North Africa and the Near and Middle East

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Shalit prisoner swap is a recent example, and there was engagement with Hamas in relation to the release of Alan Johnston, the British journalist, a while ago. It is true that there are double standards, and if there is one thing that really gets to ordinary Palestinians and people throughout the Arab world, and to an awful lot of people beyond, it is the fact that, when it comes to Israel and Palestine, we suddenly adopt a different set of standards from those that we would see as absolutely incontrovertible anywhere else. That undermines our credibility and influence in that part of the world, and it undermines the peace process rather than taking it forward.

These are not theoretical questions. We have heard, just in the past few days, that simply because Hamas and Fatah are talking together, which might lead to reconciliation, Israel has threatened to cut off water and electricity supplies to Gaza—collective punishment of an entire population because their political leaders are talking together. Now, we either say something about that or we do not. We either take a firm stand on that or we do not. I know which side of the fence I am on.

That point does not just apply to dealing with political Islam. It was not long ago that any time anyone urged dialogue or engagement with Hamas, the call came from Israel that that would be beyond the pale and was impossible because they were terrorists. However, if it was just those nice people from Fatah or the PLO, such as Abu Mazen—Mahmoud Abbas—we could deal with them. But what has been the crime that Mahmoud Abbas, Fatah and the secular organisations have committed recently? Their crime has been to go to the United Nations and say, “Just give us the same rights as you have given Israel for 63 years.” From the reaction of Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel and, sadly, the United States—and, even more sadly, of some people in this Chamber—it might be thought that those organisations had somehow declared war on Israel. The approach to the United Nations was described as “a unilateral move”. I cannot think of an organisation that is more multilateral than the United Nations.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have listened carefully to the comments that my hon. Friend has made about Hamas’s involvement in the peace process. Does he maintain his position in the light of a statement made by a senior Hamas leader in Gaza in October, who said,

“We are not going to accept Israel as the owner of 1 sq centimetre because it is a fabricated state”?

[Richard Burden]

That does not alter my view at all. My hon. Friend has illustrated precisely the point that I was making. On both sides of the debate, we can all produce quote after quote to give us an excuse not to engage in dialogue; to decide that our side is right; to decide that the other side are not worth talking to. It is Hamas now, but she may have made a few speeches a few years ago saying the same kind of thing about Yasser Arafat or about Fatah. That does not get us anywhere. It does not get me anywhere to say, because I can produce a load of quotes from someone like Lieberman—or even the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr Netanyahu—that they should be kicked out of negotiations, even if we all then pat ourselves on the back and say that we had done a good job.

If we are serious about peace, we have to contribute to peace. It is an old cliché, but it is right—peace is made not between friends, but between enemies. Unless we are prepared to try to reach out, not to our enemies, but to the enemies in the middle east and try to get them talking, what are we doing other than just acting as cheerleaders for one side or the other?

I was in Israel and Palestine last week. The situation there never loses its capacity to shock. Settlement building is continuing apace, in defiance of international law and despite having been condemned eight times in six months —or is it six times in eight months—by the Government. I know that the Minister is aware of the issue, but I ask him to pay particular regard to an area which became known as Area C in the Oslo process, which is one of the more rural areas of the west bank, and the encroachment of settlements and the dispossession of Palestinians there. When maps of the future Palestinian state are discussed, the focus is often on towns—on Ramallah, Bethlehem, Nablus and Tulkarm. All those places are important, but so too are the bits in between and the people who live there.

As we speak, Bedouin who are already refugees—in the main, they come from the Negev in what is now Israel and have been living in the west bank for decades—face forced displacement and dispossession to make way for settlements. I visited the school of Khan al Ahmar, just outside Jerusalem, which is under threat of demolition. There are two petitions going on, one to demolish the Khan al Ahmar school and one to demolish the Khan Al Ahmar community. One petition comes from the settlement just behind the area and one from the Israeli civil Administration in the west bank. That community, including the civilians—in fact, they are all civilians—and the children, face dispossession. Forced displacement of people by an occupying power is illegal under international law. We should not be scared to say that, nor to require Israel to abide by international law.

Even if those Bedouin were forcefully displaced to a palace it would be wrong. But the proposal is not to displace them to a palace. Instead, Israel proposes to displace them to a site next to Jerusalem’s municipal rubbish dump. I went to that rubbish dump and I saw the pipes that allow methane to escape. I saw a tanker appear, belching sewage from its back, and I saw where the land is being levelled to put Bedouin communities within 500 metres of the dump. As far as I know, that contravenes all health and safety regulations in that area.

Israel is beginning to notice the growing international condemnation of this proposal. It is no accident that access to the rubbish dump is now being blocked off by security blocks like those seen in other parts of the west bank. They have now appeared at the entrances to the rubbish dump—perhaps it has suddenly become a security risk. It may in fact be about stopping foreign visitors—and brave Israelis—from going there to bear witness to what is going on.

These things are wrong, and we should not be scared to say so. Settlement building is also dismantling the chances of a two-state solution before our eyes. The settlement building is not just displacing people to make way for settlers: it is increasingly severing the west bank into cantons or Bantustans that will not be viable as a state—unless we stop it. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House, whether we consider ourselves friends of Palestine or of Israel, will demand that that process stops.

My final point is about child prisoners. We have already mentioned the prisoner swap that rightly led to the release of Gilad Shalit and of some 500 Palestinian prisoners. The second phase of that prisoner swap will take place over the coming weeks. There are 150 Palestinian children in Israeli military detention, but so far, none of those is scheduled to be part of that prisoner swap. Several recent delegations to the west bank and Israel—organised by the Britain-Palestine all-party group, which I chair, and other organisations—have been to the Israeli military courts where those children are tried. Like other hon. Members, I had already read the testimonies about how the laws applying to Palestinian children are different from those applying to Israeli children; about how Palestinian children are tried in military courts, but Israeli children, even in the occupied territories, are tried in civilian courts; about how many Palestinian children are given bail compared with how many Israeli children are given bail. But I was not prepared for the sight in a military prison—one of the most secure compounds I have ever visited—of 14-year-old boys shuffling in wearing leg-irons and handcuffs for their court hearings. All members of the all-party parliamentary group who were on that visit made the decision that we were not prepared to shut up about this. Something had to be done. Whatever one’s views on the occupation, on Israel and on the peace process, shackling 14-year-old boys is wrong. It is against the UN convention on the rights of the child and it is inhuman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I certainly hope that the aspirations of the people of the region that have been raised by the Arab spring are realised and that the lives of people throughout that region, and, indeed, beyond it, are improved. It is significant to note that before the Arab spring took place, there was very little, if any, coverage in the national media of the atrocities and lack of democracy that were a reality in those countries. Indeed, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights failed to condemn what was happening in those countries, which perhaps places a big question mark over the efficiency of the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

This is a wide-ranging debate, and I would like to comment on a number of areas. First, the Foreign Secretary mentioned the situation in Yemen. I know that the commitments made by the President to take action to bring democracy to the country are doubted by many people. I hope that the British Government will do all they can to ensure that the promises materialise and that the current regime will be replaced by a democratic one that reflects the interests of the people of Yemen.

Iran—not, of course, an Arab country—has been mentioned as an important player a number of times in this debate. I urge our Government to look at the plight of the Baha’i people in Iran and to note the continued persecution and new wave of arrests of the Baha’i minority. It is wrong that what is happening to that minority group is ignored by far too much of the world. I ask Ministers to make a statement about what they going to do to try to ensure that the Baha’i people are not intimidated or persecuted as they are now.

I shall also comment on the Palestinian-Israeli dispute and how I hope matters might be pressed so that justice can be achieved. The context of everything I want to say is that I firmly believe that the only way in which justice can be brought both to Palestinians and Israelis is to have two states of Israel and Palestine with negotiated borders, with an agreed settlement on refugees and an agreed sharing of Jerusalem. These objectives are not as far away as many people may believe. Indeed, a number of significant negotiations have come very close indeed to finding resolutions to those difficult issues. As I say, those issues will be resolved only by detailed negotiations between the parties concerned. It is right that the Quartet and others try to assist the negotiations, but a lasting solution can be brought about only by agreement between those two main parties. Calls for boycotts, sanctions and disinvestment will not bring peace and will not bring security. Direct negotiations are the only way.

It is a common call for there to be an end of the occupation to resolve this dispute. Indeed, I am opposed to occupation—the occupation of one people by another has to be bad both for the occupied as well as the occupiers—but too often ignored in debates on this issue is the fact that Israel has withdrawn from lands it occupied in its defensive war in 1967, when its existence was threatened by the armies of Arab states around it. Israel has withdrawn from territories it occupied, in response to offers of peace. Perhaps the best example was in 1979, when Israel withdrew from the whole of Sinai as part of a negotiated agreement with Egypt. Until now—and, we hope, in the future, although sadly there seems to be a question mark over this—there has been peace between Egypt and Israel. It has often been described as a cold peace, but it is nevertheless a peace. In 1994, Israel reached agreement with Jordan, which has also continued. Israel has withdrawn from territories occupied when threats were made to its very existence and peace has resulted from it. It is also the case that Israel has withdrawn from other territories it occupied as a result of attacks, but peace has not been the result.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Given what is happening in Egypt at the moment, what is the hon. Lady’s sense of the Israeli position regarding the peace treaty and what might happen in Egypt? Given her extensive knowledge, will she inform us of her opinion on this issue?

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I understand that Israel fervently wishes to maintain its peace treaty with Egypt. However, it is concerned about statements that have been made by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt which suggest that it would like to review or, indeed, drop the treaty. Israel wishes to maintain it, and I hope that that can be achieved.

Israel has withdrawn from territories that it has occupied as a result of attacks on it, and the consequence of that withdrawal has not been peace. In 2000, Israel correctly withdrew completely from south Lebanon. The consequence of that was the occupation of the area by the Iran-backed Hezbollah, followed by attacks on Israeli citizens. Although it was a correct withdrawal from occupied territory, it did not lead to peace.

More recently, in 2005, the Israelis correctly withdraw all their 8,000 settlers and military personnel from Gaza. As we all know only too well, the result of that was not peace but the election of Hamas—refusing to recognise Israel’s existence—and the firing of thousands of rockets and other missiles on Israeli civilians in Sderot, Be’er Sheva, Ashkelon and Ashdod. The withdrawal of the Israelis from Gaza, which I fully support, did not lead to peace.

People talk as though withdrawal and the end of occupation inevitably lead to peace. I stress again that I am against occupation, but in those two instances at least, when Israel has withdrawn from lands that it has occupied as a result of attacks on it, peace has not been automatic. Moreover, when people advocate the withdrawal of Israelis from occupied lands, it is not always clear exactly which occupied lands they are talking about. Are they talking about 1967 or about 1948? Here in London a few months ago, on al-Quds day, it was evident what was meant by many of the campaigners against Israel’s policies and against Israel itself. One illustration of that was a big placard held up by a young child, bearing the unfortunate words “For world peace, Israel must be destroyed”. That is hardly conducive to efforts to find a solution.

I also note that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s logo features a map that does not depict Israel as existing at all. When I hear calls from that organisation for Israel to end its occupation, I question what it really means. Is it talking about a negotiated solution to the problem of land that is occupied as a result of attacks on Israel in 1967, or is it talking about there being no Israel at all? We must know what people mean, in what context they are speaking and where they are coming from if we are to assess the validity of the criticisms that they are making at any given time.

[Martin Horwood]

I understand the genuine anxieties that the hon. Lady is voicing. However, she must accept that Fatah and the Palestinian Authority have made it clear that they are talking about negotiation more or less on the 1967 borders, and that anything beyond the 1967 borders of Palestine must therefore be Israel. That is an implicit, if not explicit, recognition of Israel’s absolute right to exist. By responding so aggressively to the peaceful and diplomatic approach to the United Nations made by the Fatah administration—by responding with extended settlements and threats to the economic and financial viability of the Palestinian Authority—Israel is surely playing into the hands of the very extremists, bomb-makers and rocket-makers to whom the hon. Lady is referring.

[Mrs Ellman]

I acknowledge that the Palestinian Authority has played a constructive role in the attempt to make progress. That is clear from the way in which it has worked with the Quartet and others on the west bank, the dramatic increase in prosperity there, and the way in which—again, working with the Quartet—it has developed its security forces and the civil administration. That could easily and quickly make Palestine into a viable and successful country, if only the political negotiations could make progress. I also think it important for the Palestinian Authority to recognise that the solution lies in urgent negotiations rather than declarations at the United Nations which, in practice, will not solve any of the practical and difficult problems that need to be addressed. The Palestinian Authority should be urged to return to those negotiations.

[Richard Burden]

I know that my hon. Friend is not happy about the reference to the United Nations—she and I disagree about that—but may I invite her to answer the question that was put by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood)? Irrespective of whether she feels, or Israel feels, that it is a good idea for the Palestinians to go to the United Nations, does she think that it helps the peace process for Israel to respond by continuing and accelerating its settlement building, and by cutting off tax revenues that are owed to the Palestinian Authority but are being held by Israel?

[Mrs Ellman]

I do not think that those activities are helpful to the quest for peace. I think that the only way in which progress can be made is for the Palestinian Authority to be urged to return to the negotiating table. It is a great shame that when it stopped negotiating and said that it wanted a settlement freeze—I considered that to be a reasonable request, and indeed there was a settlement freeze—the Palestinians did not return to the negotiating table.

It is important to recognise that the role and the views of Hamas do matter. Quotations from Hamas are important, because they reflect the reality. Hamas still does not recognise the validity of the existence of the state of Israel. I am not talking about an argument about borders; it does not recognise the validity of the state of Israel. That is shown clearly in its charter, which states that it is its religious duty to have an Islamic state over the whole of the area in which Israel now exists. That has nothing to do with 1967 borders.

The charter also refers to Jews—not Israelis—running the world and controlling the media, and contains other diatribes against Jews, not just Israelis. As I mentioned earlier, Hamas leaders in Gaza have recently stated

“we are not going to accept Israel as the owner of one square centimeter because it is a fabricated state.”

Those are not just words while Hamas’s rockets continue to rain down on Israeli citizens. If it changes its position, we shall be in a different situation, and I certainly agree that a different approach must be taken. However, no one who believes that Israel’s existence should be guaranteed can accept that it should negotiate about its existence. Yes, it should negotiate about boundaries since 1967, but it should not be called on to negotiate about its existence. Unless the person requesting that is one of the people whom I mentioned earlier, who by “occupied lands” is really referring to Israel’s existence, it is land since 1948.

[Bob Stewart]

As a delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross, my wife used to have to deal with Hamas daily in south Lebanon when she was the delegate in Tyre. Would it not be in all our interests for huge efforts to be made—I am sure that some efforts are already being made—to persuade Hamas to change its position with regard to Israel and its right to exist, so that we could proceed to negotiation? It is clear that Israel must exist in future. It is equally clear that its borders must be secure—that is part of the process— but I agree that Hamas’s present position is a really big stumbling block.

[Mrs Ellman]

It would be highly desirable for Hamas to change its position. Indeed, it is essential that it does so in order to enable proper negotiations to proceed on the basis of there being two states.

[Martin Horwood]

Is there not an instructive example from our own country, however, in the way in which we drew Sinn Fein and the IRA into the process of negotiation and eventually a settlement even while there was still some violence going on, and even while those organisations were still committed to the abolition of the Province of Northern Ireland and to its incorporation into the Irish state? That political issue was resolved only at the very end of the negotiations, with the signing of the Good Friday agreement. Does the hon. Lady not agree that we should be trying to draw Hamas into the democratic process and the negotiating process, and not setting preconditions that even we ourselves did not set in our own peace process?

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Sinn Fein only became part of the peace process—indeed, it did not become part of it directly—when it changed its position in respect of recognition, and I also do not recall that it had a theological basis of hatred for the British state.

[Martin Horwood]

I am sure the hon. Lady will remember that the mantra during the Northern Ireland peace process was that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed. The final commitments only came right at the end of the process.

[Mrs Ellman]

The whole process brought about changes, but there was acceptance only when Sinn Fein changed its position, and I repeat that I am not aware of its having had a theological determination to eliminate the existence of the British state. Hamas not only has a theological determination to eliminate the state of Israel, but is acting on that by sending its rockets over.

[Richard Burden]

I think I might differ with my hon. Friend on her history of what happened in relation to Northern Ireland, but may I put two questions to her? First, does she accept that, although some things such as the Hamas charter remain as they were and the phrases she quotes are no doubt genuine, there have also been indications coming out of Hamas that, while it may not recognise the state of Israel, it could live with living alongside the state of Israel? Is she aware of that shift, and does she think we should explore and encourage it and see where it can go? Secondly, I agree with her that Israel should not have to negotiate its own existence, but what does she think it sounds like to a Palestinian when she and others say a Palestinian state can only come about through negotiation?

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The state of Israel came about because it was internationally recognised—[Interruption.] Following a number of commissions looking into the question of whether there should be a state of Israel, the UN put forward specific boundaries following the work of a special committee that had considered that matter over a number of years, and supported that. That was accepted by the state of Israel, but it was not accepted by the Arab states, which then invaded Israel. That was the origin of how the state of Israel came into existence.

I am aware that from time to time some elements of Hamas are said to have made statements to the effect that they would be prepared to live with Israel, but I cannot think that any state would take that seriously when at the same time much more senior people consistently state they wish to see the end of Israel and, indeed, start to act to do so by sending their rockets, directed at Israeli civilians. We must also bear it in mind that Hamas is not acting alone, but is backed by Iran in respect of training and arms—and Iran is, of course, repeatedly threatening the annihilation of Israel. I therefore think Israel has every right to treat Hamas very sceptically indeed, unless there is an explicit and profound change in its position.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I was particularly interested in the hon. Lady’s recent comments about how Israel came into existence, pursuant to a United Nations commission which set out the boundaries and established how things would work. Would she accept a similar result from a UN commission now on the establishment of a Palestinian state?

[Mrs Ellman]

The state of Israel exists, and has every right to exist. Indeed, I know of no other country in the world in respect of which when its future is discussed questions are raised about the existence of the state itself. I agree that the state of Palestine, which does not exist at present, ought to be set up, but it can only be set up side by side with Israel on the basis of detailed negotiations about borders, refugees and Jerusalem.

Discussions have taken place, following past negotiations which ultimately failed, about the issue of Palestinian refugees. The solution to that problem can only come about by agreement between the parties, and on the basis that Palestinian refugees are to be able to return to a Palestinian state and, by agreement, to Israel and in agreed numbers, with compensation to be offered. I note that the critics of Israel often talk about the right of return of all Palestinian refugees to Israel, rather than to Palestine. That, of course, is simply code for the destruction of the state of Israel, but that distinction is seldom recognised.

There is a lack of balance in discussions on this issue. I am, for instance, increasingly concerned about the attempts to demonise and delegitimise the state of Israel. The term “Zionism” is now used as a term of abuse, which is wholly unacceptable. Zionism is the national movement of the Jewish people for a homeland in the state of Israel. Like all national movements, it contains a range of individuals and parties with very different views. Zionism is not a term of abuse, and when it is used as such, that illustrates the demonisation of the state of Israel itself.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Lady mentions Zionism in the context of the creation of the state of Israel, but does she recognise that that term does not quite mean support for the state of Israel in today’s political context?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

The term Zionism means what it has always meant: a Jewish national movement for a Jewish national home in the state of Israel. It is Israel’s detractors who have perverted the meaning of the term Zionism and made it a term of abuse, in an attempt to delegitimise the very existence of the state.

[Mike Gapes]

I was going to comment on Hamas, but I think that has been dealt with by others. I can, however, confirm the point my hon. Friend makes about Zionism. I am not Jewish, but I have been denounced and vilified as “that Zionist MP” by various people simply on the basis that I support the two states position. That tactic is certainly used by some organisations and some activists in certain extremist groups as a way to try to change the narrative in British politics. It is very important that all of us who believe in the right of the state of Israel to exist alongside a Palestinian state make it very clear to these people in the various campaigns that it is unacceptable to use the term Zionist as a term of abuse. It is used as such against both Jewish people and non-Jews.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and agree with what he said.

I am also increasingly concerned about the loose use of language, which is leading to a creeping anti-Semitism in this country and elsewhere, causing increasing concern among the Jewish community. I was extremely concerned to see on the website of the Liverpool Friends of Palestine a cartoon—this was viewed on 9 September—headed “The power of Zionists”. It depicts a stereotypical Jewish man—a man with a large hook nose holding a Jewish emblem in his hand—pointing to an American soldier under the heading, “Join the United States army” and at the bottom it says “and fight for Israel”. That cartoon could have come out of Nazi literature, given the depiction and the heading “The power of Zionists”. I was appalled to see that and although it has now been removed from the Liverpool Friends of Palestine website, I must ask how it came to be there and what kind of thought was behind it. I gather that it is not a solitary example of what is happening on websites of similar groups.

Some years ago, the New Statesman had a front cover with the big headline “A Kosher Conspiracy?” Underneath that headline was a cartoon depiction of a Jewish symbol—an Israeli Magen David—piercing the British Union Jack, among other things, thus raising the old anti-Semitic allegation that Jewish people are not sincere citizens of their country. After considerable controversy, and some weeks later, the editor said that he had no understanding of what he was doing when that was published, that he did not mean it to be done in the way it was done and that he did not know it was reminiscent of Nazi literature and old stereotypes, and he apologised for it. That occurred some years ago, but this loose language is now going rather further.

I read with increasing concern an article by Deborah Orr in The Guardian on 19 October about the release of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit from his captivity with Hamas. After long, hard bargaining, the Israeli Government eventually decided that the only way they could secure his release was by accepting the proposed deal from Hamas that more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners should be released. The fact that the Israeli Government accepted that has been controversial in Israel for a lot of reasons, including the fact that among those 1,000 Palestinian prisoners released in exchange were extremely serious terrorists and murderers, including those who sent the bombs to the young people in the pizza parlours of Jerusalem and to the old people at the Passover service at the Park hotel in Netanya, and those responsible for many other atrocities. The Israeli Government felt that they should strike that deal because they felt that realistically it was the only way in which Gilad Shalit would be released.

I was appalled when I read Deborah Orr’s article in The Guardian, which was entitled “Is an Israeli life really more important than a Palestinian’s?” When talking about the background to the situation, she said:

“At the same time…there is something abject in their”—

the Israelis’—

“eagerness to accept a transfer that tacitly acknowledges what so many Zionists believe—that the lives of the chosen are of hugely greater consequence than those of their unfortunate neighbours.”

That is basic anti-Semitism.

I am sure that Deborah Orr is not anti-Semitic, and indeed, she later published an apology of sorts, in which she stated:

“Last week, I upset a lot of people by suggesting Zionists saw themselves as ‘chosen’. My words were badly chosen and poorly used, and I’m sorry for it.”

Deborah Orr did say that, but just as I was concerned a number of years ago when the New Statesman felt that it was perfectly in order to have the sort of front page it had—one headlined “A Kosher Conspiracy?” and questioning Jewish people’s loyalty to their country, the United Kingdom—I am concerned that Deborah Orr, not an anti-Semite, thought it was all right to write about Zionists in terms of the word “chosen” in that derogatory manner, when the Israeli Government had done all they could do to secure the release of a soldier. The conditions came from Hamas, not from the Israelis. These are all great warning signs that loose language is now causing more anti-Semitism to be around and to cause disquiet within British society.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Lady has alluded to references in sections of the British media. My concern is ensuring that she would not besmirch the entire range of British media with the accusation of anti-Semitism, because that is a grave charge. I just wanted clarification on that.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I do not refer to the whole of the British media. I made my comments in relation to one instance in the New Statesman and I referred to Deborah Orr’s article in The Guardian. I also note that the editor of its readers’ section has recently acknowledged that the way in which The Guardian has used these words has helped to encourage the growth of anti-Semitism. My comments are very specific: they related to the journals and articles that I mentioned. This is not about the British media as a whole, which do not all share this weakness and looseness of language.

What matters most is that there should be a resolution to the long-standing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. I reiterate what I said at the beginning of my contribution, which is that the only way to bring that about, on the basis of two states living side by side in security and peace, is through a resumption of direct negotiations. I hope that our Government will continue to do all they can to ensure that that comes about.