Global Security: Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories - Foreign Affairs Committee Contents


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 95-99)

BILL RAMMELL MP AND DR JOHN JENKINS

4 MARCH 2009

  Q95 Chairman: Minister, thank you for joining us today. I am glad to see Dr Jenkins with you. As you know, the Foreign Secretary wrote to our Chairman, Mr Gapes, this morning advising us of a significant change in the Government's policy on engaging with Hezbollah. You may recall the Committee's report of some 18 months ago on global security in the Middle East. We said at paragraph 120:[1] "We recommend that the Government should engage directly with moderate Hezbollah Parliamentarians. The Government should continue to refuse to engage with the military wing of Hezbollah." We are pleased that the Government, having initially rejected our recommendation, have changed their policy in line with the Committee's recommendation. What brought about that change of policy?

  Bill Rammell: It was clearly your recommendation. There has been an ongoing debate. Your recommendation was part of that. We have reconsidered the position in the light of more positive developments in Lebanon, such as the formation of the National Unity Government, in which Hezbollah is participating. For that reason, we have explored establishing contacts. There was a first meeting, of which you may be aware, where a Conservative delegation of MPs and peers visited the Foreign Affairs Committee within the Lebanese Parliament. One Hezbollah Member was present for that discussion. We will seek further discussions. Our overriding objective within that is to press Hezbollah to play a more constructive role politically and move away from violence. We keep those things under review, we consider the circumstances and what is happening on the ground and we listen to all sorts of voices, including yours.

  Q96  Chairman: We hope that that change of policy bears fruit. To extend that theme, you may recall that the Committee also recommended that it would be wise of the Government to consider opening up dialogue with those elements of Hamas that are prepared to renounce violence and recognise the state of Israel. Do you see the change of policy towards Hezbollah being followed in the near future by an equivalent change of policy towards Hamas?

  Bill Rammell: No, I do not think that there is an analogy. There are very clear Quartet principles that we have urged Hamas to sign up to on recognising Israel's right to exist and rejecting violence, as well as previous Palestinian commitments. That does not mean that dialogue, albeit indirect, is not taking place. The Arab League, as you know, has mandated Egypt to talk directly to Hamas. Particularly at this sensitive juncture, where the debate is taking place, led and facilitated by Egypt, about Palestinian recognition, the clear view from the Egyptians on behalf of the Arab League is that that dialogue should take place through Egypt and not through other parties. I think that that is right, but I also think that it is right—this is what the Government and I want—to get to a position where we can engage directly with Hamas. However, for that to happen, there must be substantive movement towards the Quartet principles.

  Chairman: We shall move on to the international response to the violence in Gaza in recent weeks. Sir Menzies Campbell.

  Q97 Sir Menzies Campbell: Before we come to that, Minister, notwithstanding your answer of a moment ago, do I take it that the Government still accept that there is no prospect of any meaningful settlement that does not have within it provisions to which Hamas can subscribe?

  Bill Rammell: We want Palestinian reconciliation, and we want all parties within the Palestinian firmament to sign up to the principles of a peaceful settlement and to the Middle East peace solution. Yes, I want every party to be able to do so, but we are not going to get the peaceful outcome that is so desperately desired by so many people unless there is that commitment to peace, to a two-state solution and to a recognition of the right of the state of Israel to exist alongside a Palestinian state.

  Q98 Sir Menzies Campbell: Thank you. May I ask you to consider the relationship, if any, between the events of 2006 in Lebanon and Israel's decision to take military action in Gaza in December 2008? You will recall that there was considerable controversy about the attitude of the British Government at the time, in particular, the steadfast refusal of the then Prime Minister to accede to calls for an immediate ceasefire. You will also be aware that some commentators believe that the initial response, particularly of the European Union, to Israel's military action was somewhat disjointed. Do you subscribe to the view that because of the initial attitude in relation to the action towards Lebanon in 2006, Israel was encouraged to take the action that it did in relation to Gaza, on the assumption that it was likely to be met by a similarly disjointed response?

  Bill Rammell: No, I do not think that that is the case. People may have a view about the stance that we or our European partners took towards the events in Lebanon in 2006, but this is not Lebanon 2006. Our actions and those of the European Union have not been the same. There was speculation in the run-up to Christmas about Israeli intentions and actions. We and other partners in Europe made it very clear that we were opposed to military action. The Foreign Secretary spoke to the Israeli Defence Minister just before Christmas and made our view clear. He said that we were not in favour of military action for a variety of reasons, one of which was that it risked reinforcing the position of Hamas. You cannot extrapolate whatever view people took from what happened in Lebanon 2006, and say that that is the reason why the Israelis took the action that they did just after Christmas.

  Q99 Sir Menzies Campbell: If the Israelis did not extract anything from their experience in Lebanon, did the British Government extract anything? Should distinctions be drawn from the way in which this Government under the present Prime Minister responded, compared with the response of this Government under the previous Prime Minister?

  Bill Rammell: If you are serious about government and foreign affairs, you always learn from experience.



1   Eighth Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2006-07, Global Security: The Middle East, HC 363 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 26 July 2009