Middle East

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I agree in that, obviously, the situations that the right reverend Prelate refers to are deeply rooted in history. Many of us understand and study this and appreciate what he is saying, but I cannot respond to anything that mentions 7 October without saying that that most hideous of attacks changed the nature of that conflict. It was always going to lead to a response from Israel. What is happening now, though, is beyond what anybody anticipated would happen as a consequence of that heinous attack, but nothing should diminish the appalling events of that day. The accounts and footage from that day that many of us have seen will haunt us forever. Perhaps if there were similar accounts and footage from Sudan that were as visible to us all now, we would at least be having a different set of conversations. But I agree with the right reverend Prelate about complexity and the need to understand the historical origins of these conflicts.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I think we all see the appalling humanitarian crisis. I welcome the Government’s intervention in terms of the medical support they are providing and propose to provide via this Statement. However, I wish to go back to the issue of recognition and an earlier point made about why there are no conditions or prerequisites on the Palestinian Authority—and not simply regarding a level of balance on the release of hostages being a precondition, which has been highlighted.

We have seen, for example, that the Canadian Government—with which our Government have often been in lockstep—have made a number of preconditions on the Palestinian Authority around democratic reforms before they will consider recognition. Why have the UK Government not made that a precondition of recognition?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

For the Palestinian Authority, it is not a condition of recognition, as the noble Lord knows, but we are working with the Palestinian Authority to bring about the reforms that we think are necessary to enable it to administer a state in the future. We do not claim that it is ready to do that now. However, as I have made clear, the decision around talking about recognising Palestine at the UN General Assembly is around preserving the viability of the two-state solution. People can disagree about whether that was the right or wrong thing to do. We feel that this is not the circumstance in which we wanted to recognise Palestine; we wanted it to be part of a much more positive process and to have included the negotiations that noble Lords have said that they want to see leading towards a lasting settlement. That is not where we are, as we all know. We have taken the decision now, because we felt that unless we did, the prospects of the future state would be further jeopardised —and look at what is happening with E1 too. We have not done this in the circumstances that we would have wished, but I agree with the noble Lord on the need to see further reform of the Palestinian Authority.