| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5 July 2007 : Column 318WH—continued
3.32 pm
Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op):
This report is strong and well documented, and I have
no doubt that the humanitarian and economic conditions described in considerable detail are unacceptable. The major issue that we must all address is how the situation can be changed. I believe that the report, well documented as it is, does not fully comprehend the reasons for the situation. It acknowledged in a number of different places that Israel has security problems, but it does not sufficiently understand the nature of Hamas, and it does not address the reasons for the situation, so that they can be addressed and rectified.
Comment has been made during the debate on the conditions that Hamas has failed to fulfil: the acceptance of the existence of the state of Israel, the acceptance of previous agreements, including the road map, and the renunciation of violence. Before progress can be made in resolving a deeply complex and unacceptable situation, it is important to recognise that Hamas is not a normal political organisation. Indeed, it is clear from Hamas statements recently, as well as in its charter and its actions, that it inspires ideological hatred based on religion.
Article 7 of the charter states:
“The Day of judgment will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews)”.
“With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world... They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution... With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions...for the purpose of...achieving Zionist interests.”
“There is no solution for the Palestinian question, except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time”.
Article 32 refers to Zionists and Jewish plans embodied in the protocols of the elders of Zion.
Those statements are all embedded in the Hamas charter. They do not refer to the past. Although the charter was put together relatively recently, they are very much alive. On 3 June this year, the Palestinian information centre in Gaza stated:
“Keep the flame of resistance alive until our Palestinian flag will fly anew over the walls of Jerusalem, the shores of Haifa and of Jaffa.”
Perhaps even more disturbingly, on 29 June this year, Hamas TV showed to young children in the Palestinian territories that are under the control of Hamas a Mickey Mouse-type cartoon character called Farfur being beaten to death by Israelis, Jews were called dogs, and Farfur was depicted as a martyr, teaching the cult of death. I have watched that cartoon, and what it underlines is unacceptable. It teaches hatred and the cult of death to young children.
Richard Burden: The document to which my hon. Friend refers is appalling, but does she believe that the existence of appalling statutes, documents, constitutions and so on should preclude talking or engaging in dialogue with anyone from the organisations involved? If she believes that, does she think it would have been reasonable for the Palestinians to refuse to engage with or talk to the Israelis because of the constitution of the Jewish National Fund, which said—she will correct me if I am wrong—that it should be a matter of principle that only Jewish labour should be employed on land owned by the fund, which is most of the land of Israel.
Mrs. Ellman: My quotations illustrate the fundamental nature of Hamas, not one of its policies. I do not think that, on its own, that is a reason not to talk to someone, but failure to recognise the existence of the state of Israel at a time when Hamas is firing rockets on civilians outside Israel—2,000 rockets have been fired since the settlers left Gaza—tells me about the nature of the organisation.
A third of the state of Israel consists of non-Jewish people, who are employed, have full civilian rights and include members of the Knesset and Ministers of the state. Questions could be asked about many individual countries, but the nature of the state of Israel is to have equal citizens.
I believe that there is a way forward, which is to look at economic co-operation between the Palestinian Authority and Israel with international support on the basis of peace and acceptance of two states: Israel and Palestine. The way to do that was shown by this country when a special Palestinian conference was held in London in 2005, at which the Palestinian private sector declaration was signed with the Israelis and involved the World Bank. That put together proposals to develop the economy of and business in the Palestinian Authority and to involve the private sector. At a meeting hosted in Tokyo in March this year, a Japanese initiative launched a proposal to build a new industrial park on the west bank, and the Japanese pledged major investment there.
Negotiations are taking place between Israel and British Gas, which I hope are close to fruition, to supply Israel with gas from outside Gaza, with the royalties going to the Palestinian Authority. Work is going on with the Peres Centre for Peace and the Palestinian organisation, PalTrade. The World Economic Forum launched the Israeli-Palestinian Business Council in May this year. Those are all examples of economic co-operation that can take place between those authorities.
Malcolm Bruce: There are obviously many examples of constructive co-operation between Palestinians and Israelis in a business context, but does the hon. Lady not accept that, for such co-operation to deliver real economic benefits, all the restrictions need to be removed to enable economic transactions to take place? After all, Wolfensohn put his personal money into greenhouses in Gaza, and the people had to throw the produce away, because Israel would not allow them to the market. We had many examples of businesses on the west bank that simply could not get their people to work or their products even to the local markets, because of the restrictions. If Israel will not withdraw from the west bank and allow freedom of movement, none of that economic co-operation will deliver long-term benefits.
Mrs. Ellman:
I agree that, to enable economic initiatives to flourish, there must be freedom of movement and a normalisation of relations, which means that there must be a peace treaty—an agreed peace on agreed borders. The International Development Committee’s report on a number of occasions acknowledges Israel’s security issues, but it fails to acknowledge that some of the restrictions, including those on movement, borders and other problems, relate to security. For example, a number
of references have been made to the security barrier. It would be much better if there were no need for any such barrier and if there were an agreed boundary, but it must be acknowledged that, since the barrier was put up, there has been a 70 per cent. reduction in civilian deaths by suicide bombings and a 90 per cent. reduction in incidents. Clearly, it has some relevance to the security situation.
I agree with several hon. Members that any solution must be found through negotiation, peace and on the basis of mutual recognition. I ask them to remember that 8,000 Israeli settlers withdrew from Gaza, but that, since that withdrawal, more than 2,000 rockets have been fired from Gaza at Israeli civilians. That is not a very good Palestinian response to withdrawal. However, it is paramount that an effort to restart negotiations takes place.
Our former Prime Minister has a new and special role as special envoy to the middle east, and his remit concentrates heavily on economic development and on supporting the Palestinians in building up their governance. All that activity is important, but for it to flourish, it needs peace and negotiations. I hope that that will happen. Anybody who has a genuine concern about the humanitarian plight of the Palestinians and, indeed, of the Israelis knows that the way to a solution is through peace, negotiation and mutually respected and acknowledged countries.
3.42 pm
Ann McKechin (Glasgow, North) (Lab): I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) to his new role as a Minister in the Department for International Development, and I wish him every success. As a member of the International Development Committee, I endorse the report’s recommendations, which our Chairman, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), set out and amplified in his own contribution.
I am reminded not only of the Committee’s visit to the west bank last November, but of my earlier visit to the Gaza strip as part of a parliamentary delegation organised by the Labour Middle East Council a few years ago. Visiting Gaza, one is struck by how small a piece of land it actually is. It is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, and it is strewn with rubbish and graffiti. People literally live on a rubbish tip. It is a place of constant fear, tension and suspicion, but the fate of the children of that area has made an indelible mark on me, and it is something that I shall never forget.
Many children had visible signs of malnutrition, and many were psychologically scarred by the continuous violence that surrounded them, as one could witness in the frequent aggressive behaviour of small boys in the street. There were also fading signs of any hope for their future. That was three years ago, so I struggle to imagine how much worse the situation has become for those children over the past 12 months.
In the unique political debate that applies to the Palestinian territories, the international community has struggled to align the recognised principles of humanitarian relief and development. Those principles, which are
applied elsewhere, have to come up against some very undesirable Governments and political Administrations. Sudan and Zimbabwe are just two that spring to mind, and only this week, the Committee took evidence on the continuing conflict in northern Uganda, where the international community has to engage in dialogue with the Lord’s Resistance Army—an organisation that has committed some of the worst atrocities known to man. At times, we must make difficult decisions with organisations and Governments who lie on different parts of the scales on issues such as democracy, human rights and corruption.
However, we are discussing Palestine, so we apply a different set of principles to that situation. The international community took an immediate, absolutist approach by withdrawing all direct aid to the Palestinian Authority, even though it was widely recognised that public sector employment was a key element in maintaining the economy. The public sector was the largest employer and the biggest spender, employing more than 161,000 people, who, in turn, it was estimated, supported more than 1 million people in the population. The inevitable plummet to disaster, which we are witnessing, does not give the international community any credit. We have to ask whether we need to make some fundamental changes. Not paying up to 80,000 security staff proved to be catastrophic; it meant letting loose 80,000 people with guns on the streets. Imagine being a woman or a child in Gaza, faced with that situation on an hourly and daily basis.
Yesterday in Parliament, Mr. Alastair Crooke, the UK director of Conflicts Forum, gave a talk to the Council for Arab-British Understanding. He has worked with, among others, former President Bill Clinton and Senator Mitchell to try to find solutions to the middle east problem. His analysis was particularly depressing, but he pointed out that the election result was very difficult for Fatah to cope with, because it believed that it had a natural leadership of the Palestinian Authority. It also proved difficult for anyone in the international community to accept the result of an election that it had encouraged.
The international community’s reaction precluded the necessary dialogue to try to form a transition to a secure environment and a peaceful democracy. It encouraged Fatah to claw back powers from the Palestinian Government, and it funded an increase in the presidential forces and their training. That shows us that aid is not necessarily neutral; it certainly was not in Palestine. We must assess whether we made the right decisions, because as Mr. Crooke said, throughout the whole middle east region, tension is building upon tension, fear upon fear, suspicion upon suspicion. If we do not step back and try to relieve the tension, mistrust and fear, we will move towards a potential world catastrophe on a level that we have not seen since the world wars that afflicted the 20th century. That must make us step back.
Yesterday, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) stated, the release of Alan Johnston represented one small step and one small sign of hope. I commend the remarks of our new Foreign Secretary yesterday. They represented a nuanced and balanced approach, and I hope that we can build on that and on the statements by other new members of the Cabinet, such as the Secretary of State
for Children, Schools and Families, who, in his former position as Economic Secretary, made last month a very good speech about economic development in Palestine.
The Government and other members of the international community should consider three small steps now. There is the issue of the temporary position, which cannot prevent the social and economic collapse that is happening now. It is by definition temporary. There have been welcome changes involving work with the Ministry of Finance this year. We must consider further that situation and the question of public employees and their salaries, which is vital to the stability of the economy, particularly in the Gaza strip.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) mentioned the situation regarding border posts, which is an absolutely key point. We witnessed on the west bank last November the utter madness of so-called back-to-back crossings, whereby people have to unload their lorry and carry their goods by hand or in a small trolley to another lorry across the road. The process was chaotic and actually seemed to be insecure—at one point, someone was told, “Well, it’s just bags of flour. Don’t bother opening them, just carry them across anyway.” There was no electronic testing or physical testing of the products. My impression was that the system was designed simply to frustrate.
Malcolm Bruce: It is worth emphasising that the back-to-back crossing that we watched was between two parts of Palestinian territory. It was not on a frontier, but was internal, within the west bank.
Ann McKechin: I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. What is worse is that people repeatedly face long delays at crossings, manual checks and young army staff who seem to have received little training and have little understanding of how to look for security items. However, the state of Israel has one of the most advanced and sophisticated defence industries in the world. It is a world leader in electronic defence equipment, yet it seems to be incapable of devising a sophisticated checkpoint system.
As we witnessed in Northern Ireland in the time of the troubles, the United Kingdom had the most sophisticated defence posts in the world. No one likes defence posts or checkpoints. However, in the case of Northern Ireland, that technology at least allowed them to cause the minimum of disruption, which allowed the economy to proceed fairly normally and caused as few queues as possible, so that people were not tied up for half a day or a whole day at a time, or told to turn back, because that day was just not suitable. Taking some simple steps to improve the efficiency of those posts could help the many law-abiding citizens who find their lives frustrated day after day, and—if I might say so to the previous speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman)—help improve the security of the state of Israel and that of the entire region generally.
I am reminded of a story, which the chief executive of the Augusta Victoria hospital in East Jerusalem told us when we met him, of a 10-year old boy with cancer who was trying to get into the hospital, but whose mother was turned back at the checkpoint. The boy was put into a taxi on the other side and had to be
driven, unaccompanied and suffering from cancer, to enter the hospital, where no one knew who he was or where he had come from, except that he was seriously ill. The human rights of children should be paramount in any consideration on humanitarian relief. Small steps to alleviate such callous disregard for human rights should be key.
Finally, support for the Palestinian private sector needs to given now, not at an indefinite point in the future, when we think it might be appropriate to invest. It is difficult to strike a balance between humanitarian relief in an ongoing conflict and development. However, we need to support and maintain those businesses and organisations, some of which we met on our visit and which are struggling against all the odds that we can imagine in a business setting, and to keep them alive. If we allow them to die, close down or be destroyed, the task of eventually entering Gaza and trying to rebuild it will be one hundred times more difficult and we will have lost the skills, the expertise and the will to drive the economy forward.
There are still people in Palestine who want to do that and long for the day when they can transact their businesses normally. If we could take some small steps towards making their lives more productive and fruitful, we would send out the signals that are necessary. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (John Battle) stated, those are the small steps that we need to take now if we are going to keep the peace alive. Otherwise, we will simply build up tension, fear and aggression, and be left with a consequence that none of us here would want to face.
3.55 pm
Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD): I welcome the Minister to his place and wish him every success.
The Liberal Democrats are fully committed to a two-state solution, as are all parties in the House. Both Israel and Palestine have the right to viable and secure states, recognised internationally and by their neighbours. Recent events show that that remains a distant prospect. The international community has not applied itself to peace in the way that this intractable conflict demands.
The election of Hamas to the Palestinian Authority in 2006 was unexpected and, to those who wish to see a lasting peace in the region, hardly welcome, given Hamas’s track record. However, the election was, like it or not, the outcome of a clear democratic process. As we have heard, the Quartet laid down three key principles: renouncing violence, recognising Israel and respecting previous agreements. They are wholly reasonable demands and sooner or later they will have to be met. However, preconditions and setting barriers even to beginning a process are not conducive to reaching that outcome. We strongly oppose the decision to suspend aid to the territories, particularly because no method of delivering aid was in place at that point.
The methods of Hamas are inimical to peace, and the commitment to the obliteration of Israel a fundamental barrier to a lasting settlement. However, during my relatively short time in politics, I have never known groups to begin with a moderate statement. Any negotiating position starts at the extreme—what Hamas says is foul
and unacceptable, but then we have heard foul and unacceptable things before, from groups that are now part of a democratic, established Government.
So far, the attempts to force Hamas into recognising Israel by undermining its support among Palestinian people have failed. Of course, the ultimate responsibility for the recent events in Gaza can lie only with Hamas and Fatah. However, the international community has absolutely no progress to celebrate, because the marginalisation of the political wing—the wing through which there was some possibility of negotiating with Hamas—has failed.
I was therefore disappointed by the Government’s response to paragraph 17 of the report, which states:
“We believe that the international community is right to place pressure on Hamas to change those policies which militate against a peace process...this would best be achieved through dialogue and engagement rather than isolation. The danger of the current approach is that it might push Hamas into a corner which encourages violence rather than negotiation”,
as it has. The report continues:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |