Proceeding contribution from Lord Hylton (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 19 May 2005. It occurred during Queen's speech debate on Address in Reply to Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech.
Address in Reply to Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech
My Lords, I am about to follow in the footsteps of my noble friend Lord Wright of Richmond, who spoke so powerfully from the great depth of his experience. It seems clear that Israel and Palestine hold the key to progress in international affairs throughout a very great deal of the world. Sadly, however, the peace process has suffered setbacks in recent weeks. A decision was taken to build more than 3,600 new houses in Maale Adumin, on the east side of Jerusalem, the whole to be enclosed within a new separation wall. Ariel, another settlement, is to have a barrier erected around three sides of it. Both these moves cut into the West Bank and further isolate Palestinian east Jerusalem. The Knesset next extended the life of a law of 2002, preventing spouses and close family members living together, where one member is now in the West Bank and another in Israel. This was understandable as a precaution against suicide bombs, but seems unhelpful at present, when ceasefires are working rather well. Some 400 extra Palestinian prisoners or detainees were to have been released, but this has not happened; the reason given has been the lack of progress in disarming militants. Finally, there is uncertainty over the Erez industrial park on the north side of Gaza. The Israeli Cabinet seems deeply split, with one Minister saying that the park must be closed and demolished, and another saying, on the contrary, that it should be kept open. I suggest that the latter course is the right one. The park contains both Israeli and Palestinian businesses employing up to 9,000 people from Gaza. Wages inside the park are much higher than in Gaza where, in any case, unemployment runs at about 60 per cent. Why destroy the livelihood of so many people? If security within the industrial park is the issue, why not have joint or neutral control? I now follow a line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, regarding a framework for progress towards peace. What is the quartet of the UN, the EU, the United States and Russia doing to prevent setbacks such as those I have tried to describe and to ensure progress towards a final agreement? Do representatives of the quartet meet together regularly with well prepared agendas and full minutes? Surely that is most necessary. Secondly, will the European Union use its economic strength to reward constructive behaviour by the parties and to penalise unhelpful moves? I should like to see enough flexibility in the EU procedures to allow for both carrots and sticks. Will Her Majesty’s Government take up this important issue when they assume the EU presidency? Thirdly, security co-ordination and verification are urgently needed for the now delayed pull-back from Gaza. An American general has been appointed for this very purpose. Is he regularly meeting the parties? Will he ensure that they carry out what they undertake to do? Does he have sufficient resources for his task? I suggest that it is greatly in the interest of all the external powers not to leave the situation to drift but to be actively engaged in helping it towards a just and lasting solution. Fifty-six years after 1949 and 12 years after the Oslo agreement are too long. International terrorism is most unlikely to be overcome while the conflict remains unresolved. At the same time as peace suffers setbacks, hugely ambitious new plans are announced. It is said to be possible to pump water from the Red Sea to replenish the Dead Sea; that would also generate large amounts of electricity, because of the difference in levels. The benefits for the whole region could be very great. The Rand Corporation in California has commissioned a design for a high-speed rail link, with fibre-optic cables, water pipelines, and so on, between Jenin in the north and Gaza in the south. This ARC plan, so called, would connect nearly all the main Palestinian centres of population, making a viable reality out of their embryo state. We must surely welcome such farsighted schemes. I suggest, however, that they will not be able to be put into practice unless the external states decide to do everything in their power to help Israel and Palestine to reach agreement.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 672 c169-71
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Armed forces Defence Army Developing countries Development aid Arms trade Defence equipment China Africa Iraq European Constitution Treaty EU common foreign and security policy Foreign policy Nuclear weapons Peacekeeping operations Procurement Navy Military law Terrorism Security United Nations USA Afghanistan NATO Israel Sudan Palestine Iran Middle East Aircraft carriers Darfur EU external relations Asia Conflict prevention Conflict resolution
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 23:08:17 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_248631
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_248631
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_248631