Written evidence from Palestine Solidarity Campaign (MEP0049)

 

Executive Summary:

 

 

 

 

  1. PSC has become one of the largest and most active campaigning organisations in the UK on the issue of Palestine. More details of our work can be found at www. palestinecampaign.org.

 

  1. The PSC’s role has transformed over the years, as broad and mainstream support and awareness for Palestinian rights has increased right across the UK. The PSC works with a large number of national institutions and organisations, including groupings of MPs within each of the major parties, trade unions, student groups, international non-governmental organisations and a broad range faith institutions, Christian, Jewish and Muslim. 

 

 

  Q 1. The implications of the UK’s unique history in the region for UK policy

 

  1. November 2017 marks 100 years since the Balfour Declaration , the promise by British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour to bequeath Palestine for the establishment of a Jewish homeland. Despite the Declaration’s stated intention that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”, it has become clear that the British Government’s decision has had overwhelming negative implications for the rights of the Palestinian people, who were denied their legitimate right to self-determination, while under colonial rule.

 

  1. When referring to (but not protecting) individual rights of Palestinians, the Declaration did not recognise the right of Palestinian Arab people to national self-determination. The UK’s promise of a state to the Jewish people, the vast majority of whom did not reside in Palestine at the time, effectively annulled the rights of those living there to their own self-government, and the ability to determine their own affairs. This decision, taken during Britain’s direct colonial and military rule in Palestine, ensured Palestinian statelessness, and set into place the structure of the conflict, that continues until today.

 

 

  1. Given the centenary of the Balfour declaration, the occasion offers a great opportunity for Britain to begin healing the enduring wounds its past policies have inflicted on Palestinians, by issuing a formal apology, and more importantly, by taking steps to ensure that the UK is not contributing to the continued oppression of Palestinians today.             

 

  1. Given the significance and sensitivity of the upcoming anniversary it would be particularly provocative and inappropriate for the British Royal family to conduct their first ever official visit to Israel in 2017. 

 

Q2. and Q3. The merits of the UK’s policy in support of a two-state solution

 

  1. As an organisation, the PSC does not take a position regarding the solution through which Palestinian rights can be achieved. We support whichever solution will facilitate the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national sovereignty and to return to their original homes, as enshrined in international law.

 

  1. The possibilities of achieving a two-state solution to the conflict in Palestine appear slimmer than ever. Over the years, the international community has warned Israel of numerous ‘red lines’ which, when crossed, would constitute the death of the two-state solution as a viable framework for ending the oppression of Palestinians. Each of these final warnings, such as Israeli construction in E1, the accelerated expulsion of Palestinians from Jerusalem, and the ‘regularisation’ of Israeli outposts in the West Bank have now all come and gone without serious protest or action on the part of the UK, the UN or the EU. Israel’s relentless programme of settlement expansion which has seen the number of settlers in East Jerusalem and the West Bank increase by nearly 500,000 since the Oslo accords  remains the most significant obstacle to peace

 

  1. The UK Government’s formal policy is to support a two-state solution to the conflict in Palestine. The 2014 Parliamentary vote in favour of Palestinian statehood, the Government’s position on the illegality of Israeli settlements, and UK Government support for UN Security Council 2334 all contribute positively to the realisation of this objective.

 

  1. In December 2016, the United National Security Council took a historic vote on Resolution 2334 which expressed the international consensus on the framework for a just peace in Palestine. This resolution, supported by our Government, reaffirms that:

 

the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.

 

  1. The resolution also calls on states to “distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”. This call reflects long-standing EU and UK Government policy on differentiation.

 

  1. Despite these policies and their reaffirmation in UNSC Resolution 2334, very little is being done to end UK complicity in settlement construction. Israeli goods originating from illegal settlements continue to be sold in the UK often incorrectly labelled and taxed. Foreign Office guidelines on doing business with settlements continue to be vague and inadequate, mentioning only that there are “clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements, and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity.” The Government has thus far declined to provide clearer, more robust guidelines for banks and businesses, or to support efforts at differentiation taking place under the auspices of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. 

 

 

  1. We believe the UK government should at a minimum:

 

 

 

 

  1. The consequences of a failure to implement a 2 state solution have been made clear in statements by a wide range of international observers including ex secretary of State Kerry. Palestinians would continue to live within a one state reality that has been accurately described in a recent UN report as constituting an apartheid state.

 

  1. There have been many statements referring to the fact that any settlement needs to result from “face to face” negotiations between Israel and Palestinian representatives. Sight should not be lost that this not currently a negotiation between two equals. One is the occupier, the other the occupied, one a nation state, the other not.

 

  1. Therefore the UK should play a continuing role through the UN to ensure that any solution is based on the principles of respect for the equal rights for all.

 

Q 4. The UK’s relationship with Israel

 

  1. The UK is a key actor in the region and has considerable influence with Israel through its extensive economic and political relationship with the country. Should it wish to do so, the UK Government would be able to exert substantial pressure on the Israeli Government, to begin to adhere to the international consensus on resolving the conflict, and its obligations under international law. Taking action to prevent UK companies, charities and individuals contributing to the maintenance and expansion of settlements would signal to Israel the serious intent of the UK and the international community to achieving a just peace in Palestine. 

 

  1. Despite the UK’s close ties with Israel, the UK has yet to achieve any of its key policy objectives in relation to Palestine, mostly due to Israel obstinacy and refusal to abide by international law. The repeated failure of UK Government efforts to apply diplomatic pressure on Israel ‘behind the scenes’ is alarming, and calls into question the viability of this approach. Two examples of this are the repeated Israeli demolition of EU-funded infrastructure projects in Area C of the West Bank and the continuing and relentless construction of settlements, both despite sustained diplomatic pressure by the UK, the EU and the United States. These experiences make it clear that diplomatic modes of engagement cannot be successful unless supported by restrictive measures (including boycotts, divestment and sanctions) to compel Israel to adhere to its international legal obligations. This has been recognised by the UN and the UK in relation to many international issues where breaches of international continue to take place despite repeated warnings.

 

  1. Moreover, the UK does not receive reciprocity in a number of key areas.  For example, Israel routinely deports UK nationals from its borders without explanation, and without coordination with the British Foreign Office. Israel has recently passed a law which allows it to refuse entry to Israel for any foreign national who has promoted Boycott.  Earlier this year PSC’s Chair, Hugh Lanning was deported by Israel, a few days after the introduction of this law, not for any actions or wrongdoings, solely for his record of advocacy for Palestinian rights. Many British nationals visiting Israel or the occupied Palestinian Territory have been similarly deported under previously existing legislation. This happens most frequently for British Muslims or British nationals of Palestinian or Arab heritage. Israel’s policies in this regard and now especially the “Boycott Law” have been severely criticised by human rights organisations as representing a significant violation of democratic norms regarding freedom of expression and movement. The UK government’s response, which has been to state an intention to clarify how the law will be applied, is woefully inadequate. Israel must be challenged to uphold democratic norms regarding free movement and entry if reciprocity is to be maintained.

 

  1. We are aware, that in the context of the UK leaving the EU, there will be trade discussions with Israel We are deeply concerned at announcements of an intention to strengthen the trade and investment relationship between the UK and Israel without regard to the continuing violations of Israel in relation to international law and the absence of progress towards Palestinian self-determination. We believe there is a unique opportunity for the UK to demonstrate its commitment to a peaceful solution by ensuring that any trade with Israel is conditional upon it meeting its responsibilities under international law and human rights conventions.  Without such a move the UK would send entirely the wrong message about it’s intentions to hold Israel to account for its failure to uphold international law and respect UN resolutions

 

  1. In this regard PSC has long campaigned with key partners, for the UK government to implement a 2 way embargo to end all arms sales to and purchases from Israel in line with responsibilities under the Consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria.

 

Q5. The UK’s relationship with the Palestine Liberation Organisation and exiled Palestinian Communities

 

  1. The Palestinian Mission to the UK is the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) which, in the United Nations, is given the designation ‘The State of Palestine’.

 

  1. In 1997, the PLO signed an Interim Association Agreement on Trade and Cooperation with the European Union. World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules dictate that one territorial area cannot be subject to two separate trade agreements, raising the legitimacy of the EU continuing to permit the importation of Israeli settlement goods. Although the EU excludes Israeli settlement goods from benefitting from preferential status under the EU-Israel Association Agreement, they nevertheless continue to be imported into the EU – a practice in violation of WTO rules.

 

  1. As of 2015, the UK was the third highest donor of aid to the United National Relief Works Agency (UNRWA), the organisation providing emergency relief and assistance to Palestinian refugees in the occupied Palestinian territories, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Whilst support for Palestinian refugees is welcomed, such donations have been made in lieu of any progress towards achieving the rights of Palestinian refugees. At present, Palestinian refugees supported by UNRWA do not have a UN agency tasked with providing them with protection, or supporting the achievement of their rights.

 

  1. In the early 2000s, the Joint Parliamentary Middle East Councils Commission of Enquiry on Palestinian Refugees undertook an extensive consultation with Palestinian refugees in their communities. The most pressing demand from this consultation was the action demanded by the refugees for the achievement of their right of return to their original homes. It is of upmost importance that the findings of this Commission be taken seriously as the neglect of its recommendations contributes to a failed UK Government policy.

 

Q 7. How UK policy is influenced by other states and interested parties. 

 

  1. The continued growth of support by the British public for Palestinian rights has been overshadowed by measures that have been introduced by the UK Government. These measures have threatened the democratic rights  of our members. It has also affected the ability of PSC to carry out our advocacy work in the UK on behalf of the Palestinian people. The context for this is the public acknowledgement by Israel of  the growth in support internationally of the campaign for Palestinian rights and specifically the growth in support for the movement for Boycott Divestment and Sanctions  which Israel regards as a major strategic threat. This has led to Israel working with allies across the globe to introduce laws that suppress the right to boycott; and more broadly to work to reframe human rights activism as wrong in principle because it subjects Israel to criticism.  There are three principle areas of concern, outlined below.

 

  1. Influences on UK policy towards the region: as one of several national organisations advocating for human rights and international justice for the Palestinians, we are aware of a loose set of institutions holding opposing views, and that also seek to influence UK Government policy. We appreciate this plurality of perspectives as a reflection of the healthy debate enjoyed in a democracy.

 

  1. However, we have had concerns about the nature and character of the professional lobbying and advocacy work undertaken in the UK that is hostile to Palestinian rights The public revelations, based on an undercover investigation conducted earlier this year, showed that the Israeli Embassy in the UK, and agents working for it, has been directly involved with influencing UK Government policy in ways that go far beyond what is acceptable in a democracy, including a discussion about ‘taking down’ a UK Government Minister. These recordings also revealed the slander, smearing, and intimidation experienced by those who support Palestinian rights. It concurs with the longstanding experience of our members – ordinary citizens from all walks of life – and our staff. British citizens supporting basic Palestinian human rights in the UK (including students, journalists, professors, politicians, and other public figures), are frequently subject to personal attacks in the media, on grounds that cannot be substantiated or bear little scrutiny. The level of intimidation is such that a former government minister, writing in the Mail on Sunday about Israeli attempts to “thwart UK Government policy”, was obliged to write anonymously, as he explained: “if I were to reveal who I am, I would be subjected to a relentless barrage of abuse and character assassination.” This description reflects what many MPs with whom we work have expressed to us regarding the level of criticism they face. Tactics of intimidation have also extended to cyber attacks with PSC recently experiencing hacking of its twitter and facebook accounts We recommend a fuller enquiry focussed on the activities of pro Israel lobby in the UK and the extent to which it is working within legitimate democratic norms.

 

  1. As regards lobbying and advocacy work measures ought to be put in place to ensure transparency of funding to ensure foreign governments, including Israel, are not involved in funding organisations that are interfering with democratic rights and processes in this country

 

  1. Prevent: the Government’s anti-extremism programme, Prevent, repeatedly refers to ‘support for Palestine’ as one possible indicator of extremism. For example, modules in the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) training on Prevent explicitly mention ‘Opposition to settlements in Gaza’ (which do not exist) and ‘Support for a Palestinian state’ as examples of opinions deemed ‘Extreme but Legal’. This is despite widespread parliamentary support across both sides of the House, including a majority vote in Parliament, in favour of recognising a Palestinian state. The same such mainstream support for Palestinian rights can be seen across the country. However, the effect of such insinuations (particularly to anyone uninformed of the issue), is to suggest that support for Palestinian human rights is outside reasonable, normal, and everyday debate. There have already been prominent cases of individuals being arbitrarily harassed due to their views on Palestine, and the PSC frequently hears of similar cases. The government should take action to withdraw the guidance and training materials used as part of Prevent that describe support for Palestinian rights in this way.

 

  1. Anti-Semitism: in December 2016 the Government announced their adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-semitism. The definition is almost identical to the European Union Monitoring Group (EUMC) definition, which was not adopted as it was discredited academically and politically controversial. Whilst the core definition of antisemitism being the “hatred of Jews” is in itself soundly based, the drafting is poor, unclear and confusing. Of greater concern, the accompanying guidance contains numerous examples, as illustrations of the definition, which conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Since the definition was adopted by the UK Government a coalition of Pro Israel groups in the UK, supported by some prominent UK politicians  have been lobbying hard not only to have the definition adopted by Public bodies but for it to be used to prevent meetings and events which are judged to be antisemitic because they criticise Israel in terms outlined in the examples – eg calling Israel an apartheid state. Recently under lobbying pressure the University of Central Lancashire cancelled a meeting being held on campus for the publicly stated reason  that it was  taking place under the banner of Israel apartheid week whose very name was alleged to violate the IHRA definition regardless of the content of the meeting
  2. PSC, working in partnership with Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Independent Jewish Voices and Free Speech on Israel recently obtained a legal opinion on the definition from the eminent Human rights Lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC. This opinion makes clear that to use the definition prevent criticism of Israel along the lines outlined in the guidance would be unlawful. It is crucial that the Government address this legal opinion and makes clear that it is supporting freedom of expression within the law on Israel/ Palestine including the right to advocate BDS and to define Israel as a state practising apartheid policies.