To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they propose to take in response to the government of Israel’s plan announced on 8 August, which will reportedly involve the displacement of the Palestinian population from Gaza City.
My Lords, we continue to reiterate our position to the Israeli Government. Palestinian territory must not be reduced in the conduct of this war, and the forced displacement of people risks breaching international humanitarian law. The planned displacement of so many Gazans is morally unjustifiable, wholly disproportionate and utterly counterproductive. On 29 July, the Prime Minister announced the UK’s intention for a Palestinian state to be recognised by UNGA if Israel did not take substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and commit to long-term peace.
My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister says the Government are now doing. We all look with horror at the policies of the Israeli Government to displace the population of Gaza City, to bomb them into submission or to starve them into submission. It is appalling in the 21st century to see this going on. Can we please toughen up the Government’s policy, impose further sanctions and, if a leading Israeli politician comes to Britain, protest at what the Israeli Government are doing? I believe that it is without the support of the majority of the people of Israel.
It is not for me to assess the majority view of the people of Israel but, having been there very recently, I understand that there is a range of opinion among the Israeli population and that the people are not afraid to let us know this. This needs to be acknowledged and respected. My noble friend is right to draw attention to it.
The UK Government have taken many steps—unprecedented, extraordinary steps—which are appropriate given the situation that we see on the ground in Gaza and, increasingly, in the West Bank. Our position is clear. The UN General Assembly is now days away. We continue to make our assessment on the decision that we will be taking in New York at the end of this month.
The Minister referred to the Government’s intention to recognise Palestine. The Montevideo convention sets out in international law the four criteria that constitute a state: a defined territory, a permanent population, a functioning Government and the capacity to enter into international relations. Which of these four criteria are fulfilled by the state of Palestine? This is the third time that I have asked the Minister this question. Perhaps this time she would do me the courtesy of answering it.
This is the third time that the noble Lord has asked that question. The response remains the same. We will make our decision when the time comes in accordance with the principles that we have laid out. We will explain fully the rationale for that decision at the time. I think that people can see the reasons for us getting to the place that we have. It was in our manifesto that we would recognise Palestine at a time that was conducive to bringing about peace. Many of us were hopeful that those conditions would be brought about more quickly.
Things have not developed as any of us would wish. We find ourselves in a situation where we have made announcements about recognition in the worst of circumstances. I wish that it was not like this, but it is. The noble Lord will have every opportunity to agree or disagree and challenge us on that decision when the time comes.
My Lords, I welcome the move by the UK Government to recognise the state of Palestine alongside Israel. My Private Member’s Bill on the subject will, I hope, be redundant. I was privileged to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on that. What engagement will the Government have with President Trump when he visits to convey the strongest message that Israel’s long-term security is best served when it has widespread international support—and that this requires a two-state solution rather than the forced removal of Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank?
We discuss our position on this and many other issues—but specifically this—with our US counterparts on a regular basis, as the noble Baroness will understand. She is completely right that support for a two-state solution must remain central to everything we do and say on this issue. I fear that some of the decisions that are being taken by the Government of Israel now make that outcome less likely; hence the situation in which we find ourselves now, as the UK Government, taking the decisions that we have.
Does the Minister agree that the paramount need is for
“Israel and Palestine to share the land, either by partition or by a creative confederate structure, enabling sovereignty and self-rule for both nations”,
those being the words of Professor Fania Oz-Salzberger, one of the most distinguished Israeli academics and writers, writing, I believe, on behalf of most people in Israel?
I have not read the piece that the noble Lord is referring to, but I would be very happy to. It is absolutely the case that, in order for a two-state solution to succeed and to last, Israel must be safe, secure and prosperous, and so must Palestine. That is the outcome that the person he is referring to and very many others, including those in Israel, would wish to see.
I welcome what my noble friend has said, but ask her to what extent the two-state solution, which we all—the international community as well—have supported for decades is now viable, given that Gaza has been reduced to rubble; given what my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said; given that the Israeli Prime Minister has expressly said that he does not want a two-state solution any more; and given that the West Bank is now full of settlements, making that increasingly less likely, and there is no governance in either part of the state. How viable is it?
I, like many others, ask myself this more and more frequently, but I come back to everything that my noble friend mentioned making it harder and less viable, which is one of the reasons we are taking the decisions we are, but what else is there? We have to hold on to the prospect of a two-state solution because there is no other outcome that would lead to lasting peace.