| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5 July 2007 : Column 325WH—continued
“The international community must also ensure it is not bolstering one faction against the other and thereby increasing the risk of internal strife.”
Wise words as far as they go, but the Government’s response does not really acknowledge what the report is saying and does not envisage that some sort of engagement with Hamas is now vital if we are to make any progress. The Government rightly point out that Hamas needs to renounce violence and recognise Israel’s right to exist. As I have said, that must be part of a process. To set a barrier so high that we know that it is impossible for Hamas to start on that journey will not deliver the result that we all want and that I am sure Israel wants. However, for many Palestinians Hamas has a mandate, and we cannot ignore that fact.
Rather than seeing things in black and white, and imposing sanctions on people for having cast a vote, we must look at the reasons that Hamas was elected in the first place and the conditions for that result. One huge reason was the perceived corruption of various elements in the Palestinian Authority and the dominant Fatah party. It is clear that some of the votes were protest votes against Fatah, which bolstered Hamas. Also, Hamas is not a stupid organisation—it uses opportunities. It provides essential services, such as schools, hospitals, food and housing in the occupied territories, which neither the Palestinian Authority nor the Israeli civil administration was providing, thereby creating dependency ties. Hezbollah did the same in Lebanon. If the “civilised” west takes away people’s ability to survive, no wonder a vacuum is left for others to rush into. The electorate’s decision seems to have been influenced less by foreign policies and more by Hamas’s domestic policies.
In a striking example of the importance of dialogue, the Palestinian Authority’s and Fatah’s lack of progress in reaching a peace deal with Israel also pushed people towards Hamas. Furthermore, although I congratulate Israel on having disengaged from Gaza as a unilateral initiative, that was inevitably seen in the Palestinian territories not to have been the result of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority or Fatah. Fatah therefore looked weak, and victory could be claimed by Hamas.
Mrs. Ellman: Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the Israelis should not have withdrawn from Gaza?
Lynne Featherstone: No, of course I am not; perhaps I did not explain myself brilliantly. I was saying that because the withdrawal was unilateral and had not been negotiated between the Palestinian authorities and Israel, it offered Hamas the opportunity to claim credit.
We also need to realise that Hamas is a movement with many voices, and the voices inside the occupied territories often disagree with the leadership in Syria. The Government must not rule out dialogue and discussion with all elements. On the issue of the recognition of Israel, we must note that Hamas had been doing well in the municipal elections in the occupied territories before its victory in the Palestinian legislative elections. Several Palestinian mayors have been Hamas members who have had no choice but to deal with the Israeli authorities, given the state of occupation under which the Palestinians live. I regard that as a hopeful sign: if we can get the process started now, Hamas may one day recognise and work with Israel at the other end of the process.
Let us remember that before the Israeli-Palestine Oslo accords were signed, Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organisation were also classed as terrorist. At that time, various international actors started dialogues with the PLO, which was offered incentives and moderated. Israel herself was talking to the PLO behind closed doors at Oslo, and the declaration of principles was signed. What has happened since has not been perfect for various reasons—including internal failings on both sides—but it has been a step in the right direction and has showed that listening, dialogue and exchange are the only way forward and the only way to avoid further radicalisation and marginalisation.
After President Abbas expelled Hamas from Government and set up an emergency Administration, the United States, Israel and the European Union chose to restore direct funding to the Palestinian Authority and its emergency Government. We welcome that resumption of funding. However, we cannot ignore the reality on the ground: there are now two de facto Governments, in Gaza and the west bank. The influence of the emergency Government is of little or no consequence in Gaza; it is therefore essential that aid should be delivered to avert humanitarian catastrophe. The European Union must play its part in that. At this point, I should raise the issue of the Rafah crossing. Whatever the politics, that involves cruel and unusual treatment for those stuck in an impossible situation on the border.
The already difficult economic situation in the occupied territories was made worse by the withdrawal of funding to the Palestinian Authority Government. The international community has a duty to find a way of ending the economic and political marginalisation of the political wing of Hamas. Otherwise, we will simply exacerbate the situation.
The temporary international mechanism was flawed. It was, of course, better than nothing at all, but without the Government apparatus it had little chance of delivering meaningful impact. Given that many essential workers are going unpaid and that the organs
of government are being starved of funds, the resulting situation should surprise nobody. Financial aid is essential to the ordinary Palestinians of Gaza, who are most affected by those events but have least say in them. New efforts are needed to persuade the Israelis to release more of the money that they have been holding back for the past year, although we are delighted that some of it is now to be released.
Europe has an immense role to play in the region; arguably, it has never maximised its influence. The European Union is both Palestine’s largest aid donor and Israel’s largest trading partner. Europe must find a strong common position on Israel-Palestine and use a singular voice to help find a solution to the conflict.
The report paints a stark picture of economic growth and private-sector development. The current state of play in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires that the Palestinian people, their basic services and what exists of their institutions, are supported through donor aid. That position is untenable. The Government have to realise that the simple provision of aid, on which the Palestinian population so heavily depends, relates to the lack of a viable economy. Aid can help to bring a resolution to the conflict only if it is channelled into projects that promote economic growth and institution building in the occupied Palestinian territories and is complemented by a serious effort by the international community to bring about a fair and sustainable resolution to the conflict.
Such a resolution might not—perhaps could never—give each side what it wants, but it could be enough for both sides to have peace and prosperity. Economic growth in the occupied Palestinian territories is essential and could show the benefits of peace. Collective sanctions against all Palestinians just create more desperation, lack of faith in the international community as peace brokers and lack of faith in the future. They also create an atmosphere in which extremists can thrive and prosper by providing basic services such as food aid, hospitals and schools. Nobody else is providing those services, so dependency ties are created.
What I have learned from looking at such situations around the world is that intransigence delivers nothing—it means that absolutely nothing can change. Recently, I visited the middle east, both Israel and the west bank, and my overriding sense was that it is the ordinary people on both sides who suffer greatly. To respond to an issue raised today, I should say that one thing that surprised me was that although the security blocks on the Palestinian west bank were indeed awful, the Palestinians whom I talked to still put the blame on the Palestinian Authority for deliberately retaining the better passes for those in senior positions. I am concerned that there is still a degree of corruption.
I went to a school by the Kalandia refugee camp to visit some 15-year-old girls who were having a workshop that aimed to build their capacity to vocalise their feelings. We are influenced by the media around us, and when I asked them what was the biggest barrier in their lives, I was expecting them to say that it was the corrupt Palestinian Authority or the Israelis who were making their lives a misery. However, they actually said that the biggest barrier was their culture; they were expected to get married and have babies at age 15. That brought it home to me that in such territories people
are trying to live lives with all sorts of issues to counter. I hope that the international community can take the process forward without intransigence on any side. If we in this Chamber can agree on that, perhaps there is a way forward.
4.8 pm
Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness) (Con): May I begin by saying how pleased I am to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Bercow? I also welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his appointment. We Conservatives are pleased that the Department for International Development has expanded—indeed doubled—its ministerial team. Although the number of Ministers has gone from two to four, I am sure that this Minister will have no shortage of issues on his desk. I am sure that he will find the job extremely rewarding; it is one of those rare departmental positions from which a Minister can make a real, immediate and lasting impact. I wish him well. Finally, we Conservatives were delighted at the release of Alan Johnston. We hope that he manages to find his feet again, and are delighted that he is back with his family.
The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the Select Committee Chairman, should be congratulated on the Committee’s thorough and prescient report. He introduced what is—let us be honest—an emotive and impassioned subject in his usual measured way. We have seen this afternoon that passions run high on both sides of the argument. He eloquently set out many of the issues in an articulate and detailed way. He was right to highlight the problems that have been exacerbated by continued building in the west bank and to highlight Israel’s legitimate security concerns. I am sure that he would be the first to acknowledge that the international community needs to work together to find a satisfactory resolution to the problem or serious regional problems could well develop. I would certainly advocate discussions with Syria and the other main players in the region that need to engage with the issue, too.
We then heard from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who is passionate and knowledgeable about the subject. He seemed surprised at the Government’s response to the Committee’s report and its pre-meditated content. I was not particularly surprised when I saw the response, and I suspect that other members of the Select Committee were not particularly surprised either. He rightly mentioned the security barrier, which is an emotive issue. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) mentioned, there have been significant reductions in terrorist atrocities as a direct result of the construction of the barrier. However, as I saw when I was in Palestine, it divides some Palestinian communities. When I was there, a pregnant lady wanted to get to hospital to give birth and she was not allowed to do so. Some serious issues need to be addressed on both sides of the divide. All that I would say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield is that to enable a satisfactory solution to that immensely complex issue, there needs to be a balanced view and an understanding of the issues on both sides. One of the depressing things that I found when I went to Israel/Palestine was that at a senior level and a political level, that balance was not there. It is present in both
sets of populations and we need to build on that to try to find a satisfactory solution.
We then heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), who is knowledgeable about international development issues. He mentioned Tony Blair’s appointment; we think that he will have problems generating traction on the Palestinian side, but of course we wish him well. If he can play a role in trying to engage the United States in this fundamental issue he will have played a significant part. There is no doubt that the disengagement of the US Administration in trying to find a satisfactory solution to the middle east situation has led to an exacerbation of many of the problems. The hon. Gentleman was also right to highlight the severe decline of the gross domestic product of the Palestinian areas.
We then heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, who is a passionate and knowledgeable advocate of the view that she expounded. She was right to highlight the fact that the situation is complex and point to some of the appalling quotes from what Hamas and its supporters have said. There is more to democracy than winning elections, and once Hamas had won the election it needed to establish the rule of law. It needs to benefit and build a pluralistic civil society. It needs a commitment to peaceful dialogue. She was right to highlight the issue of hatred, which still exists on both sides. It needs to be eradicated, if possible, through constructive and sophisticated dialogue.
We then heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh—
Mark Simmonds: Forgive me; that was a big mistake. We heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin), who is very knowledgeable in such matters. She is a regular contributor to international development debates and her contribution is always welcome, illuminating and knowledgeable. She was right to highlight the appalling conditions, particularly in Gaza. I was interested that she mentioned northern Uganda, which is the only place in the world that I have visited where I have seen conditions worse than those in Palestine.
The hon. Lady was right to highlight the plight of children and the importance of the public sector in building capacity to provide not only services but a boost to the economy, and to allow people to be paid for the work that they do. However, I would suggest that that is not only about supporting the private sector, but about stimulating and enhancing it. It is only through wealth creation that jobs will be created and poverty alleviated, and that there will be a greater understanding and bond between those on the different political sides.
Other hon. Members have rightly highlighted the appalling conditions in the Palestinian territories. Aid accounts for one quarter of the annual gross domestic product. I think that I am right that the Palestinian territories are the highest per capita recipients of aid in the world. Poverty rates in Gaza and the west bank doubled last year even before Hamas seized control of
Gaza: 56 per cent. of those in the west bank and 87 per cent. of those in Gaza were living in poverty. Unless the international community can do something quickly, those statistics will deteriorate even further.
The key to a lasting settlement between Israel and Palestine is security, and the Select Committee was right to highlight the
“fundamental relationship between Palestinian economic viability and Israeli security.”
Intense and urgent action needs to be taken to achieve a lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Peace in the region in totality may not hinge merely on the creation of a Palestinian state, but it is the most significant pillar.
We in the Conservative party believe that three key things need to be addressed quickly. First, we need to find an acceptable way to continue the delivery of aid to the Palestinian population in Gaza under the temporary international mechanism. Secondly, we need to support and channel communication between President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert aimed at improving conditions in the west bank and Gaza, despite the fact that President Abbas’s Administration has, by his own admission, credibility problems with some of the Palestinian population. Thirdly, there need to be urgent diplomatic efforts by the Quartet and the Arab quartet to seek a way forward. Any way forward requires Hamas to make a credible movement towards the acceptance of the Quartet principles.
I have to say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield that it would be difficult for any British Government, irrespective of their political colour, to approve the use of British taxpayers’ money for an organisation that has not yet renounced violence and still does not acknowledge the right to exist of the group with which it is supposed to negotiate. Those fundamental steps must be made before direct engagement with Hamas can take place.
Richard Burden: I think that I follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but perhaps he could address the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (John Battle) about stages. The hon. Gentleman ran two things together: the use of taxpayers’ money for a Government or organisation, and the issue of engagement. When Hamas offers long-term ceasefires and talks about accepting Israel as a reality, do those moves go far enough? Absolutely not, but are they not grounds for saying that we should start to talk about things, see what they mean and see whether we can get things to move forwards?
Mark Simmonds: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s points, and argue in return that an issue needs to be addressed. Of course, things need to take place in stages, but it would be difficult for the UK Government to have a direct conversation with an organisation such as Hamas. Other players in the region should be having that dialogue: Syria is one and Iran is possibly another, although it has perhaps been involved in a negative way with what has happened recently in Gaza. The regional players and the Arab quartet need to be involved in far greater detail and to a greater degree than they have been to date.
We welcome the resumption of the transfer of taxes to the new Palestinian Authority, as well as the
unfreezing. I understand that some money was sent on Sunday, that more was sent yesterday and that some will be disseminated through the public sector—but only in the west bank, not in Gaza. We need to return to that and it would be helpful if the Minister could explain the UK Government’s position. It is essential that some money should circulate in the economy, or the people of Palestine will have no chance of generating economic growth and decent reasonable livelihoods.
It needs to be acknowledged that DFID has made a contribution in Palestine. Since 1996, it has provided £372 million of aid. In 2006-07 alone, DFID allocated £30 million for the Palestinian territories, of which £24 million has been disbursed via the temporary international mechanism, non-governmental organisations and international agencies. DFID has also allocated funds via the global conflict prevention pool for water resource management, policing advisory services and strengthening the capacity of civil society.
Only last month, the then Secretary of State for International Development announced that £1 million would be channelled through the International Committee of the Red Cross for immediate humanitarian need. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether that money has been allocated and whether it is actually reaching the people for whom it was intended.
Poverty alleviation, economic growth and foreign direct investment are impossible without the ability to trade. The Palestinian territories are hindered in their ability to trade by restrictions on the movement of people and goods. That point has already been made. Steps must be taken to ensure that at checkpoints there are legitimate, fair and efficient means to enable the swift movement of people and goods, while defending Israel’s right to security. The lack of such means is a major reason why Gaza’s economy shrank by up to 10 per cent. in 2006 and poverty rates are growing.
The Government’s response to the Select Committee report states that they accept that
“shrinking market access and lack of free movement are the main constraints to growth in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.”
DFID funded the investment climate assessment, which concludes that progress must be made in the following areas:
“re-establishing movement and access, while maintaining Israeli security...improving the investment climate; and...developing the capacity of enterprises.”
Has any progress been made since that assessment was undertaken, despite the current change of circumstances in Gaza? If not, what change of policy is DFID putting in place to cope with the new Hamas regime?
The report concludes that the European Union’s association agreement in the Palestinian territories is ineffective and hinders the movement of goods in and out of the territories. It states that steps need to be taken to ensure that the procedure at checkpoints is legitimate and efficient. What are the Minister and his officials doing to put pressure on the European Union to ensure the effective operation of the association agreement?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |