Palestine: Road Map to Peace

Debate between Mark Hendrick and Wayne David

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali), on securing this important debate.

I begin by reminding people that this debate has been about a road map to peace in Palestine. Over the past two decades, there have been a number of attempted road maps to peace between Palestine and Israel, but sadly, as we know only too well, none of them has brought about peace. We have in recent years seen initiatives by President Obama, supported by President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan; by President Abbas of Palestine; and by John Kerry. We even saw an initiative by President Trump, though it hardly merits that description, because it was rightly thrown in the dustbin by most responsible parties. I mention those points because they serve to underline that peace between Israel and Palestine cannot be a quick fix. It has to be thought out, well planned and based on certain principles, and the agreement must be acceptable to all parties concerned. That is the essence of achieving a peace settlement.

I am absolutely clear that there must be a negotiated peace. There are some who seek to destroy the state of Israel, and some who wish to deny any kind of statehood to the Palestinian people. Those who hold such views are profoundly wrong. Our aim should be the creation of a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel that can live in peace. I very much agree that there must be an emphasis on human rights. Now, in future negotiations and when the two-state solution becomes a reality, human rights should be at the top of the agenda.

I condemn the labelling of the six non-governmental organisations in Palestine as terrorist organisations by the Defence Minister of Israel, and I ask the Government to respond to that point, rather than take the holding position of, “We’ll see what the evidence is.” Others who have been told by the Israeli Government that there is evidence are yet to see it, and there is no evidence at all, I suspect, to justify that designation, so I ask for a firm Government response on that. It has been a number of weeks since the designation was made.

A two-state solution must therefore be the goal on which we continuously focus.

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

My hon. Friend says that our goal must be a two-state solution, and he mentioned the contributions of previous US Presidents in trying to broker a solution. He will be aware that the Biden Administration have voiced opposition to Israel’s settlement expansion plans, saying that they will damage the prospects for a two-state solution. Our Government can play a role. However, does he not think that the Biden Administration—the US Administration is the Government to which the Israelis probably listen the most—should play a major role in pursuing that and putting pressure on the Israelis to make it impossible for them to rule out the two-state solution through de facto developments on the ground?

[Wayne David]

I very much agree with all the points that my hon. Friend made, and I will touch upon each one in just a few moments.

Britain and the international community have to focus on a number of principles and key positions, so that we lay the groundwork for an eventual peace. Those must include, first, an adherence to the rule of international law—not ifs, no buts. There must be an adherence to international law by all parties, including the Palestinians, and including the state of Israel. Moreover, the forced evictions of Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah and other communities in east Jerusalem and the west bank must stop. The ever-growing number of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are clearly illegal under international law, and the displacement of Palestinians from land that they have held for generations is clearly wrong. That is one principle—what follows from international law.

The second principle is that the city of Jerusalem must be shared by Israelis and Palestinians. The annexation of east Jerusalem by Israel cannot be accepted. Those two principles are the cornerstones on which any future negotiation has to be based. However, before we get to any meaningful negotiations, we have to press for a number of things.

Commission Work Programme 2013

Debate between Mark Hendrick and Wayne David

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The European Commission has the sole right to initiate legislation. Nevertheless, it does not have the sole right to agree legislation; the initiatives the Commission formulates are the result of discussions in the European Parliament, and increasingly in the Council of Ministers. When we talk about democracy inside the European Union, it is important to recognise that this Parliament has a pivotal role. If anything has clearly come out of the debate, it is the fact that this Parliament does not take European legislation and formulation as seriously as it ought to do.

[Mark Hendrick]

Is it not the case that the European Commission is made up of Commissioners directly appointed by democratically elected Governments and they are interviewed by Members of the European Parliament before their appointment? Members of the European Parliament are directly elected as well.

[Wayne David]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point indeed, and reinforces what I was saying.

I welcome the debate because it occurs at a time when Europe as a whole is experiencing a deep economic malaise. Against the problematic economic climate that we all face, we must assess the relevance and appropriateness of the Commission’s work programme. The situation is most acute in the eurozone, as I am sure Members will agree, although of late, it has stabilised somewhat. The situation is still serious in Spain and Portugal, and in Greece it is extremely serious. However, there are signs of improvement; in Ireland, things are starting to get better. Nevertheless—