Foreign Affairs Committee
Oral evidence: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, HC 488
Tuesday 10 December 2024
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 10 December 2024.
Watch the meeting
Members present: Emily Thornberry (Chair); Aphra Brandreth; Dan Carden; Uma Kumaran; Blair McDougall; Abtisam Mohamed; Edward Morello; Matthew Patrick; Sir John Whittingdale.
Questions 26 - 80
Witnesses
I: Dr Gershon Baskin, Co-chairman, Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information; Samer Sinijlawi, Founding Chairman, Jerusalem Development Fund; Dr Victor Kattan, Assistant Professor in Public International Law, University of Nottingham; Colonel (Retired) Miri Eisin, Senior Fellow, International Institute for Counter-Terrorism.
II: Ambassador Dr Husam Zomlot, Head of the Palestine Mission to the United Kingdom.
III: Adam Wagner, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers; Adam Rose, Solicitor and Partner, Mishcon de Reya; Dr Sharone Lifschitz, daughter of hostages in Gaza.
Witnesses: Dr Gershon Baskin, Samer Sinijlawi, Dr Victor Kattan and Miri Eisin.
Q26 Chair: The Foreign Affairs Committee is continuing its inquiry into Israel and Palestine. Today we have three panels of experts. The first panel has three witnesses appearing virtually and one here in the room. I am afraid that I should warn the witnesses, the public and those watching online that we have been told that there will be some votes in the Chamber, which could be quite disruptive. All I can do is to apologise in advance and hope that they are not as bad as we are all imagining that they might be. Before we go any further, could I ask the witnesses, please, to introduce themselves? I will begin with Victor Kattan, who is sitting in the room.
Dr Kattan: Good afternoon. My name is Victor Kattan. I am an assistant professor of public international law at the University of Nottingham, the author of five books on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and a former legal adviser to the Palestinian Negotiation Affairs Department.
Dr Baskin: Good afternoon, everyone. I am Gershon Baskin from Jerusalem. I am currently the Middle East director for a British-based NGO called International Communities Organisation. I am a veteran political activist in Israel. I have advised two Prime Ministers on the peace process and conducted secret direct back channels on behalf of the Israeli Government with Hamas during the negotiations in 2011 for the release of the Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit.
Samer Sinijlawi: I am Samer Sinijlawi. I am a political activist from Jerusalem and the chairman of the Jerusalem Development Fund.
Miri Eisin: My name is Miri Eisen. I am from the Tel Aviv area. At the moment I am in New York, but I am usually from Tel Aviv. I am a senior fellow at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism. I am a former adviser to Prime Minister Olmert during the years of both negotiations as they went on. I am also involved in all the different back channels that are done: Israeli, Palestinian, Arab and further.
Q27 Chair: Before we start asking questions, there is a lot to cover today, so we will not ask every question to everyone, but if you want to come in, please indicate. If you could keep your answers as concise as possible, it would be greatly appreciated and we can then perhaps get through everything that we want to without running out of time, despite the votes as well. Perhaps I can begin with asking a question to each panel member, perhaps even a yes or no question. Do you call for a two-state solution?
Dr Kattan: Yes, but of course that is something for the Palestinian and Israeli people to decide on.
Dr Baskin: Most definitely, yes. There is no other solution to the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict except the two-state solution. Despite the past 30 years of failed peace process, it remains the only solution to this conflict.
Samer Sinijlawi: Yes, I support the two-state solution.
Miri Eisin: I support the two-state solution and very much what was said by colleagues before. It is up to people, but it takes leadership. I agree with Gershon that there is no other resolution that can work. I do not like the word “solution”, so you will excuse me in that sense. I am very much into words. Can we call it a “resolution” as opposed to “solution”?
Q28 Chair: Could I ask you, Colonel Eisen, in more detail, what conditions we need to establish a two-state solution that might be sustainable? What has changed since 7 October?
Miri Eisin: You need leadership, and leadership is not necessarily individual people. Leadership is something broader. You need to have a desire to do so. Right now, the Israeli leadership, or certainly the Government, do not have a desire. You have to have both the leadership and the desire. You need to address things in a realistic way. This is not a “happily ever after” resolution. It is, to me, the hard reality of the only one that can work and is the best for both sides, but it is not a Disney happily ever after.
You need to address, straight on, the main issues. There are six issues on the table that we talk about all the time. You have to define borders. You have to define the sovereignty. You have to understand security needs and resolve the settlements. You need to address Jerusalem and you have to talk about refugees and the right of return. Every one of those six issues that I mentioned are things that have been spoken about. I understand the parameters. That does not make it easy. As I said, it takes the leadership and the will, but it is doable and something that is needed just as much today as it was not just 30 years ago but for the last 75 years.
Q29 Chair: Do you agree with that, Dr Baskin?
Dr Baskin: Yes, 100%. I would only add to it that the change of leadership is required on the Palestinian side, not just on the Israeli side. What is absent in this conflict, and what we have seen for the last two decades, at least, is a situation where a majority of Israelis and a majority of Palestinians will say, “I want peace but they do not”. Unfortunately, both Israelis and Palestinians have been able to point to the things that have been done by the people who represent them in government that prove the point that there was no political will for a solution to this conflict or resolution to the conflict.
We need to hear loud voices on both sides speaking of the desire to live in peace in order to rebuild the belief that there are partners for peace. Along with leadership, we need our people to believe that the other side is genuinely interested in living in peace. That will create the majority on both sides that we need.
Q30 Chair: Dr Baskin, what role do you think the Abraham accords might play in securing a two-state solution?
Dr Baskin: We have a peace process that got off on the wrong footing because there was no end game stated from the outset. We had the ability for the parties to continue negotiating for many years. There was a belief in the process and that we would get to know each other, work together and build models of co-operation and, through the trust that would develop, be able to negotiate the hardcore issues that Miri Eisen spoke about.
What in fact happened was that, rather than a spiralling and building up of trust, we had a derailing of the process and a spiralling down between the parties so that, when they finally got to negotiate the core issues in the conflict, there was no trust, no confidence and no belief that a resolution of these issues could be found between the parties.
Then we had the use of violence in the second intifada, started by the Palestinians and continued by the Israelis in reoccupying the occupied territories. With the second intifada back in 2000 to 2004 or 2005, we had the destruction of the Israeli and Palestinian peace camps. By that time, we also had non-peace leaders come to power, as too did Prime Minister Netanyahu in 2009, who has maintained a strategy of ensuring that there is no possibility for making peace by ensuring the separation of the Palestinian leadership, which they all too willingly agreed to collaborate with, and a situation where there was no political will for a two-state solution. In fact, there was a dead-set policy of Israel to ensure that there would be no two-state solution.
Q31 Chair: Thank you for that answer. It is a very interesting and comprehensive answer. The only problem, Sir, is that if we answer all the questions at such length, we will not be able to get through everything. It is very interesting and I am very glad that we have all of that detail on the record.
Can I ask Samer Sinijlawi about the two-state solution and about, if it happens, whether there is a continuing place for Palestinians and Arabs in Israel or Israeli Jews in Palestine, or would there be population swaps? How do you think it might work?
Samer Sinijlawi: The two-state solution does not mean that there will be a pure Israeli Jewish state and a pure Palestinian state. In the two-state solution, 20% of its population will continue to be Palestinian Arabs, Muslims and Christians who are currently Israeli citizens. Within the Palestinian independent state on the borders of 1967, we still need to be able to accommodate those Jewish settlers who would like to stay within the borders of the Palestinian state under the Palestinian sovereignty and law, as Israeli citizens but residents of the state.
Those who wish to call their home Hebron, Nablus or Beit El, or wherever they would like to feel connected and would like to continue their lives, should be able to continue living there. In one way or another, also we as a Palestinian state will have another 18% to 20% of our inhabitants as Israeli citizens resident in the state of Palestine.
Q32 Uma Kumaran: This is to the full panel, but perhaps I could start with you, Dr Baskin. Is it possible to reach a long-term settlement of the conflict in stages, starting with a ceasefire, or should there be a simultaneous effort, with a ceasefire and future solution negotiations being conducted in parallel?
Dr Baskin: The first thing that needs to be done is the war in Gaza needs to end, and it needs to end now. Not even another day of warfare needs to go on, but this is a complex issue. If we want a sustainable end to the war in Gaza, there has to be a political process running in parallel with it that guarantees that the two-state solution is what we are focused on. There needs to be a new leadership in Gaza replacing Hamas, which is organically linked to the Palestinian Authority, appointed perhaps by President Mahmoud Abbas but independent from him because he has no legitimacy—very little legitimacy in the West Bank and zero in Gaza—so there needs to be some kind of independent Palestinian Administration in Gaza.
Then we need to focus also on what is going on in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Israel itself. There must be a commitment by the local leadership, the Israelis and the Palestinians, and the international community, that the two-state solution is where we are heading. Then we can talk about a process that could be implemented over three to five years, or whatever it would take. We need that endgame out in front and explicit.
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
On resuming—
Q33 Uma Kumaran: Thank you, panel, for your patience. Is it possible to reach a long-term settlement of the conflict in stages, starting with a ceasefire, or should there be a simultaneous effort, with a ceasefire and a future solution negotiations being conducted in parallel?
Dr Kattan: I would also like to address the previous question. I agree with what has been said about the outcome, the aims and the issues that still need to be negotiated, but I guess where I disagree is on how we get there. One word I did not hear, which surprised me a little, is the word “justice”. We cannot reverse the clocks to 2008, to the Olmert Administration, which preceded the first conflict in the Gaza Strip, Operation Cast Lead 2008 and 2009, and all the subsequent conflicts in the Gaza Strip, not to mention the current conflict, which is the worst and has led to over 40,000 deaths, possibly many more.
What is key here is first how you heal society, but also how you take into account developments that have occurred since the last major negotiations. We have the arrest warrants that have been issued by the pre-trial chamber of the International Criminal Court, and the prosecutor has hinted that more are on the way. We have an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, which has declared that the occupation is unlawful, that the settlements are unlawful, that settlers must be withdrawn and that refugees who were displaced in 1967 must be allowed to return. These are new factors that any future negotiation or discussion would have to take into account.
Miri Eisin: I am going to jump in and I will tail-end in a moment for the comments, but I want to address the combo of questions, because you said, “After 7 October”. Here I would like to say that 7 October is not something just to gloss over. It changed Israeli society. We are living it in a way that the rest of the world does not view, and I just heard a vastly different view. When I say that, it is a scar for us that still continues. When I say “a scar”, it is something that we have to live with and face, and it is not over yet.
Part of that, the portion that has to do with what you do looking into the future, is that many Israelis who were totally in that 70% peace camp, two-state resolution, trying to arrive at something that is not a happily ever after but is the best of all of the challenges, today are saying, “How do I get to a resolution with somebody who calls for my destruction?” That question is not just about Hamas as it was in the past. I say, sadly for myself, that many of the people in the area around the Gaza Strip, from different communities there who were completely in the peace camp, felt that, in addition to the harsh—I do not want to say “jihadi”—Hamas elements of what they did on 7 October, you saw regular people, as I like to call it, joining in, and, in that sense, making it that much more difficult.
When you look forward, it is not about imposing. It is about dialogue, and that is always a challenge, but it is also about addressing the fears on both sides. My heart goes out to not just the people of the Gaza Strip, to Palestinians—that is so patronising for me to say as an Israeli—but to the conflict that we are in, which is a harsh one for both sides. I cannot make myself less independent from the independence that I declared—not that I was alive—on 14 May 1948. I do not have to degrade myself. I do not have to be less, because we have not yet arrived at a resolution.
The last thing that I will say is on the term “justice”. Who, Sir, gets to define justice? I say that to all sides. That term is something that always scares me. It always comes in, especially into this conflict. When you get into something where it is about justice, you are never going to arrive at a resolution, because everybody views that in different ways. You can arrive at a realistic type of resolution of two different states that are next to each other that are not good friends. They do not love each other, even though they are going to be intricately combined. There is no way to do it otherwise. If you put the word “justice” in, sadly, I think that you are then taking it out of the room. It is not going to happen. That is my opinion, but I wanted to state it very clearly.
Q34 Dan Carden: Good afternoon, panel. The Chair kicked off the session by asking all of you if you still support the two-state solution. This inquiry is looking at the UK’s role, the FCDO’s role here in the UK, and its contribution to securing a lasting peace. Victor Kattan, what would be the significance of the UK declaring its recognition of a Palestinian state at this point in time?
Dr Kattan: It would be extremely significant and it is long overdue. You may recall that William Hague, when he was the Foreign Secretary back in 2011, stood before Parliament, in the House of Commons, and said that the Palestinian National Authority largely meets the criteria of statehood in international law so far as the occupation allows. The following year, there was a vote at the United Nations that conferred observer state status on Palestine. The UK abstained, but it acknowledged that Palestine was a state because it put some conditions for its vote in favour. One was that it wanted Palestine to delay the vote and to delay joining the International Criminal Court. Only states can be members of the International Criminal Court, so the UK effectively recognised that Palestine was a state, but it withheld recognition for reasons that were connected to negotiations, which made sense in 2012, 2013 and 2014, during the last round of negotiations.
There have been no serious negotiations in the last 10 years. The argument that, “We will withhold recognition until it is the right time,” does not make sense in the absence of negotiations and when you have a Government that have effectively annexed the West Bank. The International Court of Justice dealt with this in detail. The Knesset passed a law saying that it flatly rejects two states, even a negotiated state, in July of this year. You have the nation-state law passed in 2018, a constitutional statute saying that only the Jewish people have an exclusive right to self-determination in the land of Israel. The current coalition Government’s platform is that the land of Israel includes what they call Judea and Samaria. You have annexation. You have no chance at the moment, with the current Government, of a two-state solution.
However, that does not mean that the UK should not recognise Palestine. One argument that is being used by the right wing is that the territory’s status is disputed. So long as it does not have full recognition by all members of the international community, that argument can be sustained. The UK, other Commonwealth countries and France could get together and issue recognition before Trump enters office. That could make a change that could shift the dynamics.
Q35 Dan Carden: Gershon Baskin, can I ask you the same question? What would be the significance?
Dr Baskin: There is a historic need for the United Kingdom to recognise the state of Palestine. It should have been done. I agree with Mr Kattan as well. It should have been done long ago. We need to recognise that that does not end the occupation, but it is an important step in principle. I think, in fact, the call by the United Kingdom to the international community is that all 193 member states of the United Nations need to recognise both states. There are 146 countries that recognise Palestine and 165 that recognise Israel.
The call, if we are supporting the two-state solution, should be a universal recognition of the entire international community of both the state of Israel and the state of Palestine on the basis of the 1967 borders. That is also an important addition because even President Trump, when he issued his vision for the future in 2020, essentially put a two-state solution on the table. His vision was a two-state solution based on 70% of the West Bank, where there was very little sovereignty, very little control of borders and not much territorial contiguity of that Palestinian state, so the reference to the 1967 borders should also be there.
Q36 Dan Carden: Colonel Eisen, reflecting on your comments in your last answer, when I was listening to you I was wondering what you thought the role for other state actors in resolving this peace would be. You have two sides that are vehemently opposed to each other. Is it not that the international community needs to take steps to force a peace from outside in the region?
Miri Eisin: It is a magnificent question, which is not one that you just answer with a yes or no, or “They should,” or “They should not.” I do not know of peace—in that sense, I am saying “peace” not as in loving and hugging each other but as in arriving at a resolution that I would love to have of what I call non-war. I have been living in a horrific war for the last 14 months. It is horrific for all sides. I think that what you are asking in that sense is how much involvement there should be.
I do not think that the two sides know how to come to the table and arrive at any kind of a resolution without outside help. We do not. There is that challenge of how we view each other and the disconnect in that sense. We have such vastly different narratives and histories that do not align. I think that both Dr Baskin and myself, and Samer for that matter, are involved in those kinds of groups. We are the exception to the rule. The bulk of Israelis and the bulk of Palestinians, in Israel, Palestine and around the world, do not talk to each other, so it is not about dialogue. We need somebody to facilitate.
In terms of arriving at the hard decisions, I am going to push back on the one element. As I said before, I need to arrive at those two states, but I am not willing to help establish a state that is going to be taken over by Hamas and run by somebody who openly calls for my destruction, and it is not a little element. Yes, I need the outside involvement, but to a certain degree I need that acknowledgement that not all of the Palestinians—and I am not willing to have the comparison between Hamas and the Government of Israel. I have pushed back on that completely throughout the last 14 months. I think that what the ICC did is horrific and criminal. You cannot put the elected Government officials, who I detest—but that has nothing to do with it—on the same page as what Hamas did on 7 October.
Edward Morello: Sorry, Colonel, I am going to interrupt you for a second. We have a limited amount of time and I am going to ask you to restrain yourselves to answering the question rather than debating each other, which you are free to do after this.
Miri Eisin: I appreciate that.
Q37 Sir John Whittingdale: Colonel, you set out the six priorities, one of which was security and another leadership. You have also set out why Israel probably has less confidence in security with the existing leadership in the Palestinian side following the events of 7 October. Mr Kattan has expressed a view about the hardline leadership in Israel making it less likely. Do you think that any settlement is going to be possible without a change in leadership on both sides?
Miri Eisin: No, you need to have a change of leadership on both sides. The leadership in Israel does not want a settlement. I agree completely with Dr Baskin. Also, the Palestinian leadership that exists right now is just so not supported. It is not just the leadership, as I said. It is the leadership and people. I want to hope that we will have a change of leadership. I am going to hope that this horrific war, at least in Israel, will bring about a change of leadership. I have to hope.
Q38 Sir John Whittingdale: Is that the view of all of our witnesses?
Dr Baskin: Yes, definitely a change of leadership is the first step. If we still have one of the three in the triangle—Hamas, Abbas or Bibi—we will not be able to move ahead. We need to have all of them disappear from the political scene and then the horizon will open. 7 October and the war has brought us closer to a political solution. It did not distance us. The war will end. It may end tomorrow; it may end in one year. Again, we will find ourselves 7 million Palestinians and 7 million Jews living on the same piece of land. Nothing has changed. Then we will discover that we have no other choice but peace.
Chair: Dr Baskin has made it clear that he also thinks that there should be a change of leadership.
Dr Kattan: I agree, but it goes beyond leadership.
Q39 Abtisam Mohamed: I have a question on recognition. Gershon, you said that recognition is required but it does not end the occupation. We have spoken about individuals being responsible and leadership being required in the region. The Knesset in July of this year overwhelmingly voted against the recognition of a Palestinian state. It was not just one individual or a couple of individuals. It was overwhelmingly against recognition. How do we move forward when Israel, as a Parliament, as a whole, has made it clear, not just in language but now in law, that recognition for Palestinians would not be something that it moves forward with? How do we move forward when that is the state of a Parliament, not an individual?
Dr Baskin: This Parliament has no justification or legitimacy among the general Israeli public. An overwhelming majority of Israelis want us to go to new elections and they want us to do that now. The quality of our leadership in our Parliament is the lowest that we have had in 75 years. There is very little argument about that among the majority of Israelis.
The law that was passed by this Knesset, this Parliament, against a Palestinian state can be easily reversed by the reality on the ground of real negotiations and moving forward toward the two-state solution. There are many hard issues that we need to deal with—settlements is one of the most difficult—but there are solutions that have been proposed over the years for dealing with all these issues. This Knesset, this Parliament, is not an obstacle to moving forward, because it will not be there for very long. We still have some remnants of democracy in Israel and we will have new elections, and most of the sitting Members of Parliament will not be in the next Parliament.
Q40 Abtisam Mohamed: I will come on to settlements now. Victor, the ICJ this year ruled that the settlements were unlawful. How do you think this will play on any future recognition for a Palestinian state, given the fact that the ICJ opinion ruling said that the settlements in the West Bank are unlawful?
Dr Kattan: Actually, the ICJ first ruled that the settlements were unlawful 20 years ago and then it reiterated it again over this summer. It went further and said that not only are the settlements unlawful, but they must all be removed. The extent to which that might be realistic is something that could be addressed in negotiations. There have been examples in the past, in colonial situations, where hundreds of thousands of settlers were relocated back to their countries.
Q41 Chair: There are about 400,000 flats that are in the settlement, are there not? We are talking about 400,000 dwellings.
Dr Kattan: I know, but there are examples from history of hundreds of thousands of people from Algeria and Mozambique returning to their countries. There is a proposal Samer mentioned that was discussed when I was a negotiator—never formally—of granting permanent residency to some of the settlers. I do not think that it has broad support, but that is an option. That would be a concession on the part of the Palestinians and only they could decide that, given what the International Court of Justice has said about the settlements. That would be my short answer.
Q42 Abtisam Mohamed: Following on, this is for Gershon or Miri. Perhaps we could look at the individuals who have been recognised potentially as Palestinian nationals. How would this be perceived from the Israeli side? What view will it take, as a country, in terms of individuals who might be settled on the West Bank and those individuals potentially becoming nationals of Palestine in the future? Sorry, that is a very hypothetical question of something that may happen. The point I am trying to get to is: if there are settlements there, what happens to those individuals from an Israeli perspective?
Miri Eisin: In the past—I cannot say into the future—Israel always said that we would remove all of the settlers from within the Palestine state, because we did not think that they would be secure there. I say it sadly. As I said, it is not a happily ever after. If they would stay there, I do not think that they would be secure. When you remove them, that is a huge endeavour, which I think is possible, not impossible. Again, that is in the future negotiations.
I will just add that, at least in the negotiations in the past—and I know that this is not something that everybody likes—if you deviate not that much from the 1967 line, and if you take and also give, but you change the line, you resolve an immense amount of the relocation of people. You are allowed to change lines; they are defined by human beings. The main large settlements are very close to the 1967 line. If you take, then you give. I am just saying that that is also something to take into account.
Dr Baskin: To support that, according to data, if Israel were to annex 4.4% of the West Bank in exchange for equal territory inside of Israel, we would incorporate 80% of the Israeli settlers under Israeli sovereignty. Part of the territory that would be granted to the Palestinians as part of the land swap would be the Gaza-West Bank corridor, which would account for about 1% of the land that Israel could possibly annex. There is an agreement, at least between two former leaders, former Prime Minister Olmert and former Palestinian Foreign Minister Nasser Al Qudwa, on this plan, which advocates this 4.4% land swap.
Q43 Abtisam Mohamed: My final question to you, Samer, is whether you think that the intention is there from the Israeli Government on having recognition or a two-state solution, given the fact that the settlements in the West Bank continue to expand. The expansion is continuing and there is the potential annexation in the north of Gaza. Do you think that the intention is there?
Samer Sinijlawi: The intention is in the opposite direction. The current Israeli Government are planning to extend sovereignty in the West Bank and maybe in Gaza also. This does not reflect the Israeli public. We might be misled when we think that most of the Israelis are anti the two-state solution. I think that most of the Israelis by nature will support the two‑state solution. They are currently confused. Millions of Israelis are hostages in the bunkers of Bibi Netanyahu. He has manipulated their way of thinking. Once a change in leadership happens on the Israeli side, it will help a lot in again creating public support for the two-state solution.
The public opinion is not an obstacle. Temporarily it may be an obstacle, but the main challenge is changing leadership on both sides. That is the first step that can allow us to prepare the environment for the implementation of the two-state solution.
The UK should do more. If you talk the talk, walk the walk. Currently, the western Governments are speaking a lot about the two-state solution and doing nothing. The current Governments, including your Government, should start by doing something more in Gaza, at least on the humanitarian aid.
Q44 Chair: I am so sorry to interrupt you. When you challenge us and say that the British Government should be doing more, we are very interested to know exactly what it is that you think the British Government should do. That would be very helpful.
Samer Sinijlawi: Currently, unfortunately, the British Government still are more involved in the war than ending the war. There is a lot of co‑operation, surveillance and intelligence providing to the Israeli army, which will help the continuation of the operations of the Israeli army in Gaza. You are doing nothing on humanitarian aid, compared with Emirates, for example. Emirates has invested up until now around $900 million in humanitarian aid. The UK has invested maybe less than $5 million, which is nothing.
The UK is the second most important country in this conflict after the USA. The USA has technically, on paper, declared billions of aid to Gaza, including $600 million for the temporary port that was not functioning, but at least it has allocated funds. The UK did not allocate anything. The UK should be doing more in a huge humanitarian operation in Gaza. This will help you to be able to affect and to have more power to push the sides into ending the war. The first step is to be involved more in humanitarian aid in Gaza now, immediately.
Q45 Aphra Brandreth: Colonel Eisen, I am just asking you initially. How do you think community cohesion can be restored between Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Arabs, after the traumatic events of the past year? How important is restoring that cohesion to creating the trust that we need as a basis for any long-term agreement?
Miri Eisin: What you just asked is one of those impossible questions. I do not know how you restore trust: time, thinking, continuing to meet individuals who are willing to. We need to address it in a realistic way, which means, “How do you go forward between leaders even when you do not have the trust?” The two-state resolution is something that we need to do anyway. I am one of those who thinks that separation works better than integration, meaning that each side—excuse my terms—licks their wounds on their own. We will not be patronising to them, which is what we always do.
It is not now about rebuilding and talking between all the different levels. I do not think that that is going to work right now. The gaps are too big after the events of 7 October. There are drastically different narratives of the way that 7 October was presented, from 7 October and onward—those gaps have only got wider since 7 October—on the events of the day and the aftermath. To me, it is about wait, breathe in deep and let leaders talk.
Q46 Aphra Brandreth: Dr Baskin, I could see that you wanted to come in on that.
Dr Baskin: There are two things I wanted to say on this one with regard to the role that the UK needs to play. I know that the Prime Minister has been presented with the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, based on the model of the Northern Ireland fund that was started in the days of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. This is something that the UK Government should be a big part of, helping to move civil society on both sides to coming closer.
Here I disagree with Miri Eisen. Conceptualising peace based on walls and fences is anti-peace. We need to encourage cross-boundary co-operation. There is no way to build a viable two-state solution without cross-boundary co-operation in every aspect of life that we can imagine—in trade, economy, research, culture, etc. Moreover, if we are going to have a sped-up process, we are dealing with two very traumatised populations. This is the worst trauma that we, the Jews, have experienced since the Holocaust. For the Palestinians, I believe that this war is worse than the Nakba of 1948 for them. They are more traumatised than in 1948.
We need people of resolve in both communities to stand up and voice remorse. We need people like Samer Sinijlawi, who stands up in front of Israelis, went to Kfar Aza shortly after 7 October and, in Kfar Aza kibbutz, which was grossly attacked by Hamas, stood there and said, “This was done in my name and I am against it. This is not what we believe in. We have crossed moral red lines”. We Israelis and Palestinians who believe this need to stand up and say that both Israel and Palestine have crossed moral red lines in this war. Hamas committed crimes against humanity and war crimes on 7 October and Israel has been committing war crimes since 7 October. We need to own up to this, state it loudly and voice our remorse that this does not represent us and is not what we want.
Dr Kattan: I also want to come in on this about healing the societies. I sense that there is almost a discussion in which you are treating Israelis and Palestinians as equals. In fact, Palestinians have been occupied for more than 50, almost 60, years. As regards Hamas, all its leaders, or most of its leaders, are dead. They have had a form of summary justice, if you like, but not a single Israeli leader has been prosecuted yet. The International Criminal Court would not be involved if the Israeli system prosecuted individuals where there is evidence of serious and systemic crimes. The fact that the International Criminal Court is involved is a failure. It is a failure of domestic courts and the Israeli legal system.
How are those Palestinians who have died in some of the most horrific circumstances going to heal when there has been no justice for them? How are you going to have truth and reconciliation? There needs to be accountability. There need to be discussions about this. This is a level of violence that is so shocking. Some of the crimes that the prosecutor discussed were children having their legs and their limbs amputated without any anaesthetic, for instance. This is cruel and was raised as a crime against humanity. There are many more I can go on to.
The point is that nobody has been held to account for that. Those who were involved in the awful atrocities on 7 October have met justice. They are either dead or were captured and are being prosecuted in Israel. There is no prosecution and no justice for the Palestinians in Gaza and those who have also been harmed in the West Bank. This needs to be addressed in any future peace discussions and negotiations.
Q47 Edward Morello: We have discussed Palestinian recognition. You have highlighted the need for the UK to increase aid and to cut military support for Israel. Dr Gershon, you mentioned the fund for peace. I am interested to know from each of the panellists whether you think there is a role for the UK in achieving a long-term settlement between Palestine and Israel. If so, what should the UK be doing outside of the things that we have already outlined?
Samer Sinijlawi: We should focus on the immediate ceasefire and the immediate end of the war, because there is a human catastrophe that is happening and continuing to happen in Gaza. The most important issue, the most important target for all of us, before discussing any other steps, is how to immediately stop the war. Currently, every 15 to 20 minutes a kid is losing his life in Gaza. The focus of the UK Government should be on how to ensure that the war should stop. You have lots of tools to be able to influence Israel to stop this war. Let us focus on this. Once the war has stopped, the horizons will open.
How can we reconstruct Gaza and how can we reconstruct the trust and confidence between Palestinians and Israelis? All these steps are a task that can be done by leadership. A change in leadership will automatically lead to a top-down process of reconciliation and trust building. If a new, energetic, accountable and transparent Palestinian leadership will come on to the scene and a parallel, equivalent Israeli leadership, these leaderships will assume responsibility and start working through media and education to try to bring the Israelis and Palestinians together. What worries me a lot now is how we can stop the war now. We cannot wait another hour or day. We cannot wait. It should be stopped now—immediately.
Q48 Edward Morello: The UK has been calling for a ceasefire, with little impact. Colonel Eisin, what should the UK be doing to make a valuable contribution to this process?
Miri Eisin: You are there and have a voice, and in that sense you are involved. There are lots of places that are not involved. I absolutely think that, in that sense, there is no list of things that you should be doing that you are not doing. I do not agree with all of my colleagues here, and that is fine; there is disagreement.
You should be supporting both sides. I say that because, to me, it is not a given, including support for Israel in its right to defend itself, with all of the limitations. I heard some very harsh voices here before on what Israel is doing and I do not support those voices there. We need to call out what Hamas is to be able to endeavour to have a better resolution. Those are things that are being done already. At the end of the day, I do not think that the Israeli Defence Force in any way are criminals. We are in a horrible war and every war is horrible. I am sorry; I have to drop off, so I apologise.
Q49 Edward Morello: To follow up on Colonel Eisen’s point, is it because the UK has no levers to pull here that we are not an influencer with either nation?
Dr Baskin: If you had political determination to really help us move forward, you would take steps that would let the Israeli public understand that, first, you support Israel’s right to defend itself, but, secondly, you also recognise that Israel’s settlement policy and the occupation are unlawful. The fact that the UK does not prevent Israelis who live in the occupied territories from entering the UK visa-free is something that you need to question. You have an agreement, as part of the Schengen agreement, that Israeli citizens who live in the state of Israel have visa-free entry into the United Kingdom, but Israeli settlers are not living in the state of Israel. They are living in occupied territory, which is unlawful.
I know that today in the United States, when you do not have a US passport and you want to enter the US, you need to fill out some kind of form on the internet, which reviews whether you have visa-free access. You could do the same thing and establish that Israelis need to write their address. If they are living in the occupied territories, they should not be granted visa-free entry into the United Kingdom. This is just one of many steps that could be taken.
It is very important, if you want to have trust and confidence of the Israeli people, that, when we talk about ending the war, as Samer said, we need to also talk about releasing the 100 Israeli hostages. This is very urgent and we need the Israeli public to hear that from the UK as well. I am sure that you make those statements.
Q50 Edward Morello: Dr Kattan, do you have anything to add that you would like to see the UK do?
Dr Kattan: The UK can do a lot as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. We have discussed recognition already and I could say more about that. There is the issue of arms and trade. The UK has stopped 30 out of 350 licences. There is scope for more work on that. It has not come out and said that it will not issue new licences for weapons. It could be clearer on that. There is also the importing of weapons, weapons systems and technology from Israel. It could say more about that.
The Irish Government, I believe, are passing a Bill, which could be a model, on banning trade with settlements. That would find support from the International Court of Justice. They are actually criminalising individuals and companies that do business with settlements. There could be a freeze on new trade discussions and enforcement of existing trade deals. There are loopholes and we can still end up with purchasing from and dealing with Israeli settlements and Israeli settlement products, so there are things.
The UK could help with justice initiatives. The UK has a fabulous judiciary and famous law schools. It is highly regarded in this area. There is more that could be done and work that will need to be done in this area, such as more support for the International Criminal Court, for funds and forensic investigations and for humanitarian aid when the war ends and journalists are allowed into the Gaza Strip to see what has happened. I think that people are going to be shocked by what they discover.
Q51 Blair McDougall: I am conscious that we are running short of time, so I will ask one question. We are talking about really big issues and quite long-term issues today, but there is obviously a humanitarian crisis at the moment in Gaza. Even the day after the ceasefire, that will be true. After the 2014 Gaza War, there were a lot of international promises about reconstruction that did not materialise into real impact on the ground. The day after the ceasefire, what lessons do we learn from past reconstruction failures? Who should pay for the reconstruction? How do we make sure that that reconstruction of Gaza is sustainable?
Samer Sinijlawi: Most of the donors, including the Gulf countries, Europe, USA, Japan and others—all the wealthy Governments—would like to invest in the reconstruction of Gaza, but under one condition. They want to be sure that this is the last war. To be sure that this is the last war, two conditions must be there. First, Israel should withdraw with no return to Gaza. If Israel says, “I have the right to operations,” it means that this country will continue to invest the same amount of money every five years in reconstructing Gaza. Israel needs to withdraw with the intention of not going back.
Secondly, we need to be sure that there will be a new Palestinian regime totally replacing Hamas. Hamas should have no military capability to possess any threat again against Israel. A replacement Palestinian regime that will focus on building a sustainable Gaza and on political and economical development, and not on building infrastructure that will threaten Israel, is needed. These two conditions are very important. It is $70 billion to $80 billion. It is not an easy job. It needs a lot of planning. It needs a lot of effort.
The first step is ending the war. Without ending the war, everything will be illusions. We should focus now and put all our diplomatic and economic tools into action to make sure that this war will end, of course with the release of the Israeli hostages. It should be happening now and immediately.
Dr Baskin: I agree with everything that Samer just said. I would add to it that Israel also bears responsibility. At least in the immediate period, before the international community, the Gulf states and others can get organised, the easiest, fastest and cheapest way to provide simple things such as electricity and water is by connecting Israel to Gaza. Even if that is a temporary measure, it is something that needs to be done immediately.
Drawing the Israeli electric line from the Gaza border, from all around the Gaza Strip into Gaza, is something that can be done in less than a month. Even using the extra 30% capacity of the Ashkelon desalination plant, which is working at 70% capacity, would immediately supply fresh drinking water for people in Gaza where there is no fresh water or electricity. The humanitarian crisis is one that needs to be addressed in 24 hours from now. Even right now, there is no time to waste. Israel also bears responsibility and it should be demanded that it contributes its part as well.
Dr Kattan: I agree with everything that has been said. The issue of aid, particularly the billions that will have to be donated from Arab countries, which will not spend a penny if they think it is going to be destroyed again, actually gives leverage and could be a condition leading to a permanent Israeli withdrawal and the recognition of a Palestinian state. When the dust settles and the war is over, it is not going to be able to afford to administer or reconstruct Gaza. That is where the leverage will come in from donor countries and the Arab states. They will be in a position to demand certain conditions before they hand over that kind of money.
Chair: Thank you all very much for giving us your time this afternoon. We really appreciate it. After we finish this session, if there is anything that you think that we should have heard from you and there is any further evidence that you would like to give, please do write in to us and we will include that in the evidence. I would like to thank all of you for giving us your time today. Thank you very much indeed.
Examination of witness
Witness: Dr Husam Zomlot.
Q52 Chair: Our second panel is the head of the Palestinian Mission in London. Thank you very much for coming today, Sir. We really appreciate it. I suppose I ought to start by asking a general question, because this is an inquiry into what the British Government could do more to be of assistance to ensure that there is peace in the Middle East and to have a lasting peace. I wondered whether you could give us your thoughts on what practical measures the UK could take to ensure a ceasefire in Gaza, but also to build a lasting peace.
Dr Zomlot: Thank you very much, right honourable Emily Thornberry and members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, for this very timely event and convening this conversation at such an acute moment. In answering this question, I would like to speak with the utmost urgency. We, the Palestinian people, are facing an Israeli attempt at total erasure—physical, political and legal—not just in Gaza and not only for the last 14 months, but for more than a century of settler colonialism. This is happening in clear and gross violations of all standards and norms of international law, international humanitarian law, our shared humanity and simple common decency.
The absence of any effective intervention by the international community over the past 14 months will leave future generations asking, “Where were we during this genocide? What did we do?” The UK could be instrumental in bringing this mass murder and mass destruction to an end. Britain has a unique historical role in and responsibility for Palestine. It remains an important and influential actor on the international scene. It is one of the founders of the global rules-based order. It has deep and lasting connections to large parts of the world, including our region, and it is a uniquely placed western power, close enough, right in the middle, with very special relations with the US and the EU. With the EU distracted and the US unpredictable as we speak, the UK is one of the few nations in the world in a position to step forward to fill a vacuum of global leadership at a historic moment of epic danger all over the world.
Honourable Members, the immediate priority in Palestine remains securing a lasting ceasefire. That is the number one, number two and number three priority for us now: an immediate, permanent ceasefire in line with the UN Security Council resolution 2735, including an exchange of hostages, a full withdrawal of the Israeli army and a multi-year reconstruction plan for Gaza. This must be overseen by the state of Palestine and our legitimate national institutions. There is no other alternative. The unity of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the unity of our territory and people, is represented by one legitimate address. That is the Palestinian Government.
We must immediately ensure the unfettered access of humanitarian aid to 2.3 million people who are suffering an imposed famine. All of you are getting the images from the north of Gaza. Some 37 children have died so far of malnutrition. People have been crushed to death as they were trying to get a loaf of bread. Finally, these images are making it to mainstream media such as CNN and the BBC. The images are disheartening. This last October was the highest number of Israel preventing international aid from arriving, even in comparison to last year.
There is not only the imposed famine but also the wholesale destruction of human and material infrastructure, from housing and health care to sewage networks and agricultural land. A ceasefire will not be lasting, my friends. A ceasefire will not be lasting without the clear political understanding that the issue of Palestine needs to be resolved now, with accompanying investment. Once and for all, we have to focus on the root cause.
Israel has been clear in word and action that it has no intention of agreeing a ceasefire as of this morning. I was with our colleagues in Cairo and other places, where several opportunities have been foiled since November 2023. Israel has been clear over several decades of illegal settlement expansion that it has no intention of reaching a political outcome other than continued territorial expansion and indefinite military occupation. We have to focus on the end game here. The end game so far is very clear for Israel, on the one hand, and for us, on the other hand. As we see, now in Gaza it has turned fully into a genocidal aggression.
Therefore, I will touch really on how we begin to heal this, given what we know already and particularly in the light of the International Court of Justice’s opinion that Israel’s occupation is unlawful and must end, that all settlements are illegal and must be dismantled, and that all third-party states must cease to provide any legal, political or material support to Israel’s occupation.
Therefore, in the light of this, there are four obvious ways to pressure Israel and to change the political status quo. Here, I also mean the UK. Number one is a comprehensive arms embargo; number two is sanctions; number three is accountability; and number four is an immediate formal recognition of the state of Palestine.
Chair: May I ask you to pause there? It is a very comprehensive answer and we have some other questions specifically for you. We do not want to repeat that, but there may well be many things that you have said in your statement that we would like to ask you further questions on. Given the time constraints that we have, if you would not mind, I would like John to ask some further questions.
Q53 Sir John Whittingdale: Dr Zomlot, to begin, do you unequivocally condemn the attacks carried out by Hamas on 7 October?
Dr Zomlot: We have been very clear from day one that we are not only committed to international law by words, but by deeds. That is why the state of Palestine has sought the full force of international law. Of course, we reject wholeheartedly, fully and in absolute terms the targeting of civilians. That is clear. We want international institutions to make sure that all war criminals are held accountable. That is why it was the state of Palestine that ratified the Rome Statute and invited the ICC to investigate not certain war crimes but all war crimes, all violations of human rights, and all violations of the basic provisions of international law. As you know, Sir, since then it has been Israel blocking us from actually applying the full force of the law.
Q54 Sir John Whittingdale: You will be aware that there are reports of Palestinian diplomats celebrating what happened on 7 October and that that is creating part of the problem. Israel will not have confidence in Palestine’s commitment to a two-state solution unless action is taken to deradicalise the Palestinian population.
Dr Zomlot: I have not seen any Palestinian diplomats celebrating anything. Palestinian diplomats are busy trying to expose the ugly reality that we have been living in not only since 7 October but even before. As I have just said in my remarks, this is a war of extermination against the Palestinian people. On 6 October, right honourable friend, it was already reported by international institutions that this was the deadliest year for Palestinian children not in Gaza, but in the West Bank, at the hands of Israeli military forces.
The diplomats are really busy trying to provide protection for our people. I would like to remind you, also, that on 7 October, of course, everybody was in a state of shock, but we were not even given a slice of time—the shortest period of time—just to comprehend. All we got was Netanyahu, Herzog and all Israeli leaders coming out and saying, “We are going to go after the Palestinian people. Those are political animals. We will kill all of you,” and then Netanyahu quoting the Amalek: that they will kill every child, every woman, every animal.
Of course, we went on the defence and, of course, we wanted to make sure that 7 October will not be used as a pretext to slaughter our people, and that is exactly what happened.
Q55 Sir John Whittingdale: Do you accept that, as all of our witnesses so far have agreed, a two-state solution is the only way of resolving this? That will require the Palestinian population to live in peace, side by side, with the state of Israel.
Dr Zomlot: That question needs to be asked to Netanyahu, not to me.
Q56 Sir John Whittingdale: We will, I am sure, ask it to representatives of Israel, but can I ask you as a representative of the Palestinian Authority?
Dr Zomlot: Yes. The Palestine Liberation Organisation, the PLO, is the umbrella organisation that represents all Palestinians, the legitimate entity that represents all. That is why the UK, US, UN and the rest of the world recognise the PLO. In 1988, the PLO declared the state of Palestine on the 1967 borders in line with international consensus and international resolutions.
A few years later, the PLO recognised Israel fully as a state and, since then, Israel has been, in my opinion and given the events that have unfolded since then, blocking any possibility of a state. Israel never recognised the state of Palestine. That is why it gets me heated when I hear this question, because it is us who have been working tirelessly to implement international consensus towards a two-state solution. It is us who have recognised the state of Israel.
It is engrained in the Likud charter and in the last Israeli Government coalition agreement that Israel and Netanyahu, since he was first elected Prime Minister 25 years ago, will never allow for a state of Palestine.
Q57 Dan Carden: Carrying on that point, is it not the case that a two-state solution can only be imposed and pushed for by outside powers? What would you say that looks like?
Dr Zomlot: It must. It must, because, first, either we have international order or we do not. Either we have law or we do not. You cannot be half‑committed about legality. Legality is very clear. Israel’s occupation has to end. It is almost six decades now. The rights of Palestinians to self‑determination has to be implemented and honoured.
Q58 Dan Carden: At the beginning, you said the United States was unpredictable. We all expect something to happen when President-elect Trump comes to office. What do you expect from the US and other powers, such as Saudi Arabia and the UK? Which outside powers should take a leading role in trying to deliver peace?
Dr Zomlot: I expect one agenda to be advancing, which is the agenda of the rule of law. That is the agenda. There are so many regional and international actors who have different agendas. None of them has the agenda of the rule of law, of the post-world war II rules-based order, to be respected, to be strengthened, and to take its responsibility to apply the law equally on all. That is the agenda I expect to resolve it.
Look at all other conflicts. You will only find they were resolved when there is such a sustained international intervention. You cannot leave the conflict to be resolved at the whim of this huge asymmetric power relationship between the occupied and the occupier, the colonised and the coloniser, the besieged and the besieger. Yes, we need external interventions. That is why I said the UK is very crucial at this moment in time.
You cannot do this in a half-committed way. You cannot be half-committed to legality, to the law. Look at all the policy options that could have helped us to achieve a ceasefire. A ceasefire will not be achieved without enforcing the ceasefire and, by the same token, the two-state solution will not be implemented without enforcing the two-state solution. How do you enforce the two-state solution? How do you achieve a ceasefire? First, you need an arms embargo.
Take it as an example: the UK Government did it. They were half‑committed. “We will stop some. We will make some exceptions.” That was the way it was communicated in the political sense. While the decision was sound legally and was based on legal assessment, the political communication of it pre-empted any substantial leverage.
The same thing applies on the issue of sanctions. While the UK Government impose sanctions on the individual settlers and on some settler organisations, still the ecosystem of the settlers is not being sanctioned. The ecosystem includes trade, UK companies that profit from these illegalities, and the Israeli Government, which back, support and directly sponsor these illegal colonial settlements.
My answer to you is the only agenda that could resolve this conflict once and for all is an agenda that is multilateral, international, has international law at the centre, and really wants to apply the law equally. It must end once and for all this culture of impunity: that there is one entity that is above the law and the exception to every rule. That is why we have not got to a two-state solution, when everybody is in consensus. Everybody says that it is in the interests of Palestine, Israel, the region and the rest of the world. Why are we not doing it? It is that half-commitment.
Look at the US letter that was sent to Israel a month and a half ago. The US letter, by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defence, was very clear to Israel: “If you do not allow unfettered humanitarian aid, the US will impose an arms embargo in one month”. The one month came, the one month went and there were no consequences. There is the issue. The issue is, when it comes to Israel, the west simply is unable to be fully committed to the very rules, systems and institutions the west has helped establish.
Chair: I have at least four people who want to ask you questions, and I am a little concerned that we may end up with another one of our terribly disruptive votes, or possibly more than one vote. I am going to need to ask people just to put one question. I know that there are many more questions that people want to ask, but I am afraid I am going to have to insist on one question each.
Q59 Uma Kumaran: Thank you, Ambassador, for your representations. You talked about a lasting ceasefire and you mentioned the parameters within it—the multi-year reconstruction plan, the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the freeing of hostages. I asked a similar question to the previous panel, so I would love to know your answer to this. Do you think it is possible to reach this long-term settlement of the conflict in stages, starting with a ceasefire, or do you think there should be a simultaneous effort, with the ceasefire and future solution negotiations being conducted in parallel?
Dr Zomlot: Palestine is not the only conflict in the world. There have been many other conflicts. We do not need to reinvent the wheel here. It is clear. First, you never negotiate the principles; you only negotiate the modalities of implementing the principles. The first and foremost step that we need right now is for the world to establish these principles in legal stone. It has been happening. The ICJ opinion was clear. The ICC ruling is clear. The UN General Assembly resolutions are clear. The UN Security Council resolution vis-à-vis ceasefire in three stages is clear. The problem is in implementation. It is in enforcement, and here comes the role of the US, the UK and key players who are the penholders of the international system.
Yes, it could be done, once we establish such a clear path to everybody and once we say, by deeds, not by words, that we recognise the two states. The UK must recognise the state of Palestine now, before it is too late, if it is not already too late. Let us not waste more time. Palestine must be admitted immediately as a full member of the UN. What would be the difference? When done with the principles, the stones, it is no longer Israel and the Palestinians. It is Israel and Palestine. What we are discussing is minor details with the support of the international community.
That is the shift we need to make. Otherwise, if it is just a function of disputed areas and a group of people called Palestinians, you have seen up until this morning what Israel has up its sleeve. That is not only vis-à-vis Palestine, by the way, but vis-à-vis the region.
Q60 Edward Morello: Ambassador, last week in an evidence session with Alistair Burt, the former Middle East Minister, we pushed him on Palestinian recognition and why the UK had not recognised Palestine when three quarters of the General Assembly has. His point was that there was a right time to do that, which would create some kind of impetus to a peace process. I am wondering if you support that view.
Dr Zomlot: Support what? I am sorry.
Q61 Edward Morello: He suggested that there was a right time to recognise Palestine, which in some way supported the peace process. I am wondering if you agree that there is a right time and if that is now or in the future.
Dr Zomlot: Thank you for the question. The right time is now, absolutely now, and we are already late. The question is not, “Why should the UK recognise the state of Palestine?” The question is why the UK did not recognise the state of Palestine until now. That is the only question.
The UK has missed so many opportunities—so many historic opportunities. It missed an opportunity in 2012, when we went to the UN General Assembly for UN status for the state of Palestine. The majority of the world voted; the UK abstained. It missed an opportunity in 2014, when this House voted overwhelmingly for the recognition of the state of Palestine. It missed an opportunity in 2017, 100 years after the Balfour Declaration. That was a moment when the UK could come and say, “Here it is. We take responsibility and we are about to correct that historic injustice that has befallen the Palestinian people.” Instead, the Government then doubled down on the wounds of the Palestinian people.
You know the direct role Britain at the time played in that colonial, arrogant moment, promising our land without consulting us and turning us from the native population—the cradle of civilisation; the birthplace of Christianity—into non-Jewish minorities that only have civil and religious rights. By the way, up until now, that is the thinking in Israel.
Of course Britian needs to do that, because, first, recognition is a right, not a gift. Guess who said that, word for word. The current Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. It is a right, not a gift, not a favour. What are you waiting for then? Secondly, absolutely the right thing to do is to really say that we mean a two-state solution, not only by words, but by action.
Thirdly, it will send the right messages to Israel: “This is it. We mean it. We are serious. All of your expansion beyond ’67 will not be recognised.” It will weaken the forces that will kill the possibility of a two-state solution and it will empower those who want to see a different future.
It is the most practical solution and I am not going to dwell on it. I believe every day the UK waits is another day in the coffin for a real hope for a peaceful resolution, not only for Palestine but for the entire region. Today it is very clear that the serious problem is the relationship between the west, including the UK, and Israel. That relationship needs to be unpacked because, with all that unconditional support and a lack of real political will to enforce a solution, Israel is going to drive itself and maybe the rest of us into a cliff. Recognition will at least be a very serious safety valve: “No way. We are not going off a cliff. We will have to take a turn towards a shared future”.
Q62 Matthew Patrick: Ambassador, what more can the UK do to encourage those holding British-linked hostages currently in Gaza to be released?
Dr Zomlot: Vote for the full and immediate implementation of the UN Security Council resolution 2735, which the UK helped draft, sponsored and voted for. That is the key thing, because that resolution has very clear stages. It begins with the release of and exchange of hostages. It outlines the stages of withdrawal, it outlines the roles of national and regional actors, and it has the consensus of the world.
We have seen in November that hostages could be released via diplomacy. Given the situation now and given what has happened in Gaza for the last 14 months, the safest and best way to do so is to implement the UN Security Council resolution and to see hostages back to their families.
Q63 Matthew Patrick: Why is the Red Cross not able to go and see those British-linked hostages?
Dr Zomlot: The Red Cross should go and see them and should be able to see them.
Q64 Matthew Patrick: Why are they not?
Dr Zomlot: I do not know why they are not. Perhaps it is not only the Red Cross. Gaza has been an arena of mass murder and destruction. This is the first time in history that such a situation is not being covered by international media. Even journalists are not allowed there. That is why you have Palestinian journalists who have to cover the atrocities themselves, and 134 of them got killed. It is not only about why the Red Cross is not there. Why has the UN been bombed?
Q65 Matthew Patrick: Would you take the opportunity to call for Hamas to allow the Red Cross in to see those hostages?
Dr Zomlot: Yes, absolutely, and also to Israel to allow the Red Cross to access Israeli prisons that have turned into sites of mass murder of Palestinian prisoners and rape, which has been very documented. I have never seen a Parliament, except the Israeli Knesset, debating whether raping Palestinian hostages is legitimate or not. We want to see the Red Cross in Gaza, we want to see the Red Cross in Israeli prisons and we want to see the ICC implementing the arrest warrant in Israel and everywhere else.
Q66 Abtisam Mohamed: Welcome, Ambassador. I want to start by offering condolences, because I know the real situation on the ground. People are losing their lives and, as I understand it, you have lost some of your family members as well, so my sincere condolences to you.
In relation to the settlements on the West Bank, Minister Ben-Gvir has announced an expansion over the coming year. He has said that he intends to submit further money from the Parliament just on expansions. What do you think this does for the recognition of a state, given that, potentially, it may no longer be viable?
Dr Zomlot: Thank you very much, right honourable lady. Ben-Gvir does not just mean expansion. He means annexation and that is what they have been doing and working towards. You may have heard the other fanatical Minister in the Israeli Government, Smotrich, who announced a few weeks ago that Israel will annex the West Bank by 2025. That was a few weeks ago.
Of course, that is the agenda. That is exactly the agenda. If you look, the agenda is that of a very classic case of settler colonialism, a very classic case of ethnic cleansing. Guess who said that this is ethnic cleansing. It was the former Israeli Minister of Defence, Moshe Ya’alon, only a couple of weeks ago. He said that what Israel is doing now in the north of Gaza is a classic case of ethnic cleansing, coupled with the system, which you may have documented here in this Committee, of military occupation, colonisation, besiegement and apartheid. This has been very well documented by human rights organisations. This is the only future Israel offers.
By the way, to limit this only to Netanyahu and the extreme right wing members of his Government does not do justice to the situation. The majority of the Israeli political class now do not have a Palestinian state as part of the future. It is as simple and as absolute as that.
Therefore, the question for us is how we challenge this reality. How do we challenge this reality? The first and foremost beginning of answering that is about how we change the mindset. People are not evil. This not about Israelis being evil. It is about the mindset being evil. The mind frame is being evil. They are convinced, because of many events happening around them, that the only way forward is by this sheer revenge, reactions, mass murder and mass destruction, with no future, no horizon, no peace and no partners. They do not want to talk to anybody. They just want to use the US-provided weapons on mass number of civilians.
This is a moment when we need to tap on that shoulder and change that mindset. You cannot leave it to us, the Palestinians, alone to do it. You cannot.
Q67 Abtisam Mohamed: Ambassador, what can we do in terms of going further? What actions can we take as a Government to prevent settlements expanding and the increasing violence of settlers in the West Bank? What action do you think this Government should be taking?
Dr Zomlot: It is exactly what is written in international law. It is exactly why we have established the international system. States have responsibilities and, if they do not adhere to these responsibilities, sanctions are merited. Sanctions are called for and must be implemented.
Look at how we ended South African apartheid. We are not going to reinvent the wheel. Whenever it comes to Israel, we have to create all the exceptions in the world. Israel is no exception. It has violated every provision of international law, all the way to the genocide in Gaza. It has violated the provision of international law even though the UN established Israel. Israel has been at odds with the very provisions of the United Nations. Israel believes that there is a UN charter for Israel and a UN charter for the rest of the world.
I go back always, honourable friend, to the very premise of law, because this is not just about Israel; this is not just about Palestine. This is about all of us. Look what is happening in the region now. Look what is happening elsewhere. Either we are serious about the equal application of law or we are not. Sanctions are important. An arms embargo is important. It is not just an ask. It is an obligation by the UK. It is an obligation by all third states.
Once the ICJ in January, already 11 months ago, came out and said that the crime of genocide by Israel, brought by South Africa, is plausible, the conversation should have been over. We are looking at a former Attorney General here. The conversation should be over. The full force of the law must be applied. How do you apply it? Why do you apply the law? You apply the law not only to achieve justice for the victims but as deterrence. You want to deter that mindset.
Therefore, it is about sanctions, an arms embargo and accountability. People are being so resistant to the idea that Israeli leaders should be held accountable. We hear western leaders, politicians, saying that the ICC was not established for countries such as the US, Britain or Israel. Seriously? So the ICC was established for the brown, the black and the yellow, not the white. This is a joke. This is the beginning of the end of the international system we build.
That is why people of the south, people of the east and people everywhere are losing faith in that international system. That is why that system is under the biggest stress test you can imagine. The answer to your question, honourable friend, is just apply the law. Put Israel under the law, not above it, and deal with this west-Israel relationship.
Every morning, Emily, I hear a western politician, a British politician, coming out and saying, “Israel is our closest ally”. I do not understand that. What about Europe? What about others? “There is no daylight between us and Israel.” How come? Israel is a state. The UK is a state. In some areas, when you voice concerns or criticisms against Israeli policy that includes a genocide, you are seen to be anti-British. Then British politicians come out and they say, “We have shared values with Israel.” Can somebody please tell me what these shared values are? The shared values of what—of supremacy, of wholesale denial of peoples’ rights, of ethnic cleansing, of depopulating entire areas?
Fourteen thousand children have been slain over the last 14 months. Do I need to list for you how many aid workers have been killed? It is the highest number in the history of conflict. The highest number of journalists have been killed, and the highest number of doctors. Did you hear Dr Hussam Abu Safiya in the north of Gaza only last week? He had to bury his 15-year-old son, who was killed in that hospital. He and his hospital were severely injured.
They are fighting and fighting hard, because Israel is not only targeting life. It is targeting livelihoods. They want to see no hospitals, no schools, no water, nothing, and yet you hear western politicians every single morning talking about shared values. Come out of the closet and tell us what these shared values are. That relationship needs to be visited and looked at, and Israel needs be put exactly where it should be.
You saw the Israeli ambassador today literally shredding the UN charter. If Israel wants to be part of the UN, part of the community of nations, part of the region, it cannot exist because it bombs the region. It has bombed Lebanon. It is bombing Syria. It is bombing everywhere. It exists because the region accepts it. The region has offered Israel a formula of acceptance. That formula is very clear: resolve the Palestinian issue, end your occupation and we will normalise you and the relationship with not only 22 Arab countries, but 75 countries.
Do you know how old that formula is? It is 23 years old; it has been in place since 2002. It was completely disregarded, because Israel wants to bypass the Palestinian issue. Israel wants to be normalised without resolving the Palestinian issue. Why am I going on so long with this? It is because the problem is not just Israel. Israel is like any other state. If you can have the cake and eat it too, why not? Isreal needs to receive consequences, and it is not just Israel. Anybody who violates the very provisions of the system we built needs to be held to account. The answer is again and again in the rule of law.
Q68 Blair McDougall: Thank you, Ambassador. Can I also acknowledge and offer my condolences for your family’s suffering over the last 14 months? In your mission statement, you call for a just and equitable solution to the issue of Palestinian refugees. Could you expand on what that means in practice and whether there is room for negotiation and alternative arrangements within that desire for the return of refugees?
Dr Zomlot: Can I ask you, right honourable friend, why you think that statement—a just and equitable solution to the issue of refugees—is problematic?
Q69 Blair McDougall: I do not think it is problematic. I am asking you to outline what it means in practice.
Dr Zomlot: It means what it means. It means that two thirds of the Palestinian people were ethnically cleansed from their homes, farms and livelihoods in 1948. This became the biggest refugee issue in the region and across the globe. That is why the UN established international law vis-à-vis how to resolve the issue, including resolution 194. The UN also established UNRWA to service these refugees until the issue is resolved.
That is exactly why Netanyahu is targeting UNRWA. He is linking UNRWA to the right of return and he is wrong there. UNRWA is just to provide services to refugees. The right of return is enshrined in their property rights. There is the collective and there is the individual. Those people, including my own father and grandfather, have deeds to their own homes. We cannot brush this issue under the carpet. This is not an issue up for negotiation and compromise.
We have to make a distinction between the principle and the resolutions. The principle has to be accepted. Israel has to take its responsibility and acknowledge its wrongdoing in 1948, the Nakba. Peace will not be done, achieved or enjoyed if it is not based on justice. This is not a statement. Go everywhere. Without achieving justice, peace is not sustainable. We have tried it many times. How can you tell two thirds of the Palestinian people, “We have negotiated your rights away”?
There are models. There are international models. Look at the Balkans. There are options that are given to these people. If I want to offer Israel a deal, it has to be a final deal where everybody is satisfied and the future is going to be shared. It is this business of haggling: “Can you please forgo the right of return before we begin to speak? Can you just compromise this? Can you compromise further that?”
Allow me to say this. Peace means the three following things for us and, whatever happens, these three rights have to be achieved.
Q70 Chair: I would very much like to hear the three points, but I will then need to draw your evidence to a close. I am so sorry. I do not mean to interrupt you. You were about to say that the peace will depend on three things and, if you would be kind enough to tell us those, I will need to bring your evidence to an end.
Dr Zomlot: First is the right to self-determination. We are a nation, a people, a peoplehood on our land and we have a functioning Government. We have to have a state that can protect us, look at what happened to us over the years, represent us internationally and provide for us a political, democratic system.
Number two is the right of return and the right of refugees to be resolved. I believe there are already formulas that would be satisfactory. Number three is being treated equally wherever we are. The business of, “Let us push the Palestinians a little bit more,” is not going to do.
The minimum we could accept, the maximum we could offer, is what has been on offer for the last 35 years: a state of Palestine on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, resolving the issue of refugees and treating Palestinians with dignity and equality everywhere. These are not asks. These are obligations upon any party that deals with us.
Chair: Thank you very much indeed. Thank you for coming today and thank you for giving us your time.
Examination of witnesses
Witnesses: Adam Wagner, Adam Rose and Dr Sharone Lifschitz.
Q71 Chair: Our final panel is going to talk to us about the position of the hostages taken in October 2023. We are really grateful to you for coming today. Thank you. I wonder if you could introduce yourself for the record, please.
Dr Lifschitz: My name is Sharone Lifschitz. I am a British citizen, mother of a British citizen, wife of a British citizen, living in the UK. I am the daughter of Oded and Yocheved Lifschitz, both of whom were taken hostage on 7 October. I am the daughter of Kibbutz Nir Oz, a community in the Negev desert that suffered perhaps statistically the most in this war in the sense that a quarter of its members were either taken hostage or murdered on that day. Every house, apart from six, were entered. Many of them were destroyed and burned. My parents’ house was burned to the ground. Nothing is left.
I am here after 431 days of continuous failure to return my father. My mum returned after 17 days to us. I want to say a few things about my parents. I want to start by saying that their life was devoted to building a community, to finding a peaceful solution and to working with our neighbours. You can define their life’s work as about averting what happened on 7 October. I think always, again and again, to my father lying on the ground, injured. Both of them were in the saferoom, which they thought was safe.
My father was injured when he was shot through the door. My father is 84. My mum is 86 now and they were in their pyjamas in the morning. My father held the door. A few minutes before, he said he could hear voices in Arabic. My father speaks good Arabic. Within seconds, he was shot and then six men entered the room. They took my father out, dragged him out, and minutes later took my mum. They wrapped her in a blanket and the last thing my mum saw of my father after 63 days of living together was him lying unconscious on the floor.
When she returned to us, the first thing she told me in the hospital was that father is dead. He was not dead. He woke up at one point. Lying there, he saw our house on fire. He saw the children of our community being taken hostage. He saw dead bodies all over. My mum, when she was taken, heard hundreds of civilians running towards our community with sticks and stones, shouting, “Kill the Jews”, “Itbah Al-Yahud”, and, “Allahu Akbar”.
She herself was defended by the people taking her on a motorbike. She was lying like that on a little motorbike going through the fields. She came back after 17 days and famously shook the hand of her captor.
Chair: We all remember that.
Dr Lifschitz: It might have looked out of the ordinary but, knowing my mum, it was a very ordinary thing to do. It was the thing she has done all her life, which is seeing people for being people, for being humans. This Committee itself should really look at human beings, beyond the conflict, and seek to find ways to restore our faith in humanity and each other.
We should also remember that taking hostages is an incredibly horrific thing to do. I am surprised by the gentleman who sat here before me, because he did not fully condemn it—[Interruption.] You have to go.
Chair: I am so sorry. We do need to go. We probably have another minute, but then we have to run. If you have another minute, we will come back but it may be that it will be half an hour. I am so sorry. This is the system that we labour under.
Adam Rose: It might be better waiting.
Chair: It is fine. We can come back and speak to you in half an hour if that works better. That is what we will do.
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
On resuming—
Q72 Chair: You were in the middle of telling us the most horrendous story, before we had to finish to go and vote. I visited Nir Oz and knew it to be an extraordinary community that was certainly peaceful. The people within it were working with Palestinians as best they could. You had, I am afraid, got to the part of your tale where you were explaining about your father being on the ground and then were about to move on. I am afraid we then all had to run off and vote.
The floor is yours and your evidence is yours. In your own way and as best you can, please help us with the rest of the tale as to what had happened to you and to your family.
Dr Lifschitz: About four days later, we had the first press conference, which was televised extensively here. I said then, and it is still true, that my enemy is hate. It is hate that has been washing over our streets in the UK, in a way I could not imagine at the time. If I have to say what this Parliament should do more of, we talk about peace as if it should be in the Middle East. I do not feel there is peace happening here. If the UK wants to have a role in what happens next in the Middle East, the first panel has quite clearly explained to us that there will need to be bridge building.
I do not see Parliament doing anything for bridge building at the moment. I have been quite vocal about my opinions about the matter. I have been quite vocal about what should happen with the hostages. I have been quite vocal about thinking how we get from here to hostage release and the return of some sanity for the people of the region. I often talk about the people of the region.
Apart from the joint statement of the Liberal Democrats in their conference, I have not been witnessing very much about finding a unified story that helps the hostages return, first and foremost, but, as the Prime Minister said, this will be done as part of a negotiated ceasefire. If you ask me what needs to be done, that is one of them. We should maybe go to you.
Adam Wagner: Adam was going to introduce our clients.
Adam Rose: Good afternoon. I am Adam Rose. I am a solicitor and partner at Mishcon de Reya in London and, along with Adam Wagner, I act for the families of the British and what we know as the closely connected hostages. We will explain what we mean by that shortly.
Just to name who these hostages we are talking about, the human beings, the hostages are Emily Damari, who is British; Oded Lifschitz, whose daughter, Dr Sharone Lifschitz, you have been listening to and who is British; Eli Sharabi, whose British wife, Lianne, and teenage daughters, Yahel and Noiya, were murdered on 7 October 2023, and his brother, Yossi Sharabi, who was taken hostage and who was killed in January of this year; and Avinatan Or, whose mother is British. We were also acting previously for Nadav Popplewell, who was British, who was also killed. His body has been recovered and he has been buried.
As a result of our advocacy, the UK Government—both the previous and current Government—committed to treating all of these people, both the British and the closely connected hostages, in exactly the same way as each other. Today is over 430 days since 7 October 2023 and, as lawyers one step removed from the families, we see occasional glimmers of progress.
We saw the Prime Minister calling for the unconditional and immediate release of the hostages a few weeks ago, but we do not see the UK taking specific action for its citizens and for those closely connected to the UK, to whom it committed to seek their immediate and unconditional release.
Q73 Chair: We would be very grateful, during your evidence, if you could be clear about what action you think the British Government should take. The focal point of this inquiry is what the British have done until now that has worked and what might work in the future.
Adam Wagner: My name is Adam Wagner and I am a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers. I have been working along with Adam for the past 14 months for the British-linked hostage families.
I just wanted to say a couple of things in that context, not quite about what this Government can do, because we will come to that, but more about why this Government should care. That has been part of the challenge. The first few weeks that we were trying to interest the British Government, we were not receiving much back. The letters from the Foreign Office said, “Here is a leaflet on how to get through this very difficult situation, but it is not our responsibility”. To their credit, the previous Government came on something of a journey. We spent a lot of time here advocating for them to be bothered and, at the time, there were two British citizen hostages and a number of very closely connected hostages.
There are so many extraordinary and terrible things that have happened in this part of the conflict, as you have been hearing about, that it is easy to forget individual elements that are themselves extremely important and extraordinary. The taking of 251 hostages on 7 October is one of those extraordinary elements that needs to really be thought through. Those 251 hostages were mostly civilians. They were women, men, children and older people, including Sharone’s parents.
In fact, the first contact I had was from Stella Creasy, who is Sharone’s MP, just after 7 October, saying, “I have a constituent whose elderly parents have been taken hostage”. At the time, we did not know what British connections there would be. There is a baby who is still a hostage. There were people who were shot and injured and who were taken hostage. There were people who were ill.
There are still 101 hostages. There are 22 nationalities amongst those hostages. This is very much an international situation, because of those different nationality hostages, and, among them, the four hostages closely connected to Britain. Hostage taking is unambiguously a war crime. It is contrary to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, which the British are party to. It is a crime in our domestic law, because that is one of our treaty commitments. It is a crime under the 1982 Act. The British state has a responsibility as a signatory of that treaty to work together with other states to co-ordinate a response against hostage‑taking.
The other point to make is it is not just hostage-taking. It is an act of terrorism. Those 251 hostages being taken was an act of terrorism by a proscribed terrorist group. Sharone here, the hostages and the people we work with are victims of terror. That adds a whole other element. These are not people who are being kept in places where the Red Cross can reach. A lot of the families have had no confirmation of life in the last 14 months. There is no access to aid for those hostages. There is no access to medicine. There is no access to medical treatment. Nobody can go in and see where they are. Some of them were being held in tunnels. Some of them were being held in civilian homes. We had a client whose mother was released after she had been held in the house of a lawyer for two months, who was being paid to hold that hostage in a family home.
It is extremely complex and difficult. If it is left to carry on and is not properly addressed by not just Israel but the international community, then that is an encouragement for it to happen again and for it to be used as a tactic.
The final thing I would say is that it is a very successful tactic. The hostage-taking was not just a random act. It is something that terrorist organisations such as Hamas have been trying to achieve and have been doing for years. As a tactic, it works, because it is a form of psychological terror. It creates divisions within societies and divisions within the families who are just trying to advocate for their loved ones.
I will just end with this. We were acting for the family of Nadav Popplewell, who was the other British hostage, who was murdered. Before his death was announced, Hamas released a number of videos, a bit like a game show, where they said, “Guess what has happened to Nadav Popplewell”, dot-dot-dot, and showed a video of him with a black eye. “You will find out in 24 hours. Watch this space”. Then they released another video in 24 hours saying, “Out of these three hostages, two are dead. Which do you think it is? You will find out in 24 hours”. Then, 24 hours later, they revealed that he had died. That is the other British hostage.
That is just an example. The same thing happened with Yossi Sharabi, another one of our clients, who was killed. In amongst all of the horror of all of this, this is a very particular form of horror that Sharone, her family and 251 other families have had to deal with. That is really important to highlight.
Q74 Aphra Brandreth: Thank you so much. I cannot imagine how difficult the last 431 days have been for you, Sharone, and your family. Do you believe that the UK is doing enough to try to help bring your father home? What action in particular would you like to see from the Government?
Dr Lifschitz: First of all, I do not know. We have failed to bring my father back home, so I personally feel a huge sense of failure. I do not think anybody involved in it can feel it has been a success, so, in that respect, no. The Government must be very clear—continuously clear—that they have citizens and closely linked hostages there, that they are responsible for them and that their responsibility is 100%.
I have a problem when I am being told by the Government of Israel, “No.” Take responsibility for your hostages. Work in a creative way. Work in any way possible. Be absolutely clear that this is not the problem of the Israeli Government that you are trying to support in the best way possible, but it is a problem for Britain. Britain citizens are held hostage, not seeing any medical help, and being held in terrible conditions.
I used to look at Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and think, “That is terrible.” I used to be one of the people sitting at home and thinking, “That is terrible.” Then, on 7 October, my family and I were going up north to pick a puppy and my life turned on its head. The way things are going, other people’s lives are also going to turn on their head. We have to look at how we support each other. It took so long for the Government to come and support me as a British citizen, the mother of a British citizen and wife of a British citizen. That says something.
That is another thing we need to look at. What is the responsibility we have for British citizens whose lives are turned upside down?
Q75 Chair: Can I just widen Aphra’s question to the lawyers? If there is a list of things that it is felt that the British Government should do, then we would like to hear them. I take on board completely your criticisms in relation to the British Government being slow to take responsibility for the families of hostages and for the hostages themselves, and I think that applies to your case, to Israelis taken hostage and to many others. I know many of us around this table are exercised by that, and continue to be. Specifically, if there are demands or suggestions that are made, we would like to hear them, please.
Adam Rose: One of the challenges that the families have put to the Government is the apparent lack of creativity in their thinking. Having conducted the same activities for 14 months without success, it is not obvious that there is a group of people thinking of different ways of approaching things. We and the families have very much approached this as victims of terrorism, as individuals, rather than as people who have political solutions for big or small questions, but there seems to be a lack of preparedness for something that has happened, which was not beyond contemplation. Having happened, it is not beyond contemplation that something similar could happen again, in that jurisdiction or somewhere else. There is no standard operating procedure that kicks in when this happens.
The families had to work out for themselves what to do. There was no blueprint for what to do, and one would hope that a blueprint could be put in place so that you know what happens next. To give the UK credit, the Government have set up a Gaza hostage unit, headed by Charles Hay, who is an ambassador-level person. That unit has provided weekly information to the hostage families as to what is going on. They do not give classified information, but they give information that is very publicly available. More importantly, they give information of things that are not publicly available. Things that do not hit the press get into the weekly briefings. All of the families have found that to be very helpful.
In terms of building a blueprint, you would say we need to kick into action immediately a dedicated team. We need to give information to families. We need to have counsellors available. We need to have politicians available. We need to have civil servants available. I do not know, Adam, if you wanted to add some other thoughts.
Adam Wagner: It is not an easy question to answer because the extent to which Britain has in its gift the ability to influence this situation is still unclear. We have been told very different things. We have been dealing with two different Governments, three different Foreign Secretaries and two different Prime Ministers, and our hostage families have met them all. We have heard different things, and we have been told things ranging from, “Britain has no influence at all in the Middle East,” to, “Britain can do something.”
My experience, from 14 months, is that the structural influence that the state has is quite different to the influence that high-level politicians can have in these situations because, ultimately, it is 100 people. It is a few people. It is quite a small group who are negotiating. The influence can be brought to bear by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, if they want to. That is our experience. It really comes down to leadership. Does this country want to be a leader in fighting against international terrorism, and particularly hostage-taking? I have not seen that from either Government, to be fair.
Leaving aside all of the really difficult issues of negotiation, the two‑state solution and all of the wider political consequences, this in itself is an extremely serious issue that needs to be dealt with on its own. It is a war crime on its own. It has no defence. It might end up being part of a negotiation, but it does not need to be. Taking leadership on that issue is something that this country could do more of, and I do not see what the downside would be of that. From an international law perspective, this is a Government that respects international law, and I would like to see that.
There is talk of appointing a hostage tsar, envoy or whatever, based on the American model. That is a good idea as long as that person is properly resourced and is not a replacement for the Government doing their own thing. I would see that person as more of a victims’ commissioner, someone who will stand up for all the different families who are impacted by hostage-taking and arbitrary detention across the piste, and go to Government and stand up and be an in-public person who will hold them to account. That is the way I see that. It is not a substitute.
The other quite narrow but really important point for these British-linked families is, if there is going to be a deal, which hopefully there will be—there could be one quite soon, which we all hope, as there seems to be a gathering possibility of a deal and more impetus—the Government need to be saying every single day, privately and publicly, “We have four British‑connected hostages who we have taken responsibility for. We have told all of the families that we take responsibility for them, and we demand that they are released. We demand, and we will pay”. I do not mean pay financially, because I do not think the UK does that with hostages, but, “We will give our time. We will give our resources to making this happen.”
The UK has chosen not to be in the room, and we have been told repeatedly that that is a very specific choice that they have made. They have said, “Let the Americans, Qataris, Israelis and the Egyptians do the direct negotiations, and we will be in the outer circle, influencing if we can”. That is a choice as well, and it is not a choice that necessarily needs to be continued. Britain could take more responsibility, but it comes down to leadership, taking responsibility right now.
We would hugely appreciate if this Committee could write a letter immediately and say to the Government now, “You need to be standing up for these particular individuals whom you have taken responsibility for as part of this process”.
Q76 Dan Carden: Thank you, Sharone, for coming to speak to us today. It is heartbreaking to hear the experiences that you have had over the last 14 months. You mentioned Qatar. Qatar was leading negotiations. Hamas had been residing there. It has now pulled away from leading those negotiations, but during that time was there any part of that process that you felt able to access through the British Government?
Dr Lifschitz: Yes. The British Government arranged for the British-linked hostages to go to Qatar. There was a trip to Qatar in July, organised by the British Government. There were also several meetings with Qataris in the UK, so, in that respect, yes, but I have to tell you that I have been trying really hard to figure it out for 14 months, and you very often hear very opposite things about the role of Qatar. You very often hear very opposite things from members of the Government, and you somehow have to decide where you stand on it.
I am not elected. I was not elected to be a hostage’s daughter, and I am trying to figure it out. I figured out that, a lot of the time, politicians do not know. I figured out there are things I do not get access to and I do not know. At the heart of it is the question of Hamas, and one of the things that really surprised me about Zomlot’s presentation is that he was very rarely challenged on Hamas. It is Hamas that prepared the population for this, Hamas that took hostages, Hamas that put the hostages in hospitals and people’s homes, and Hamas that put friends of my mother in the home of UNRWA employees. There is this generality that he talked about in terms of Israel, as if all of Israel is the same. I know my friends have been demonstrating against the Government for years, in any way possible, and yet he took no responsibility for Hamas.
The British Government are not always really clear because the British Government say, “We do not negotiate with a terrorist organisation”. Hamas is a terrorist organisation. First, this needs to be revisited because my parents are not held by nice people. They are terrorists, but they are holding my father. How we overcome this is one question that this Committee has to somehow think more deeply about.
Secondly, we have to challenge people who come to this Committee and talk about Palestine as if everybody is just ready, and readied for peace, and spent three generations building a peaceful outlook, and yet looking at Israel, in which 70% of the population is pro a deal, and suggesting that all of us are this or that. We need the intricacies of the complexity of the situation.
Q77 Blair McDougall: I know I would not find the grace that you have in the situation that you find yourself in, so thank you so much for being with us today. Adam mentioned the suggestion of setting up a special envoy around people who are arbitrarily detained or who are hostages. Much of the conversation about that that we have had in this Committee, or that I have been party to in the Chamber, has been about state hostages. There has been a lot of work on the criticism of people in that situation in terms of the experience of loved ones.
You mentioned the need for counsellors and things that we are lacking. I am interested in what the experience was like of being someone in this situation. You mentioned the unit that has been set up now, but I am interested in the permanent capacity of the Foreign Office in terms of giving you support, as a relative of someone who was taken hostage. What was the experience of that like, in terms of the support that you were given? Feel free to be as critical as you like because that is our job.
Dr Lifschitz: There has not been that experience, in the sense that I do not think the British Government have at all offered me much support as a victim. They offered me considerable support in pushing the fight for the return of my father. In that way, there is a lot of work to be done. I know other Governments have done more for it. Until today, I was not offered any of that support. I have not worked since my parents were taken hostage.
We do not even understand the effect of it on us, on our lives. Nobody went into it thinking it would take 430 days, with no end in sight. My father is very elderly. I have not known if he is alive or dead for 430 days. I thought he was dead; my mum told me he was dead, but then the hostages came back and told us he is alive but he was not feeling well. Now we do not know. It is just ongoing.
I did not know that I would go to Berlin last week, but I went. My life is forever on the edge because I am here, and I have a crap situation, but the hostages are there. I do not know at what point they will not be there. Each of them has the moment. They die, and we do not even know the date. We do not even know the circumstances. We do not even know if somebody said a nice word to them. It is really hard to carry it. I talk about the failure a lot, but I feel it because we have gone such a long way, but we have not arrived at our destination, and this destination is the return of the hostages.
Q78 Chair: We heard from the Foreign Secretary ourselves, and he gave a commitment to a form of ambassador—someone who is with responsibility for taking a lead on those who are arbitrarily detained. There is little detail in terms of fleshing that out. There was a debate in Parliament, and there was a challenge, for example, to put out a definition of what it is to be arbitrarily detained, but also to look closely at the American model, where there seems to be a very proactive view, at least, in terms of thinking laterally, working out who the power players may be behind the person being held, whether anybody has connections with them, how you put pressure on them, who might know them, whether state actors can have sanctions and whether jailers can have individual sanctions.
The other side of the coin is the emotional support that is given to hostage families, so that, when it is decided that someone has been arbitrarily detained, the family is contacted within hours, and they are given phone numbers and told, “We are now looking after you. You can ring us at any time.” There are advisers. There is mental health assistance. There is a whole panoply of things. We have not heard about any of that.
I am just setting this out before I get to my question. When you talk about there being a specific group or an initiative to give support to the families of Gaza hostages, I wondered how close that might be to any hopeful model that the Government may move towards.
Dr Lifschitz: I am sitting here, and it makes me think that even my workplace never got advice. I do not think the university had had a family member of a hostage as a member of staff. The University of East London have been kind to me, but they have no clue. Nobody contacted them, so, in a sense, my predicament never came outside of the Foreign Office. As a citizen of this country, I have not been addressed in any way. My doctor has not been addressed. Nobody has been addressed.
I have not even thought about it because their situation in Gaza is so much worse, but, when you raise that, and I think of me as a citizen, there has been nothing. Nobody has asked me if I am financially okay, mentally okay and okay in any other way.
Uma Kumaran: Thank you for your evidence today and the dignity and courage that you have to recount this story of what has happened to your family. I pay tribute to that strength that you have. I just want to offer my help. The University of East London is actually in my constituency, so I am very happy to meet with you. I am very happy to write to them. Whatever support you need, please take it. I am five months into the job, so I was not aware of this, but I am certainly very happy to meet with them and speak to them, to offer you some support.
Q79 Matthew Patrick: We heard from the ambassador earlier, calling for Hamas to allow the Red Cross in to see hostages. I know that the Red Cross were involved in the early deal that saw your mother come out. I wondered what your experience of working with the Red Cross is and, for our legal minds, what the legal status is of not allowing them in and what levers might be available to the UK in getting them access.
Dr Lifschitz: It is a dead end and not worth debating. It is a waste of time. Whatever I think about its remit is and what it can do, it cannot do anything. The Qataris cannot get us proof of life. It is not working. We should try to do it a different way, but maybe you have a different idea.
Adam Wagner: We have tried a lot, and our families have met with the Red Cross multiple times in multiple countries. The Red Cross approach is just too dangerous. We cannot force our way in; it relies on consent. I can completely understand why people focus on the Red Cross. France did a deal to try to get medication in, and then the medication was found in a hospital with the names of the hostages on it. It comes back to the point that this is a terrorist organisation that, for very many years, built hundreds of miles of tunnels with the purpose of using for a future conflict, including taking hostages. That is why they have rooms with toilets and kitchens in those tunnels, which only the fighters and the hostages live in.
They are so frightened, from what we understand, of anybody finding them that they communicate by paper notes rather than electronic communications. The idea that they would let the Red Cross meet the hostages and expose the locations seems to be unreal. That is our experience. It would be great if they could be let in, but it is a terrorist organisation; it does not react to sanctions. You can be sanctioned if you can find the money, but it does not react to international pressure in the same way. It is not a state. You have to understand that framework.
I do not want to be despairing about it, but we have found no glimmer of light in that respect of letting anybody in. As a starting point, they do not even know who is alive and who is dead. Forget medicine or food. There might be very few alive. Who knows?
Q80 Sir John Whittingdale: We have seen that some of the families in Israel have indicated their unhappiness that perhaps the Israeli Government are not giving release of the hostages the priority they should be. I just wondered what your view is of what the Israeli Government are doing and whether they should be doing more.
Dr Lifschitz: It is a big question. I am not satisfied with the Israeli Government. They absolutely could do more. It is a complicated thing as well. The collapse of Syria changes everything. I believe there were points at which a deal could have been reached and that, if the hostages were the main objective, a deal would have been reached and our loved ones would have been here. I am absolutely certain that, in that case, more of them would have come out alive, and some of the people we have buried since would have come out alive.
Israel has its worst Government. As the first panel suggested, we need fresh leadership on both sides in order to push things. Israel needs a solution, and I think there is 4,000 years of solutions, and the hostages will not survive reaching that state. That is why we are asking for it immediately and unconditionally, because we feel them in our stomach, and they are not going to survive another winter. It is too much.
That is why the British Government should press, in any way possible, on the Israeli Government to reach a deal, together with everybody else. Only a deal returns them alive. My mother, while in the tunnels, was petrified of the Israeli military getting close because she said, “It is like a spiderweb of tunnels and, in that spiderweb of tunnels, how can they stop them from shooting us?” That is what happened when Israel approached and got closer to the six hostages on 1 September.
Israel can and should do more to return the hostages, but Britain should also do more to return the hostages.
Chair: Thank you very much for the evidence that you have given today and for the time that you have given us. I apologise once more for the way that this place organises itself and for the difficulties that we had. If you feel that there is anything additional that we should know about that you did not speak about in the heat of the moment, please do write to us and we will add that to your evidence. Thank you, again, for your time.