UK Policy on the Middle East

Debate between Ivan Lewis and Sandra Osborne

Monday 14th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

I welcome you to your new role, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), on his appointment. As he said, we have known each other for more than 20 years—I know that I do not look old enough. We are both proud sons of Bury, the birthplace of Robert Peel, the home of the internationally acclaimed authentic Bury black pudding and a town that is immeasurably strengthened by its religious and cultural diversity.

The Under-Secretary is still remembered with great affection by his former constituents, irrespective of their political affiliations. However, it comes as little surprise that he was not given the Europe brief. His opposition to the views of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is matched in intensity only by that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane). As the Under-Secretary survived a prolonged—some would say indecent—period as Minister with responsibility for the Child Support Agency in the 1990s, the Prime Minister clearly took the view that responsibility for the middle east would be a cakewalk in comparison. More seriously, I know that the Under-Secretary will carry out his responsibilities with commitment, integrity and sensitivity.

I also wanted to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), to his post. Now that he has returned to his place, I can do that.

I want to take the opportunity to place on record my appreciation of Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials, especially those in my former private office, for their dedication and professionalism. Being Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was a tremendous privilege and an awesome responsibility. Their support was crucial in enabling me to do my job effectively, and I owe them a great debt of gratitude.

I welcome the opportunity presented by this timely debate. The middle east ignites strong passion in hon. Members of all parties and in communities up and down the country. In my contribution, I want to reflect on those passions and deal with the issues that must be addressed urgently.

The middle east peace process, Iran’s nuclear threat, the new Iraq and a fragile Yemen are all pieces in a jigsaw that will determine whether a positive future can ever dwarf the tragedies and conflicts of the past. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary often says:

“The most important word in politics is ‘Future’.”

Solutions will be found only through better leadership in the region, supported by co-ordinated and effective international action. However, for several reasons the middle east is also crucial to Britain’s national interest. They include security and stability, energy supply, the attachments of many of our diaspora communities and historic links, which give us special responsibilities.

The central challenge remains the relationship between Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab world. I want to set my response to that challenge in the context of a question that I was asked several times in my ministerial capacity during interviews on al-Jazeera: how could I, as a Jew, undertake my role as British Minister for the middle east independently and objectively? Putting aside the appropriateness or otherwise of the question, my answer was and is straightforward. I am proud to be a friend and supporter of Israel, as well as someone who believes passionately in the right of the Palestinians to dignity, freedom and statehood. Too often in the House and outside, people are required to make a choice, and it does not and should not have to be like that. I sometimes wonder whether there would be more light and less heat if friends of Israel and friends of Palestine came together to form friends of peace in the middle east. In that way, people would be forced to confront their prejudices and certainties and be challenged to build mutual respect, rather than replicate the division and bitterness that have characterised the region for far too long.

The Labour party—in government and opposition—has long championed a two-state solution: a viable, contiguous Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. Such a solution will be possible only if we demonstrate a sensitivity to and understanding of the fears and insecurities of ordinary Palestinians and Israelis. I have witnessed for myself the anger and injustice felt by Palestinians on the west bank as their daily lives are interrupted by Israeli checkpoints and a security barrier that, in places, physically divides communities and therefore families. Occupation dehumanises both the occupied and the occupier. I also know families who have been traumatised by the impact of losing a loved one at the hands of suicide bombers who have wreaked carnage in towns and cities in Israel. I visited Sderot, where children live in fear of the next rocket attack from Gaza. Terrorism is no more legitimate in Tel Aviv and Haifa than it is in London and New York.

Palestinians yearn for freedom and statehood, Israelis for the certainty and guarantee of security. The political issues to be resolved are well known and frequently debated in this Chamber, but I want to spell them out clearly, with less ambiguity than in the past. What would a fair and just settlement actually mean? First, it would mean borders that ensured that the two states—Israel and Palestine—each had a volume and quality of land consistent with 1967. That would require land swaps, the principle of which has been accepted in previous negotiations.

Secondly, it would mean not a divided but a shared Jerusalem that can be the capital of both Israel and Palestine. The conventional wisdom is that in that scenario, the holy sites would have to come under some sort of international jurisdiction, but I disagree. An authentic, meaningful peace would mean that those sites should be the shared responsibility of the two states.

Thirdly, a settlement would mean justice for Palestinian refugees. They should have the right to return to a new, sovereign Palestinian state, and fair compensation should be paid to those who had homes and land within the borders of Israel.

Fourthly, as offered by the Arab League, a settlement would mean normalised relations between the Arab world and Israel. That cannot mean simply an exchange of ambassadors; it must also mean a commitment to end all support, financial and otherwise, for the military and terrorist activities of Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as a commitment to end the promotion of anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli propaganda via state-controlled media and education systems. An agreement to begin work on a framework for a middle east economic zone would be the strongest signal that the conflict is really over and that the focus has shifted to building a better future.

Fifthly, the settlement must be agreed as a full and final resolution of all contentious outstanding issues. Resolving those five issues in a comprehensive and just settlement would address positively the hopes and fears of the mainstream majority of both Palestinians and Israelis. It is true that the detail must be negotiated and agreed by the parties, but we should no longer be cautious when it comes to spelling out the parameters of such a settlement.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

How optimistic is my hon. Friend that the Fayyad plan to build a Palestinian state within two years will be successful?

[Mr Lewis]

I shall come to that, but I believe that this country and the international community should give that plan every support. Prime Minister Fayyad, and indeed President Abbas, have done a remarkable job in the west bank on security and economic development, so we should give as much support as we can to the Fayyad plan.