My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest: I am a patron of CABU, the Council for Arab-British Understanding.

Before addressing my general remarks, I want to make two imperatives. The first is that there is no place for anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom in either private or public life, and we should call it out whenever we see instances of it. The second imperative is the immediate and unconditional release of all the hostages.

I begin with a definition and, to some extent, pick up a point made a moment or two ago. Hamas is proscribed as a terror organisation, and by both its affiliation and conduct it justifies that judgment. We know that its members carried out acts of terrorism in Israel, only days ago. By its membership in the first instance and by its conduct, how else would you describe Hamas other than as terrorists? Its members are a lot more than militants, and that should be recognised universally in this country. Hamas killed at will. It took hostages who included—would you believe it?—the sick, the pregnant, children and the aged. The impact of its actions is global, because the Jewish family is not confined to Israel, as we know from the reactions from around the world.

The actions of Hamas were vicious and illegal, and Israel, by law, has the right to respond in defence of its citizens and territory. However, as was said by the Minister in his powerful opening, that response must be proportionate and openly seen to be targeting Hamas and to avoid civilians in Gaza. It is perhaps a more sensitive point, but I judge that any standing in the way of the supply of food, water and medicine when it is so obviously required would be seen as a challenge if not a breach of that proportionate principle.

It has been asked by some why Israel should be required to behave in a more restricted manner than Hamas. It is not about fairness; we gave up an eye for an eye long ago. These are the duties incumbent on democratic countries which claim—and in this case are entitled to—to honour humanitarian law.

However, civilian casualties are in their thousands on both sides—casualties which will be engraved on the history of Palestine and Israel. It need not have been this way. President Clinton brokered a deal between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin. Promises were made, agreements were signed and hands were shaken, but it came to nothing. Arafat resiled from the agreement and, remarkably, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a settler. The mantra that has been repeated down the ages has been that of the two-state solution. Surely neither Israel nor Palestine can ever again tolerate such bloodshed as they have tolerated in the last few weeks.

There is a crisis, but out of a crisis often comes opportunity. I am pleased to see that, right from the beginning, our Prime Minister has majored on the two-state solution. Let us be frank: to take that further there will be difficulties on both sides. For the Palestinians, there are anxieties about the illegal settlements and the status of Jerusalem. For the Israelis, there is the justified anxiety about their security and the continued challenge to it. There is no point in turning to the Balfour Declaration. It is of no use, not least because it is now interpreted by what its reader wants it to mean.

There can be answers to these apprehensions on the part of Israel and the Palestinians. For example, on the issue of security, Israel could be given security guarantees by members of the international community. For the Palestinians, there could be an end to the expansion of the settlement.

I leave your Lordships with this thought. What could be a better memorial for the children whose lives have been blighted, and in many cases lost, than an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians which brings an end to the strife which it has caused?

My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest: I am a patron of CABU, the Council for Arab-British Understanding.

Before addressing my general remarks, I want to make two imperatives. The first is that there is no place for anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom in either private or public life, and we should call it out whenever we see instances of it. The second imperative is the immediate and unconditional release of all the hostages.

I begin with a definition and, to some extent, pick up a point made a moment or two ago. Hamas is proscribed as a terror organisation, and by both its affiliation and conduct it justifies that judgment. We know that its members carried out acts of terrorism in Israel, only days ago. By its membership in the first instance and by its conduct, how else would you describe Hamas other than as terrorists? Its members are a lot more than militants, and that should be recognised universally in this country. Hamas killed at will. It took hostages who included—would you believe it?—the sick, the pregnant, children and the aged. The impact of its actions is global, because the Jewish family is not confined to Israel, as we know from the reactions from around the world.

The actions of Hamas were vicious and illegal, and Israel, by law, has the right to respond in defence of its citizens and territory. However, as was said by the Minister in his powerful opening, that response must be proportionate and openly seen to be targeting Hamas and to avoid civilians in Gaza. It is perhaps a more sensitive point, but I judge that any standing in the way of the supply of food, water and medicine when it is so obviously required would be seen as a challenge if not a breach of that proportionate principle.

It has been asked by some why Israel should be required to behave in a more restricted manner than Hamas. It is not about fairness; we gave up an eye for an eye long ago. These are the duties incumbent on democratic countries which claim—and in this case are entitled to—to honour humanitarian law.

However, civilian casualties are in their thousands on both sides—casualties which will be engraved on the history of Palestine and Israel. It need not have been this way. President Clinton brokered a deal between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin. Promises were made, agreements were signed and hands were shaken, but it came to nothing. Arafat resiled from the agreement and, remarkably, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a settler. The mantra that has been repeated down the ages has been that of the two-state solution. Surely neither Israel nor Palestine can ever again tolerate such bloodshed as they have tolerated in the last few weeks.

There is a crisis, but out of a crisis often comes opportunity. I am pleased to see that, right from the beginning, our Prime Minister has majored on the two-state solution. Let us be frank: to take that further there will be difficulties on both sides. For the Palestinians, there are anxieties about the illegal settlements and the status of Jerusalem. For the Israelis, there is the justified anxiety about their security and the continued challenge to it. There is no point in turning to the Balfour Declaration. It is of no use, not least because it is now interpreted by what its reader wants it to mean.

There can be answers to these apprehensions on the part of Israel and the Palestinians. For example, on the issue of security, Israel could be given security guarantees by members of the international community. For the Palestinians, there could be an end to the expansion of the settlement.

I leave your Lordships with this thought. What could be a better memorial for the children whose lives have been blighted, and in many cases lost, than an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians which brings an end to the strife which it has caused?

My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest: I am a patron of CABU, the Council for Arab-British Understanding.

Before addressing my general remarks, I want to make two imperatives. The first is that there is no place for anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom in either private or public life, and we should call it out whenever we see instances of it. The second imperative is the immediate and unconditional release of all the hostages.

I begin with a definition and, to some extent, pick up a point made a moment or two ago. Hamas is proscribed as a terror organisation, and by both its affiliation and conduct it justifies that judgment. We know that its members carried out acts of terrorism in Israel, only days ago. By its membership in the first instance and by its conduct, how else would you describe Hamas other than as terrorists? Its members are a lot more than militants, and that should be recognised universally in this country. Hamas killed at will. It took hostages who included—would you believe it?—the sick, the pregnant, children and the aged. The impact of its actions is global, because the Jewish family is not confined to Israel, as we know from the reactions from around the world.

The actions of Hamas were vicious and illegal, and Israel, by law, has the right to respond in defence of its citizens and territory. However, as was said by the Minister in his powerful opening, that response must be proportionate and openly seen to be targeting Hamas and to avoid civilians in Gaza. It is perhaps a more sensitive point, but I judge that any standing in the way of the supply of food, water and medicine when it is so obviously required would be seen as a challenge if not a breach of that proportionate principle.

It has been asked by some why Israel should be required to behave in a more restricted manner than Hamas. It is not about fairness; we gave up an eye for an eye long ago. These are the duties incumbent on democratic countries which claim—and in this case are entitled to—to honour humanitarian law.

However, civilian casualties are in their thousands on both sides—casualties which will be engraved on the history of Palestine and Israel. It need not have been this way. President Clinton brokered a deal between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin. Promises were made, agreements were signed and hands were shaken, but it came to nothing. Arafat resiled from the agreement and, remarkably, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a settler. The mantra that has been repeated down the ages has been that of the two-state solution. Surely neither Israel nor Palestine can ever again tolerate such bloodshed as they have tolerated in the last few weeks.

There is a crisis, but out of a crisis often comes opportunity. I am pleased to see that, right from the beginning, our Prime Minister has majored on the two-state solution. Let us be frank: to take that further there will be difficulties on both sides. For the Palestinians, there are anxieties about the illegal settlements and the status of Jerusalem. For the Israelis, there is the justified anxiety about their security and the continued challenge to it. There is no point in turning to the Balfour Declaration. It is of no use, not least because it is now interpreted by what its reader wants it to mean.

There can be answers to these apprehensions on the part of Israel and the Palestinians. For example, on the issue of security, Israel could be given security guarantees by members of the international community. For the Palestinians, there could be an end to the expansion of the settlement.

I leave your Lordships with this thought. What could be a better memorial for the children whose lives have been blighted, and in many cases lost, than an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians which brings an end to the strife which it has caused?

My Lords, in response to a question, the Minister referred to UNRWA, but is he aware of Medical Aid for Palestinians, a charity operating in the region? Have the Government made any contact with it in order to enlist, as part of the government position, its assistance as well?

My Lords, in response to a question, the Minister referred to UNRWA, but is he aware of Medical Aid for Palestinians, a charity operating in the region? Have the Government made any contact with it in order to enlist, as part of the government position, its assistance as well?