There is a huge degree of concern in the middle east and around the world at the deadlock in the drive for a credible route to a credible state for the Palestinians, enabling them to live alongside a secure Israel. The UK shares this concern and therefore strongly supports the efforts of Senator Mitchell to establish such a process with such a goal.
Does the Foreign Secretary share my horror that the rocket attacks from Gaza against Israel continue unabated? Will he tell us what the Government are doing to put pressure on the Palestinian authorities to end this outrage and what they are doing to jump start the peace process with Senator Mitchell via the European Union?
I am happy to share with the hon. Gentleman a condemnation of rocket attacks, although I think he has to be very careful indeed before he puts those rocket attacks at the door of the Palestinian Authority, which he sought to do. As he will know, the rocket attacks come from Gaza, and the tragedy of the Palestinians is that the Palestinian Authority does not have control over Gaza. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not want to send a message from the House that there is condemnation of President Abbas or Prime Minister Fayyad—who, frankly, offer the best hope for the Palestinians—rather than of Hamas, which is sending the rockets.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that I returned yesterday from leading a delegation of 60 European parliamentarians from 13 countries, including 11 from this Parliament, to Gaza where we saw for ourselves the appalling destruction inflicted on civilian life by the Israelis. We visited a United Nations school where dozens of people seeking refuge were killed or maimed and heard from children how they saw their parents being killed before their eyes. When is action going to be taken to lift this illegal siege and bring justice to the Palestinians?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the other side of the coin to the rocket attacks from Gaza is the siege of Gaza. The flow of humanitarian aid has proceeded from a trickle after the Gaza war to a rather larger number of lorries and a greater volume of aid getting through, but he is also right to say that the current levels of aid going in are below what the United Nations says is the minimum necessary to establish decent life in Gaza, never mind to improve or reconstruct the situation. He will know that resolution 1860, passed by the United Nations Security Council about a year ago under British sponsorship, calls both for an end to arms smuggling and the firing of rockets and for the lifting of the blockade on Gaza. It is important to say that that applies from the Egyptian as well as the Israeli side.
Particularly as the Egyptians tighten the border around Rafah, what is the Foreign Secretary’s understanding of the responsibilities of the Israelis under the Geneva convention towards Gaza as an occupied territory?
I am not going to give the hon. Gentleman a legal answer, but a political one. The responsibilities of both the Israeli Government and the Egyptians are laid out very clearly in UN Security Council resolution 1860. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who has responsibility for the middle east, was in Cairo last week. It is important to send a message of support for President Mubarak’s recent meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The Egyptian effort to play a positive role in restarting the peace talks is something that I welcomed in private discussion with Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit last week and the whole House should support it more generally.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous that Tzipi Livni, a strong supporter of the two-state solution, is unable to visit this country to discuss the way through to peace, providing justice for both Israelis and Palestinians, for fear of arrest? When is action going to be taken to stop this deplorable state of affairs?
It is very important that this country, as a permanent member of the Security Council, is able to talk to all leaders from around the world who are involved in conflicts and disputes, including those from Israel, including Mrs. Livni. That is not in contradiction to our determination to uphold our responsibilities for so-called universal jurisdiction; it is a cross-party consensus in the House that we must be the people who uphold international law on war crimes, which we did in 2005 in respect of an Afghan warlord. We do ourselves no good by preventing ourselves from having a serious discussion with the Israeli Government or the Israeli opposition on these important issues.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we will not get peace or reconciliation in the middle east unless the people of Gaza can see some hope not only of reconstruction, but of a normal life in the future? To that end, what representations has he been making to the Governments of Egypt and Israel about reopening the crossing points further, and about whether an international presence on the ground might be needed as part of any agreement?
This issue is raised by the Prime Minister, myself and the International Development Secretary in all our contacts with both the Israeli Government and the Egyptians. The hon. Gentleman is right to point, as have other hon. Members, to the fact that Gaza has to be part of the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It cannot be left until last. However, the Palestinian divisions do neither them nor the prospects of peace any good.
The hon. Gentleman will also know that the Gaza issue has become tied up with the question of the continued detention of Corporal Shalit. This is a further complication, and it is in everybody’s interests both that Corporal Shalit is released as soon as possible and that the Israeli Government and the Egyptians honour their responsibilities as enunciated in resolution 1860 as soon as possible.
Did my right hon. Friend see last night’s “Panorama” report, which sketched very graphically the systematic dispossession and expropriation of Palestinian properties in East Jerusalem? It appears to many of us that Israel feels it can do this without consequence, even though the international community may express displeasure. Will he say what the consequences for Israel could be if it continues with that illegal policy?
I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that I did not watch last night’s “Panorama” programme as I was otherwise occupied. The point he makes is important, however, because, as we know, Jerusalem is the tinderbox to beat all tinderboxes, and the process of evictions in East Jerusalem—never mind the settlement building—is a direct threat to the achievement of the sort of peace and stability that would be vital for any peace talks to make progress. It is important that the international community does express displeasure—to repeat the word my hon. Friend used—and it is also very important that all sides honour the commitments required of them under United Nations and other resolutions.