Area C in British Parliamentary Debate

7/31/2019 Area C in British Parliamentary Debate

1/25

West Bank (Area C)

2.30 pm

Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab): I am grateful for the opportunityto speak on the important issue of Area C in Palestine. Following the Osloagreement in 1995, the occupied Palestinian territories were divided into three

areas: Area A, about 18% of the west bank, contains most of the mainPalestinian settlements and is under full Palestinian civil and security control;Area B, roughly 22% of the west bank, is under Palestinian civil control andIsraeli security control; and Area C, on which I want to concentrate, makes upthe other 60% of the west bank and is under complete Israeli civil and securitycontrol.

The Oslo agreement as concerned with the west bank was intended to beinterim and to last for only five years. The lands should have been handed overgradually to Palestinian control, but that has never happened.

Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): I apologise to my hon.Friend for the fact that I cannot stay for the whole debate. Does he agree that

Area C would, and does, make up the backbone of any future Palestinian state?The failure of the Oslo process to follow its proper track therefore jeopardisesthe whole future of the two-state solution. Will he ask for the Ministers viewson that?

Mr Doran: I thank the right hon. Lady for her interventionI always thank theright hon. Lady, and I always give way to her. The Minister has heard herquestion, and I am sure that he will respond. Of course, I agree that thesolution, if there is one, to the problems of Area C is crucial to the wholesettlement of a particularly difficult issue.

Israel, as an occupying state, has clear and unambiguous responsibilities to thePalestinian people in Area C, including for the safety and welfare of civilians

living in the occupied territory. It has no sovereignty over Area C or any otherpart of the west bank. I want to concentrate on Area C and the way in whichthe Israeli authorities have met their obligations under international law.

In May this year, I had the opportunity to visit Palestine for the first time, on atrip with some colleagues organised by the Britain-Palestine all-partyparliamentary group and CAABU, the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding. One of the first things I noticed travelling through thewest bank, as a newcomer, is the enormous amount of new development. Thehills are full of new housing complexes, but in Area C those developments donot belong to the indigenous populationthey have all been developed by theoccupying force, Israel, and are therefore illegal. The scale is staggering.

According to the Israeli human rights organisation BTselem, there are 124formally recognised settlements in the west bank, not including East Jerusalem,and about 100 informal settlementsoutpoststhat are illegal under Israelilaw. As a result of the restricted road networkrestricted for Palestinians, atleastthe settlements dominate more than 40% of the west bank. There are310,000 settlers now living in Area C, where

4 July 2012 : Column 286WH


2/25

the rate of population growth is much higher than in any other part of thecountry, with an increase of 4.75% per year.

The Israeli Government not only condone illegal development but encourage it,providing incentives, subsidies and funding for housing, education andinfrastructure, including special roads and water connections. According to a

Peace Now report from 2006, 40% of the landor 3,400 buildingson whichsettlements have been built in Area C is privately owned by Palestinians.

Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that,at most, about 5% of the west bank consists of settlements, and most of themare in settlement blocks? Does he not accept that the vast majority of thesettlements are along the peace line and that, to get to peace, land swaps willbe required? Most of those settlements are more than likely to come into Israelanyway.

Mr Doran: That does not alter the facts on the ground. Owing to the roadnetworks, the various infrastructure around the settlements and the inability ofPalestinians to go into that territory without a permit from the Israeli

authorities, 40% of the land is effectively taken up by the settlements.Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con): I congratulate thehon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I, too, have recentlyreturned from a visit to the region. Someone remarked that because of theIsraeli settlements the whole of Area C looks similar to a Swiss cheese, which isa very good description. That lack of a contiguous, sustainable two-statesolution in the area is making peace very difficult to achieve.

Mr Doran: I agree with the hon. Lady. There are less light words than Swisscheese for what is happening; it is very serious and damaging to any potentialsolution. She is absolutely right.

Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I refer the Chamber to my

declaration in the Register of Members Financial Interests.

I take the issue of settlements seriously, but listening closely to the hon.Gentleman, I simply cannot understand his repeated reference to settlementstaking up 40% of the west bank. I have the United Nations HumanitarianAtlas, and there is simply no way that the Israeli settlements amount toanywhere near 40% of the west bank. May I ask him to ensure that he isquoting a correct figure?

Mr Doran: I stand by the figure. I am not suggesting that 40% is built on; thatis not the issue. I am talking about the area of land that is restricted withregard to Palestinians. It includes the road network. The Swiss cheese effectwas mentioned by the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant).

There are large areas to which the Palestinian community is denied access.That calculation is made, as I said, in a 2006 report by an Israeli human rightsorganisation. I want to make progress now, because the hon. Member forKettering (Mr Hollobone) will have his opportunity to speak later.


On my visit to the west bank, I saw numerous examples of how the Israeli civilAdministration restrict any kind of development by Palestinians. Around 70% of


3/25

Area C, or 44% of the west bank, is effectively off limits to Palestinianconstructionthe hon. Member for Kettering made me nervous of getting intosuch statistics, but I have to stick by themand is designated for exclusive useby Israeli settlements and the Israeli military, or is taken up by nature reservesor the barrier buffer zone. In the remaining 30% of Area C, a range ofrestrictions makes it virtually impossible for Palestinians to be granted

permission for development.

The most frequent obstacle to Palestinian development is the requirement onthe applicant to prove that he or she owns or has the right to use the land, butmost land in the west bank is not registered, so the owners must go through acomplex system involving tax and inheritance documents. The second groundfor the rejection of most Palestinian permit applications is the requirement thatthe proposed building must be in conformity with an approved planningscheme that is detailed enough to enable building permits to be used.Palestinian villages, however, lack sufficiently detailed plans. The outdatedplans that do exist are interpreted restrictively by the Israeli civil authority. Inpractice, only about 1% of Area C is available for the construction of new

properties, and most of that is already built up.Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend onsecuring this important debate. Does he share my concern that among thebuildings demolished are structures funded by the European Union, such asschools? I visited the occupied territories in the west bank a year ago, as partof a delegation, and saw a school that had been built with funding from anItalian charity, but that had been subject to a demolition notice.

Mr Doran: We were obviously on the same visit, because I will mention thatparticular project later. Under the restrictive laws and regulations, manyPalestinian structures, including homes, schools, water systems and farminginfrastructure, are treated as illegal and are therefore subject to demolition

orders.In 2011, nearly 1,100 Palestinians, half of them children, were displacedthrough 222 house demolitionsan 80% increase on the number of peopledisplaced in 2010and 4,200 people were affected by the destruction ofstructures necessary to their livelihoods, such as water storage and agriculturalfacilities. In total, 622 Palestinian structures were destroyed, includingmosques and classrooms. At the end of 2011, there were more than 3,000outstanding demolition orders. Those figures included 18 schools.

So far this year, 371 Palestinian structures have been demolished on the westbank, 124 of which were homes, and 600 people have been displaced so farthis year. That is a significant and troubling increase in the weekly average,

from 21 people a week displaced in 2011, to 24 a week this year. Of thestructures demolished since the start of 2000this relates to the point madeby my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris)60 wereEU-funded structures, and 110 are at risk of demolition. Will the Minister tell usthe total cost of those demolished EU projects, and whether he



4/25

has made any representations to the Israeli Government on this matter? Itwould also be helpful if he would identify any projects funded by theDepartment for International Development that have suffered the same fate.

In addition to the demolition of Palestinian structures, there is the issue of thenatural resources of the occupied territories, which have for decades been

diverted for the use of Israel and Israeli citizens. International law, of course,requires the natural resources of the occupied territories to be used for thebenefit of the local population, except when they are required for an urgentmilitary purpose. The most crucial natural resource on the west bank is water,and 80% of the water extracted from the west bank mountain aquifer goes toIsrael, with only 20% going to the Palestinians.

Settlers consume between six and 10 times more per head than theirPalestinian counterparts. Many settlers have swimming pools and are able toirrigate their farmland. By contrast, 190,000 Palestinians live in 134 villageswithout running water. Palestinian consumption in the occupied territories isabout 70 litres per day, well below the 100 litres recommended by the WorldHealth Organisation. In some rural communities, people survive on 20 litres per

day, and many Palestinians are forced to buy water of dubious quality frommobile water tanks at high prices. Wells and systems built without permits arefrequently destroyed by the Israeli army.

Demolition orders are in place, and actual demolition has occurred, all overArea C. On a recent trip, we visited two Bedouin communities. The first wasKahn al-Ahmar. The residents are a Bedouin community who are refugees fromthe Negev. The area in which they live could not be described as remote. Theylive cheek by jowl with a main highway, and there is a substantial settlementon the other side of the road. However, the actions of the ICA have led to thecommunity being isolated in practical terms.

The residents recognised that one of the costs of that isolation was the impact

on their childrens schooling, and they decided to build a school. They obtainedfunding support from an Italian non-governmental organisation, and were givenhelp with design and materials. They managed to build a school, and the mainmaterial was used tyresit is a fascinating buildingcovered in mud or someform of mortar, but it is well insulated and cool, and it suits the children verywell in their environment. The children are being supplied with an education ingood surroundings. However, the Bedouins there did not have permission tobuild the school, and since its construction it has been under constant threat ofdemolition.

The families living there have been targeted on two fronts. First, the ICA wantsto demolish the school, and there is no permit. That is the law. That will

deprive the children of their education. The second threat, which has beenmade to all the Bedouin groups in the area, is to move them to another site.The proposed site is next to a rubbish dump that services the settlement upthe hill. Everything that will involve, and the risk to health for all those who aremoved to the site, is anathema to the community involved. We spoke to acommunity leader, Abu Khamis, who said:

They are saying they are moving us to a rubbish dump, if we move out of thiscommunity it should be to return to the home of our tribe in the Negev.


5/25


He continued:

Whether the rubbish dump or the French Riviera we dont want to go.

That Bedouin community lives where it does because there was a river and

natural wells, but they were diverted to serve the local settlements on theother side of the road, and the land used for grazing the Bedouins sheep hasbeen severely restricted. We were told about the harassment by nearbysettlers. Abu Khamis told us that his wife had been beaten by settlers while onthe hillside with their sheep. On the day we visited, a group of settlers hadentered the community, and had taken photographs of the children andstructures to intimidate the residents.

As well as settler intimidation, and the constant threats to demolish the schooland of possible removal to the rubbish dump site, there is further institutionalharassment. For example, the access route to the village from the main roadthat the villagers used to use was sealed off by the authorities, and the onlyaccess to the village by vehicle now is along an extremely rough river bed

track. The authorities have built a sewage air vent 5 metres from theclassroom, and that obviously affects the air that the children breathe in theschool. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington visited the same site and hewill recall how difficult the drive to the village was, but those people have toput up with that every day, and it is much worse for them because they arecheek by jowl with a major road.

Despite all that, Abu Khamis and his community are adamant that they will notbe intimidated or moved from their home. Their most earnest wish is to returnto their tribal home in the Negev, but that is not possible now. It is difficult tointerpret the behaviour and actions of the Israeli authorities as anything otherthan intimidation of the worst kind. They hope that the constant threat from

the authorities, and their mean and insidious actions, such as cutting offaccess, will grind the community down.

The community at Kahn al-Ahmar has in some respects become a symbol ofthe way in which the Israeli authority treats the Palestinian communities. Therehas been considerable media interest in the school project, and it is a tribute toAbu Khamis and his community that they have continued to resist all efforts tointimidate them from their home, but how long can that go on?

On the same day, we visited the Kurshan community, who also live nearby inthe Khan al-Ahmar area. An international non-governmental organisation hasfunded a new home for each of the eight families in the community, but withina week of completion 24-hour eviction notices were served. On the day we

visited, the community had been told that an appeal against the orders hadbeen refused, and that their homes would be demolished the next afternoon.We were told that just an hour before came an ICA representative had visitedand told the families that they would be relocated to the rubbish dump areapresumably the same rubbish dump area where the other sect of the tribe wasto be moved to.

A member of the community, Abu Faris, said that he had told the ICArepresentative


6/25

thats a rubbish dump and I am a human being. In any country a human beingshould not live near a rubbish dump and I have a right to be a human being

just like you have.

He told us that they intended to carry on finishing the inside of the newbuilding. I understand that the following day an injunction was obtained for the

Kurshan community,4 July 2012 : Column 290WH

and the court asked the ICA not to carry out the demolition. The case iswinding its way through the court processes, but in the meantime the KurshanBedouin community remains in its new homes, but under constant threat ofdisplacement.

Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): On the illegal demolition of infrastructurethat has been built with British, UK, EU or international money, is it not time tomove beyond the ritual criticism and condemnation that we always make ofthe Israeli authorities, and sue them for damages? They are recklessly wastingand destroying our taxpayers money, and our taxpayers deserve that money

back from the Israeli Government.

Mr Doran: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I hope that theMinister has taken note of it. It raises another issue, because my understandingof how international law operates is that the Israeli authorities haveresponsibilities to the Palestinian communities that are being met by ourcountry, the EU, and non-governmental organisations around the world, savingIsrael that expense. There is a serious issue that needs to be considered.

Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con): The hon. Gentleman is generous ingiving way again. He makes the point that the Israeli authorities haveresponsibilities; does he also agree that it is in their interest to have a better-educated and better-off Palestinian population that is able to feed itself? That

is in the interests of a two-state solution and long-term peace.

Mr Doran: This is the politics of the mad house. We have a very suppressedPalestinian population, and one day the kettle will explode. There is noquestion about that; it is just a question of when.

I started by mentioning the responsibilities of the Israeli authorities as theoccupying force in Area C. It is clear that the Israeli Government are ignoringtheir responsibilities under international law, and I have raised a few pointsabout that in this short debate. There is a virtual free-for-all, with new housingdevelopments for settlers actively encouraged and supported financially by theIsraeli Government. That development has taken place regardless of the rightsof the true owners of the land. Resources, particularly water, have been

channelled to the illegal settlers, but restricted or denied to the Palestinians,who have been denied all the rights given to illegal settlers.

As the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, we have a Swisscheese approach. It is almost like the creation of bantustans; the communitieswill be separated out and surrounded by Israeli settlements, or roads thatPalestinians cannot access. That appears to be a deliberate strategy by Israeliauthorities to isolate Palestinian communities in Area C.


7/25

We in this Chamber are all politicians, and we know that the only solution tothis problem is political. On where the two sides standI was aware of this inthis country, but it was underlined for me in my short time in PalestinethePalestinian Authority are frustrated and feel that they cannot go any further.

They have done an excellent job in managing, looking after and ensuringsecurity in the areas that they control, but they are frustrated that they cannot

make any progress during


talks. Whatever plans the Israeli authorities have in mind for the long term,settlement of this problem does not seem to be one of them.

When we met the Israeli authorities, it was clear that a number of things wereon their mind. Iran was top of the list, and next was the Arab spring and theimpact that that will have on their plans. There were also concerns about whata second Obama presidency might mean to the state of Israel.

We will reach a resolution only if we find a political solution, and it does notseem to me that either side is capable of working towards that. It is, therefore,

a question for us. I know the excellent work that the Minister has done in thisarea, and his praises were sung virtually everywhere we went. I say that to himas an old football colleague; I know him and his integrity on these issues well. Asimple fact, however, is that the people whom we and others in the debate metin Palestine, including those who live in Khan al-Ahmar, deserve a better life. Itis our job to help them find it.

2.53 pm

Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): I start by congratulating the hon. Member

for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). I am speaking loudly because I understand thatthe sound system is not very good and people cannot hear. I apologise if I amshouting like a sergeant-major, but I hope people can hear me.

I spent my boyhood in Amman; my father was an officer with Glubb Pasha. Iloved Amman and I remember visiting Jerusalem. I even spoke a bit of Arabic.In 1967, when I was doing my A-levels, I watched the war in June with horror.My dad despaired. He just put his head in his hands and said, What willhappen now?

I remember Security Council resolution 242 being passed. It said that Israelshould go back to the pre-1967 boundaries, and that the security of Israelshould be guaranteed internationally. In 45 years, that has not been achieved

[Interruption.] Ohthe sound is back on; I shall calm down.Israel has only to lose a war once, so I understand why it is dominated bythoughts of its own security. It is surrounded by people and some states thatwish nothing more than its demise. Iran has declared that it wants to see Israeleliminated, and rockets are fired into Israel by Hamas and associated terroristgroups that also carry out suicide bombings against innocent people.

Jerusalem is a holy city for the worlds three great Aramaic religions. Jews,Arabs and other peoples have always lived in Jerusalem together, almost since


8/25

history began, and in a way it is the worlds first international city. However, Iwant to talk specifically about the west bank, particularly Area C.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North has already explained the meaning of thethree areas, A, B and C, but if I may, I will amplify his comments to stress thatArea A is the population centre for the Palestinians and contains mainly towns;

Area B is controlled administratively by the Palestiniansalthough not forsecurity which lies with the Israelisand has more villages; Area C, as the hon.Gentleman said, occupies about 60% of the west bank and includes about310,000 settlers, not


including the 200,000 who live in East Jerusalem, which is separate. That areais under full Israeli security and civil control. It also has Israeli-controlled water,planning and administration.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the Oslo agreement was meant to be an interimmeasure, although it seems to be becoming the status quo. Internationally,Israel does not have sovereignty in Area C, or indeed the west bankit does

not. Therefore, under international law, Israel is the occupying power in thatland, and it most definitely has responsibility for the people who live there.

Grahame M. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is making some excellent points.Does he agree that although under the terms of the Oslo agreement the Israeliauthorities have responsibility for planning, water and security measures inArea C, that was an interim measure? The plan was for responsibility to betransferred to the Palestinian Authority over time, but that does not seem to behappening.

Bob Stewart: Yes, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about that.

Area C is, of course, the key to sorting out the problem because it makes up

the majority of the west bank. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford(Dame Joan Ruddock), who is no longer in the Chamber, has already made thatpoint.

Mr Hollobone: Can we please get the facts right? According to the UnitedNations, Area C is 39% of the west bank. That is not the same as the areacovered by settlements. I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not correct to saythat Area C makes up the majority of the west bank. According to the UN, it is39%. I recognise that it is a big area, but let us get our facts and figures correctto better inform the debate.

Bob Stewart: I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me, but when I look at themap he is holding up, it looks to me more like 60% blue. But let us not get into

an argument; whether the area is 40% or 60%, something is wrong.There are, as we have mentioned in the debate, about 310,000 Israeli settlersin Area C. There are 149 settlementsokay, people might dispute that, but it ismore than 100and there are about 100 outposts, which are illegal under bothinternational law and Israeli civil law. Already, it is said, about four of thesettlements could rightly be called cities. That is quite big. Under internationallaw, all settlements are illegal and outposts are most definitely illegal.


9/25

Two kinds of people live in Area C. There are Israelis, who are subject to Israelicivil law, looselyas I understand itbecause they sometimes do not paymuch attention to the Israeli police. In fairness, they are sometimes,apparently, in defiance of what Israeli police are trying to do. The other kind ofpeople living there are Palestinians. They are subject to military law. That iswrong. When I visited Area C, the difference was quite clear. Palestinians

cannot build where they live, except in a small percentage1%, 2% or 3%ofthe country; nor do they have freedom of movement. They have to stay in theirhome


area. For example, a Palestinian living in Area C with relatives in EastJerusalem cannot easily go to visit them. That is wrong.

Andrew Percy: Does my hon. Friend accept, on the movement issue, that 100roadblocks have been removed and movements between Israel and the westbank and within the west bank have increased significantly? Who does heblame for the lack of progress on a negotiated peace settlement? Everyone

knows that the 1967 line will not be the final settlement, so who does my hon.Friend blame? Does he blame the Israelis or does he blame the Palestinianside?

Bob Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The answer to hisquestion is that I do not blame either side. I have been involved in too manynegotiations for the UN to start from a position of saying Youre wrong to oneside or the other. The answer is: negotiate. There is wrong on both sides in thismatter.

Andrew Percyrose

Bob Stewart: I have given way once. You can keep quiet for the moment.

Mr Robin Walker: I neglected earlier to refer to my entry in the Register ofMembers Financial Interests. Is my hon. Friend aware of the work oforganisations such as Breaking the Silence, which tries to show in Israel thedamage that the occupation is doing to Israelis?

Bob Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I apologise if I seemedrude to my very good hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (AndrewPercy). I do not mean to be rude.

I am aware of the organisation Breaking the Silence. Perhaps someone else willbring it up.

Mr Bradshawrose

Bob Stewart: Perhaps it will be my right hon. Friend, although he is not meantto be.

Mr Bradshaw: On this issue, I think I probably am. Does the hon. Gentlemanagree that a better description than settlement, which is a fairly neutral,anodyne word, would be colony? These are illegal colonies. Does he agree thatthe description that he has just given of Area C, although it is not a completeparallel, is moving towards a situation that is comparable with apartheid SouthAfrica?


10/25

Bob Stewart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. I am trying toavoid using words such as apartheid and ghetto. They are emotive terms.Colony is just acceptable, but I am trying to avoid using those terms,because, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole, I amtrying to avoid putting blame on anyone. I am just trying to explain thesituation.

Mrs Grant: I understand why my hon. Friend resists labelling, but does heaccept that the terrible lack of freedom of movement is having a devastatingeffect on jobs, investment and economic growth for the entire region?

Bob Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend, who is most definitely a very goodfriend. I agree. It is quite clear that that is one of the problems.


Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) I recognise and accept thatapportioning blame in this situation is not the right thing to do. We should beaiming to get people round the negotiating table, but does my hon. Friend notagree that during the 10-month period when the Israeli Government froze all

settlement activity, there was a failure by the Palestinians to get round thenegotiating table and make progress?

Bob Stewart: Yes, but there are circumstances as to why that was the case.

Andrew Percyrose

Bob Stewart: I give way to my hon. Friend, otherwise he will give me helllater.

Andrew Percy: Not at all, but I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Like otherhon. Members in their contributions, he has hit on the nub of the situation,which is that we want to encourage economic development. That is probablythe best way of going towards peace, but it is not the fact that continued Israeli

frustration is harming the economy. The economy in the west bank is growingsignificantly. The number of work permits issued to citizens in the west bank towork in Israel has increased, and the number of work permits issued to westbank residents to work in the settlements has also increased. Trade betweenthe west bank and Israel has increased substantially year on year in the lastfew years.

Annette Brooke (in the Chair): Order. I remind Members that a number ofpeople still wish to speak, and the number who are able to do so is in yourhands. The winding-up speeches will start promptly at 3.40 pm.

Bob Stewart: Thank you, Mrs Brooke. I will speed up and allow fewerinterventions. I am going to speed up and cut down, because I think that is fair.

My experience as a United Nations commander informs me of one essentialtruth, which everyone in this room will fully understand without having been inmy circumstances. Injustice will in the end cause such resentment that it willerupt. That happened in Ireland and it has happened in other places where Ihave beenit will eventually burst.

I know that Israel has often been provoked mightily, but what is happening inArea C worries me. There is continued expansion of settler communities in thewest bank. That in a way signals to the Palestinians that there is very little


11/25

intention to stop it or to come to some sort of solution. Unless the settlementsstop, there can be no chance whatever of a two-state solution, and the onlyalternative to a two-state solution is a one-state solutionone state where

Jews and Palestinians recognise one another as equals. Surely that is nottotally utopian. Acceptance of human beings human rights is what the UnitedNations is all about and what everyone in this room feels strongly about, too.

For its part, Hamas, in Gaza, must somehow recognise the right of the state ofIsrael to exist. After all, Israel did withdraw from Gaza in 2005.

Bob Blackman: What happened?


Bob Stewart: For doing so, its reward was often a rain of rockets. The wholesituation seems somewhat intractable. In my experience, it is always the littlepeople, the ordinary people, who suffer in conflict situations. They simply wantto live their lives as best they can. Whether they are Israeli or Palestinian, theyare human beings. Remedial action must come from leaders on all sides. Theymust convince their people that it is necessary.

I end by asking God to bring back King Solomon. He was respected by Jews andMuslims equally, and my God, we need his wisdom now.

Several hon. Membersrose

Annette Brooke (in the Chair): Order. Members can see by the number ofpeople rising that not everybody will be able speak unless there is disciplineover time.

3.10 pm

Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): In deference not only to that,Mrs Brooke, but to the two fine speeches we heard setting out the core of theissue with Area C, I will keep my comments short and limit them principally to

one case, which is the village of Susiya.

When debating Palestine, we sometimes lose a little context when we talkabout Israels problems in its governance of the west bank. Israel is anoccupying power of the west bank and has been since 1967. Over that time, ithas engaged in an aggressive policy of colonisation, which has also involvedthe active displacement of the indigenous Palestinian population, whether theybe settled or Bedouin communities. That is the context.

The lives of the Palestinians are compromised and disrupted daily, whetherphysically, by the settlements, barriers and checkpoints, or organisationally,through pass laws and restrictions on movement, trade and so on, which,sadly, bear a resemblance to some activities of the apartheid regime in South

Africapass laws and such matters. The fact is that Israel has no businessunder international law being in the west bank. That is why, although I agreewith the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) that we must try to bringpeople together, blame must be attached where blame falls. It principally lieswith the occupying power.

To assist the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), I can tell him thefigures that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency gave recently when itcame to Parliament to brief Members on the situation in Area C: Area A, which


12/25

is under full Palestinian control, is about 17% of the west bank; Area B is about21%; and Area C, where there is full Israeli control, is about 61%. Those figureswere given to us within the past two weeks.

Equally important when considering Area C is the fact that 70% of that 60% isoff limits to Palestinians. It is either settlements, land controlled by settlements

or other areasmy hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran)mentioned nature reserves and other scams, for want of a better wordthatrestrict Palestinian access. Given that 29% is already built-up land, only 1% ofArea C is actually potentially available for development by Palestiniansthepeople whose land it is. We will get nowhere until that situation is resolved.

I will briefly use the example of the village of Susiya to show exactly what thePalestinians are up against. It is a Bedouin village on an escarpment in thesouth


Hebron hills, and is the agricultural centre of the region. It has been settled bythe same families since the 19th century. In that respect, it is similar to other

villages around Jerusalem or in the Negev. I visited one of the villages and haveseen villages in the Negev that have been demolished five times by Israeliforces and then rebuilt. Just this week, B'Tselem, a well respected human rightsorganisation, said about Susiya:

On Tuesday, 12 June 2012, Israels Civil Administration distributed demolitionorders to50

that is essentially all

structures in the Palestinian village of Susiya in the South Hebron Hills. Theorders stated that they were renewals of demolition orders originally issued inthe 1990s. Residents were given three days, until 15 June 2012, to appeal the

ordersResidents are planning to submit their opposition.With the intervention of human rights groups, the demolition orders wereextended to last Sunday, but they have now expired again. We are talkingabout residential tents, which house over 100 people; kitchens; shops; a clinic;a community centre; museums; the solar panels that provide electricity; andshelters for animals. The entire villageeverythingwill be demolished. Thevillagers are on watch every day waiting for the bulldozers to arrive under theprotection of the army. That is life for many Palestinians. Will the Minister takeup that case, not only because it is important in itself, but because it is the tipof the iceberg of what is happening to villages in that area? If he has not doneso already, I ask him to make particular mention of the case to theGovernment of Israel.

I was alerted to that case by an organisation called the EcumenicalAccompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel, which is a very goodChristian organisation through which people live peacefully with Palestinianvillagers for months. Its members brought in videos that showed me not onlythreats from the military, but from another village called Susiya, which is anearby, well developed Israeli settler village with every modern convenience.Under the protection of the military, the settlers come down to the Palestinian


13/25

village armed with guns; they throw stones and attack Palestinian villagers.That is something that I have seen myself on video and film.

Mrs Grant: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the activities of the Israelidefence and security forces in a number of situations have a real effect onnormal peoplethe little people whom my hon. Friend the Member for

Beckenham (Bob Stewart) referred toand engender an atmosphere ofworrying hate and distrust?

Mr Slaughter: Absolutely. Occupation does that in its own right, but this is nota benign occupation. This is violence. It has accelerated with an increase insettler violence of 144% in the past two years. It is an organised campaign todisrupt the lives of Palestinians and to extend the occupation, which continuesyear-on-year and which, as the hon. Member for Beckenham said, increasinglymakes a two-state solution difficult, if not impossible. That is why we needmore from the Governmentnot only words, but action.

Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agreethat one of the most cynical aspects is the Kafkaesque way in which the illegal


occupiers use international law to say, Ah, we should rely on the establishedlawOttoman law and mandate lawfor the legal framework for housedemolitions? Those laws are used in a perverted way to disadvantage thePalestinian residents who should have rights in that illegally occupied land,while a completely different set of legal rights are applied to the illegaloccupations. Is it not that twisted way of interpreting the law that adds offenceto the physical destruction of homes, schools and other properties?

Mr Slaughter: My right hon. Friend is right. Rules and regulations aremanipulated in an absolutely cynical way to wear down and break the spirit ofPalestinians living in the west bank. I think that it has been proved that that

does not work. The resilience of the Palestinian people there is extraordinary,which is why there is also violence. Arrests, detentionincluding of childrenand administrative detention, which happens on a continual basis, are alldesigned to break the will of the Palestinian people and favour the occupierand settlers over the indigenous population. I know that the Minister knowsthose matters well, but I hope that he will redouble his efforts. I will end on thatpoint.

I know that it is a little cheeky, but in the interests of trying to be conciliatoryon these matters, can I get a response from the Minister fairly soon onMohammed Abu Mueleq? He is a former Hamas fighter and activist who is nowreformed and wishes to come to the UK to talk to us about the ways of peace.

Mr Doran: On a point of order, Mrs Brooke, in my previous contribution Imentioned trips that had been organised by the all-party group, but I forgot todraw attention to my entry, which I would like to be noted, in the Register ofMembers Financial Interests.

Annette Brooke (in the Chair): I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting thaton the record.


14/25

Because of the number of hon. Members still wanting to speak, I am imposing atime limit of three minutes on Back-Bench speeches. Each of the first twointerventions accepted will stop the clock and give the Member accepting theintervention an extra minute. The Clerk will ring the bell when there is oneminute left.

3.19 pmAndrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): I think I understand the timings,Mrs Brooke, and will try to stick to them. I congratulate the hon. Member forAberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing the debate, and on his point of order,which reminds me that I should also draw attention to my declaration in theRegister of Members Financial Interests.

I feel that some rebalancing is needed in some of our discussions in the Houseon this subject. I make no apology for my position of support for Israel as astate, and its right to exist. Accepting it as the only legitimate democracy in itspart of the world, we rightly attach to Israel a higher standard than we do toothers. That is entirely correct. However, the middle east process is fraught

with difficulty and nuances, and it is important to give a fair hearing to bothsides.

The use of language is important, and I bristle somewhat at the use of the wordapartheid, just as I do not approve of those who accuse people of being anti-Semitic if they criticise Israel. Some of the issues raised today,


such as settlement, are important factors, which deserve debate and must bedealt with. However, they do not necessarily lie at the core of the conflict.Making them, as has happened increasingly in recent years, the sole reason forthe lack of peace, while blaming Israeli intransigence, is not helpful. It isimportant to look at the history of peace negotiations and offers.

Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op): Will the hon.Gentleman give way?

Andrew Percy: I will give way quickly, because I get my extra minute, and Iwant to hear the hon. Lady.

Cathy Jamieson: Before the hon. Gentleman goes on to talk about the history,will he accept that, notwithstanding all he has outlined, and all the nuances, weshould be concerned when we hear of the basic humanitarian issue of peoplenot getting enough water to live on?

Andrew Percy: Absolutely, and projects have just been approved, I think, bythe United States Agency for International Development that we hope will

resolve that. The issue of water needs to be resolved quickly. My support, ifone calls it that, for the state of Israel does not mean that I am anunconditional friend. There are things that the Israeli Government do that Iand a large number of Israeli citizensdo not approve of. It is important toremember that some of the biggest criticisms of the Israeli Government comefrom within Israel.

Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con): On the humanitarian issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, people often describe the security barrier as an apartheid


15/25

tool. Has not the number of people killed in suicide attacks and similaroccurrences fallen dramatically as a result of the building of the wall? Does notevery state have a responsibility to protect its citizens from violence?

Andrew Percy: That is true. It is important to remember that the barrierthefigures speak for themselves, but I do not have time to quote themprotects

Israeli citizens, including Arab and Christian Israelis, as well as Jewish Israelis.We should never forget that. We should also not forget that the IsraeliGovernment have been taken to court and have lost in the courts on the issue,because Israel is a democracy.

Let us look at some of the offers that have been made. There were peacetreaties with Egypt in 1979 and with Jordan in 1994. Both of those are clearexamples of land being relinquished in return for a peaceful settlement. It isnot true that Israel is not prepared to cede land for peace. In 2000, at CampDavid, a major peace offer was made by Israel. Had that been accepted, 97%of the land in the west bank and Gaza would have been available to create aPalestinian state. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)mentioned the settlement freeze. That was rejected and ignored, and then, all

of a sudden, at the end of it, with about a month to go, settlements were anissue that was key to bringing the Palestinians around the table.

On a recent visit to Israel, hon. Members heard from Ehud Olmert that the offermade in 2008 would have meant withdrawal from 93% of the west bank. As Isaid in some of my interventions, we need to understand that there have notbeen any new settlements since 1993.


I personally do not agree with the expansion of settlements, but we mustunderstand that the vast majority of those settlements are along the 1967green line, and most of them will come into Israel. Israel has not been

frightened in the past of removing illegal settlements, as it is doing withoutposts at the moment.

I am a bit confused as to how long I have left for my speech. [Interruption.] Ithink that is a minuteexcellent. My goose is cooked in a minute. I wanted totalk about incitement. It is a matter of concern that documents from juniorForeign Office officials say that incitement is being used as an excuse in Israel.

That is not the case. Some of the examples of how Israel, Jewish people and,indeed, Christians are described on Palestinian television are unacceptable.

There is incitement in the Palestinian Authority, which has a serious impact. Itis an abuse of the population there, and it has an impact on bringing the twosides together. That needs to be addressed more rigorously. In particular, thereis the issue of school text books, on which we have not received a satisfactory

response from the Department for International Development. At the end ofthe day, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (MrsGrant) said, the issue is education and increasing trade. Those things are morelikely to bring both sides together

Annette Brooke (in the Chair): Order.

3.25 pm


16/25

Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve underyour chairmanship, Mrs Brooke.

We have talked about the context, and I want to go back to that. When thestate of Israel was created, the Jewish population was given 55% of the land,even though three quarters of the population of the then state of Palestine was

Palestinian. In 1948, after the war of independence, Israel managed to obtain78% of the land, and the Palestinians were given 22%, which is what we callGaza and the west bank. More than 3 million Palestinians were expelled by theIsraelis during those times.

One part of the Oslo agreement related to the west bank, and it was dividedinto three sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran)has talked about that, and I want to talk about Area C, which is now controlledby the Israelis. As a result of various actions in the past few years, it appearsthat a further percentage will be absorbed, and that Area C will probably endup as part of Israel, leaving Palestine with only 12% of the land.

I am not overly fond of statistics, but they show the stark contrast in the

picture. In 1972 the number of Israeli settlers in Area C was 1,200; in 1993 itwas 110,000; and in 2010 it was 310,000. That does not include the 200,000living in East Jerusalem. The number of Palestinians, as of now, is only 150,000.

The illegal settlers often live in the 124 formal and about 100 informalsettlements, both of which have been declared illegal under international lawand, as been mentioned, under Israeli law as well.

If people doubt the sources of my information, what I am referring to comesfrom the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs. A fact-filefrom January states:


The forced displacement of Palestinian families and the destruction of civilian

homes and other property by Israeli forces in the West Bank, including EastJerusalem, have a serious humanitarian impact. Demolitions deprive people oftheir homes, often their main source of physical and economic security. Theyalso disrupt their livelihoods.

The psychological effects on families are distressing. The fact file adds that theIsraeli authorities say that often

demolitions are carried out because structures lack the required buildingpermits. In reality, it is almost impossible for Palestinians to obtain permits.

The zoning and planning regime

Annette Brooke (in the Chair): Order.

3.28 pm

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): It is a pleasure to follow the hon.Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). I congratulate the hon.Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and draw hon. Members attention tomy entry in the Register of Members Financial Interests.

I have listened with interest to the debate. One of the problems is that we gethung up on the issue of settlements. We must consider Israels history ofdealing with settlements in relation to peace. In 2005, Israel destroyed the


17/25

Jewish settlements in Gaza and withdrew from them. In 1982, in return forpeace with Egypt, it withdrew from Sinai, destroying the settlements as part ofthe peace agreement. In fact, only last month, the outpost of Ulpana was ruledillegal by the Israeli courts. Israel has withdrawn from that and will demolish it.

The key point is that the Israeli Government will remove settlements once

peace has been agreed. I have been to Israel and the west bank with theConservative Friends of Israel, and I have also been to Jordan, the west bankand Israel with the Council for European Palestinian Relations, and I have seenthat the situation on the ground is dire. It is important that negotiations takeplace without preconditions.

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): The hon. Gentlemanmentioned the settlement of Ulpana, which is being demolished. Will heconfirm that the deal that demolishes that illegal settlement includes theconstruction of 851 other units somewhere else? When he refers tosettlements, does he include East Jerusalem, which Israel does not regard assettlement building?

Bob Blackman: East Jerusalem must be part of the negotiations between thePalestinians and the Israeli Government. The reality is that there are now moreArabs living in Jerusalem than ever before. I agree that the negotiations areparamount and must take place forthwith. The problem is that while thePalestinians fail to get round the negotiating table, and continue to setpreconditions that will not be acceptable to the Israeli Government, settlementactivity will continue apace. We have heard lots of statistics today. The realityis that just 5% of Area C is occupied by settlements. There will be a negotiationat some future time over whether that land is to be part of Palestine and thewest bank, or part of Israel, as a result of land swaps.

The key issue before us today is the need to encourage the Government ofIsrael and the Palestinian authorities to get round the table. I urge my hon.

Friend the


Minister to do all that he can to persuade both parties to do so immediately.The position now is that Netanyahu is heading a coalition Government, whichgives Israel certainty for the indefinite future. Under freedom of informationrequests, we have discovered that Foreign Office officials seem to have writtenoff Netanyahu. That is wrong, and what we should be doing is encouraging himand his whole Government to get round the table with the Palestinians.

Guto Bebb: On the issue of the Netanyahu, does my hon. Friend share myaspirations to see the Kadima and Likud Government move forward to

constructive dialogue? Such a dialogue might have been difficult in the pastbecause of the dependence of the previous coalition on some of the extremistparties in Israeli politics.

Bob Blackman: Indeed. The one thing that I would not wish on anyone isIsraels system of elections. However, the coalition Government give us thepotential for a lasting and just settlement, and the opportunity for stability andpeace. It is for the Palestinians to grasp this opportunity. It is right that they


18/25

get round the table now, without preconditions, to ensure that they achievethat peace.

Finally, there is one significant gap in the Queens long reign: she has neverpaid a proper state visit to Israel or any part of Palestine. I ask the ForeignOfficeI have written to the Foreign Secretary about thisto prevail upon the

Queen to make such a visit. After all, if she can go to Northern Ireland andshake hands with the Deputy First Minister, why not go and seek peace in thatgreat part of the holy lands of this world?

3.33 pm

Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab): I draw the Chambersattention to my declaration in the Register of Members Financial Interests, andto the fact that I accompanied my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North(Mr Doran) on his recent visit to the region.

What the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) described aspreconditions were, until recently, regarded as the mutually agreed startingpoint for the way to achieve a two-state solution. Those have now been

withdrawn from negotiations, which makes things more difficult. I wanted tohighlight the way that Area C, which was originally conceived of as atransitional measurepart of the process of going to a two-state solutionisslowly but surely being taken by the Israelis as an area of Israeli authority, inwhich they are able to impose their will, often with a fiction of law, as I said inan intervention, to the disadvantage of the Palestinian people. That is a verydifferent concept of Area C. It raises a number of important questions.

As European taxpayers, we are, to a considerable extent, paying the humanand social cost of that occupation. We are paying the very substantial fundingfor the Palestinian Authority, and for pretty much all of what is described aseconomic growth within the occupied territories. It has been wholly right to

provide funding in that way, as part of a genuine transition towards a two-statesolution. It is not at all obvious to me how we will continue to make the case forEuropean taxpayers finding that money when we are funding not a transition toa peaceful solution, but the status quo.


One of the things that struck me on my most recent visit was how small theplace is and how critical the issues are. We went to the Maale Adumim area,where the Bedouin whom we talked about earlier were. The area between thatsettlement and Jericho is the same as the area between my constituency inSouthampton and Winchester. On a train, that is about enough time get a cupof coffee and get out a laptop. Yet if that settlement continues, the west bank

is effectively wholly divided. There is no possibility of a Palestinian state withphysical integrity. That is why the settlement must stop now; otherwise, it willbe almost impossible for the negotiations to reach a resolution.

3.36 pm

Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): It is a pleasure to follow the righthon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham). I congratulate the hon.Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing this debate. This is ahugely complex issue. All of us who have visited Israel or the Palestinian


19/25

Authority will know what a small geographical area of land we are talkingabout. It is important to get these complex issues into some sense ofproportion. We are talking about Area C, in which 150,000 Palestinians live.

There are 1.4 million Palestinians living in Israel and 2.5 million Palestiniansliving in Areas A and B. It would be wrong if this Chamber today gave the worldthe impression that we are talking about most of the Palestinian population,

because we are not.

The west bank has always been under occupation. In 1948, it was annexed byJordan, which, as far as I can tell, did not do much with it. The Gaza strip wasannexed by Egypt, and then the situation was even worse. To imply that it is

just Israel that has occupied this benighted land would be quite inaccurate.

Mr Slaughter: The hon. Gentleman is showing uncharacteristic false logic.The reason for designating Area A is because it contains the main Palestiniantowns. It would be a bit like saying that as long as we excluded London,Manchester and Birmingham, we could allow someone else to occupy all therural areas of England. This is the Palestinians land, and they are entitled to allof it.

Mr Hollobone: One of the big tragedies of the Palestinian nation was that itdid not accept the United Nations partition plan in 1948. A whole series ofwrong decisions have been made by the Arab people since that time. TheIsraelis are not going to go away. After the holocaust in Europe, they deserve ahomeland. As David Ben-Gurion said, we will have to arrive at a peacefulsettlement with the Arab people who live in the Holy Land. We are all still inpursuit of that peace. Some of the Palestinians live in terrible situations. Ivisited them myself in the Gaza strip, and on the west bank. That is all themore reason to arrive at a peace settlement with Israel, so that both peoplescan live in harmony with each other. Like my hon. Friend the Member forBeckenham (Bob Stewart), I am not in the blame game. I recognise that this is

a hugely complicated situation, but we must get a sense of proportion if we areto arrive at sensible and lasting peace for both the Israeli and Palestinianpeople.

Annette Brooke (in the Chair): I call Ben Bradshawliterally for one minute.


3.39 pm

Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): Thank you, Mrs Brooke, for giving meaformer middle east Minister a minute to speak.

I want to ask the Minister specifically about the Governments policy onproduce from the illegal settlements. As he will be aware, the Foreign Office

has consistently said that it cannot move the British Governments policyforward on this issue, because it would be illegal to do so. However, he may beaware that the Foreign Office has recently received new legal adviceif he isnot aware of it, I hope that he will make himself aware of itthat points to theopposite being the case. It is actually arguable that a country that sells orreceives produce from the illegal settlements is itself breaking the lawinother words, we may be breaking the lawand that a ban on produce from theillegal settlements would not be illegal under EU law, under World Trade


20/25

Organisation law or under the general agreement on tariffs and tradeobligations.

I make this appeal to the Minister if he is interested in doing something that Ithink most people here would like him to do. Condemnation and criticism is allvery well but it has achieved nothing with the Netanyahu Government. The

remorseless expansion of settlements continued during the years when I was aMinister, it continued under my successors and it still continues now that he isMinister. Will he please look at the issue again and, with his European partners,ensure that we have a much more robust policy on importing goods from theillegal settlements?

3.41 pm

Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): It is a privilege to be here in Westminster Hallunder your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke, and to have listened to the contributionsto the debate. As always seems to be the case when we have debates on themiddle east, we have not had enough time for people to expand theirarguments. It would be very welcome indeed if we could have a longer debate.

Perhaps we could consider approaching the Backbench Business Committee toask for an opportunity to discuss matters at greater length. That would be veryhelpful.

I also want to draw Members attention to my entry in the Register of MembersFinancial Interests. I was privileged to go to the middle eastto Israel andPalestinerecently, in the company of my hon. Friend the Member forAberdeen North (Mr Doran), my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton,Itchen (Mr Denham) and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and OldSouthwark (Simon Hughes). As a member of Labour Friends of Israel, I visitedIsrael last November, in the company of the shadow Foreign Secretary, myright hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (MrAlexander).

On my most recent visit, which was about two months ago, I was struck by theurgency of the issues relating to Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and bythe profound frustration that I found on the west bank in Ramallah when Ispoke to representatives of the Palestinian Authority about the pace ofprogress in the discussions that were taking place. Like most people, before Iwent out there I was aware that people were perhaps looking to a second termfor President Obama as a time when there might be some progress. However,the message I received from


the Palestinian Authority was that the situation on the ground was very

pressing indeed and much more urgent than I had appreciated. There is a realsense of frustration, and I feared what the consequences of that frustrationmight be when I visited communities in the west bank.

Let us be clear. If we are to build a two-state solution, which I think everyone inthe Chamber wants, there must be two viable states, which are secure in theirborders. It is, of course, accepted that the precise nature of the two statestheir geographical outlinewill be a matter of negotiation between Israel and


21/25

the Palestinian Authority, but the continued expansion of the settlementsposes an urgent threat to the future for a two-state solution.

I was very struck when I was in Israel by a discussion that I hadotherMembers in the Chamber were presentwith an official from the IsraeliMinistry of Foreign Affairs. First, he said that, in his words, A one-state solution

would be a disaster for the state of Israel. Secondly, he said that he wanted tosee a two-state solution but time was running out for the creation of two viablestates in Israel and Palestine. The reason why time is running out is theexpansion of the settlements, which is happening each day, each week andeach month that goes by. The Palestinian Authority has done a very good job inimproving security, which is a profound and legitimate concern for Israel, but itfeels that it is not making progress with Israel in the way that it wishes to.

Many of us are very frustrated by the present approach of the IsraeliGovernment. I am a very strong supporter of an Israeli state; for so long,although thankfully no longer, it was the only democracy in the middle east.However, it is imperative that we continue to engage with Israel, and I deplorethose who suppress discussion and debate with legitimate organisations that

support Israel, because none of us will get anywhere by cutting off discussionand debate; it is very important indeed that they continue.

When I meet friends from the Israeli embassy, I always make clear myfrustration about the expansion of settlements. It is a key issue and it must beresolved. One or two comments in the debate have rather diminished it, but itis central and it must be resolved if we are to make real progress.

I am afraid that when I visited the west bank I was depressed by what I saw. Iwill talk about one particular visit, which was to Hebron, a beautiful city.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign andCommonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt): Very sad.

Ian Lucas: It is profoundly sad, because Hebron is a place that I would love tosee in better times. In the centre, a horrible concrete wall runs down themiddle of the main shopping street, which separates Palestinians from Israelis.It is profoundly sad to see, and the situation is clearly untenable in the longerterm.

Sometimes I think that we have too many maps of Israel and Palestine, and notenough good sense, because this is about attitude, state of mind and trustbetween communities. Of course people have lived together in communities fora long time in the region, but it is imperative that some element of trust is builtup. In the Palestinian Authority, it is very clear that Prime Minister


Salam Fayyad is highly thought of by the Israelis, and the security situation hasimproved enormously, but the authority feels that the progress that has beenmade, including some economic progress, is not being rewarded by progress inthe creation of an atmosphere of trust that will lead to proper negotiations thatwill bring resolution to the dispute.

Israel has a very strong record, with an independent judiciary and judges whostand up to the Government, much as our judges dosometimesin this


22/25

country. However, I am afraid that Israel is not applying the law fairly in areasof the west bank, as we have heard. I visited a military prison where juvenileoffenders were being tried. They had not had access to legal advice; indeed,they were not allowed to have their parents present at interrogations. Israelcould do something about that. Israel has a proud tradition of giving individualrights to people, and that tradition should be extended to those courts. I have

written to the Israeli embassy expressing that view in forthright terms, becausethis is about building up trust.

At the moment, there is an increasing sense of resentment in the west bankamong Palestinian communities who are seeing the expansion of settlements.Settlements is a very misleading word, because they are huge estates anddevelopments; they do not appear temporary at all. We need a differentattitude from the parties to the dispute, to begin to take matters forward. Ihope that comes from the creation of a new Government in Israelset up inthe week I was therebut as yet, I am afraid that no progress has been made.

I urge the Minister to convey the strong views that have been expressed todayto the Israeli authorities and to Palestine, and to ensure that the Palestinian

Authority sees that engagement with Israel and discussion about the pressingissues is vitalI am sure he will. There needs to be active discussion, certainlybefore the presidential elections in the United States. The current situationcannot continue. The two-state solution is under threat.

3.50 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign andCommonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt): It is a pleasure to serve under yourchairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (MrDoran) for securing the debate, and for the thoughtful and measured, butpassionate, set of remarks with which he opened it, in typical fashion. That wasfollowed by a number of high-quality contributions from Members on both sides

so many, in fact, that I hope colleagues will appreciate that I am not able torefer to each and every one. They were followed in turn, and in no smallmeasure, by the equally thoughtful remarks of the hon. Member for Wrexham(Ian Lucas).

In a sense, we have two issues: the placing of the discussion of Area C in thecontext of the overall settlement, to which a number of colleagues referred,and the matters that relate specifically to Area C. I will concentrate on thelatter but, as all colleagues know, and as many have mentioned, it isimpossible to separate the ultimate future of Area C and the issues that wehave discussed from the overall context of the need for a conclusion to thelong-standing dispute between Israel and Palestine.


I want to pick up, and endorse entirely, the sense of urgency with which thehon. Member for Wrexham spoke. In the past 18 months, when the worldsattention has been directed to many things in the region, not least the Arabspring, the Government have sought continually to raise with those mostclosely involved the importance of not losing sight of making progress in themiddle east peace process, efforts of which I hope colleagues are proud. Irecognise the sense of urgency. I recognise the sense of frustration when


23/25

visiting areas where people are wondering what happens next. We convey thatto both sides, and it is why we have engagement.

In the past few days, I have spoken to the negotiators on both the Israeli andPalestinian sides. Despite the fact that talks in Oman earlier this year were notconclusive, there is still contact on both sides. I think there is recognition that

something has to happen, but it is tentative stuff, as we all know. Weencourage both sides to be as flexible as possible, and not to talk aboutpreconditions but to ensure that those who need to talk together are able to doso. Ultimately, this is all about Israels future security, about ensuring that it isa viable, secure and universally recognised state, and that there is anindependent and viable state of Palestine that has the opportunity to develop.

Richard Burden: I certainly know the sincerity with which the Minister istalking. He has been clearboth Front-Bench speakers haveabout theillegality of settlements, and about the fact that the window for a two-statesolution is closing rapidly. Will he, though, address the question that my righthon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) asked? If the settlements areillegalthey areand the European Union and the UK purchase goods from

them, or are involved with companies that trade with them, there is growinglegal opinion that we are colluding in that illegality. Is the Minister prepared tolook into that? There might need to be some pressure, if we are going to movethis along in the way that we need to.

Alistair Burt: I will come to settlements in a moment. On settlement produce,we value the fact that people have choice about their purchase of goods, butthe issue of settlement produce and financing is under active consideration inLondon and in Brussels.

I shall say a little bit about settlements. The fact that we have such a goodrelationship with both Israel and the Palestinians is important. It enables us todiscuss issues directly. Israel is a valued friend to the United Kingdom, and we

are working together to deepen that relationship in a number of importantareas, but not at the expense of other relationships. Just as we are building astrong partnership with Israel, so too we are continuing to enhance ourrelationship with the Palestinians. We do not always agree with each other, andone of our primary concerns, which a number of Members have addressed, is inrelation to settlements. We take the view, which we have repeated, and whichis shared on both sides of the House, that settlement building is illegal underinternational law and increasingly threatens the viability of the two-statesolution. The issue is rising up the international agenda, and I urge the Israeliauthorities to listen carefully. They do not take the same view of its importanceas those outside Israel do.

4 July 2012 : Column 307WHThe issue of settlements is increasingly important, and we will repeat ourconcerns when we hear about new ones, but it cannot be denied that the issuewill not be concluded unless the overall settlement is agreed. That is why weencourage both sides to get to work on it. Merely complaining aboutsettlements will not be enough. I assure the House that we take the matterseriously, and continually urge the Israeli authorities to try to understand whywe are so concerned. If the viability of the two-state solution is threatened, I do


24/25

not think that the ultimate prospects will be as good for Israel as they shouldbe.

The international community considers the west bank and Gaza as occupiedterritory, and recognises the applicability of the fourth Geneva convention onthe protection of civilians. In relation to Area C, certain things could be

addressed now, regardless of the overall context, one of which is building.Figures from the Israeli civil administration show that between 2007 and 2010,1,426 building permit applications were submitted by Palestinians in Area C, ofwhich only 64 led to permits being issued. That is in contrast to Israelisettlement and development, and it affects the economic viability of Area Cand the west bank. That viability is to the mutual benefit of Israel and thePalestinians, and we hope to see the issue settled. Equally, until Area C comesmore under Palestinian control, it will not be possible for the PalestinianAuthority to build up its revenues and deliver to the rest of the Palestinianpeople, which would save the rest of us money because we support thateconomic development and the Palestinian Authority.

A particular concern, which a number of Members have highlighted, is the

situation of the Bedouin in Area C. We have objected strongly to Israels plansfor the forced transfer of Bedouin communities, in particular from the area eastof Jerusalem. A number of Members


mentioned Khan al-Ahmar, and colleagues probably know that I, too, havebeen there, and have seen the school that the hon. Member for AberdeenNorth mentioned. I saw the construction of the road barriers, because wedropped in unannounced on the day they were being put in, so we saw that theaccess to the village had been changed.

We have discussed the Bedouin settlement itself; the question is what to do in

the future. The chances of the settlement being moved to a rubbish dump arenow lower than they were, but that is not conclusive. Of importance is that Ialso spent time with Israeli Minister Benny Begin. He is Minister withoutportfolio, who is responsible for the difficult job of talking to the Bedouincommunity about their ultimate future. I formed the view that he is sincere inhis efforts to consult with the many different Bedouin groups, to try to find ananswer that is not forced, but colleagues will have the chance to judge forthemselves because he is due to be in the UK next week. His programme is notfully settled, but I am hopeful that there will be an opportunity for Members tohave a conversation with him about the matter. I recommend that they takethe opportunity, should it arise, as I think they would find it helpful.

A point was raised about EU projects being demolished. That issue has been

taken up with the Foreign Affairs Council. We need to work hard to ensure thatthe EU builds things that are not prone to demolition, but we have expressedour concerns.

Finally, Members raised the different treatment under the law of Palestinians,particularly children, in the west bank and Area C. The matter was recentlytaken up by an independent report, which speaks for itself. We will be lookingclosely to see how the Israeli authorities, who have said many good thingsabout wanting to change the law, deliver.


25/25

It is 4 oclock, so I conclude by saying that I appreciate colleaguesengagement with such an important topic.


Documents

Area C in British Parliamentary Debate