Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-171)
MR WILLIAM
BELL, MR
HENRY GRUNWALD
QC, DR FLORESCA
KARANASOU AND
MR ADAM
LEACH
31 OCTOBER 2006
Q160 John Barrett: I think we should
focus on the economic impact of the Separation Barrier. The Quaker
Peace and Social Witness evidence states quite graphically how
people have been separated from their land, their olive trees,
their citrus trees, their greenhouses and their water supplies.
I would have to say, if anybody separated me from my land, my
work, my income and my water it may stop me attacking them immediately,
but I would have to say the tension would increase; and the long-term
impact of that is quite significant. Not only that, the Israeli
Government were offering desalination plants, on the one hand,
and annexing water on the other hand. What I would like to look
at is that long-term economic impact. Where communities have been
separated from their income, their water supplies and a whole
range of their matters of everyday life, how can those people
develop economically, and how can outside agencies have an impact
while that barrier is such a permanent fixture? Floresca, your
evidence, in the first place, gave the example of the village
of Jayyous, where it was quite specific about what was happening.
This is happening elsewhere, and with the barrier in place and
the permanence of that barrier how can people then move on to
economic development—and economic development was mentioned
by Adam? With that barrier in place in more ways than one, how
can that development take place?
Dr Karanasou: With enormous difficulty.
I cannot see how development aid could help there. I am not aware
of Jayyous receiving any development aid directly. We are aware
of great impoverishment because of its proximity to Israel. There
was a time when some agricultural produce could be sold in Israel—that
stopped being the case several years ago and now it cannot even
be sold within the West Bank. It is a constant encroachment on
the marketability of the products, as well as losing land and
having less land to cultivate and less water, so it is not viable.
I just wanted to quote here the President of the Supreme Court,
Aharon Barak, who is quoted in the B'Tselem report, Under the
Guise of Security, which looks at the barrier and particularly
looks at the case of Jayyous because of the expansion of the Israeli
settlement Zufin on the seam zone, which is land between the Green
Line and the barrier. He is quoted in the report as saying, "the
route of the separation fence severely violates their right of
property and their freedom of movement. Their livelihood is severely
impaired". Everybody acknowledges it is very, very difficult.
Q161 John Barrett: Markets have been
destroyed; and, along with food and water, the basics of life
are inaccessible for many. Is that the case?
Dr Karanasou: There is one well
left at Jayyous to use, and for their water needs they have to
buy water from outside. Their other wells are on the other side
of the barrier and they can only use the water from them when
they can get access to the land to be cultivated.
Q162 Chairman: Can I ask a naive
question. Before the barrier was built were most of the communities
reasonably self-sufficient in terms of their own food and survival?
If they are no longer self-sufficient, how dependent are they
on food aid?
Mr Bell: In general, of the Palestinian
population 51% are reliant on the World Food Programme for food
aid, so more than half the population in a country which, as you
say, should be able to provide for itself. Can I just add to Floresca's
point about the effects of the wall/barrier/fence—it is
many things in different places but its effect is the same, or
least in some places has a more sinister impact than others. One
of the impacts, from villages I have visited up and down where
it has severely affected the access of those villages (and primarily
these are farmers and therefore are reliant on the land around
them) has been to restrict (at best restrict) and at times frustrate
completely their access to that land to actually cultivate it,
thereby taking away from them their means of livelihood. For some
of those villages a very real conversation (and many may think
a desperately sad conversation) is, "Should we stay or should
we go?" For a number of reasons, especially in the Qalqilya
region—and I concur with what Mr Grunwald said—there
have been some links made to try and overcome some of the obstacles
that the barrier presents; it is what infamously Aariel Sharon
referred to as "transportation contiguity", which are
tunnels under roads which, yes, they will create a link between
villages and towns that have been cut off. For those where that
link is not enough, ie, yes, it is a link between two communities
but it is not a link to the land, the question has to be: "How
much longer can we actually stay here?" Any development aid
that you are talking about would almost need to be talked about
in terms of literally cash injections to help people stay where
they are, but not in terms of increasing productivity.
Mr Leach: I wanted to add another
point about the importance of recognising and responding to something
you said about being cut off from water. That really is a temporal
issue. That is an immediate issue. Human beings cannot for more
than three days be without water. On 12 September this year, for
instance, settlers attempted to stop an Oxfam water truck entering
Suseya village near Hebron by covering the road with metal spikes.
These savage interferences with people's rights to water I think
do demand urgent attention. To answer your question, I think it
is very difficult to see how long-term development can happen.
Q163 John Battle: If I could return
to the high level of bombings and killings and I want to focus
on the Quaker Peace and Social Witness evidence because, as I
understand it, you have got observers at key flashpoints around
the place in the West Bank. You say in your evidence that not
only have your observers been attacked by settlers, you also say
that Palestinians have been on the receiving end of violent attacks
by Israeli settlers. You went on to say that reports have been
investigated. I wonder if you could say a bit more about that.
I know more of the work, for example, in Latin American countries
and the Peace Brigades who push very hard to protect communities
from violence and insist on basic human rights and that there
is not impunity. Could you say a little bit more about that and
perhaps give us some context of how widespread that violence is;
how many observers you have; and, perhaps linking into Adam's
point, how destructive is it to people's ability to simply live?
Dr Karanasou: At any one time
the programme has between 15 and 30 people on the ground, and
they are spread around five different locations. All of these
locations are in the West Bank and the team that is based in Jerusalem
is primarily focussed on supporting Israeli peace groups. This
is a small presence and there are probably another 30 or 40 people
doing similar work from other organisations. It is a very small
presence nonetheless, which is why we have been advocating for
inter-governmental bodies to take over the role of providing protection
to civilians and human rights observation, which is reported in
Early Day Motion 596, which some of you on this Committee have
signed, and which over 160 MPs have now signed. In our evidence
we talk quite specifically about Yanoun. It is a tiny village,
broken up into two parts—upper and lower Yanoun—and
about 100 people live there. Since 2002 Yanoun has had a number
of incidents of attacks and harassment from hard-line Israeli
settlers who live in an outpost very near Yanoun, which is part
of the Itamar settlement. In the autumn of 2002, while Palestinians
of Yanoun were harvesting, a man was killed by settlers. To our
knowledge there has not been any prosecution for that. There has
not been any prosecution for any of the other attacks, except
for one case that went forward over one attack against two Palestinians.
In the end, several months ago the case was thrown out of court
because there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute the man.
This is what we mean about impunity.
Q164 John Battle: Could you give
us an example? How widespread would your evidence say that the
problem is? Is it just isolated incidents in certain intense places,
or is it quite widespread across the West Bank with settlers,
the impact of settler communities?
Dr Karanasou: We think it is quite
widespread. I am not aware of cases in the West Bank where there
have been prosecutions and successful ones. Certainly all the
attacks that we are aware of having taken place against international
observers in Hebron have not been followed through, and there
have been no prosecutions, even when some evidence has been provided,
such as photographs. We, and the World Council of Churches who
are involved in the international coordination of a programme,
wrote to the Israeli authorities about these attacks but we never
actually received a reply. Perhaps organisations like Amnesty
International might be able to give this overview much more accurately
than I can.
Chairman: Thank you. The other issue
with settlers is that they are producing products which are going
through Palestinian territories. Joan Ruddock has some questions.
Q165 Joan Ruddock: These products
are marketed under the Association Agreement between Israel and
the EU which, of course, gives duty preferences to Israeli products.
I think it is Christian Aid who are saying that in a sense the
UK and EU are complicit in promoting the marketing of these goods
as "Made in Israel", when effectively they are made
in illegal settlements; and that this is an arrangement of benefit
to Israel which will not be justified—that is the position
of Christian Aid. I just wonder what measures you think that the
EU should take to prevent products originating in settlements
being designated as "Made in Israel". We do know there
is now a postcode addition that is recent, but as far as consumers
are concerned "Made in Israel" is "Made in Israel".
Mr Bell: If I could preface the
answer with why it is that we see this as an important issue to
address. It is not "let's find another way to hamper Israel";
it is for a very, very critical reason, and it is a critical reason
for this Government and other governments that have a relationship
with both communities, and it is one of objectivity. If you have
a situation where your aid-giving arm of government determines
that one of the reasons you actually need to give aid is as a
result of an occupation and all that goes with that (and we do
not need to go into it here—the settlement infrastructure),
if that is one of the causes—not the only cause but one
of the causes that has necessitated the need for aid to Palestinian
communities—it seems ironic, if not disingenuous, that another
arm of government, in this case the Department of Trade and Industry
and through our relationship with the European Union, is in a
sense rewarding those settlement communities by allowing them
to trade, as Ms Ruddock says, as part of Israel, and therefore
benefiting from a tariff-free trade status. I accept that there
was an agreement made by the current Prime Minister in a previous
position on that agreement which did, as correctly stated, enforce
that Israel include a postcode which therefore relies on customs
officers knowing where all the postcodes refer to in Israel and
the Occupied Territories. As yet I am unaware that the mechanism
has actually been tested to see how affective it has actually
been in preventing what the EU acknowledges is, an illegal use
of the Association Agreement. For us it is about demonstrating
joined-up government. It is about demonstrating objectivity—that
as an outside actor we will deal with both parties in order to
further the interests of peace, which will be of interest to both
parties. We will deal with both parties objectively without partiality.
We are not going to create a moral equivalent of actions by either
party; but we will deal with actions by both parties which are
detrimental to peace as we find them and as they affect any progress
towards peace. That is the reason why I know Christian Aid has
addressed this issue. I hope that goes some way to answering your
question.
Q166 Joan Ruddock: If I could just
follow up and ask you, to what extent do you think that the Association
Agreement between the EU and Israel has any benefit to Palestinians?
Mr Bell: That is a difficult one
to measure. Again, let me preface the answer: the EU has attempted
to develop a similar type of relationship. As part of the Barcelona
Process of developing relations between all of the Mediterranean
rim countries and the European Union, in order to promote trade
but also positive relationships between the regions, it has also
attempted to do that with the PLO as a representative of the Palestinian
people. In reality that agreement has not taken effect, partly
because of the difficulty of Palestinians actually reaching any
markets both internal and external. In terms of what impact Israel's
EU agreement has had on Palestinians, it is as much about what
it demonstrates in terms of political intent, as it does in terms
of the impact it has on them economically. It could be argued
that there would be some benefits if, for example, companies such
as Agrexco bought Palestinian products from the Occupied Territories
and then sold them on. That could be seen as positive, but it
also means that Palestinians are completely reliant on a middleman,
or Israel for its access to the outside world, which I do not
think is particularly helpful for the development of its own independent
economy.
Q167 Chairman: You say the agreement
with the Occupied Territories is not functioning?
Mr Bell: It is de facto
effectively suspended because the Palestinians have so little
trade with Europe—it is negligible.
Q168 Joan Ruddock: We were told by
our Government that both agreements, the EU agreement with Israel
and the agreement with Palestine, were functioning, but you are
quite clear that the Palestinian one is not? It is in place but
nothing happens?
Mr Bell: It is in place. There
has not been a ruling which says, "Right, this agreement
is suspended"; so, in that sense, yes, it is still working.
Is it working in reality which I think is a more important question
in theory. No, it is not.
Mr Leach: The Palestinians are
obliged to rely on Israeli intermediaries to transport their goods
and, therefore, do not pay purchase taxes and customs to the Palestinian
authority, which we have been told creates further losses to the
economy of 3% of GDP a year.
Q169 Chairman: On another point of
clarification, am I right in saying that products produced by
Israeli settlers in the West Bank can be accepted under the EU
agreement as a product of Israel simply because of the postcode,
which the average consumer may or may not be interested in? Because
if that is the case, is the EU not complicit really in legitimising
settlers?
Mr Bell: It is certainly problematic,
yes. It is worth bearing in mind, we have all been to Tescos and
Sainsburys and bought our herbs, spices and what-have-you and
seen "Made in Israel"; we have no way of knowing which
part of Israel that is, and we would not expect to. We would not
expect to see "Made in Gambia GU" or whatever—it
would not make sense. The postcodes are there for the benefit
of customs in order to determine where those products have come
from. As I said earlier, that has not been tested yet in terms
of whether or not it is having an impact.
Mr Grunwald It really does seem
that these last exchanges show just how vital it is that if there
is to be any improvement on any of the issues we have discussed
today there has to be a political process. A political process
depends on there being two sides who can and are prepared to speak
to each other. Anything that this Committee can do to ensure that
that situation is alleviated can only be to the good; because
at the moment the Israelis really have no-one to talk to and that
has to change; and, when it does, the situation of the Palestinians
itself will undoubtedly improve.
Q170 Chairman: That is a helpful
intervention I think which perhaps leads us to the final point.
I think you said yourself, Mr Grunwald, that everybody wants a
two-state solution. We seem to be further away from that than
we have been for a long time. I think the Prime Minister in evidence
before the Liaison Committee of the House, when he was being asked
about the Middle East and in a reference to Northern Ireland,
said a certain irony is that actually there is a solution to the
Middle East problem and there is not one for Ireland—not
a recognised one; yet there is a peace process in Ireland but
not in the Middle East. The real question is: what are the prospects
in this situation for making progress for a two-state solution?
On the one hand Israel will say, "Our security is paramount",
but the counter to that is you cannot have security just by building
fences—there has to be some degree of political agreement
and, in that context, people have to be able to make a living.
What are the prospects of agreeing, first of all, the territory
of the two states, or making any progress at all? Do you have
any views?
Mr Leach: My response to the Committee
would be, I think, that the assumption behind that question needs
to be re-evaluated. I am not sure what the point of asking us
as representatives of international organisations and British
agencies is. In answer to that question, what I would say is:
what are the necessary steps and processes that need to be put
in place? I think we would advocate as Oslo 3. First, the resumption
of aid to Palestinian institutions which are mandated to deliver
assistance to ordinary people, and not their undermining and,
therefore, the undermining of essential services. That is a necessary
step but it is not the end goal. The second is a reappraisal of
this situation, not just in terms of conflict between the Palestinians
and Israelis but also in terms of economic justice, or rather
injustice; and that there is a need for policies that I have hinted
at, and we have hinted at in our submission. The third is about
an international conference, not as a displacement activity but
as a necessary expression of the will of the international community,
given that they have now acted as a player in this conflict by
suspending aid, but to explore real measures, insecurity, legality
and consistency of application of standards, so that final status
issues can be tackled. Everybody knows what the issues are that
must be tackled ultimately. I would say those three clear measures
are urgent and necessary.
Q171 Chairman: I think this question
is directed to some extent at Mr Bell because you did say in your
evidence that the obstacle to a two-state solution was the determinant
that security had to take precedence over a political solution.
I do not think anybody is denying the need for security, and Israel's
understanding of that, but I think some of us question whether
what tends to happen is, "Our security is paramount, we therefore
cannot make progress with political discussion".
Mr Bell: Firstly, I would like
to associate very closely with the sentiments just expressed by
Mr Grunwald where he said that actually this does demonstrate
more than anything else that we need to get a political dialogue
which will find a solution to this issue that addresses the needs
of all. What do I mean by that? This is not an endorsement or
anything else, so please do not take it as such, but let us have
a quick look at the Roadmap which has not been mentioned. Within
the Roadmap there is an important word which, thus far, has not
been defined. I think that has been one of the reasons why we
have encountered some of the problems, that there is a viable
Palestinian state. I would expect that, in order to take an advanced
peace process forward, we need to be very clear what it is that
we mean by "a viable Palestinian state", as much as
we also need to be very clear what we mean by "a viable Israeli
state". I do not think it is fair to talk about one state
being viable and not addressing the viability of the other. Both
states need to be viable. They need to be politically viable as
well as economically viable and that, for Christian Aid, is one
of the key questions that has evaded us so far in terms of the
international community—genuinely finding a peaceful outcome
to this tragic conflict.
Chairman: I think it is fair enough,
Mr Leach. We do not expect you to have the answers, but our concern
obviously is how we alleviate poverty, how we make progress and
also whether it is a bottomless pit of diverting money which could
be dealt with properly elsewhere, but you cannot escape this and
you are right to remind us of that, Mr Grunwald. Can I thank you
all. We obviously are going to have an interesting week next week
and I think the evidence you have given us, both in writing and
here, and from our Government officials, is all helping us to,
hopefully, ask some of the right questions on the ground and produce
a report which at least will have some constructive suggestions
to be made; although we are in the rather depressing situation
that it is worse than when we reported three years ago. Thank
you all very much indeed.
|
