Harris, Swinson and Breed on Israeli settlements in Palestine

• [Jul 21] Evan Harris (Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat): ' . . FROM a human rights, an international law and a security point of view, the settlements are unacceptable, and I strongly support the approach taken by the hon. Gentleman, who has done us the favour of bringing this issue before us.'

I will certainly keep within that time limit, Mr. Amess. I apologise in advance for the fact that I must shortly attend a Select Committee that the House eventually set up last night, so I will not be able to stay for some of the winding-up speeches.

I want to make two brief observations as someone who recognises Israel's security needs. One, which Rob Marris clearly and expertly made early on, is that although Israel has security issues, the settlements make them worse. Not only are the settlements unlawful by any judgment of international law, and not only are they unacceptable, a provocation and a barrier to the peace process, but they make the task of providing security for Israel-I recognise the need to do that-more difficult. Not only can the settlements not be justified, therefore, but they are totally counter-productive in terms of Israeli security. That leads many of those, such as myself, who are more receptive to Israel's security needs to question whether Israel's settlements policy is an adequate motive for many of the other things that Israel does.

The same applies to the Golan heights. The military occupation, which is argued for on the basis of security needs in the absence of a long-term peace with Syria, is something we can debate-whether or not we agree with it or understand it, we can at least see the basis on which Israel takes its view. However, placing civilians somewhere where they are essentially in harm's way and putting extra burdens on the Israeli security services that must protect those civilians is entirely unfathomable from a logical or rational point of view, and it cannot be defended.

The same goes for the west bank, where the civilian occupation of another people's land makes peace more difficult to obtain in the long run. It also engenders extremism among the Israeli population, because settlers are likely to be extremely defensive and perhaps more zealous in their opinions about the historical boundaries of the biblical country, which is not a good basis on which to move forward to peace. The occupation also places extra burdens on the security services and raises the security stakes. Whatever one believes, therefore, about Israel's right to exist, which I support, and however sympathetic one is, as I am, to some of the measures that it takes to protect itself, one simply cannot defend the settlement policy, which, in terms of Israel, is the single biggest barrier to progress in the middle east.

The other point that I want to make is that it is unacceptable for British consumers not to know which products come from illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank. We have all sorts of labelling requirements that are not justified scientifically-on genetic modification, for example-but there is no provision to introduce labelling on a human rights issue that it is critical for people to understand if they are to make an informed choice and show where their support lies. I therefore urge the Minister rapidly to give further thought to how labelling can be introduced.

From a human rights, an international law and a security point of view, the settlements are unacceptable, and I strongly support the approach taken by the hon. Gentleman, who has done us the favour of bringing this issue before us.

• . . Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat): I congratulate Rob Marris on securing this interesting debate. It is always pleasing when there is a good turnout of hon. Members because we get a wide range of contributions, even if that means that those contributions are fairly brief. No doubt we could have debated this issue for many hours and still found interesting points of discussion.

I should like to preface my remarks by putting it on the record that I support the two-state solution in Israel and Palestine. I should also like to remind hon. Members that over the many years of this conflict there have been crimes, abuses and breaches of trust on both sides. There are other debates, motions and opportunities in this House for us to discuss the rocket attacks and the suicide bombings against Israel or the continuing detention of the hostage Gilad Shalit. Today, however, we are debating settlements, which is a central aspect of the conflict and could be the key to unlocking a peace deal.

We have heard about the massive growth in the numbers of settlers. In 1972 there were 10,500 settlers and now there are some 480,000. Martin Linton said that since the Oslo accords in 1993, the number has more than doubled. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West interestingly pointed out that we use the pleasant and homely word "settlements", but that the word "colonies" is perhaps a more accurate description of the dwellings and towns.

The whole House will have welcomed the movement in the US position towards engaging with the middle east and putting the region at the heart of its foreign policy. I welcome the robust line on the settlement freeze that we have been hearing from President Obama and Hillary Clinton. However, a freeze on settlements has to be the absolute minimum for starting the negotiations. Let us be clear: the settlements are illegal, and if we are to have any prospect of peace in the middle east, they have to go. A freeze is just the starting point; ultimately, the settlements will have to be dismantled.

My hon. Friend Dr. Harris was very prescient when he said that the settlements are not in Israel's interests. He said that they were counter-productive and made security more difficult, which is an important point for us to remember in this debate.

Benjamin Netanyahu's recent speech was disappointing. Although he spoke through gritted teeth about the need for a two-state solution, he also talked about the natural growth in settlements. Last month, we heard that Israel plans to build dozens of new homes in Adam, which is deeply worrying. In recognising the importance of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace, security and, in his words, prosperity, Netanyahu totally fails to see the huge negative impact on economic development and prosperity that such settlements have on the west bank. In fact, they threaten the very viability of a Palestinian state. (HC Deb, 21 July 2009, c208WH)

Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour): Does the hon. Lady not think that the Prime Minister of Israel is in a very difficult position when his own Foreign Minister is an illegal settler on the west bank? (HC Deb, 21 July 2009, c208WH)

Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat): The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Of course, he is in a difficult position because there are many differing views and constituencies of opinion that he has to balance. However, dealing with the settlements has to be in Israel's self-interest, and that political reality cannot be lost on the Prime Minister.

The west bank has been sliced, diced and carved up as part of a deliberate strategy, and the settlements have been part of the tactic. We have heard about the numbers of settlements, the roads, the checkpoints, the roadblocks and the security wall. When they are overlaid on the land, we can see how impossible it is for ordinary Palestinians to go about their everyday lives in this Swiss-cheese patchwork. Settlements impact on the fabric of civil society, making trade, education and visiting family and friends incredibly difficult, and that is why they are so damaging to future peace in the region.

Natural resources are also key. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was right to talk about the issue of water in relation to the Golan heights. When I visited Israel, I thought that the problem was all about land and ideology, but practicalities are also key. I come from the west of Scotland where access to water is not quite the same issue. However, in an arid climate such as that in the middle east, water is a key issue, and with rapidly increasing climate change, the problem will only become worse. Water is also a problem on the west bank. As Jeremy Corbyn pointed out, most of the water is going to the Israeli settlers' farms, which makes that land very fertile but causes havoc elsewhere in the region.

Let me turn to the products that come from the settlements. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West raised an interesting issue about the legality of collecting customs duties on the products from the illegal settlements. Unlike him, I am not a lawyer, so I await the Minister's reply to those remarks. Before the election, I was a marketing manager, so perhaps I am better placed to comment on the marketing of such products. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that we should have consumer information clearly marked on the products so that people know what they are buying. I know that the Government, through the EU, have made some efforts on that issue, which I support. It is very important that consumers know what they are buying and whether it has been produced by the Palestinians or produced illegally on the settlements.

We have debated whether there should be preferential trade tariffs for such products. The settlements are illegal so there should not be any preferential trade agreements. The debate must now move on to considering whether we should allow the sale of any products from the illegal settlements. There is a case for looking at whether a ban on those particular products might be considered. I am interested to hear whether the Minister has considered such a ban. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that we should boycott all Israeli goods. To say the least, that would be an overreaction at this point.

In conclusion, we have debated settlements many times in the House. It is right that we should do so, but it is very sad that we have to continue to do so. I hope that the new US President's push for peace will persuade Israel to freeze and then dismantle the settlements, so that we can move towards a viable two-state solution. I urge the Minister and the Government to use all the tools at their disposal-not just words with the ambassador-to help Israel recognise that removing the settlements is in its own self-interest. (HC Deb, 21 July 2009, c209WH)

• . . Colin Breed (South East Cornwall, Liberal Democrat): I, too, will observe the time. I am grateful to Rob Marris for securing the debate.

No one can go to the occupied territories for long without history rearing its head in some way. Of course, we get different versions and views of history. A quotation in a letter of February 1914, from Israel's first Foreign Minister-and its second Prime Minister-is instructive:

"We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from a people inhabiting it, that governs it by virtue of its language and savage culture...If we cease to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate-all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise."

Those are words to cause a shudder, when we think where we are nearly 100 years later. The gradual erosion of Palestinian residence rights was designed to pass by stealth, unnoticed by the international community.

In the early days of occupation the civil Administration could simply have taken possession by force of the land in the west bank and Gaza that it wanted for colonisation, but it preferred to devise "legal" manoeuvres to justify its actions and avoid the obvious bad publicity. It is worth examining-we could if we had time-the careful manipulation of the legal framework relating to land ownership in the west bank, to understand how that large-scale theft of Palestinian land was hidden behind a façade of legality. We all encounter that in our own way when we visit.

In 2004 Israel tried to resurrect the 1950 law on absentees' property for use against west bank Palestinians who owned land in East Jerusalem. Even today we see the attempt to continue that process by taking advantage of the building of the 800 km separation wall, which is justified on the ground that it will prevent suicide attacks. The steel and concrete wall dividing the sections of East Jerusalem has sealed a large area of the city off from the west bank. Landowners in the west bank, cut off from their lands by the wall, were informed that they had now been classed as absentees, and their land was being confiscated. That is just one example of the way in which the legal framework can be manipulated to achieve certain ends.

More successful have been the confiscations on so-called administrative grounds. As we have heard, under the fourth Geneva convention an occupying power is entitled to make changes only if those are necessary for its security, or if they benefit the local occupied population. That provision should have forestalled any plans on Israel's part to confiscate land for settlement. Shortly after the 1967 war, however, Israel's chief adviser on international law advised that confiscations could occur on one condition, saying:

"it is vital that it"-

that is, the expropriation of land-

"be done by military bodies and not civilian ones...in the framework of bases"-

that is, in the framework of establishing bases. The chief adviser went on to warn that those bases should be temporary in nature. In the first years of the occupation, therefore, Israel was careful to cite security as the reason for taking Palestinian land, to establish what it claimed were military camps or outposts. Those people who have visited the occupied territories have seen those outposts, which were ostensibly set up for security purposes.

We know that in the early 1970s the number of those bases grew dramatically, with additional land confiscated to provide them with the services they required, such as roads, electricity and water. Other land was requisitioned for firing ranges and training grounds, as the occupation was entrenched in that land.

We have seen a complete misuse of legal frameworks to justify the actions by the Israeli Administrations. The Likud Government who promised they would no longer colonise Palestinian private land faced the ruin of a greater Israel project, unless new grounds for confiscating Palestinian land could be found. Up popped a senior legal official in the Justice Ministry to come to the rescue. That official was entrusted with surveying the west bank to find out how much of it could be classified as "state land", so that it could be claimed as Israeli territory that was ripe for settlement.

According to international law, Israel had to abide by the laws that were already in force when the territories were occupied. In the case of the west bank, that meant Ottoman laws, along with the minor modifications made by the British and Jordanians to those laws. However, Israel hijacked those existing laws, mischievously reinterpreting them so as to define much of the occupied territories as so-called "state land", a category all but unheard of in Palestine.

In a way, in the last few decades we have seen a gradual confiscation, theft and misuse of legal framework to carry out those original objectives outlined in the letter from nearly 100 years ago that I quoted from at the start of my contribution to this debate. The international community has, in many respects, stood by and allowed that to happen. There is an opportunity now in this moment of time-I am grateful for the opportunity that this debate presents-for the international community to put something of that right, after all these years.

Anyone going to the occupied territories or to Israel cannot fail to identify what would be seen as injustice in the way that people have lost their homes, their livelihoods and indeed almost any hope. And yet, we stand by and we almost allow that process to continue. As we have heard, the Israelis continue to exploit that opportunity and that space, to continue the building of settlements.

I want to finish with another quote, this time from a Palestinian lawyer in Ramallah, and I hope that it will run counter to the first quote that I read out at the start of my contribution to this debate:

"We now moved in our own country surreptitiously, like unwanted strangers, constantly harassed, never feeling safe. We had become temporary residents of Greater Israel, living on Israel's sufferance, subject to the most abusive treatment at the hands of young male and female soldiers controlling the checkpoints, deciding on a whim whether to keep us waiting for hours or allowing us passage. But worse than that was the nagging feeling that our days in Palestine were numbered and one day we were going to be victims of another mass expulsion."

That mass expulsion must never be allowed to happen and it is up to us and the rest of the western world, who have stood by for far too long, to ensure that it does not happen.

Related Links

• • Full Debate in Parliament