| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5 July 2007 : Column 344WH—continued
“Pretty much all of those blocks lie on the roads that lead to settlements—90-something per cent. of them. In other words, if a road is running to a settlement it is usually blocked for Palestinian traffic.”
The lesson from that is simple: the reason why the Palestinians cannot move around the west bank is because the Israelis are protecting illegal settlements, which, if they were not there, would not require the restrictions that the Palestinians face. That is a fundamental, irrevocable fact. If Israel is not forced to acknowledge and respond to it, there will be no peace and there will be no point in aid and development, because there will be no viable Palestinian economy.
Mr. Slaughter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Malcolm Bruce: I am not sure whether I am allowed to do so.
John Bercow (in the Chair): Order. I must emphasise that I have tried to be indulgent to the hon. Gentleman, not least because of the circumstances that took him away from Westminster Hall, but this intervention must be substantially briefer.
Mr. Slaughter:
I am most grateful, Mr. Bercow, and I shall make a short point. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the position on settlements is worse than he was saying, because, alongside the active
construction of settlements, which I saw at first hand, the demolition of thousands of Palestinian homes is taking place on Palestinian land?
Malcolm Bruce: There are many other issues—
Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman says “water”. That is a very serious issue. The construction of the security fence on Israeli territory is perfectly legitimate, but the way that it wiggles around and wanders across the west bank is divisive and obstructive, and it makes normal life impossible.
I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) that we should try to give support through and with President Abbas, but we should do so with a clear understanding that he does not speak for all the Palestinian people and that he is not the sole representative. His Prime Minister Fayyad, who is a very respected man internationally and an able economist, stood in the elections and his party got 2.5 per cent. of the vote. He does not have democratic legitimacy. We must therefore acknowledge that we cannot assume that by dealing with President Abbas, giving him the money, working directly with him and pretending that Hamas does not exist, we have somehow solved the problem. We may have got the Government that we want, but it was not the one the Palestinians elected.
Mrs. Ellman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if, as we hope, negotiations start, but the response to them is as before, whereby Palestinians from whichever party launch suicide attacks on Israeli civilians, that would have a negative impact on the chances of peace?
Malcolm Bruce: Of course it would. The fact that that activity has reduced involves a more complex analysis than simply discussing the building of the security fence. The hon. Lady should take that point on board. As a counter to her point, I should say that Israel might think that the way to deal with Gaza is to mount a military invasion and to reoccupy it, but that would not to add to an atmosphere of peace and reconciliation.
I believe that our Committee has put into the public domain some relevant facts. They are still valid and still represent the fundamental basis of the problem. I hope that the Government, with their new Ministers and format, and indeed with our former Prime Minister involved, will take stock and reconsider some of their position. They should try to find a way of unblocking some of the rigidities of their position, so that we do not just ask for movement from Hamas. There needs to be movement from the Quartet that shows good will on both sides. That might move us forward. We have an obligation to give the poor people of Palestine a chance to develop. They have the will and ability to do so, but they do not have the chance .
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Five o’clock.
| Index | Home Page |