THE continuing statehood issue for Palestinians has caused for them “the absence of hope, the absence of a vision for the future, and the focus on simply trying to survive the present”, the Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Revd Rachel Treweek, has told the House of Lords.
“For Palestinians in the West Bank, their present is about surviving the intensification of military activity, increased house demolition, road blockages and massive inflation and poverty levels, along with the collapse of basic services,” she said on Friday.
“Even in conversation with Christians, who would usually speak of hope, there was a palpable sense of a struggle to contemplate what an earthly good future might look like, not least amid a sense of being abandoned by international leaders and indeed the majority of the worldwide Church.”
Speaking during the Second Reading of the Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill, Bishop Treweek said that one “Christian pastor from Bethlehem commented to me that he no longer 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 of survival. We must speak of hope.”
She was “a patron of the charity Embrace the Middle East” and “a regular visitor to the region, and last visited in June, spending time particularly in the West Bank” (News, 28 June 2024). The UK, she argued, had “a responsibility to the Palestinian people to speak and act for an independent, sovereign Palestine at peace with its neighbours. Recognition is a vital step that must be taken now.”
Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat), whose Private Member’s Bill it was, said that “in the light of recent proposals by President Trump and huge global instability. . . this Bill has become even 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 ground, but recognition has importance — that Palestinians have the right to self-determination, national rights, and the legal benefits of that, just like Israelis.”
Lord Dubs (Labour) agreed with her, but Lord Frost (Conservative) considered that, with regard to pre-1967 borders, “no such state exists on the ground. There are no agreed borders or territory.” Lord Soames (Conservative), though supportive of the Bill, described “one of the major obstacles to a two-state solution: the massive Israeli settlement enterprise in the illegally occupied West Bank”.
Baroness Warsi (Conservative), a former Minister of State for Faith and Communities, argued against “the mantra we have heard for over 50 years. . . a peace and a process that, sadly, has failed to materialise. Tragically, as we have failed to recognise Palestine, methodically and, I would 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: a defined territory, permanent population, and an independent government exercising effective control. “It seems highly doubtful that Palestine satisfies any of these criteria at the moment,” he said.
In summing up for the Government, Baroness Chapman said that, “even with the welcome ceasefire, the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains desperate.” She clarified that, despite not supporting the Bill, “this Government unequivocally support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. That is why our longstanding position is that we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that is most conducive to the peace process.”
The Bill now proceeds to Committee Stage.
