Palestine

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Alistair Burt]

There is a need for bravery at some stage and courage among the leaders to do things and face off their own people. Sooner or later they have to do that. Who knows whether unilateral action taken in concert with each other might be part of that. I do not know. Until the leaders are prepared to break the deadlock, we will get nowhere.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Alistair Burt]

No, I will not, because I have had two interventions and I want to conclude. The debate is about what the UK should do, which all colleagues have addressed. The first thing is to never give up. A former Israeli Prime Minister told me a couple of weeks ago that a two-state solution is not a gift from Israel to the Palestinians; it is Israel’s security. The UK should therefore remain solidly behind efforts to restart direct talks and pull no punches with either state about the need for urgency. It should remain unequivocally for a two-state solution and be increasingly sharp with those whose actions and words tend against it. The status quo will not hold. It is not a problem to be managed; it must be concluded.

Secondly, the UK should urge Arab states, which currently need a revival of this issue as an acute item on their agenda like a hole in the head and which fear the possibility of its being used as a recruiter for jihad, to press heavily on the Palestinians. Although there has been some criticism of Israel for the failure of this year’s talks, President Abbas played his part, too. Hamas must end the war, and it must find no justification or support for its current position, but Israel should recognise the reality of the impact of this summer’s attacks on Gaza, whatever the justification, and ensure that there is no repeat.

Finally, despite provocation and despite the UK being urged to do even more, we should recognise the reality of our position. We are a supporter, including financially, of the development of a Palestinian state and friend of the security of the state of Israel. We must constantly encourage both and avoid making things worse by precipitate action or extreme statements.

However, the UK Parliament is entitled to take positions that it believes protect the two-state solution or signal its belief in doing so. I did not support the recent motion, as I still believe in and support the UK Government’s position that recognition should come at the end of negotiations, but the vote deserved to be taken seriously. Reactions in Israel were instructive, with the Government of the state of Israel mostly reflective, but with one or two Ministers lurching in the wrong direction and suggesting that vote supported terrorism. It did not. As David Aaronovitch recently said in The Jewish Chronicle, he might have voted for the motion himself, because it at least keeps the two-state solution alive—wise words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.

There are people in this Chamber who know far more than I do about the history of the part of the world we are debating, but I have read a few books and listened carefully to what everyone says, and I can guarantee one thing: the history of that conflicted part of the world does not mean that we can blame one side for all the ills that have taken place there over the years. There will be a lot of pain for both sides in moving towards a two-state solution, but almost everyone who has contributed to today’s debate recognises that that is what is required.

There are those who argue for a one-state solution. Let us be honest: there are those who argue for a greater Israel, but there are also those who argue for a greater Palestine. I have heard people who are in the Chamber today say, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” We know what that means, as well. A single state cannot bring peace, as it would ultimately undermine the national goals of one of the two competing national movements. Two states for two peoples is the only realistic hope.

The deadlock and the conditions that have existed for years are not the only obstacles to peace, but they guarantee that with each passing year the problem becomes more difficult to resolve, with more settlements, more refugees, more people drawn to terror, more victims, more resentment and more hate. Hon. Members should be assured that I condemn Israeli settlements in the west bank and the blockade of Gaza, and I believe the Israelis should end the occupation. The lurch to the right in Israeli politics makes that aim more difficult to achieve, but does not make it impossible.

I do not need to be prompted to say that, with the same vigour, passion and determination, I condemn Hamas, whose unrevoked 1988 charter rejects peace and promotes the killing of Jews. I condemn the use of Palestinians as cannon fodder every time Hamas decides to use innocent people as a means of achieving its political ends. I condemn the politicians who condemn terrorism publicly but then send letters of praise to the families of those who have died in the pursuit of terrorism, and I despair about the lack of political courage on the Palestinian side that prevents the final mile to peace being walked.

[Dr Offord]

Will the hon. Gentleman also condemn the accusations that the Palestinian Authority is paying salaries to convicted terrorists? [Interruption.]

[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.