Urgent Question on Jerusalem House of Commons

asked the question in this group.

Yes, so I am afraid it is not within

the rules but I am sure we will hear

more from her throughout the day,

possibly on multiple occasions. We

will see.

Urgent question, Emily

Thornberry. To ask the Secretary of

State for Foreign and Commonwealth

Affairs if you will make a statement

on the implications of President

from's decision to move the United

States Embassy in Israel from Tel

Aviv to Jerusalem and recognise

Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Minister of State, foreign and

Commonwealth office, Minister

Alistair Burt.

Thank you, Mr Speaker

and can I thank the honourable lady

obviously for an important and

urgent question. As my right

honourable friend the Prime Minister

made clear in her statement

yesterday, we disagree with the US

decision to move its to Jerusalem

and recognise Jerusalem as the

Israeli capital before a final

status agreement. We believe it is

unhelpful in terms of prospect for

peace in the region. The British

Embassy is based in Tel Aviv and we

have no plans to move it. Our

position on the status of Jerusalem

is clear and long-standing. It

should be determined in a negotiated

settlement between the Israelis and

Palestinians and Jerusalem should

ultimately be the shared capital of

the Israeli and Palestinian states,

in line with relevant Security

Council resolutions, we regard East

Jerusalem as part of the occupied

Palestinian territories. We share

President from's desire to bring an

end to this conflict and welcome his

commitment in the statement to a two

state solution negotiated between

the parties and note his clear

acknowledgement that the final

status of Jerusalem, including the

sovereign boundaries within the

city, must be subject to

negotiations between the Israelis

and the Palestinians. We encourage

the US administration to

neighbouring forward detailed

proposals for an Israeli-Palestinian

settlement. To have the best chances

of success, the peace process must

be conducted in an atmosphere free

from violence. We therefore call on

all parties to work together and

maintain calm at a crucial time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting

this urgent question and I welcome

the opening remarks for the Minister

of State. For all of us in this

House and beyond who have worked

tirelessly for decades in the hope

of lasting peace in the Middle East,

yesterday's decision took an

absolute hammer blow to those hopes.

There is a reason that before

yesterday, no other country would

locate their embassy in Jerusalem

and no other major country would

recognise Jerusalem as Israel's

capital, because to do either thing,

let alone both at the same time,

confers legitimacy on Israel's

occupation of east Jerusalem, an

occupation with no basis in

international law and is a permanent

barrier to achieving the political

settlement we would all wish for.

The sheer recklessness of that

decision needs no debate. Donald

Trump is not crying fire and a

crowded theatre, he is deliberately

setting fire to the theatre and then

he has the unbelievable cheek to

claim he is doing this to move

forward the peace process, when in

reality he is setting it back

decades and, as usual, Mr Speaker,

as with the Muslim ban, the Paris

Agreement and the Iran deal, the

question for the UK Government is

twofold. First, what are they going

to do about this mess? Would Donald

Trump wilfully deserting America's

role as peace break peace broker

between Israel and Palestine, how

will we work with other allies to

fill that void, and secondly, when

will the Government admit they have

got their strategy with Donald Trump

totally wrong? They told us that

holding his hand and hugging him

close, indulging him with the offer

of a state visit, was the best way

of wielding influence and shaping

his policies, but Andreu Souleiman,

as with so many issues before, they

have been made to look like fools --

but on Jerusalem. Week, ignored and

with it entirely without influence.

When will they realise that bending

over for a bully only encourages

that behaviour when what our country

needs, and what the world needs, is

a British Government prepared to

stand up to them?

I thank The Right

Honourable lady for her comments and

her question. I agree that a

difficult consensus has been broken.

The honourable lady is right, the

international consensus around the

status of Jerusalem has been one of

the things we have all held onto

during a period when the ultimate

settlement, the final settlement,

has yet to be agreed. And it has

always been seen as part of the

process at the end of that

negotiated settlement and then of

course the status of Jerusalem would

be confirmed. The United States has

taken a decision about itself and

the location of its embassy. I think

in answer to her final point about

the United Kingdom's position

vis-a-vis President Trump, we make

it clear we disagree with the

decision. The Prime Minister has

said it is unhelpful and it is not a

decision we would take. We have now

to decide what we do now. The first

thing we can do, and we have

co-sponsored a meeting tomorrow at

the UN Security Council, when this

will be discussed, we co-sponsored

that with our European partners

because that does provide the

opportunity to take stock of where

we are and how we can move forward.

There are two opportunities. One is

just to dwell on this particular

decision of the United States, which

people will for a while, and just

leave that sitting there. The other

is to decide what we do now. I think

it is imperative that the work that

the envoys have been doing, the

President's envoys, they had shared

with a number of partners and we now

need to see this and more quickly

than people anticipated, and then we

can see what there is to work on

four friends both of Israel and

Palestine. So the process has to

move on. If the process was derailed

by this, that would compound the on

helpfulness of the decision. That is

what we want to talk about. In terms

of the longer term relationship with

United States, our relationship with

United States is very deep, defence,

intelligence, security, trade, it

carries a multitude of things and

has the centuries and it will go on

for centuries, regardless of

leadership. We respect the elected

president but we know the

relationship with United States is

much deeper and the United Kingdom

will continue to honour that

relationship in many forms.

If the

president has a cunning plan which

he hasn't shared with any of his

allies, can I invite my right

honourable friend to speculate what

it might be?

Well... If there is...

If there is, this is a decision

which clearly has been welcomed by

the Prime Minister in the state of

Israel. There is no doubt that

Israel seized the United States as a

great friend. There is no surprise

to any of us in relation to that and

nor does that change anything

particularly markedly in terms of

relationships in the region. But

perhaps when proposals come forward,

if there are concessions needed by

the state of Israel in order to make

the agreement we all wish to see,

which will be supported by all

sides, just maybe there is now an

extra area of pressure that can be

applied because a friend of Israel

has done what the President has

done. I have no inkling into the

thinking of the President of the

United States, but as everything in

this whole business is used one way

or another, just possibly there are

those within the state of Israel who

will recognise the limb on which the

president has gone out on and when

push comes to shove, that might be

of some assistance. We are very

clear on our position, we disagree

with it and will continue to work

with all partners to seek the

settlement so urgently needed.

President Trump's decision to

recognise Jerusalem as the carrot

back capital of Israel and move the

embassy to Tel Aviv is not any

reckless and wrong, it throws the

entire peace process into jeopardy.

There is no denying that this

decision hugely hinders a two state

solution to the conflict and the

reaction from international

community has been overwhelming.

Pope Francis said, I cannot Remain

silent. The UN Secretary-General

spoke of his great anxiety and the

European Union has expressed serious

concern. I could go on. Tomorrow,

the UN will meet amid concerns of Mr

Trump's announcement in terms of

international law and UN

resolutions. The Secretary of State

take a moment to condemn this

decision in the strongest possible

terms and ensure the house that

there will be pressure tomorrow to

have this decision reversed.

Regardless of political differences

across this chamber, we do share the

values of tolerance, inclusion and

respect across these islands. Taking

this into consideration, will the

Secretary of State today completely

rule out a state visit from

President Trump and send out a clear

message that his divisive and

reckless actions are not welcome

here?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We will

only allow the peace process to be

derailed by this if we take the

decision as doing just that. As

opposed to providing a different

opportunity to take that peace

process forward. The envoys are

still working, there are still in

contact with Arab states, Arab

partners, as well as the state of

Israel. That work should continue.

As I said, that needs to come

forward with greater urgency. The

risks in the region are even clearer

than they were yesterday before the

president spoke, the risks that many

colleagues in this has no full well

because of our frequent visits to

the region. The only way that can be

quelled is to demonstrate that for

those who are seeking for hope in

the process, there is still a chance

of hope and the United Kingdom must

do nothing to cut up that

possibility. That is why we have to

keep urging the peace process

forward although the deficit trust

of the United States, because of its

decision, will be noted, but it will

Remain an important part of those

discussions in the future. In

relation to the other questions, you

know, we have co-sponsored the

meeting with the UN, so it is our

intention to work with partners and

urgently on moving this forward and

as far as the visit of the president

is concerned, again, the Prime

Minister has made it clear her views

on that and an invitation has been

extended but there is no date set

for the visit.

I welcome what the

Minister of State has said this

morning. I thought I would share

with you has just briefly one

sentence from a letter from the

patriarchs and heads of local

churches in Jerusalem to President

Trump, in which they say, "Peace

cannot be reached without Jerusalem

being for all." That was echoed by

the Archbishop of Canterbury

yesterday who said the status quo of

the city of Jerusalem is one of the

few stable elements for hope for

peace and urges us all to pay for

the -- prayed for the peace of

Jerusalem.

I think we would all

concur with the words we have just

heard. The status of Jerusalem is of

immense importance in the region, to

all faiths and to all parties who

live there. It is essential that the

consensus of Jerusalem being for all

is honoured but it is very clear

that our position on the final

status of Jerusalem, as I stated, as

part of the final settlement to be

agreed between the parties, that is

the most important thing, not

anyone's unilateral decision about

what they think about Jerusalem.

The

UK Government has previously said

that they would recognise Palestine

when the time was right. Is that I'm

not right now? -- is the time not

right now?

Our view is that

recognising Palestine should be done

at the time that is in the best

interests of prospect for peace and

the peace process. That remains our

position for now.

President Trump's

recognition of Jerusalem isolates

the USA. It has been condemned by

European leaders, Middle East

leaders and even Pope Francis, all

stating that this hostile act has

ignorance and undermines the peace

process. Can the Minister confirm

that he will maintain a robust

position with United States to seek

a two state position, although I do

suggest he start by pointing out

where Jerusalem is to President

Trump.

I'm grateful to my honourable

friend. I can assure her there is no

change in the United Kingdom's

position either on the final status

of Jerusalem or the need for a two

state solution.

On the siege escape

to the spokesman for the Liberal

Democrats, if not now, when? He will

be aware that one of the most

grievous consequences of this

decision is the impact on

Palestinian public opinion. More and

more people are giving up on a two

state solution. With Britain's

particular historical

responsibilities, would now not be

the time to honour the overwhelming

vote in this House back in 2014 and

recognise Palestine as a state?

As

The Right Honourable gentleman

knows, I have made frequent visits

to the region. I was there recently

and spoke yesterday to the

Palestinian representative in London

to express my views on the

anticipated speech of the president

of the United States. Recognition of

the state of Palestine I don't think

is necessary consequence of what we

heard yesterday. It is not a tit for

tat, it is more important than that.

Accordingly, it should be a decision

made by the United Kingdom at a time

when we believe it is in the best

interests of the process of peace.

That is the view and that is the for

now. -- that is the view for now.

Can my right honourable friend

confirmed to us that the UK aid

contributions to the Palestinian

Authority have been, as they have

historically been, a significant

contribution to maintain the

stability of that region, which

ultimately will help drive forward

the negotiations for the two state

solution and a peaceful settlement

we wish to see?

Last week I spoke to the Palestinian

authorities for education and

finance. We spoke about the latest

tranche of support the United

Kingdom is giving to the Palestinian

Authority. This is done in the clear

understanding that the Palestinian

territories are moving towards

statehood, which is the purpose for

our support for them. That as we're

the hope comes from, there has to be

hope of the Palestinians and those

living in the West Bank and Gaza. It

is our job to make sure there is

nothing in yesterday's decision by

another powder that makes it more

difficult, and we will work towards

that.

This is not just a setback, it

is a sea change. In these

discussions with Palestinian

Authority is, what plans does the

government have to move matters

forward? Is that a timetable for

recognition?

I have said what I want

to about recognition, but the

position in the United States will

have changed materially because of

yesterday's statement. I would

rightly draw attention to the parts

of the President's speech that deals

with the need for negotiations, two

state solution and what was said.

The nature of the United States as a

broker in the region will have been

affected, and that is something

we're going to discuss tomorrow as

to how the process can be taken

forward. The United States will

continue to play an important part

but there is no doubt the deficit,

there is a trust deficit because of

yesterday's announcement, and it is

for other states to fill the gap in

order to make sure the prospects for

peace are not diminished.

Isn't the

reality that the peace process has

been stalled for many years, since

1993, and what we need following

this announcement is direct peace

talks between the state of Israel

and the Palestinian representatives,

if we can get from the United

Nations brokered position whereby

those talks start, this could end up

being quite a good decision.

I have

no sense that yesterday's decision

made no contribution in advancing

the peace process. I understand what

the president said, and he has a

particular logic in saying that. I

am not sure I share that, but I do

share his last point that no matter

what happens in the region, it is

either a blow or opportunity, and

usually it's both. We have to make

sure that the opportunity provided

by yesterday's statement does not

get lost, there is a new role for

others to play, but ultimately it

must be direct negotiations, what

can we do to assist that rather than

push it back?

Trump's desperation to

take off every ill judged a phase of

campaign sound bite now threatens

the peace process in one of the most

volatile geopolitical regions in the

world. The government welcomes his

words about a two state solution,

but those pronouncements count for

little when the actions mean the

prospect of a two state solution

seems more distant than ever. The

government is limited in its ability

to influence the US position, but

surely it is time to listen to the

clear will of the House and

recognise the state of Palestine the

way we do the State of Israel.

Without repeating what I said

earlier, the position in the United

kingdom has a degree of flexibility.

The House is right, we have to make

a collective judgment as to when the

time is right in the best interests

of peace. The government then has to

make up its mind about the

circumstances on what is right, and

it will do that. But the views of

colleagues unknown.

President Trump

has said the United States remains

committed to a two state solution,

but can he confirm that the British

Government will be pointing out to

his country's strongest ally that

moving the embassy to Jerusalem will

be interpreted by many as

acquiescence settlement on the West

Bank, which itself is the biggest

impediment to a two state solution.

I think Hazan alert -- analysis is

accepted by many.

I think the

announcement yesterday has

undermined the credibility to broker

a peace deal between Israel and

Palestine. Isn't it more vital than

ever that the UK and European union

demonstrate that respect for

international law has to be the

cornerstone with any lasting peace,

so can he tell the House what action

he will take to implement the

obligations under the paragraph in

UN Security Council 2334, past ten

months ago, which causes both states

to deal with relevant dealings

between the state of Israel and Todd

-- territories occupied since 1967.

What will Britain do to implement

that in practice?

We have followed

UN and EU practice in relation to

clearly labelling produce that comes

from settlement areas. Those areas

that have been occupied. We are

clear in relation to our advice, and

we are following through 2334, which

the United Kingdom voted for. I

would say that many of these issues

have crucially to be decided in the

final settlement between the

parties. There is a greater need for

urgency this morning than there was

yesterday in relation to that. That

is where the United Kingdom can and

will make its efforts. We will be in

Paris tomorrow for a meeting at the

international support group based

around Lebanon, and we will be

talking about this, there is a need

for greater urgency and to make use

of the new opportunity.

Regarding

moving the embassy, can he assure me

that we will continue to seek a

position and work with the US to

find the long-term two state

solution?

Yes, the work of the two

envoys continues. The United States

will continue to play a part in the

region and processes. I refer to my

early answers of what we're trying

to do to help that process.

I think

the Minister understands the

perception of yesterday's

announcement in the Palestinian

community. What can he do to prevent

the complete erosion of faith in

this process by those Palestinians

who are seeking to find a two state

solution and accommodate their

border with Israel? Would

recognition not be such a move?

The

first thing we can do is make clear

our disagreement with the United

States policy, and then work with

partners to ensure the peace process

must go on and give hope to people,

and also to see the urgency must be

continued to see the solution.

I

know the Minister will recognise a

relationship with the United States

is deeper than whoever the current

document -- occupant of the White

House happens to be. The same with

the peace process in the Middle

East. Can we stick to the original

decision of two Democratic

prosperous states living side by

side and seek to reach that?

Yes, we

referred to the Balfour declaration

being unfinished business, and that

is still our view, and yesterday is

announcement will deal with the

second part.

Several months ago you

suggested dosh can I asked the

Minister when he meets his US

counterpart in the UN, can he convey

to him the words of a young

Palestinian Human Rights activist to

Mr Speaker posted yesterday on a

deception, who said that by taking

this unilateral decision, the

president is flouting international

law, international consent to us,

and hopes and dreams of all of those

who harbour hopes of a two state

solution.

I am sure the words she

quotes will be drawn to the

attention of those in the United

States. It is our duty to make sure

hopes and promises are not lost in

these circumstances.

I share the

government's view on this statement

by the President of the United

States. I do not think this brings

the two state solution process to an

end. In fact, I believe it gives

greater emphasis to the work we can

carry on in order to achieve that.

Does he agree?

I am grateful. The

peace process, the two state process

will only come to an end when the

parties themselves feel it cannot go

further. It is vital that we and all

our partners including the United

States reaffirmed that commitment

and do our level best to make sure

it is not lost.

It is clear, giving

Donald Trump's recent attitudes to

settlement, this... It is a real

risk that the West Bank is further

subdivided, so before that is too

late, will he recognise the state of

Palestine?

I hear comments in

relation that the government's

position is clear. It is better for

us to continue efforts to support

the legal attempts to prevent

demolitions, which we do through

financial support to the refugee

Council, to allow information to be

taken to Israeli courts, and cases

taken forward had resulted in

demolitions being stopped.

The

Minister acknowledges the right of

any country to decide where to

locate its embassy, but I have to

say I fear that the already fragile

prospect removing the peace process

forward further diminished by this

move. In his reaffirmation of the

government's to a two state

solution, will he continue to devote

his efforts to driving that former

band delivering and his real free

from the threat of terrorism

-- and Israel.

We're looking at how

to move forward with renewed urgency

to make that happen.

Unlike any of

his predecessors, President Trump is

dangerously -- has dangerously

unclaimed every conflict he has

addressed. Hasn't the time come to

see this man as somebody who

believes in America first, but the

rest of the world nowhere, and

should we now say that the

invitation for a formal visit here

is now rescinded? People can be

invited, they can be disinvited.

I

hear what he says, the position

remains, an invitation has been

given, no date has been set, and

that remains the possession of the

government.

This is the second

urgent question in as many weeks

that you have granted so ministers

could come to the dispatch box and

condemn the egregious behaviour of

the President of the United States,

which begs the question, what is the

point of a special relationship if

these condemnations have no effect?

The point of the special

relationship if it gives ministers

the opportunity when a decision has

been made by our friends we disagree

with to explain that to the House,

to explain our position in relation

to it and the public, and maintain

that despite some of these

decisions, a special relationship

that is broad and deep goes on, even

if there are political decisions

with which we disagree.

UN security

resolution 460 51980 determines that

measures taken by Israel on the

status of the Palestinian or other

Arab territories occupied since 1967

including Jerusalem have no legal

validity. How is Israel therefore

complying?

The honourable lady knows

the region very well. They are not,

that is why we hold that land to be

occupied, that is why we voted for

resolution 2334, which reinstated

elements of what she has said. What

the business needs is the leadership

that we celebrate. 40 years ago the

president came to accurately to make

peace. That should be remembered, it

takes bold leadership by those in

the region to make a difference.

Maybe now, after yesterday, it is

the time to see more of it.

Does he

agree that Jonathan Freedland

writing yesterday in the Guardian

summed up President Trump's

announcement best when he described

it as an act of diplomatic arson?

It

is not the responsibility of

ministers to comment on articles by

Guardian journalists or any

journalists, no matter what their

opinions may be. The House will make

a judgment, but I would say that

actually the important thing for

ministers and governments to talk

about is how to de-skilled tensions,

how to recognise positive elements

out of any situation to move

forward. The place has another

Retallick, it has enough people

willing to take to the streets for

all sorts of reasons. The United

Mr Speaker, let us be absolutely

clear, this announcement is the

latest instance of the Trump

administration showing contempt for

international law and the rest of

the world. Now, let me ask the

minister again, surely it is right

that at the UN Security Council

tomorrow, will the UK now commit, as

most of the world has, to be long

overdue step, the recognition of the

state of Palestine?

United Kingdom

will restate tomorrow our

determination to see a final

settlement of this with peace

between the nations, to viable

states and that determination that

the state we wish to see in

Palestine is one that has been

agreed, but our position is we will

will recognise, when it is in the

right time relation it McVeet in to

peace.

-- in relation to peace. It

is two years since I visited a huge

settlement home to 41,000 just

outside Jerusalem. The parliament

there is introducing a law to annex

that settlement, the first time it

has been done, because it has been

emboldened by Trump's decision. Does

he agree that this legitimisation of

a settlement built illegally on

Palestinian land is a dangerous move

and will he join me in condemning

it?

The honourable lady raises again

the difficult issue of locality in

relation to settlements. There is

evidence that the Israeli Government

has been influenced by the United

States and others in relation to

some of its decisions and some of

its legal decisions in relation to

Jerusalem. Our position remains

clear, the settlements are illegal.

They must be dealt with as part of

that overall settlement but the

legality of them, that is what we

challenge when it is legitimate and

right to do so by those who might be

affected by settlements or

demolitions and that will Remain the

policy.

Just before we come to the

business question, I have to notify

the house in accordance with the

Royal assent act 1967 that Her

Majesty has signified her Royal

assent to the following act.