by the Opposition. I am in the Chamber setting out the case very clearly, and we have had a number of contributions from Labour Members. The right hon. Member knows that I and Members from across the House have affection for him and the work he does, including his previous roles chairing many important Committees of this House.

Many right hon. and hon. Members have asked a number of specific questions, including about the vetting process and security clearances that applied in this particular case. I fully understand the interest in those questions, and undoubtedly other questions will be raised over the course of discussions in this place. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the practice of successive Administrations—including precedents from the last Government—not to comment on which officials have access to confidential information. That remains the case today.

I want to pay particular attention to this matter, because it is important and because Members present have asked very sensible questions. The national security vetting process is confidential, and the UK Government’s vetting charter includes an undertaking to protect personal data and other information in the strictest confidence. I am not going to depart from that approach in this Chamber today and release personal information about an individual’s confidential vetting. However, while I will not talk about the confidential details relating to this case, I can provide details of the overall processes that a number of people have asked about, including the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who opened the debate.

Prior to the announcement of Lord Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office undertook a due diligence process, and after his appointment was announced on 20 December 2024, the FCDO started the ambassadorial appointment process, including national security vetting. That vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO, and concluded with clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up his post in February.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I accept that private data cannot be disclosed, but is there a mechanism by which the Minister can ask the Intelligence and Security Committee to look into the question of whether somebody—a civil servant, for example—who was known to have had a close association with a convicted paedophile would have passed the vetting process to hold such a sensitive position? That could be something that the Minister passes on to the ISC to look at, because it goes to the heart of the situation. I very much doubt that a person with that sort of association would be given the highest security clearance.

[Stephen Doughty]

I know the right hon. Gentleman makes that point with sincerity, but I will not comment on the national security vetting process. That would not be appropriate or in line with being consistent from Government to Government.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), not least because of the unique experiences she brings to this debate and the important way she has put it together. I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible, because I think that some 20 Government Members spoke in the debate and the Minister will have a lot to answer and get through.

Obviously, a lot of the speeches have been about humanitarian access, as that is what the debate is about. Many stories have been brought forward about reports from the ground, and it is indeed undoubtable that a famine is taking place. The first thing I would like to probe the Minister on is whether he has had any reports on where all the violence is coming from at the humanitarian aid points. Is it purely from one side, or the other? Has he had any reports on what the security situation is and how that could be improved? I ask because we obviously want to see aid getting in in any way we can. In that sense, you—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. Sir Alec, you are an experienced Member. Can we move to ordinary parliamentary debate? I have not had any reports.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I apologise sincerely, Mr Stringer. Has the Minister got the plans for what will be said to the President of the United States to cover these very important aspects? Why is there such violence around the aid points, and what influence can be brought to bear to get more aid in? Some Members have suggested using assets such as the Royal Navy. Indeed, the last Conservative Government were involved in trying to put harbours in and get aid in place. These are all important aspects, because the first point that we come to today is the value of human life and doing everything that can be done to stop what is a man-made famine, wherever the original or ongoing responsibilities for that may lie.

The events going on in the middle east shock us all; indeed, the events of last night shocked us all. That includes the President of the United States making statements that perhaps surprised us all and showed that it may be time for the Israeli Government to rethink whether they can act with impunity, because it appears the Americans were not aware of what was happening and are absolutely furious at what appears to be an attempt to scupper any peace deal. That shows the importance of the Israeli President coming to see the Prime Minister today. It is important to keep those engagements alive, and to be able to look people in the eye and be honest with them. Often, friends can give people the most honest opinion, and it is important to keep those relationships in place.

The hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy said that it is not Hamas that pays the price for the lack of humanitarian aid, but the starving children. What assessment has been made of where aid is going when it is received on the ground, and what can be done to secure that aid for the populations that need it?

We are in a position to leverage influence on the Israeli Government, but I am concerned that declaring recognition of a Palestinian state without calling for the release of hostages may damage the ability of the Israelis to listen to what is said. The significant shifts in foreign policy at this time must be balanced with trying to get a tangible outcome to this event. Everybody wants to see this conflict come to an end. Everybody wants to ensure that the events of 7 October cannot happen again. We must be able to be in the room and to work with the Israelis and the Americans, who have such influence in this area, to ensure that we can reach that position as quickly as possible.

I think the Minister will have plenty of time to answer all the questions that have been raised about humanitarian aid, but I want to draw on the comments made by the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) about getting to the ceasefire and what takes place afterwards. I urge the Minister, if he can, to outline any plans the Prime Minister may have, in meeting the President of the United States, to clarify where American thinking about the day after the war is. We have heard many conflicting reports of the things that may go on, some of which may well be genocidal acts. On that note, is it still the position of the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary to support last week’s letter from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), which said that the Government did not recognise a genocide? Can the Minister outline the thinking behind that? There is plenty of international law that makes the situation opaque, so perhaps he can outline exactly where that thinking came from.

With that, I will sit down, because the Minister has a huge amount to get through. A lot of valuable comments have been made today, and I thank all Members for outlining their points in very precise terms.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

We have caught up on time, so the Minister has a decent amount of time to speak. I ask him, if possible, to find a couple of minutes at the end for the proposer to wind up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

It is indeed time for a step change in the UK’s response to the sinister crackdown on freedom and political opposition in Georgia. It is welcome that the Minister is assessing asset bans and freezes on those responsible for this wholly unacceptable situation. May I ask that he steps up efforts for the Georgian civil society counter-destabilisation hybrid activities, especially in the information space and the actors that might be involved in that? What discussions has he had with the US Administration in the light of the MEGOBARI Bill going through Congress?

[Stephen Doughty]

We engage regularly with international counterparts on Georgia and on wider stability in the south Caucasus. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of media freedom. He will know that we condemned the disproportionate and politically motivated sentencing of Mzia Amaglobeli in August; she has been sentenced to two years in prison, and we call for her immediate release. I also discussed the wider situation with Georgia’s fifth president, President Zourabichvili, on her recent visit to the UK, and I expressed my support for her work supporting democracy in Georgia. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I will not comment on further measures, but he can be absolutely assured that I am closely following matters, as are other colleagues across Government.

Iran-Israel Conflict

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

It is important to state that the UK did not participate and is not participating in Israeli strikes, but we do have a proper role to play in regional security. My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on operational defence and intelligence matters, except to pray in aid the defence bilateral relationships that we have in the region.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

The reality is that there is a long history of diplomacy being used as a cover to reach the ultimate aims of what countries want to do—for example Russia signing the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty while constantly building hundreds of nuclear weapons, making that treaty worthless. I want to put it on the record that Israel has my absolute full support in the action that it is taking; it is doing the world’s dirty work. Are the Foreign Secretary and his right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary in the middle of working out how we ensure that the strait of Hormuz stays open for vital international trade?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for putting square the economic interests that we have at this time and highlighting why diplomacy is so important against that backdrop. The price of oil has jumped to $78 a barrel, and some are predicting it going up to $125 a barrel—that would certainly be the case if the strait of Hormuz were blocked. That is why this is so delicate. Let us be under no doubt that this affects British people at the pump and that there would be massive inflationary growth if that were to happen.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I could not agree more. I sincerely hope that all, including leaders in Republika Srpska, will focus on delivering the reforms and progress necessary for their citizens, instead of using inflammatory rhetoric and divisive language, which seeks only to break down communities and unity, rather than building up the trust between communities that is so needed.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

In the 1960s, Germany took the very important step of showing programmes about what had happened in the second world war with the Holocaust; the exact opposite has been happening in Republika Srpska and areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where textbooks are being rewritten to actually increase that hatred. Will the Minister say what plans the Government have and what interventions they can make to try to get the truth of what happened during that war out to people, so that those countries do not just generate another generation of hatred?

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree with the broad thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. Ensuring that we understand what happened in the past and do not attempt to deny what happened is, obviously, crucial for all communities; building trust between communities is also crucial. He will understand that we have funded a number of programmes—as did the previous Government —including to support those who suffered sexual violence in the conflicts in the 1990s, as well as providing extensive support to the International Commission on Missing Persons, which has helped to account for more than 70% of the 40,000 people missing from the conflicts of the 1990s. Those sorts of actions are crucial to rebuilding trust and dealing with the legacies of the past.

Syria

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I condemn the attacks. It will be absolutely disastrous for the future of Syria and its people if sectarian violence spreads among communities in Syria. It is in everyone’s interests—Syrian, British and regional—that Syria is stable and a chance to recover after all the years of Assad’s oppression. I condemn them both because they are egregious human rights violations and because they threaten the future of Syria.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister particularly on his last answer. Unfortunately, world events and crises tend not to go consecutively. We have all the issues in Ukraine; I understand that this weekend the Prime Minister once again will meet the coalition of the willing on Ukraine. Can we ensure that the vacuum in parts of Syria is not filled with third-party actors who do not have our interests or those of Europe at heart? I urge the Minister to speak to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about ensuring that we do not allow that to happen, for the security of the continent.

[Mr Falconer]

As has been said, clearly there have been malign third-party actors in Syria for some time. Russia and Iran have played a deeply malign role in Syria in all the years of the Assad regime, and we are glad that their influence is reduced. We will do all that we can to ensure that Syrians can stand on their own two feet without third-party influence, and that there is a stable and inclusive Government to take the next steps for Syria. That is a challenge for all the reasons that we have discussed.

Ukraine

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend puts his remarks well. I agree with him.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I can barely believe that I have got to say this to the Foreign Secretary, but he will be unaware that in past moments the United States has just voted against the UN resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine.

I understand fully the position that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are in and the approach that they have got to take in Washington this week, but we know that President Trump listens to the people who last spoke to him. Can I therefore ask the Foreign Secretary to outline two important points? First, European military assets—not NATO assets—are often used to support American operations in the Indo-Pacific, and the American military really appreciates how we put our shoulder to the wheel. It is not the Americans only ever supporting Europe; we also help the Americans.

Secondly, last week, I and several hon. Members and noble Members were at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Brussels, where it was made clear that what will be presented at the Hague summit is what is actually needed for European defence rather than just GDP targets. May I also ask the Foreign Secretary to advise the Prime Minister that it will be important that he takes a position with the President of the United States that if those demands add up to more than 2.53% of GDP, our country will set itself on a path, within the time targets, to achieve those?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Can I remind Members that if we are to get everybody in, shorter questions—and shortish answers, please—would be helpful?

UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I have been very proud of the work I have led on sanctions since coming to office. It is now the strongest sanctions package against Russia anywhere in the world, with more to come.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s efforts on the 100-year partnership. President Zelensky has made great strides in cracking down on corruption in his country, but he has a long way to go—he has probably got rid of most of the low-hanging fruit. What extra efforts will the UK Government make in assisting the Ukrainian Government to crack down on corruption, which will aid its ability to get NATO membership? I also push the Foreign Secretary on whether he has further views on how maritime support can work in conjunction with the Montreux convention.

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), met officials from Ukraine on the issue of anti-corruption just a few weeks ago. This is an issue I have spoken about directly with President Zelensky in the past, and it is an issue that the US traditionally has taken a big interest in. I was first in Ukraine looking at those issues in opposition. At that stage, the UK was funding a lot of work with non-governmental organisations. That work must continue to break the corruption—a lot of it a legacy, frankly, of the Soviet Union.

China: Human Rights and Sanctions

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

It was important, when we came into government, given the bouncing around that we saw in the last Government’s policy towards China, that we did a complete audit, right across Whitehall, of our interests and the opportunities, as well as of the challenges and security concerns, so that we could maintain a consistent position. Before that audit is complete, we are being guided, as I have said, by the three Cs: there are areas in which we co-operate, areas in which we compete, and there must be areas, as has come up this afternoon, in which we challenge.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

In the Foreign Secretary’s self-declaredly “robust” conversations with the Chinese Government, did he give a time limit for lifting sanctions on British politicians, including Members of this House, and did he outline the consequences if that were not met? Or were his talks just chat, and not robust?

[Mr Lammy]

I did not give a timeline. I simply said that the sanctions should be lifted, and explained why it was just wrong and counterproductive to sanction Members of a democratic Chamber like this. That was my position, and I defend it; I think that was the right thing to say. I raised the issue with Mr Speaker before leaving, just to be absolutely clear on the current status. Although one cannot be entirely sure that what one is conveying is going in and is properly understood, I did detect that Wang Yi recognised that this was a big issue between our two countries.

Middle East

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will know that I have condemned in no uncertain terms, both as shadow Foreign Secretary and as Foreign Secretary, some of the vile language that has been used by extremist elements within the Israeli Government. I heard the former Foreign Secretary on the radio talking about sanctions which could have been implemented that he chose not to implement. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am keeping those sanctions under review.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

It has been a held belief across all Governments that a two-state solution is the only way to break the cycle of violence, but of course after Israel withdrew from Gaza, that pretty much led to what happened on 7 October. Can the Foreign Secretary use his office and the UK Government to lead discussions proactively, as a friend to Israel and a key member of the United Nations, on what security can be put in place in a two-state solution, using allies around, to ensure that Israel can have the confidence such a development will not be used as an attack platform to murder so many people once more?

[Mr Lammy]

We continue to hold out for that two-state solution, and it is definitely the case that Arab partners want to see that two-state solution. Among them, at this stage, Saudi Arabia is very important. I know that Israel would like to normalise relations with Saudi Arabia, but I think the hon. Gentleman knows that that is unlikely unless there is a road map to two states. We continue to work with all partners to keep two states alive, and of course, on the security concerns that Israel would need to be satisfied to bring that about.