Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
MR WILLIAM
BELL, MR
HENRY GRUNWALD
QC, DR FLORESCA
KARANASOU AND
MR ADAM
LEACH
31 OCTOBER 2006
Q120 John Bercow: In other words,
Chairman, I do not really think that this particular question—there
are many that are—is really inspired by or dependent upon
a doctrinal point of view. It is really essentially a pragmatic
question. Thank you for your answers.
Mr Grunwald: May I make take a
contrary view perhaps to those of my three fellow witnesses, which
is really to pick up on the point that you have just made, Sir,
which is that if this is an effective way of getting aid to where
it is needed, then at the moment it is the right path to take.
If the alternative is that no aid gets to where it is needed,
then that is no alternative.
Chairman: I think we understand what
the concerns are. That has helped us to get more understanding.
Q121 Joan Ruddock: I would like to
turn to the question of the revenues which the Government of Israel
collects. It seems to me that this money is even more significant
than the aid that we have been discussing. The aid we have been
discussing is a matter of voluntary agreements. This, I would
feel, is a matter of law, that Israel has an obligation. I wonder
if Mr Grunwald could comment first on the withholding of the revenues
that have been collected via taxes by the Israeli Government from
the Palestinians. It is their money. Would you express your view
on the fact that the Government of Israel withholds that money?
Mr Grunwald: It is their money
and it remains Palestinian money and will be handed over, I understand,
at some stage when proper arrangements can be in place—and
I will explain what I mean by that in a moment—together,
I am sure, with any interest that will accrue to that money while
it is not being handed over. The reason that it is not being handed
over is, as you say, that it is part of an agreement between Israel
and the Palestinians. At the moment, there is no Palestinian body
which can formally approach Israel and say, "Hand the money
over". That may seem legalistic but the reason for that is
really the same reason that you have already mentioned, that the
Quartet and others have declined to pass money over to a Hamas
entity. The Israeli Government, as I understand it, has said,
"Until such time as we do have someone that we can do business
with, which means Hamas renouncing violence, recognising Israel
and indicating that it is prepared to abide by the agreements
previously entered into by the Palestinian Authority with Israel,
in the same way as international aid money will not be handed
over, this money will not be handed over". It is an unhappy
situation for everybody. It is perhaps made even worse—and
I obviously made inquiries about this and I discovered that there
have been attempts by Israel to make use of some of that money
for the Palestinians. I understand that in June of this year,
Israel offered some 50 million in shekels (about $12 million)
worth of badly needed medicines and other things, but the answer
came back: no, we will have the money but we will not have the
medicine. The bottom line of that is that there is concern, and
I can certainly understand it and I hope others will, that monies
which are handed over to Hamas will not be used in the way that
everyone would want to see them used, but will be used simply
to enable Hamas to continue to attack Israel and to foment trouble
in and around the area. That, I am afraid, is the bottom line.
Q122 Joan Ruddock: Accepting Hamas's
violence and all the things that you have said, which of course
we all absolutely abhor, there is no question, again as I understand
it, that Hamas have actually been very effective in delivering
local services to local people. That is what their electoral success
has been based on. We are talking here about not $12 million but
$55-$65 million per month. Surely it is reasonable to expect that
if this money were handed over, it would go to pay the people
who provide the vital services to the people of Palestine?
Mr Grunwald: You may hope that;
I may hope that; and it may be that in time that is what will
happen, but at the moment the Israeli position, and I have made
inquiries about this knowing it would come up, is the same as
that of the British Government and members of the Quartet and
others that no monies will go to a Hamas entity until they have
renounced violence, recognised Israel and agreed to abide by previous
agreements. You know, Hamas may have been good at providing services
for Palestinians locally; it has also been very good at attacking
Israel and killing and wounding Israelis from behind its borders
and within Israel itself.
Q123 Joan Ruddock: In terms of the
violence, I think we have to acknowledge there is violence on
both sides. I do not want to pursue that point but the point that
you suggest, that the Quartet and the Israeli Government are acting
as one. That appears to us to be disputed. We understand the position
of the UK Government is that the monies should not be withheld.
That is the position of the UK Government. I want to ask you your
view of the EU General Affairs Council, which has advised that
the Israelis should pay the revenues through the Temporary International
Mechanism. I wonder whether you would think that that is appropriate.
Mr Grunwald: I am sure that is
something which the Israelis will consider. I cannot answer that.
It may be a way forward[3]
Chairman: I can say that the Israeli
Ambassador told us in an informal meeting last week that currently
the Israeli authorities are not happy that TIM money would not
be diverted to terrorism, which is why they would not do it. That
is their current position. That is not formal evidence.
Q124 Joan Ruddock: I think, Chairman,
if that is the case, what is the point of having a Temporary International
Mechanism? Either it is decided it is a mechanism that can work
and can do the job that is required to provide the services to
the Palestinians or it is not. If it is not, then we are all wasting
our time on it. If it is, then there is no reason why the Israeli
Government, I suggest, should not put its money that way.
Mr Leach: May I add a comment
in response to your question and a word of caution about de-linking
the suspension of aid from the repayment of tax revenues? What
we are concerned about is that the suspension of aid serves as
a signal to the Government of Israel that it is appropriate to
withhold tax revenues, which were supposed to be paid before the
suspension of aid took effect anyway, so although the two issues
are separate, we are concerned about signals that are inappropriate.
I think it is unfortunate, too, that there is a conflation of
interests between the international community and the Government
of Israel. I think we are talking about a situation of a long-standing
conflict, and we are all very well aware of the causes; we are
talking about an illegal occupation; we are talking about the
causes of humanitarian suffering which go well beyond (and I agree
with Henry's earlier comments about taking a step back) the suspension
of aid. Suspension of aid, we fear, acts as an unhelpful signal.
Q125 Chairman: As a matter of factual
information, my understanding is that a substantial number of
Palestinian civil servants are now on strike because they are
not being paid, for these reasons. Do you have any idea how many
there are and whether this is an indefinite strike or is it short
term? Do you have any information on that?
Mr Leach: I would need to find
out more information to supply to the Committee in due course.
I would be happy to do that.
Mr Bell: I give the same response.
I would be happy to come back to the Committee on that.
Q126 Richard Burden: I would like
to look at the question of how easy it is for people to move about
and for goods to move about. Obviously we have touched a bit on
this in the discussions so far. This is an area where we have
had contradictory evidence presented to us. I would like to ask
you some questions both about Gaza and the West Bank. Can we start
off in relation to Gaza. Mr Grunwald, in the Board of Deputies'
evidence[4]
it states: "Despite Hamas' stance towards it, Israel has
continued to implement the measures it set out in the post-Sharm
El Sheikh humanitarian plan. Contrary to media and other misinformed
reports, crossings between Israel and the Palestinian Territories
have remained open—allowing goods, medicines, food and other
supplies to pass through." Were you referring to Gaza and
the West Bank or just Gaza or just the West Bank?
Mr Grunwald: I think there are
differences between the two but underlying the situation in both
is the justifiable concern for security.
Q127 Richard Burden: I understand
that. I am just asking what that quote from your evidence was
referring to?
Mr Grunwald: I think in terms
of both.
Q128 Richard Burden: In relation
to Gaza, we have had evidence submitted to us by the Welfare Association,
who are not giving oral evidence today. They stated that the Erez
crossing to Gaza was completely closed over the period 25 August
to 25 September. The evidence you have put forward suggests that
the crossing was open for at least eight days during that period.
Mr Grunwald: I would not have
put that forward if we had not been satisfied that that was correct.
Q129 Richard Burden: Would that be
eight full days for everybody wanting to go through it?
Mr Grunwald: I would have to check
on that. It may be that it was open for limited purposes rather
than wholly opened for the whole of that period. It may be that
at times it was only open for people to cross as opposed to goods
to cross.
Q130 Richard Burden: It is quite
important, is it not, for Erez, if you are saying it is open,
to have some sort of understanding of who can actually get through
it and for how long? During those eight days, who was allowed
to go through from Gaza to Erez?
Mr Grunwald: I would happily come
back to you with detailed information on that if you would want
it. I will make sure that you get the detail[5]
Q131 Chairman: There is a direct conflict.
The Welfare Association says it was completely closed. You are
saying it was at least partially open for some of that time?
Mr Grunwald: Yes.
Q132 Richard Burden: Would it surprise
you to learn that a number of organisations have suggested that
actually effectively the only people who can get to Erez are internationals?
Mr Grunwald: Yes, it would surprise
me.
Q133 Richard Burden: You have mentioned
in relation to Karni that security is the main reason for the
closure of Karni for particular periods. If that is the case,
presumably it is Israel's security you are worried about?
Mr Grunwald: Yes.
Q134 Richard Burden: Presumably,
according to that logic, there may be closures for goods going
out of Karni into Israel. Why should there be a closure of goods
going into Gaza?
Mr Grunwald: I suppose it really
depends on what is found at the crossings and what has been found
at the crossings. It is very important that the Committee should
understand. I have spoken to various people about this because
it is clearly a concern to everybody. There seems to be a feeling
that these crossings are closed arbitrarily, that they are closed
for no purpose, and sometimes even the suggestion is made that
they are closed as some form of punishment. The reality is that
if they are shut, they are shut for a good security reason. This
is the most recent example that I can find, but there may have
been others since. For example, just over a week ago on 22 October,
six kilograms of weapon grade TNT was discovered at the Karni
crossing—
Q135 Richard Burden: Going which
way?
Mr Grunwald: It was going from
Gaza into Israel. That was concealed in a medical container used
to transfer goods from Gaza into Israel. I hope the concern about
that will be evident. If these crossings are being used to take
materials into Israel which can be used for terror attacks within
Israel on Israeli citizens, I think everyone will understand that.
Equally, there must be concerns about what is being taken out
from Israel into Gaza, whether it is people who are being taken
through, whether it is weapons that may have been used that have
been taken up, one does not know. I hope it will be obvious that
this is a two-way process with the concerns being there not only
for what is going into Israel from Gaza but also from what is
coming out of Israel back into Gaza.
Q136 Richard Burden: That is what
I do not understand. What is the problem? Israel is on one side
of that border and Gaza is on the other side of the border. If
you have concerns for the security of Israel in that case of explosives
being discovered and being transported into Israel, are you suggesting
that there is a real risk of explosives going into Gaza from Israel?
Mr Grunwald: There may be a risk
of people being transported across the border from Israel into
Gaza.
Q137 Richard Burden: What sort of
people from Israel?
Mr Grunwald: People who may have
been involved in terrorist attacks or attempted terrorist attacks
inside Israel. There have to be checks both ways.
Q138 Richard Burden: We are not talking
about whether there are checks. We are talking about whether it
is closed.
Mr Grunwald: The closures will
depend on either information that has been received or on something
actually being found.
Q139 Richard Burden: Karni has been
closed for 42% of the time. You said you did not disagree with
what Mr Bell said on that. That is an awful lot of checks, is
it not?
Mr Grunwald: Yes, it is an awful
lot of checks, but the security situation inside Israel is one
which is of enormous concern to the Israeli Government and authorities.
3 See Ev 90 Back
4
Ev 89 Back
5
Ev 91 Back
| 
