HC Deb 20 July 2004 vol 424 cc55-64WH

4 pm

Mr. Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the recent ICJ ruling on the Israeli security barrier. On 9 July, the ICJ ruled by 14 votes to one:

The construction of the wall being built by Israel … in the occupied territories

is

contrary to international law".

The ruling is important for the jurisprudence of the ICJ. It provides the international community with a clear and unifying judgment and, importantly, it judges that the wall is illegal.

I welcome Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan and hope that the Quartet's road map succeeds. However, intentions and hopes do not justify ignoring the illegal status of the Israeli wall now. I want to use this debate to ascertain the Government's position on a number of key points. First, can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that the British Government accept the legal legitimacy of the ruling? The wall not only cuts inside the green line, confiscating Palestinian land, but snakes back on itself to form 11 completely separate enclaves, which in effect imprison the Palestinian residents, whose only access is governed by the use of gates opened at set times at the will of the Israeli defence forces. The building of the wall continues to destroy and annex de facto Palestinian land and to separate communities from their lands, hospitals, schools and family members.

The United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs report entitled "Preliminary Analysis of the Humanitarian Implications of the latest Barrier Projections", dated 8 July 2004, refers on page 4 to the "Humanitarian consequences". It states:

The Barrier … fragments communities and isolates residents from social support networks.

In effect, the Israeli wall is destroying civil society, causing a humanitarian catastrophe, and it acts as a de facto catalyst for the extremists of Hamas.

More widely, the conflict is severe and escalating. Since September 2000, 15,000 people have been made homeless in Rafah. After the wave of incursions in May in revenge for the blowing up of 13 IDF soldiers in Gaza, more than 30 Palestinians were killed, including children, and about 1,400 people were made homeless by demolitions. Since September 2000, more than 670 children have been killed, of whom 573 were Palestinian and 105 Israeli. Almost 2,000 Palestinian children have been arrested, interrogated, detained or imprisoned. Currently, 337 Palestinian children are in Israeli prisons.

The building of the wall simply exacerbates the conflict. According to the ICJ, Israel's actions constitute a

threat to international peace and security".

In such circumstances, the UN Security Council must act. However, the Court said that the Security Council had been prevented from acting by American vetoes. The United States has vetoed 79 Security Council resolutions, and almost half the vetoes were cast on Israel's behalf.

Will the Minister assure me that Her Majesty's Government will put as much pressure as possible on the United States to try to ensure that it does not veto any future Security Council vote on the ICJ's decision? The ICJ ruled:

The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall.

What action will the Government take to end the construction of the wall and what representation will they make?

The ICJ's ruling goes on to say that all nations

are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation arising from the construction of the wall, and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation.

Does the Minister support that ruling and the Select Committee on International Development's second report of Session 2003–04, which argues that Israel's preferential terms of trade with the EU should be suspended until Israel lifts the movement restrictions placed on Palestinian trade?

The formalism that underpins the court's ruling advances jurisprudence in a key international area. It is, therefore, an important ruling that, with the support of the international community, can further the development of an international jurisprudence based on the affirmation of normative values fundamental to the equality of universal and individual human rights and a just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The advisory opinion represents a triumph for Israelis and Palestinians alike. By rejecting Israel's construction of the wall, the court emphasises the humanity of both peoples. Israel may build a wall, but only on its own territory, within the confines of international law. I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to make strong representations to Israel to acknowledge the ICJ ruling, to cease the construction of the wall and to seek a solution to the conflict in the occupied territories.

On 28 January this year, the Prime Minister responded to my question in the House of Commons, saying:

we do not agree with the building of the wall on Palestinian land and we have urged the Israeli Government to reroute the fence away from Palestinian land."—[Official Report, 28 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 308.]

The Prime Minister has repeatedly called for the international community to work together against threats to international peace and security. Will my hon. Friend now confirm the Government's support for the ICJ's ruling, given the Prime Minister's clear and unwavering support for the unity of the international community against threats to international peace and security?

The United Kingdom's written statement, submitted to the United Nations in January 2004, opposed the hearing of the case in the ICJ. The objections were based on three points, the first two of which I wish the Minister to clarify. The UK statement reads as follows:

An opinion is not necessary to assist the General Assembly in the exercise of its functions, and would be as likely to prove detrimental to the work of the UN as a whole".

Why is that the Government's position? Why would it be detrimental to the work of the UN, when the UN itself is proposing it?

Secondly, the written statement asserted that

The present case concerns a bilateral dispute".

How does my hon. Friend define a bilateral dispute? A range of resolutions has been passed by the UN on the issue. Bilateral dispute or not, the ICJ is an appropriate body to make such a judgment. Will my hon. Friend explain why a clarification of the law is unhelpful to negotiations? Paragraph 3.25 of the road map, which the Government support, says:

The emphasis is upon future action, rather than responsibility for what has happened in the past.

The EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said:

We have underlined that the wall not only results in confiscation of Palestinian land and causes untold humanitarian and economic hardship, but also could prejudge future negotiations and hinder a just political solution to the conflict.

Is not the request for an advisory opinion concerned with the consequences of the ongoing construction of the wall, and does it not, therefore, look to the future rather than to the past? How does my hon. Friend the Minister rationalise the Government's support for the Quartet road map and their simultaneous opposition to the ICJ's hearing the case? The written statements submitted to the court by other members of the Quartet do not contain evidence that giving an advisory opinion will be detrimental to the work of the UN. Indeed, the United States' written statement did not oppose the jurisdiction of the ICJ in this case as that of the UK Government did. Paragraph 4.2 of its submission provides a route for the court to give an advisory opinion. It states:

Should the Court decide to provide an advisory opinion, the United States would urge the Court to keep in mind two key aspects of the peace process".

Clearly, the United States accepts that an advisory opinion can go ahead and the court can decide.

Our Government argue in point 2 of their written statement that the case concerns a bilateral dispute. The term bilateral dispute presupposes that the dispute is between two sovereign states. Israel is both a sovereign state and a member of the United Nations, and is recognised as such by Her Majesty's Government. However, Palestine is not recognised as a sovereign state by Her Majesty's Government. Can my hon. Friend the Minister explain why the Government objected to the ICJ's hearing the case, given that Her Majesty's Government do not recognise Palestine as a sovereign state, so the conflict cannot be defined as a bilateral dispute?

Do not Her Majesty's Government have an obligation under article 1 of the fourth Geneva convention 1949

to respect and ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances"?

Is not this one of those circumstances?

Last July, I visited Palestine and saw for myself at first hand the grotesque sight of the concrete wall, barbed wire, electrified fence, patrolled roads and watchtowers, all of which have been built illegally on Palestinian land. The Israeli Government ignore the international community's opinion. It is essential that the peace process should succeed, but the continued building of the wall by Israel must be dealt with as a current issue. Future hopes of peace and the so-called peace process cannot be used as a justification to ignore the illegality of the wall and not to take action. If the International Court of Justice had agreed with the UK Government's written statement and not ruled on the Israeli wall, it would have been in breach of article 1 of the fourth Geneva convention. The court would have risked its own integrity by ruling against the weight of international law. Will my hon. Friend the Minister advise me of the Government's position on that point?

The ICJ ruling advances normative jurisprudence, which the Government should welcome, as it is underpinned by the ethics of equality and further entrenches human rights values.

The wall and fence, now termed a security barrier, are an affront to humanity. For the United States and the United Kingdom to wring their hands and talk about a peace process while people are losing their lives and livelihoods is an outrage and will fuel deeper resentment in the middle east and in the Muslim world as a whole, breeding new terrorism.

If the wall is allowed to be completed on Palestinian land, it will have annexed land that was agreed by both sides to belong to the Palestinians according to the 1967 borders. I call upon the UK Government to use all their influence with the United States to bring pressure to bear on the state of Israel and to use their important role in the European Union to do the same. In this so-called dispute, we are nearing the point of no return and I ask the Government to use all available means to stop us reaching that point.

4.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on securing a debate on a subject of enormous concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House, as is attested by the number of parliamentary questions and debates that are initiated on it. There is genuine and enduring cross-party concern about the issue.

I shall try to respond to some of the points that have been made and to set out the Government's position in our response to the ICJ ruling. Although we understand Israel's need to take steps to protect itself from terrorist attack, over a long time we have made it clear that it must do so within the confines of international law. Bluntly, it is our clear view that building the barrier—wall or fence—on occupied land is illegal; there is no other way of putting it.

The European Union and the United Nations General Assembly said the same thing; therefore, it is no surprise that the ICJ advisory opinion of 9 July reached the same conclusion. Within that context, the Government continue to call on the Government of Israel to reroute the barrier so that it does not run through occupied land. There is no equivocation whatever on the issue.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab)

I thank the Minister for giving way. His statement that the barrier is illegal is welcome. In that context, what advice would he give to any British contractors or suppliers who might be involved in the construction of what is clearly an illegal wall?

Mr. Rammell

I have made our view clear; the wall is illegal if it is built on occupied land and I would hope that contractors would take account of that view.

Let me make it clear that not only does the barrier on its current route contravene international law, it also inflicts terrible humanitarian hardship upon thousands of Palestinian families. The confiscation of Palestinian land associated with the construction of the barrier and the impact on Palestinian freedom of movement within the west bank have taken a dreadful toll on the daily lives of ordinary Palestinians. Even taking into account Israel's genuine security concerns, the way in which the wall is being constructed and its route are extremely counter-productive from a political point of view. It simply inflames Palestinian public opinion and harms genuine prospects for peace.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. The illegality of the route of the wall is unquestionable, but the genuine security concerns of the Israeli population are equally unquestionable, as is the suffering and hardship of the Palestinians. What weight does the Minister give to the recent Israeli High Court ruling, and to the likely influence of a Shimon Peres coalition on the future route of the wall? We have not seen the end of the wall—or fence or barrier—and it has a long way to run. Where does he think that it will go following the ruling?

Mr. Rammell

I will come to the ruling later. The Israeli Government, however they are constituted, need to move forward on their commitments under the road map, as do the Palestinian authorities, as it is the only viable way towards resolving this issue. The continued settlement and road building and construction of the barrier are in danger of carving the west bank into isolated cantons, so that a negotiated settlement involving a viable and contiguous Palestinian state looks ever harder to achieve. That has to be an element of what we seek to secure with the overall peace settlement in the middle east.

In the UK's written statement to the ICJ of 30 January—this comes to the nub of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston—we said that it should decline to give an advisory opinion. The written statement expressed our view that it was inappropriate for the ICJ to resolve a bilateral dispute between parties when one of those parties has not consented to the jurisdiction of the court. That is a point about the ICJ's role and how it works, not about the barrier.

Mr. Hendrick

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct to say that one party did not consent to the ICJ hearing but, in terms of the rules and operation of the ICJ, in cases of doubt as to whether it has jurisdiction, it is the court itself that should decide whether it should give a ruling.

Mr. Rammell

That is absolutely right but, if we have a view about the modus operandi, terms of ruling and remit of the ICJ in a particular case, it is right that we should make our view clear when we give our submission to the court, and that is what we did.

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)

I may disagree with my hon. Friend on that last point, but the fact is that the Court did rule. It has given its opinion, after which Kofi Annan said:

I think the decision of the court is clear … While we accept that the government of Israel has a responsibility and duty to protect its citizens, any action it takes has to be in conformity with international law and has to respect the interests of the Palestinians. Given that my hon. Friend said that the British Government's position is that the wall is illegal whether the court has ruled it so or not, and given that Israel has said that it will take no notice of the ICJ ruling or of international opinion, what do the British Government feel that we should do?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara)

Order. That was a rather long intervention.

Mr. Rammell

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall come to that issue. I am making the Government's position abundantly clear, and I will go on to articulate what I think should happen.

Let me make it clear that, notwithstanding the procedural point that we made about the ICJ, we also made clear our view that the barrier along its current route contravenes international law. We have closely studied the ICJ's advisory opinion on the legality of the barrier, which was published on 9 July. In response to the key questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston raised, overall, the ICJ conclusions in law are broadly in line with our own, but we do not agree with all the legal analysis. We were also disappointed that the advisory opinion made so little reference either to the real security threat that Israel faces or to Israel's absolute right in international law to defend itself against terrorism. Indeed, no mention is made of Palestinian responsibility to act where possible against terrorism.

My hon. Friend the Member for Preston also asked whether there was a need for the clarification of the law, through the ICJ. I do not believe that that is necessary, since the Government and the EU have made clear their positions on the legality, and the UN General Assembly has already concluded that the barrier is illegal.

Notwithstanding that, the Palestinians have put a draft resolution to the General Assembly, which was looked at yesterday and will be deliberated on later today. The Government and our EU partners have looked at the resolution closely, as we should, and have suggested some amendments, primarily to ensure that there is no ambiguity about the status of the ICJ advisory opinion and to introduce a recognition that the Palestinian Authority, as well as the Israeli Government, should act according to international law. If our amendments are accepted, we will support that resolution, which I would hope would reassure hon. Members present at this debate.

It is also true that Israel faces a deadly terrorist threat. That fact should not be lost sight of in this debate. Israel's citizens live in fear of indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets anywhere in the country. The Israeli Government have the right to do all that they can within international law to protect their citizens. We should not ignore the decision by the Israeli High Court to rule in favour of Palestinian petitioners who brought a case against confiscation orders issued by the Israel defence forces for a 30 km stretch of land to be used for construction of the barrier around Jerusalem. It is encouraging that the Israeli Government have accepted that ruling and are reconsidering the route of the barrier in that stretch of land.

I hope that Israel will pay equal attention to the impact of the barrier elsewhere in the west bank. According to recent UN figures, the total projected barrier, of around 700 km, which would run down the south of the west bank, would result in approximately 16.6 per cent. of the entire west bank being de facto annexed. The number of Palestinians living between the barrier and the green line would total about 237,000, of whom 220,000 would be in East Jerusalem and 17,000 would be in the west bank, and another 160,000 Palestinians would live in enclaves. Israel's military order of 2 October 2003, which declares land between the barrier and the green line a closed zone and requires those Palestinians who live on or farm it to apply for a permit to access their land, is a particular issue of concern.

Let me be clear: destruction of property in the construction of the barrier in occupied territory is not justified by absolute military necessity and is therefore unlawful under the terms of the fourth Geneva convention.

Israel points out that in recent months there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of suicide bombings and attacks by terrorist organisations. I do not dispute that a security barrier might prevent attacks. It is indeed likely that the barrier has prevented some attacks or made it easier for the Israeli authorities to intercept them. However, it is the route that Israel has chosen for the barrier—in large part through occupied territories— that the UK remains opposed to. That is a view that we strongly hold. We will press it in all forums, as strongly as we can, and also through the Quartet.

Where the barrier separates Palestinians from Palestinians, rather than Palestinians from Israelis, it does not appear to have taken a route decided solely on grounds of security, and the impact on the daily lives of Palestinian people has been dreadful. Palestinian farmers are being separated from their fields, children from their schools and the sick from hospitals. The Government believe that building a barrier on occupied land is illegal, that the humanitarian impact is unacceptable and that routing the barrier through Palestinian land is not necessary to protect Israeli security.

We continue to recognise Israel's right to defend itself, but reiterate the need for Israel to act in accordance with international law. We call on Israel to reroute the barrier, away from the occupied territories. We also call on the Palestinian Authority to meet its security responsibilities. The Palestinian Authority must continue with the reforms—especially security reforms—and demonstrate 100 per cent. effort to act against violence and root out terrorism. Attacks against civilians, including suicide bombings, are utterly unjustifiable and we rightly condemn them.

The UK has worked with the Palestinian Authority to improve its security capacity. We recognise the security successes where we have seen them, but the picture is not yet one of 100 per cent. consistent effort; we urge further efforts in that direction.

Richard Burden

My hon. Friend is aware of the desperate situation inside Gaza. What are the British Government and the international community doing to try to bring some stability to Gaza?

Mr. Rammell

We continue to have genuine concerns, and we are in contact with all sides to press those concerns and ensure that those issues are acted on. We also call on the Palestinian Authority to deliver in full on its security commitments under the road map. In the past few days, we have seen some changes in the structure of the Palestinian security services and a number of new appointments. It is not yet clear what will be the practical outcome of those changes, but we have made it clear that if the changes lead to an improved Palestinian security effort, we will welcome them.

The picture on the ground remains appalling. As I said earlier, although I do understand genuine Israeli security concerns, it is nevertheless a fact that both sides continue to suffer. In the past two weeks, three Israelis and in excess of 50 Palestinians have been killed. The latter figure may well include some terrorists, but it also includes six children, one mentally handicapped person and one elderly disabled man, which should be a cause of concern to us all.

Among the Palestinian community, poverty remains at unprecedented levels. Some 60 per cent. of Palestinians now live on less than $2.10 a day. Families have sold their assets, borrowed from friends and neighbours and cut their intake of food. The people are running out of coping mechanisms. The UK rightly responds to that humanitarian need. This financial year's planning figures for the UK aid programme are £28.5 million. The UK is the second largest bilateral donor after the United States, and we also contribute nearly 20 per cent. of European Community support to the Palestinians. Emergency donor budget support has helped to prevent economic collapse, but longer-term economic recovery is dependent on the lifting of the closures and the free movement of goods and people.

The EU trade agreement was raised. That issue has consistently come forward, and the Government genuinely do not believe that sanctions would help both parties to reach a solution. We need movement on the road map from both sides, and intervening in such a financial way at the moment would not help that process.

The real objective for us all is a comprehensive negotiated settlement. The Government continue to work to remove the obstacles to the resumption of a political process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. From the Prime Minister down, we continue our close engagement on the middle east peace process through extensive contacts with the parties, the quartet and other international players, working to push forward the road map process.

We believe that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's proposals to withdraw from Gaza settlements, and from some settlements in the west bank, should provide an opportunity to break the deadlock. Withdrawal must not be a first and a last step, but the first part of a process leading back to true progress on the peace process, and that means progress on the road map. If the road map did not exist, a similar mechanism would have to be established. We continue to press both sides to honour their commitments.

The international focus on the prospect of withdrawal from Gaza in no way negates the need for Israel and the Palestinians to meet their road map commitments in full, nor does Gaza withdrawal affect the position on the final status issues. All final status issues, including borders and refugees, must be agreed in negotiations between the two parties. The international community needs to continue to press to make Gaza withdrawal a success and to make sure it leads to further withdrawals and a proper political process. The Quartet plans that were set out for the way ahead after the meeting in New York on 4 May are an important step forward. The UK will continue to work alongside the US, the EU, the UN and regional players to help the Israelis and Palestinians to break the vicious cycle of violence and resume negotiations. I genuinely do not believe that there is an alternative way forward—

It being half-past Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.