Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the Prime Minister of Israel ruling out a
two-state solution with the Palestinians.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Office () (Con)
My Lords, we support a two-state solution. As I said only the
other day, that guarantees security and stability for both
Israelis and Palestinians. Our position has not changed. My right
honourable friend the Prime Minister was clear in his recent call
with Prime Minister Netanyahu that a viable two-state solution is
the best means to achieve lasting peace. With our allies, we must
provide the practical and enduring support to bolster the
Palestinian Authority, and the PA itself must take much-needed
steps to reform. Importantly, Israel must act
to release frozen funds, halt settlement expansion and hold those
responsible for settler violence accountable.
(Lab)
My Lords, although many of us join the Government in long backing
a two-state solution, how realistic is this now, when Prime
Minister Netanyahu has firmly ruled it out, Gaza has been reduced
to rubble and Israel is expanding its
illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, including east
Jerusalem, to over three-quarters of a million settlers? What
alternative is Israel offering if not
permanent siege and oppressed status for the Palestinians? Should
we not be considering other options—perhaps a negotiated
confederal state, with security and self-determination for both
Israelis and Palestinians?
(Con)
My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord said, and this is not the
first time I have heard suggested alternatives. Given the current
situation and the crisis that has gripped the Middle East, from
the abhorrent events of 7 October to the tragedy of the ongoing
conflict itself—and, of course, given the rights of the
Palestinians—it is clear that we must seize the moment. In my
career as a Foreign Office Minister, this is perhaps the first
time we have seen not just one country or two standing up, or
just me standing up at the Dispatch Box, but real live diplomacy
and activity. That is not just between the Israelis, the
Palestinians, the Americans, us and the Europeans; the region
itself is seized by this moment. Through the tragedy of every
life lost in Israel Gaza and the
West Bank—every Israeli and every Palestinian life lost—the
strongest legacy we can provide is a viable vision and a
two-state solution.
(Con)
My Lords, between 2015 and 2019, the United Kingdom ran a very
worthy Middle East peace process programme. It was led by the
Foreign Office and supported by the MoD and the then Department
for International Development. Will my noble friend the Minister
tell us whether there are any plans to revive elements of that
programme? Would he be prepared to meet me to discuss this
further?
(Con)
On the second question from my noble friend, I am always
delighted to meet her and gain from her insights. We are aware of
the different programmes. Currently, we are working with key
partners on the five points that my noble friend the Foreign
Secretary has outlined, but I will be pleased to meet her to see
how, as these plans develop, component parts of what we already
have can also be very much part and parcel of those
discussions.
of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister gave a very positive response to the noble
Lord, , seeming to think that this is a
turning point in Israeli-Palestinian relations. However, can he
explain to the House how he thinks we are going to get to the
point of a two-state solution, given the situation as outlined by
the noble Lord, ?
(Con)
My Lords, the first thing I would say to the noble Baroness is
that you have to be positive; if you are not positive in
diplomacy, you might as well pack up your bags and stay at home.
That is certainly not something that either I or the Foreign
Secretary are doing. We are engaging because this is about the
moment, from this tragedy. There are challenges on both the
Israeli and the Palestinian sides, and I have alluded to them
already. What is very clear is that this is a moment in
time—there is a window and we can shift the dial, and that is
where our focus should be.
(CB)
My Lords, Israel’s rejection of a two-state solution comes as no
surprise. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is on record as
saying that Palestinians should be treated like their historical
enemies, the Amaleks—kill every man, woman, child and infant in
the cradle. The Justice Minister says:
“Palestinians are like animals and should be treated as
such.”
Does the Minister agree that we should not allow the cruel,
genocidal behaviour of the regime in Israel to
fan anti-Semitic attitudes toward hard-working and peaceful Jews
in this country?
(Con)
My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, and I will tell him
why. I know Israel well; it is a
country that I have visited. There are many in Israel who, whether or
not they are religiously driven from the teachings of the Torah,
which I have also studied, recognise the importance of faith
providing a solution here. Those with conviction of faith can
provide the opportunity to come together and respect each other.
This is one Abrahamic family; Jerusalem is the centre to three
great faiths. Now is not the time for hate to come forward but
for real recognition of tolerance and respect. That is where our
focus is. I speak for the British Government, not the Israeli
one.
(Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, , the Foreign Secretary, said
that we needed to give hope to the Palestinians. One of the ways
of doing this is not to wait until the end of the process to
recognise Palestine but to ensure that their voice is heard in
those negotiations to seek the solution that my noble friend was
talking about. The commitment to a two-state solution, ensuring
that both sides are properly represented, is the key to solving
the nightmare that we are in at the moment.
(Con)
I welcome the points that the noble Lord has made. I also
recognise the statement from His Majesty’s Official Opposition
about the importance of the two-state solution. I am not saying
that it is not challenging—of course it is. It is, perhaps
arguably, more challenging than not. What is different—I say this
quite personally, having looked at it, but also politically—is
that everyone is now engaged on this agenda. It is a priority not
for one or two countries but for everyone. We recognise, and
Israelis recognise, that stability and security for Israelis
means stability and security for Palestinians. It means
leadership among Israelis and the Palestinians. That is what we
are focused on. On the recognition point, my noble friend has
outlined a clear pathway to ensure that a political horizon is
provided for the Palestinians. As the noble Lord rightly said, we
can never, ever give up on hope.
(Con)
My Lords, the West Bank is not in law part of Israel—
Noble Lords
Bishop!
(Con)
I have started my question.
Noble Lords
Bishop!
My Lords, to solve an argument, perhaps I will proceed with my
question, with thanks.
Last year, it was reported that the Government of Israel were considering
plans to build a national park on the Mount of Olives. Will the
Minister say what assessment has been made of the impact of these
proposals on the Christian holy sites in this area and the holy
sites of other faith communities? What impact would such a
project have on the prospect of Jerusalem as a shared capital for
Israeli and Palestinian states?
(Con)
The right reverend Prelate has illustrated my point. Faith does
provide a solution, as we have just seen in practical terms.
In all seriousness, I am aware of those plans. The position is
very clear: settlements are illegal, whether they are in east
Jerusalem, the West Bank or elsewhere in the Occupied
Territories. The United Kingdom’s position is very clear on this.
What must prevail is the real sense that Jerusalem itself is a
beacon for three important faiths, which is an important
opportunity to seize. We need to recognise rights of access, and
the reverence attached to that, but, equally, central to that is
ensuring security and stability for Israelis and Palestinians,
for Arabs, Jews, Christians and Muslims. That is the way in which
we will find a solution. Inshallah, that is what we are focused
on.
(Con)
As chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation UK, I agree with my noble
friend’s last remarks. I point him to the letter in the Financial
Times today, which explains that a two-state solution was imposed
on Sudan, where there is now the most vicious civil war. Will the
Foreign Office, in calling for a two-state solution, now start
talking to interested parties about the nature of
it—specifically, whether it will be a democracy, whether there
will be a military, and whether there will be access to ensure
that there are no tunnels? All these issues must be first
addressed before calling for a two-state solution.
(Con)
My noble friend charts a particular process item. That is why my
noble friend the Foreign Secretary has been clear that, first and
foremost, we must stop the current fighting. That will allow aid
to go in and hostages to be released. However, where I disagree
with my noble friend is that I think that a two-state solution is
the viable option. The rights of people need to be protected and
the rights of Palestinians need to be recognised. This is
enshrined in international law through the UN Security Council,
which of course created the State of Israel
It is important that we work directly with all partners,
including Israel and the
Palestinians. Democracy is a fundamental objective to ensure that
the rights of all citizens—Israelis and Palestinians—are
strengthened and protected.
