West Bank: Israeli Settlements (Hansard, 19 April 2004)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in his Statement on 14 April, we welcome Israel's intention to withdraw from Gaza and dismantle some Israeli settlements in the West Bank. We hope that Israeli withdrawal will inject new life into the peace process and enable both parties to fulfil their road-map commitments and move towards a negotiated settlement. My right honourable friend the 9 Prime Minister will make a further reference to that in a Statement this afternoon which my noble friend Lady Amos will repeat in your Lordships' House.

§ Lord Wright of Richmond
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I express my appreciation to her for attending the House this afternoon as I understand that she returned from abroad only an hour or so ago.
I fully understand that the Minister does not wish to pre-empt anything that is to be said in the Statement to be repeated this afternoon. However, will she confirm that it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as frequently reiterated in this House, that all Israeli settlements are illegal; that the alignment of the so-called security fence is not only an obstacle to peace, but a serious threat to the integrity and viability of a future Palestinian state; that both suicide bombing and targeted assassinations should be condemned; and that it remains essential that the Palestinian leadership should be clearly involved in negotiations towards the revival of the road map, which appears to many to have been the victim of Prime Minister Sharon's recent visit to Washington?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wright, has managed to ask me four questions, which I shall try to deal with quickly. On the question of the Israeli settlements, the United Kingdom Government's position has not changed. We see this plan as being one step in the process towards the two-state solution, as agreed by the parties in Akaba last year when they signed up to the roadmap.
On the security barrier, a barrier in itself is not necessarily an obstacle to peace. Indeed, we have said that Israel has legitimate security concerns that need to be addressed. The problem is the route of the barrier. We believe that the route is unlawful because it is on the wrong side of the 1967 line. Is the barrier prejudicial? It is prejudicial to the outcome if it cuts off the possibility of a contiguous viable Palestinian state.
On the question of suicide bombings and targeted assassinations, the United Kingdom Government unequivocally condemn both. As to the Palestinian leadership, the Palestinians should be invited to engage, but the Palestinians have to show a willingness to engage properly in such negotiations.

§ Lord Blaker
My Lords, perhaps I may carry further one of the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Wright. Is the Minister aware that on 15 April Mr Solana, speaking for the European Union, said: Europe would not accept any change to the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war—in which Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip—unless it had been agreed by both Palestinians and Israelis"?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, the question of the 1967 line is clearly understood certainly by the United Kingdom Government and by those who support the decisions taken at that time in the United Nations. I have been in discussions with 10 the Israeli Government and they do not accept the validity of the 1967 line in relation to settlements and certainly not in relation to the barrier.
In dealing with this issue, we should try to do our utmost to refrain from making statements that prejudice a peaceful and just settlement. I know that it is tempting, when there is some shift in the tectonic plates around this terrible long-standing question, immediately to decide on where we stand definitively and for all time. But I urge your Lordships to be very careful about doing that should it in any way prejudice such a settlement.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if there is to be lasting peace in that area a two-state solution is inescapable and that both sides should recognise the enduring viability of both Israel and Palestine as two separate entities? Too many people resist that concept at the moment.

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
Yes, my Lords, I agree with that and with my noble friend's contention that there are those on both sides of this question who do not support the two-state solution. However, the two-state solution is supported by the vast majority of the international community, including those with as varied views, perhaps on other issues, as the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and the President of the United States. The state of Israel should be a secure state, which is guaranteed its future by the surrounding states, and the state of Palestine should be a contiguous and viable state.

§ Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there is now a clear difference between stated British and stated American policy? The Prime Minister in another place only a month and a half ago said that, we consider all settlements in the Occupied Territories illegal under international law and an obstacle to comprehensive peace in the region".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/4/04; col. 76W.] However, that clearly differs from what the President of the United States said about accepting the consolidation of settlements on the West Bank.

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I accept that there have been differences in nuancing, but I am certainly not going to stand at the Dispatch Box today and try to drive wedges between the Prime Minister of this country and the President of the United States on an issue of such importance. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, wants a peaceful solution to this issue, but perhaps I may say to your Lordships in the nicest possible way that this is not one on which we should try to play politics between the United Kingdom and the United States. We have to look for what is positive, which we can all hold on to, and which may be a way forward. I believe that it will be very important to look at the discussions which I hope will take place towards the end of this month or the beginning of next month. Then the quartet will have the opportunity to go through what has been said not only by Mr Sharon and the President 11 of the United States but also by the Prime Minister and others who are no doubt formulating their views on this.
The noble Lord is quite right that there has been some difference in nuancing. But I point out to him that the President of the United States has said: The United States will not prejudice the outcome of final status negotiations. That matter is for the parties". That is a positive statement and the one on which I place particular emphasis.

§ Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
My Lords, is the Minister aware that many noble Lords on this side of the House have firmly supported the Government's policies in relation to the coalition's invasion of Iraq precisely on the basis that Saddam Hussein was in flagrant and repeated breach of United Nations resolutions? As concerns the settlements on the West Bank, is that not very much the position of Israel? Is there not a risk that double standards are in operation? Many of us feel deeply disquieted that one accepts with almost equanimity some of the recent actions of the state of Israel; we have already had mention of targeted assassinations. Is there not the risk of double standards being brought to apply in these matters?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks about Iraq. They are not strictly speaking relevant to this Question, but he has clearly fixed in his mind the fact that the issue over Iraq is one of flagrant and repeated breaches of UN Security Council resolutions. There is a difference in the Security Council resolutions as they apply to Israel. They are not Chapter 7 resolutions; they are the mandatory resolutions that apply to Iraq. So there is that difference.
The other point I make about the Israeli position is that, as I am sure the noble Lord will know, the Security Council resolutions place obligations on both sides—on the Israelis and on the Palestinians. The fact is that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have lived up to their obligations under the Security Council. So if one follows the logic of the noble Lord's point, one must equally say that the Palestinians are also in breach. However, I think that we have not dealt with things on the basis of equanimity. I hope the noble Lord has looked at the Statement of my right honourable friend on the recent assassination of Mr Rantisi, which was unequivocal in its condemnation.