Palestine and Israel

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Straw]

It is the Palestinian Authority that is part of the negotiations, not Hamas. I believe that the fact of the Israelis’ intemperate reaction to the very prospect of the House passing this resolution is proof that it will make a difference. The only thing that the Israeli Government understand, under the present demeanour of Binyamin Netanyahu, is pressure. What the House will be doing this evening will be to add to the pressure on the Government of Israel. That is why they are so worried about this resolution passing. Were it just a gesture, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) implied, they would not be bothered at all. They are very worried indeed because they know that it will have an effect.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but does he not accept that this is a Back-Bench motion? This has no effect on Government policy, and it is just futile.

[Mr Straw]

We represent the electorate of the United Kingdom. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, having spent 13 years sitting on the Treasury Bench, that resolutions passed in the House, whether they emanate from Back Benches or Front Benches, make a difference, and this resolution will, if it is passed, make a difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I had not anticipated being called to speak, so I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The proposal for this House to recognise Palestinian statehood is not only premature, but misguided. An affirmative vote tonight would be nothing more than a propaganda victory for those who wish to bypass the mediation of the peace process in favour of international institutions such as the United Nations where the Palestinian Authority enjoy an automatic majority.

Three years ago President Abbas made it explicit that the attempt unilaterally to assert statehood through the UN was to ensure that it

“would pave the way for the internationalisation of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us”—

the Palestinian Authority—

“to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the international Court of Justice.”

The Palestinian Authority are seeking to create opportunities for new diplomatic and legal fronts on the conflict with Israel that enable a distraction, an alternative and an escape route from the bilateral principle entailed in the Oslo accords and subsequent diplomatic frameworks.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

rose—

[Grahame M. Morris]

rose—

[Dr Offord]

I will not give way at the moment.

The proposers of this motion are aiding those efforts and turning their backs on the peace process. That is not a proposal that I can accept.

The middle east peace process is underpinned by several key documents—this has not been addressed tonight —that prohibit the unilateral diplomatic action this motion would allow and deem it to undermine the prospect of a negotiated settlement.

In 1993 the Palestine Liberation Organisation committed itself to a declaration that

“all outstanding issues relating to the permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.”

This was followed two years later by the Oslo II agreement, where the PLO said it would not take any step that would change the status of the Palestinian territories pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr Offord]

I will not give way at the moment.

That principle has a binding validity on all parties and has been subsequently reaffirmed as the only acceptable basis for a resolution.

[Crispin Blunt]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

[Dr Offord]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

That is also an agreement to which our Government of the United Kingdom, as part of the European Union and the Quartet, are a signatory. Therefore, this motion asks the UK Government to break their commitment to the peace process. That is not a proposal that I can accept.

A negotiated two-state agreement would also resolve others issues, including borders, security arrangements and recognition by all of Israel’s right to exist, but this motion would allow recognition of a Palestinian state that would not even recognise or even accept Israel’s 1967 borders. The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), has called for the 1967 borders. If we had acceded to such requests in the past, the Golan heights would be in the hands of Syria or, in fact, ISIL nowadays, meaning that Israel would not be able to continue to exist, which I cannot accept.

Similarly, the concept that the 1948 armistice lines should become a border with a terror state is another irresponsible policy and something in which the Parliament of any liberal democracy should not be involved in any way. The battle that Britain and our allies are a part of is to stop the spread of fundamentalist Islamist control over the Levant—of which Israel is a part—and not to speed it along.

[Mr Straw]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that when I intervened on the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) I was careful with my language and spoke about any borders being based on 1967, not resolutions? That is no different from that which is contained in the final page of the road map, which was endorsed by the Government of Israel, among others.

[Dr Offord]

I am grateful for that clarification.

Recognition of Palestine appears attractive as it is considered to be the first step towards the internalisation and perceived legitimisation that could allow diplomatic and legal challenges to Israel through organisations that are perceived to be sympathetic to Palestinian grievances. The recognition of Palestine would produce significant setbacks for the existing peace process and is bound to elicit a retrenchment in the position of Israel when it has previously agreed statements that have produced land swaps for peace.

Most infamously, that occurred in 2005 when Israel undertook the unilateral move to withdraw from Gaza. Members all know what has happened since: more than 11,000 rockets have been fired from the Gaza strip into Israel by terrorists. Some 5 million Israelis are currently living under threat of rocket attacks, and more than 500,000 Israelis have less than 60 seconds to find shelter after a rocket is launched. That means that people in the biggest cities of Israel, including Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, are all at risk.

On the other hand, negotiated peace deals, such as the Egypt and Israel peace treaty in 1979 and the Israel and Jordan peace treaty in 1994, are examples of land being relinquished in return for stable peace negotiations. The same did not occur at the Camp David negotiations in 2000. The proposal to establish an independent Palestinian state in virtually all of the west bank and Gaza, along with a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, was rejected because of the alternative condition that the Palestinian Authority declare an end to the conflict as part of the final agreement.

Consequently, the proposal for the recognition of Palestinian statehood without the fundamental aspects of final-status negotiations, coupled with a reciprocal agreement that relinquishes further claims over lands, property, settlements, the right to return and access to Jerusalem, is premature.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My hon. Friend said that he had not intended to speak and he seems to be making up for that by reading, at great speed, from an Israeli Government handout. Could we at least establish these ground rules: those of us who support the motion are still firm friends of Israel and defend its right to security, but we also believe in justice for the Palestinian people?

[Dr Offord]

I am grateful for another helpful intervention, but I assure my hon. Friend that this is certainly not an Israeli Government press release. [Interruption.] I can hear another hon. Member chuntering away, but never mind.

It is vital that any peace is achieved through negotiation and mutual agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, not through unilateral moves or pre-emptive recognition. Formal progress in peace deals has only ever been achieved through bilateral talks, which remain the way forward for the peace process. No credible peace-building initiative has ever emerged from the UN General Assembly. Both the UK Government and the Conservative party have been clear that bilateral negotiations are the only path to a stable peace. I had understood that that was the Labour party’s policy, but its Members seem to have been whipped to vote for this motion because their leader cannot make up his own mind on Israel.

Members of Parliament should vote against any unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood while making it clear that they support the creation of a Palestinian state through direct bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. It is of great concern that the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Blackburn has been selected, because I felt that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) was more than adequate.

The diplomatic process, realities on the ground, international law and not least the UN system itself are likely to suffer serious negative consequences if Members accede to the Palestinian attempt to remove the search for a two-state solution from the established bilateral framework. It is vital that we send a clear message that such an approach, which the Palestinian leadership has pursued since 2010, is a dead end. At best it is a costly distraction and we should vote against this motion tonight.