|

Debate on the implementation of the 2004 ICJ opinion on the Israeli war

Westminster Hall, House of Commons

Wednesday, July 2 2008

Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Ind Lab): I have instigated this debate because I, like many others, believe that the suffering of the Palestinian people is both a terrible humanitarian disaster and the cause of continuing instability and anger across the Arab and Muslim world.

I agree with all those who argue that the best way to bring relief to the Palestinian people and to calm the bitter anger of the Middle East would be to implement a two-state solution with the Palestinians establishing their state on the lands that belong to them in international law. That would mean a Palestinian state based on the 1967 boundaries, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

That proposal was accepted by the Palestine Liberation Organisation as part of the Oslo peace process and is the basis of the current peace plan supported by the whole Arab League. I believe that if the international community were willing to uphold international law and insist that Israel honour it, peace could be assured on that basis in the near future.

Unfortunately, when we examine the Israeli wall, its route and the associated infrastructure of control in the Palestinian occupied territories—closures, settlements, settler-only roads and so on—it is absolutely clear that Israel has no intention of agreeing to the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state in accordance with international law. We should be clear that that is the policy of successive Israeli Governments, whoever the leader or whatever the party.

Israel made 14 reservations to the road map, which is the supposed route to peace behind which the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia are combined. Reservation 5 states, among other things: "The provisional state will have provisional borders and certain aspects of sovereignty, be fully demilitarized...without the authority to undertake defence alliances or military cooperation, and Israeli control over the entry and exit of all persons and cargo, as well as of its air space and electromagnetic spectrum." Clearly, that is not a description of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state.

It is important to be clear that although Israel insisted that the PLO, before entering the Oslo process, recognise the right of Israel to exist, and that although Israel and the international community insist that Hamas should do the same before rather than after negotiations, successive Israeli Governments have not recognised the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state. They mention "certain aspects of sovereignty" in reservation 5 to the road map, and other phrases used are "autonomy plus" and "state minus".

If we are clear about that and then examine the route of the wall, or security fence—in some places it is a wall and in others a monstrous fence—it is clear that Israel is intent on confining the Palestinian population to a series of cantons or enclaves that are intended to perform the same function as did the Bantustans under the South African apartheid system.

Israel seeks to control the whole of Palestine from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River – the confiscation of land along the Jordan River is truly shocking but little discussed. It seeks to control the whole territory and confine the Palestinian population to prison-like conditions such as they currently experience in Gaza and, increasingly, in the west bank and East Jerusalem.

The wall separates Palestinian villages from their land, surrounds Palestinian towns, separates East Jerusalem from the west bank and incorporates massive illegal settlements within Israel. The more than 300 permanent closures and the settler-only roads mean that Palestinians cannot move about their territory. They are hemmed in and humiliated whenever they wish to travel. Their economy is shrinking and thus unemployment and poverty are growing and will continue to grow.

The point that I want to put to the Minister today is that everybody knows that such behaviour is a complete breach of international law. Israel is incorporating territory taken by force in breach of the UN charter.

Its settlements, collective punishments, failure to provide decent conditions for civilians in the occupied territories and treatment of prisoners are grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, yet the UK Government, the European Union and the United States of America are doing absolutely nothing to uphold international law.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice declared the route of the wall illegal and called for it to be dismantled. I shall read some passages from the judgment, which is obligatory on us and all other states.

It states that the Court is of the view that"All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall" in the occupied Palestinian territories, including in and around East Jerusalem. They are also under an obligation "not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction".

It is also for all states,"while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, in the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end."

Furthermore,“all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949”— that is virtually every state in the world — "have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention".

Given that, would not any reasonable person think it outrageous that authorities such as the US, the EU, Russia, and, shamefully, the UN—it should not be part of the Quartet taking forward a road map that so dishonours international law—and the rest of the international community do nothing to enforce the judgment but continue to negotiate on the basis of the road map while knowing what the ICJ and the facts on the ground tell us?

I am afraid that the conclusion is clear. Israel intends to offer the Palestinians a series of Bantustans. It will give them no control over their borders, or access to the sea or air, as in Gaza now, and call it Palestinian autonomy. That would be the outcome of the road map process of negotiation, or negotiations can continue indefinitely or break down and never reach a conclusion. This is now, and will be, the reality on the ground.

President Bush has made his position clear, and I hope that today the Minister will make clear the position of Her Majesty’s Government. President Bush, in his letter of 14 April 2004 to Prime Minister Sharon, basically spelled out that the Israeli proposal was acceptable. He made it clear that Israel’s illegal settlements would not have to be handed over and that the 1967 boundaries need not be honoured. He also made it clear that, as progress was made, Israel would continue to control the borders and access to the sea and air.

I am afraid that we cannot comfort ourselves by arguing that that was the view of an unpopular President whose term of office is about to end, because two months later the House of Representatives endorsed those commitments in a vote of 407 to nine, and the Senate endorsed them the next day in a vote of 95 to three. As might be expected, Prime Minister Sharon called the vote supporting the Bush letter one of the greatest diplomatic achievements in Israel’s history.

However, it is a setting aside of international law—a very serious matter. We must also be clear that it is not just the US that is tearing up international law and accepting the idea of the outcome of the peace process being a Palestine that is a series of cantons or Bantustans without any control over its borders.

The EU has not uttered such words, but it has a trade treaty with Israel that gives it privileged access to EU markets. It contains human rights conditionalities, but the EU has not seen fit to invoke them to uphold international law in the occupied territories, despite the ICJ making clear the binding nature of its judgment and the duty of all states to comply with it.

My conclusion is pessimistic. As I said, I agree that the best way to bring relief to the Palestinian people and a just peace to the Middle East would be a two-state solution that, in time, leads to an opening of borders and the integration of Palestine and Israel into the region. But the facts on the ground and the realities of international diplomacy tell us that what is to be offered to the Palestinians is a series of Bantustans and no control over their borders, within which they are to be offered autonomy.

Furthermore, according to President Bush’s letter, those Bantustans will also be obliged to accept all the refugees. No responsible Palestinian Government can accept that and any that did would not have the support of the Palestinian people.

The conclusion has to be that we are facing years, if not decades, of terrible suffering, bloodshed and conflict.

We will see, as Prime Minister Olmert has said, a campaign growing again—it is starting—for one united Palestine for all its people; it will be the second great anti-apartheid campaign. That will be the consequence of the reality on the ground, which is that the prospect of a realistic two-state solution is being destroyed. This is a recipe for endless conflict and bloodshed.

In addition, the situation spells out that might is right and that international law can be set aside when it suits. That endangers wider international stability and feeds the justification for the use of violence by non-state actors.

My questions to Her Majesty’s Government, through the Minister, are as follows. First, do they accept the International Court of Justice judgment on the war?

Secondly, if they do, do they accept that that judgment is binding on the United Kingdom and that the UK is bound to take action to see it implemented?

Thirdly, do the Government not agree, therefore, that they are obliged to take action to ensure that the judgment is implemented and that, as a first step, they should surely invoke the human rights conditionalities in the European Union-Israeli trade agreement and refuse Israel’s application to become a member of the OECD, which has conditionalities about respect for international law?

We are, as I have said, facing the prospect of years, if not decades, of bloodshed, conflict, suffering and international destabilisation coming out of the Middle East. We are also seeing the authority of international law and international humanitarian law being gravely undermined.

Surely, Her Majesty’s Government understand the danger and can and should do better to uphold international law and help bring peace to the Middle East. The Minister for the Middle East (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) on securing this important debate. The Middle East peace process continues to be a high priority for the Government as well as a topic of great interest to the House. We have had many debates on the subject and will continue to do so.

The United Kingdom is committed to supporting Israel and the Palestinian Authority in their attempts to negotiate a peace agreement. We need one. We have heard not only the right hon. Lady’s descriptions of the tragedy that has been this conflict for so long, but this morning we heard of more deaths in Jerusalem.

We recognise that huge challenges to the peace process remain. The Israeli barrier, and specifically the route of that barrier, is one such challenge. The right hon. Lady is right to highlight that. I would like to take this opportunity to set out the Government’s legal view on the barrier; to say something about its impact on Palestinians; and to set out what the Government are doing to influence the Israeli Government’s actions in relation to the barrier.

The Government agree with the conclusion of the International Court of Justice that building a barrier along the current route is unlawful. Building the barrier on occupied land is contrary to international law. The Government therefore supported the United Nations General Assembly resolution that acknowledged the ICJ’s advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of the barrier in occupied Palestinian territory.

While we recognise fully Israel's right to self-defence and agree that, if it decides that it wants to build a barrier it should be able to do that, we call for the barrier to be built either on or behind the green line. I take this opportunity to reiterate that call, which I have made many times in this place and in other places.

The Government are seriously concerned about the impact of the barrier on the lives of Palestinians, and deplore the destruction of Palestinian homes and the confiscation of Palestinian land associated with its construction. We are concerned about the effects of building the barrier on the Palestinian community and its access to agricultural land and water. I have seen for myself the impact that the barrier has had on the daily lives of Palestinians.

During one of my visits to the occupied Palestinian territories, I met a family who, prior to the erection of the barrier at the end of their road, which was previously the only access, could get into work in about five minutes and drop their kids off at school. Both parents were doctors working at the local hospital.

Now, as a result of the construction of the barrier, that same journey takes them about 40 minutes on a good day, but that depends on how people feel at the checkpoints and whether they are obstructive or in a good or bad mood.

It is abundantly clear that the barrier has had a huge negative impact on the daily lives of many ordinary Palestinians. Nevertheless, as the right hon. Lady knows, the barrier is popular among a lot of Israelis. They have seen a huge decline in the numbers of suicide bombings and, as a consequence, a decline in the number of innocent people who have died at the hands of murderers and terrorists. That is, in a sense, the essence of the problem. The barrier is popular inside Israel and unpopular almost everywhere else.

Clare Short: The Minister refers to the number of Israeli civilians who have been killed by terrorist action—of course, any attack on civilians is always an offence in international law—but I hope that he will acknowledge that far more Palestinians suffer as a consequence of collective punishments that are also a breach of international law.

The Israeli and Palestinian people, whenever they are asked, say time and again, in all surveys, that they support a two-state solution. To quote the popularity of the wall is to quote something that undermines what they really yearn for: a just peace, which can only come through two states.

Dr. Howells: No, I disagree with that analysis. I think that it is possible for people to yearn for justice and a two-state solution and to acknowledge that the barrier has made life safer inside Israel. I would not deny for one moment that Palestinians and Israelis have been killed needlessly and horribly as a consequence of this conflict. I think that I have mentioned to the right hon. Lady in previous debates that even old friends of mine inside

Israel—she would recognise the phrase “old lefties”—who believe that there ought to be one country, a fully integrated region, where people would live in peace with each other, acknowledge that they feel a lot more sanguine about their children going out at night or visiting restaurants in downtown Tel Aviv or wherever they happen to live.

The wall is one of the reasons that it has been much more difficult for suicide bombers to get inside to kill people. Although I understand and acknowledge what she says about the medium and longer-term aspirations of people on both sides of the barrier who yearn for justice and peace, there is, nevertheless, a mentality inside Israel that the wall is protecting them from suicide bombers, and we must take that into account when discussing this subject. Clare Short: If the wall was built on the 1967 boundary, it would have the same effect and would be legal.

Dr. Howells: Absolutely.

Clare Short: So to use that argument to justify it is to justify the breach of international law.

Dr. Howells: No. I do not know if the right hon. Lady heard me. I said precisely that the Government believe that that wall should not incorporate Palestinian land and should be on the 1967 line or behind it.

I reiterate that point for her. Nevertheless, I stick to my argument, which is that, in the meantime, since parts of the wall or barrier have been built, that mentality has grown up inside Israel and is a new factor that we must take into consideration. I am not trying to justify the stealing of any land as a consequence of the wall’s construction.

As the right hon. Lady knows, there are major impediments to access and movement on the west bank—she mentioned some of those difficulties—and Palestinians’ ability to move on the west bank has deteriorated significantly in recent years. Checkpoints, curfews, road blocks and the permit system have all contributed to that.

The permit system has resulted in delays for some of our consulate staff in Jerusalem—I experienced that when I was there—as well as for people going to and from work daily. The permit and checkpoint restrictions have isolated west bank residents from east Jerusalem, which is an important consideration.

The Government continue to make it clear to Israel that it should halt the construction of the barrier on Palestinian land. When explaining that to the Israeli Government, we have made it clear that they should not create facts on the ground—that is what they are—which will prejudice future final-status negotiations. The route that the Israeli Cabinet approved on 20 February 2005 takes in a number of Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law.

This morning, I asked Foreign Office officials how much land has been encompassed, and was told that it was 10 per cent. of the Palestinian territory. That is a huge amount of land.

The barrier also contributes to the fragmentation of the west bank. I have a map which shows the mess. I am not sure whether it looks like a Swiss cheese, which is how President Bush described it, but one can see why the right hon. Lady made the point about cantonisation or Bantustans. It has always disappointed me to hear all sorts of excuses when I have spoken to Israeli Ministers, about how someone from Bethlehem, for example, can get to Ramallah, which is not far away.

The whole area is tiny, but the journey involves going the best part of the way to Jericho, and back up the road to Ramallah. They have sometimes said that they will build tunnels, but that is not good enough and does not address the aspirations of Palestinians who live in the area, and it means the cantonisation of the sovereign state that we want to be created.

The route does nothing to enhance the move towards the creation of a two-state solution, and we will continue to raise that—we do so regularly—with the Israeli Government. In our discussions with Israel, we have focused on those parts of the barrier’s route that we believe are most problematic.

They include the settlement of Ariel, which cuts 20 km deep into the west bank at a point where it is only 45 km wide. At Ma’ale Adumim, the barrier threatens territorial contiguity between the northern and southern parts of the west bank. That is a very deep cut, which contains a large number of new houses, many of which are still being built. We have also raised with the Israeli Government our concerns about Israeli policies in Jerusalem, which threaten to cut off east Jerusalem from the west bank.

Those policies include the routing of the barrier on occupied territory, settlement activity both within and around east Jerusalem, and increasingly restricted access to Jerusalem for Palestinian residents. We have also worked to raise those issues through the EU.

It is vital that we take this opportunity to focus on the wider picture—this debate has an important bearing on it—and notably the opportunity that the Annapolis process has provided to move the peace process forward. Since November’s Annapolis conference, for the first time in seven years, we have been able to talk about a real process—perhaps not progress, but at least a process.

At the conference, we saw substantial political movement from both sides. President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert committed themselves to fortnightly meetings, and both restated their commitment to their road map obligations, meaning improved Palestinian security and a freeze on Israeli settlements. The US undertook to monitor the process, and all parties agreed to conclude negotiations by the end of 2008.

The conference was a signal of renewed international commitment to the peace process, and was remarkable for the strong Arab attendance, showing that the Arab world is prepared to be meaningfully involved in the process. The UK is deeply committed to supporting the peace negotiations.

The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have been engaged in supporting the process, and both have spoken regularly to the key actors involved and have been very clear in their message. We expect all parties to fulfil their road map obligations. That means that Israel must freeze all settlement activity and that the Palestinians must work to improve their security sector. I believe that the Palestinians are trying to do that.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House on 18 June, it is essential that Israel "stop the settlement programme that is causing so much distress among the Palestinians." [Official Report, 18 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 945.] The United Kingdom has been deeply engaged in supporting the political process. On 2 May, London hosted the ad hoc liaison committee and a meeting of the Quartet.

Those were the first meetings on the Middle East peace process in 2008. Since then, the Foreign Secretary visited Lebanon and the occupied Palestinian territories on 8-9 June, which was his second visit this year. More recently, I met Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, and the Foreign Minister on 23 June on the margins of an important peace conference in Berlin on Palestinian security.

Last Monday, I met the Israeli social welfare Minister and former housing Minister under the Ariel Sharon Government, Isaac Herzog. I tried to convey to Minister Herzog the Government’s great concern at news of the planned construction of yet more illegal dwellings on Palestinian occupied territory.

I want to make it clear to the right hon. Lady that we do not believe that a series of Bantustans or a fragmented parody of a state will do. Palestine must come out of the process as a sovereign state in every sense with control of its external borders. If that does not happen, the conflict will continue, as the right hon. Lady said, because the aspirations that have so often been voiced will not have been met.

In the couple of minutes remaining, I want to say that we have been working hard to try to help the Palestinians to increase their ability to guarantee security within the west bank. That is more difficult in Gaza.

As the right hon. Lady said, the situation there is terrible, and we have pressed the Israelis, now that a peace process has been brokered by the Egyptians between the Israelis and Hamas, to ensure that where crossings in Gaza are open, albeit partially, many more goods are allowed to cross in and out. We shall keep pressing for that.

I do not know what effect today’s tragedy in Jerusalem will have, but usually such crossings are closed for a while. There is undoubtedly great suffering there. We have seen from a number of Palestinian factions, not just the Palestinian Authority, an attempt to abide by the agreement that they made for the calm, or the peace process, to try to stop rockets being fired into Israel with the inevitable retaliatory consequences.

I have run out of time, but I want to tell the right hon. Lady that we are extremely concerned about the matter. We will continue to press the Israeli Government on it because it is important. We will also continue to work through the EU and every other channel to try to ensure that the terms of the Annapolis talks are abided by and that the road map is adhered to.