Proceeding contribution from Mike Gapes (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 24 January 2008. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Global Security (Middle East).
Global Security (Middle East)
While rockets are being fired and people in border towns are living in fear of such attacks, one cannot expect them to believe in the greater good. We should be talking not just to the Israelis, but to the Palestinians. That is another reason why there has to be engagement with the Hamas people and their leadership and the moderate elements to try to bring about a change of approach. I do not believe that we in the UK—or in the European Union collectively—are in a position to say, ““Stop this”” and it will happen. We all know that the key player in the process is the United States. It has been for decades and still is. The American Administration at last seems to be serious about engagement. Clearly, they need to follow through with a number of questions for the Israelis. For example, is there a possibility of reopening the Rafah crossing, as was agreed in 2005 under the influence of Condoleeza Rice? Linked to that is the reopening of the Karni crossing, which I have visited. At present, trucks and other goods pass very slowly over the crossing, but if it was properly reopened—not just for humanitarian supplies—it would assist the Palestinian economy in Gaza. I must make some progress. No doubt other hon. Members will want to say more about the situation in Gaza. The wider question relates to the basis of the Government's response. The Government did not agree with the Committee's recommendations on Hamas, but interestingly they took a different approach to our conclusions about Egypt. Our report recommended that we should engage with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. In paragraph 86 of the Government reply to our report, they stated:"““We share the Committee's analysis that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is an important movement in Egypt…We have a long-standing policy of engaging with Egyptian parliamentarians from all backgrounds, including those affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We will continue to follow this policy.””" Hamas is an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. It evolved from that organisation. A similar paradox exists in respect of Lebanon. The Government take a pragmatic view of Lebanon. Paragraph 71 of their response, which refers to paragraph 120 of our report, states:"““Government policy on contacts with Hizbollah's political wing is based on our assessment of their behaviour.””" That view is not as specifically against elements within the political wing of Hamas as it appears. Will the Minister clarify whether the Government have an overall view about Islamist politics and Islamist movements, or is their approach based on behaviour? If so, why do they make distinctions between Egypt and Lebanon and the Palestinians?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 470 c501-2WH
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Iraq Foreign policy Terrorism Security USA Israel Palestine Iran Syria Middle East Gaza Hamas
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 02:43:58 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_438848
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_438848
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_438848