New Israeli Government

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Volume 829: debated on Monday 27 March 2023

Asked by Baroness Janke (Lib Dem)

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the recent transfer of governance powers in parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories from Israeli military authorities to Israeli civilian ministries, and (2) the implications of this transfer for securing a lasting peace in the region.

The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)

My Lords, as the occupying power in the West Bank, Israel’s presence is governed by the provisions of the Geneva convention, and we call on Israel to abide by its obligations under international law. We are still examining the consequences of the recent transfer of some governance powers in the Israeli Ministry of Defense related to the occupation. The UK remains of the belief that there is no better alternative than a two-state solution for peace and for realising the national aspirations of both the Palestinians and Israelis.

Baroness Janke (LD)

I thank the Minister for his response. However, in the negotiation of the recent trade deal with Israel, which, according to the Prime Minister, was based on the common values of democracy, what assurances did the UK Government seek from the Netanyahu Government over compliance with international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the avowed intent of the Netanyahu Government to remove democratic safeguards by emasculating the judiciary, in the face of massive opposition from Israeli citizens? What assurances did they receive?

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)

As noble Lords will know, our Prime Minister spoke to Mr Netanyahu just a few days ago as part of the development of the road map. The road map does not in any way change our support for a two-state solution. Our position on the settlements is clear: they are illegal under international law, they present an obstacle to peace and they threaten the physical viability of a two-state solution. Our position is reflected in our continued support for UN Security Council Resolution 2334.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that, last week, a Minister in the Netanyahu Government opined that the Palestinians are neither a people nor a nation? Is that the view of His Majesty’s Government? If not, did that view get communicated by the Prime Minister to Prime Minister Netanyahu when he saw him? Also, what line did the Prime Minister take on the intention of the present Israeli Government to expand the scale of illegal settlements?

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)

My Lords, the remarks that the noble Lord refers to absolutely do not reflect the position of the UK Government and nor, I believe, do they reflect the view of the vast majority of people in Israel. High-level members of the current Government there have found themselves having to speak out on the same issue.

Lord Pickles (Con)

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register, particularly those relating to friendship with Israel. Does my noble friend agree with the sentiments of Golda Meir, who said that it is very difficult to negotiate with people who are trying to kill you? Looking for a secure and lasting peace in Toggle showing location of Column 3the region, does my noble friend think it would be sensible for the Palestinian Authority to cease the “pay to slay” policy whereby Palestinians are rewarded financially for the murder of an Israeli, whether it is an army officer or a child?

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)

My Lords, I fully subscribe to the comments my noble friend quotes. It is very hard to negotiate if one side does not believe that you have the right to exist, and it is clear from the security situation today that things are particularly fragile. Last year, a very large number of Palestinians and Israelis were killed by acts of violence, and 2023 started the same way. We are all appalled by the recent terror attacks near Jerusalem that killed two Israelis, and the attack on Sunday 26 February, which killed two Israelis on the West Bank. We condemn these attacks, as we do all such attacks, in the strongest possible terms, and we condemn the glorification of violence that so often happens among those in Gaza.

Lord Grocott (Lab)

Does the Minister acknowledge that for years, if not decades, Ministers in his position on that Front Bench have reiterated support for a two-state solution and opposition to illegal settlement by the Israelis in the Palestinian territories? Can he confirm that there has been no progress whatsoever on either of those fronts in all the time that Ministers have been expressing those wishes and desires? Does he further agree that there is a diminishing prospect of any kind of two-state solution so long as the illegal Israeli occupation of parts of Palestinian territory continues? Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)

My Lords, the UK’s long-standing position on the Middle East peace process is clear and remains clear. We support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders, with equal land swaps to reflect the national security and religious interests of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. That is our position and always has been our position.

Regarding the settlements, there too our position remains unchanged. We want to see a contiguous West Bank, including east Jerusalem, as part of a viable sovereign Palestinian state, based on those same 1967 lines. We recognise that many such settlements are contrary to international law.

Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)

In his Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, the Minister said that the occupation should be governed by the Geneva convention and that the question of whether the transfer from military to civilian rule contravened or agreed with the convention was still being examined. When that examination has taken place, will the Minister kindly put the result in the Library?

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)

I will convey that perfectly reasonable request to my colleague who normally handles this brief.Column 4is located here

Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)

My Lords, previously the Foreign Office indicated that it would not engage at ministerial or official level with Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich—the Minister referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. In a recent debate, the noble Lord the Minister said from the Dispatch Box that we would now engage with them and all Ministers in the Israeli Government, so why has there been this change of approach? Also recently, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, the Trade Minister, said that human rights will not now be part of trade agreements. So can the noble Lord answer my noble friend’s Question and confirm that British Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have stated that the long-held protection for the illegally occupied territories in trade relations with the UK will be maintained in a specific chapter in any Israel-UK FTA?

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)

The noble Lord asked a lot of questions and I doubt whether I will be able to answer them all. In both this House and the other House, the UK has repeatedly and strongly condemned the comments of the Israeli Finance Minister, who, as the noble Lord will know, called for the Palestinian village of Huwara to be “wiped out”. We condemn his recent comments, which deny the very existence of the Palestinian people, their right to self-determination, their history and their culture. The UK has been unequivocal in its condemnation of that language.

Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)

My Lords, I was in the West Bank last week and I talked to Palestinians. They said—and this was supported by surveys—that they no longer believe in the two-state solution. They saw what happened in Gaza, they do not trust their leadership and they want the advantage that Israeli benefits in health and so on can give them. Now is perhaps the time for the FCDO to lead the way and come up with a more imaginative solution, possibly modelled on the United Kingdom, where we have separate Governments for separate countries, because the two-state solution is a very long way away.

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)

My noble friend is vastly more knowledgeable about and qualified to speak about this issue than I am, and he makes a fascinating contribution. The reality is that, wherever things end up, a prerequisite has to be the cessation of terrorism and violence on both sides.

Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)

My Lords, in last week’s exchanges on the road map for future relationships with Israel, the Foreign Secretary also met with Eli Cohen, the Israeli Foreign Minister. The Foreign Office said that the recent spike in violence would be discussed, so can the Minister tell us what the outcome of those discussions was and whether any practical steps were agreed to support de-escalation?

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give details on the nature of the exchange; I will have to get back to the noble Lord with that information. However, I do know that the concerns that both sides of this House have raised were raised in strong terms by both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in their respective discussions.


Question from Baroness Janke (Lib Dem) on 1st February 2023 (HL5319)

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the proposed reduction in the powers of the Supreme Court in Israel by the new government of that country; particularly in respect of the laws regarding Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Answer from Lord Ahmad (Conservative) on 16th February 2023

Constitutional reforms are by-and-large a matter for the Israeli people and their government, however the UK believes strongly in the principle of an independent judiciary and Israel is rightly proud of its history as a Jewish and democratic state. The UK’s position on settlements is clear, as set out in a statement made by the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Italy, the Foreign Secretary of the UK, and the Secretary of State of the US on 14 February . They are illegal under international law, present an obstacle to peace, and threaten the physical viability of a two-state solution. In terms of the law which applies to Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, it has long been the UK government’s view that Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is governed by the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, to which Israel is a state party. We repeatedly call on Israel to abide by its obligations under international law and we have a regular dialogue with Israel on legal issues relating to the occupation.

Question from Baroness Janke (Lib Dem) on 1st February 2023 (HL5316)

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the formation of a new government in Israel, what assessment they have made of the prospects for the human rights of (1) Palestinians living in Israel, (2) Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories including East Jerusalem, and (3) the Palestinian diaspora.

Answer by Lord Ahmad (Conservative) on 15th February 2023

Human Rights are a crucial element underpinning the UK’s foreign policy. The UK continues to engage with the Israeli government on human rights issues where they exist. We call on Israel to abide by its obligations under international law and have a regular dialogue with Israel on legal issues relating to the occupation. The UK remains committed to a two-state solution, as I made clear in my meetings with Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen, Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh and Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki, during my visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories on 10-13 January.

Oral Question on WEDNESDAY  1  FEBRUARY  2023

1. PMQs:- Kim Johnson: (Labour) Since the election of the fascist Israeli Government in December last year, there has been an increase in human rights violations against Palestinian civilians, including children. Can the Prime Minister tell us how he is challenging what Amnesty and other human rights organisations are referring to as an apartheid state?-

PM: The hon. Lady failed to mention the horrific attacks on civilians inside Israel as well. It is important in this matter to remain calm and urge all sides to strive for peace, and that is very much what I will do as Prime Minister and have done in the conversations that I have had with the Israeli Prime Minister.

2.  Points of Order:- Kim Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise unreservedly for the intemperate language I used during Prime Minister’s questions. I was wrong to use the term “fascist” in relation to the Israeli Government and understand why this was particularly insensitive, given the history of the state of Israel. While there are far-right elements in that Government, I recognise that the use of the term in this context was wrong. I would also like to apologise for the use of the term “apartheid state”. While I was quoting accurately Amnesty’s description, I recognise this is insensitive and withdraw it.-

Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. It now stands on the record.-

Stephen Crabb: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) for making that statement in her point of order, but my understanding is that the use of language such as “apartheid” and “fascist” is not just insensitive but a breach of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism.Mr Deputy Speaker, what advice will you and the Speaker’s Office be providing to the leaders of all the parties in this House about the language we use here and the importance of tackling deep-rooted antisemitism in our political culture, which at this point in time is so evident on the left of politics? It is less than a week ago that you sat in the Chair when we were here for the annual debate on Holocaust Memorial Day. You ended that debate with very powerful words. It is incumbent upon us to tackle this deep-seated problem, is it not?-  

Deputy Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point order. Mr Speaker has made it absolutely clear on several occasions that temperate language should be used throughout proceedings in this Chamber, and there are very good reasons for that. Thank you once again. Oral Answers

This entry was posted in Misc. Bookmark the permalink.