HL Deb 13 July 2004 vol 663 cc1134-7

3.20 p.m.

Baroness Northover

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What action they propose to take in response to the International Court of Justice ruling on 9 July on the legality of the wall being built by Israel in the West Bank.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, we are considering the detail and implications of the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Israeli barrier. We have been consistent in recognising Israel's legitimate security concerns, but consistent, too, in believing that the barrier built on occupied territory is unlawful. We have made it clear to the Israeli Government that Israel must act within international law. We have also stressed to the Palestinian Authority its responsibilities for improving Palestinian security.

Baroness Northover

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that encouraging reply. Does she note the advice from the court that the wall is not only illegal, but also jeopardises the two-state solution? Does she also note the judgment of the Israeli Supreme Court of 30 June, which ordered major changes to the route of the wall because it is, disproportionate … violates the rights of the Palestinians and that, Only a separation route based on the path of law will lead the [Israeli] state to the security so yearned for". What urgent action are the Government taking on this issue and what action are they urging on their US and EU allies both in the UN and elsewhere?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, much as I appreciate the importance of the court ruling, it does not make any difference to the point that I was making at the beginning that we believe that it was an unlawful barrier in the first place. We have been making such representations for quite some time. I agree with the noble Baroness that the barrier may be said to jeopardise the two-state solution because it separates the West Bank into different cantons and therefore undercuts the possibility of a viable and contiguous—that is an important word—state of Israel. I also believe that the Supreme Court ruling is very important because it is about the humanitarian impact of the wall, which has been adjudicated on by the courts which have asked for 30 kilometres of the wall in east Jerusalem to be reconsidered. We are heavily engaged on this issue.

Lord Campbell-Savours

My Lords, in the event that this matter and the actions are illegal, would not an abstention at the United Nations on such matters be quite inappropriate?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, this is an extremely delicate question and perhaps I may deal with it at two levels. First, as the noble Lord will know, we did not believe that referral of this issue to the ICJ in the first place was appropriate because hitherto such referrals have concerned matters where both parties have consented to the referral. We believe that this referral has made it a much more politically-based issue. We are not alone in believing that. The whole of the EU thought so, as did Australia, Canada, New Zealand and a whole range of countries. They all made the same point. The question we must ask ourselves is what does any UN resolution say and will it be in the appropriate context of looking at the very important question of security as well as the legal and humanitarian impact of the security barrier.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, is it not true that all the faffing about whether it is legal or not does not make a ha'porth of difference? When the United States says "Do it", they will do it, and when it says "Don't do it", they won't. Until the United States puts its effective power behind the peace settlement in the Middle East nothing will happen.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, no. That is far too nihilistic a view of what is going on. It is a very complicated position. As I have already said, we believed that this barrier was not legal before the ruling. But it is important to look at why the barrier is being built in terms of Israel's legitimate security concerns. They cannot be swept on one side; they are real. The fact is that the Israeli Government have produced figures, which I grant are their own, which show how many fewer deaths from terrorism there have been since the wall was erected. That does not make it legal. It is still unlawful. But there is a legitimate issue about security and one issue cannot be addressed without the other. It is enormously important. We will lose any legitimacy that we have with both sides in the argument if we choose entirely to ignore the points of one side about their own security and the possibility of terrorism jeopardising their people.

Lord Turnberg

My Lords, will my noble friend agree that, while the Palestinians are still setting up terrorist training camps for youngsters, as reported by Sky television recently, it would be unrealistic to expect the Israeli Government not to make every effort to defend their citizens? Is it not also the case that many governments, including that of the United Kingdom, made it clear that at a time when Israel is taking the first steps to implement the road map by withdrawing from Gaza, the wall is not something on which the international court should be spending its time?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I take issue with my noble friend on one point. It is not Palestinians who are setting up the training camps but extremists. I would be very sorry to see your Lordships falling into the error, of which I have heard quite a lot in the United States, of deciding that all Palestinians are terrorists. That is self-evidently not true. There are many law-abiding Palestinians who long for peace as much as anything else. The point is that the British Government have been discussing with the Palestinians ways in which we can help with their security. They are discussing the same issues with the Egyptians at the moment. I hope that ICJ rulings and incidents which we have to deal with throughout the peace do not detract from the overall position that one must listen to both sides of this long, complex and horrible problem in order to try to make progress. I believe that that is possible through the road map.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester

My Lords, is it not the case that it is 24 hours since the Minister was speaking about the importance of compliance with United Nations resolutions? Is it not also the case that while we absolutely recognise Israel's proper concern about security, that must be held within some kind of international consensus? For instance, there is the fact that the right of a nation to defend itself does not include the right to build defence installations on territory which it has not been agreed to be theirs?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, indeed. It is unlawful for the barrier to be built where it is. It is unlawful to have settlements in the occupied territories. These points have been reiterated again and again from this Dispatch Box. The difference between the resolutions which we were discussing yesterday and those as regards Israel's obligations are twofold. First, the resolutions that we discussed yesterday were mandatory under Chapter 7. Secondly, almost all the resolutions which refer to Israel's obligations also refer to Palestinian obligations. The fact is that neither side has fulfilled its obligations under UN resolutions.

Lord Steel of Aikwood

My Lords, as the Minister keeps saying that it is not the existence of the wall which at issue but its route, which is correct, and as Prime Minister Sharon continually ignores the point made by the international court and the Israeli Supreme Court, "what action", to quote my noble friend's Question, are the Government going to take within the EU, for example, to bring to an end the favourable trade treatment arrangement with Israel if it will not subscribe to international law?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I have to tell the noble Lord that no serious attempt has been made to change in any way the trading relationship with Israel within the European Union. The noble Lord suggests by implication that there has been a push for this, and one that we have resisted. That simply has not been the case.

It is important that we continue to press Israel. Only two weeks ago I was in Israel and raised this issue. Over and over again I pressed the Israelis about the route of the barrier. I pressed them not only on the legal basis, which I agree is enormously important and not something to be dismissed, but also on the basis that this would jeopardise the two-state solution, the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. Moreover, on a day-to-day basis the barrier, built where it is so that it separates east Jerusalem, separates not Israeli from Palestinian, but Palestinian from Palestinian. Its impact in humanitarian terms on the day-to-day lives of Palestinians is out of all proportion. That is an enormously important point to keep putting back to the Israelis who, of course, live under the rule of law just as we do.