Examination of Witness (Questions 120-139)
RT HON
TONY BLAIR
5 JUNE 2008
Q120 Sir Robert Smith: Although the
peace process is not part of your remit you have links to those
involved in the peace process?
Mr Blair: Yes, and I discuss it
with them the whole time. That is not to say I am handling it
because I am not; do not misunderstand me. Obviously if I am seeing
the Israeli Prime Minister and Foreign Minister and Defence Minister
and the Palestinian President and Prime Minister and so on, you
do not have a conversation where some things are excluded from
it. In any event, as I think I said to people right at the outset
when I was appointed, if I have to start going through my terms
of reference like a contract and say I can do this and I cannot
do that, it probably means that something has gone amiss.
Q121 Mr Singh: A couple of weeks
ago you co-hosted the Palestinian Investment Conference which
I believe was very well attended by over 2,000 people. Given that
attendance, what were the actual outcomes of that conference?
Mr Blair: There were a series
of investment projects announced: housing and others as well.
It led on from the package that we agreed with the Israelis which
include things like a new mobile telephony licence, industrial
parks and so on. The most important thing about the Palestinian
Investment Conference was that it happened, that people came to
it and that the Israelis facilitated it. What I have been trying
to say is how we worked, because we were intimately connected
with that conference, in setting that up and implementing it is
not a bad lesson in how the thing could work if people had the
right attitude and goodwill. People came and it was a very well
attended conference. Take Bethlehem, for example. I went to stay
in Bethlehem late last year and then we made an arrangement with
the Israelis somewhat to ease the restrictions in Bethlehem. The
tourist and hotel occupancy rates in Bethlehem are now back up
to where they were pre Intifada. That is just a small thing which
has happened that shows you what could happen if the right attitude
and the right goodwill was there, and that has impact on the local
economy. That investment conference, where they expected to get
several hundred people and got 2,000 people from right around
the Gulf region, was a big thing for the Palestinians. Some projects
were announced at the conference and it will lead to others.
Q122 Mr Singh: The proof of the pudding
is in the eating. What percentage of the projects which were on
the table received a firm financial commitment?
Mr Blair: For those projects that
were announced at the conference, there was firm money put there.
For example, one of the things I was involved in just a few weeks
back was putting together the mortgage facility for this housing
finance idea which is to offer support for mortgages so that there
can be low cost and affordable housing for Palestinians. Our Department
for International Development played a very helpful role in that
and were a major part of putting that together. That is a $500
million facility which is now there and will probably bring in
about $1.5 billion worth of housing investment.
Q123 Mr Singh: On mortgages, could
you do the same for the UK?
Mr Blair: That is definitely not
my remit!
Q124 Mr Singh: You mentioned a number
of projects which received firm financial commitments. Were any
of those commitments for the region of Gaza?
Mr Blair: In respect of the package
we put together with the Israelis, some were infrastructure projects
for Gaza. There is the North Gaza Sewage Treatment Works which
we have clearance for now. The first phase of that will be completed
and the second phase we can put under way now, but it has been
incredibly difficult. There is no point disputing the fact that
it is very difficult to get things into Gaza at the moment. There
is a massive amount we could do in Gaza. If you have a ceasefire,
if the crossings started to re-open, if you got some normality
back, there is a huge amount of potential there. The other thing
that is very frustrating and very sad is the Palestinian private
sector. Obviously Gaza has suffered enormously and the West Bank
has had its difficulties but these are good business people. They
are creative, intelligent, able people who are prepared to put
real money in, and I think the outside international community
is prepared to help them, but they need the situation to ease.
One thing that I think is absolutely vital is on the West Bank
at least we show what progress there can be if there is a different
atmosphere.
Q125 Mr Singh: Do not Hamas see the
need for development in Gaza to benefit their own people?
Mr Blair: They do but it is at
one level. They have a strong ideology, there is no point in getting
away from it, and it is one of the complicating factors.
Q126 Mr Singh: Prospects in Gaza
for economic development are very dismal at the moment.
Mr Blair: They are dismal until
you get a ceasefire and some normality and calm. If you get some
normality and calm, everything becomes possible. For example,
if you go back to the Irish situation for a moment, and there
are real parallels there, if there had not been a ceasefire and
there had not been an agreement that this thing was to be pursued
essentially through peaceful means, even with the fact there were
still acts of violence, if you had not that basic agreement there
and created the space within which the politics, the economics
and the social development can work you would never have got a
peace deal. That is the problem: whatever criticisms can be made
of Israeli policy, and I share the criticism in terms of getting
more things in, humanitarian aid, the students, things that Richard
was talking about, nonetheless the fact is Hamas are using the
situation in Gaza to put pressure on the Israeli government and
to provoke the Israeli government. It is not an easy situation
either way around. It is important to put both sides of the argument
down because otherwise one is not being fair to the situation.
Q127 Chairman: Can I put a comment
we had from John Ging about Hamas's involvement in Gaza? We asked
him what co-operation or what engagement they had with Hamas and
he said "The de facto reality here is that Hamas are in control
of the security situation in Gaza. Therefore, it is their responsibility
as long as they chose to be the de facto power here to ensure
an environment where the humanitarian agencies can freely operate
and in the case of ourselves"—that is UNRWA—"they
are discharging that responsibility." Could the same be said
of the Israeli government?
Mr Blair: Again, if you ended
up in a situation where there was a ceasefire there would be absolutely
no reason why you should not then be reopening the crossings and
allowing the goods and services to come in, and indeed the people
and goods to come out. As I say, at the moment some of those attacks
are happening on Israelis at the crossings. I have discussed this
at length with John as well, as I was indicating earlier, and
people like him feel the same frustration. You cannot agree with
the effect the blockade has on the people of Gaza but you cannot
agree either with the way Hamas operates there. It is a deeply
frustrating situation. At the moment there is a discussion specifically
around the concept of a ceasefire and building out of this situation
which has been conducted by the Egyptians. For these purposes,
if you like, there is not a failure of communication or misunderstanding
as to what is being asked. The Egyptians, who are well schooled
in doing this type of thing, are going between the two sides and
talking to both of them and actually talking to the other groups
as well in Gaza.
Q128 John Bercow: You are keen to
combine large-scale investment and enhanced security with the
proposed industrial park in Jenin, potentially, I suppose, acting
as a trail-blazer for this purpose. Can you tell us, what is the
timescale envisaged for that particular industrial park?
Mr Blair: In Jenin there are a
whole series of small-scale projects that we are getting underway
now and then there is one large-scale project, which is the industrial
park around the Jalameh crossing. There is basically an agreement
for this now. The German Government is providing the money for
the infrastructure. I was up at the crossing just a few weeks
back. I think they think this can be got underway very quickly,
within months, and the interesting thing in this—it gives
you a slightly different picture of the situation and what is
possible—is that when I then crossed into the village on
the Israeli side, where you have got Israelis and Arabs living
in the same village, you have got an Israeli mayor, an Arab deputy
mayor, and I conducted the conversation with the Israeli mayor
with the interpretation being done in Hebrew by the Arab deputy.
Here is a situation where, basically, they live completely peacefully
with each other. They both support this industrial park at Jalameh.
The actual border has been open more so that Arab Israelis can
go into Jenin, and this is going to make a difference in Jenin.
The Jalameh industrial park could be underway within months.
Q129 John Bercow: I think we all
want to be optimistic about it, and it might well be justified
to be, and what you have just said is potentially quite encouraging,
but I think we could not allow a discussion on this point to conclude
without some reference to the fact there are sceptics, and there
are sceptics numbered amongst those who have already given evidence
to us, to whose scepticism and doubts I would be pleased to hear
your response. Specifically, the Portland Trust has said these
projects of themselves, though potentially valuable, are not novel;
there is some track record of such initiatives being tried and
they have tended to founder on precisely the issue of strategic
checkpoints, roadblocks, et cetera. I note what you have just
said about the border, but with reference to the four strategic
checkpoints in particular, do you detect, and can you report to
us, progress in removing them on a permanent basis?
Mr Blair: First of all, the sceptics
outnumber the optimists very considerably in this situation, as
I have discovered. On the other hand, to be blunt about it, there
is not much point in just sitting and moaning about the situation;
we have got to try and change it. We have actually chosen the
industrial parks carefully in order to minimise the potential
problems around either checkpoints or security. So at Jalame there
is not really a problem, at Tarqumiya, down in the south near
Hebron, where we are still debating the precise site, but that
will be situated in or around the border there, the Jericho agro-industrial
park, I think, once the feasibility study is completed, should
go ahead and actually some of the housing projects that Portland
Trust and others are working on, there is now no reason why they
should not go ahead and they can go ahead. The four checkpoints
that we have asked the Israelis to remove, one of them has been
removed—that is the Kvasim one which is down in the south
near Hebron. There are another three that we wish then to remove
over the coming period of time, and that they have agreed, in
principle, to do. One of those, Shave Shomevron, is around the
Jenin area and will actually allow greater access between Jenin
and down into Nablus. There is then the container one which is
around Bethlehem and there is the Halhul Bridge one, which is
just north of Hebron, and here is the point about the checkpoints
and roadblocks. People talk about over 600 of them, and so on,
and it is true, there are very significant numbers, but actually
if you look at any sensible map of where these checkpoints are,
the real problem for the Palestinians is not so much the checkpoints
that stop them getting access into Israel, the real problem is
those which block the arterial routes going down from the north
to the south and out to the east, out towards Jordan. What we
are concentrating on—and there are actually not large numbers
of those very strategic checkpoints and roadblocks, probably a
score of them—is progressively to remove those. We have
asked for four to be removed. We have actually wanted another
six or seven upgraded, because some of it is that people just
wait far too long. Ultimately, that is not a substitute for removing
them, and they have got to be removed, do not misunderstand me,
but the reality is that, at least for the time that they will
remain. If the access was improved, that would make a big difference.
If you like, the four that we have identified to be removed go
more or less north to south, and if they were removed it would
shorten significantly, dramatically actually, the time it takes
to get from north to south and, therefore, that eases business,
it eases restrictions on ordinary Palestinian people.
Q130 John Bercow: Are guarantees
being offered to reassure investors specifically on the subject
of the security and speed of access to, and egress from, those
industrial parks for the purposes of delivering supplies?
Mr Blair: Yes, absolutely, and
that is the critical thing. For example, up in Jalameh, there
is no real security problem in and around where the industrial
site is. Obviously they can go straight into Israel and out to
the port or, alternatively, they can go down towards the Allenby
Bridge and out the Jordan way. In the Jenin area, which I know
we will come to in a moment, the whole purpose is that the Palestinians
provide their own security capability and gradually over time
then they take charge of that chunk of territory, and the actual
Jenin project, the Jenin area that we are talking about, is an
area in geographical terms slightly bigger than Gaza, so it is
not an insignificant geographical space.
Q131 Richard Burden: You have emphasised,
on a number of occasions, the importance of maintaining and building
on relations with both sides—that if both sides do not trust
you it is difficult to move forward—but if I have understood
you right, you have also indicated that there are some bottom
lines that are important. A bottom line that you have particularly
emphasised to the Palestinians has been the importance of maintaining,
in practice, the rule of law. Would that be reasonable?
Mr Blair: Yes, absolutely.
Q132 Richard Burden: Does it apply
to both sides as a bottom line?
Mr Blair: Yes, it does. I have
agreed a package with the Palestinians and with the Israelis.
The one on security, we will probably go through a lot of the
detail of that and how it is going to be properly funded over
the timetable at the Berlin Conference at the end of this month,
but the Israelis and I have agreed a package of measures. If that
package is implemented over the next few months, that will make
a significant difference on the ground. If it is not implemented,
then that will be a breach of the undertakings that were given.
Q133 Richard Burden: Perhaps we can
come on in a minute to talk about the package, but I am just trying
to establish the bottom lines on which the packages are built.
As far as the Palestinians are concerned, you said that the rule
of law, both domestic and, I guess, international, is a bottom
line. For example, we tell Hamas the bottom line is, "You
should not fire rockets over the border at someone else's people".
In relation to Hamas it even stops a discussion with them, let
alone an agreement with them, unless they abide by international
law. My question is, does that apply as a bottom line to the Israelis
as well as to the Palestinians?
Mr Blair: The Israelis should
abide by the law too, of course.
Q134 Richard Burden: Is the occupation
legal or illegal?
Mr Blair: The problem with looking
at it in that way is here is the difficulty the Israelis have,
and it is important to realise this. We can talk about the illegality
of the occupation, and so on and so forth, but we do not actually
get to where the hard politics of this is. Everybody wants to
see the occupation lifted. It has got to happen. However, and
this is the brutal reality from the Israeli point of view, no
Israeli politician is going to depart from this view whoever,
in any subsequent election, is elected Israeli Prime Minister
unless it is clear that on the West Bank there will be the rule
of law by a Palestinian Authority with whom they have got an agreement
for peace. One of the things about this situation which if we
are going to solve it we have got to do, is to recognise this
problem. Again, as I say, I do not sit here as the person speaking
for the Israelis, but it is important to recognise it from their
point of view. They think they got out of Gaza, they took their
7,000 settlers with them and they let the Palestinians run it,
and then they think they get a whole lot of attacks. We can all
debate the unilateral nature of that and why it was not done properly,
and so on and so forth, but that is their mindset on that. When
it comes to the West Bank, therefore, they need to know that if
the IDF[2]
get out of the West Bank you do not have armed militias going
into it or taking control of it. That is why building Palestinian
security capability properly is absolutely central, that is why
Jenin is important, because, for the first time, we are doing
this in a different way; there are then Palestinian forces being
trained in a different way in Jordan that are going to be forces
capable of exerting that rule of law, not in the situation where
people are engaged in ordinary criminality, but where people with
weapons try to challenge the legitimate authority of the Palestinian
state.
Q135 Richard Burden: I put that question
to you not to make an academic or debating point but to lead on
to some issues of practicality, the first of which would be that,
if there is going to be trust, then do you not feel that sometimes
on the Palestinian side there may be a perception of double standards.
It is not that practicality is not important on both sides, but
we seem to require adherence to international law as a bottom
line for the Palestinians, whereas with the Israelis it is a bottom
line that depends on the political situation at the time. Might
not that actually undermine confidence too? I suppose the second
thing is, if actually there are certain things going on in the
West Bank that are illegal under international law—settlement
building, the wall where it is built on Palestinian territory
rather than down the green line—and you are intending to
negotiate ways often around those problems, it could be said that
in some circumstances there is a balance to be struck. At what
point are you actually easing restrictions on the ground to enable
economic development, furthering the peace process and lifting
the weight of occupation on the Palestinians? But at what point
does that transfer through to a situation where the Palestinians
in Nablus, may have a road that can get them down to Ramallah—so
you can have some trade going on there and you have got the transport
continuity between areas—but if you have also still got
the settlements and you have still got the West Bank divided up
into different cantons and are you moving away from the idea of
a contiguous Palestinian state towards transportation continuity?
Is that a problem? Is it a problem for a villager who does not
live on an arterial route who still has to get through one of
those little checkpoints in order to get there?
Mr Blair: Yes.
Q136 Richard Burden: And if it is
a problem, what mechanism have you got for dealing with that and
assessing what you are doing?
Mr Blair: Yes, it is a problem.
Since I have tried to be fair to the Israeli side, let me be fair
to the Palestinian side. If Prime Minister Fayyad was sitting
here, and he is a totally good guy, a really sound person, someone
who wants a two-state solution, is as tough on terrorism as any
of us, he would say to you, "Look, the fact is the Israelis
could and should be doing much more", and I think it is necessary
for Israel to do more and to go further. And the answer to your
point is, yes, if all you do is some economic and social development
and it is not put alongside lifting the occupation and making
a political final settlement, the deals, with also the settlements
issue and the outposts, some of which are illegal under Israeli
law, never mind international law, of course, that will not work.
That is why I say you have got to integrate these things together.
You have got to have the politics, the security capability of
the Palestinians and what happens on the ground in an economic
and social sense moving in the same direction. But, no, of course,
what Palestinians feel is that there is a genuine double standard
on the part of the West. They feel that—there is no doubt
about that—but what I am trying to do is to say: how do
we work our way out of it, and where I think it is important to
try and change the reality on the ground is that that is the only
way you are going to get a political deal in the end. It is quite
a hard thing to say this, but I think it is my sense of the political
reality. Unless Israel is sure that a Palestinian state will be
a safe partner, it does not matter how long you sit in a room
looking at maps and negotiating, they will not agree it. On the
other hand, it is my actual genuine belief, and this is the importance
of building their capacity, their governance, their security capabilities,
as Prime Minister Fayyad is trying to do, if the Palestinians
do that, then my view is that the Israelis know that in the end,
for their own long-term security, a Palestinian state is the only
option. As I say to people, if the alternative to a two-state
solution is a one-state solution, then there is going to be a
hell of a fight.
Q137 Richard Burden: It has been
suggested that there should be a mechanism on a project-by-project
basis for just determining whether a project is taking things
forward or whether it is getting round international law. Some
kind of mechanism for assessment should be in place. Is there
one, would you consider one and, if so, who would do it?
Mr Blair: To be honest, I do not
really think that is where it is. I think the single thing that
people would ask me if I was in Palestine right now is: "That
package that you agreed with the Israelis sounds good. Is it going
to be done?" That is the only question they would ask. If
you are waiting two hours at a checkpoint every day, if you can
bring that down to 20 minutes, that makes a big difference to
their life; if you can remove it altogether, that is even better;
but we have got to proceed in a way that is geared to the reality.
I think for most people on the Palestinian side they are just
desperate to get the freedom back in their lives to start making
something for themselves and their families and, therefore, I
honestly think that the most sensible thing is not to introduce
a new mechanism, but the reason I negotiated this in such detail
with the Israelis over many weeks and really got down to the detail
of it is that it is now there on the table as the test of whether
things are going to happen or not.
Q138 Daniel Kawczynski: Mr Blair,
could I ask you about the Quartet's development proposals for
the Jordan Valley and, in particular, these agro-industrial zones.
What sort of standing do they have under international law?
Mr Blair: In what sense exactly?
Q139 Daniel Kawczynski: In the sense
that obviously this is a disputed area, a disputed territory,
and you are allowing Israeli firms to set up there. It could be
perceived that this is a way in which the Israelis are getting
a strangle-hold on the area and legitimising their presence there
by creating these industrial zones.
Mr Blair: The idea of an agro-industrial
corridor around Jericho is an idea that has been taken forward
by the Japanese Government. They have done a lot of work on this
and are prepared to put investment into it. The idea is primarily
how the Palestinians do this. The problem that we have negotiated
our way round, I think successfully now but time will tell, and
this is maybe what you mean by this, Daniel, it is in part going
to require a use of Area C. This is really important for the Palestinians,
and actually I think it is as important as anything else, and
it does not get the profile or the coverage that it should. Sixty
per cent of the West Bank is in Area C and Area C, under the Oslo
Accords, is under Israeli administrative control. The real problem
for the Palestinians is that, even though a large chunk of that
is along the Jordan Valley, which they should be allowed to develop,
they find it very hard to get a development there. So the idea
of the agro-industrial corridor around Jericho is so that Palestinians—there
will be some foreign investment but it will be mainly Palestinians—get
the chance to engage in what is very easy trade to do there, and
because it is quite close from Jericho to the Allenby Bridge,
we have now agreed with the Israelis a longer route, bidding for
the Allenby Bridge, then they can get the goods out via Jordan
and then they have not got the same problems in trying to ship
them back through the ports on the Israeli side. I do not think
there is really an issue about international law, but there is
this issue to do with Area C and whether some of this will be
sited in Area C and whether we can use part of Area C as an access,
because you will have to go across Area C to get the proper access
from Jericho to the Allenby Bridge.
2 Israeli Defence Force Back
|
