Israel and Palestinian Talks

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

2017 is a year of many historic anniversaries for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so I welcome this chance for Members across the House to reflect on Britain’s past, present, and future role in the conflict. The events we mark are not relics of the past holding kernels of wisdom for the astute historian; they have directly structured the ongoing daily reality for the lives of millions of people.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the six-day war and the Israeli occupation of the west bank that continues to this day. The occupation, and the settler movement that formed under its shadow, has created an unsustainable status quo that poses a fundamental threat to our shared ideals of a democratic and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.

I remember taking part in a cricket tour of Israel five years ago, as part of the Lords and Commons cricket team, with my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris). One of the highlights was him hitting a ball into the middle of the Olympic stadium stand, in a piece of cricket playing that was otherwise largely unsuccessful on our part. On that tour, we witnessed some really interesting attempts to build peace from the bottom up. Under the auspices of the Peres Centre for Peace, we saw children from the occupied territories playing cricket together with Israeli Jewish children and Israeli Arab children. That was one of myriad projects designed to try to do something, in different walks of life, to bring peace.

Two other things really struck me on that tour. The first was that an Israeli general election campaign was in progress, and the conflict was barely an issue among the Israeli parties. It was simply behind the wire or the wall, both politically and in reality. The other was a comment made by the chair of the Israel Cricket Association, a South African Zionist who had been there since 1947, who said that 1967 was the time when Israel began to lose its moral authority.

There is something special about the Israeli story. Like many in my generation, I grew up learning about the horror of the holocaust and the building of a brave democratic state in Israel, which was assailed on all sides by its Arab neighbours. There was a sense of moral authority about the setting up of this state, following the appalling events in Jewish history in Europe over the previous 1,000 years or so. I hope that out of the talks that need to happen now, we can find a way to restore the specialness of the Israeli story and the moral purpose of the state of Israel. I think we all have expectations of the state of Israel—that she will aspire to the highest possible standards—but the way in which the conflict and policy have developed makes it very difficult for her to achieve them. I will return to that point.

Particularly significant for us this year is the 100th anniversary of the Balfour declaration on 2 November. I hope that this debate will not preclude further parliamentary consideration of that anniversary at the time. This is a touchstone issue for millions of Arabs and Muslims, and I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that their eyes will be on us. The centenary must be handled with the utmost care and consideration. In the conversations that I had with almost all Arab ambassadors in my former capacity as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, it was clear that uncertainty and anxiety surround the centenary.

Last November, the then Minister for the Middle East assured the House that the British Government would neither celebrate nor apologise for the Balfour declaration. I welcomed that position for its acknowledgement that although for many the declaration was the beginning of their deliverance from centuries of persecution, for others its unfulfilled passages were the root of their communal loss. In such a context, celebration or apology betrays the legitimate historical sensitivities of either party, when we should be focused on how to move the issue forward to the benefit of both parties.

I would welcome from the new Minister—the most admirable piece of recycling that it has been my pleasure to see; in his position as a Privy Counsellor and a Minister of State he has the authority of all the experience he gained when he previously held the role, for which he was widely held in high regard—a clarification of the Government’s position on the centenary and an assurance that Ministers will endeavour to ensure that their messages are properly synchronised, and that they open a particular dialogue with the Arab embassies and states about the Government’s position on the anniversary.

Talking of anniversaries, I am in my 21st year as a Member of the House; that is an anniversary that we share, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has been an honour to sit on these Benches, but it has been profoundly sad to witness these recurring debates on a frozen conflict, the position of which has got worse over the last 20 years. Amid the minefield of competing claims, we get bogged down in an epistemological challenge about how we balance so many unbalanced forces, how we treat fairly so many conflicting injustices and how we stand up to the wrongs of one without establishing the equivalence with those of the other, all supposedly in pursuit of effecting meaningful change to bring about a resolution and to put an end to the conflict.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s tone. I am a supporter of the state of Israel, and I am also desperate for some real progress to be made towards a Palestinian state and towards showing dignity and respect for the Palestinian people. I agree with earlier comments that debates such as this can get quite polarised and binary in the House of Commons. I believe we all wish to see progress, and we should look to the tone adopted by the hon. Gentleman.

[Crispin Blunt]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am trying to make precisely the point that we all too often indulge in reinforcing our own respective positions.

No single problem is causing the stalemate, and there is therefore no single solution. Neither party holds a monopoly of power to make peace, and all sides have the capability to spoil it. Palestinians have been betrayed by years of factionalised leaderships that have failed to meet their people’s needs—from the basic governance necessary to live in dignity to the realisation of their legitimate political ambitions for self-determination. Now, possibly more than at any time in their history, the Palestinian people are trapped deep within a structural crisis of leadership, with almost all levels of democratic activity and elections suspended. This augurs badly for any efforts to address issues such as the incitement or commission of violence, and it denies Palestinians the opportunity to present their cause with the legal and moral authority that it deserves.

On the other hand, the continuation of the settlement programme, in contravention of international law—I welcome the Minister’s restatement of the British position—undermines the prospects for a viable Palestinian state in the future. Settlements are the physical embodiment of conflict between competing narratives of nationalism, in the context of a historic tragedy that has pitted entire peoples against each other in their respective searches for nationhood. Across the canvas of a biblical landscape, settlements paint a picture of a zero-sum paradigm from which no party has found the political will to escape. Aside from the practical impact that settlements have on the viability of a future Palestinian state, settlements and the multifaceted injustices that they represent are salt in the open wound of their collective dispossession.

Both sides complain that they lack partners for peace on the opposite side of the negotiating table. However, they all too often fail to think about what they themselves could do to nurture such partners. Any colleagues who have been able to spend time engaging with broader Israeli and Palestinian society will know that there are such partners, and they share many of the frustrations at their mutual predicament. These people need to be empowered to win their respective arguments in their societies. The Minister will recall that we both met Gideon Sa’ar during the election campaign. He took time out from frontline Israeli politics—he is a potential successor to Benjamin Netanyahu as the leader of Likud—to go to Northern Ireland with an organisation called Forward Thinking to see the peace and the resolution that we have made, and are trying to make, to the conflict there. He was prepared to learn lessons, and it is a sign of hope when Israeli leaders are taking time out to go and see routes to conflict resolution. We need to be able to do that with political leaders on both sides.

[Dr Huq]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not give way because I am concluding and I know that other Members wish to speak.

It was with some disappointment that the general election broke off the Foreign Affairs Committee’s inquiry into Britain’s role in the middle east peace process, after we had received 70 submissions totalling over 400 pages of evidence. I hope to be able to carry on this work if I am re-elected as Chair of the Committee, because there is a clear need for scrutiny and debate on all the policy questions raised by this tragically frozen conflict. If we do not get to grips with this conflict, it will continue to get worse and more desperate. Britain, with its historical legacy, has a very particular role to play, which is why we cannot escape our involvement in this tragedy, but it will require our full attention if we are to get the Israeli-Palestinian conflict back on a path to peace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

The urgency with which this Parliament must help with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was shown by the five debates held and 19 written statements made during the last Parliament. It is becoming increasingly apparent to me that there is no longer any real urgency being shown by either side of the debate about progressing towards a two-state solution. While the Israelis have become used to a status quo that delivers security for them, Palestinians have become ever more divided, as Hamas continues to clash with more moderate Palestinian factions. Alongside the ever present and ever increasing issue of illegal settlements, a two-state solution is therefore sliding further out of view.

The current governing coalition in Israel is the most right-wing in the country’s history. Since the start of the year, the Israeli Government, emboldened by the new Trump Administration, have announced the creation of more than 6,000 new buildings in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and have attempted to legitimise them through the Land Regularisation Bill. The UN middle east envoy, Nickolay Mladenov, has condemned the Land Regularisation Bill, fearing that it may

“greatly diminish the prospects for Arab-Israeli peace”.

The retroactive legalisation of 55 settlements and roughly 4,000 housing units is a significant step away from a peaceful solution.

Let us take the case of Bethlehem, which has a population of 220,000. Surrounding the town are 100,000 illegal Israeli settlers, complete with vast security zones to protect them. These security zones have cut off Bethlehem from its historical connection with its twin city, Jerusalem. While these settlements are in place, it is impossible to imagine a situation in which a peaceful solution between Palestine and Israel can be found.

Many within the Israeli community used to argue that settlements provided an extra level of security for the Israeli state. Ami Ayalon, a former director of Shin Bet, the Israel Security Agency, has called this into question. The volatility and mistrust created by illegal settlement activity is increasingly putting Israeli people and soldiers at risk. Furthermore, even the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak has emphasised that, in continuing with this policy, Israel is creating an apartheid reality.

[Crispin Blunt]

On the gap between Bethlehem and Jerusalem, does my hon. Friend share my concern about the reality of the communities simply not meeting because of how the checkpoints are run? The opportunities for Israelis and Palestinians to get to know and understand each other have been continually reduced by the way in which the situation has to be policed.

[Ms Ghani]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it just creates further friction when people do not know each other and fear each other.

While the US Administration under Obama abstained on UN resolution 2334, the newly elected Trump Administration risk creating a vacuum on the world stage. President Trump’s threat to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has further fuelled fears that his Administration will not push for a two-state solution. I am pleased that the United Kingdom voted for resolution 2334 and condemned the passage of the Land Regularisation Bill, but the Government must now step forward and fill that vacuum.

There are three areas in which the Government can exert pressure. First, the Israeli blockade of the Gaza strip is neither productive nor appropriate, and the Minister must call for its further relaxation. Relaxing the blockade would weaken Hamas’s hand in the region, and allow for further reconciliation with the Palestinian Authority. Secondly, to that end, we must encourage Israel to allow more reconstruction aid to enter Gaza. Tension in the Gulf states has meant that Qatari attempts to get aid in have proved fruitless, and Israel is well positioned to help to rebuild a war-torn society. Thirdly, the draconian restrictions in place on Palestinians wanting to move across the west bank continue to stoke further tensions, and by easing some of this control Israel could firmly send a message that it wants a peaceful solution and is willing to work towards it.

Although we are right to support Israel both locally and internationally in relation to the very difficult security situation in the middle east, it is precisely because we are its friends that it is our duty to stand up on the international stage and make it clear that we fully support a two-state solution and will not advocate or endorse any Israeli action that makes such a prospect less likely.

Syria and North Korea

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

The hon. Lady will know that the UK is already the second biggest donor of humanitarian aid to the region, so we have a record that we can be proud of. I return to what she had to say about the American strike. I am looking at faces that are familiar from previous statements on Syria; month after month I have come here to update the House on how that tragedy is unfolding, and I see people who have taken a passionate interest in this subject and have called repeatedly for us to do more. Finally, the United States has taken what we believe to be condign action—action that I think is entirely appropriate—but somehow it fails to find favour with the hon. Lady.

I think that what has happened is a good thing, but we should not overstate its importance from a military point of view. We have to recognise that this is a political opportunity, and it is an opportunity for the Russians to recognise the manner of regime that they are propping up. That is the message that we need to get over loud and clear, and unanimously.

As for North Korea, the hon. Lady makes a good point about the need to get rid of nuclear weapons. I think it would be foolish—I hope that she agrees—for the United States even to begin to think of getting rid of its nuclear weapons before we have a denuclearised North Korea.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for the detailed evidence he has presented to the House about the responsibility for the nerve agent attack in Syria. I commend him for giving the House that detail and, in doing so, I invite him to depersonalise his assessment of the Syrian regime simply around the personality of its President. We already have in place a mechanism by which that President will be held to account in future by the Syrian people if he wishes to seek their views under the International Syria Support Group conclusions of November 2015. That process has already been agreed on by 20 nations, and we should be relying on that and not using rhetoric that might make it more difficult to get into that process.

Finally, if I may ask my right hon. Friend about North Korea, I invite him to put pressure on the United States to try to dial down the public rhetoric. In some ways, North Korea is like an attention-seeking child who happens to belong to someone else—in this case, China. While the United States has proper responsibilities to the other nations in the area about their security, ratcheting up the rhetoric with North Korea is probably the wrong way of publicly dealing with it.

[Boris Johnson]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we should be clear that our quarrel is not only with Bashar al-Assad, but with others in his regime. It will be possible to sketch out a route map to show how we can keep the institutions of Syrian government and yet get rid of the most murderous elements of the regime. We need to be getting that idea across clearly in the next weeks and months.

On North Korea, I am sure that my hon. Friend’s words on the need to avoid ratcheting up the rhetoric are wise—he speaks from experience—but I believe that the key lies mainly with China in this arena. It is very much in the interests of the Chinese and the Russians, who share a border with North Korea, to rein in Kim Jong-un and persuade him to abandon what I think is a path of self-destruction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

We are of course seeking clarity about exactly how the law would be applied in practice, although, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the Israeli Government, like our Government, already have very wide discretion about how to apply their immigration laws.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

What is our policy on goods and services produced in the settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories?

Budget Resolutions

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

One would have thought that they would learn. One would have thought that the merchants of this kind of thing would have understood that there is no point in continually standing up and running our country down when, in fact, we are back up at No. 5. We have seen record investment in the United Kingdom, and we continue to see that the fundamentals of the British economy are strong and getting stronger.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Boris Johnson]

I will in 10 seconds.

One of the reasons for that is the active role that we play in protecting and insisting on rules-based international order. And with that, I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Crispin Blunt]

My right hon. Friend talks of the importance of the development budget and what it brings to the United Kingdom. Will he at least accept that there is an issue over how that money is invested in, for instance, the British Council, and, indeed, cross-invested in elements of his budget? Will he accept that that policy can only be applied to the developing world, that it is rather more important for him to have the tools to present global Britain across the whole world, and that the policy should not be constrained by the source of the expenditure?

[Boris Johnson]

My hon. Friend speaks with great wisdom and authority. I know that the Foreign Affairs Committee, which he chairs, has made some useful recommendations on how we can maximise our overseas spending, and co-ordinate it so that it helps to deliver not only our security but our economic objectives. I totally accept that point.

In the pursuit of the system that we want to see, our diplomats and intelligence officers and our serving men and women, backed up by the Department for International Development, are striving every day to preserve the essentials of the rule-based order, thereby helping to protect jobs and the safety of our constituents here in the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

If I may say so, it is important to be clear-eyed about American power and success in negotiating trade agreements and to recognise that we will have to be on our mettle to get a good deal for this country. Nevertheless, I have absolutely no doubt that we will be able to do such a deal. It is a great shame that in 44 years of EU membership we have not been able to secure a free trade deal with the United States. That is now on the table.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

In his discussions with the American Secretary of State, did the Foreign Secretary discuss the best opportunity for a state visit by President Trump? Did he put forward my suggestion that the 400th anniversary of the Pilgrim Fathers in 2020 would be a much better occasion for a state visit than one in the course of the next few months, which is likely to be a rallying point for every discontent in the United Kingdom?

[Boris Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting suggestion; I am afraid to say that it is not one I had time to make to our American counterparts. Let us see how the matter of the state visit evolves. The invitation has been issued and accepted, and I am sure it will be a great success.

President Trump: State Visit

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Walker, for the invitation to take part in this debate, which the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) opened so energetically. He referred to our “beleaguered” Prime Minister. I look forward to the authority that she exerts when she is not quite so beleaguered. I am still puzzling about what he meant by “protozoan”. I will come back to the power exercised by the President, but first we should take a reality check. An invitation has been issued in the name of Her Majesty, and if we wanted to find a way of embarrassing her, withdrawing that invitation would be the quickest way about it. We are left in a situation where the formal word of Her Majesty, but also that of the United Kingdom, is engaged.

Let us get to the realpolitik behind this. It is very likely that opening up the possibility of an invitation for a state visit secured our Prime Minister the first call on the newly elected President of the United States. During her visit, she got the incredibly important assurance about NATO that was so expertly referred to by the Chairman of the Defence Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I heard the hon. Gentleman being interviewed on Radio Scotland this morning. He said then what he has just said: that it was very likely that the Prime Minister had used the offer of a state visit to secure the first visit to Trump. Can he confirm his source for that statement?

[Crispin Blunt]

I am simply using my own assessment and my experience from my own career of how such matters are arranged to say what might have happened. I am happy to confirm that I have no first-hand evidence of the discussions; I merely use my experience to say what might have happened. However, the Prime Minister secured that first visit. She secured the undertaking about NATO, which is immensely important to Europe’s security; she got a reaffirmation of the special relationship by being the first foreign leader to visit President Trump; and, the day before meeting the President, she gave a spectacularly successful address to the Republican caucus in Philadelphia.

We must understand what is going on. We are dealing with the first non-politician and the first non-serviceman to be elected President. He is definitively different. Dangling a state visit in front of a half-Scottish President of the United States, whose mother had an immense attachment to that country, was an exercise in pressing the right buttons to engage him and a successful use of the United Kingdom’s soft power.

The Prime Minister secured the undertaking about NATO, but let us also understand the checks and balances that this President will have to operate under. First, he will need to operate under the checks and balances that come from Congress, and the Republican caucus in Congress will be immensely important in that. For our Prime Minister to have secured a place where she has an opportunity, in effect, to put our case, which may be aligned with that of the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA, to the White House—

[Alex Salmond]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Crispin Blunt]

I will if the right hon. Gentleman is brief, because his intervention will come out of injury time.

[Alex Salmond]

The hon. Gentleman continues seriously to underrate President Trump. The idea that this President will have things determined by anything other than his own interests and what he perceives the American interest to be is a mistake of such naivety—naivety that explains the fact that he managed to get into the White House in the first place.

[Crispin Blunt]

I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to what is actually happening. This President, who comes from an area where he was not disciplined in the requirements of our profession or those of the services, is issuing undisciplined statements. What has he had to say about torture? He has said that he will concede his judgment to that of his Defence Secretary. I was told cheerfully by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender friends of mine that he was about to rescind employment protection for LGBT people in the United States. He did not, as it happens. Who won out in the row between his national security adviser and his vice-president? His vice-president. The immigration ban is being overturned by the judges—another element of the separation of powers in the United States. We are seeing this Administration develop following the extraordinary and unprecedented election of this individual to the presidency.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Crispin Blunt]

Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I do not? I am out of injury time.

The point I am making is that these are early days, and the need for a disciplined Administration is beginning to crowd in on this President. We will see how things develop, but it is incredibly important that our Prime Minister secured the first visit of a foreign leader to the White House.

The truth is that we need to calm and take the hype out of this debate—not just the debate in this Chamber but, frankly, the national debate. The invitation has been issued. I do not think that it should or could properly be rescinded, so there is the possibility that it will be taken up this year. I think that would be a mistake. We need to point out that 2020 will be the 400th anniversary of one of the most remarkable events in British-American history: the pilgrim fathers’ settlement. That is incredibly important in the United States, and it would be an utterly appropriate moment to be marked by a state visit to the United Kingdom by whoever is the US Head of State at that time. We should focus the Administration’s attention on that opportunity. A Head of Government visit this year would be entirely appropriate. If we do not take the hype out of this debate, given the number of people who signed the petition, there is every possibility that the President’s visit will become a rallying point for everyone who is unhappy with the direction of American policy or British policy, or anything else, and the poor old commissioner of the Met will be left with a rather significant public order issue to manage.

There is an opportunity to look forward and celebrate a great anniversary in British-American relations, and extract ourselves from the practical difficulty of the invitation having been issued. But issuing that invitation secured a reaffirmation of the special relationship, a commitment by the President of the United States to NATO—that was reinforced in Europe this weekend by senior members of his Administration—and an opportunity for us to reinforce the voices in the White House of the State Department, the Republican caucus, the Pentagon and the CIA, and that was infinitely the right thing to do.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Israeli Settlements

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on introducing the debate.

Secretary Kerry’s speech after the adoption of resolution 2334 was outstanding in its depth and balance. Friends of both Israel and Palestine must address his central charge that the status quo is unsustainable and is both a threat to a democratic Israel and prevents a viable Palestinian state. The argument that resolution 2334, John Kerry’s speech, the Paris conference and even this motion are hollow words and simply serve to harden intransigence is transparent, self-serving nonsense. Reiterating basic tenets of international law and ceaselessly searching for peace should not be dismissed in that way.

I share Kerry’s analysis that settlements are not the

“the whole or even the primary cause of this conflict.”

I welcome his work on securing Palestinian acknowledgement that the reference in the Arab peace initiative to the 1967 lines included the concept of land swaps, and he is right that even if the settlements were removed, we would not have peace without a broader agreement.

Since Oslo, Palestinians have been betrayed by two decades of factionalised leadership; by the international community in the disastrous consequences of the implementation of the Oslo process; historically, by their Arab neighbours in the catastrophic way that they first advanced their own interests ahead of the Palestinian cause; and, also historically, by Britain in our failure to deliver the second half of the Balfour declaration.

It is also true that, for more than 100 years, the Palestinian leadership has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Today, those encouraging violence are again betraying the opportunity to present the Palestinian cause with the legal and moral authority that it deserves. However, while admitting the enormity of these issues, one should not belittle the seriousness of the settlements issue. Settlements are illegal under international law for a reason.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the distinguished Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for allowing me to intervene. Will he comment on what message it sends out to the international community when UN resolution after UN resolution on settlements is ignored and on what we can do to ensure that we action the one that has just been passed?

[Crispin Blunt]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is such a distinguished addition to the Foreign Affairs Committee. As he knows, we have announced an inquiry into British policy towards the middle east peace process, and it is an issue with which we will engage in detail over the months ahead.

[Dr Whitford]

Having been in Gaza a quarter of a century ago when the Oslo process started, I have to ask whether we are not now in a situation in which, if we do not recognise and enforce international law, we send out the message to other countries in the world that if they cover something in concrete, we will let them get away with it. If that is so, we will pay the price.

[Crispin Blunt]

I agree with the hon. Lady. The implications of these settlements are catastrophic. One should not belittle the seriousness of the issue. As I was saying, settlements are illegal under international law for a reason. One cannot conquer someone else’s territory and then colonise it. The end of that era was codified in the Geneva convention in 1949, and our experience since has been of decolonisation. That it should have happened over the past 50 years at the hands of a nation born out of the moral authority of the appalling treatment of the Jews in Europe over centuries that culminated in the holocaust is deeply troubling for the admirers of the heroic generation that founded the state of Israel.

We rightly talk about all that should be celebrated in Israel, which is often described as a beacon of our shared values in a troubled region, but the truth is that Palestinians, the Arab world and the wider international community, including our own population, increasingly see Israel through the clouded prism of the settlements.

Within Israel, there is no consensus on settlements. The recent regularisation law has raised a particularly rancorous debate. It was Benny Begin, the son of a former Prime Minister and a Likud Member of the Knesset, who dubbed the law as the “robbery law”, while the head of the Zionist Union, Isaac Herzog, called it “a threat” to Israel. It is worth remembering that Parliaments cannot make legal what international law proscribes.

[Richard Graham]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the expansion of illegal settlements is to the despair of many people who wish Israel well and plays precisely into the hands of those who believe that there is a cynical intent never to pursue a two-state solution?

[Crispin Blunt]

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend.

It distresses me that, despite the formal reiteration of the British position on settlements, the recent signals from the Government—briefing against the Kerry speech, not participating in the Paris conference and receiving an Israeli Premier who has just presided over the regularisation law and who is in deep domestic trouble— suggest that they do not fully appreciate the seriousness of this obstacle to peace and the threat to the values of a nation that our history of personal, economic and security relationships makes a firm friend and ally. Friends should not allow each other to make profound and damaging mistakes, which is why I support this motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin]

Not at the moment.

Does anyone seriously believe that the settlements are a bigger barrier to the peace process than Hamas’s terrorism and extremism? Its charter sets out its goals with an explicit rejection of not just Israel’s right to exist, but the very idea of a peace process, which it says would involve the surrender of “Islamic land”. This is an organisation that spends millions, and uses building materials, which could build hospitals, schools and homes, for tunnels and terror. It pioneered suicide bombing in the middle east, and then celebrated the murder of Israelis in bars and restaurants.

[Crispin Blunt]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Austin]

Not at the moment.

Settlements do not, as has been suggested in the debate, make the prospect of a two-state solution impossible. I do not defend settlement-building, but the House should recognise that Israel has shown its willingness to evacuate settlements before—from Sinai in 1982, as part of the Camp David accords, and when it unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Settlements are a problem, but they are not the only problem, and they are certainly not the only barrier to peace. In Sinai in 1979, in an agreement with Egypt that survives to this day, Israel withdrew not just from Sinai but from its settlements there. Israel unilaterally withdrew 8,000 settlers and soldiers from Gaza in 2005. It demolished its settlements and, tragically, that has not led to peace. In every attempt to make peace—there have been a number in recent years—with Palestinians and others, a solution has been found to settlements, whether that means land swaps or settlements becoming part of a Palestinian state.

[Crispin Blunt]

The hon. Lady’s version of history and what happened in 1967—she agreed with the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin)—is somewhat disputed. The key issue is that the settlements on the west bank are changing the physical geography. They are a physical barrier to change, rather than simply a policy barrier to change for both parties. The scale of the challenge on the west bank is that there are 400,000 rather than just 8,000 settlements. Therefore, vast political investment is needed, and it becomes more difficult every day for Israel to deliver an agreement as the settler interest becomes greater.

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree that the settlement policy is certainly not helpful, but it has developed because of the intransigence of the Palestinians and a failure to reach agreement.

I accept that settlements are a problem, but they are not an unsolvable one and they are certainly not the only one. One critical problem and barrier to resolving the situation is the deliberate incitement by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. Hamas is explicitly anti-Semitic—it has talked about Jews ruling the world and made a statement about killing every Jew behind a rock—but the Palestinian Authority is not totally innocent either.

I draw hon. Members’ attention to the Palestinian campaign of incitement to violence and individual terrorism. In the 12 months after October 2015—it is not finished yet—there were 169 stabbings, 128 shootings and 54 car rammings. Forty-six Israeli civilians were killed and more than 650 were injured on the streets of Israel. Individual terrorists—they are sometimes as young as 12 and 13—are fired up with hatred to go out on those streets and kill Israelis. That includes a teenage boy pulling a 13-year-old boy off his bike and stabbing him. That is because of incitement and the creation of hatred.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

This important debate has been constructive, informative and, at times, passionate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and others who have brought it to the House. Following your guidance, Mr Speaker, I have just eight minutes to respond. I hope the Backbench Business Committee recognises how many people wanted to speak in this debate and I hope that we have a further opportunity for debate in which I have more time to respond. I will do my best, as I always do, to write to hon. Members if I do not cover their points today.

The focus of today’s debate is Israeli settlements, but may I begin, as others have, by firmly underlining our deep friendship with Israel, its people and its absolute right to exist and defend itself? Israel is a democratic state in a difficult neighbourhood. In the year in which we mark the 100th anniversary of the Balfour declaration, which underlines our shared history, we continue to have an interest—as a nation, an ally, a regional partner and a permanent member of the UN Security Council—in understanding the challenges faced by the region, including securing a two-state solution, which we continue to support, and the issue of illegal settlements, which we are discussing today.

[Crispin Blunt]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not because I have only a short amount of time.

The debate has focused on a number of themes, which I will try to cover to my best ability. The first was the importance of a two-state solution, which, as others have said, is the only way to secure a just and lasting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. We must all continue to work for that, no matter how big the challenges. The objective has been repeated not only by us and American Presidents, but by successive Israeli Prime Ministers and the international community. The objective has also been confirmed through a series of UN Security Council resolutions and other agreements through the Oslo accords, the Madrid discussions and the Camp David talks. To be clear: the solution cannot be imposed on the Israelis or the Palestinians, but the international community has an important role to play.

Although important, the matter of settlements is not the only issue but one of a number. The immediate removal of settlements would not immediately lead to peace. Trends on the ground, including violence, terrorism and incitement, as well as settlement expansion, are seemingly leading to a steady drift from peace and making the prospect of a two-state solution look very much impossible. It is in no one’s interests to see that drift towards a one-state solution. It is not in Israel’s long-term interests; it is not in the Palestinians’ interests; and it is not in the region’s interests.

Specifically on settlements, if we look at the map, we can see that there are now around 600,000 people living in about 140 settlements built since 1967. We can see that the west bank is being divided into three, with Jenin and Nablus in the north; Ramallah in the middle, broken by the Ariel finger; and area E1 separating Ramallah and Bethlehem from the Hebron conurbations. So the concept of a contiguous Palestinian state is being eroded, and that is a huge concern. The west bank is now a complex network of checkpoints, which is broken up, as has been said, and that makes it difficult for people to move and to enjoy a normal life.

Since 2011, Israel has approved only three urban development plans in area C. We want this to change, and we encourage Israel, as per the Oslo accords, to transfer land from area C to area B, and from area B to area A—area A, of course, is where the Palestinians have control and authority over their own security arrangements and economic prospects.

UN Security Council resolution 2334 was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. It should come as no surprise that we voted in favour of it in December, because we have long supported the two-state solution and the notion of Israel as the Jewish homeland. We should recognise what the resolution actually said. It proposed three important and balanced steps to support peace in the region, including calls for both parties to prevent the incitement of acts of violence, to build and create conditions for peace and to work together to allow credible negotiations to start. Of course, it is based on historical resolutions 242, from November 1967, and 181, which goes back to 1947.

The regularisation Bill has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. A new and dangerous threshold was crossed with that Bill. I am pleased to see that the vote on it was very close—it was 60 to 52—and the Israeli Attorney General has made it clear that he will not support it if it goes to appeal, which I think it will. That is good, because he sees it as constitutionally unviable, and I hope that that message is heard loud and clear.

I am running out of time, but I will do my best to cover the remaining points. On the recognition of Palestine, we need the Palestinians to do more to prevent the incitement of violence. President Abbas condemns certain aspects of it, but we are still seeing schools and squares being named after terrorists. These are not the confidence-building measures we need see. There is no relationship with Hamas at all. Those confidence-building measures are the steps that will allow us to move forward, so that there can be a recognition in the long term of the state of Palestine, but they are not there yet. The younger generation has given up on its own leadership, choosing instead to try to take a fast track to paradise by grabbing a knife and killing an Israeli soldier, and that is a terrible state of affairs to be in.

The British Government continue to believe that the only way to a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians is the two-state solution, but there are a number of obstacles to peace, including settlements and continued violence and incitement. We remain committed to working closely with our international partners, including the new US Administration, to promote an environment conducive to peace. We continue to support both parties to take steps towards a negotiated settlement that brings peace, security and prosperity to Israelis and Palestinians.

Everyone has the right to call somewhere their home. Everyone has the right to be safe in that home. And no one should live in fear of their neighbours. We strongly believe that the middle east peace process is the best way forward to deliver these hopes. The question is whether we want a new generation of Israelis and Palestinians nurturing the seeds of hate or moving to a place of lasting friendship.

US Immigration Policy

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I listened very carefully, and I think the hon. Lady’s most substantial point was about the particular case of a Glaswegian doctor. I appreciate that there will be all sorts of cases—particularly difficult cases, heart-breaking cases—in which people have experienced a lot of frustration as a result of this measure. I repeat, because perhaps Members did not follow it first time, that this is not the policy of Her Majesty’s Government but a policy that is being promoted elsewhere.

What we will do is make sure that all our consular network and all our diplomatic network are put at the service of people who are finding difficulties as a result of these measures, but, as I said, because of the energetic action of this Government, of the Prime Minister and of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary we have an exemption for UK passport holders, whether dual nationals or otherwise. I think that most fair-minded people would say that that shows the advantages of working closely with the Trump Administration and the advantages of having a relationship that enables us to get our point across and to get the vital protections that UK passport holders need. The approach taken by the Labour party, of pointlessly demonising the Trump Administration, would have achieved the very opposite.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary welcome the joint statement by Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham expressing their fear that this Executive order will be a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism?

[Boris Johnson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. What the interventions of Senator McCain and Senator Graham possibly show is that this is a subject for lively debate on Capitol Hill, as it is here in this House. I repeat that we do not support this—it is not a policy we agree with—and it is clear from what my hon. Friend says that others in the US do not agree with it either.

Changes in US Immigration Policy

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) on securing this debate. It was of course your decision to allow it, Mr Speaker. If the emotion we have already heard in the British House of Commons is anything to go by, what on earth will the effect of the order be right around the world, particularly in those nations on the list or in those that might be on any future list?

The right hon. Member for Doncaster North and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), carefully put forward the more obvious and ludicrous consequences of such an ill-thought-out measure. I very much want to compliment my fellow member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, on combining what was undoubtedly an emotional speech with calm rationality and reasonableness in making an immensely powerful case to the American Administration. I want to use the rest of my speech to turn to the case that our country should make to the American Administration as a whole.

I did not agree with the critique of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee about the actions of the Prime Minister. I am not entirely sure that her suggestion that the Prime Minister was aware of this and had a chance to make her views known during her visit to the United States can be substantiated. As far as I understand it, that is not the case, but the Minister will be able to confirm that in his winding-up speech.

We need a strong voice into the White House, and we have secured it, although it may have taken the prospect of a state visit to ensure that the Prime Minister was the first foreign leader to visit the White House. During that visit, she was able to secure the pre-eminent European requirement of the visit, which was the President of the United States overturning—audibly and verbally, in answer to her challenge at the press conference—his purported position on NATO. That is of immense importance not just to the United Kingdom, but to the whole security of Europe.

This goes to the heart of what we are to do about this particularly unwise Executive order. On the previous day, the Prime Minister had addressed the Republican caucus in Philadelphia, where she was very warmly received. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon has already referred to the values that she spoke to in her remarks to the caucus. We have to remember that the Administration is not just the President. One of the failures of the order was the failure to consult the other Departments in the United States. There is a separation of powers in America: the President is not the whole Administration. The effect of our Prime Minister’s early visit is that she is in a place to ally herself with the Secretaries of the various Departments that make up the Cabinet in the United States and to be an important ally in internal debates in the Administration. Such a debate ought to have taken place on the order and there should have been proper consideration, but that process plainly did not take place.

We also have allies on the Hill. The success of her speech in Philadelphia is shown by the position taken by Senators McCain and Graham. They have made an outstanding joint statement, which ends:

“Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. At this very moment, American troops are fighting side-by-side with our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL. But this executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies. Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred. This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.”

Those arguments were eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon in his very remarkable speech.

It is not only in Congress that we have allies. The legal system of the United States is already cranking into action, and judges are already ruling against the legality of the Executive order. I very strongly suggest to right hon. and hon. Members in the House, as well as to the wider public, that we need to be effective in advancing the interests of the United Kingdom and the values of the liberal democracies that both we and the US are. Such values—of the rule of law and, in the United States, of the separation of powers—are already beginning to make themselves felt.

Our Prime Minister is to be congratulated on the fact that she will now be listened to by President Trump because of the actions she has taken, as our Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary have plainly already been listened to as well. There is very much more work to do to get the order rescinded and recast in an intelligent, sensible way so that it advances the interests of both us and the United States, and we need the kind of relationship that will enable that to happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

That is clearly a matter for the Israeli Government, but I repeat our position that we believe—this is a long-standing view of the UK Government—that settlements in the west bank are illegal, and that the 20% expansion we have seen in those settlements since 2009 is a threat to the peace process. That was why we resolved as we did. Of course, there has been a certain amount of argument about that and a certain amount of push back from the Israeli Government, but the hon. Lady will find that there is a wide measure of international support for that view, which in no way diminishes this Government’s strong support for a Jewish homeland in Israel.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Is there anything in the substantial analysis presented by Secretary Kerry on 28 December, following the adoption of Security Council resolution 2334, with which the Foreign Secretary does not agree?

[Boris Johnson]

Let me repeat my point: John Kerry was completely right to draw attention to the illegal settlements and to the substance of resolution 2334. I remind the House that the UK was closely involved in its drafting, although of course it was an Egyptian-generated resolution. We supported it only because it contained new language pointing out the infamy of terrorism that Israel suffers every day, not least on Sunday, when there was an attack in Jerusalem. I was glad that the resolution identified that aspect of the crisis in the middle east, and John Kerry was absolutely right to point out the rounded nature of the resolution. May I pay tribute to John Kerry, who is shortly to step down as Secretary of State, for his tireless work for peace not just in Israel-Palestine, but across the wider middle east?