🕊️ Israeli-Palestinian Peace: International Fund

• The House of Commons discussed the potential merits of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace, aiming to support grassroots communities and civil society initiatives in the region.

• Steve Yemm (Lab) emphasized the importance of giving agency to often overlooked grassroots communities and highlighted the need for long-term peace initiatives rather than focusing solely on immediate political events.

• Yemm praised the government’s commitment to increase defence spending but stressed the importance of ensuring that any budget is effectively used to achieve security and peace abroad.

• Anneliese Dodds (Lab/Co-op) pointed out the historical role of co-operatives in the Middle East, suggesting they could be pivotal in fostering peace and economic development.

• Jim Shannon (DUP) focused on the impact of the conflict on children, advocating for the fund to support educational programmes that promote coexistence and tolerance.

• Luke Akehurst (Lab) shared his personal experience working with peace organizations in Israel and the West Bank, underscoring the need for grassroots peacebuilding and community projects like Roots.

• Preet Kaur Gill (Lab/Co-op) praised the tireless work of peacebuilders and stressed the necessity of a two-state solution, advocating for the UK’s leadership in peacebuilding similar to its role in Northern Ireland.

• Dan Tomlinson (Lab) supported the ceasefire and hostage releases, urging the continuation of UK support for civil society peacebuilding and the international fund.

• Kevin Bonavia (Lab) drew parallels to the UK’s peacebuilding success in Northern Ireland and encouraged the government to convene a meeting on the fund.

• Sharon Hodgson (Lab) compared the conflicts in Northern Ireland and Israel-Palestine, suggesting lessons from the former could aid peace efforts in the latter.

• Jon Pearce (Lab) praised the UK’s initiative in setting up an international fund and emphasized the need for a bottom-up approach to increase trust between communities.

• Alex Ballinger (Lab) shared experiences from a recent visit to Israel and the West Bank, calling for the UK to step up support for peacebuilding organizations.

• Peter Prinsley (Lab) discussed the psychological impact of the conflict on both sides and the role of the proposed fund in healing these traumas.

• Brian Mathew (Lib Dem) advocated for a two-state solution along 1967 borders, immediate recognition of Palestine, and investment in peace via the international fund.

• Wendy Morton (Con) stressed the importance of maintaining the ceasefire, advocating for the release of hostages and the future governance of Gaza without Hamas.

• Hamish Falconer, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, reiterated the UK’s commitment to the fund and the need for trust-building between communities.

• The debate concluded with a call for continued discussion and action on the international fund, with an emphasis on ensuring transparency and effectiveness in its implementation.

The parliamentary session on the potential merits of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace showed a moderate level of disagreement, warranting a rating of 2 out of 5. The disagreements observed during the session were primarily focused on specific aspects of the conflict resolution and the implementation of the proposed fund, rather than the core concept of the fund itself. Here are the details supporting this rating:

1. Scale and Implementation of the Fund: There was a notable disagreement on the scale and necessary implementation of the fund. Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) expressed a word of caution on the comparison between the Middle East and Northern Ireland, emphasizing that the scale of the conflict in the Middle East requires a fund significantly larger than the one used in Northern Ireland. This was acknowledged by Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab), who agreed on the need to address the scale of the issue, indicating a point of divergence on the practical aspects of the proposed fund.

2. Recognition of Palestine: There was a minor point of disagreement raised by Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind) regarding the necessity of recognizing the state of Palestine prior to discussing funding packages. Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab) responded by emphasizing the importance of a two-state solution, showing some alignment but also highlighting a fundamental point of contention regarding the timing and priority of actions.

3. UK Government’s Role and Policies: Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) questioned the Minister about the UK’s role in ensuring the ceasefire holds and supporting the two-state solution. This indicates a degree of scrutiny and a desire for clarity on the UK’s diplomatic engagement and its commitment to the peace process, which hints at underlying disagreement or at least concerns about the effectiveness and direction of UK policy.

4. Aid and Accountability: Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) stressed the need for transparency to ensure funds are not diverted by terrorist groups, which was acknowledged by the Minister, Mr Hamish Falconer, indicating an area of concern and disagreement about the management of funds.

Overall, while there was general consensus on the need for an international fund to promote peace between Israel and Palestine, the disagreements that surfaced were more about the details of how such a fund should be structured, managed, and integrated into broader diplomatic and political efforts. These disagreements are substantive but not overwhelmingly contentious, leading to a moderate rating of 2 for the level of disagreement in the session.