Palestine

Karl McCartney Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), a friend, on securing the debate.

At this troubled time in the region, what is needed above all is a de-escalation of tensions and the renewal of direct peace talks—the only way to achieve a lasting peace agreement. We should do all we can to make that possible, but isolating Israel through unilateral measures, threats and boycotts will certainly not contribute to reaching the peace that all of us in this place so strongly want to see.

Unilateral measures by the Palestinian Authority to seek early recognition of a Palestinian state are both premature and counter-productive. To endorse such actions is to reject the peace process entirely, and it certainly does nothing to ensure stability or to revive it. The Palestinian Authority and President Abbas have repeatedly threatened to apply to UN bodies for sanction as the state of Palestine, and PLO officials have stated their intention to resume accession to more than 500 international conventions and treaties as the Palestinian state. I can understand their keenness for such recognition, but in the absence of a willingness fully to recognise the state of Israel, those involved in the Palestinian authorities and organisations perhaps need to be a little more realistic.

Additionally, in October this year, in defiance of calls to return to direct talks, the Palestinian Authority issued a draft text of a resolution for the UN Security Council to pass; they reportedly intend to submit it formally in the near future. Worryingly, the draft resolution makes no reference to any of Israel’s legitimate security concerns and completely fails to address the recognition of two states for two peoples. Whatever side of that particular fence we sit on, surely that is a worrying standpoint for them to have. In neglecting to mention both those vital issues, the Palestinian Authority have further demonstrated attempts to bypass and undermine direct negotiations. That is more than unhelpful; it is the most obstructive and destructive course of action.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman called at the outset for a de-escalation of tensions in the region. Does he agree that the announcement of the intention for a new settlement has precisely the opposite effect and that if new settlements were to proceed, that would make the two-state solution totally unviable?

[Karl MᶜCartney]

There are many ways in which we can say that neither side is blameless. The right hon. Gentleman has his point of view, and I am sure I have mine.

In pushing for the premature recognition of a Palestinian state, the Palestinian Authority are refusing to face up to the difficult compromises necessary for a lasting agreement to end the conflict and are undermining the accepted framework of direct negotiations, in direct contravention of the Oslo peace accord. I am sure that the hon. Member for Easington is aware—I also presume that the Minister is—that the Palestinian Authority and President Mahmoud Abbas are still yet to respond to the United States framework document for peace, which Israel accepted, presented by Secretary of State Kerry in March this year. Israel’s historic peace treaties with Egypt in 1979 and with Jordan in 1994 were a product of direct negotiations. A final agreement with the Palestinian Authority must be agreed through the same means, for the sake of all sides—and especially for the sake of innocent families and children.

It is worth bearing in mind that the Palestinian Authority’s unilateral actions also predetermine the borders between Israel and the Palestinian state. That is simply a non-starter for Israel, as I learned when I visited Israel and Jerusalem recently with hon. Members from both sides of the House.

The Prime Minister recently stated that

“I look forward to the day when Britain will recognise the state of Palestine, but it should be part of the negotiations that bring about a two-state solution.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 295.]

That is a very sensible position. It is one that I fully endorse, and I am sure many other hon. Members do.

The sudden announcement of the Hamas-Fatah unity Government was a further set back to the peace process and played an important role in the collapse of talks with Israel. I hope the hon. Member for Easington—and the Minister, when he replies—recognises that it is unfeasible for Israel to accept a Government who contain an organisation committed to its destruction.

[Robert Halfon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent and thoughtful speech. Is he aware that the leader of the Palestinian Authority threatened to disband the Palestinian unity Government in September—just a few months ago—because he said that Hamas was operating a shadow Government? There is clearly no unity, so it is harder to negotiate.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I am aware of that situation, but thank him for raising the issue.

Israel has shown that it is willing to make tough decisions for the sake of peace. The concessions it has made to date should not be taken lightly. One need only recall the dramatic consequences of Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005: Hamas’s brutal takeover of the Gaza strip was a far-reaching setback to the peace process. We are still seeing the consequences, with Hamas preferring to fire thousands of rockets into Israel at the expense of developing the blueprint for a functioning Palestinian state for its own people.

Last year, Israel made the painful commitment to release 104 Palestinian prisoners, many convicted of terror offences, in a concerted effort to bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. Several of those individuals have since resumed planning and executing terror attacks against Israel and Israeli civilians. Let us not, therefore, isolate Israel. To do so would endanger any prospect of peace.

Above all, we must strive to create the environment needed for peace negotiations. That requires a redoubling of efforts to persuade the Palestinians to abandon their divisive policy of unilateral declarations, so that the peace process can get back on track and an acceptable, forward-looking and forward-thinking agreement can be reached, for the sake of all sides.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McCann]

Somebody said from a sedentary position, “No, it’s not,” but actually, it is. I am a member of the International Development Committee, and the Palestinian Authority Finance Minister confirmed that to us at a meeting, at which other Members were present. He wants to stop it because he cannot afford it and wants to spend the money on doing things that are constructive, rather than on paying high-scale salaries to those who have committed the most heinous of crimes and are in prison. I condemn all those actions.

My next point is the crucial one for those who would take umbrage at me for questioning the courage of the Palestinian leadership in moving forward. Arguably, the closest we have got to peace was the 2000 Camp David summit. Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak brokered a deal that covered all of the problems: security, borders, refugees, the right of return and, most crucially, Jerusalem. Once again, it was an Israeli Labour politician, Ehud Barak, who put his head above the parapet for peace. The deal was rejected—this is widely accepted—by Yasser Arafat, and that was the precursor to the second intifada. In March this year, when I was visiting the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the IDC, we met the PLO negotiation team. After talking about the desire for peace, which I accept was absolutely sincere, I said to the PLO negotiator in private, “If the Clinton deal was put back on the table with 2014 prices, would you accept it?” Answer came there none. That is a very interesting position for someone who is supposed to desire peace.

Since 1987, there have been 410 early-day motions, 157 debates and 13,348 contributions by Members.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

Does the hon. Gentleman have any breakdown of the statistics on whether those early-day motions were from Labour or Conservative Members?

[Mr McCann]

I am afraid that my fascination with statistics did not take me quite that far, but I am grateful for the injury time as it allows me to finish the point, which I hope is one that everyone can rally round. Since 1987, as I say, there have been 410 early-day motions, 157 debates, 13,348 contributions from Members, 63 business questions and 2,539 oral questions. If we all back a two-state solution, as we say we do, and are not speaking with forked tongue, why do we not all get together after this debate—whether the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign or Labour Friends of Israel—and truly pursue peace together? If we are united and can show that we can unify around that point, perhaps those in Israel and Palestine who want a two-state solution can unite around it as well.