§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
10.11 pm§ Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield)I recently had the opportunity to spend a week in the west bank and the Gaza strip with a number of colleagues from the Labour middle east council. I am grateful for this opportunity to describe some of the things that we witnessed and what we were told about the way in which international law operates in that part of the world.
Today, I and others met and put our concerns to the Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom. The meeting was private, so it would be wrong to discuss in detail what was said. However, the Israeli ambassador asked me to say tonight that I recognised the real concerns of the Israeli people to live in peace and security, and the personal tragedies and losses that so many Israeli families have suffered in the past 50 years of conflict. I willingly do so, and I say without doubt or hesitation that Israel has a right to exist within secure and recognised borders. I accept that—those borders have been internationally recognised since 1948.
I want tonight to address not the position inside those borders, but the position outside them, in those territories that were occupied by Israel in 1967 and which remain under occupation to this day. Those territories are covered by numerous United Nations resolutions, by the provisions of the internationally ratified Oslo accords and, as occupied territories, by the provisions of the fourth Geneva convention. The people who live there, like people in every part of the world, have a right to expect that they will be protected by the universal declaration of human rights. From our experience in the occupied territories only a few weeks ago, however, I must tell the House that there are considerable causes for concern on each of those grounds.
At the heart of the Oslo process is the principle of land for peace. Both sides agreed that they would not take actions that would pre-empt the results of negotiation. We still do not know exactly what Israel's final response will be to the United States proposals for a withdrawal from a further 13 per cent. of the occupied land. However, as we travelled round the west bank, we could see that the illegal settlement building was continuing and we witnessed roads being built. The roads criss-cross the west bank—bypass roads built for the most part on confiscated Arab land.
It is also becoming clear to the local population that that road building seems to be part of a long-term plan to pre-empt the results of the final negotiations. The maps show a pattern developing—a pattern of settlement blocks and bypass roads that reflect political and not natural boundaries and are designed to take in precious water resources. They appear to be splitting the Palestinian centres of population into many small islands, each detached from the others and permanently dislocated from east Jerusalem. When put together with the daily restrictions that Palestinians face on movement, many people have being saying—I think that they can legitimately suggest this—that what appears to be being created on the west bank today is a series of Palestinian Bantustans. Settlement building is not merely illegal; it is a threat to the peace process itself. 953 During our recent visit, we were shown around the site of Har Homa at Jabal Abu Ghneim. We could see for ourselves how Israeli plans to develop that prime site in the heart of Palestinian territory on the south-eastern corner of Jerusalem, overlooking the hills that lead to Bethlehem, should have caused such outrage and fear among the Palestinian population.
During our tour of that area, we were also taken to a point in the north-east part of the city, looking toward the settlement of Maale Adumim and shown an area of open land that has been earmarked for what has become known in the area as the E1 project, which is designed to expand the boundaries of the settlement and create a territorial link between Jewish settlements beyond the green line and the boundaries of the city of Jerusalem. A decision to go ahead with that development could be made at any time and would almost certainly lead to the same sort of disastrous political consequences that accompanied the decision to go ahead with building the settlement at Har Homa. That was three weeks ago, and a potentially explosive situation is now being compounded further by the Israeli Cabinet's decision on Sunday to extend further the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem and, apparently, annex the land on which a number of settlements have already been built in occupied areas.
I hope that the Minister will agree with me and use this opportunity to condemn unreservedly that latest illegal act in defiance of the Oslo peace agreement and the provisions of international law that remain applicable to the occupied west bank. I also hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure me that the Israeli ambassador has been reminded of the commitment of the United Kingdom and our European partners to a peace process that is based on international law and the protection of human rights.
I hope also that the Israeli Government have been reminded that the United Kingdom and the international community regard east Jerusalem and the west bank as occupied territory and that any changes made to the status of the city of Jerusalem and any borders redefined unilaterally by the Israeli Government are absolutely prohibited under international law.
Jerusalem is one of the most difficult issues of the peace process. That is why Oslo stipulated that it should be left to final status negotiations and why the architects of Oslo—Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat—wanted to build confidence-building measures that could lead that way. Developments in Jerusalem today are undermining that process and pre-empting those final status negotiations.
Housing laws operate in a discriminatory way. Homes are scheduled for demolition on the Palestinian side, while we are informed that less than 8 per cent. of east Jerusalem is available for Palestinian development. It is difficult for a Palestinian to get planning permission to extend his or her home. Whole areas of east Jerusalem are being designated as green zones, which apparently has less to do with environmental protection than with preventing building to house the Palestinian people of the area. As their families expand, and their population expands, all too many Palestinian families feel that they have to move out.
Only 7 per cent. of public services in the municipality are made available to the residents of east Jerusalem. I interviewed Naela Zaru, who is aged 40 and who was recently evicted from her home at 60 Rehov Hasaraya, 954 also known as Diskin house, in east Jerusalem. Eviction followed a dispute with a family of settlers over ownership of the apartment. It had been through the Israeli courts twice. Once, the Palestinian woman won, and on the other occasion the Israeli family won. What was interesting was that after the Palestinian woman won, it took no less than nine months to ensure that the court's decisions were implemented and the Israeli family evicted. When it worked the other way round and the Israeli family won, eviction took place within 10 days, and was supervised by both the police and the military.
When I interviewed Naela, she was sitting on the steps outside a neighbour's house. Her possessions were in a storeroom, having been put out on the streets a few days before. The consequence of her eviction may be the loss not only of her home, but of her very right to live in Jerusalem. One of the most insidious developments is what appears to be a deliberate attempt to alter the demographic character of Jerusalem by denying more and more Palestinians the identity cards that they need to live in east Jerusalem.
Palestinians in Jerusalem face several inter-related problems. Identity cards can be withdrawn if they cannot prove to the satisfaction of the Israeli authorities that their "centre of life" is in Jerusalem. Withdrawal of an ID card can lead to problems in other areas, such as an inability to register the birth of a child. Anyone who seeks to marry a non-Jerusalemite must apply for a family reunification permit, and the chances are that it will be refused. If so, the person would have to live outside Jerusalem, and living outside Jerusalem for only a limited period means that the chances are that an ID will be withdrawn.
According the Centre for the Study of Civil and Social Rights, in the period from 1 January 1996 to 24 November 1997, a total of 63 ID cards were confiscated, 313 family reunification requests were pending, 194 had been turned down and 208 cases had been deleted from the computer of the Israeli Ministry of the Interior, so that those Palestinian families had simply disappeared. There had been 130 deportation orders during that period, and 23 cases of lack of permits or tourist visas for Palestinians. There were seven cases of lack of laissez-passers, 16 of inability to register the birth of children and 49 in which Palestinians were unable to replace lost ID cards. In the period between November 1997 and May 1998, there were 425 new cases in those categories.
There is a way round all that for the Palestinian. He or she can swear allegiance to the state of Israel, gaining permanent status. However, to make fundamental rights conditional on swearing allegiance contravenes article 45 of the Hague regulations, which stipulate that
it is forbidden to compel residents of an occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile power.All this is not only illegal. It creates a climate in which Jerusalem Day, on the 31st anniversary of the occupation of east Jerusalem, was marked by a militaristic parade of armed settlers into the east. It creates a climate in which settlers from the Ateret Cohanim group felt able to move into east Jerusalem with Israeli troops to guard them. When they were eventually told to leave, they secured a deal to be able to guard the area.
I ask the Minister to agree that all that is contrary to the peace process, and to international law. I hope that he will agree that Britain should join moves at the United Nations to ensure that the fourth Geneva convention is 955 implemented more thoroughly, that Israel is reminded of its obligations under UN resolutions —particularly 242 and 298—and that the European Union-Israel trade agreement will not be used to allow importation to the EU on preferential terms of produce from illegal settlements in occupied land. I also ask the Minister to agree that peace will come only when all sides in the middle east recognise that all sides have rights, and that those rights must be protected. That is not what is happening now.
I close with a short, anonymous poem by a Palestinian that talks about the situation in the occupied territories much more graphically than I could. It says:
Theodore Herzl once said the Jews must go to Palestine because it was 'a land without people for a people without land'. I cry, I sorrow, for that land was mine. I am people, the Palestinians are people, and you who have suffered such persecutions, have forced us to pick up your ancient cry:'NEXT YEAR IN JERUSALEM'."
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on raising these issues and on the way in which he introduced the topic. Anyone who had the benefit of hearing him knows that he raised it in a way that reflected his deep, long-standing personal commitment.
My hon. Friend raised three issues. The first is technical and I shall deal with it straight away. Secondly, he raised the international legal position. Thirdly, and much more importantly, he mentioned the peace process, and development and rights within that.
On the more technical matter, my hon. Friend referred to the EU-Israel trade agreement, labels of origin and enforcement of the procedures in relation to Israel. That is a matter for the Commission. During the UK presidency, we have supported its actions so far. When it comes to enforce the European law in that respect, we will continue to support it. It is important that countries of origin are clearly labelled and marked so that the consumer can have faith in that labelling. We expect the Commission to enforce that against any country that has a trade arrangement with the European Union.
My hon. Friend clearly set out his views on the international legal position on settlements. Until a final settlement is agreed, we will base our position on the United Nations Security Council resolutions. International humanitarian law will remain the basis for our policy on the occupied territories. The key to that, as my hon. Friend said, is the fourth Geneva convention of 1949. Again, we have consistently called upon Israel to comply fully with its provisions. Israel ratified it in 1951, so we are asking Israel to do no more than what it has committed itself to for the past 47 years. Successive UK Governments have never accepted the Israeli argument that the convention does not apply to occupied territories. That has been the UK position for many years—many people would say too many years in relation to progress on the issue.
956 Article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention clearly states:
The Occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.It appears difficult not to agree that the purpose of the Israeli settlers, and perhaps of the present Government of Israel, is to change demographically the population and structure throughout the occupied territories. Following that through logically, as my hon. Friend did, it appears to be inconsistent with article 49.My hon. Friend also asked what action the UK had taken in relation to the fourth Geneva convention. We have constantly reminded Israel of its obligations under the convention. More recently, the United Kingdom, in its EU presidency, supported the UN resolution in March calling for a full conference of the high contracting parties to the fourth Geneva convention to discuss the Israeli violations.
We welcome in particular the efforts of the Swiss Government in making progress on the resolution. This month, President Cotti of Switzerland hosted a meeting of representatives of Israel, Palestine and the International Red Cross to discuss how to improve the situation. It was good to see both parties engaged in the process. We want that process to go further, and to relate to the international law and the spirit behind it.
My hon. Friend asked me about the Israeli Cabinet decision of this weekend and the United Kingdom Government's response to it. We took the opportunity yesterday to make clear our position, on behalf not only of the United Kingdom, but of the European Union presidency. We expressed our concern
at the Israeli Government's endorsement of plans which will alter the demographic balance in the Jerusalem area.The statement continued:The European Union has repeatedly called for a halt to unilateral activity in Jerusalem. The plans currently under discussion would complicate the peace process at a very sensitive time.The EU's position on Jerusalem is well known. We believe that the final status of Jerusalem should be determined in final status talks. Neither side should pre-empt this.I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the statement that we issued yesterday on behalf of the EU presidency in response to the Israeli Government's decision clearly stated the EU's position. That position was reinforced at the Cardiff summit a few days ago, and has been consistent from the Luxembourg statement through to the Cardiff statement.
The key point that my hon. Friend wanted to make was that without progress on the peace process, the sense of frustration and despair will increase significantly. He has drawn that from his experiences in his recent visits to the west bank. I was in the area in January at the beginning of the UK presidency, and I had exactly the same experiences. I sensed the same lack of hope, and the frustration and despair felt by the Palestinians.
The Palestinians do not have a monopoly on frustration and despair. There are many in Israel who want progress to be made on the peace process. Recent opinion polls in Israel show that 70 per cent. are in favour of peace and the principles of the Oslo peace accord. The obvious act of diplomacy is to bring together those on both sides who want to make peace—the overwhelming majority of the Palestinians and the Israelis. Our task is to ensure that we can achieve that objective. 957 My hon. Friend rightly talked about his visit to Har Homa. I also went to Har Homa and saw what my hon. Friend referred to. That development is significant, not only because of the land that is covered, but because of the trust between the two parties. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Har Homa, he was subjected to some criticism. He was absolutely right to go there because, in doing so, he made a strong and cogent point that if there is action that pre-empts the final status negotiations, it will be impossible to make progress—and it is progress to which we all aspire. It is crucial that no action is taken to pre-empt the final status negotiations. The settlements do that, and we have always said that the status of Jerusalem is a crucial part of those final status talks.
At the start of the United Kingdom presidency, we set out our own objectives in terms of the middle east peace process. We have always agreed with the policy position taken by the European Union that the real way forward is on the basis of Oslo and on the basis of land for peace, and that, meanwhile, there should be action to build, not undermine, confidence.
However, we wanted to make a more active commitment to those policy objectives, and we wanted to see what we could do to push the process forward. We were told whenever we visited the middle east—and in the United Kingdom, by those supporting the Palestinian case—that it was important for the European Union to aspire to and achieve a greater role and higher profile in the peace process. I believe that, at the end of the United Kingdom presidency, we have achieved that objective, and that we have shown that the European Union has a complementary role to play in developing the United-States-led peace initiative.
It is always clear that the peace initiative will be led by the United States, but the European Union role has been to complement that leadership, and I say to my hon. Friend that I believe that, through the activity of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, we have taken a lead to ensure that the European voice is heard throughout that process.
It is crucial that we recognise the frustration that exists—that we recognise the fact that, without a peace agreement, we shall not see the middle east to which all of us, whichever way we approach these issues, aspire. One of the things that have pleased me in the past few months in the House of Commons is that no one now argues that to be pro-Israel is to be anti-Palestine, or that to be anti-Palestine is to be pro-Israel. Hon. Members now recognise that we are all committed to the peace process; we recognise the importance of the peace process for Israelis and Palestinians. That is why we took action to try to build up Israeli confidence. For that reason, too, during our presidency, we have tried to help the Palestinians to fulfil their security commitments as part of the Oslo process. That is important to win Israeli confidence—to ensure that the ordinary Israeli believes in, and has faith in, the peace process.
For that reason also, in a complementary way, we took action to try to build up Palestinian confidence—action to encourage progress on some interim economic measures, 958 such as the industrial estate and Gaza airport. Above all, we continued to make clear our commitment that land for peace is the basic requirement for progress in the middle east.
My hon. Friend, talking eloquently about the feeling of frustration, reflects the point, which is well taken by every hon. Member, that, because we have been unable to resolve this crucial question, the middle east has suffered economically—it has under-performed. My hon. Friend mentioned the gross injustice of there being some affluence alongside poverty. That injustice can be dealt with only by making progress in the peace process.
We are determined, when we hand over the EU presidency, to continue to play a complementary and supportive role in the process, and to ensure that there is a continued European commitment. My hon. Friend is right to say that we are at a crossroads. The issue is not just about the settlements and it is not just about international law. It is much more about whether there is any belief that progress will be made.
I would say to the Israelis that 70 per cent. or more of the people of Israel are committed to peace; I welcome and support that, and I believe that we should all work in that direction. However, we must not miss opportunities when they are available. My plea to the Israeli Government is to recognise that an opportunity for peace exists; we must take such opportunities when they become available.
The Palestinians are now willing to sign up to the offer that the Americans are trying to broker. That initiative was accepted by the Palestinians in an act of statesmanship which will stand them in good stead. It is crucial that the Israeli people—and the Israeli Government in particular—see the opportunity to make progress, recognise the commitments that the state of Israel has already made towards land for peace and try to move that process forward.
The negatives are apparent. The negative view that says we shall not make progress will lead to a build-up of frustration and despair on both sides of the divide. My simple view is that that is in the interests of neither Israeli nor Palestinian, and it is an outcome which we must avoid.
My other advice to the Israeli Government—for what it is worth—is to remember that if the negotiations are to make progress, they must involve two parties with self-confidence and self-esteem. It is important to recognise that President Arafat has made significant concessions and has made every effort to keep the peace process going. The Israeli Government, of whatever political persuasion, need a partner in the negotiating process. I urge the Israeli Prime Minister to take the opportunity of negotiating with a partner who is keen to negotiate. The risk involved in that exercise is considerably less than the risk of no negotiations and no progress.
I recognise the deep feelings that exist in the House and throughout Europe regarding the middle east question. We must make progress, and we shall continue to work to try to achieve that progress. However, if we do not succeed, I share my hon. Friend's concerns that the situation will become more and more difficult to manage. Good people—those who want peace, and who act and vote for peace—will find it very difficult to control others whose 959 wishes may be different. That is why this process involves not just a legal position—which my hon. Friend set out clearly in his speech—but politics, diplomacy and, above all, statesmanship. We need political leaders who will look beyond the present and recognise that the true interests of their people lie in a long-term settlement that 960 will benefit both the Israelis and the Palestinians. I commend my hon. Friend for raising the issue, and he was right to do so—
§ The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.