Conclusions and recommendations
The OPTs: the background
1. We
regret the recent suspension of peace talks between the Government
of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. We note with sadness
the terrible crimes recently committed by both Palestinian and
Israeli extremists. We understand the revulsion which many Israelis
feel for Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of the
Israeli state. We condemn the continuous rocket attacks on Israel
from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, which show the seriousness
of Israel's security concerns. Nevertheless, in the long run there
has to be agreement between Fatah and Hamas which should result
in peace talks between such a unified Palestinian government and
Israel. All parties to these peace talks, including Hamas, must
accept the Quartet's principles if there is to be a two-state
solution. Moreover, we believe that the reconciliation increases
the likelihood that Hamas will one day accept Israel's right to
exist. US Secretary of State John Kerry had shown extraordinary
leadership in bringing the parties to the table, and despite the
murders of late June and July we remain hopeful that the current
suspension will be temporary rather than permanent. (Paragraph
17)
2. The suspension
of the peace process should not lead to the suspension of discussions
to lift restrictions on economic development in the OPTs. These
cannot await a peace agreement; there has not been a final peace
settlement in over 40 years and there may not be one for many
years. The stalling of the peace process should not prevent the
UK from encouraging economic development in the OPTs and encouraging
the removal of those restrictions which are not justified on security
grounds. Indeed, we see it as in everyone's interest to increase
prosperity in the OPTs. (Paragraph 18)
Economic development in the OPTs
3. If
the OPTs are to enjoy a better future, promoting economic development
will be of the utmost importance. We strongly support DFID's recently-launched
Palestinian Market Development Programme (PMDP), but we also believe
that it could do more in this area. (Paragraph 22)
4. We recommend
that DFID launch a Private Sector Grant Facility (PSGF) and Development
Impact Bonds (DIBs) in the OPTs, as the Portland Trust recommended.
(Paragraph 22)
5. We note the huge
benefits which greater access to Area C would bring to the Palestinian
economy. (Paragraph 25)
6. While there are
disagreements about the extent of the difficulties faced by Palestinians
in obtaining construction permits, it is clear that the difficulties
have a major negative impact on the Palestinian economy, for example
on businesses seeking to expand. (Paragraph 34)
7. We recommend
that the UK press the Israeli authorities to grant significantly
more construction permits than they have thus far been willing
to do. (Paragraph 34)
8. The demolition
of many Palestinian structures is contrary to international law.
(Paragraph 35)
9. We recommend
that the UK seek to persuade the Israeli authorities to refrain
from such demolitions where the UK believes such structures are
justified. UK representatives should engage with Israeli officials
as soon as demolition orders are issued where the UK believes
these structures are justified. We also recommend that DFID scale
up the important work it is already doing to help Palestinians
to contest demolition orders in the courts.
(Paragraph 35)
10. Israelis have
justifiable concerns about the nature and objectives of Hamas
and its role in the PA government, but this should not prevent
the Government of Israel from taking forward actions that remove
obstacles to the development of Palestinian communities in Area
C; specifically the process of developing "Master Plans"
for communities in Area C should not be frozen as part of the
suspension of Israel's peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
(Paragraph 36)
11. Israeli settlements
in the OPTs are illegal under international law, and we consider
them to be unacceptable. The presence of the settlements, and
the consequent inability of Palestinians in Area C to control
their own resources, severely restrict the Palestinian economy.
We are extremely concerned about the potential for further settlement
expansion, especially around Jerusalem. Palestinians and some
Israelis and Israeli organisations we met believe that the international
community could exert its influence to restrict the expansion
of settlements if it were to take firmer measures to show its
condemnation of the settlements. (Paragraph 45)
12. The UK should
in concert with other European countries stress to the Israeli
authorities the unacceptability of the present situation. DFID
should also support the World Bank programme which is helping
the Palestinian Authority with land registration.
(Paragraph 45)
13. We welcome the
UK's decision to introduce labelling guidelines calling for products
made in Israeli settlements to be labelled as such: this allows
consumers to make an informed decision as to whether they wish
to purchase such products. We continue to support strong economic
ties between the UK and Israel. However, we consider that it is
very important to find out whether the introduction of labelling
guidelines for products made in Israeli settlements has been effective,
including whether they have been implemented by major retailers
and what effect they have had on the sales of products from the
settlements in the UK. We strongly recommend that the UK Government
undertake a review of the implementation and impact of the introduction
of labelling guidelines. We also recommend a review of the initial
impact of the introduction of the 2013 EU guidelines on the territorial
application of EU funding. (Paragraph 46)
14. We were shocked
by what we saw during our visit to Hebron especially the impact
of settlements, which are illegal under international law, on
the daily lives of Palestinians. The restrictions on Palestinians
have an entirely unacceptable impact on their livelihoods, economic
development and security. (Paragraph 48)
15. We recommend
that the Government put pressure on the Israeli authorities to
lift these restrictions as a matter of urgency.
(Paragraph 48)
16. We are concerned
that Breaking the Silence no longer receives Conflict Pool
funding. It is a unique and credible voice which speaks to Israelis
about what is done in their name. (Paragraph 49)
17. We recommend
that the Government reinstate funding for Breaking
the Silence. (Paragraph 49)
18. While we note
the comments of the Israeli Embassy, we are deeply concerned about
the continuing validity of the restrictions on Palestinians' access
to water in Area C under the interim Oslo II agreement. (Paragraph
50)
19. The UK should
use its influence to encourage Israel and Palestine to reach a
more satisfactory agreement about water resources, allowing Palestinians
equitable access to the water resources in the West Bank.
(Paragraph 50)
20. Despite the
Fatah-Hamas reconciliation, we recommend that the UK encourage
both sides to resume discussions in the Joint Technology Committee
(JTC), with a view to enabling users with Palestinian SIM cards
to access 3G services and to undertake to reach rapid agreement
on 4G services when they are technically available.
(Paragraph 51)
21. We fully appreciate
Israel's legitimate security concerns in respect of the Gaza strip,
especially in the light of recent events, including rocket attacks
on Israel from Gaza. However, we do not believe that all the present
arrangements, notably those which affect travel and trade are
proportionate. Some are contrary to Israel's obligations under
international law and also run the risk of making the security
situation worse. (Paragraph 60)
22. Given the current
situation in the Gaza Strip, it is understandable that the Government
of Israel is unwilling engage in discussions, but, nevertheless,
we recommend that the UK encourage the Israeli authorities to
lift those restrictions which are not justified by security needs.
The UK should also seek to persuade Israel to consider what steps
it might take to improve the availability of water and electricity
in Gaza. (Paragraph 60)
23. We recommend
that DFID scale up its work supporting exports from Gaza. DFID
should also support the implementation of existing plans to open
Gaza's port, and work to facilitate travel between Gaza and the
West Bank, possibly by developing plans for a travel corridor.
(Paragraph 61)
24. Israel is a democracy
with a strong entrepreneurial culture. We saw in the OPTs similar
dynamism and enterprise, which we wish to see encouraged. So much
could be achieved if Palestinians and Israelis could work together
to foster economic development. We fully understand and appreciate
Israeli security concerns, especially in view of the recent murder
of three Israeli teenagers outside Hebron and the continuing rockets
attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip. Some of the evidence we
were given on our visit are difficult to reconcile with that subsequently
provided by the Israeli Embassy, but we were shocked by what we
saw in the OPTs. We saw a country whose people have known immense
suffering now imposing conditions on their Palestinian neighbours
which cause a different but very real suffering and often without
real security justification. We saw Israel taking a range of actions
that hinder Palestinian economic development and must, at the
very least, cause deep resentment on the Palestinian side, even
amongst the most moderate and pragmatic people, and so will actually
worsen Israel's own security. (Paragraph 62)
OPTs: DFID's programme
25. DFID's
support is helping to prepare the PA for the assumption of governmental
functions in a future Palestinian state. DFID's financial support
is critical to the PA's operation, especially giving its ongoing
financial crisis. (Paragraph 67)
26. UK policy remains
to support a two-state solution and DFID should continue to provide
funding to the Palestinian Authority.
(Paragraph 67)
27. We are nevertheless
concerned that DFID is not taking adequate measures to prevent
its funds from being misused. Given the scale of the operation,
with 85,000 civil servants being paid with UK money, there is
a serious risk of abuse. We do not regard a six-monthly audit
as an adequate protection to secure the integrity of UK aid funds.
(Paragraph 68)
28. We recommend
that DFID impose more stringent checks to ensure that the money
it provides to the PA is not being misused while pursuing a constructive
dialogue with the PA on the end-use of funds.
(Paragraph 68)
29. We are also extremely
concerned about the PA's policy of paying salaries to the families
of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. While appreciating
it is a sensitive issue, issuing payments to families based on
the length of jail terms, rather than need, is a political and
not a welfare decision and thus unacceptable. In addition, while
the British Government maintains that no UK money supports this
activity, UK aid payments fund the payment of PA civil servants.
It could therefore be said with some justification that this payment
of UK funds enables the PA to release alternative funds which
allow these payments to continue and which might alternatively
be used more effectively to cover other needs. The Palestinian
Finance Minister confirmed that the payments were a serious burden
on the PA's finances. (Paragraph 69)
30. We urge the
UK to help the Palestinian Authority stop these payments and to
replace them with welfare payments to prisoners' families based
on poverty levels and need. (Paragraph
69)
31. UNRWA is a key
provider of public services in the Palestinian territories, and
it is only able to fulfil this role thanks to the contributions
made by donors such as DFID. Donor funding to UNRWA plays a crucial
role in preventing great hardship in the OPTs. (Paragraph 73)
32. We recommend
that DFID continue to provide funding to UNRWA. While there are
weaknesses in UNWRA s work, it has made improvements, but DFID
must maintain pressure on the organisation to make further efficiencies.
(Paragraph 73)
33. The health sector
in Gaza is in a situation of grave crisis. Failure to address
this crisis as a matter of urgency will have severe consequences.
(Paragraph 77)
34. Together with
other donors, DFID should provide funding for urgent medical supplies
in Gaza. DFID should also reinstate the health sector as a key
priority within its Palestinian programme, as it is clear that
the circumstances which led to its de-prioritisation no longer
apply. (Paragraph 77)
35. If a two-state
solution is to be achieved, it will require genuine support and
buy-in from ordinary people on both sides. This cannot and should
not be taken for granted. On the contrary, concrete steps should
be taken to strengthen the appetite for peace on both sides of
the divide. (Paragraph 85)
36. We recommend
that the UK fund a significant number of people-to-people projects
in Israel and the OPTs, either through DFID, the Conflict Pool
or the new Conflict, Stability and Security Fund. As part of this,
it should fund organisations, which can bring together people
of all faiths. As part of this, it should fund organisations,
which can bring together people of all faiths. We met a number
of individuals from organisations which appeared well equipped
to do this, including Cherish, the Bethlehem Bible College and
other Palestinian Christian organisations, which we met at the
college. (Paragraph 85)
37. The progress on
peace talks has been frustrating and difficult, but failure to
reach an agreement eventually would have devastating consequences
on both Israelis and Palestinians. In view of this, we believe
that it is essential that the UK continues to support the talks,
keep hopes of peace and the two state solution alive and to provide
funding to support the Palestinians, especially in view of the
UK's role in the history of the area. (Paragraph 87)
| 
