THE continuing statehood issue for Palestinians has caused for them “the absence of hope, the absence of a vision for the longer term, and the give attention to simply attempting to survive the current”, the Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Revd Rachel Treweek, has told the House of Lords.
“For Palestinians within the West Bank, their present is about surviving the intensification of military activity, increased house demolition, road blockages and large inflation and poverty levels, together with the collapse of basic services,” she said on Friday.
“Even in conversation with Christians, who would normally speak of hope, there was a palpable sense of a struggle to contemplate what an earthly good future might appear like, not least amid a way of being abandoned by international leaders and indeed nearly all of the worldwide Church.”
Speaking throughout the Second Reading of the Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill, Bishop Treweek said that one “Christian pastor from Bethlehem commented to me that he not used the word ‘hope’ except to reference Easter”.
She questioned the Government’s position in recognising “a Palestinian state only as a contribution to a renewed peace process”, and said that, with “no prospect of negotiations any time soon, [this] simply reinforces to Palestinians that their future is one among survival. We must speak of hope.”
She was “a patron of the charity Embrace the Middle East” and “an everyday visitor to the region, and last visited in June, spending time particularly within the West Bank” (News, 28 June 2024). The UK, she argued, had “a responsibility to the Palestinian people to talk and act for an independent, sovereign Palestine at peace with its neighbours. Recognition is an important step that should be taken now.”
Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat), whose Private Member’s Bill it was, said that “in the sunshine of recent proposals by President Trump and big global instability. . . this Bill has develop into much more vital.” Her ambition was to “require the Government to recognise Palestine as a sovereign and independent state on pre-1967 lines, just as almost 150 of the 193 UN countries have done.
“Some say that recognition is merely symbolic, not changing anything on the bottom, but recognition has importance — that Palestinians have the precise to self-determination, national rights, and the legal advantages of that, identical to Israelis.”
Lord Dubs (Labour) agreed along with her, but Lord Frost (Conservative) considered that, with regard to pre-1967 borders, “no such state exists on the bottom. There aren’t any agreed borders or territory.” Lord Soames (Conservative), though supportive of the Bill, described “one among the most important obstacles to a two-state solution: the large Israeli settlement enterprise within the illegally occupied West Bank”.
Baroness Warsi (Conservative), a former Minister of State for Faith and Communities, argued against “the mantra we’ve heard for over 50 years. . . a peace and a process that, sadly, has did not materialise. Tragically, as we’ve did not recognise Palestine, methodically and, I might argue, deliberately, the probability of Palestine existing as a state has been diminished.”
Lord Pannick (cross-bench) pointed to the definition in international law for state to exist: an outlined territory, everlasting population, and an independent government exercising effective control. “It seems highly doubtful that Palestine satisfies any of those criteria in the meanwhile,” he said.
In summing up for the Government, Baroness Chapman said that, “even with the welcome ceasefire, the humanitarian situation in Gaza stays desperate.” She clarified that, despite not supporting the Bill, “this Government unequivocally support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for each the Israeli and the Palestinian people. That is why our longstanding position is that we are going to recognise a Palestinian state at a time that’s most conducive to the peace process.”
The Bill now proceeds to Committee Stage.
