Gaza Border Deaths: UNHRC Inquiry

Debate between Alistair Burt and Louise Haigh

Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The figures are striking, and they speak on their own. The thousands of injuries and the number of deaths tell a dreadful story, and of course that asymmetry is at the heart of our concern about the disproportionate use of live fire, as I say again from the Dispatch Box. No, I do not think that Israel can or should draw any comfort from the United Kingdom’s position. That is why we continue to pursue the state of Israel in relation to the inquiries that it is doing itself. Criminal investigations have been started in relation to this, and where they end up will be a matter of interest to us all.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

The former Foreign Secretary intended to convene a summit of European and Arab Foreign Ministers and the Trump Administration to lay out his red lines for the US peace plan. Can the Minister confirm what those red lines are?

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Debate between Alistair Burt and Louise Haigh

Thursday 24th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, as it was to serve under Sir Henry’s earlier.

With the rare luxury of a little extra time to respond to the debate, I shall do my best to do so. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) on securing it, and I thank her for speaking as ably as she did. I also thank the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for his excellent summary of the debate so far. We have become a bit of a double act, in which the hon. Gentleman does that—he does it so well—and I then do not have to spend half of the 10 minutes that I normally get to respond to a debate covering it, which means that I am left with the time that I need. In this case the time did not matter, and as he went through the debate he stole a number of my best lines—I would have drawn attention to a number of the same things as he did.

Before I turn to the script and before my officials worry too much, let me say a little off script and respond in the tone that has been used in the debate, because that is important. First and foremost, I would like anyone interested in the subject to read this debate. I do not agree with every word that has been said—I can make that clear without picking out the individual points in question, although people may understand which they are, and I shall cover quite a lot of them in my response—but I want to say this: I know well most of the Members who spoke, and I have known many of them for a number of years. They are not in this Chamber last thing on a Thursday afternoon just before the recess as a mouthpiece for anything; they are here because they care about this issue and have cared about it for as long as I have. They understand the complexities.

As the hon. Member for Leeds North East pointed out, quite a number of colleagues who have strong positions, particularly in support of Palestinians, made very strong remarks about Hamas, and about recognising the good things in Israel. Those points are not always heard. As I have mentioned before, for instance in responding to the urgent question this week, the issue has become incredibly binary. I know what Members who have spoken in the debate will get on Twitter and Facebook tonight, because I get it as well. There is no acceptance on one side or the other of anything that remotely reflects the complexities and difficulties that have to be faced. All hon. Members who have spoken will receive something tonight from someone who will be bitter and abusive about something said in the debate that they have picked up on one way or the other. Anyone who cares to read the debate and wants to go down that line, however, should know the sort of Member involved—they are people who care about all this.

The right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) was in a relatively lonely position in putting her case today, but she mentioned things that needed to be said, and other hon. Members picked up on them. The little bit of extra time enabled colleagues to go a little wider in their remarks that usual, which I feel was necessary in the circumstances. We have to deal with the specifics of what happened recently and the specifics of the Gaza humanitarian crisis, but we cannot do that without understanding the wider issue.

Let me pick out a couple of other points made in the debate. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and I spoke together in the holocaust debate not long ago; we spoke about Auschwitz. I understand the deep feelings that she has about both sides of this issue. She spoke about hope and the absence of hope, and for me that lies at the heart of everything. I have campaigned for years for an end to all this, as colleagues know. Responsibility for the failure to find the answer to the middle east peace process is shared by so many. We can point to no one group and say, “They, and they alone, are responsible.” But the collective failure over years has left people wondering where their hope will come from.

On my last visit to the west bank, I talked to the Palestinian leadership. After years of working on the basis of going for statehood, the concern is what their process will be if that does not happen. Who do they talk to then? How do we move forward? In Gaza, the hopelessness caused by a combination of governance by Hamas and the pressures put upon the area from Israel has left a miserable situation where so many people are dependent on humanitarian access—the smell of the sea and all that sort of thing.

There are things we do not talk a lot about. We do not much talk about the difficulties and failures of Palestinian political reconciliation, or the lack of democratic accountability. We do not talk much about incitement to terror and the commemoration of those who have committed acts of quite serious atrocity on others. That is because we cannot cover everything, but it is also a part of the mindset that has led to this binary situation where neither one side nor the other can move.

Israel sees everything in Gaza as a potential security threat. To respond to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), it sees the waters as a place from which attacks can be launched—because they were. It sees approaches to the border fence as a potential for attack—because they were. There is a strong sense from those in leadership in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem that security therefore trumps everything else.

Of course, there is a point beyond which it cannot go. I have made the point on behalf of the Government that defence and security are about more than just having more weapons than your opponent. Ultimately, the security that we need is provided because of the relationship we have with our friends and neighbours. That is not in place in the circumstances we are discussing. Those are the fundamentals of the issue.

Rather than digress further, I will come to some of the main points and perhaps to some questions that were asked. That context is really important, because when this House discusses this issue, there is a shortage of time and we just have sharp questions, and people can get the view that we are part of the binary discussion and that colleagues have narrow views. They do not; they understand the situation, and I am appreciative of being able to respond.

The situation in Gaza is deeply troubling. The loss of life and injuries through violence at the border are tragic. I am grateful to Members for their concern and for the many excellent suggestions made today about how international partners might alleviate the situation. Both sides must urgently prioritise steps to resolve the situation in Gaza. We must not let those events reinforce violence further, but we ensure that, at last, they signal a new time for leadership, negotiation and peace, because we should not go through this again.

We have been in close contact with international partners to monitor the humanitarian situation in Gaza. In relation to the immediate issue, I am in urgent consultation with the International Committee of the Red Cross to support its appeal. A contribution to the appeal will address urgent needs in Gaza’s health system. Some 11 hospitals need support to cope with increased need for surgery, through the provision of materials including surgical equipment, drugs and disposables, wound-dressing kits and assistive devices.

The ICRC appeal will also help in the evacuation of patients requiring medical care that is not available in Gaza and physical rehabilitation services for some 4,000 persons with physical disabilities. It will provide fuel and spare parts so that the 11 hospitals can keep functioning. I am in urgent contact with the ICRC about what we can to do to support that.

We are all aware of the situation, but I want to say a little more about what we are trying to do. The UK has supported up to 1 million people by addressing critical water and sanitation needs through UNICEF. In answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, the UNICEF grant was only ever intended to be short-term; we provide a long-term contribution through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which will continue. Clearly, events at the moment may allow for further support. That depends on the steps that are taken in relation to Gaza, as raised by special envoy Nikolai Mladenov last week. I will speak about that later. Because the situation is moving and getting worse, the UK has the opportunity to provide further support. Right hon. and hon. Members should not assume that just because announcements have already been made, that is it. It depends on other things, and we may well come back to the issue.

UK aid to the occupied territories provides essential health and education services, helps to build strong state institutions, promotes economic prosperity and supports the most vulnerable, including refugees. In 2016-17, UK support to the Palestinian Authority enabled around 24,000 young Palestinians to get an education and provided up to 3,700 immunisations for children and about 185,000 medical consultations. We take our humanitarian responsibilities very seriously and we do what we can, but nothing disguises the fact that, ultimately, we do not want to do any of that because we want to see a different situation in Gaza.

On the political front, it is vital that all parties urgently work together to unblock the barriers to medical care and access in Gaza. Besides providing impartial humanitarian funding, it is incumbent on all parties to redouble political efforts to realise a two-state solution, to ensure justice and for both Palestinians and Israelis, as so many colleagues have spoken of today. As right hon. and hon. Members rightly understand, the UK’s long-standing position is that a negotiated two-state solution is needed, with Jerusalem as the shared capital.

Before I get into further areas where we may not agree with one another, let me touch on the recognition of the state of Palestine. The UK keeps that possibility very flexible, because we can never know the most appropriate time to do it. The time is not now. It is easy to say that we are always waiting for something else, but the possibility of the United States’ envoys coming up with their proposals provides a target for all of us at the moment to make progress in the middle east peace process.

The recognition of the state of Palestine would be an important issue and a symbolic gesture for the United Kingdom, but it is important for it to be more than symbolic—it must go along with other steps taken by the Palestinian leadership and by the state of Israel to cement Palestine’s position. Otherwise, I say in fairness to all colleagues present that it could just be accepted, forgotten and moved on from, and that could become a further barrier for those who are looking for states to take one side or the other.

We all know what the reaction has been to the United States’ decision on Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority said, “Well, that’s it. The Americans have changed their position. It is clear that they cannot be an honest broker. They have made this decision.” I am not willing, and I do not think the Government are willing, to risk the possibility of such an important step as the recognition of the state of Palestine, which we want to take, being seen in such a way. That is why it is important to make it clear that the decision can be made, and that it is not dependent on anyone’s veto or on any set of circumstances beyond those that we think will be most conducive to peace. At the moment, the distance between the parties is so wide that it would not be the most effective use of such an important step, but the United Kingdom keeps it under active consideration. That is where we are with that.

[Louise Haigh]

I assume the Minister is not equating the US’s decision to move its embassy with the UK’s potential decision to recognise the state of Palestine. Does he accept that Palestine feels abandoned by the international community and by a country that, wrongly, it felt it could rely on for support? It would be more than purely symbolic for the UK to come forward and recognise the state now; it would be an important move to rebuild the peace process.

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Lady is right that I am not equating the two at all. The United Kingdom opposed the United States’ decision to move its embassy because we were concerned, first, that it broke an international convention and a UN resolution on the status of Jerusalem and, secondly, that it indicated a move by the United States that made its position more difficult as an important interlocutor in this difficult situation. That is my point—the reaction to it made that more difficult. The two are not comparable, and of course the UK could recognise the state of Palestine at any time. Sadly, unless that were grounded in something meaningful for the process, it might be just symbolic, and is very important that it should not be. I fully accept that recognition is the Opposition’s policy. It is not ours, for the reason I have given. We will not change that this afternoon, but we still want—and will be able—to use recognition at the time when we think it is most effective. That remains our policy.

The situation in Gaza is complex, and the actions of non-state actors such as Hamas make the situation extremely difficult. We recognise Israel’s legitimate security concerns and urge Hamas to renounce violence and move towards the Quartet principles long needed for peace. I did not hear any suggestion to the contrary from any colleague who spoke, whatever their position. We reiterate our support for the Egyptian-led reconciliation process and the return of the Palestinian Authority to full administration of the Gaza strip, because that causes practical issues in Gaza. That is as important as a number of the other things we have spoken about.

The UK continues fully to support the need for an independent investigation into the Gaza protests and the response to them, as I have made clear. I will go into a little more detail about that to answer colleagues’ questions, and I am happy to take further questions. We are concerned about the high number of deaths and casualties, and about the volume of live fire used. The Foreign Secretary, the Human Rights Minister and I have raised the issue of force with Israeli authorities. The Foreign Secretary spoke to President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu on 16 May and encouraged them to call for calm and work to de-escalate the situation. I spoke to the Israeli ambassador to the UK on 17 May and to Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Hotovely on 13 May, urging restraint and a reduction in the use of live fire.

There is a need to establish the facts, including why such a volume of live fire has been used and the role that Hamas has played. That is why we support an independent and transparent investigation. Everyone has seen different things—clearly, there are questions to answer on both sides about how this came about, and colleagues raised a number of them.

On the independent investigation, during the UN Human Rights Council session last Friday we abstained on calls for a commission of inquiry into recent violence. The substance of the resolution was not impartial and balanced. We could not support an investigation that refused explicitly to examine the action of non-state actors such as Hamas. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley said, and her reading of the resolution is the same as mine, but it is notable that the Human Rights Council in particular loses no opportunity to name Israel—it does so on every single occasion, including in the notorious item 7. It would not have been difficult to name Hamas, but the council does not and will not. The possibility of the council conducting an inquiry that has acceptance where it needs acceptance is genuinely limited.

We continue fully to support the need for an independent and transparent investigation into recent events. We call directly on Israel to carry out a transparent inquiry into the IDF’s conduct at the border fence, and to demonstrate how it will achieve a sufficient level of independence. We believe that investigation should include international members, and we urge that its findings be made public and, if wrongdoing is found, those responsible be held to account. We joined European allies—Germany, Slovakia, Hungary and Croatia—in our position. I understand why we have been picked out, but 14 states in all said, “Look, this isn’t the right way to go.” We regret that the substance of the resolution was as it was, but what is important now is that the inquiry that states want to see is carried out.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and others asked, “Why should Israel do this?” Israel should do this because the first responsibility for such an incident usually lies with the state party itself, as has happened with inquiries in the United Kingdom. I made the point in the House—I think others have made it, too—that the reality is that if the Israeli authorities did this alone, they would be very unlikely to convince international parties. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) made reference to a court case just the other day, where the Israeli Supreme Court will hold against the Israeli Government. So Israel does have a structure, an investigative system and the rule of law, but in circumstances such as these it is difficult to imagine that, without some independent element, people who have seen what they have seen on the television and in film will feel there has been an adequate response.

It is essential that all aspects are covered. There are real issues about being able to investigate in Gaza and to talk to those connected with Hamas to see what might be revealed. Again, we cannot gloss over that. The hon. Member for Leeds North East made the point that Hamas claimed that a number of its “operatives” were involved. That may well be the case—we do not know. Hamas is under a lot of pressure in Gaza for what happened. Many people in Gaza are deeply distressed by the event and feel they might in some way have been used in all this. Hamas may have its own reasons for putting forward the claim that many of its operatives were involved. I do not know the answer to that question—none of us does. It is important to ensure that the investigation can cover both sides, but the need for Israel, in the first place, to accept a degree of responsibility for examining what happened and to recognise that an independent element will bolster the international community’s confidence in such an inquiry seems to me to be self-evident and very important.

[Louise Haigh]

Can I just seek some clarification? Do the Government not support the Human Rights Council undertaking an independent investigation, because of some of the concerns the Minister has just outlined, or do they not support the resolution that was drafted by the Human Rights Council? If it is the latter, will the Government work with the other countries that abstained, which he mentioned, to draft a new resolution and ensure that a truly independent investigation can go forward?

[Alistair Burt]

Our concern was about the resolution itself. We worked with other parties to see whether we could get a resolution that would be acceptable. I genuinely do not know whether it is possible to reopen that, because a decision seems to have been taken. If people were going to change the resolution, it would have been changed at the time.

Let me say this about what is happening now. The UK is not required formally to take any further action or position on the HRC-mandated inquiry until the final report is published, but as supporters of commissions of inquiry in general, we will encourage parties to engage constructively with the HRC and its mechanisms. At the same time, we will work to ensure that the commission of inquiry is as independent, transparent and balanced as possible in its approach.

Gaza Border Violence

Debate between Alistair Burt and Louise Haigh

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

Does the Minister recognise that recent events have coincided with the clamping down on and shrinking of the space for criticism of Israel and its human rights record? Will he condemn the deportation of Human Rights Watch workers from Israel?

[Alistair Burt]

The word “condemn” is easy to use; the issue is about trying to get some practicalities out of the situation. Israel’s immigration policy is a matter for itself as ours is for us, but we have already drawn attention to the fact that Israel’s use of it in some circumstances—in respect of human rights defenders and those with different political views—does not make for the opening up of political space. Some time ago, I gave a clear answer to a question about whether the United Kingdom would be dissuaded from talking to B’Tselem, Peace Now and one or two other such organisations. The answer is absolutely not.