| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
There is and can be no equivalence. Hamas has shown itself over a number of years ready to be murderous in word and deed. Its motif is “resistance” and its method includes terrorism. Israel, meanwhile, is a thriving, democratic state with an independent judiciary. But one consequence of the distinction between a democratic government and a terrorist organisation is that democratic governments are held to significantly higher standards, notably by their own people. That is one reason we supported Resolution 1860—to uphold the standards on which Israel and the rest of us depend. As a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, Israel’s best defence is to show leadership in finding a political solution to this crisis and to comply with the standards of international humanitarian law.
A week before the onset of a new American presidency, immediate issues of life and death need to be addressed. We are working with Egypt, the US, European partners, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Lebanon and Syria, all of whom are playing a role in talking to various of the parties. The UN Secretary-General is in the region today. The focus of all our efforts is to implement the resolution.
Over the past 40 years in the Middle East, the immediate has become the long term. Short-term conflict has become long-term division. So while the current
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1026
The Government stand four-square behind UNSCRs 1850 and 1860, which call for renewed and urgent efforts by the parties and the international community to achieve a comprehensive peace. Security and justice for a Palestinian state depends on a political settlement that defends its existence and cherishes its rights. Security and justice for Israel depends on the same political settlement that cherishes its existence and defends its rights.
Our vision must be of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, with secure and recognised borders. As the vision comes under threat, it bears repeating. The Arab peace initiative, which offers Israel recognition by, and normalization of relations with, the 22 Arab League states, and to which Israel’s leaders had started at the end of last year to respond favourably, provides the right regional comprehensive vision for progress.
At a time of war on the current scale, these words can seem worthless, but it is the war that pushes them out of reach. That is one further reason why the current war needs to be brought to an end before further loss of life renders the vision unattainable, as those committed to necessary compromise are marginalised.
Mr Speaker, I hope that you will let me conclude on the following point. Peace benefits Israelis and Palestinians; war kills both. They are destined to live next door to each other. They can do so either as combatants or as neighbours. We are committed to help them do the latter. That is what Israelis need and Palestinians need; it is also what we need before it is too late”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.57 pm
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very grateful to the Minister for repeating this long, sombre, but very important Statement. I am sure that he accepts that we on this side of the House—and, I suspect, all your Lordships—fully share in the universal grief over the sickening, tragic and unbearable nature of what has occurred and is occurring—the dreadful fatalities and casualties among civilians, the 250 children dead as the Statement reminded us, whole families in the Gaza Strip wiped out, and the fear and deaths on the Israeli side brought about by the unending rain of rockets and missiles on people’s homes and towns, bringing all normal life to a standstill. Indeed, as the Statement reminded us, 300 rockets fell between the 19 and 27 December alone, paralysing life in nearby Israeli towns.
Does he Minister agree that, at least at this moment, there is little to be gained from the blame game of how the truce of last June came to such a violent end? The New Statesman must be right in describing the resumed Hamas firing of rockets into Sderot, Beersheba and other Israeli towns as “a grotesque and pointless provocation”.
We welcome UN Security Council Resolution 1860 and the work that went into achieving it, but does the Minister agree that the central and urgent task now is
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1027
Is not the first move on both sides one of psychology, almost of states of mind? Do not the combatants, any mediators and the international community have to stretch their minds? This requires big minds to look with compassion both on the terrified and besieged people of Gaza, among whom the militant Hamas has embedded itself, and on the people of Israel, who live in fear or have been destroyed by the awful randomness of rocket fire. That said, since Israel is clearly the dominant military power, is it not bound now to have to make the first unblocking move by stopping the bombing and the ground raids, whether or not it thinks that it has crushed Hamas, which is probably a completely impossible objective anyway? Does not any such move have to be followed immediately by an end of the rocketry and, after that, by Israel’s lifting of the sanctions on Gaza to allow in food, water, electricity and vital supplies—and, on the Hamas side, a halt to the constant smuggling in of weapons from the tunnels that have their entrance in the Sinai desert?
Beyond that, can the Minister say more on what is envisaged for the all-important role of the international force, which will be necessary to supervise this initial agreement and open the way for more agreements and, eventually, a massive rebuilding of ruined Gaza? What are the particular British skills, diplomatic and technical, that can be brought to bear in constructing that pathway? Does the Minister agree with the wise words reported yesterday of Prince Turki-al Faisal, the former Saudi ambassador here, known to many of your Lordships, who has counselled not only a stronger American line from the new Obama Administration but a new security co-operation body for the region, which would include not only the United States but also the EU countries as well as Russia, India, China and Egypt, along with the Gulf Co-operation Council states and those of the Arab peninsula? Might it not be this grouping, not just another western line-up, that could then press successfully for a major reconstruction and a reunification of the whole of Palestine, which has been split by the Hamas-Al Fatah rivalry, and for the Israelis finally to curb their more extreme settlers and tell those living in what will patently be Palestine that they must become citizens of a Palestinian state and live by its laws, or go?
A climate of discourse simply must replace the climate of hate and extremism that now dominates. That is the only way in which Israel will ever get security and the only way in which a united Palestine will come into being. It is also the only way in which the rest of the region can ever hope for stability, rather than war without end, hatred on the streets and the deliberate promotion of nihilist revolution and chaos by Iran—even though Iran is Shia and Hamas are Sunnis—and by Iran’s other surrogates.
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1028
We have unique experience and understanding to contribute to this better future and we therefore hope that the Government are putting forward to the Obama team ideas and perspectives that can lead America to play a much more constructive role and help to prevent the whole scene cascading into a wider and even more dangerous zone of war and total destabilisation.
4.03 pm
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we welcome the Government’s Statement and the constructive role that they have taken in drafting and securing UN Security Council Resolution 1860, calling for a ceasefire and withdrawal of the Israeli forces from Gaza. It is a much more satisfactory approach from the Government than what we first heard at the beginning of the conflict a week ago.
This is a tragedy for Gaza and, as it seems to many of us, a strategic disaster for Israel. Those of us who are committed to the long-term security of Israel within a two-state solution recognise that that can be built only on the consent and co-operation of both sides. We now see how Gaza is clearly a problem that must be part of the peace process. Clearly, neither Israel nor Egypt wants to have to inherit the 1.5 million people stuck in Gaza, heavily concentrated and suffering from effective economic siege over the past three years. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has just said, Israel has been the occupying power in Gaza for much of the past 40 years. It therefore has to accept some of the responsibility for the current state of Gaza and for the current bitter attitude of its population. The deteriorating situation for these people of course drives them towards increasing radicalism. All the evidence we have from Vietnam and from studies of British and German people in World War II is that bombing promotes radicalisation. Bombing does not encourage people to give in and accept whatever terms they are offered by the other side.
In the process of this war we are also seeing radicalisation across the Middle East and less willingness on the Arab street to accept a two-state solution or a permanent presence for Israel in the Middle East within its 1967 borders. Therefore, the British Government, with their European partners and with the United States—after all, as part of the EU we are a member of the quartet—need to promote conversations with Syria and other Arab Governments; take up again the Saudi peace offer; work with the new Obama Administration; and relaunch a realistic Middle East peace process which must involve both a withdrawal of Israel’s settlements and army posts within the West Bank and a solution to the multiple problems of Gaza.
We also recognise that this has a backwash, as we have already seen this weekend, within the United Kingdom. We need to ensure that communities within the United Kingdom with interests or faith connections to the region are encouraged to promote moderation and compromise and not to give their support to the more partisan, radical and intransigent elements on both sides in this conflict. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians can establish long-term peace and security without the co-operation and consent of the other in a
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1029
4.07 pm
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I thank both Benches opposite for the support they offered to British policy. I think that all recognise just how difficult this is—the cover of this week’s Economist said it all, describing this as a 100-year conflict. The roots go deep. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, while the blame game is not the way to go when we need to look forward, the difficulty is that both sides expect to hear us touch certain bases before they are willing even to open their ears to any proposal we have. My colleagues the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have done a very good job in recent days of walking through this minefield in trying to arrive at a balanced position.
However, as would perhaps be the case for a conflict of 100 years’ or longer duration, balance is not always welcome. The reaction in Israel to Resolution 1860 has been negative, to put it mildly, across most shades of political opinion as well as in public opinion, where levels of support for the war remain high. There is a feeling among Palestinians that it is too little, too late. In Palestinian eyes, the long bias of western policy is not corrected by this resolution. Therefore, we in government—indeed, all noble Lords who care about the Middle East—must fight hard to make heard our voices as well as our calls for moderation and the end of violence, at a time when passions are high and people immediately revert to more extremist, violent positions in both language and deed.
We support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the process must start on both sides with the stopping of the bombings and the rocket attacks. Certainly, if we are to proceed successfully towards a sustainable ceasefire, the sheer size of the Israeli arsenal means that Israel needs to demonstrate clearly that it has suspended its aerial and ground operations. However, as many have said both in Israel and outside it, the difficulty with Resolution 1860 is that a ceasefire alone may not be sustainable: it must go to the broader agenda of opening the crossings as well as steps to prevent arms smuggling and the renewal of Hamas’s weapons supplies. Israel must have confidence that its civilians will not come under rocket attack again and that any ceasefire will hold.
I certainly take the point about the “rebuilding of Gaza”. My shoulders, like those of other noble Lords, slump when I hear that phrase. How many times have we already “rebuilt Gaza”? As a UNDP administrator, I opened a civilian airport building at Gaza airport. As I did so, a Palestinian official whispered into my ear, “You’ll be back. You’ll have to reopen it again—and probably several more times after that, because it will be knocked down, you know”. For a Government such as ours who have been extremely generous in our financial support for the reconstruction of Gaza, there must be recognition on both sides that we cannot continuously go through this cycle of political failure and violence followed by a big western cheque to get the economic infrastructure back on its feet. The fact of our economic support gives us a right to sit at the
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1030
Of course there is a role for an appropriate response to attacks on Israeli civilians. Nobody would deny that Israel has the right of self-defence, a right properly enshrined in the UN charter. However, that requires proportionality and the pursuit of the rules of war in ensuring that, as much as possible, only military targets are hit. Those same requirements of course fall equally on the shoulders of Hamas.
The Government will continue to pursue hard that which was called for in Resolution 1860. As noble Lords heard me repeat in the Statement from the other place, diplomacy is carrying on at an intensive pace. There is a recognition that the solution lies not just in New York but among the parties on the ground. That has now become the focus of our efforts.
4.13 pm
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, if we are so concerned about conditions in Gaza, why cannot a coalition of forces from the international community combine and break the blockade? I understand that that would not require the UN’s permission.
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I hesitate only because the logical and military difficulties of what my noble friend proposes are considerable. Parties are at war on the ground and any intervention would require full international legitimacy. While there is a role for an international force in helping to ensure that any ceasefire is agreed to and arms smuggling and other things stop, it is very hard to imagine that it would be possible to use force where politics and diplomacy have failed to open up humanitarian relief.
Baroness Tonge: My Lords, the Minister may know that I was in Gaza—
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I endorse what others have said in thanking the Minister very much for repeating the Statement. I also endorse the congratulations offered by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on the role that the Government played in drafting and passing the Security Council resolution and on such influence as they may have been able to bring to bear on our United States friends in their rather unfamiliar act of abstaining from the resolution after the depressingly familiar tendency of the Bush Administration to veto every helpful resolution on the Middle East that has ever come to the Security Council.
I should like to ask the Minister two questions. I am afraid that the Statement again draws a familiar distinction between democratic governance—ie, Israel—and terrorist organisations, ie, Hamas. However, does he accept that the democratic Palestinian elections two years ago resulted in a majority for Hamas members, 40 of
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1031
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind words about the British diplomacy that led to Resolution 1860. There was hope, which I can comment on because it was publicly speculated on in the media, that we might even have obtained a 15:0 vote for the resolution. While he is right to observe that a US abstention was a significant change in US policy, we feel like the deep-sea fisherman who almost hooked the big one but had to make do with second best. It is still a sizeable catch but not what we had fully hoped for. However, it is still an important advance on where the international community as a whole stands on this issue. While he will not expect me to go all the way with him in his recasting of Hamas as a democratically elected movement as against a terrorist organisation, I certainly do not quarrel with him that Hamas was elected on the basis of popular support in Gaza. On his second point, while, indeed, there are very modest British arms sales to Israel, they do not comprise lethal material. He is well aware of the export licensing system and both EU and British rules on this and we can say with relative confidence that what we provide has not been used in the offensive attacks and has not cost the life of anybody in Gaza.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for the transparent way in which he engages with us on these sensitive issues, which is hugely appreciated. Does he accept that people in our country feel a growing distress and even anger about the apparently disproportionate use of force in Gaza and that, whichever way we do it, there is an urgent need to bring this violence to a swift end? Does he also accept what representatives of the United Nations and the World Bank said to me in Jerusalem more than a year ago, which was that Gaza is in effect a very large prison? What are we to say to the Palestinian people in Gaza who for generations have lived with the abuse of their human rights and an attack on the fundamental principles of justice? What hope can we bring to them to enter into a conversation that brings them into the game? Is not this a further illustration that, if we do not address the fundamental issue of justice in the Holy Land, we shall go on having this festering sore burst out in these very unhappy ways with innocent people being caught up and losing their lives in its midst?
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, first, obviously in a situation where fatalities are running at something like 100 to one in terms of the loss of Palestinian life to Israeli life, it is not surprising that British public
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1032
Secondly, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that there is a long history of the abuse of the human rights of the Palestinians of Gaza and that the economic conditions for many—two, three, even four—generations, as habitants of refugee camps, have been such that it is very hard to reach them and offer hope. However, we must offer them hope. We must make sure that there is a silver lining to this conflict and that Resolution 1860 is not only implemented but is the beginning of a process that addresses, in an urgent, ambitious and full way, the grievances of both sides. It is not just a matter of recognition and peace; it is a matter of creating a viable Palestinian entity and state that allows for both the return of Palestinians and, for those who cannot return, proper arrangements to deal with compensation. We have to finally grasp this nettle and deal with the fundamentals of this conflict. How many more times otherwise will we face this cycle of violence?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords—
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is the turn of the Conservative Party.
“Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph”.
That quotation from David’s lament for the deaths of Saul and Jonathan cannot be more appropriately said than now. We have to go back—have we not?—to the root causes of the problem, which were 2,000 years of Christian guilt at their treatment of the Jews, culminating in the Russian persecutions of the late 19th century and the ghastliness of the Holocaust. What do Christianity and the western world do but impose on the Arabs and the Palestinians to make the redress and pay their fine? They have put on the Arabs by terrorist means, through Likud and Haganah, the bombing of Deir Yassin, the murder of people in Lydda and outside Mount Carmel and the forced evacuation of over 1 million people from Palestine in 1948. We cannot go back over that, but somehow we have to redress that dreadful series of injustices. If we do not, as everyone else has said, this will go on and on and on, and one day a Hamas or Hezbollah chap will get hold of a dirty load of nuclear weapons and lob it into Israel and Israel will use nuclear weapons. The situation can get worse. We have to make both sides realise that a terrible injustice was done to the Arabs, who have to be compensated in some way for that injustice done by Christianity to the Muslim world.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |